“UnitedFuture had made it clear that it would not support the provisions of the Bill with regard to embedded software as they stood, and that the amendment proposed by Labour MP Claire Curran would seriously compromise and infringe a number of New Zealand’s trade agreements,” Mr Dunne said.

“For those reasons, given that the Bill’s fate most likely hinged on UnitedFuture’s vote, we encouraged Minister Foss and his officials to resume negotiations with the NZ Institute of IT Professionals to develop a more acceptable provision.

“I am delighted they have now reached a common-sense position on this issue, which UnitedFuture will now be happy to support.

“This now means that the updating of New Zealand’s outdated patent laws can proceed, without disadvantage to the local software industry, and is another good example of how effectively UnitedFuture uses its casting vote influence,” he said.

http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/peter-dunne-balance-power-video-5428248

SUSAN WOOD

He is the great survivor - perhaps the most lobbied MP in Parliament. United Future leader Peter Dunne says his party has held the balance of power for more than 20 pieces of legislation. How did this happen when he is a party of one? Peter Dunne is with Jessica Mutch.

JESSICA MUTCH

Peter Dunne, thank you for your time this morning. I'd like to start off by talking about IRD and the upgrade to software. $1.5 billion seems like a huge amount of money. Why is it so expensive over 10 years?

PETER DUNNE, United Future leader

And that is simply a ballpark estimate. This is a series of essentially specific projects as you take various elements of the tax system.

JESSICA But why is it so expensive?

PETER The point is until we start the detailed work on each particular project, that figure is really only a ballpark estimate. I suspect it will differ and some projects will be a little bit less expensive; others may turn out to be a wee bit more. But what we are doing is fundamentally-

JESSICA Just to clarify, though, are you saying it could be more than $1.5 billion?

PETER No, I'm not saying that. I'm just simply saying that is a ballpark estimate at this stage. But what we are doing is changing the whole way in which we run our tax system. Without being too technical about it, when we set up the current system about 20 years ago, Inland Revenue simply collected tax. Since then, you've added Child Support, Working for Families, KiwiSaver, Paid Parental Leave - a whole range of other initiatives that have come on which have complicated the system. We need to have a technology that is now fit for purpose. And that's the basis of this change, and we'll be working our way through that over the next few years.

JESSICA Experts like Rod Drury have come out and said this is an obscene amount of money and it could have been done for cheaper. Is that true?

PETER Well, we're working closely with Rod Drury. I've talked with him on occasions. I know he meets with the commissioner of the department regularly. I think some of the points he made are very timely reminders and warnings, and we're certainly happy to work alongside him and others in the industry in New Zealand to make sure we get the best outcome. I mean, government technology projects don't have a very good reputation, and there have been a lot of examples just of late - let's take Novopay as a classic - which we've gotta learn from, and I'm determined that we will not repeat the errors. That means we will take our time, we will consult widely with the affected parties and the interests and make sure we get it right before we move from one stage to the next.

JESSICA Because Novopay, it's cost $11 million already. I mean, do we run the risk of this blowing out with an even bigger budget?

PETER Well, I think they're the fears. There are also fears about the governance and the supervision that clearly Novopay has drawn attention to. I'm determined, working with a group of ministers, that we're going to work through this systematically. We're not going to get ahead of ourselves. We know we have a big transformation project ahead of us, but it's important to get each step of that right and only to go live when it is right.

JESSICA Let's go back to that cost, though. An insider told the NBR last week that if this had been done five years ago it would have been in the ballpark of about $600,000.

PETER I find that comment a rather strange one. I don't know who the person was. I don't recall them having had any involvement in the discussions. I think this is someone inventing facts after the event.

JESSICA So if it was done earlier would it have been cheaper?

PETER Look, what happened originally, and this goes back to the time of the Labour government, we started out then to try and do a specific, off-the-shelf rebuild, starting - from memory - with the Student Loan project. In the event that proved impossible to do, so we've had to come back and start afresh. Inevitably in that process some costs accumulate that would not have been there had the original objective been able to be achieved. It wasn't able to be achieved for one simple reason - none of the retailers, the product retailers, said they could produce a product that had the capacity to meet what we required, and that's the essential problem here.

JESSICA Let's have a look at Australia, though. They did a similar upgrade and theirs was $800 million. I mean, we've nearly doubled that. Why is it so expensive?

PETER Yeah, and their outcome was disastrous, because they got the political stitch halfway through-

JESSICA So will you learn from that?

PETER So what they ended up doing was they've effectively got two parallel systems. That is a disaster. What we've got to commit to is this - if we start this programme, we've got to commit, even though it's long-term, to seeing it through, and that is where both the tension and the potential cost arises. But I'm determined that we start with designated projects, we get those right, we then move on to the next one, and so on and so forth until we've completed the complete transformation.

JESSICA How did you manage to convince the government that this was the best place to spend this kind of money at the moment?

PETER Well, very simply. We have a system, as I said before, which dates back to 1991 when the job of Inland Revenue was a far more specific one. We've added on a series of responsibilities over the years that only, in a way, Inland Revenue has a capacity to deal with. The problem we have at the moment is our system works perfectly well today but that the capacity to make policy changes of a significant nature or to add any new social programs to it is zero, so we're essentially in a time warp. We either upgrade or we end up saying that the tax system stays as it is forever and a day.

JESSICA What sort of policy changes are you talking about?

PETER Oh, major changes. For instance, if we were to invent KiwiSaver today, we probably would not be able to implement it within the current system framework. Now, I think that that is actually quite perverse - the government being told by a systems constraint what it can and cannot do, not able to implement its policy objectives, whatever they might be. So it's important we have change; the question is how you manage a significant change of this nature in a way that's going to deliver the positive outcome you seek at the end and learn from the lessons that have been mounting up over the years about how not to do these things.

JESSICA You do hold a lot of power. You're a one-man party. We've seen since 2008 that you've actually held the crucial vote on 20 pieces of legislation. Is it right that one person, yourself, has so much power?

PETER Well, firstly, I didn't put myself in that position. The electorate dealt the cards at the election.

JESSICA But how do you deal with that?

PETER And the second point is how I deal with it. I don't just wake up each morning and decide what capricious thing am I going to do today. I've got a quite developed matrix of how we deal with things. Firstly, is the issue under debate covered by the confidence and supply agreement that United Future has with National? If it is, as was the case with the mixed ownership model, for instance, then the outcome is very clear.

JESSICA Let's touch on that for a moment - the asset sales legislation. You obviously hold the power to get that through for National. Does that give you a lot of extra power and bargaining power back?

PETER In some senses it does, on unrelated issues. But that was a very clear case. Our election policy said we oppose-

JESSICA Like what? What kind of trade-off-?

PETER I don't want to go into specific detail, because that actually destroys the advantage that you've got. But come back to that one. Our election policy said that we were, in principal, opposed to asset sales except if the government nominated the energy companies and Air New Zealand, we would agree to that provided the public shareholding was to be no greater than 49% and there was a cap on individual shareholding. That was included on our negotiations and put into the agreement. And the government at that point didn't want to statutorily specify those limits-

JESSICA So you got some influence over that.

PETER And so it became a no-brainer to vote for it when the legislation arrived.

JESSICA Another one-

PETER So that's the first point. The second point - because I haven't finished what I was saying before - if it's not covered by the Confidence and Supply agreement, is it something that was covered by United Future's election policy? And if it was, clearly you vote for in accordance with that. That's why I'm backing Paid Parental Leave, for instance. The third one is neither of the above, and then it just comes down to, basically, the circumstances of the time and what seems like the right thing to do.

JESSICA And one of those things will be about SkyCity. The government will need you if it needs to work out some kind of a deal with SkyCity. Have you worked out any kind of pay-off for that?

PETER My view on that is quite simple. I think Auckland needs a world-class convention centre. In my role both as Associate Minister of Health and previously, I've been working over the last 10 years with the structure of-

JESSICA But will you get anything back?

PETER Hang on, hang on. And the important point about the SkyCity one, from my perspective, is if you can achieve the convention centre without a blowout in the number of gambling machines and an increase in the numbers of those, then that's the best deal. But I've not seen any deal at this stage. It's premature to talk about that. If there's a trade-off then it may well be something that occurs at the time, but if you're saying to me do I say 'I support this in return for your doing that', it's not that crude.

JESSICA So you haven't worked out any kind of agreement with-

PETER Well, it doesn't work- I haven't seen the details, so there is no agreement at this point, other than I've indicated the general view that I've just expressed to you. But it doesn't work in the way of saying, 'you give me this and I'll give you that'. It works in the way of saying, 'OK, I'll give you this thing. Now, when there are things that arise that I might want, I suppose you could say there's money in the bank'.

JESSICA Let's talk about the future of United Future. How long will you stay in politics?

