Tuesday, 2 May 2006

Tuesday, 2 May 2006

Tuesday, 2 May 2006

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

India—Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly Delegation

Madam SPEAKER: I invite members to welcome a parliamentary delegation from the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly, India, led by Shri Pandey Prem Prakash, Speaker of the Assembly, which is present in the gallery.

Privilege

Television New Zealand—Former Chief Executive

Madam SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received the following letter from the Chairman of Television New Zealand Ltd—

20 April 2006

Hon Margaret Wilson

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Parliament Buildings

Wellington

Dear Madam Speaker

In accordance with the order of the House of Representatives of 6 April 2006 I hereby advise that the Board of Television New Zealand Limited formally apologises to the House for the actions it took against Mr Ian Fraser following his appearance before the Finance & Expenditure Committee on 14 December 2005 which the Board acknowledges constituted a contempt of the House.

Yours sincerely

Craig Boyce

Chairman

I wish to also advise the House that a cheque for $1,000, being the fine that the House ordered the company to pay, has also been received.

Points of Order

Question for Written Answer—Reply

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order concerning question for written answer No. 04102 2006 to the Minister of Communications. An answer to this question was due on the 28th of last month. After it had failed to meet its deadline, my office emailed the Minister’s office requesting a reply. It is really a very simple question, asking who the authors of a particular report are. The Minister has still failed to reply to that question for written answer.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I will follow that up straight after this session.

PlunketLine—Support

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move without notice a motion calling on the House to support PlunketLine.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that motion. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Oil Prices—Strategy

1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: What instructions, if any, has she given her Ministers and her department to develop a strategy for New Zealand’s primary industry, transport, tourism, and trading relationships to adapt to the reality of more expensive and less available oil, in light of her statement of 18 April that the reason for high oil prices is “because we’re probably not too far short of peak production, if we’re not already there”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Ministers and officials are working on how to increase the use of bio-fuels, as well as researching improvements in vehicle fleet efficiency. As well, a New Zealand energy strategy is being developed, and the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy is being reviewed, and I thank the member for the work she is doing in respect of that. The actual date for peak oil production is a matter of debate but there is no doubt that it will occur.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is she confident that the national energy strategy will take sufficient account of her statement, with which I agree, that oil is not going to get cheaper over the long term, given Treasury’s projection in the December Economic and Fiscal Update that prices will drop to $54 a barrel, from $75 now, after this year and the 2003 projections still on the Ministry of Economic Development’s website that forecast a drop in oil prices to $25 a barrel by 2020 and constant prices thereafter?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I think there will be fluctuations around the price, but I have little doubt that the long-term trend will be for the price to go higher. That is because of the huge demand for oil now as a finite resource from the emerging mega-economies of China and India and also the fact that the world’s oil supplies tend to be drawn from rather unstable parts of the world. All those factors are leading great economies like that of the United States to start to think actively about how to move to a post-oil economy.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does she agree that if cities are to remain viable, investment must shift from new motorways into better public transport, especially electric rail in Auckland and trolley buses in Wellington, and what does her statement about peak oil imply for the economics of a new Transmission Gully motorway at a time when the affordability of private motoring is declining?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I absolutely agree with the member about the importance of investment in public transport. The investment that has gone in over the last 6½ years is many times what was there before then, and that is the right thing to do. I think for the modern day and age, people want the independence the private vehicle offers, but for the future I think we will see the private vehicle increasingly be powered by sources other than oil.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has she received any reports that suggest that our current high use of transport fuels, which is growing by nearly 4 percent a year, could be sustained by bio-fuels alone, and what impact would that have on land available for agriculture in New Zealand?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, I have not seen reports on that, but I understand from colleagues that the Government is likely to be setting a target around bio-fuels in June. I look forward to that, because I think that will be part of our energy future.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will the Government consider establishing a process involving both the Government and the private sector to study the work done in Sweden, which plans to cut its reliance on petroleum by 2020, and to plan a similar transition here?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am open to such suggestions. I am well aware of the impetus that Sweden is giving to how to develop a post-oil economy, and it is good to see those kinds of initiatives from offshore now being reported in our own press, and quite fully. I think we do need new initiatives, and I am certainly open to discussing initiatives like that.

Television New Zealand—Former Chairman

2. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: What expectations, if any, has she conveyed to her Ministers regarding the accountability of Crown company directors to select committees, and what is her response to revelations that the former chairman of Television New Zealand Ltd referred to select committee members as “bastards”, describing them as the “enemy”, and urged the withholding of politically damaging information from the committee?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): The Government expects all State-owned enterprises, Crown entities, agencies, and departments to respect the public accountability processes, and that is why I have described the emails as inappropriate.

Dr Don Brash: Does the Prime Minister accept that anyone who describes select committee members as “bastards” and the “enemy” is unfit to serve on the board of a Crown entity; if so, why does Mr Boyce continue to sit on the board of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The answer to the first part of the question is no. Mr Boyce, of course, was responding after several years of being chair of Television New Zealand, during which time not a single constructive thing about the corporation was said by the National Party Opposition.

Dr Don Brash: Does the Prime Minister accept the fundamental proposition that Crown companies like TVNZ have an absolute obligation to account to this Parliament and its select committees; if so, why has her Government retained as a member of a Government-appointed board a man as contemptuous of this Parliament as Mr Boyce?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Mr Boyce has indeed clarified today that he is not contemptuous of the parliamentary process but, rather, of Mr McCully.

Dr Don Brash: Does the Prime Minister believe that it is acceptable for directors appointed by her Government to seek to suppress politically damaging information regarding Dame Ann Hercus because, to use Mr Boyce’s phrase, it “would be a disaster for everyone” for the truth to emerge, and can she tell the House just what was the disastrous information that Mr Boyce was so keen to suppress?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, frankly, I cannot.

Dr Don Brash: Was the Prime Minister aware that Television New Zealand director Dame Ann Hercus, a former Labour Cabinet Minister, who kept her office and her Minister’s office closely informed about issues in the TVNZ board, was involved in something that Mr Boyce described as “a disaster for everyone”; if so, does she accept that both Parliament and the select committee have a right to know just what Dame Ann Hercus was up to?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: In my experience select committees generally have a way of getting to the truth of the issue, but I have to say that Dame Ann Hercus did not keep me apprised of what happened on that board.

Dr Don Brash: Does the Prime Minister know about what Mr Boyce described to Mr Fraser as “the mid year stuff between yourself and Ann”, the release of which would be “a disaster for everyone”; if so, why will she not tell the House about it?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No; the mind can only boggle at what might have been revealed.

Rodney Hide: Why should anyone in New Zealand—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Questions will be heard in silence, as is the convention.

Rodney Hide: Why would anyone in New Zealand be surprised that a Government-appointed chairperson would seek to dodge parliamentary accountability and withhold sensitive information from the public, when that is exactly what the Government has been doing, from the Prime Minister down, ever since it was elected to office?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I know that the member has been taking dancing lessons, but dancing on the point of that particular pin will only prick his balloon.

RODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was not even witty. The point is that the Prime Minister has to address the question, and I ask you to reflect on how, in any way, she attempted to address that question. It actually goes to prove the point of my question.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, in which case, then, the Prime Minister addressed the question.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What you have just said is that Helen Clark as Prime Minister does try to duck accountability in Parliament and does try to withhold information. That is what you have confirmed. What annoys me is that you do not uphold the Standing Orders of this Parliament and require the Prime Minister to address the question.

Madam SPEAKER: The Prime Minister addressed the question.

School Student—Serious Offence

3. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports, if any, has he received on the possibility of a student attending school after being charged with a serious offence?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I have seen and heard a media statement made by Mr Bill English saying a school will be forced to take back a student who is on bail, following serious charges being laid against that student. That report was completely wrong. The report and the member’s subsequent comments have put the school and its families in a very difficult position. As a result, the board of trustees has had to deal with a large number of media inquiries to defend its reputation. If Mr English had taken the simple step of contacting my office, he could have found out the facts for himself.

Moana Mackey: What action has he and his ministry taken in these circumstances?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I was kept up to date throughout the weekend with developments. The Ministry of Education worked with the police and the school over the weekend. The ministry helped the school prepare to deal with the media attention brought about by Mr English’s comments. The ministry’s Group Special Education people assisted the school on Monday with its students and community, in the aftermath of Mr English’s irresponsible comments. I issued a clarifying statement on Monday morning to clear up the misinformation from Mr English. This instance serves to remind all of us in the House how careful we must be to check our facts, before commenting publicly on difficult situations and therefore making distressing situations more fraught.

Hon Tau Henare: When the Minister became aware of the situation, why did he not say publicly that the student, who is on bail for murder, would not be allowed back into a mainstream classroom?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: If the member cares to check the Herald on Sunday he will realise that my office was contacted, and I commented. But, of course, I am limited in what I can say, because, unlike Mr English, I did not intend to break the law. [Interruption] Let me be clear: if I had done what that member asked for, I would have broken the law in the same way that Mr English tentatively has done.

Moana Mackey: What was the source of the confusion around this matter?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The confusion is a direct result of the statements made by Mr English. I heard Mr English say on National Radio, firstly, that the board of trustees was taking it seriously enough to have an emergency meeting; secondly, that the board clearly thought it must deal with the issue; and, thirdly, that this board of trustees knew that it had to deal with it. When asked whether he had spoken to the board, so he knew that, he said: “Ah, no, I haven’t.” He further said that Steve Maharey should not make the college accept the student with those charges. When he was asked whether he had spoken to me about my actions, he said: “Ah, no, I haven’t.” That is where the confusion came from.

Elective Surgery—Ability to Meet Need

4. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Is he concerned about the Government’s ability to meet New Zealanders’ need for elective surgery; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I am. Despite a 24 percent increase in hip replacements, a 52 percent increase in knee replacements, and a 75 percent increase in angioplasties since the change of Government, there are always improvements to make. This Government will pursue those improvements with vigour.

Hon Tony Ryall: What responsibility will he take for the fact that 13,000 more people are now waiting for an appointment to see a specialist than when Labour was first elected, and that is despite clear evidence that district health boards up and down the country are culling patients who are waiting to see a specialist for the first time, such as in Hawke’s Bay and elsewhere around the nation?

Hon PETE HODGSON: That seems to be at variance with the member’s point of view around about Thursday of last week, when he said there was a drop in the number of people waiting to see a specialist and therefore something must be wrong because people cannot get on to the specialist’s waiting list. Now he is saying that there has been an increase and therefore the health system is failing for that reason. The member has to get his lines straight.

Hon Tony Ryall: Could he explain his comments yesterday that patients culled from a waiting list and sent back to a general practitioner are, in fact, better off?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I made no such comment. What I did say—

Hon Tony Ryall: Yes, you did.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: We heard you.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Well then, let me quote the speech that the member has misquoted. I did say that it is better for a person to be sent back to a general practitioner than to be left on a waiting list and receive no attention, no review, no follow-up, and no reassessment. That is why the National Government got rid of the old waiting list system and introduced the booking system.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why should New Zealanders believe him when he says that patients are better off by being sent back to their general practitioner, when the respected chairman of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons says there is a crisis and the numbers are getting worse, the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists says the Government has no effective strategy to deal with waiting lists, and the lobby group Health Cuts Hurt says the Minister is offering nothing to reassure the thousands of patients who are languishing on his waiting lists?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am delighted that the National Party, as the other main party in this House, joins Labour in wanting to have a better-still health system. However, I find it bewildering that only 8 months ago we went to the polls in this country, fighting over whether we should have an $11 billion tax cut courtesy of the National Party, which thankfully lost the election, because an $11 billion tax cut over 3 years would make health cuts deep and ugly.

Hon Tony Ryall: What does it mean that the land information portfolio has now been taken off the Minister, and is that not a sign that even the Prime Minister can see that Pete Hodgson is doing to the health system what he did to the Kyoto Protocol?

Hon PETE HODGSON: What that reflects is the fact that within this Cabinet there are many, many multiskilled members and we can manage any number of portfolios without a great deal of difficulty.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Would the Minister accept that the symptoms of “crisis syndrome” that he described yesterday include lashing out at doctors who dare to question Labour policy, frenzied attacks on Opposition spokespeople, criticism of the media, and loss of personal control during question time, and that the best cure is to remove himself from his unbearable portfolio responsibility; and would he further agree that being criticised by him on matters of health-care policy is a bit like being called a halfwit by the village idiot?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I think the member has just described the Leader of the Opposition. I also think that so long as the facts can be put in the way of a good story I will remain happily active in my role.

Māori Seats—Reports

5. DAVE HEREORA (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: What recent reports, if any, has he received on the future of the Māori seats?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): I have received a report that outlines the objectives of the Māori electoral option process. Those objectives are that Māori have the opportunity to choose whether they are enrolled on the general roll or the Māori roll and that Māori are encouraged to participate in the democratic process.

Dave Hereora: What other recent reports has he seen on the future of the Māori seats?

Hon MARK BURTON: I have seen three reports. The first report notes a plan to abolish the Māori seats, the second report states that the seats will be part of the political landscape for some time to come, and the third, principled, report states that the Māori seats will be abolished—well, that is unless the party in question needs the support of the Māori Party. The first report is from the leader of the National Party, and the second and third reports are from his deputy.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the 1867 legislation that set up the Māori seats intended that they should last for only 5 years, and can he tell us what justification there is for race-based seats in this country some 135 years after they were supposed to go out of existence?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can say to the member that it has always been the view of this party that the end of the Māori seats, if it should ever come, should come as a result of Māori deciding that they are no longer required. Another member of this House said that the policy has always been that the Māori seats will go when the Māori people choose for them to go—that was said by the National Party’s Tony Ryall between 1992 and 2001 on the subject of the Māori seats. I agree with him.

Taxation—Overseas Shares

6. JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) to the Minister of Finance: What will be the formula for New Zealand residents calculating their tax liability if they hold shares outside of New Zealand or Australia after 1 April 2007?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): That would depend on the nature of the resident, the nature of the company invested in, and the total cost of the investment held.

John Key: Does the Minister support the New Zealand Superannuation Fund’s diversified approach to asset allocation, where the vast bulk of equities are owned offshore; in which case, why is he proposing a capital gains tax on ordinary Kiwis that will penalise them for everything he says he supports the New Zealand Superannuation Fund undertaking?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: All managed funds have investments offshore, primarily because the New Zealand sharemarket is relatively small. But the member, of course, continues to make a fundamental misstatement. At present, a 100 percent capital gains tax applies to investment in all countries outside of eight “grey list” countries. That will be significantly reduced under the new regime, and that will encourage diversification. The member is arguing that we should continue to advantage investment into Germany compared with India.

John Key: I am glad the Minister answered in that way, because does he understand that currently the capital gains tax - exempt, “grey list” countries comprise 80 percent of the world’s market capitalisation of listed stocks—80 percent of the world’s capitalisation is in those companies—which leaves only 20 percent on his blacklist, yet, after his latest “envy tax”, that 80 percent will now shrink to a mere 2 percent; armed with this knowledge, does he still think it is such a great idea to introduce the new rules, which replace a bias against 20 percent with a bias against 98 percent?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, the advantage is in relation to New Zealand and Australia only, because they are treated as a single economic market—and that member will go up to Auckland on Friday and pretend to support that, but in this House, of course, he will oppose it. The reality at the moment is that the “grey list” regime was developed on the theory that those countries could be relied upon to tax at source. In practice, that is not happening in many instances.

Hon Peter Dunne: What reports, if any, has the Minister seen of positive industry reaction to the proposals that were recently announced?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have received a number of such reports, and, particularly, from those who know something about these issues. Ernst and Young describes the change as a “triumph for tax neutrality”. The NZX Chief Executive, Mark Weldon, said that the change would be positive for New Zealand capital markets. Carmel Fisher, of Fisher Funds Management, stated that the tax changes are great news for investors and for New Zealand capital markets. Jo Doolan, in the Independent, wrote: “It is evident the Government … moved a long way in trying to make the rules more user-friendly.” The only people opposing this are a British-based company, Guinness Peat Group, its paid agents, and the National Party.

Peter Brown: If the legislation is enacted along the lines reported, will a person be able to avoid any capital gains tax liable on American shares by selling those shares and transferring the money to Australia?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, because, of course, the value of those shares has not been repatriated to New Zealand. I might add that, given that the American context is of specific importance for countries involved in what might broadly be called new-technology venture capital areas, talks are well advanced on ensuring that those kinds of companies will not be adversely affected by the changes.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Will this new capital gains tax apply to new migrants and returning New Zealanders who qualify for a 4-year tax exemption on foreign income; if not, once the exemption expires, will capital gains be calculated on an increase in value from 1 April 2007 or from when the exemption expires?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: My understanding is that that would apply from the date of the expiry of the exemption, but I will check on that and get back to the member. The member, however, does help with a very important point to clear up a misunderstanding. The new regime applies prospectively only from 1 April next year; the gains are not backdated from the time of purchase of shares. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding of that point within the public arena.

Shane Jones: By how much will taxation on investments be reduced under the proposal announced on 11 April 2006?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Contrary to the impression some people are trying to create, the proposals will cut tax on investments by a net $110 million a year by reducing tax advantages for investors using managed funds—primarily those on lower incomes—

John Key: Absolute nonsense—$25 million if you’re lucky!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: —which is why the “Young Pretender” is squeaking away over there; he is not interested in those particular people—and abolishing the tax on capital gains on New Zealand and Australian shares held via a managed fund, which at present are subject to a capital gains tax.

John Key: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand investors’ liability under his new capital gains tax is not capped by his formula of 85 percent of 5 percent—the formula he wants everyone to believe—but that, rather, the formula applies to the total capital gains, once the assets have been sold and repatriated to New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Effectively, what there is here is a rolling imputation credit along the way, and, on repatriation, that will occur. But, of course, what the member completely fails to point out, yet again, is that all investments in countries outside the “grey list” at the moment are subject to 100 percent capital gains tax. There is not a new capital gains tax; it is a rationalisation of the existing regime.

John Key: How much additional revenue will the Crown receive as a result of his cracking down on the salary sacrifice rules, and when this is added to the additional revenue from the abolition of all but Australia as the “grey list” countries, is it not a fact that, rather than cutting tax by the figure of $110 million that he was trumpeting before, in an earlier answer on this question, this policy is pretty much revenue neutral, like every Michael Cullen tax adjustment, and just like his business tax review will be when he slaps on his shiny new little payroll tax?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: From 1 April there were very significant business tax cuts, which cost some hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and which were not in the least revenue neutral, but the member, of course, as usual, wants to avoid those particular things—a member who, in an interview on Saturday morning, could not even answer whether he believed in God.

Working for Families Package—Support

7. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports, if any, has he received on support for the Working for Families package?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have seen a number of reports that endorse the Government’s policy of targeting tax credits where they are needed—to hard-working Kiwi families with children. One example was in a speech given on Sunday, which was an endorsement of “allowing for family size in the tax structure” and “easing the financial pressure on families generally.” That speech was given by Don Brash, so in the words of the Dominion Post, it is “back to the drawing board” for National on tax policy.

Georgina Beyer: What other reports has the Minister seen?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I have seen a number of letters to the Prime Minister in response to the package. One of them states: “In our household the extra $132 that is received each week has eased the financial pressure substantially. Now I shop knowing there is room in the budget to buy a reasonable amount of groceries that will see us through the full week. The extra money means that I can put some money towards paying off old debt. It means I can enrol my son in swimming lessons and sports activities. Working for Families is, for my family, huge.”

Craig Foss: How can the Working for Families package, which sends a message to Kiwis of “This is as good as it gets, and don’t even bother trying to improve yourself because the Labour Government will tax you at 90 percent.”, do anything at all to lift the living standards for New Zealanders to the levels enjoyed by the thousands of New Zealanders currently living in Australia?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Well, I would have thought that a package that has already benefited 194,000 families in terms of family assistance, 286,500 recipients of accommodation supplements, and 31,600 recipients of childcare assistance is actually making some very substantial gains for those families.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Minister confirm that Australia uses a targeted tax credit mechanism, which is also bled out with high effective marginal tax rates, and, like many countries, does not have a universal tax allowance for children?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes, I can confirm that the system the Working for Families package is based on is very similar to that in the UK and Australia.

Housing New Zealand—Chairman

8. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: Does he have confidence in the Housing New Zealand chairman, given that he broke the “no surprises” agreement by failing to tell him for 6 months about the allegations of accounting irregularities made by a former contractor; if so, why?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): Yes. The chair acted appropriately and promptly, once all the circumstances of the allegations were drawn to his attention.

Phil Heatley: Why does he have confidence in the chairman when the Prime Minister herself said that the chairman should have advised him earlier, and when all parties agreed that the gagging clause was “an error of judgment” and “not remotely appropriate”?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The chairperson of Housing New Zealand and myself both condemned the gagging clause as soon as we found out about it. We did not find out about it until the news media broke the story.

Steve Chadwick: What steps did the Minister take when he was made aware of the full circumstances of the allegations?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I called in the board chairman for a full explanation and made it clear that the allegations needed to be investigated in a transparent and comprehensive way. I am pleased to see that the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General is now engaged in that investigation.

Phil Heatley: Why did the chairman not agree to an inquiry until now, given that he knew of the contractor’s allegations 6 months ago and knew of the gagging clause as early as March; why did the chairman not take this issue seriously before the public and media outcry?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: As I indicated in my initial answer, as soon as the chairman was aware of the full scope, or potential scope, of the allegations he acted promptly, as I did.

Phil Heatley: Why did the chairman have Gerald Coles stood down on the basis of the gagging-clause letter that directly implicated him, but did not stand down the chief executive when that very same letter directly implicates her?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: These are matters being investigated by the Auditor-General. I do not consider it appropriate to comment until after that investigation is completed and made public.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was about the standing down of Gerald Coles, which occurred well before the Auditor-General’s inquiry was agreed on, and even before the Auditor-General was asked to have an inquiry. I find it intriguing that the Labour member Steve Chadwick can ask about events before the inquiry was announced and get a full answer—and you will find that in the reply to supplementary question No. 3—but an Opposition member like myself cannot get a full answer from the Minister on events before the inquiry was called, and that he hides behind the fact that the inquiry was called. I would like an answer to my question, just like the Labour member got an answer to her question.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question.

Phil Heatley: As the Minister has condemned the gagging clause in the House today, can he confirm that as a matter of principle, if inquiries show that the chief executive knew of this gagging-clause arrangement, he will expect the directors of Housing New Zealand to require her resignation?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: In all my public comments on this issue, and as I have said again in the House today, I find such a gagging order totally unacceptable.

Phil Heatley: As he has condemned the gagging order, can he confirm, as a matter of principle, that if the chairman of the board knew of this gagging-clause arrangement he would expect his resignation?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I repeat my last answer that such a gagging clause is totally unacceptable. We will see what the investigation turns up.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the gagging-clause letter that caused Gerald Coles to be stood down because he is identified in it, but did not cause the chief executive to be stood down, even though she was identified in it.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Housing Statistics—Social Report 2005

9. TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Housing: What progress, if any, has been made in reducing the people living in crowded housing statistics, noting that the Social Report 2005 stated 10 percent of the New Zealand population were living in crowded housing?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): When Labour took office the number of State houses in New Zealand had declined by approximately 13,000 under the previous National administration, despite mounting demand, poverty, and increased rates of overcrowding. Since January 2000 the Government has added almost 6,000 State houses to the housing network and has introduced income-related rents, all of which assist in alleviating the levels of overcrowding.

Tariana Turia: Would the Minister consider that the substandard housing and overcrowding crisis identified in the Northland, East Cape, and Bay of Plenty areas in the early years of the current Labour Government has been addressed; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Progress has been made in the areas that the member has just mentioned—indeed, she herself was responsible from 10 December 1999 to 30 April 2004 for implementing the Government’s policies in that areas mentioned. We have made progress, but increasing land values and the scarcity of skilled labour in the areas mentioned have restricted the achievements we would like to have made. But over 1,600 houses have been improved in those rural areas.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Does the health of tenants in State houses improve once they move from the Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting list to State houses?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Yes. The Housing, Crowding and Health study just published by the University of Otago shows that the health of tenants in State houses improves significantly once they move from the waiting list to a State house. The study found that acute hospital attendances were 10 percent lower in Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants compared with those on the waiting list for such a house. That is why this Government has placed such an emphasis on providing more housing.

Phil Heatley: Will the Minister undertake to change Labour’s fundamentally flawed policies that allow people with $70,000, $80,000, and $90,000 after-tax incomes to remain in State houses, and that allow State house tenants to have three, four, or five boarders in their spare rooms, in order to start addressing the human and health costs of the blowout in the Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting list?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Under the previous National Government—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I ask the Minister to continue so that we can hear the answer.

Hon CHRIS CARTER:—wealthy tenants were encouraged to move into State houses, because they were the only ones who could afford market rents. Under this Government, 98 percent of new tenants are paying income-related rents—these are people with high housing needs.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he would change Labour’s policies, which he has responsibility for—and for which he has had responsibility for nearly 7 years now—that have allowed thousands and thousands of people to languish on the waiting list while people in State houses are earning $70,000, $80,000, or $90,000 after-tax and are renting out their rooms to boarders. I asked the Minister whether he will change that flawed policy; I did not ask him about what National did nearly 7 years ago.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The Minister made it perfectly clear that he was not going to because, under the existing policies, 98 percent of those now entering State housing are people on low incomes. Under the previous National Government’s policy, one had to have $70,000, $80,000, or $90,000 even to be able to afford to get into a State house.

Madam SPEAKER: Both members have had an opportunity to address the point of order. The Minister was in the process of addressing the question. I think we should hear the Minister’s full answer to the question.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With all due respect, the Minister did start the question with a very provocative statement, which you noted because of the noise level in the House. I thought you had previously instructed Ministers to give answers in a concise way so that we do not have that sort of disruption in the House. After all, those Ministers are supposed to be responsible for their portfolios and for what is happening now.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I watched very carefully what happened in that case. The outburst of noise erupted as members on the National Party benches woke up when the Minister said “under the previous National Government”. If the words “under the previous National Government” are regarded as being provocative, then I am not quite sure what words we are allowed to use in this House.

Madam SPEAKER: Certainly, I agree with the member that it would be appreciated by everyone if both questions and answers were delivered concisely. However, I ask the Minister to complete his addressing of the question that was asked.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: We are encouraging Murray McCully’s tenants to move on. We are actively seeking to place more of the people on the waiting list into State houses. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please address the question without making provocative comments.

Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.

Madam SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee, I am addressing an issue. I would like the Minister to please answer the question without making those provocative comments. He should just stick to answering that question.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: We have invested almost $2 billion since 1999 in housing. We have built almost 6,000 new houses. We are actively promoting a programme that leads to decent housing for all New Zealanders.

Hone Harawira: Why has there been no response to the case of Mrs Atareiria HeiHei of Takou Bay, who approached Housing New Zealand Corporation 10 months ago regarding the overcrowding in her home, where 14 people were confirmed by the housing support coordinator for the Ministry of Social Development to be living there, and where the issues identified were privacy, health, emotional stress, hygiene, and sanitation; does the Minister consider a 10-month delay to be an appropriate time frame to address such serious issues?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I would really welcome the opportunity to talk to the member about that particular case, and I ask him to see me at the end of question time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that the reason why the Housing New Zealand Corporation can do nothing in Takou Bay is that it has no residential properties for rent there?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: That may well be the case.

Madam SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Tariana Turia. [Interruption] Tariana Turia has been called. She is entitled to ask her question in silence.

Tariana Turia: What response will the Minister give to Miss Dawn HeiHei of Takou Bay, whom the Kaitāia Family Start worker referred to Housing New Zealand Corporation for urgent rental accommodation, particularly when the corporation’s offices in Whangarei and Kaikohe have been advised that one of the corporation’s properties in Takou Bay is being used as a holiday home for one family?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I would be very happy to talk to the member about this case to see whether we can find a solution.

Waikato River—Government Negotiations with Tainui

10. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What negotiations, if any, are currently taking place between the Government and Tainui over the Waikato River?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): In May 2005 the Crown recognised the mandate of the Waikato Raupatu Trustee Co. Ltd to negotiate the Waikato River claims of Waikato-Tainui. Negotiations are taking place.

Gerry Brownlee: Are those negotiations likely to cause Waikato River users additional costs, where costs are applied, if those negotiations are successfully concluded for Tainui?

Hon MARK BURTON: As agreed in the terms of negotiation between the Crown and Waikato-Tainui, the negotiations over the river are, as with any such negotiations, confidential to the parties unless otherwise agreed between them. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to discuss or disclose any of the detail of those negotiations at this time.

Gerry Brownlee: What protections for existing Waikato water and river users are the Government seeking in those negotiations?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I indicated, although it is inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of any negotiation that is in progress—as the member knows, that would be a breach of good faith—I can say to the member that it is a general principle that the rights of users be protected in any such negotiation.

Gerry Brownlee: Is it possible that as a result of those negotiations, Waikato River users and/or users of water will have to negotiate with Tainui over the existing or future use of the river or its water?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member is asking me to speculate on a hypothetical question. That is absolutely pointless.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not ask him to speculate, at all. The Minister knows he is in those negotiations. He knows he has received reports. He will not give them to us, because he is saying that the Act does not apply to them. This is a parliamentary issue. It is about a very iconic waterway in this country. I asked him, simply, what the Government’s position would be in the negotiations. To just be told he cannot tell me that because to do so would be a breach of good faith raises the question of with whom it would be a breach of good faith.

Hon MARK BURTON: As the member knows well, the process by which negotiations take place is that good-faith negotiations require a confidentiality of process. This Parliament, of course, will have the opportunity, at the time that a deed of settlement bill comes to it, to consider that bill in detail. The bill would go to a select committee, and the House in its entirety would get to consider it after the select committee. It is therefore simply not credible for the member to suggest that the House is excluded. It is simply a matter of addressing matters in their appropriate order, in good faith—a concept I do not think the member understands well.

Madam SPEAKER: I do not think we needed that last comment.

Hon MARK BURTON: I withdraw and apologise for the last comment.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that the negotiations are taking place because the Waikato River was not included in the Tainui settlement effected and signed off by the previous National Government, seven members of which are present over there on the Opposition benches?

Hon MARK BURTON: It is the case that in 1995 the river was specifically excluded, in order that it would be addressed later on. That is what this Government is doing.

Gerry Brownlee: Will the Minister confirm that the legislation that may give effect to the negotiations will not see the light of day until he and this Government know that they have the numbers to pass it; and in that event, will he give an undertaking that prior to it coming to the public’s attention, there will be discussions with Waikato water users over the future of their rights to access water from the river?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can assure the member that the bill will not see the light of day until the negotiations are complete. That is the normal order of these things.

Gerry Brownlee: It wasn’t the question.

Hon MARK BURTON: I previously addressed the question in a general sense, by saying that all such negotiations take account of existing users’ rights and needs.

Medicines Strategy—Terms of Reference

11. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) to the Associate Minister of Health: What are the next steps following the announcement of the terms of reference for the national medicines strategy?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): The aim of the national medicines strategy is to identify where improvements can be made within the existing system and the broad policy settings to ensure the best health and disability outcomes from medicines over the coming years. The Ministry of Health has begun work on a draft strategy document that will analyse the current system in New Zealand, look at our current policy settings, and describe international trends. It is also engaging with the sector on this work. I expect a new consultation document will be submitted to Cabinet by the end of the year. Consultation will take place early next year and I expect final advice of the outcome by the end of next year.