PETER I have no idea, because that decision's ultimately not made by me but by my voters in Ohariu in the first instance, and that's a decision that they will have the opportunity to refresh or reject next year.

JESSICA Your popularity in Ohariu has been going down. You got 1400 in the last election. Do you need to have a cup of tea with the prime minister?

PETER Well, my majority actually went up at the last election.

JESSICA 1400 isn't a huge majority, though.

PETER No, it's not, but it's better than it was. And I've been there for nearly 30 years. I don't need cups of tea with people. I think they know me pretty well and they can make a judgement.

JESSICA I mean a cup of tea with the prime minister.

PETER Yes, I know what you mean. I didn't have one with the prime minister.

JESSICA Will you have one, or will you want one this time?

PETER Actually, I have a cup of tea with the prime minister quite frequently. It's just that the public doesn't see it. (LAUGHS)

JESSICA When you say 'cup of tea', will you ask for one with the prime minister this election?

PETER I'm not going into that at this stage because the election's nearly 18 months away. What the lie of the political land is at that time is far too soon to speculate upon. What I will say is this - that United Future has been around for a long time. We represent the flickering flame of liberal democracy in New Zealand. That does wax and wane from time to time. There will always be people who will coalesce, if you like, around that point of view, and we're here to represent those points of view.

JESSICA That's a nice place to leave it. Thank you very much for your time this morning, Peter Dunne.

http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/panel-peter-dunne-video-5428254

Vienna, Austria
Tuesday, 12 March 2013

We in New Zealand, as with many of you, face the challenge of how to respond to the rapid growth in new synthetic drugs.

 Drugs such as those listed in the UN drug conventions are scheduled in the New Zealand Misuse of Drugs Act. 

 This legislation prohibits the importation, manufacture, cultivation, supply and possession of listed drugs and their analogues. 

 But this legislation, enacted in 1975, was never designed for an environment in which dozens of substances can be brought to market in a matter of weeks. 

 And, for drugs that are not listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act, there is no mechanism to prevent them appearing on the shelves of our corner stores alongside confectionery and milk and other every day products.

 In New Zealand, as in other countries, unknown, untested and potentially dangerous substances are being sold without restrictions on their safety, their ingredients, or their manufacturing standards. 

 This situation poses a real risk of harm to our society and particularly to our young people – and it is out of step with the way we control other substances we consume, such as medicines and foods.

 In order to add new substances to the Misuse of Drugs Act, an expert committee assesses the harm posed by a substance before making a recommendation to me for classification. 

This process takes time and requires robust evidence for the committee to consider.

 Going back to 2000, when GHB first came to New Zealand’s attention, in the time between this drug was first identified as potentially harmful and it being scheduled in the Misuse of Drugs Act (around two years), there was a death and dozens of hospital admissions just at one of our hospitals.

 In the case of new synthetic drugs, it can take considerable time to collate evidence required to assess them when so little information is available.

 And we would be in a worse position without our analogue provisions. 

 This means that any substance demonstrated to have a chemical structure similar to a drug listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act can by default be treated as a prohibited drug. 

 Substances such as mephedrone could never legally be sold in New Zealand, as they could in other jurisdictions, because they were already controlled as analogues of methcathinone. 

 While the analogue provisions have undoubtedly been useful, they still require a substance to be identified, tested and then shown to meet the definition of an analogue.

 And because analogues need to be similar in structure (rather than similar in effect) the provisions also have the potential for some unusual substances to be captured such as blue cheese and ripe avocados!  [They both contain hordenine, which is an analogue of methamphetamine]

 The other measure that has been very successful in reducing the availability of new synthetic substances is temporary class drug notices. 

 Since their introduction in August 2011, we have placed 33 substances under the temporary bans.

 If we hear of a new product and have reason to be concerned, then we have it tested, and once its chemical constituent substances can be identified and if there are concerns over those substances, then a ban can be put in place.  

 It is a very rapid response compared to the way drugs are normally controlled, but we are still looking at a window of around two months for unknown and potentially harmful substances to be sold. That is two months too long.

 The limitation with both the temporary bans and the analogue provisions, however useful they have been, is that we are still in the position of playing catch-up.  As soon as one substance is banned another appears. 

While we have placed more than 30 synthetic cannabis-like substances under temporary bans, but we are aware that there are potentially hundreds more that could replace them.

Last month, the New Zealand Government introduced new legislation into our Parliament that will end the game of catch-up once and for all. 

 We are going to reverse the onus of proof so the manufacturers of these products have to prove they are safe before they can bring them on to the market. Currently, the onus is on the Government to identify the substances that are being sold, test them and prove that they warrant sufficient harm to be prohibited. 

 That approach has undermined our best efforts to keep our young people safe, and left the rather tawdry legal highs industry constantly one step ahead, despite our best efforts.

 Under our proposed legislation, the Psychoactive Substances Bill, all psychoactive substances will be banned unless a manufacturer can prove that they pose no more than a low risk of harm. 

 Not only will the onus be on the manufacturer to prove safety, but importantly – and I think fairly – they will also bear the cost of all the safety testing. After all, they are in business and making commercial decisions that should include such costs.

 This pre-market approval scheme is consistent with our approach to food products, such as new food additives, and new medicines and hazardous substances. And the testing regime that manufacturers will have to go through to get a substance approved will be similar to the process for approving new medicines. The details of the tests and data requirements will be determined by regulations under the legislation. 

 An interim technical committee is currently being set up to establish what the threshold for approval will be.

 There has also been a significant level of discomfort raised in New Zealand, and it is a sentiment I share, around the use of animal testing to determine the safety of recreational psychoactive substances.

 While we are still in the process of determining what tests will be required under New Zealand’s regime to determine ‘safety’, I believe it is beholden on us all to strive for approaches to this and other such problems that remove the need for animal testing.

 I welcome any developments that other delegations may have to contribute on this issue. In addition to requiring manufacturers to meet safety standards for their products, they will also have to meet manufacturing standards and adhere to a number of retail restrictions. The restrictions will include controls over purchase age, place of sale, advertising, and labelling.

 Our definition of psychoactive substance is very broad and the legislation covers anything used for the primary purpose of inducing a psychoactive effect. In fact, we have tried to future-proof our definition by ensuring that devices such as coils you put on your head to induce a psychoactive effect are covered. 

 However, there are a number of exclusions for substances that are already regulated such as alcohol, tobacco, food items such as caffeine, Misuse of Drugs Act drugs, and medicines. We have previously found that some manufacturers of psychoactive substances have tried finding loopholes by claiming that their products are incense or plant food – and I understand that this has been a problem in other jurisdictions.

 We have included a declaring power in the Bill so that a product can be declared to be a psychoactive substance and brought within the provisions of the Bill - even if manufacturers try to find ways to escape the legislation.

 There are tough penalties – including substantial jail terms and heavy fines – for infringing against this regime, for acting without a licence, failing to notify adverse reactions, failing to comply with a notice to recall products, and supplying substances that have not been approved.

We believe that this legislation provides an enduring and effective mechanism to end the cat and mouse game we play trying to keep on top of the rapid growth in new synthetic drugs.

We are aware that New Zealand will be the first country to establish a regulatory regime of this nature. We have therefore built in a provision to review the legislation after five years – we will try to get it right first time but with such a new approach we may need to do some tweaking along the way – and look to our colleagues overseas and see how they are tackling a problem we all share.

“In six months this will be sorted with law that will make the industry prove its products are safe before they can be sold, and will put restrictions on how and where they can be sold,” Mr Dunne said.

“In the meantime, I think consumer power and very public opprobrium is a very appropriate response to the likes of the Hawke’s Bay dairy selling a legal high and lollies together.

“It is not illegal, but it is clearly a low-life and unprincipled way to go about your business and it is preying on your own community.

“Personally, I would not want to give a cent to such a business and I think that kind of consumer power is a legitimate response to unethical trading – particularly when it is exploiting young people,” he said.

“If you do not like that kind of behaviour from a business, then don’t give them your money. Get your bread and milk elsewhere.

“Profit is clearly the only thing they understand or care about, so hit them where it hurts. Let them know that you do not want them to operate in that way in your community,” he said.

Mr Dunne said the temporary class drug notices he brought in 18 months ago had taken more than 30 substances and more than 50 products off the market.

“As successful as that has been, we are to an extent playing catch-up until the permanent law comes in in the middle of this year. Consumer choice would just back this up,” he said.

New Zealand has been through some pretty tough years of late. Whether it be the outcome of the Christchurch earthquakes or the international global economic meltdown, Kiwi families have had to face some pretty tough decisions in their lives. A number of their dreams have been overturned, and a number of their plans for the future have had to be completely revisited. As a consequence of all those things, they have become pretty understandably intolerant of mere words being offered as solutions—be it from their insurance companies, their employers, their trade unions, their political leaders, or whoever. What the people of New Zealand, as a result of their experience of recent years, are desperately seeking is a sense of reassurance and a commitment that policies being promoted will be achieved and put in place to their benefit. So although they might have enjoyed some of the comedy associated with the various state of the nation speeches of recent days, there is a sense of bewilderment that no concrete plans have been put forward, no concrete strategies have been delivered, and they still live in the hope that things will happen. So what I want to do this afternoon in the time available to me and on behalf of United Future, as a support party to this Government, is outline the things that we intend to achieve this year. They will not be to the grand scale of things, but they are things that we as a responsible support partner will achieve and deliver for the people of New Zealand. The Leader of the Opposition and, I think, the Prime Minister also made reference earlier to the issue of superannuation. One of the issues that is critical for this country’s future is the structure and affordability of national superannuation. This year, as part of our confidence and supply agreement, there will be a Government discussion paper released on the concept of flexible superannuation—a reduced rate, if one chooses to take it, at the age of 60, or an enhanced rate, if you prefer, to the age of 70, with the base rate still being struck at age 65. In other words, the individual makes the choice about their retirement, not the State making that choice for them, as is the case at the moment.

That is a concept where individual choice on retirement is paramount. It is gathering pace. I know the Leader of the Opposition supports it, I know that other parties in this House support it, and a substantial number of members of the New Zealand public do, as well. So we will have a discussion paper out there to kick off that process of debate. It will coincide with the periodic review that the Commission for Financial Literacy and Retirement Income undertakes, and I believe it will inevitably lead to a more flexible approach to superannuation in the future that will address all of the concerns that have been expressed by so many over recent years. At the other end of the scale, this year will see establishment of the Families Commission’s Family Status Report . That was part of the legislation that was passed last year. It is built on a concept that that the coalition Government in the United Kingdom has introduced in recent years, where there is an annual report on the impact and effect of Government policies on families to guide policy development for the future. That will be a very practical step forward for a number of families and also for the policy makers and for the decisions that we have to make in respect of those issues, and I welcome that initiative. We will see the Game Animal Council , which has long been something that United Future has campaigned for, passed through legislation in this House, and I give notice also that as part of our confidence-and-supply agreement, the legislation to phase out guided helicopter hunting on the conservation estate will also be prepared and introduced, because that will also have a significant positive impact on recreational opportunities in New Zealand. Although we are making progress in the area of drug and alcohol treatment of prison inmates, there is still a long way to go. As part of our confidence-and-supply agreement, we will be pushing this year for the introduction of the planned pre-release drug and alcohol assessments when prisoners appear before the Parole Board , so that there is information available about the level of their dependency at the time that a decision is made to govern their release and their work back into the community. In the next couple of months, this House will pass the new child support legislation that I have long championed and that has been the biggest change to our child support arrangements since the scheme was introduced in the early 1990s. It will be a fairer scheme. It will provide much greater recognition for shared custody arrangements and a much more flexible approach in terms of the reality of today’s childcare environment, where not all custodial parents are at home—a number of custodial parents, the majority of them, are in the workforce as well—and where the system needs to be balanced out to become much fairer in terms of the contribution that both parents have to make to the upbringing of their children once their relationship has failed. We will also see in place by August of this year the new legislation establishing what has been described by a House of Commons committee in Britain just before Christmas as world class and something to be envied: our psychoactive substances legislation, which will shift the onus of proof to the suppliers of those products to prove they are safe before they are allowed to be sold or distributed to vulnerable young people in New Zealand. That will be a huge step forward, and it will mean that the temporary regime we have at the moment of banning these substances as we become aware of them can be replaced by a more permanent and long-term arrangement. We will also see in the next couple of months the release of our Suicide Prevention Action Plan . This is an updating of the existing strategy. It is one that will focus much more on today’s realities in terms of where the pressure points are, the most at-risk groups, and also the best way of addressing this awful problem in our community. New Zealanders do not appreciate that more people die by suicide each year, by a considerable number, than are killed on the roads. We rightly place huge concern on the road toll. It is time to elevate that level of concern to those who end their lives through suicide, because the 500-odd people in that situation each year leave families, they leave friends, and they leave workmates. They leave a flow-on effect right through society that we have to address. Just before Christmas when the mental health strategy was released, one of the key elements in that, which will be carried through into the new suicide strategy, is the important role of community agencies working alongside official agencies. The previous strategies relied too much on almost a directive approach from the centre, when in fact we have a huge number of agencies and people active in this field with experience, capability, and skills that we need to be utilising to mobilise, if you like, the community at large to make improvements in the overall status of mental health, but particularly to start to address what is an unacceptable suicide rate in New Zealand, particularly amongst young people. Those moves are about making progressive change that will benefit, fundamentally, New Zealand families in a number of ways: through more certainty about their retirement; through more accurate information about the impact of policies on them as they go through life; through enhancing their opportunities to go out and enjoy New Zealand’s great outdoors; through making sure that people with alcohol and drug problems get access to the treatment that they need at an early enough time; through a fairer child support system; through a more accurate regime in terms of the control of these new psychoactive substances; and, ultimately, through working—and the youth mental health strategy and the Prime Minister’s plan released last year are part of this—to bring together all of our mental health resources to improve the mental health of New Zealanders and to reduce the incidence of suicide. They are the things that United Future as a party, which has always put the well-being of the New Zealand family centre stage, will be campaigning on delivering this year. But, more than that, they are the things pursuant to our confidence-and-supply agreement and pursuant to legislation that is either before the House or about to come before the House that I can say with confidence will be achieved during this particular year. For those families around this country who despair often that politicians talk and talk and talk and talk, and deliver little that is of benefit to them, particularly at stressful times, I say look to that record. Look to those achievements, recognise those benefits as being positive, and then judge the performance of others against that standard, because, as we come together for this year—this difficult year ahead of us—the expectation of New Zealanders is that every single one of the members of this House will work to progress policies that are beneficial to New Zealanders. There might be a little bit of rhetoric along the way, but that will not become the dominant element. The dominant element will be our performance, our policy, our delivery, and, ultimately, the benefit we deliver to the people who we represent in this House, the people of New Zealand.

Even though it remains comfortably ahead in the opinion polls, it would be the first to concede this has not been its best year.

Flush from its election victory last year – the most substantial by any party under MMP – the Government might reasonably have expected 2012 to be a year of consolidation, in which the economy began a clear recovery, and the start of a second term in which it was able to focus on its policy agenda, while a shell-shocked Opposition came to grips with its worst defeat since the mid 1990s, got used to its new leadership, and started to lay its plans for the future.

Instead, although the Opposition has still been ineffectual with continued unresolved leadership doubts, the Government has found itself bedevilled by the ongoing depth of the Global Financial Crisis, the slower than anticipated domestic recovery, including delays on the rebuilding of Christchurch; and, a series of domestic crises, largely around the issue of information gathering and the protection of individual rights.

First, there was the Bronwyn Pullar ACC affair which led to the resignation of the Minister and the chief executive, and a restructuring of the ACC Board.

Then there were the events surrounding the illegal activities of the GCSB in the Dotcom case, and subsequent allegations about more widespread illegal Police operations in other cases.

That was followed by the issues relating to the improper accessing of client data held by the Ministry of Social Development, and the recent highly critical report on the Ministry’s performance in that regard, leading even the Minister to describe her department’s kiosk operation as “atrocious”.

Now it appears the Education Ministry’s new teacher pay management system Novopay may also have fallen prey to privacy lapses.

And, finally, there have been the privacy lapses by my own department, Inland Revenue, which are in the realm of human error, rather than system failure.

While these are all separate cases, which even the most ardent conspiracy theorist would have difficulty linking, there are some common themes that I wish to explore this evening.

I do so, not in my Ministerial capacity, but as the leader of UnitedFuture, because of our clear liberal democratic commitment to upholding and protecting the rights of the individual, and also as someone who has had a long interest in individual privacy issues.

My starting point is a simple one: free societies like ours operate on the basis of mutual consent.

As citizens, we tolerate the authority of the state because we believe it will be exercised in our best interests.

When confidence in our institutions is diminished by their own actions, the cohesion of our society is eroded.

There has been an erosion of public confidence as a result of each of the cases I have referred to a Colmar Brunton poll released last weekend showed 60% of New Zealanders were uncomfortable with the way the Government handled their information.

The risk is that in a time of already heightened uncertainty, principally because of the international economic situation, such erosion could easily escalate into a general crisis of public confidence, unless the Government is extremely careful.

I spoke earlier of my long interest in the protection of individual privacy.

It goes back to the time when, amongst other portfolios, I held the position of Associate Justice Minister in the Palmer Labour Government.