Judy Turner: Is this strategy confined to a review of Pharmac?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am glad the member raises that question, because I need to make a point very clearly that this strategy is not simply a review of Pharmac. The strategy will focus on quality, access, and rational use of medicines. That being said, access to medicines is clearly an issue of interest to many stakeholders, but this is not about the way Pharmac operates, this is about the overall environment within which those decisions are made, and I look forward to the public response.

Judy Turner: What has been the response to the announcement so far?

Hon PETER DUNNE: So far the response has been very positive from a variety of different groups. The non-governmental organisation Access to Medicines Coalition described this as being a significant move in the right direction. The Researched Medicines Industry Association has strongly welcomed the approach, and I have had a number of responses from individuals—medical practitioners, and others—all saying that this is a very timely initiative that they want to participate in.

Taito Phillip Field—Conflicts of Interest Report

12. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Prime Minister: What has been the total cost to date of the inquiry by Noel Ingram QC into alleged conflicts of interest involving Taito Phillip Field?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): The information on costs will be released when the inquiry is complete and all costs are known. I do not consider progress reports on costs appropriate as they could be deemed to be placing pressure on the inquiry. The inquiry should take as long as necessary.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement of 14 September last year that: “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am waiting for the report, to see what it advocates.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: If there is no substance to the allegations against the honourable Taito Phillip Field, why has a report that she herself initially estimated would take 9 working days to complete now taken over 7 months?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I have consistently said, the report must take as long as required to be full and frank.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Has the Prime Minister seen a draft of the report; if so, was the report in the Trans Tasman of 27 April, that the honourable Taito Phillip Field was playing “hardball with the Labour Party over the examination of his dealings with the immigrant community” accurate; if not, why has the release of the report taken so long?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I know of nothing to substantiate the quote the member has referred to, nor have I read a draft report.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Did the honourable Taito Phillip Field’s former electorate agents Maria Coady and Siniva Papalii give evidence to the inquiry; if not, why have such key people not provided evidence to it?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have no idea. I am waiting for the report.

Urgent Debates Declined

Well Child Freephone Service—Contract

Madam SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Judy Turner seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision to transfer the contract for the Well Child freephone service to McKesson New Zealand. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving administrative responsibility of the Government, but I do not consider that it requires the House to set aside its pre-arranged business to debate it today. There are other parliamentary opportunities for this decision to be examined. The request is therefore declined.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 11 to Minister, 4 April

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity): In my answer to a supplementary question on 4 April I referred to the independent group of 10 scientists who had peer reviewed Biosecurity New Zealand’s risk analysis covering the importation of honey from Australia and the Pacific Islands, and I stated that “all vouched for the fact that we have the most minimal amount of risk involved in it.” From the advice I had received I concluded that this was the case. However, I have subsequently been advised that one of the 10 scientists disagreed with Biosecurity New Zealand’s approach for managing the identified risks. I am informed, however, that the other nine scientists, when reviewing the parts of the document relevant to their expertise, did not express disagreement with the analysis, and that Biosecurity New Zealand therefore remains satisfied that the risk analysis is robust.

Points of Order

Urgent Debate Declined—Well Child Freephone Service

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I note your decision in respect of the application by Judy Turner seeking to debate a matter of urgent public importance. I note that the House does control its own destiny, and I seek the leave of the House to have the debate on PlunketLine that United Future has sought.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.

Tabling of Documents

Letter to Minister of Housing

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I seek leave to table the letter the HeiHei family wrote to the Minister of Housing on 16 February this year.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Bills

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill implements the Labour-led Government’s policy to extend the paid parental leave scheme to self-employed individuals who are not currently covered by the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. In doing so, the bill furthers a number of our Government’s objectives to support working parents on the birth or adoption of a child. These include ensuring that the paid parental leave scheme is accessible to a wider number of individuals, enhancing equity by allowing employed people to access paid parental leave irrespective of whether they are employees or self-employed, enabling a self-employed parent to take leave with a period of income replacement, and supporting the health and well-being of new mothers and babies.

Self-employed mothers will be eligible if they have worked an average of 10 hours a week or more during either a 6 or 12-month period immediately before the expected date of delivery or adoption of a child. Self-employed mothers will have the same right as employees to transfer payments to their eligible partners, who may be either self-employed or employees. Self-employed people will be entitled to paid parental leave if they are engaged in more than one type of work consecutively and/or if they have a break of 30 days or less between engagements. Like employees, they will be required to stop working while receiving payments, but they will be able to maintain a level of oversight of their business during the leave period.

Parental leave payments for the self-employed will equal their average weekly income, up to the maximum rate for employees—currently $357.30 per week before tax. Those who make a loss, or who earn less than the minimum wage for at least 10 hours a week, will be entitled to payments for 10 hours a week at the minimum wage rate.

The bill also provides that employees will become eligible for a subsequent period of parental leave and parental leave payments if the expected date of delivery or adoption is at least 6 months after their return to work from a previous period of parental leave, rather than the 12 months as at present. This provides fairness between first-time parents and parents of subsequent children. This will extend eligibility to paid parental leave to a small number of employees who are currently ineligible. The bill provides that self-employed women will be eligible for parental leave payments for second and subsequent children 6 months following previous parental leave payments.

The bill also includes a new provision that explicitly provides that employees or self-employed persons may apply to the Employment Relations Authority for a review of a decision made by the Department of Labour about their eligibility for a parental leave payment. It also enables the department to approve applications for payment where there are technical problems with the application. Currently, these applications must go to the Employment Relations Authority before they can be approved. That amendment will save applicants from having to go through that process. However, the department may not approve applications if the problem is in dispute between the employer and the employee.

The bill returns to the House with a small number of technical amendments. It clarifies that when a self-employed woman goes on parental leave before her expected date of delivery, the calculation of average weekly earnings will reflect only those weeks during which she was working. So her lack of earnings while on parental leave will not affect the final rate of parental leave payment. That amendment is consistent with the calculation methods applied to employees who take parental leave before the due delivery date of their child. It will provide guidance to the Department of Labour when exercising its discretion to approve irregular applications for parental leave payment. It clarifies that a parental leave payment will end for the primary applicant if the entitlement is transferred to his or her spouse or partner. It also clarifies that failing to provide information requested by the department under the principal Act is an offence. It will extend the time period within which offence proceedings relating to misleading the department may be commenced to within 6 months from the first time the alleged offence became known, or should reasonably have become known, to the department.

I also advise the House that I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage to resolve an issue of inconsistency that was identified in the later stages of scrutiny of the bill in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. That will allow persons who meet qualifying criteria both as an employee and as a self-employed person to apply for entitlements in respect of parental leave from their employment, and to apply for parental leave payments based on earnings from their work both as a qualifying employee and as a qualifying self-employed person. This amount will be capped at the same maximum amount as would be available to a person who was solely an employee or a self-employed person. This amendment will provide consistency with the current situation for employees with multiple employments, who are entitled to paid parental leave in all jobs for which they meet the eligibility criteria and can apply for paid parental leave up to the maximum amount payable.

Other technical amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper are made to ensure clarity in the administration of the Act. These include the definition of net income being amended to make it clear that trustee distributions are included as net income, and time off work while on accident compensation or parental leave, or in any other approved circumstances, being included as time working as a self-employed person. These hours are included when determining whether a self-employed person is eligible for parental leave payments. Again, that is consistent with the effect of the legislation for employees who are off work in those same circumstances.

Most submitters supported the bill as it is. It does not discriminate between employed or self-employed workers, it encourages more choice for workers in their role as parents, it encourages self-employed women to return to the workforce after having a child, and it recognises that many self-employed people are not high-income earners and may be in as much need of access to income replacement during parental leave as employed people are.

Some submitters supported the concept of paid parental leave for self-employed persons and made suggestions for improving the provisions relating to the self-employed, while others sought the broadening of the scope of the paid parental leave scheme as a whole to lengthen the duration of paid leave, increase the level of payment, and include other parents not currently covered by the scheme, such as casual and seasonal workers, and parents who assume the care of children via customary adoption or whāngai. An evaluation of the entire scheme is currently under way, looking at the experiences of women, partners, and employers, and also at those who are ineligible for the scheme currently. That will assist our Government to consider further some of the broader issues raised by the submitters.

The changes contained in the bill will be monitored after their implementation in order to contribute to the findings of the evaluation of the wider scheme currently under way. In the meantime, I welcome the select committee’s report on the bill and thank all members for their work. I also extend my thanks to all those who took the time to make submissions. I commend the progress of the bill to the House.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): National will be supporting the report back of the bill, because in many ways it is the recognition of a failure of the original scheme created by the Labour Government. National members pointed out when the original scheme was developed that this was a major deficiency. We said that the exclusion of the self-employed was essentially discriminatory—that Labour was looking after only those people who were employed and that it was completely ignoring the tens of thousands of parents who are involved in their own businesses as self-employed. That was our major objection. [Interruption] The junior whip who is interjecting knows the truth of that. The interesting question we have to ask ourselves is whether it took a close electoral fight for the Government to say: “Mm, maybe we need to change our position on this one and extend the support.”

National has a philosophical difficulty with the way this legislation is being delivered. I say that because most self-employed people—and I know this from being within the legal profession—were seeking tax deductibility. That has been sought for many, many years. I acknowledge that National did not give that while in office, and indeed it should have. But that is what self-employed women, in particular, were seeking, and professional women and businesswomen made numerous submissions on it. I know for a fact that the Hon Ruth Dyson knows the truth of the matter. She has heard those submissions herself.

The Government says that it would sooner make someone a welfare beneficiary. Try as it might, Labour cannot duck the reality of that. This is a welfare benefit. Ask any self-employed people whether they want to become a welfare beneficiary and I can almost guarantee what their answer will be. It will be no. They would much prefer a tax deduction.

There are a number of reasons why that is the case. The first, which I have mentioned, is that self-employed people do not want to be welfare beneficiaries. The second reason, however, is that tax deduction is fundamentally simpler. All we would have to do is modify the Income Tax Act to provide a tax deduction for the costs of childcare, in particular, because that is what would really be involved. It would be a simple line in the return of income and the profit and loss statements of the particular business concerned. That is how business people think. They would just incorporate it as part and parcel of their instructions to their accountants when the annual tax return and annual accounts are being prepared. Would that not be so much simpler? Would that not be so much easier than this particular complicated, bureaucratic process?

I notice that the Minister was quite proud of the fact—and made special reference to it—that there had to be new amendments to provide for criminal proceedings. That is truly the mind of the bureaucrat, is it not? It is the nanny State—that in all ways we have to give bureaucrats, officials, and officers of Government the power to prosecute people, bring them before the courts, and monitor them, and to send inspectors out whenever the bureaucrats want them to be sent out. The bureaucrats’ small minds came up with that kind of plan. We know where the small-minded bureaucrats in this Parliament exist—they exist on the Government benches. They are happy and comfortable in being small-minded, pettifogging bureaucrats. That is their comfort zone, that is their experience, and that is the approach they would sooner have. National members trust people and say that we would sooner give the public the opportunity to work out how to conduct their affairs in their business, as they think fit. I would not even go so far as to say that this is like the curate’s egg—good in parts. I suppose I have to acknowledge that at least the extension of paid parental leave to self-employed people is a step forward. But there was a far better way in which do this—one that fits the way the self-employed operate, think, plan, and develop their own lives and businesses.

I note that in this Labour Government very few people have any experience at all of being self-employed.

Darren Hughes: Get personal.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Is this not bizarre? The junior whip is objecting to the fact that I am pointing out that very few people in the Government have had experience of being self-employed, and he accuses me of some sort of gutter politics of envy, or something. Frankly, it is quite bizarre. We know people by the company they keep. If Government members are embarrassed about being referred to as having had no experience of being self-employed, and if they feel so guilty about it that they have to make petty interjections, I can only say what a sad and unfortunate world they inhabit.

The point I was trying to make was that although very few people over there have had experience of self-employment, there are two or maybe three in the House right now. I see the Hon Jim Sutton and Mr Shane Jones, who I know have had the experience of running their own businesses. They would well know that self-employed people do not want to become welfare beneficiaries. How often have I heard Mr Shane Jones, in particular, say in this Parliament—and, indeed, in other forums—that welfare has been the enemy of Māori people, in particular, and that to create beneficiaries out of people who have a proud record of independence detracts from their sense of independence? I have to say to the member that there is a better way.

National will support the bill going to the next stage. I signal that we would like to provide an option during the Committee stage to give self-employed people at least the choice between going down this path—the path of being made a State dependent; a welfare beneficiary—or the pathway of the straightforward, simple, low-compliance, rules-based approach of a tax deduction. I ask Government members why they would not at least give people that choice. They should at least give people a choice. That would preserve their preferred bureaucratic-rich, nanny-State approach to the welfare system, and it would also say to self-employed people that the Government has at least some understanding of the situation they are in and acknowledges that they would prefer to have a tax deduction.

So I give notice to the Government that we will be putting up a Supplementary Order Paper to give the Government the opportunity to give people a choice—a two-pathway approach to delivering what is, objectively, the reasonable measure of supporting self-employed people and the raising of their families and reducing the costs of that to some extent.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the second reading of this very important bill. I congratulate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, whose members worked constructively to ensure the bill could be reported back to the House expeditiously.

I was going to say that it was very pleasing to have so much agreement in this House until I heard the speech made by the member opposite. He seems both to support paid parental leave and to oppose it. I thought we had moved on. Certainly, that was the impression we had when the bill was introduced, and from members opposite who were on the select committee. I thought we had all reached a point where we agreed that it is essential to ensure that all women and parents—whether or not they are employed or self-employed—do not feel pressured to put their working lives ahead of starting a family. I thought we had finally got the National Party to adopt a Labour Party policy. I thought its members had finally put aside their ideological reasons for opposing it, because it has not always been the case that they have.

I am one among many thousands of women who campaigned for 10 years for the right for mothers to have time off work on pay at the birth or adoption of a child. I did think we had moved on and I am sorry I was wrong about that, because I recall very well some famous comments made by members of the Opposition parties. Dr Brash said that he would scrap paid parental leave if National became the Government. Anne Tolley said the scheme was discriminatory and unfair and that National was likely to scrap the scheme if it got back into power, and so on. Jenny Shipley brought in a baby bonus as a sop to women who were campaigning. So I am disappointed; I did think we had moved on. I thought we had understood that it was really important in this country that we were modern and accepted that future generations have to be supported by giving all women and parents the right to have time off on pay at the birth or adoption of a child. It is a very common-sense policy and it shows the fairness of Labour’s policies.

I want to comment on Mr Mapp’s point about tax deductibility. It is not fair, because it advantages women who are well off. Those who are not well off cannot afford to wait until the end of the year to get their money back; they have to live from day to day to feed their baby and family. The Labour Party adopted this system because it was a fair policy. This bill builds on the paid parental leave scheme that was introduced by a Labour-led Government in 2002 and extended in 2004. It extends the benefits of paid parental leave to self-employed women. Yes, it was our policy before the election, and we have acted very quickly to deliver on it. The Prime Minister outlined it as a priority in her reply to the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of this Parliament.

One of the important changes to the bill that I think will benefit many women is the right of employees and self-employed women to become eligible for a subsequent period of paid parental leave after 6 months of a return to work from a previous period of parental leave, rather than 12 months as it is at present. Some important issues picked up by the select committee and outlined by the Minister will be addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper the Minister is to introduce.