In that role, I did a lot of work on privacy issues, and in Opposition after 1990 developed and introduced to Parliament what is apparently still the largest private member’s Bill – the Information Privacy Bill – which eventually became the Privacy Act we have today.

At the time, I described the Bill’s essential purposes as providing for the “better protection of the privacy of natural persons in relation to personal information collected, held or used by any agency,” and that there be “proper access by each person to official information relating to that purpose".

In the current context, those themes are as relevant today as they were over 20 years ago, even though the ways in which we gather, hold and use personal information have changed dramatically.

The growth, development and constant use of the Internet, and on-line technologies generally have changed our world completely in the last 20 years, and those trends will only accelerate.

Cyber-crime, identity theft, and the newspaper hacking of personal telephone accounts elements of the Murdoch press engaged in in Britain could not have been accurately quantified or imagined in the early 1990s.

At that time, our focus was much more on ensuring people’s personal details were not sold or passed on indiscriminately to direct mail agencies like Reader’s Digest!

The mainline computer systems of state agencies like the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Social Development were in their infancy, and the nightmare that was to become the ill-fated Police INCIS system was yet to be developed.

Government computer services in the main referred to the Wanganui Computer Centre.

But while the world might have been simpler then, the principles that underpinned my original Privacy Bill and the government legislation that was to follow endure, and are actually more relevant in today’s environment than they were in 1991.

Every New Zealand resident – whether they be a Kim Dotcom , or even a convicted sex offender, let alone just an ordinary person going about their daily lives – has an absolute right to expect that the information held about them by government agencies will above all else, be accurate, and not misrepresented.

They further have a right to expect that such information will be used solely for the purposes for which it was originally collected, and that the agencies responsible will at all times act in a lawful and proper way regarding both the collection of personal information, and the uses to which it is put.

At the same time, people have a right to expect that the information held about them is secure, and, even allowing for human errors, that it will not generally be disseminated more broadly without their knowledge and consent.

But, there is another important aspect to this latter point.

The way in which people provide their information to the government has changed, as have public expectations.

Much information is now provided on-line, and there seems to be an implied acceptance that this often basic personal information – name, address, contact details, and the like – will be shared across government agencies.

Indeed, I find constituents are frequently frustrated when asked by a government agency for their personal details “because I have already provided those to such and such a department.”

They tend to see government as an already joined-up entity, and assume that when information is provided to one branch, it is available to all.

So, on the one hand, there is an expectation that government agencies will share basic personal information, but, on the other, there is a perfectly reasonable belief that adequate personal privacy protections will be in place and observed to prevent the misuse of such information.

A couple of issues arise from this.

First, while the principle of information sharing is accepted as a general rule, there are legitimate concerns about its scope and exercise in practice, and government agencies therefore have to be cautious in how they go about information sharing.

To just assume the public’s broad acceptance justifies broad approaches is simplistic and wrong, and clearly, as extreme examples like the Dotcom case show, can lead to an “ends justify the means” culture developing, which would be as dangerous for personal liberty, as it would be improper practice.

Arising from this is the question of accountability.

A political journalist writing in the Sunday Star Times recently observed sagely and tersely that “our law enforcement agencies have become more concerned with the enforcement and less about the law”.

While she was commenting about a particular case, the point she was making has wider relevance.

It is the perennial question of who guards the guardians.

In a democracy, protecting the public interest does not justify carte blanche. 

What are the sanctions, and how are they applied, when information sharing goes bad?

In a recent speech I quoted Pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous quote in 1930s Germany, and its powerful ending that: “… then they came for me, and there was no-one left to speak for me.”  

There has to be someone left to speak for all of us when it comes to the protection of our rights and privacy, otherwise they will be diminished.  

If the public do not see major breaches of their privacy, or their rights in respect of their privacy, being taken seriously, then we should not be at all surprised if their willingness to provide their personal details to government agencies reduces accordingly.

Because information sharing and personal data protection are increasingly core elements of many government agencies’ business, they all need to have in place robust, clear specific and enforceable processes for its management, and an equal awareness of the potential security risks, and how these can be mitigated.

It goes back to my point about the retention of respect for the public institutions we entrust our information to, and the level of confidence we are entitled to as to how that information will be used.

I said before that the ways we access our information these days will continue to proliferate, as will the pressures associated with that.

Look at the news media – on-line services and social media are rapidly supplanting the print media and arguably even the electronic media as our primary source of news.

Facebook and Twitter are the far more immediate sources of information these days.

Mainstream media’s new role seems to be back up or explain in depth what we already know in headline form from social media.

But here is another twist.

Just as we get our information instantly, we increasingly expect to be able to provide our information equally quickly, which is another potential complication for governments.

I highlighted before the potential contradiction between people being frustrated that they have to keep providing information they have already provided to another agency, while at the same time being concerned about its potential misuse.

I would add to that the concurrent expectation that they can provide their information in the same way as they now provide their information to, or interact with their bank, insurance company or travel agent.

It is this latter expectation that probably has the biggest implications for governments of the future, as the recent MSD kiosks case shows.

In my view, we are moving inevitably towards joined-up government services, where people will conduct their business with government on-line, probably from home, at a time which suits them.

They will expect single portal entry to a range of government services, and to manage their business with the government, pretty much the way they manage their banking right now.

That obviously has implications for old current operating systems – like Inland Revenue’s for example.

While that is not the focus of my particular remarks today, I will say that following the receipt of our consultant’s report in July on the future role and direction of Inland Revenue, I have been working very closely with the Commissioner and her team, and my Ministerial colleagues on what has been previously estimated could be a $1.5 billion upgrade project.

Consistent with everything I have been saying this evening , I am determined that we get this right and that we are not harried into rushed or inadequate solutions because of ignorant political clamour from people who do not know what they are talking about.

We have made a good deal of progress, and I will be taking a programme business case to Cabinet early next year to set the broad direction for how Inland Revenue’s systems will develop over the next 10 years.

Overall, the important point to remember is that these issues go far beyond just replacing computer systems – to think otherwise is pretty naïve.

While the issue has to be treated on a whole of government basis, both in terms of the way government services are provided, across a range of specific government agencies, my focus tonight is on the more generic issue of how, whatever systems we develop for the future, we protect individual privacy, now and into the future.

Let me return to the theme of who guards the guardians.

I am not speaking here of cases which occur as the result of genuine human error.

While I am not diminishing the impact of these, I would expect that in such situations the chief executive of the organisation concerned would investigate the circumstances to determine what further action, including disciplinary and procedural steps, may be necessary to prevent recurrences in the future.

Rather, I am thinking about situations where the breaches go far beyond genuine error, and enter the realm of potential illegality with an adverse impact on the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders.

Effective accountability for failing to uphold the law is an important way of assuring the public on whose consent the law is founded that the law is being upheld.

On the face of it, current practice appears inconsistent.

In this regard, the Privacy Commissioner summed it up very well recently when she said, “There's been far too little focus on the fact that there are real people behind the information that government agencies hold.”

My own   view is clear – whether it be an agency with a law enforcement function, like, for example, the Police, or any other government agency for that matter,  which breaches the law with regard to individual privacy, they must be held to account for their actions.

Attempting to justify such incidents on the basis the agency thought they were complying with the law, or sweeping them under the carpet, or just leaving the issue to internal procedures to resolve is not good enough.

There need to be clear, external, enforceable, and consistently applied standards of conduct in these circumstances.

This is not a witch-hunt mentality, but recognition of the precious nature of personal information and the vital importance of, to quote my original legislation, providing for the “better protection of the privacy of natural persons in relation to personal information collected, held or used by any agency.”

It is interesting to note that the Australian Federal Government has just released a formal discussion paper on how privacy breaches should be handled, including the possible introduction of a mandatory breach notification scheme, although as their Attorney-General notes, that may not be as simple or practical as it first sounds.

She raises the valid point – consistent with the tenor of my remarks this evening – that, “If

there is to be a mandatory data breach notification scheme, how do we make sure it gets the balance right between the public interest in mitigating the adverse effects of data breaches while ensuring we do not create an overly burdensome compliance requirement on entities that make their business from collecting, storing and using personal information?”

My own view is that the balance has to err on the side of the individual, for the following reason.

I am a supporter of the institutions of the state – like the Police and the security services – and recognise their role to protect the public interest.

Their task is often a thankless one, which I would not want to undertake, but it is not an unfettered one.

I believe very strongly that, when exercising their responsibilities, those agencies of the state must at all times not only act, but be seen to act, within the law they are pledged to uphold, especially so far as the rights of individuals are concerned.

That is a high test, but in a free state, it cannot logically be otherwise.

After all, one of the fundamental responsibilities of any government in a free society is to uphold the rights and liberties of its citizens.

Protecting their personal information from abuse or misuse by the agencies of the state is an important part of meeting that responsibility, and ultimately of retaining confidence in our system.

 UnitedFuture leader and Ōhariu MP Peter Dunne has welcomed Cabinet’s support for Transmission Gully to be financed and built by way of a public-private partnership.

 “A PPP for Transmission Gully was a key plank of our 2011 Confidence and Supply with National and we are delighted to be able to tick that achievement off,” Mr Dunne said.

 “UnitedFuture has fought tooth and nail over a long period of time for Transmission Gully; in fact getting this road to reality has been a key plank in the three confidence and supply agreements we have negotiated since 2005.”

“Regardless of its flavour, each subsequent government has been committed to progress Transmission Gully due to the dogged perseverance of UnitedFuture.”

 “That commitment is something I am very proud of, and the people of Wellington and the lower North Island will benefit from this road in the not too distant future,” he said.

 For more information on the PPP decision can be found at www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/transmission-gully/ppp.html

 "We pushed for a 3 percent threshold and retention of the one-seat rule because in the end, they have led to representation of small but still substantial sections of the electorate,” Mr Dunne said.

 “Four percent is definitely an improvement on where it is currently."

 “I think any changes, however, need to be made without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Diversity of opinion and representation need to be protected in a healthy, vibrant democracy.

 “And there is no arguing that under MMP we have had a much more diverse Parliament than we previously had under First Past the Post,” Mr Dunne said.

 “I will certainly be happy to engage in what I hope will be a very broad dialogue and debate about these recommendations.

 “Our democracy is a precious thing and we need to think through any changes very carefully.

 “If anything, we should err on the side of making diverse political representation easier, not more difficult,” he said.

“However, I think the title of Lord Mayor is somewhat old-fashioned.. I think the person elected to lead the Greater Wellington Council should be called the Mayor of Wellington, with the leaders of the local area councils, referred to as the chairs of those councils.

“I think the Auckland super city model turning such councils into community boards has left local communities feeling disempowered and unheard. We would not want to repeat that.

“If implemented, these recommendations would bring in a level of regional unity of purpose and vision which we very much need; but we cannot do that at the expense of real democratic representation in our local communities,” he said.

“I think the balance in these recommendations is very good.

“Sir Geoffrey Palmer and his fellow members of the Wellington Region Local Government Review Panel should be congratulated.

“They have put forward some quality recommendations and advanced the debate considerably for all of greater Wellington to consider," he said.

“I make no apologies for setting the bar high on public safety and putting in place a regime with the process costs squarely on the legal highs industry, and not the taxpayer,” Mr Dunne said of the regime which should be in place by the middle of next year.

“I have said all along that this regime will be fundamentally based on reversing the onus of proof so those who profit from these products will have to prove they are as safe as is possible for psychoactive substances.

“We will no longer play the cat-and-mouse game of constantly chasing down substances after they are on the market.

Penalties under the new regime will include up to eight years in prison for importing, manufacturing, supplying or possession with intent to supply analogues of controlled drugs that come under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and up to two years for import, manufacture, supply or possession with intent to supply unapproved substances.

Other key features of the new regime that have been approved by Cabinet include: 

• Personal possession of an unapproved product will incur a $300 fine.
• There will be a minimum purchase age of 18.
• No advertising except at point of sale.
• Restrictions on outlets, including barring dairies from selling such products, and labelling and packaging requirements.

Mr Dunne said the $300 personal possession fine is deliberately not being legislated as a criminal offence.

“What we are trying to do is actually protect young people, not criminalise them and thereby jeopardise their job and travel prospects. The approach we are taking is similar to that used with alcohol infringements,” he said.

Labelling and packaging requirements will require all products to have a label listing their active ingredients, the phone number for the National Poisons Centre and contact details for the product’s New Zealand manufacturer or supplier.

‘To date, there has been no ingredient information, so no one who buys these products has the first clue what is in them, which is as ridiculous as it is dangerous and irresponsible,” Mr Dunne said.

“We have had considerable success with the Temporary Class Drug Notices that we instituted in August last year. They have taken 28 substances and more than 50 synthetic cannabis products off the market, but that was always a temporary measure until we could get this regime in place,” Mr Dunne said.

He said he will introduce the required legislation later this year and it is expected to be in place by the middle of next year. In the meantime, all existing temporary notices will be rolled over so they remain in place until the permanent regime is in place.

The Cabinet paper and Regulatory Impact Statement can be found at www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/legislation-and-regulation/regulatory-impact-statements/new-regulatory-regime-psychoactive-substances

Psychoactive Substances Regime Questions and Answers

What are low risk psychoactive substances?

This refers to new psychoactive substances for which the risks are low enough that they meet the approval criteria set by the regulatory. We say 'low-risk' to avoid implying that they will be entirely safe, as there will always be some risk.  This is because different people have different reactions to pharmacologically active substances.

Why is the Government bringing in a psychoactive substances regime?

We are doing this because the current situation is untenable. Current legislation is ineffective in dealing with the rapid growth in synthetic psychoactive substances which can be tweaked to be one step ahead of controls.  Products are being sold without any controls over their ingredients, without testing requirements, or controls over where they can be sold. The government must prove a risk of harm before controlling a substance. The new regime will require a supplier or manufacturer to apply to a regulator for a safety assessment before any product can be sold.

Are we legalising drugs?

No.  The regime will provide stronger controls over psychoactive substances. At the moment, these products are unregulated, with no control over ingredients, place of sale, or who they can be sold to. Because they are synthetic substances, there are a huge number of potential ingredients, which makes it unfeasible to deal with them individually.

It will be illegal to sell any product which has not been through an assessment. There will be strict restrictions on where products can be sold, the purchase age, and marketing restrictions.

What will the implications of the new regime be for cannabis?

The legal status of cannabis will not change. This is because the regime will only cover new psychoactive substances that are not already classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. 

Why don’t you just ban everything?

Legislation should not be used to restrict behaviour that cannot be proved to be harmful. Products that meet the approval criteria will be approved. However, our position will still be that not using these products is the safest option.   

Is this a stealthy way of banning everything and never approving any product?

No. Clear testing requirements are being established to determine the risks of psychoactive products. Products that meet the approval criteria will be approved.

How will risk/safety be determined?

Consistent toxicological and behavioural testing will be required for every product seeking approval. A new regulator will be established to consider the data from this testing for each product. Products that meet the approval criteria will be approved.

What do you mean by the regulator?

A regulator will need to be established for psychoactive substances. This regulator will oversee the approval of products, monitor for compliance with post market restrictions, and reassess products in light of any new evidence of harm that might arise.

How many drugs will get approved?

We don’t know this yet. Products that meet the approval criteria will be approved.  This will require toxicological and behavioural testing.

Who will do the risk assessments?

The new regulator will consider toxicological and clinical data for each product.

Does this mean the Government is endorsing drugs?

No. At the moment these products are available without any information regarding their risks to health.  We are changing the system to require industry to prove they do not pose a greater than a low risk of health before they may be sold.

Will there be controls to stop children buying these drugs from dairies?

Yes, it is intended that there will be restrictions on where substances can be sold and a minimum purchase age which will be set in due course.

What happens when the legislation comes into force? Will everything be pulled from the shelves?

A transition period will follow enactment of the new regime. During the transition period, a sponsor will only be able to sell:

• products with an application pending approval by the regulator; and
• that have been legally on the market for at least six months prior to enactment of the new regime; and
• provided that there are no health concerns about the products concerned.

Will this just backfire and create a bigger black market?

No. We expect that having low risk psychoactive products legally available will make it less likely that consumers will resort to a black market. 

“New Zealand is now paying the price for the GCSB’s Dotcom failures. We have a crisis in confidence in what is a very important agency of the State.

“Basically, are they up to it? That is a question we have not had to ask before.

“The Huawei issue highlights the trust we now do not have in the GCSB – they have totally shot themselves in the foot,” Mr Dunne said.

He said that the concerns raised by the United States intelligence committee about Huawei are very serious, and the Government needs to treat them seriously.

“Whether we like it or not – and regardless of the many good aspects of New Zealand’s burgeoning relationship with China – they have a history of blatant intellectual property theft and are a growing military superpower,” Mr Dunne said.

“When the United States warns against doing business with Huawei, and Australia would not let them provide their national broadband network, why are we dismissing their concerns so lightly?

“Who is going to protect New Zealand’s security interests here? Tough questions need to be asked," Mr Dunne said.

I always enjoy talking to Rotary Clubs, because you are able and pragmatic types; motivated and strongly focused on your careers, your businesses and families.

You have an outward-looking focus and a real investment in our country and your local communities.

Rotary after all is a very community-minded institution, both with the camaraderie and support you share with one another, but also with the good and generous work you do for others.