I was surprised, because there was a large amount of agreement in the select committee and I thought we had made some progress on this matter. I was going to say that it is a good day in this House when we have so much agreement about something so important to our future. At least I think we will get the bill voted on. If that is the case, then this is a good day for women, for parents, and for families.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki): I rise, very keen to support the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill, but I take issue with the suggestion that I might support it for reasons similar to those of the Government. This measure is belated recognition of a gross oversight—that is, excluding self-employed persons from the opportunity to benefit from paid parental leave. Why would they have been excluded? Let us look at the history. This bill was not the brainchild of the Labour Government. Laila Harré proposed this idea, and, at the time—wait for it—Helen Clark, the Prime Minister, said: “Over my dead body!”. That is exactly what she said. But it seems that times they are a changing.

So when this legislation was introduced it was to support new parents with a policy that would give them some income replacement for a short period of time. As my esteemed colleague Wayne Mapp has said, we in the National Party are, of course, philosophically opposed to extending welfare benefits to people who would much rather have had a tax cut. That would have served them just as well, instead of their having to line up for something they could well call a benefit. Already far too many people are receiving benefits and being dependent upon this Government for income, when in fact they are very hard-working people who would just like to keep the money they earned in the first place.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Working for Families.

JO GOODHEW: The Working for Families package, as my colleague has indicated, is a great example of that. So National would have preferred tax cuts as a form of supporting new parents, and we would prefer to have less of the bureaucracy associated with all the machinations of how this measure will be determined.

However, when the original bill was passed that excluded self-employed parents, we saw the injustice that it presented. Small businesses make up 95 percent of businesses in New Zealand, and many of those small businesses comprise couples—those many, many couples involved in small businesses that keep this economy going—and they have the same rights to income replacement and to support as new parents. However arbitrary it might seem, self-employed parents were excluded in the original bill. But no, it was probably not arbitrary; it was probably just an example of the clear bias amongst Government members towards employees and away from the self-employed. That is the union leaning coming out again, I suspect.

Hon Members: Oh, ha, ha!

JO GOODHEW: Well, that woke them up, did it not? They do not like being called unionists. Thank goodness this amendment to the bill addresses that—I am so relieved that they are awake!

How many people might benefit from this amendment? Well, 66,412 women of fertile age in New Zealand are self-employed. That was quite a stunning number, I thought—66,412 women of fertile age. Of course, whilst those women are the people who will bear the children, there will be fathers involved—the other side of the parenting equation. It has been estimated that 2,173 self-employed parents will apply for paid parental leave each year. It is not too bad really, but it is still an injustice that those people were going to be excluded prior to the amending of the original bill.

It is clear that this amendment, like the original bill in the option it introduced to benefit families, will be taken up mainly by women. Of note amongst the 19 submitters to the bill at the select committee were the largely women’s organisations. Those groups included the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women, the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, the New Zealand College of Midwives, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, the National Council of Women of New Zealand, the Family Planning Association, and Rural Women New Zealand.

It is very important that this bill acknowledges the different challenges faced by self-employed parents compared with those who are employed. This bill allows self-employed people to continue to maintain a level of oversight of their businesses and to perform occasional administrative tasks. Why is that important? That is very, very important. Although they will cease from the physical side of their self-employment, it is important they will still have the opportunity to undertake that oversight of their businesses. The investment on the part of those who are self-employed is not only monetary; it is an investment in terms of time and in terms of passion—an enormous amount of passion goes into those 95 percent of New Zealand businesses, those small mum and dad businesses, those young parent businesses. No black and white rules should preclude the aforementioned—that is, the level of oversight of their businesses and their ability to perform occasional administrative tasks.

The last point I wish to make is in regard to the importance of this amendment bill to the people of my electorate, Aoraki, because it is largely a rural, provincial electorate. Many young families working on farms, and many young couples, particularly in our burgeoning dairy industry, need this assistance. They are self-employed—75 percent of those working in the agriculture sector are self-employed or close to it—and those farming families were certainly screaming loud and clear that it was not fair to discriminate against the self-employed, and that they too should have the opportunity for assistance and support as young parents.

Federated Farmers Vice President, Don Nicholson, expressed his delight when this bill went to the select committee, and described it as removing “a gross inequity that has been in place since taxpayer-funded paid parental leave for employees was introduced in 2002.” Certainly, the farmer organisations were vociferous at that time in their condemnation of the exclusion of self-employed people. Those hard-working young parents, often with low incomes, felt extremely hard-done-by when they were excluded. I am very happy that they will now find they are amongst the lucky New Zealanders who will have this assistance when they have babies.

In the submission presented by Rural Women New Zealand its representatives were very concerned about the possible bureaucracies of this system. I can tell members that their concern was warranted. They would rather have had a lump sum payment—we would say some tax relief to leave the money where it started—and said that such a payment would be useful because there would not be all the machinations of working out how those people were actually going to take the benefit from paid parental leave.

In summing up, I want to say that, yes, National is very supportive of the bill, and our philosophy has not changed. It does not matter what the Government says; we have not changed our philosophy. We saw inequity, and this Opposition party is very keen to address that inequity and support this bill, because it was simply not fair if the Government bias towards employees, which excluded the self-employed, was allowed to be perpetuated. I am therefore pleased to support this bill.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The Green Party is very pleased to be able to speak in support of this bill as it has been reported back to the House. I thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the time it has put into the consideration of the bill, and into the result before us today. As I stated in the first reading of this bill and in other paid parental leave debates, the Green Party has always been in favour of paid parental leave applying to self-employed workers, and it is great that we are one step closer to that today.

As we debate these extensions to the bill, I also acknowledge the original work of the “mother of paid parental leave” in this House, Laila Harré, in shepherding the original bill through. That was no mean feat. The National Party and its doom-merchant allies at the time believed that civilisation as we knew it would end if the original bill were passed. Even Labour at the time was lukewarm on the bill, and ensured that it was far more restrictive than it should have been. I am pleased to hear today how far the National Party has come.

The legislation has been extended once already, and now we are looking forward to further improving the Act so that eventually it will become legislation of which we can all be proud. Even after this bill is passed, improvements are still needed regarding eligibility for paid parental leave, the level of paid leave, and the length of leave that can be taken. A number of those issues will probably need to be addressed before New Zealand can ratify the relevant International Labour Organization conventions on paid parental leave, but at least we will now have a system that does not discriminate between workers, based on their employment status.

Although I was not a member of the select committee I did sit in on the committee that did the work originally, and many urban and rural submitters were rightly angry at the inequity of self-employed working parents being denied the ability to take up paid parental leave. The arguments put up then were around the complexities of dealing with the issues of self-employed workers. Although no legislation is simple, the fact that once the Government had the political will to make the changes, the complexity arguments, strangely enough, evaporated. Unlike some bills, this bill has been returned to the House largely intact, and it seems that really there was general support from most of the committee at least. The Minister of Labour, Ruth Dyson, and the Prime Minister both stated that the bill would become law on 1 July 2006, and I am pleased that we are on target to achieve this. Those women who timed their pregnancies to fit with the passing of this legislation—and I believe that there were some—will not be disappointed, unless their babies are rather too premature.

In addition to extending paid parental leave to self-employed workers, the bill also deals with three other important issues. Firstly, it reduces from 12 months to 6 months the minimum period before an employee is entitled to a subsequent period of parental leave and a parental leave payment. I am pleased to see this change. It helps those parents who may be adopting again before a 12-month period, and also those parents who themselves have another child within 12 months of the earlier one being born. With the complications of premature birth, 6 months seems a good period to select for the purposes of this bill.

Secondly, the bill gives power to the department to accept applications for paid parental leave even if there are irregularities in the application. This is very important as it is often those who are in the greatest need of paid parental leave who have difficulty in filling out the application forms.

Thirdly, the bill gives review rights on paid parental leave to the Employment Relations Authority. This is also an important step to ensure there are cost-effective review and appeal mechanisms for the paid parental leave system, and the Green Party endorses this measure.

In regard to one of the suggested amendments to the bill made by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I still have some concerns with new section 2AD in clause 8. Along with some submitters I was concerned that the original wording discriminates against those workers who, because of their precarious employment situation, move, even concurrently at times, between self-employed and employee status. My concern is that these workers’ entitlements should be based on the sum total of their work, not just on one status or the other. Frankly, I am having difficulty deciding whether the proposed amendment of the committee to this provision makes the matter better or worse. I would be grateful if, at some stage during the second reading or Committee stage of the debate, the Minister or one of the select committee members could explain to the House the impact on these workers of the original clause and the amendment.

So what does this bill not do, and what still needs to be addressed if we are finally to have International Labour Organization - compliant legislation? First is the issue of the right of working mothers to breastfeed. I attempted in the previous paid parental amendment legislation to have this included, but was told it was outside the scope. It seems that it is outside the scope of this bill, as well. This is a real shame. In the mid-2003 review of the paid parental leave scheme the Human Rights Commission stated that providing a legal framework for the right to breastfeed at work need not be complex. It advocated that the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act would be the best vehicle for this. I strongly urge the Minister to ask her department to undertake work on this issue to develop further legislation as soon as possible.

Second is the issue around whāngai and other customary adoptions. The commentary on the bill acknowledges that there were submissions on these matters but again submitters were told that this was outside the scope of the bill. We are told by the Minister today that the Government is looking into this, but this is not good enough. The “looking at” seems to be taking far too long. It is time for the Government to engage on this deeply and carefully in consultation with iwi, hapū, and whānau, and with Pasifika and other cultural groups, with a view to extending the legislation to cover these situations as soon as practicable.

Third is the continuing problem of casual and seasonal employees. These are the most vulnerable workers in this country who often miss out on many employment rights and, of course, also miss out on the right to paid parental leave. I join with Peter Brown, who constantly reminds this House about the plight of these workers, and acknowledge that although it may be too hard to deal with these workers solely through this legislation we should perhaps look at some other legislation and take a complete look at the situation of casual and vulnerable workers, and perhaps even begin to consider some slight reregulation of the labour market to eliminate the exploitative practices around casualisation. Where genuine casual and seasonal work is needed, we should be ensuring that those workers are entitled to all the rights that permanent workers enjoy, such as paid parental leave.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that the Green Party is pleased to support this bill today and will do so again at the third reading. We are delighted that once the Minister of Labour and her Government acknowledged the discrimination against self-employed workers in the original bill they moved in a timely way to address these issues. We support the inclusion of the additional matters in the bill, especially the reduction from 12 months to 6 months of the entitlement period between births or adoptions, but we also recognise that there is still some way to go before this legislation can comply with all International Labour Organization standards. The Green Party will support any Government or member’s bill in the future that further strengthens this legislation and finally allows us to ratify the International Labour Organization in this area.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I would just like to clarify a few points at the start of my contribution. The first one is that I, and New Zealand First, recognise that Laila Harré was the first member to bring this issue before Parliament. But, as I recall—and I am 100 percent correct on this—the thrust of her bill was that employers would pay for paid parental leave. That simply was not acceptable to New Zealand First. I remember we told her that that was not acceptable, and, in fairness, the Labour-led Government picked up the bill and made it much more workable, in our view, by funding it through taxpayer funds. That is the way it should be.

The first bill was passed in 2002. New Zealand First supported that. We supported it wholeheartedly. We were told at that time that the self-employed were excluded because of complications, and what have you, but that they would be included in an amendment bill in the not too distant future. That amendment bill came about in 2004, but again it excluded the self-employed. We thought that was totally unfair. There is no real, major difficulty in including self-employed people in this legislation. As the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee found out, it is a relatively straightforward bill, and very little has been changed in the select committee process.

Sue Bradford, I think, referred to new section 2AD, inserted by clause 8. I hope I heard her correctly. She took issue with the fact that, as it is written here, a person who is both an employee and a self-employed person cannot get a combined entitlement. The select committee raised this issue—indeed, I think I raised it first at the select committee. I might be proven to be wrong on that, but I know that virtually everybody on the select committee supported that concern. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that she will produce a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage that will address that concern and allow people who are both employees and self-employed to combine their work efforts so that they can get the maximum entitlement. I think that will address Sue Bradford’s concern. I hope it does. We have not seen the Supplementary Order Paper as yet, of course, but we will await it with some excitement.

For the 4 years that we have had paid parental leave we have done a huge disservice to self-employed people—a huge disservice. That is why New Zealand First is quite delighted that we are in the throes of passing this bill today. Basically, some very highly paid employed people have been entitled to paid parental leave and some relatively low-paid self-employed people have not had any entitlement. We think that is grossly unfair, and we really cannot understand why it has taken so long for the Government to get its act together and address this issue.

I think the National Party member made some comment that this is basically a women’s bill. Well, in essence, because the bill will affect mothers, I suppose one could accept that rationale. But, believe it or not, thousands upon thousands—indeed, I suggest millions—of men are concerned about this issue. I read recently—and I wish I had brought it down to the House—what a good start this measure gives young kiddies because they have a person at home who is being paid for so many weeks. That is reflected not only in the mother’s viewpoint of the whole thing but also in the father’s. This is a very important bill for fathers so I think it is wrong of us even to imply that it is really a women’s bill, because that is not the case.

New Zealand First has one degree of concern. We tried to get it addressed during the select committee consideration of this bill but were told that it was a bit difficult and that there were reasons for not doing it. Our concern relates to when a person goes on paid parental leave and the employer has to, by law, hold the job open for 12 months—although the parent will get only 14 weeks’ pay. The employer has to hold the job open for 12 months, but during that time the parent—the mother or the father—could take a job elsewhere. Indeed, we were given an example of a person who was working somewhere down south, for a competitor, I think. The original employer was holding the job open for 12 months only to discover that the person he was holding the job open for was working for his competitor. That seems to us to be totally unfair and totally against the spirit of the whole thing. It is still the law that the job has to be held open. Meanwhile, the employer may be filling the role with someone who may not be right up to speed—who may not be of the right calibre or have the right experience for the job—simply to keep the spot open for the original employee.

New Zealand First believes that that issue really must be addressed. The reason that people cannot indicate to their employer that they are leaving and might not return is that they would forfeit the payment. We think there must be a way of overcoming that. Employers have a right to know, as accurately as possible, whether a staff member is coming back. It would really brass employers off to find out that they had held a job open only to find that the employee had gone somewhere else. As I say, the example given to the select committee whereby someone was working for a competitor is quite a sore point with New Zealand First.

We are absolutely delighted that this bill is proceeding. We think it is in the spirit of the original bill of 2002. We question why it did not come to fruition a lot more promptly. There is no major complication in giving paid parental leave to self-employed people and we are absolutely delighted that we are doing this now, albeit 4 years too late. New Zealand First supports this bill.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora tātou te Whare. Te Ururoa Flavell gave the Māori Party’s support to this bill at its first reading because it was consistent with our recognition of the importance of financial security for whānau. That financial security has never been more important than it is now, with record numbers of people on low incomes, record numbers of people on special benefits, record numbers of food parcels being distributed, and record numbers of children living in families that are below the poverty line. That financial security is especially urgent for Māori, particularly in light of the finding by the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, who noted the “underlying institutional and structural discrimination that Māori have long suffered”, and who also noted that disparities continue to exist between Māori and non-Māori with regard to employment, income, health, housing, education, and the criminal justice system.

I raise the special rapporteur’s report because of the importance of this House recognising the huge impact that poverty has on our society, especially given that this Government refuses to accept the need to measure poverty or even to acknowledge a poverty line, as if refusing to acknowledge poverty will mean that people will not notice it exists. Well, folks, it does not take too much analysis to work out who is most affected by poverty, with or without a line in place. Gisborne, Whangarei, Whanganui, Porirua, and Rotorua are the regions with the highest levels of poverty and, surprise, surprise, they are all regions with high Māori populations.

When times are tough any threat to employment is bound to increase pressure on a household, whether people are employed in the workforce, self-employed, in casual work, in multiple employment, or in seasonal employment. Our original doubts about the paid parental leave scheme were because self-employed people had been left out when a very significant portion of the population—more than 360,000—consider themselves to be self-employed. In fact, the number of Māori who are self-employed has increased by more than 200 percent over the past 20 years. So this matter has huge significance for the Māori Party, which is the only party to have taken up the challenge of defending Māori rights and advancing Māori interests.