All in all, you provide a good model of attributes for New Zealand, and as such you are the kind of group that I would like to bounce a few ideas and thoughts off this evening.

I am sure you will not hesitate to tell me if I go astray!

Kim Dotcom

So, where to start?

Perhaps with someone who has been the focus of a lot of news recently.

As Leader of UnitedFuture, and consistent with the liberal democratic principles we espouse, I am distinctly uncomfortable with many aspects of the Dotcom affair.

The incompetence of the intelligence agencies is on the face of it so intolerable as to raise wider questions about purpose and intent.

Is it credible that they failed so badly, or were there other forces at play?

The prequel donations saga carries similar overtones.

I accept that the cock-up theory, rather than conspiracy, is usually a more reliable and accurate explainer of events like this, but the ineptitude that has surrounded all of this leaves me wondering.

While the media can often be a big part of the problem in these sagas, I think this is an instance where dogged media persistence, the newspapers especially, needs to be acknowledged and respected for raising a level of accountability.

I have been reminded frequently in recent days of Pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous quote in 1930s Germany, and its powerful ending that: “… then they came for me, and there was no-one left to speak for me.”

We are obviously an entire universe away from anything remotely approaching the circumstances Pastor Niemöller was facing, but his message about the dangers of political apathy is relevant.

While the explanation for all these recent events more than likely lies at the innocent and incompetent end of the spectrum, they do serve to remind us that democracy and open government is always a work in progress.

They remind us that the intimacy of our society, while normally a significant asset, can sometimes be a major problem.

‘She’ll be right’ has never impressed me as a desirable Kiwi attribute, and these events prove why.

The review announced yesterday faces the dual challenges of not only overhauling the procedures that seem to have failed so woefully in this instance, but also persuading the sceptics that the GCSB will be the more credible for it.

Only time will tell whether those goals can be achieved.

Without so much as a hint of schadenfreude, the slow, unfolding dual train wrecks of the Banks and Dotcom affairs have perhaps shown what a good coalition partner UnitedFuture is for the current Government.

We just get on with it.

No sideshows

No drama.

We are about getting things done and delivering what we promise.

We are about stable government – and in these tough times, New Zealand needs that more than ever.

We are also about having a ‘no surprises’ policy when it comes to our relationships and our dealings, virtues I suspect John Key must be appreciating right about now.

Perhaps, enough said on that!

Feeding the children

On a more serious note, I would also like to talk about breakfasts, lunches and our children.

There has been some very useful media coverage recently of the issue of children in lower decile schools turning up without breakfasts and often without lunch as well.

It goes without saying that no child can thrive, let alone learn, in such appalling circumstances, and it is a blight upon us all as New Zealanders that any child in this country should suffer like this.

Unfortunately, I think we also have a lack of clarity around this issue, when we truly need all the insight and understanding we can muster if we are to resolve it.

Of course, we owe it to every child in the country to make sure they are fed and looked after.

But who, in the first instance, is the “we”?

Let us not beat too lightly around the bush here: first and foremost, the “we” are the parents of any child.

If you have a child, your very first duty is to provide for their welfare.

And it does not get more basic than feeding them.

We must ram home parental responsibility and we must do so without apologising.

And when there are situations where people simply cannot provide properly for their children, then we must look at how society can step in, be it with school food programmes, from charities or corporate sponsors, whatever it takes.

Our children must be fed.

I, however, do not feel that the cause of these children is helped by the fiction that seems to have been accepted as fact, that there are 270,000 children in poverty in this country.

That is a politically-loaded number which actually has little to do with any real measure of poverty – it certainly does not mean there are 270,000 starving children heading off to school each morning.

As Rodney Hide – who is saying much more useful things since he left politics – said in his Sunday newspaper column recently, the 270,000 figure is a very relative term.

That figure is based on a household's net income being less than 60 per cent of an equivalent sized household's median income.

The cut-off income for a couple with four children is just over $1000 a week, net.

Enough for cereal for breakfast, and a couple of sandwiches and a piece of fruit for lunch for all of those four children.

Certainly it would be tight.

And, no, I would not want to be living on it, but let’s not call it poverty.

Being poor is having much less than that.

Unfortunately, it is ideologically driven and self-serving exaggeration such as this by the proponents of some causes that – even if well intentioned – starts to dent the credibility of their cause.

There is real poverty out there and we need to deal with it compassionately, humanely and as a decent society.

But it does no one any favours by exaggerating it for effect or political agendas.

Māori, water and the wind

Another issue that has been exercising our minds recently and that may well be before the courts soon is that of the Māori claims on water.

While Māori do have rights with respect to water interests, they are not and never can ever be exclusive rights.

Were they to be so, the logical conclusion must be that all New Zealand’s natural resources are owned by Māori – a claim long since rejected.

As with the foreshore and seabed, natural resources like air and water belong to all New Zealanders, and it is the Crown’s responsibility to exercise that ownership equally and fairly on behalf of us all.

Where customary usage can be established we should negotiate particular settlements in each specific instance, again in a manner similar to the provisions of the foreshore and seabed legislation.

UnitedFuture long promoted the public domain solution for the foreshore and seabed, which was finally enshrined in the 2010 legislation.

The same principle ought to be followed in respect of the current water rights debate.

Threat to Race Relations

I think at this point we also need to step back a little because there is something going on here that needs to be challenged.

Since its signing in 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi, our nation’s founding document, has been both honoured and dishonoured in various ways at various times.

But I would like to think we have got a little better – perhaps a lot better – in recent times at facing up to these issues.

On the occasions that the Treaty has been breached in word, deed or spirit, it has often been the Pākehā at fault, as evidenced by the much needed and very important Treaty settlements process of recent years.

In recent months, however, I believe we are seeing greed and opportunism and an attempt to cash-in, coming from some sections of Māori leadership, and none of it does credit to them.

In an age when we are righting wrongs of the past; in an age where Pākehā New Zealanders, I think, generally acknowledge the transgressions of their predecessors and with goodwill, want to see them put right, aspects of recent developments are very concerning.

Greed, it would seem, is not just a white man’s sin.

Māori leadership would do well to consider the implications of some of their particularly unreasonable demands around water – and now it would appear, coming further in from the fringes, the wind.

There is a well of goodwill in New Zealand among non-Māori and Māori alike.

Most New Zealanders genuinely want to understand, and then engage in and resolve issues around the Treaty of Waitangi.

But it is not a bottomless well of goodwill on either side.

Greed and opportunistic resource grabs are neither ethical nor smart, and will come at considerable cost to social harmony in this country that we all have to share today.

Sadly, it is once more a case of the extremists at either end of the argument who risk destroying the capacity of the rest of us to reach balanced, fair and enduring solutions, that the vast majority of us can live with.

UnitedFuture’s Voice

Now you may agree with some of the views I am expressing today – and judging from some of the heads nodding at various points in the last few minutes, I suspect that many of you do – or you may disagree.

Either way, you are hearing my views tonight because the self-appointed experts, pundits and media luminaries who have constantly predicted both my demise and that of UnitedFuture have been, in a word, wrong!

Even when we got numbers elected to Parliament in 2002 and 2005 it was seen as either an unintended fluke, or a perversion of the electoral system.

The barely disguised glee in some quarters that the Electoral Commission’s recent initial recommendations on the future of MMP might finally deliver our death blow has given our critics their latest run at this tired old theme.

But what they continue to fail to appreciate is that you cannot kill an idea.

That is why when looking at electoral reform it must be a fundamental principle that the capacity to promote and represent an idea, or shade of political opinion, is enhanced and strengthened, not diminished by whatever changes are made.

Democracy is the contest of ideas – and democratic elections should be about promoting that contest, not limiting it.

I believe that through UnitedFuture, I have brought and continue to bring strong ideas to the table of national politics.

I challenge dumb ideas, whether they come from the left or the right, and I do it on behalf of middle New Zealand.

I firmly believe that UnitedFuture and I are very close to where the vast majority of New Zealanders in their values and in their way of thinking.

There are clearly many who do not vote for us, but their politics are not far from ours, and I think they value our contribution on an issue by issue basis.

And for those reasons I am very comfortable that we pay our way as a political party.

UnitedFuture and I make a real and valuable contribution to New Zealand politics on a scale that far outstrips our size and numbers.

Current Parliament

All of which leads me to the role UnitedFuture plays in the current Parliament.

Let me give you three specific examples.

First, for years UnitedFuture was a lonely and sometimes sole campaigner for the development of the Transmission Gully Highway north of Wellington.

We included support for Transmission Gully in both our 2002 and 2005 confidence and supply agreements with Labour, and got Labour to agree to set aside funding for the construction of the Highway, provided there was a matching contribution from the region’s local authorities.

Similarly, we included support for Transmission Gully in our 2008 and 2011 agreements with National, and it was a moment of special delight a couple of months ago when Transmission Gully was finally signed off by the Environment Court, and the government confirmed it will proceed as one of the Roads of National Significance.

I would wager that there is not one of you in this room who will not benefit from this project going ahead.

Second, in July I launched New Zealand’s first National Medicines Formulary.

This is an initiative I have been pursuing as Associate Minister of Health since 2007 that will have real benefits to patients and doctors alike, and is an important adjunct to the National Medicines Strategy that we promoted and introduced under the previous government, which this government has now embraced as the overarching approach for its approach to the availability of medicines in New Zealand.

Over a quarter of a million more New Zealanders are now getting access to the medicines they need than was the case four or five years ago.

Third, the Game Animal Council which arose out of the pest management strategy we developed with Labour, and which was given life under National should be in place around the end of the year.

It has been a particular delight for me as Associate Minister of Conservation to be steering the legislation through Parliament, to establish the Council to give recreational hunting and the outdoors community generally, a greater say in the management of recreational opportunities in this country.

These are just three illustrative, but by no means exclusive, examples of our influence at work in this Parliament alone.

Throw in past work our achievements in the tax field over many years, from charitable donations, to business and personal tax cuts, income-sharing and child support changes, and you get a sense of our contribution.

Casting Vote

In the current Parliament, UnitedFuture’s position has had added prominence because my vote is periodically the casting vote.

I am sure you can imagine the consternation that has caused in certain circles!

Is it an act of just capricious judgement?

Is it just made up on the spot?

Or, am I playing out some act of political revenge on those who may have crossed me in the past?

Occasionally tempting, perhaps, but no, I do not play such games!

Well, actually, it is none of the above.

While I might be one man in Parliament, I am nevertheless a UnitedFuture Member of Parliament.

So the first port of call in determining a stance on a particular issue has to be to refer back to UnitedFuture policy.

Many who were so critical of the stand we took on the Mixed Ownership Model for state assets failed to do that, and were probably stunned to learn we even had policy on this and a range of other issues, because they never expected our vote to matter, and therefore had never bothered to check out our policy positions.

Likewise, my support for Labour’s paid parental leave policy arises from the fact that Labour’s current Bill is a step towards achieving our own overall policy goals for paid parental leave.

Second, if an issue is not clearly covered in our policy documents, the second port of call is whether it forms part of a confidence and supply agreement provision.

Again, with the Mixed Ownership Model, there was a specific confidence and supply agreement provision about having statutory minimum Crown ownership and maximum private ownership.

So, based on existing policy and our confidence and supply agreement, not only was it obvious that UnitedFuture would support the Mixed Ownership Model, but it was also utterly consistent for us to do so.

However, in the event that an issue is covered by neither existing policy, nor a confidence and supply agreement provision, the UnitedFuture Board and I will decide jointly what our stand should be, consistent with our previously stated party principles.

The proposed Mondayising of ANZAC and Waitangi Days comes into that category.

To those who say this is all poppycock and that I simply do what the National government wants, I say it is worth noting that, ironically, the Labour Party has so far been a greater beneficiary of UnitedFuture’s approach on these matters than has National!

I spoke earlier of our liberal democratic values.

UnitedFuture sits firmly in the camp of international liberal democratic parties.

So what does that actually mean in laymen’s terms?

It means we have a commitment to promote strong families and vibrant communities, and to a fair and open society, free from poverty, ignorance and prejudice, and based on innovation, self-reliance, justice and integrity in business and personal dealings is.

This is, for example, very similar to Britain’s Liberal Democrats pledge to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, which seeks to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which  no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance and conformity.

Our policies and general political approach are shaped by:

• a commitment to promoting freedom and choice
• a strong sense of compassion
• a clear focus on community based solutions
• a celebration of our country’s outdoor heritage and lifestyle

as the key values that make New Zealand the country we would want it to be.

We favour open market-led economic policies and free trade, but we acknowledge the primary role of the State in areas like health, education and welfare, supported by a strong and vibrant community and voluntary sector.

These values clearly set us aside from the ideological rigidity of the traditional left and right wings of politics, and are strongly reflective of the moderate, centrist approach of many New Zealanders to political discourse.

But, like the Liberal Democrats, our challenge is to mobilise those who agree with our general approach to actually vote for us.

And as I say, you cannot kill an idea.

And on that note, I would like to thank you for listening to a few of mine this evening.

“He is playing typical Opposition politics and adding one and one and quite deliberately getting five,” Mr Dunne said.

Dr Clark had claimed a recent privacy breach and temporary peak period telephone response issues were because of Inland Revenue’s computer system, which he said the Government was showing no urgency in upgrading.

“Dr Clark is completely wrong on every count,” Mr Dunne said.

“The recent privacy breach had nothing to do with the FIRST computer system or Inland Revenue’s online systems. Nor was it the result of staffing levels.

“It was a simple manual handling error – human error. Unfortunately correspondence was mistakenly placed in the incorrect envelope and sent out,” he said.

Mr Dunne said recent phone issues similarly had nothing to do with the Department’s computer systems.

“This issue emerged at the department’s busiest time of the year when customers could unfortunately experience some delays.

“As we stated publicly at the time, we understood that some people found these delays frustrating and Inland Revenue apologised to them.

“Unfortunately it is difficult to always accurately forecast peak demand because there are so many variable factors. These factors were compounded by winter illness issues among call centre staff, but this was covered at the time by redeployed staff answering calls,” Mr Dunne said.

“Again, this had nothing to do with the computer system.”

Mr Dunne said, however, that the redevelopment of the Department’s computer system through the business transformation programme is Inland Revenue’s top current priority.  

“The fact is the current system will meet projected future volume processing demands for the next five to ten years.

“However, Inland Revenue is developing a long-term programme of work to modernise the way it delivers tax and social policy services, and this will be done through a phased approach to technology renewal,” he said.

“This transformation programme will provide the framework through which Inland Revenue will respond to needs and policies as they develop in the years ahead.

“Dr Clark should know that such a major transformation cannot be done overnight,” Mr Dunne said.

“This is sleazy politics trying to find a principle to hide behind,” Mr Dunne said.

“For this lobbying regime to have any credibility it would have to apply equally to all, and that includes business groups and trade unions. They are two sides of the one coin.

Mr Dunne said Green MP Holly Walker acknowledged that her Lobbying Disclosure Bill needed to be fine-tuned and adjusted, but it was founded on having a transparent system, which the public would welcome.

“Unions try to shape and influence policy and legislation day in and day out, as do business groups and others. Let one rule of transparency apply to them all.

“Labour’s whole ‘business is bad and needs to be watched, but unions are forces for good’ approach is simply pathetic, and this is a shameless example of Labour looking after its buddies.

“This is just another demonstration of how Labour is in the pocket of sector interest groups, and why New Zealanders don’t see them as a viable alternative government.

“When will Labour get back to championing the causes and the issues of everyday New Zealanders?”

“It is the best possible outcome for Johnsonville people given the merger that was clearly coming,” Mr Dunne said of this evening’s announcement.

“It means Johnsonville residents – and especially those who are older and perhaps more tied to using their local branches – will not be disadvantaged or inconvenienced and that is important.

“Banking is such a vital service and people want to be able to go into their local branch if they choose to do so.

“I must say the ‘business as usual’ message from ANZ for our area is very welcome,” he said.

We have been treated as the proverbial political funeral, merely waiting for the celebrant to turn up to put us out of our misery.

Even when we have succeeded in getting numbers elected to Parliament in 2002 and 2005 it has been seen as either an unintended fluke, or a perversion of the electoral system.

The barely disguised glee in some quarters that the Electoral Commission’s initial recommendations on the future of MMP might finally deliver our death blow was as palpable as it was nauseating, and is the latest iteration of that theme.

But what all our critics continue to fail to appreciate is that you cannot kill an idea, no matter how lonely or dimly the flame might burn from time to time.

And nor can you deny the will of the people.

That is why when looking at electoral reform it must be a fundamental principle that the capacity to promote and represent an idea, or shade of political opinion, is enhanced and strengthened, not diminished.

Democracy is the contest of ideas – and democratic elections should be about promoting that contest, not limiting it.

To cite a parallel, last week’s All Blacks/Australia test was not so much a contest between great teams and players, as a challenge to see who could best thwart the pedantry of an overly zealous referee.

Just as we want a running game tonight, we do not expect to see our electoral process dominated by pedantry, at the cost of the expression of differing political ideas.

UnitedFuture has survived over the years, at times by its fingertips, because there are enough New Zealanders who grasp and believe in our liberal democratic principles and who would be politically disenfranchised if we were not here.

To rub salt into the wounds of our critics, this party, despite its small size, has been arguably the most successful support party under MMP, in terms of the policy achievements we have made and continue to make.