On another level, this whole House acknowledges the considerable anxiety being expressed by both Labour and National about the unprecedented growth in Māori political participation since the birth of the Māori Party. This is rightfully so—and not before time too, I might add. Last month Labour Party president, Mike Williams, called in his Māori MPs and their staff to work out how to deal with the rise and rise of the Māori Party. He said there was an urgent need for Labour’s Māori MPs to be “making more of an impression on the Māori electorate” and getting organised. He also criticised what he called the sluggishness of Labour’s Māori MPs, but was not prepared to accept that Labour’s own insultingly bad treatment of its Māori MPs was a major reason why Māori are switching in droves to the Māori Party. Then over the weekend National’s deputy leader, Gerry Brownlee, told a National Party conference that National needs to be preparing for the Māori Party to hold the balance of power at the next election. Again, that was an acknowledgment of the ever-increasing role that the Māori Party is playing in the politics of Aotearoa.

Yet, fascinating as all this is, the real challenge before the Government should not be in scheming to undermine the Māori Party but in preparing for the real challenge of an ever-increasing Māori population and the rapid rise of Māori who are both politically mature and self-employed. Thirteen percent of self-employed Māori are aged under 30, compared with only 6 percent of non-Māori, and that proportion can only be expected to rise, given the youthful profile of the Māori population.

So how does all this relate to the legislation before the House today? To state the obvious, Māori make up 15 percent of the population and we are growing fast. As both Labour and National have recognised, Māori people and their Māori Party are here for the long haul. That means the Government needs to start planning to deal with the increasingly high numbers of Māori men and women who are self-employed, ensuring that they can access paid parental leave, and planning to enable those Māori who are self-employed casual, seasonal, or multi-job workers to access paid parental leave, as well.

The House has been focusing on the impact of extending the paid parental leave scheme to the self-employed, but it would be remiss of us to leave this debate today without again challenging the promotion of work over and above the unique and vital role of parenting. This Government seems to have abandoned support for the critical role that good parenting plays by depriving beneficiary parents of any support from the Working for Families package and by the ruthless slashing of funding for PlunketLine from the end of next month. The Māori Party is committed to supporting all parents, whether or not they work, to ensure that all children in this country can rise out of the poverty trap to which 250,000 of them have been consigned by this Government’s legislation.

I also come to this debate aware of the message of May Day yesterday—to look out for a grave and imminent threat requiring immediate assistance, an alert used around the world to signal a life-threatening emergency, a call to distress, or a threat to life. The threat this May Day has never been more apparent, and we must take every step to provide the support and assistance that parents need to carry out the most vital role of any in our society. When parents have time for their children, so will those children be less likely to stray from their parents’ values. We all know that good parenting is critical to building a stable society and that no matter how significant any of today’s developments might be, that most important role of parenting must never be undermined.

The Māori Party will support the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill, but we also call for a wider debate on the protection of parenting as one of society’s most important roles, for both Māori and non-Māori.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): When paid parental leave was introduced during the last Parliament in the year 2002, United Future immediately explicitly drew the attention of this House and of the nation to the need to extend the regime to the self-employed. Accordingly, we were delighted to see the Government act on that suggestion and introduce this bill. United Future acknowledged that there would be a measure of difficulty in extending paid parental leave to the self-employed, but to have not done so would have created a fundamental inequity, if not an unlawful discrimination, in favour of employees and against the self-employed. I am pleased to signal United Future’s strong support for this bill and I hope that all parties may come to a similar conclusion. Every speaker so far in this debate, I note, has signalled that his or her party will be supporting the bill, so perhaps we will see it go through on a unanimous vote. The only members we have not heard from—and I suspect we will not be hearing from them—are the ACT party members, so we will have to wait and see what happens in regard to those members.

After all, the arrival of a new baby is a wonderful event for the parents, whether they are self-employed or employed by others. United Future would argue that it is of great importance to the nation as a whole that we ensure that that new child, that new life, is given the best possible start in this world. Each baby born represents the future of our nation. Collectively, children comprise the future of our nation and, therefore, they are our most important investment in the social capital of our country going forward. In that respect I support many of the comments made by Hone Harawira, the previous speaker from the Māori Party, concerning the need for us as a nation and as a Parliament to ensure that we give the greatest possible support to those men and women who are undertaking life’s most important function or job—that is, to raise the children of the new generation.

United Future’s dream is to see that every child in this country is given the best possible opportunity to grow up and make a meaningful contribution to our society. Therefore, it is right and just that we give paid parental leave to all parents, regardless of whether they are employed by others or self-employed, or whether they are beginning a family through the natural birth process or adopting a child. Although I am not suggesting we do this, there is a philosophical argument that when it comes to the parents of adopted children, we should certainly ensure that they receive the same support as we give to parents whose children are not adopted, because it costs a great deal of money to adopt a child. To do that would recognise and include the reality of the cost of adopting children to some extent.

It was for the same sorts of reasons that United Future supported wholeheartedly the Working for Families package. The arrival of a new child is the beginning of a decades-long process of two human beings called parents who are—hopefully—both involved with that child for decades to come, and we need to ensure that they have the financial means to do that. Providing paid parental leave is the start. Therefore, it is important that this Parliament provides ongoing support for parents as they undertake that very important work.

Contrary to some of the comments made in 2002 around the issue of the self-employed not having paid parental leave—made mainly, as I recall, by members of the Labour Government, who have, I think, travelled some considerable distance on this matter since then—there was a sort of underlying thought that self-employed people are normally better off financially than employed people. I advise the House that during my term as an MP, I have spoken about this issue to quite a number of self-employed people, including self-employed women, who employ sometimes two or three other people. Having done a whole day’s work running their business, they sit down at the dining room table every night to look after all the compliance costs that we, as a House, have lumbered on those small-business people. Some of those women have told me that they have figured out that, at the end of the day, they are actually taking home less money than some of their own staff. That is the reality for many of those people. They are highly motivated people. They have chosen to be self-reliant and to start businesses, some of which, hopefully, grow to become larger companies and great successes, but in the meantime it is really hard graft. So it would be completely discriminatory and completely unjust if such people were not to be recognised for doing that and not given paid parental leave.

To those members of the Labour Government who come from a union background, and whose speeches in the House sometimes proceed on the assumption that all employees have been immaculately conceived and that all employers are fundamentally evil people, I say that they really need to get in touch with the real world, because that is not the reality. Many of those valiant New Zealanders who set out to run their own business, be it a hairdressing salon or whatever it is, really deserve the support of this House every bit as much as those people who, in some ways, have taken the easy option—like all of us in this House have—of having their pay packet paid for by other people.

With those few remarks I am happy to signal once again our strong support for this bill. I would have preferred the amendment to be introduced a little earlier in the process, but it is better late than never. We think this is a very worthwhile, forward-looking step for the future of our nation and particularly for parents.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am very pleased to support this amendment to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. Members are right when they say this amendment has been a long time in coming. It certainly has not just come out of the blue, as Dr Wayne Mapp would have us believe. Of course, this bill was announced before the election, and even before that. When the last amendment to the Act was going through this House and through the select committee, it was indicated that this amendment was coming. But, as we all know, it is a lot more complicated to provide paid parental leave for the self-employed than it is to provide it for those who are employed by others.

The difference between the National Party and the Labour Government on this issue is that we have never used that factor as an excuse to do nothing. We have never said that we would hold off on paid parental leave altogether until we had covered absolutely everything. We recognised the importance of paid parental leave to parents in this country and, therefore, we started with those people who were easier to draft legislation for and now we have then extended it further. When we decided—as promised in the election campaign—that we would extend paid parental leave and reduce the amount of time that a woman had to be in employment before she received it, we were still not ready to go forward with the amendments for the self-employed. But we put the bill to the House anyway, because we wanted to put those changes in place. Here we are now, as promised, providing very important legislation for those in self-employment.

Some members of the National Party love to misquote us. I do not know whether their research unit is not doing its work properly or whether they are deliberately trying to mislead this House, but they always try to say that Labour members have said they would not support paid parental leave for the self-employed—that it would be introduced over our dead bodies. In fact, that is not true. What we said was that we would not support a levy on employers in order to pay for parental leave—that that would be done over our dead bodies. I am sure the National Party supports that position, because it would be very difficult to provide paid parental leave to the self-employed if it was paid for by an employer levy.

It is interesting to ask whether, after this debate, we will even know what the National Party believes about paid parental leave. A number of members have made 10-minute speeches in which they spoke for 9 minutes and 50 seconds about how bad paid parental leave is, how it is welfare, and how they do not like it or support it, saying it is terrible and they never supported it. Then, in the last 10 seconds of their speeches, they have said: “The National Party will be supporting the bill. Thank you.” I look forward to seeing members of the National Party who have been very outspoken in previous years about how they do not support paid parental leave, saying it is immoral and is welfare, stand up today and cast their vote for paid parental leave. Why will they do so? Because those members know that it is popular and that it is helping New Zealand families.

If any bill shows how visionless and divided the National Party is, it is this bill. Let us be clear that the National Party does not support paid parental leave. It did not support it in the 1990s—it never introduced it. People now sitting in Opposition who said then that they did not support paid parental leave will stand up today and vote for it. If any bill shows just how divided the National Party is—because we know there are Opposition members who do support it, and who have come out and said they wished the National Party—[Interruption]

MOANA MACKEY: Who? Katherine Rich.

Hon Tau Henare: Prove it.

MOANA MACKEY: I can. There have been numerous quotes from Katherine Rich, when she had her child, saying she wished the National Party would support paid parental leave. Marie Hasler, a former National MP, urged her party to rethink its stance on paid parental leave. Members have stood up today and talked for nearly 10 minutes about how much they disliked this bill, and they then went on to say they would support it.

Pansy Wong says this is a terrible bill. Well, maybe Ms Wong would like to tell us why the party she belongs to is supporting the bill, if it is so terrible. I say to the National Party that if it wants to be in Government, it will have to start by working out what it actually believes in, and then vote according to that. I have no doubt that Mr David Bennett, who will get up next, will give us another 9 minutes and 50 seconds on how bad this bill is. Then he will sit down, after telling us that the National Party plans to support the bill.

Anne Tolley: At least they are saying something.

MOANA MACKEY: Anne Tolley put out a press release that stated how bad she thought paid parental leave was, and how she would never support it, but today she will stand up and cast the National Party’s votes for this bill. I say to the people of New Zealand that there is a word for that, and they need to think about that very carefully if they ever consider casting their vote for the National Party.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I just want to read my first line so Moana gets it—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will refer to another member by his or her full name or title. Thank you.

DAVID BENNETT: Just so that Moana Mackey understands it, it is with great pleasure that the National Party supports the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill in its second reading. This is not a 9-minute speech against the bill that will come to a conclusion in favour of it for the sake of public opinion. It has actually been a pleasure to be part of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and to work with our Labour and New Zealand First colleagues. Putting this legislation together has been very successful and very enjoyable.

In coming to this Parliament, I saw an institution where people do not work together. This is one bill on which people have worked together. However, we have some major problems. Why has it taken 4 years for us to all work together on this bill? The answer is quite simple: Labour did not know about it. It did not conceive of doing anything to help the self-employed. Why should it help the self-employed? The self-employed all vote National—that is what Labour thinks! But Labour found that a lot of people in its unions were self-employed. Those people came forward and said they were getting hammered by a piece of legislation that did not support them. So what was the result? Labour decided to come up with a bill for self-employed people, as well. So it did. But it was full of holes.

If one looks at the commentary on the bill, one will find at least four parts of it that say Labour will look at it again. All Minister Dyson could do today was read the commentary. There was no heart or soul. There was no idea of what the concept of paid parental leave for the self-employed actually meant. All we got were comments that Labour would look at those issues when it had to: “We’ll do a Supplementary Order Paper when and if we need to do it.” Why did it not do that when it put the bill together? It was because it did not know. It has no concept of what it is like to go out and earn money.

This bill involved a number of attributes that as constituent MPs we had seen at a practical level. Earlier this year a gentleman came into my office and told me a story that we took to the select committee. The story was an important part of the redrafting of the bill. He was a solo father at the time he came and saw me. About 9 months ago his wife injured herself while she was pregnant. She had a highly paid job at the local Waikato Hospital, and she was on accident compensation for the last 4 months of her pregnancy. Tragically, soon after giving birth to her third child she was killed in a motor vehicle accident. The solo father sought to transfer the paid parental leave entitlement to himself. The Inland Revenue Department would pay paid parental leave based only on the lower income of the accident compensation payments, not the higher possible total income on a pro rata basis. Effectively, he received the parental leave payments, but at a lower rate due to her being on accident compensation.

We have taken this case to the Minister and we have not received a satisfactory resolution at this stage. We also took it to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The Department of Labour and the select committee took it on board and rewrote the bill to bring the appropriate changes into effect. I ask members to look at new section 71C(b)(ia) in clause 20. That provision clarifies parental leave so that where a self-employed person takes parental leave before the baby’s due date then it is not included when calculating a self-employed person’s earnings. So they can be taking parental leave before the baby is born, and the parental leave payment will be based on the time in income, not on the time out of employment.

That is an important change to the bill that Labour did not recognise, because it did not understand the practical implications. It is an important change that we also need to see in the employer-employee section for situations where people may be in an accident compensation situation like that and not receiving their full entitlement.

Another example that has not been sorted out by this legislation was brought to us by Business New Zealand. It brought to us the case where many permanent employees on parental leave may be replaced by an employee on a fixed-term agreement. If that employee—the one who is the replacement—is pregnant, then the new employee will be eligible for parental leave during the term of the agreement. Business New Zealand submitted that in those cases the agreement cannot be terminated on grounds other than those in the agreement. So when the temporary employee has finished parental leave, he or she will be able to return to the job to complete the remainder of the term of the agreement. Business New Zealand was concerned that a second temporary replacement will need to be found to replace the first temporary employee. It submitted that this situation could not arise if the eligibility criteria still operated in terms of hours worked over the 12 months.

This Government has failed to look into the situation and deliver anything in the bill to cover that situation. The New Zealand First - Labour Government thought this issue was not big enough to warrant amending the legislation. That is symptomatic of a Government that has no concept of economic policy. This Government has squandered an economic future that was built over the last 20 years. We are in a situation now of zero growth over the last 6 months. It is a classic tax-and-spend, left-wing Government that has strangled our economy. Belated attempts like this to recognise the self-employed show Labour’s contempt for those who are trying to build a better New Zealand.

But what can one expect from two political parties like Labour and New Zealand First? New Zealand First’s economic campaign during the election was to buy back companies like Telecom so that it could give cheap rates for telephone calls to some of the potential voters. That is the content and extent of New Zealand First’s economic policy, and that is why it has butchered this economy through a failure to recognise the productive heartland of this country.

People such as the self-employed have waited too long for fair treatment and a just basis with other New Zealanders. This Government has spoken about the concept of fairness—that was one of its first words—but it has left self-employed people out. How fair is that? Fairness is when you deliver for all New Zealanders and then you can have a situation where the strength of parenting that has been identified by a number of parties today is actually met through legislation.

We have some other issues in this legislation that show that fairness is not top of Labour’s mind. A key one is adoption, especially in the Māori and Pacific Island communities. It recognises adoption in the traditional sense but not from those communities. In this legislation all we get is: “We’ll deal with it later.” Will it be 4 years before you deliver fairness to people in those communities?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You are bringing the Speaker into the debate.