All of which leads me to the role UnitedFuture plays in the current Parliament.

Let me give you three examples.

First, for years UnitedFuture was a lonely and sometimes sole campaigner for the development of the Transmission Gully Highway north of Wellington.

We included support for Transmission Gully in both our 2002 and 2005 confidence and supply agreements with Labour, and got Labour to agree to set aside funding for the construction of the Highway, provided there was a matching contribution from the region’s local authorities.

Similarly, we included support for Transmission Gully in our 2008 and 2011 agreements with National, and it was a moment of special delight a couple of months ago when Transmission Gully was finally signed off by the Environment Court, and the government confirmed it will proceed as one of the Roads of National Significance.

Second, last month I launched New Zealand’s first National Medicines Formulary.

This is an initiative I have been pursuing as Associate Minister of Health since 2007 that will have real benefits to patients and doctors alike, and is an important adjunct to the National Medicines Strategy that we promoted and introduced under the previous government, which this government has now embraced as the overarching approach for its approach to the availability of medicines in New Zealand.

Over a quarter of a million more New Zealanders are now getting access to the medicines they need than was the case four or five years ago.

Third, the Game Animal Council which arose out of the pest management strategy we developed with Labour, and which was given life under National should be in place around the end of the year.

It has been a particular delight for me as Associate Minister of Conservation to be steering the legislation through Parliament, to establish the Council to give recreational hunting and the outdoors community generally, a greater say in the management of recreational opportunities in this country.

These are just three illustrative but by no means exclusive examples of our influence at work in this Parliament alone– I could give a separate speech on our achievements in the tax field over many years, from charitable donations, to business and personal tax cuts, income-sharing and child support changes, but that would take many hours.

In the current Parliament, UnitedFuture’s position has added prominence because my vote is periodically the casting vote.

This has caused a great deal of head-scratching amongst people who really should know better about how this so-called one-man band makes up his mind on these things.

Is it an act of just capricious judgement?

Is it just made up on the spot?

Or, am I playing out some act of political revenge on those who may have crossed me in the past?

Whatever it must be, it clearly has no appreciation of the public interest at heart.

Well, actually, it is none of the above.

While I might be a one-man band in Parliament, I am nevertheless a UnitedFuture Member of Parliament.

So the first port of call in determining a stance on a particular issue has to be to refer back to UnitedFuture policy.

Many who were so critical of the stand we took on the Mixed Ownership Model for state assets failed to do that, and were probably stunned to learn we even had policy on this and a range of other issues, because they never expected our vote to matter, and therefore had never bothered to check out our policy positions.

Likewise, my support for Labour’s paid parental leave policy arises from the fact that Labour’s current Bill is a step towards achieving our own overall policy goals for paid parental leave.

Second, if an issue is not clearly covered in our policy documents, the second port of call is whether it forms part of a confidence and supply agreement provision.

Again, with the Mixed Ownership Model, there was a specific confidence and supply agreement provision about having statutory minimum Crown ownership and maximum private ownership.

So, based on existing policy and our confidence and supply agreement, not only was it obvious that UnitedFuture would support the Mixed Ownership Model, but it was also utterly consistent for us to do so.

However, in the event that an issue is covered by neither existing policy, nor a confidence and supply agreement provision, the UnitedFuture Board and I will decide jointly what our stand should be, consistent with our previously stated party principles.

The proposed Mondayising of ANZAC and Waitangi Days comes into that category.

To those who say this is all poppycock and that I simply do what the National government wants, I say it is worth noting that, ironically, the Labour Party has so far been a greater beneficiary of UnitedFuture’s approach on these matters than has National!

I spoke earlier of our liberal democratic values.

UnitedFuture sits firmly in the camp of international liberal democratic parties.

Our commitment to promote strong families and vibrant communities, and to a fair, and open society, free from poverty, ignorance and prejudice, and based on innovation, self-reliance, justice and integrity in business and personal dealings is, for example, very similar to Britain’s Liberal Democrats pledge to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, which seeks to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which  no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance and conformity.

Our policies and general political approach are shaped by:

·         a commitment to promoting freedom and choice

·         a strong sense of compassion

·         a clear focus on community based solutions

·         a celebration of our country’s outdoor heritage and lifestyle

as the key values that make New Zealand the country we would want it to be.

We favour open market-led economic policies and free trade, but we acknowledge the primary role of the state in areas like health, education and welfare, supported by a strong and vibrant community and voluntary sector.

These values clearly set us aside from the ideological rigidity of the traditional left and right wings of politics, and are strongly reflective of the moderate, centrist approach of many New Zealanders to political discourse.

But, like the Liberal Democrats, our challenge is to mobilise those who agree with our general approach to actually vote for us.

That means simply this.

All of us have to do what we can to build the base of this party to be a clear and effective voice for those who agree with what we stand for, and want to see us continue to play a role in Parliament, and Government.

We have to make the case to those mainstream New Zealanders who are not wedded to either National or Labour that there is a party there for them that is not extreme, idiosyncratic or simply unreliable.

And the way to do that is through sensible and workable policy.

Next year will be the year of flexible superannuation.

Our policy of allowing people the choice of full New Zealand superannuation at 65; or, a reduced rate from 60, or an enhanced rate if they defer to 70 proved popular last year, and continues to attract political support.

Already, the Labour, ACT and Māori Parties have shown interest.

And, under our confidence and supply agreement with National, a government discussion document setting out how flexi-super might work, and its pros and cons, will be released for public debate.

Superannuation remains an important issue.

It is far bigger than the 65 or 67 eligibility age high-horse that both the major parties have got themselves trapped upon.

Flexi super provides a way through the current morass, by letting people effectively choose their own retirement date, rather than have the state impose one upon them.

Another priority next year will be the implementation of legislation to phase out the practice of commercial guided heli-hunting – now euphemistically referred to by its proponents as Aerially Assisted Trophy Hunting – as per our confidence and supply agreement.

We will also be working to achieve other confidence and supply agreement provisions – including ensuring the preparation of pre-release alcohol and drug assessments for prisoners appearing before the Parole Board; and the preparation of the new annual Family Status Report by the Families Commission to measure how New Zealand families are getting on.

Finally, can I acknowledge and thank Robin Gunston and the Board for their efforts over the last year, Judy Turner for her ongoing support and encouragement, Bryan Mockridge and the Auckland team for their efforts, and all those who stood as candidates, or trudged the streets for us at the last election. 

 The campaign led by Fish and Game NZ, Forest and Bird, the Environmental Defence Society, Whitewater NZ and the Federated Mountain Clubs is aiming to raise awareness about the existence and importance of water conservation orders.

“Water conservation orders are a little known but crucial part of the environmental management framework in this country,” said Mr Dunne.

 “New Zealanders are quite rightly proud of our natural heritage, particularly our network of national parks, conservation areas and marine reserves, however very few people are even aware of the existence of water conservation orders.”

 “Effectively water conservation orders are national parks for our waterways, which is why it is such a pity that until now they have not been celebrated as such.”

 “I congratulate the various conservation and recreation organisations responsible for the campaign and wish them well in their efforts to further emphasise the importance of protecting the quality of our freshwater resources,” said Mr Dunne.

The Notices were initially for 12 months, but Mr Dunne has begun rolling over the first of the 28 Notices on substances banned in the last year, with the other substances’ bans to be extended as they fall due over coming months.

The original Notices on the first 16 substances – listed for renewal in The Gazette this week – were due to expire on Thursday, 16 August.

 Mr Dunne said he was doing so to ensure no banned substance – or the more than 50 products containing them – slip back into the market before permanent psychoactive legislation, announced last month, is in place by mid next year.

“This is about making sure there is no gap for those who may look to bring substances back on the market before the new law forces them to prove their products are safe,” he said.

“We have seen a 75 percent fall in the number of emergency call incidents around synthetic cannabis products since the drug notices were introduced, according to National Poisons Centre data.

 “That is a huge fall and it began the very month the Notices came into effect and is a very good indication that what we are doing is working and keeping young New Zealanders safe,” Mr Dunne said.

He announced key details of the new psychoactive substances drug legislation last month. It will require distributors and producers of party pills and other legal highs to prove they are safe before they can sell them.

“The legislation will be introduced to Parliament later this year and be in force by around the middle of next year.

“As I have said, the new law will mean the game of ‘catch up’ with the legal highs industry will be over once and for all,” he said.

The permanent regime will establish a new regulator within the Ministry of Health which will be responsible for issuing approvals. 

“Companies wishing to sell such products will need to apply to this regulator with scientific data similar to that which is required for the assessment of new medicines.”

Even once approved, any such products are likely to be subject to retail restrictions on purchase age and premises where they can be sold, which will further reduce their potential to cause harm, he said.