DAVID BENNETT: But such practicalities do not faze a Labour Government. It has not looked after the people the Green Party so rightly identified as being temporary and seasonal employees. It does not worry about fairness there. It will deal with it later at some point in the future when it has to. That is simply not good enough. The people who made submissions on this bill made them on the basis of fairness and equity for all New Zealanders. They wanted to see people have that opportunity and start in life. It is with great encouragement that we support those families and we look forward to the passing of this legislation for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt the honourable member’s speech, but I seek leave of the House to table the New Zealand First policy that embraces our economic policy at the last election, in order that the member might learn a little bit about what has happened.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is not really a point of order, but you are entitled to seek leave anyway. Is there any objection? There is.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Education Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): Mr Chairman, I ask you to excuse my quiet speaking; I have a touch of the flu and my voice is not functioning as well as it might normally. That does not diminish the importance of the issues that we will deal with in this legislation. We intend to lay down a number of amendments to this legislation, because although there are aspects of it that we support—for instance, the change in the funding for the regulatory environments in early childhood care—we believe this is an opportunity for the New Zealand education system to take another step forward.

In that respect, National will table amendments in this part that legislate for national standards in literacy and numeracy. We believe that every child and every parent in New Zealand should be provided with the information that tells them what progress is being made in the fundamental competencies of citizenship. At the moment a wide range of testing mechanisms is used in New Zealand schools. Generally, they are used in a positive way to lift the achievement of our young people. We do have some instances of national standards already. For instance, in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement one of its positive aspects has been the institution of national standards in literacy and numeracy, so that someone aged 15 or 16, for instance, can get university entrance only if he or she has achieved a certain standard of literacy as defined by the tests laid out there.

National’s amendments will provide for the maximum flexibility. They will write into the National Education Guidelines a requirement for national standards and also a requirement in the annual reports of schools for a statement in which schools provide an analysis of the progress of students, measured against those standards. I emphasise “progress”, because it is the progress of the child in which we are vitally interested, not the standard or the testing system in themselves. The amendments are couched within the National Education Guidelines, because that is where the Minister will determine the national standards.

I imagine there will be a fairly extensive debate within the education sector should these amendments pass, because there will be a range of views over whether it is appropriate to set the national standards at year 4 or year 8—the middle of primary school or the end of primary school—and over just which mechanism should be used for those standards. I myself would prefer that the Minister designate benchmarks within the existing tests, because some of those are widely used. Progressive achievement tests and asTTle are well known to teachers, and are used extensively. They generate useful data, and are understood and often welcomed by teachers. If the Minister designated benchmarks within those existing tests, that would meet the definition of national standards as laid down in this legislation. That is why the term is used in the legislation in the plural. There does not have to be one particular standard; there can be a range of national standards.

Some of my other colleagues will introduce amendments to other aspects of this legislation. I hope the Minister will welcome a sensible discussion, in particular around the regulatory regime for early childhood education, because we believe that can be improved. The Education and Science Committee looked at that issue in some detail and there is now an opportunity, as a result of that reflection, to improve the regulatory structure so that we can maintain the variety and the choice of provision in early childhood education. We will also provide an amendment about the use of the National Student Number. We are broadly supportive of the concept, but we believe it can be more effectively used.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I, too, want to congratulate the people who have been behind some of these amendments. I would like to cut to the chase, as it were, and speak about the National Education Guidelines and the amendment to insert new clause 5A that the Hon Bill English is moving to amend section 60A by inserting after paragraph (b): “(ba) national standards, which are standards for literacy and numeracy applicable to all students in an age or year group:”.

How can it be that we should not be supporting this? In a modern world we need to know how our kids are doing in literacy and numeracy first and foremost. So it goes without saying that we should have at least something in the Act, something in the regulations that this auspicious organisation here—the Parliament of New Zealand—sets out. But have we got that? No, we have not. We do not have any guidelines. We do not have any standards of literacy or numeracy—the two key things that have allowed young people through the ages to get on in life, make choices, have options in front of them, go ahead, go to work, have families, bring up their children, and so on and so forth. Literacy and numeracy are the two things that make a nation full of educated people go on, get jobs, and do the things that we take for granted. We owe it to these young people to make sure that there are standards for literacy and numeracy—and that they are applicable not just to some, but to all age groups.

So we in the National Party do not have any reason to believe that we should not be supporting these amendments from the Hon Bill English. It is absolutely crucial that we do. We also say upfront that we will be supporting the Māori Party’s numerous amendments. It goes without saying, for me especially, that we should take on board the Māori Party’s amendments in terms of the use or the finished use of Māori land given over for educational purposes. I think that that is an honourable stance, and we will certainly be supporting that.

There are others issues that we must debate during the Committee stage. Section 317, in clause 43, deals with early childhood regulations, and we will be getting to that later on. I can tell the Committee that we will be supporting the amendment from the Māori Party, essentially for one reason, and one reason only. Many people in the Māori Party and the National Party have had experience in running early childhood centres. They have had operational experience in kōhanga and the like, and we know that at the end of the day, if there is one thing we can do to inhibit a young person’s education, it is to throw more regulations at the centres. If more and more regulations are thrown at the centres, then all that the teachers and the people who run the centres will be doing is walking around with a clipboard making sure that their regulations are covered and checked off. By the end of the day, when they have finished all the bureaucratic nonsense, the children at the centres—whom we are all supposed to be there for—will not be educated in any way, shape, or form.

There is a need for standards, and there is a need for regulations, but over-the-top, bureaucratised and sanitised places of learning will not do anything for the young people or for our communities.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): I want to pick up where the Hon Tau Henare left off, and that is section 317 in clause 43—subsection (2)(b), I think—about the prescribed criteria. I have to note first of all that at the Education and Science Committee there was no minority report from National over this particular issue. Only one group brought it to the attention of the Education and Science Committee, and that was the Early Childhood Council. Even that group—and I have its submission here—explained that currently, before this bill goes through, there are major powers to set minimum standards by Order in Council, and these are expanded in section 317(2)(a).

The new powers largely incorporate what is already in the Desirable Objectives and Practices. The Ministry of Education is talking about collapsing the Desirable Objectives and Practices, but the interesting thing—or the ironic thing—about the member who has just resumed his seat is that the last Desirable Objectives and Practices went through a Cabinet where that member was actually sitting around the table and where the same sorts of prescribed criteria as in this particular bill were talked about. The fact is the issue was not raised very strongly at the select committee, although it has been brought up since. In fact, I was the person who raised the issue during the second reading debate—that there were inherent dangers in the bill, because we were actually giving the bureaucracy, the ministry, extraordinary powers so that it could have in fact said that all early childhood centres had to be painted blue.

New Zealand First said no—that that was going too far and that we did need to do something about this. So we talked to the Minister of Education and we said it should not be the Secretary for Education who promulgates the prescribed criteria—it should be the Minister. Secondly, we said it has to come under parliamentary scrutiny, and to do that I have put forward an amendment that will ensure that it comes under the purview of the Regulations Review Committee but does not have to be drawn up by parliamentary counsel. In other words, we want to steer clear of the “lawyer-ese” that may be there.

I refer now to the Māori Party’s amendments. I know full well that the ultimate agenda of the Early Childhood Council was to get to that point—that is, to get rid of prescribed criteria altogether. I have talked to people about self-locking gates on pools. The Education Review Office, when I was the Minister responsible for it, used to run around and check these in schools, but, in fact, schools did not require them by regulation. It picked up many schools that did not have self-locking gates and, in other words, posed a danger to students. New Zealand First is not prepared to have a regime in which there is the necessity for some prescribed criteria in order to ensure that students are protected. If we are talking about guidelines only, then early childhood centres can choose to ignore them or pay lip-service to them.

I have to talk about the discussion document that is out there. It talks about most of the criteria actually being descriptions. But there is still a need in some cases to be prescriptive, and I have just given members the example of self-locking gates. Some of the draft criteria will have to be prescriptive in nature—and this is in the Desirable Objectives and Practices. For example, the ratio of toilets to children. Should that be prescribed or just described? Should there just be a general standard—centres can have as many children per toilet as they like—or should the number to prescribed? What about having an approved fire evacuation scheme? Should that be prescribed or should it just be set down as best practice? What is actually happening—and it has been going on for a number of years—is that this draft code is being developed, and it is a combination of descriptive and prescriptive.

I will give members an example. One of the things required is that there be a space for a sick child, where that sick child can be temporarily isolated from other children, can lie down comfortably, and can be supervised. The prescriptive part of that is that there must be a space available for that sick child. The descriptive part, which can be done in a variety of ways according to the particular provider, is the next three bullet points, and there is no prescription on those—how the child is to be temporarily isolated, how the child can lie down comfortably, or how he or she is to be supervised. They are the descriptive parts.

New Zealand First has negotiated with the Minister, and the Minister has certainly played ball. He has seen that there is an issue here and put up an amendment whereby instead of the secretary being the person responsible for the prescribed criteria, the Minister is. We believe that will mean people will be a whole lot more careful and we will not get silly prescriptions. Secondly, if our amendment is passed, the criteria will come under the purview of the Regulations Review Committee, and that will mean there will be a level of scrutiny.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): I rise to speak in opposition to the bill, but in doing so I commend the chairman of the Education and Science Committee for the outstanding job he has done, at least in getting the bill to this point. I believe that if the Government is willing to listen carefully to what members on the Opposition side of the Chamber have to say, the Government will find that useful.

I would like to address a number of issues in Part 1. The first is the National Student Number, the proposal that every student passing through the schooling system should have a number that goes along with that student. I will be moving an amendment to that, because I think the problem with the provision is typical of where Governments of the left consistently get it wrong when they deal with education. They forget about parents and the interest they have in their children’s learning. In terms of the National Student Number, my amendment seeks to expand the definition of “authorised user” to include parents, guardians, or caregivers of children.

The interpretation clause provides for all sorts of agencies, such as the Ministry of Education, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, the Tertiary Education Commission, Career Services, and goodness knows which other agencies to have access to that information but not for parents to have access. It strikes me there is a huge irony in all of that. The groups of people who control the Government schooling system and who now seek to control, I have to say, the early childhood education sector, such as the ministry, the Government bureaucracies—like the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Education Review Office—the teachers unions, and the teacher-training providers do not have the same aspirations and ambitions for children that their parents have for them.

A really interesting situation has been allowed to develop over the years, whereby now it is the parents who are expressing academic ambition. It is parents, from all backgrounds and in all communities, who, to use a phrase often used by critics of mine against me, have an “elitist” view of what they want for their children. Parents want there to be academic excellence in learning, reading, mathematics, science, and history. Those aspirations and ambitions are not matched by those that exist in the Government bureaucracies. For that reason, I believe it is important that parents have the same standing as those bureaucracies in having access to information.

My amendment also proposes a new paragraph itemising the measuring of students’ educational achievement in literacy and numeracy as a specific purpose for which an authorised user may use the National Student Number. None of us doubts the absolute importance of literacy and numeracy. All of us, on both sides of the Chamber, are concerned about the statement made by the Education Review Office in its June 2005 report to Parliament that up to 20 percent of children are not experiencing success at school. We may argue as to whether the figure is 20 percent, 15 percent, 18 percent, or whatever percentage it may be, but the fact is that 1 percent would be 1 percent too much.

The Minister has stated in the Chamber—and I agree with him—that at long last, with the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and the provision for minimum literacy and numeracy standards, we have a measure as to how well our students are doing. For the first time, we have a measure. For the first time, we have data that tells us, for example, the percentage of students in a particular school that is achieving minimum level 1 standards in literacy and numeracy. It is vital that that information is readily available to parents, just as it is vital that it is used to inform teaching practice and to ensure that just having the data on its own is not an end in itself. We must actually do something with that data to ensure that children who are not achieving success at school do so. I am one of those educators who believe that all children are capable of learning. I am one of those people who believe that if a child can learn to talk, he or she can be taught to read. It cannot be acceptable on either side of the Chamber that we continue to allow whichever figure it is of our children to pass through the education system unable to do that.

I turn my attention to the early childhood education provisions in Part 1. I think the same thing is happening as has happened in the schooling sector: a consolidation of power and authority in Wellington. Just as that has happened with regard to schools, and just as we are seeing the initiative, innovation, and creativity being squeezed out of schools because of the compliance-driven requirements of the Government, so we will see the same thing happen to early childhood education centres. That must be resisted. We know that in whichever educational authority one looks at anywhere in the world, one sees that centralisation promotes mediocrity. It never has and never can promote excellence. Yet once we start that process of centralising a system and see that it does not work, we centralise it further, and then more and more. We must avoid doing that.

I have a question for the New Zealand Educational Institute, the union that represents kindergarten teachers. I ask where it is speaking in support of kindergartens. My wife and I had four children, and they were kindergarten kids. I pay tribute to the teachers at Waterloo Kindergarten in Lower Hutt and Taradale Kindergarten in Napier, where our sons and daughters went. I think of the number of times we dug the sandpit and painted the roof. We did our share. We became involved in the community, because it suited our family’s circumstances. Let us be very, very careful that as a result of what is proposed in the bill, inadvertently or otherwise, we do not squeeze kindergartens out of the system. The kindergarten provision works for a lot of families. It works for those families that want to have their children at home with a parent for some of the day.

I cannot help but reflect—and if Government members were quiet, they might like to reflect as well—that if it were a National Government that was proposing this provision, people like me would be burnt in effigy on the forecourt of Parliament. I ask the teacher unions why there is such selectivity. We know the answer to that: unfortunately, the teacher unions have let themselves be sucked into the business of supporting political parties of the left. They have let themselves get caught up in trade union agendas, and that has become more important than the quality of learning for children.

I also want to refer to the provision for the protection of teachers. That protection is very, very much needed. The Minister, in a very good speech made at lunchtime today honouring the excellent teachers of New Zealand, commented that individual teachers—

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): I rise to support, with all the sincerity I can, the amendment to insert a new clause 5A, which is proposed by my good colleague the Hon Bill English.

I suppose I have a real interest in this matter because the National Education Guidelines and the National Administration Guidelines were matters that I was very heavily involved in in the early 1990s as Minister of Education. Over the years it has been a cause of some concern to me that although the new school curriculum documents established at the time set out achievement goals across the core school curriculum, the concept of developing those into standards that, in certain of the key areas, could be perhaps more appropriately monitored was something that I am not sure ever developed quite to fruition. I think most schools continue to say that the National Education Guidelines and the curriculum statements that form part of them are still pretty useful bases for our curriculum, but I think many people feel it is time now to see whether we can find a way, in the key areas of literacy and numeracy, to move forward.

I note that the amendment my good colleague the Hon Bill English is moving is very wisely worded to make sure it does not try to impose inappropriate standards on schools. This amendment is a very generalised statement. It states: “national standards, which are standards for literacy and numeracy applicable to all students in an age or year group:”. It leaves to further development the actual specific identification of those standards. What is also vital is his amendment to insert a new clause 6A, which proposes that “schools provide an analysis of the progress of students measured against any national standard in literacy and numeracy published under section 60A(ba):”. That is the bit covered by the first part of the amendment.

So I urge the Committee to give the amendment its support. I think it is a carefully worded amendment. It is not trying to impose a whole new thing on our schools. It is a sensible development out of the existing National Education Guidelines. It leaves flexibility for appropriate standards to be developed out of the current national curriculum statements—the relevant ones for literacy or English language, and for numeracy. I think it has been very carefully thought through. I would like to congratulate my colleague Bill English on the work that has gone into it. I hope members will see fit to support it.

This issue is so fundamentally important. So much learning is simply limited if students do not develop at an early age capability in literacy and numeracy. I do not think that is being in any way unrealistic. Most people who think sensibly about education would accept that education is very important. Let me give an example to show what I mean. If one thinks about it, one realises that one cannot think without language. Someone once said that it is only through finding the words that one discovers what one thinks. I suggest that the Minister of Education tries to think without language, tries to think without words. It is not possible. If we want a thinking citizenry, if we want people who are able to think and work through their lives, and to lead their lives to the fullest, they must have literacy—they must have language. The sophistication of one’s ability to think, and think clearly, depends totally on one’s language. We cannot think in a vacuum of language. Likewise, we cannot think about mathematical concepts without having the numeracy framework within which to think.

I am not saying this based on some obscure view of someone who has not been involved in education. I was Opposition spokesperson on education for 3 years, and Minister of Education for almost 6 years. On the basis of all that experience, and also 13 years at university myself, I urge the Committee to give this amendment its support. It is a wise amendment.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): The Māori Party has a Supplementary Order Paper on the Education Amendment Bill, and I would like to speak to some of the matters raised in it. Clause 6(1) inserts new section 70A covering education lands. The Māori Party amendment adds three new provisions: firstly, when the Minister of Education declares that land is no longer needed for educational purposes, it is a requirement that the Minister offer the land back to the former Māori owners; secondly, if the land was gifted it must be returned at no cost or charge; and, thirdly—and this is quite an interesting one from Judge Eddie Durie—if the land was not gifted, the chief executive of Land Information New Zealand must take into account the circumstances in which the land was acquired from the Māori owner. As acknowledged by Eddie Durie, the circumstances are critical as, for many whānau and hapū, the land was given because of the importance of education. It was not given as a sale contract in the normal sense.

I would like to talk about section 154A(5), inserted by clause 30. We are seeking support for a new subsection (5), but I will quote the existing new subsection: “No school may have its designation as a Kura Kaupapa Maori removed unless the Minister has first consulted with te kaitiaki o Te Aho Matua (as identified under section 155B).” The question of the diagnostic criteria for kura kaupapa Māori has been debated for some time now—since it began—and it has been the cause of some concern to those who have created this model of school for New Zealand.

In order to establish kura kaupapa Māori, kōhanga whānau went outside the education system at incredible cost to themselves financially, physically, and spiritually. They have built schools outside the system, and were given no assistance at all initially. For 5 years we existed outside the school system, before Tomorrow’s Schools, and the change of our educational arrangements, when we became a bona fide school under the Education Act of 1989. But, after that, once a school type becomes legislated for, the Minister then owns it and can prescribe criteria for the school.

The whole reason we stayed outside the education system to establish the school was to establish the special character—that is, Te Aho Matua. Te Aho Matua is a set of Māori philosophies that guides the teaching of the school. Essentialy, kura kaupapa Māori is an alternative education programme for all New Zealanders, but it is specially designed for Māori to cater for the other Treaty partner—the Māori people, their culture, their beliefs, their spiritual system, their knowledge, their language, and their customs.

We found that Ministers and other people were designating schools to be kura kaupapa Māori when they did not meet the criteria by which the Act described them, so we took Te Aho Matua and brought it here, to the House. The Hon Tau Henare, when he was Minister of Māori Affairs, pushed it through so that we could get Te Aho Matua passed into legislation. This meant that the only people who could approve a kura kaupapa Māori as being bona fide were those who were in charge of that philosophy, Te Aho Matua. Te Aho Matua philosophy is very broad. It can be applied to various tribal customs, and so on, but it is essentially from the knowledge basket of Māori. It was really important that that be legislated for, and it was legislated for. As a result, schools that want to become kura now have to adhere to Te Aho Matua in order to be a bona fide kura kaupapa Māori.

So we would like to propose that the amendment be that no school may have its designation changed from, or to, a kura kaupapa Māori unless the Minister has first sought the approval of the kaitiaki o Te Aho Matua. That is in section 155B, “Te Kaitiaki o Te Aho Matua” of the principal Act. Really, it is a way of protecting that school type. Otherwise, why did our people stay outside the system for 5 years, at great cost to themselves, to create this model? That is a very important concern for us.

The other concern is about kōhanga reo, and we support the Early Childhood Council’s call—in opposition to what has been described over here—for an amendment to section 317(2)(b) in clause 43 to ensure that criteria are not prescribed but are merely guidelines. We have heard the arguments for them being prescribed, and there are some good ones—safety and things like that. But, at the end of the day, prescription stifles innovation and development, especially things Māori—things that Māori people know but those who are in authority do not know. Therefore, we often find ourselves being shut out by prescription.

Finally, I refer to sections 309 and 310 in clause 43. These amendments are about properly recognising the unique identity of kōhanga reo in the early childhood sector. Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust are concerned that the unique identity of kōhanga reo is compromised in this bill, because it categorises kōhanga reo as being early childhood education providers, when their scope and purpose is wider than education and is whānau centred. We had a great deal of difficulty when we set up kōhanga reo. When we said: “This is kōhanga.”, we were told: “No, you’re a play centre.” When we said: “No, we’re kōhanga.”, we were told: “No, you’re an early childhood centre.” When we said: “No, we’re kōhanga.”, we were told: “Well, you’re a kindergarten.”, and we said: “No, we’re kōhanga.” The essential thing about kōhanga is that it is a Māori concept. Kōhanga means a nest. It is a nest concept, a whānau concept; it is a concept that nurtures the child in a different knowledge base. So we are concerned that the identity of the kōhanga remains distinct to that Māori definition. The proposed amendments mean that kōhanga can be recognised as being part of the sector without their being categorised in definitions that do not fit.

Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust also has an issue with the regulations that will come out of this bill, particularly in relation to playgroups being funded for only 4 hours per day. Currently, kōhanga have an exemption to be open for 6 hours each day, and we ask whether this exemption will continue or whether the hours for funding will be cut. An amendment is being proposed to ensure the ongoing entitlement of kōhanga to receive funding for 6 hours per weekday. Also, under section 316 we propose an amendment that kōhanga reo can choose to be licensed as service providers, thus qualifying for funding, rather than making the licensing mandatory for them.

What we are really putting forward here is, in fact, the Māori knowledge point of view. Kōhanga and the kura kaupapa are Māori concepts. Let them live and breathe as Māori concepts without over-regulating them to become what they are not.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the Committee stage of this bill. First of all, I would like to comment on the amendments proposed by Bill English and the Māori Party. United Future has some real sympathies with some of the areas they cover, although there are shades of grey within one or two of them, particularly in one that Bill English is putting up. Our concern is about process, and as United Future is not represented on the Education and Science Committee, I made some inquiries about what the committee had covered. This Education Amendment Bill is a bit of an omnibus bill. It covers a whole lot of different things, tidies up a whole lot of areas, and brings in some new initiatives that are, of themselves, a bit disconnected. I can see what has happened here. Because of the diverse nature of the bill, the temptation has been for other parties to use the Committee of the whole House as an opportunity to slap on a whole lot of their own ideas and policies. I can understand that temptation, but it is very bad process.

Some of the things being suggested were never canvassed at the select committee. Submitters never had the chance to address them, or to comment on them. Here, late in the process, we are trying to bring about changes to things that were never discussed in the select committee. Nor were submitters able to make submissions on them.

Hon Tau Henare: Do you agree with them?

JUDY TURNER: Well, I could tease those things out. But let me explain. I got an early draft of Mr English’s ideas on this, and, because United Future has some real sympathies around making sure we teach to standards, and that standards are available in schools, I rang some key leaders within the education sector who have some serious reservations about what is being proposed and who, as key stakeholders in this matter, would certainly appreciate the chance to discuss with the select committee what is being proposed. They feel that this process is completely side-stepping that opportunity for them.

One of the things that always concerns me on this matter when we hear it discussed is the assumption that teachers are teaching without any standards and with no sense at all of where children are at. When I was at primary school, just before the mid-year and end-of-year writing of reports, children went through a series of literacy tests with the principal or the teacher of the class in order to assess word recognition skills. Some of those are still used as indicators. This testing occurred once or twice a year to measure children against some standards, and the outcome determined what was written on one’s report. A few years later, after I had gone through high school and teachers college, I was a primary school teacher myself and found that the situation had changed dramatically. Some radical things had happened with the teaching of literacy in Zealand. We were world leaders in that regard. We were teaching children individually, with running records that were updated virtually on a daily basis. In fact, it was an extremely onerous part of the teaching process. Most of us were grabbing kids before school to try to fit in this very, very rigorous assessment of how children were learning, what their instructional level was, and what their reading level was. Any parent or guardian who walked in off the street to ask where his or her child was at would have been told very accurately, in any given week of the year, exactly what level he or she was performing at.

Also, in the area of numeracy a whole lot of rather neat approaches were being taken, including pre-testing children at the beginning of a particular area of learning to determine which maths group they would be put into, assessing what their learning needs were, testing at the end of each unit to see how they had progressed, and determining whether they had understood what was being taught. We were teaching to a very rigorous set of evaluations that had been put in place. I have been a trained primary school teacher for nearly 30 years, and those evaluations were in place for the whole time I was in education. I find it almost offensive at times when people imply that teachers teach in some sort of haphazard way and with no idea of where the children are at or where they are taking them. So we are very supportive of the fact that there are some very clear standards available in the primary sector, and in the secondary sector, as well.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago): I rise to support the amendments that have been proposed by our spokesperson on education, Bill English, and I will tell members why. I think that what we really need in education, as parents, as parliamentarians, and as members of the community, is to know how well our kids are doing at school. I talked some years ago to the headmaster of an Ōāmaru school I am very familiar with, and he said to me he wanted his kids to leave the school knowing, at the very least, how to do their times tables. That was the target, the standard, he set for that school in Ōāmaru, and I have to say he set all sorts of other very high standards in terms of behaviour, homework, reading, and kids learning their numbers.

Therefore, I support the amendment to insert new clause 5A, which has been proposed by Bill English: “Section 60A is amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (b): (ba) national standards, which are standards for literacy and numeracy applicable to all students in an age or year group:”. How exciting a thought it is to know that the kids who leave that excellent school in Ōāmaru at the age of 12 and then go on to the next step in their education at high school, which is a wholly different ball game, will at least perhaps know their times tables, and at least have standards in literacy. They will achieve at whatever level is determined, but at least they will go forward with those standards.

Mr English’s amendment to insert new clause 6A follows on from that. It states: “Section 87(2) is amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (e): (f) a statement in which schools provide an analysis of the progress of students measured against any national standard …”. Yay! Now we will know how our kids are doing against that standard. As the mother of two boys and a girl who went through school, and as a parent who was involved closely in their education from probably the very moment they went to day care, I know that that kind of information about the school and about how our kids are measuring up in that school is hugely important and hugely valuable. So I support wholeheartedly those two amendments as proposed.

Other aspects of Part 1 of this bill concern me, and they are to do with early childhood education. Again, I have experienced early childhood education as an involved parent, two of my children having been through day care, as it was called back then—a while ago—so I have concerns about some of the provisions in this bill. I believe that some of the provisions in Part 1 are all about unnecessary regulation—in fact, about too much regulation. Surely, our top priority in education and in day care is actually the kids. The issue is about the care of children; it is not about systems, so much. The issue is not about the ministry or the bureaucrats; it is actually about the children. I think that parts of the bill do not focus on the needs of children whatever their age, but just add more bureaucracy and more regulation to early childhood education, and add yet more sanitisation to our children’s lives.

Under new Part 26 inserted by clause 43 of the bill I make the following points, and I refer to new section 317(2), which states: “Regulations made under subsection (1) may do all or any of the following: (a) prescribe minimum standards relating to premises, facilities, programmes of education, practices in relation to children’s learning and development, implementation of the curriculum framework …”—

PANSY WONG (National): The only excitement in this Committee stage of the debate is being provided by the proposed amendments. Any political parties that fail to support the amendments proposed by the Hon Bill English and Allan Peachey to measure the performance of students are failing parents and failing our children. I want those political parties to listen and to reflect very carefully. Our children are our future, and I say an education amendment bill should endorse amendments that put in place provisions to assist parents to know the potential of students and keep abreast of the progress of their children.

The late Rt Hon David Lange, the visionary Labour Prime Minister, gave New Zealand Tomorrow’s Schools. He knew that parents and children are the people who really matter, and that the educational standards of schools should be tailored to meet the needs of parents and children. But this Labour regime has turned the late Rt Hon David Lange’s vision of Tomorrow’s Schools into “Yesterday’s Schools”. It has taken the initiative from parents and from assisting children, and given it back to the bureaucracy. It is saying that Wellington, the Ministers, and the bureaucrats know what is best for parents and children.

I challenge political parties like United Future, the Greens, the Māori Party, and New Zealand First to explain to their constituents, when they go back to them, why they have failed to support amendments to make sure taxpayers’ money is put into education and into schools to help our children. It is not to give jobs to bureaucrats, or to enable bureaucrats to continue to demand compliance costs and tie up our teachers in filling out forms. Their job is to help our children—our future generation—to get the best possible education and to know their progress. So I cannot see how those political parties can face their supporters and say they will not support these important amendments. They are the only amendments to inspire me to come down to the Chamber and take a call, to say that I am excited about our education system. Because the Tomorrow’s Schools scheme was started by the inspirational late Rt Hon David Lange, I challenge the Labour Party to honour its previous leader by saying it understands, as he understood, that parents are important and that they want the best education for their children.

I have another question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steve Maharey, apart from the major one: when did we exempt education amendment bills from the requirement that compliance cost statements be furnished? I want the Minister to take a call and tell us when Labour declared that compliance cost statements did not have to accompany an education amendment bill. I want to know by how much this bill will increase the compliance costs met by schools, but that is a lesser point compared with the lack of acceptance of the amendments so correctly and rightly proposed by the Hon Bill English and my colleague Allan Peachey. I do not think that anybody can challenge the statements made by Allan Peachey, who does not just talk the talk. He is actually a successful and an accomplished principal who knows what is best for students, and who has come to Parliament with a single purpose: to inspire politicians to put forward amendments and champion bills that ensure our children get the best possible education. I think the Minister owes it to us to explain why he would not even reflect on those very worthwhile amendments.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I move, That the question be now put.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura): It is a pleasure to be speaking to the Education Amendment Bill. I recognise the chair of the Education and Science Committee and the work that has been done over the period of time that this bill has come forward; it is now in the Committee stage. I take on board Judy Turner’s comments with regard to embellishing and broadening out. But in a sense I will talk about something that was discussed within the essence of the select committee process, around adding a bit of comfort and safety to our teaching fraternity, recognising that they do perform their very, very best in a safe environment.

I believe that even since the introduction of this bill into the House things have moved progressively in the wrong way. When I was speaking to a number of my teaching friends in Blenheim, it was quite clear that they are aware they do have systems in place that are actually very negative towards the school as a whole in handling abusiveness, intimidation, and suchlike. But there needs to be more structure around those issues.

So I am proposing that we make an amendment, and ask for the support of members in the Committee. Supplementary Order Paper 26 recommends that people under the criminal age are not subject to those requirements, but those who are over 14 years may be charged with offences of insulting, abusing, or intimidating a teacher or a member of staff of a school, and that it is clarified that such an offence may also be carried out by electronic means. I believe this is very important.

This afternoon at lunchtime we enjoyed rewarding 20 of the very best teachers we have in New Zealand. There were 560 nominations for the ASG National Excellence in Teaching awards. I was absolutely delighted to see that one of those 20 was, in fact, a lady teacher from Fairhall School, Pauline Graham. It is great to see them being recognised. But I do believe there are very solid grounds for students to face charges—even though the select committee through the process decided to go with the flow that, in actual fact, a student would not have to face a charge for an offence such as insult and abuse. I would like to see this strengthened. That would show that we take our teachers seriously, that we treat their profession honourably, and that they are professionals. So I really beseech members to be supportive of that amendment, because I think it is long overdue, and we have to empower our teachers to be excellent.

With regard to the measurables of education, my expertise comes from the point of view of dealing with the failures of literacy and numeracy. So I am greatly enthused when I see that there is the potential for the Minister of Education to be able to set literacy and numeracy standards. We do not know just how serious this situation is; we do not know just how much it is costing our country. I can understand the sensitivities around the issue, but I believe it is as important as a good health system. A dollar invested wisely shows a maximum return. So I would very strongly support those recommendations put forward by way of amendment in new clause 5A, “National education guidelines”—that there are national standards for literacy and numeracy, applicable to all students of all ages and year groups. That would be very important. The expectation that schools will report on those standards will engage parents and give them the absolute confidence that their children are not dropping through the cracks.

I have noticed that there is growing dissatisfaction and a growing movement towards looking for excellence in education. I discovered, with some sorrow, when I approached the Minister on behalf of the Richmond View School, which wanted to move from a primary section into secondary up to year 13, that there was not the scope or capability within the ministry to see the wisdom of this. In Blenheim we have only a girls’ secondary school and a boys’ secondary school. There is a strong voice in the local community, supported by the mayor and many leading citizens, that we need the choice of a coed school. Those sorts of things, I think, are very, very important.

The Education Amendment Bill focuses very much on regulation and process, and I think there is too much concentration on that. It was interesting to see reported in the Press that there was surprise at where we are actually at in this process of the Education Amendment Bill. There are a lot of teachers out there who do not know that it is just about to be passed through the Committee stage. So from that point of view I think the new sets of eyes that have come on board with the Supplementary Order Papers—not overly expanding on things but, actually, fashioning the bill so it will take us forward in a constructive way—are very positive.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): I just note that this part has a number of different areas that we would like to be able to traverse and talk through; it is not just purely and simply around early childhood. I think it is necessary to say that, to ensure that early closure calls are not accepted, because there are a lot of areas that we need to look at, including teacher housing, student numbers, and the issue that Colin King brought up about intimidation etc. We need to be able to talk through those issues because there are amendments around a whole lot of them. It would be a sorry case if we thought this was just about the early childhood regulations and a couple of Supplementary Order Papers around that.

I want to talk about Colin King and his amendments because I think there is a lot of merit and good thinking behind them. It is a little unfortunate, as I am noticing in the debate, that there are very few members here tonight who were actually on the Education and Science Committee at the time. That is not their fault, but it just means that they have not been able to explore some of the issues around the legislation.

I just want to talk about the offence of insulting, abusing, or intimidating staff. That was, I think, already in the 1964 Act, and it applied to schools. The amending bill said we wanted to apply that to early childhood centres. The select committee did, in fact, look at the issue in detail, because we were very concerned about some of the anxiety that staff members, principals, sole teachers, etc., in some of our rural schools are facing, particularly in Northland with the dangers of P these days, and there are anxieties around that.

But the issue is this. The offence is only if the intimidation is made in front of students. Insulting, intimidating, or abusing people comes under the Crimes Act. This is a protection only for the students themselves that this is in the Education Act, and then it was going to go down to the early childhood sector. In our explorations we actually asked about the students within the school. Can they be picked up now under the existing legislation, for abusing a teacher in front of their classmates? The answer was yes, they could.

The select committee looked at this and said: “Well, is this what it’s all about?”. The clause is really there to stop people coming from outside—parents, or visitors, or anyone else. I have been threatened by a parent who said he was going to come and shoot me—after a separation; that sort of business. I am sure Allan Peachey knows the situation pretty well. It is really about what happens in front of the students. Therefore, although I totally agree—I would love to see the amendment, particularly the electronic version—the problem is that it actually takes it outside the ambit of what this particular amendment is all about in this particular part of the bill. So we will not be supporting it, although we think there is some real merit along the lines of the member’s thinking.

The second thing I want to talk about is that Colin talked about parents needing to know how well their children are getting on. I absolutely agree with that. Not only do they need to know how well they are getting on, but they need to know how well they are getting on in relation to other students around New Zealand. They need to have that sort of reference point. It is all very well schools saying to parents: “Your kid’s proceeding satisfactorily.”, and then finding out when the kids get to fifth form—year 11—that, in fact, they are not doing particularly well against other New Zealand students. This amendment that Mr English is putting up has some merit—and we have already said we agree with it in principle—but the problem is that it does not give individual parents information about their individual kids. It gives information about the school, I say to Mr English, and not about the individuals.

The parents themselves now have that right to the information about how well their particular children are getting on. With the development of tools such as the assessment tool for teaching and learning, schools are in a far better position to be able to provide that information to parents. Any school that is not providing that information to parents I think should be caned—to use a pun—because it is a professional requirement to provide that information. In fact, it is a legal requirement that is already in the Act.

That is why I think the process is clumsy. I have only just seen this amendment, and I would like to be able to explore the implications of it, as I did as Associate Minister of Education with the New Zealand First - National Government, because I think it needs far more exploration than can be provided in this debate in this Chamber. I believe there is a great deal of merit in this amendment, but what it is talking about is not individual parents finding out about their children; it is about them finding out about schools.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I want to take the Hon Brian Donnelly up on something that he raised earlier on, which was the issue of the self-locking gates on swimming pools. Members on that side just love to trot this thing out. There are 180,000 kids in early childhood centres. Most early childhood centres, including kōhanga—if kōhanga have swimming pools—would lock the gates. It is natural.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Self-locking.

Hon TAU HENARE: Most swimming pools would have self-locking gates on them. Of the odd one that does not, I ask members how many kids in the last 12 months have been killed.

Judy Turner: Quite a few, actually.

Hon TAU HENARE: No, not quite a few. The same issue applies to the fencing of swimming pools. Two or three people die, and what happens? Those members over there go mad with the rule book and want to put a gate on everything. They want to make sure. Do members know why? It is because they are not bothered with looking after the kids; they just want to shut them out of places. I will tell members how to stop kids dying in swimming pools: we should educate them that water is dangerous and to look with their eyes. The same thing happened when the poor kid in south Auckland got run over in his own driveway. There have been far too many of those incidents. Then some bright spark from the Labour Party said: “How about we fence off people’s driveways?” Gee, that would be a great idea, would it not? Why do we not just go round the whole of the North Island, the South Island, Stewart Island, the Chatham Islands, and the Poor Knights Islands, and fence off the lot of it? For God’s sake, when are these people going to wake up? When are people going to wake up to the fact that the best part of it is true education?

I have another example, which is a current regulation that is being flouted by early childhood centres. Every childcare centre has to have a first aid kit up high, which the regulations state is supposed to be locked. One of the kids gets crook. Nanny Ma, who is supposed to be looking after the key for the first aid kit, is not there. She has gone down the road to buy some clay for the kids, or whatever. Judy, who is the assistant caregiver, cannot find the key for the first aid kit, which is out of the children’s reach. Nobody gets anything from the cabinet, because it is over-regulated. Most early childhood centres leave it unlocked just in case. Is that bad? Of course it is not, but the regulations state that the first aid cabinets must be locked and out of the way. It is a stipulation.

I want to bring up the issue of process. I really love how some of the parties that support the Government talk about process. I say that it has nothing to do with process. If members like the idea, they should get in behind it. If they do not, they should say so. But members should not have the temerity to get up in this House and say that they really like this idea—it is a great idea—but the process is wrong. Come on! Members should pull their heads in. This is about making sure that there are standards, making sure that the kids have—[Interruption] Well, Harry Duynhoven would know. He knows a lot about this. It is amazing. People on this side of the House have worked in kōhanga and in early childhood education for years and years. They have not just taken their kids to early childhood centres, they have actually worked in the industry.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Name one.

Hon TAU HENARE: Myself, Dr Pita Sharples, Tariana Turia—where does one stop? Does the member want me to keep going? No. Most people on this side of the House know what it is like when the workplace is over-regulated. Who does not get educated? [Interruption] Well, the member can take the Lord’s name in vain. That is OK. That is fine with me.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I have been subjected to a bit of sustained abuse from the other side of the House, and I certainly will not have the member alleging that I made comments that I have not. I take offence at his last comment, and I hope he will withdraw it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Are you raising that as a point of order?

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you. The member has taken offence.

Hon TAU HENARE: I withdraw and apologise. He mumbled something; unfortunately, it was not very audible. All I want to say is let us get on with making sure that our kids get the best start in life, because if we do not then people like Harry Duynhoven are to blame.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I rise to support the amendments from the Hon Bill English and the National Party members Allan Peachey and Colin King. Surely, it is time for teachers to be allowed to teach, and for parents to be involved in the decision process. This bill does nothing to assist teachers in the daily practice of their profession. But when it comes to regulating, this particular Labour-Progressive - part-time New Zealand First - part-time United Future Government, and when it comes to churning out regulations, this Government has surely reached the zenith of regulation-forming practice. One does not even need to drop a hat before new regulations are brought about in an endless array. Regulation making under this Government has become so dominant that it is practically an art form, and indeed the limp legacy of Labour—once it has expired, and that will not be long—will be that it has established a horrifying level of limiting regulation.

Why has it done this? Because the Government considers it knows best—better than parents and better than teachers. Oh yes, that is what it believes. This Government, and its bureaucracy, know best in their view, and the way they impose that on the public is through regulation. This particular bill really does need the amendment from the Hon Bill English. Education is, sadly, not the only area of our lives where Government regulation has been flourishing, but it is one of the most crucial. Education is the ladder out of the pit of poverty for many people. Education creates opportunities of equality for individuals to be individuals. We need less regulation, not more.

The benefits of the bill, particularly when one has heard all that has been said this afternoon from this side of the Chamber, are to be found in the amendments proposed by the Hon Bill English and by National members Colin King and Allan Peachey. Early education is when the adult is produced. “Give me the child until they are seven, and I will give you the adult.”

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Who said that?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I believe the Jesuits said it.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: It was St Francis, actually.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Was I right, then?

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Yes.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you—I did not claim it as my own. I even have it in quotation marks in my notes, and I will show the member afterwards.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: But you didn’t attribute it.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I had some hesitance because I have adapted it away from “Give me the child until he is seven, and I will show you the man”, which would be the correct quote.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: We thought it was remarkably learned of you.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you very much indeed, I say to Mr Duynhoven. In early childhood, when young children have an astonishing capacity to absorb information and their brains are totally receptive, they need nurturing—as my colleague Mr Pita Sharples pointed out. They do not need to be prescriptively regulated—as my colleague Tau Henare indicated. There needs to be creative fluidity in practice, and perhaps Governments have to be more trusting in the professional expertise of the teachers and in the experience and involvement of parents, siblings, and grandparents. But trust is not an easy medium for the present Government to operate in, because it does not deal in that particular currency; regulation is safer for it.

This Government is not particularly comfortable in office. That is my observation, having been a member since September. When pressured, the Government has two areas of comfort that it rushes to when it senses any reversal. One, as we see in this bill, is over-regulation. The Government feels safe creating a box-ticking environment for us to live in—safe behind a barrage of rigid regulation. The other area occurs every day in question time. I watch and I listen. As soon as Ministers are under pressure, they rush to their comfort zone of the 1990s, when Labour members were a happy lot and nothing was their fault.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I will take just a brief call to explain further why we will not be supporting Mr English’s amendments, and I want to make it clear that we are not trying to use process as some sort of “out” on this matter. We are interested in hearing this issue debated, but we want it done properly. We have indicated to the Māori Party members and to the National Party members that if they are prepared to move for this bill to be returned to the Education and Science Committee so that the proper process can be followed, we would support their amendments on the basis that the bill would then be given the proper treatment by the select committee, which it very deeply needs.

I accept what Mr King said, which was that not every amendment put forward by National is out of left field—or right field, in this case—from the original bill, and that his amendment is in keeping with what was discussed at the select committee. But with regard to Mr English’s amendment, which I think is being touted by the National Party as one of its key amendments, submitters have not been given an opportunity to address it, and we believe that they should have been. We would be prepared, and would be very willing, to support the amendment if we are able to return this bill to the select committee. We have indicated that to the National Party and to the Māori Party, and we think it is appropriate for an issue that has not been canvassed at the select committee.

The amendment addresses quite an important issue, and could have serious implications for schools, teachers, parents, and students. The opportunity for a full select committee scrutiny needs to be offered on these sorts of issues. It is important for the public, and particularly for educational specialists and leaders, to make submissions on those very issues. So I want to make it very clear that we have communicated with those two parties very clearly that we would be prepared to support their amendments if they are prepared to return the bill to the select committee. I have yet to see any indication of their willingness.

DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): The reason I am taking a call is that I think United Future has made a fair offer to deal with a couple of amendments, and particularly the significant amendment regarding the introduction of national standards that has been put down in my name. From the process of getting these amendments before the Committee, it is clear to me that there is significant support in the Committee for such an amendment. Some members have expressed the intention to vote for this amendment. I know that members of one party have given it quite a bit of consideration, but they are still concerned that the issue has not been as widely discussed as it could have been, and I think they would probably support the Education and Science Committee having a discussion about it.

Interestingly, the select committee is in the process of starting up an inquiry into achievement in literacy and numeracy—or, more correctly, underachievement in literacy and numeracy. The inquiry was proposed by the Māori Party, and is, I think, supported by all parties on the select committee.

So I would invite the House to move, at the end of the Committee stage—which is, I understand, the right procedure—that this bill, with the amendments, if that is the advice the Clerk gives us, goes back to the select committee to be considered. I think the House should seriously consider doing that, because it is clear that a majority of members want to consider the issue. It has come through in the Committee stage that a majority of members would like the issue to be looked at again. I would be quite open, as the proponent of both amendments, to having an extensive discussion in the select committee. I happen to think this amendment gives the maximum flexibility to get the right answer, because over time the Minister of Education—who promulgates the National Education Guidelines—would have the time to engage with all sorts of groups about what those national standards ought to be.

Clearly, there is an obstacle here in the Committee to the amendment passing now, and I hope we can discuss with other parties the proposition that this issue is referred back to the select committee. The select committee does not have other legislation before it. It could probably deal with this issue fairly expeditiously, and the bill could be back in the House within a matter of 3 or 4 months. I would invite the other parties, if they are interested, to discuss that matter with us.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for raising those issues, Mr English.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just to clarify what Mr English is proposing, would the vote on whether the bill was returned to the select committee happen before or after his amendment was put forward, because that would make a big difference as to how we voted?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Neither. That issue must be dealt with by the House. That would be the proper time to do it—after the Committee has sent the bill back to the House.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Clearly, what is in the mind of the United Future member is the consideration of the amendments relating to this issue. I take it that if the amendments are put to the Committee and are defeated, then it is really in the hands of the select committee to consider what amendments it would make to the substantive bill. But there is no connection between what happens to the amendments here and what the select committee is invited to reconsider if the bill goes back to it. I would be interested in your view from the Chair on that, Mr Chairperson. Could you see the point I was making?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, and I agree.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Are you able to inform us about the effects of actions we might take here?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I understand the proposition you are putting forward, but it is still something that has to be dealt with by the House, not by the Committee. You have flagged the issue, and the proper time to deal with it would be when the House resumes. You, of course, can try to do that, or you can leave it until the House resumes, after the conclusion of the Committee stage, which is the proper time to do it—in fact, it is the only time to do it; the select committee cannot consider anything referred back to it by the Committee of the whole House.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety): I move, That the question be now put.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): The Committee of the whole House is at a very interesting stage tonight. The Education Amendment Bill is important legislation. The number of amendments that different parties in the Chamber have put forward on the bill show its degree of importance to members. So we can establish that the bill is important to them.

The next point I make is that for a bill that has been through the full select committee process, the number of amendments now before the Committee is quite unusual—even from the Minister of Education. Parts of the bill are now facing significant amendment—even amendments proposed by the Minister—that have not been through the select committee process. There is a real issue here. The bill was considered by a previous Education and Science Committee, and, as the Hon Brian Donnelly pointed out, a number of the members of that select committee in the previous Parliament are not in this Parliament. So not many members of this Parliament have actually had the chance to consider the bill at the select committee. That would not be a huge problem, perhaps, if it were not for the fact that so many members of this Parliament want to make amendments to it—not just one party but a number of parties, including the Minister’s, want to make amendments to the bill.

That is why the Committee would be wise to consider the possibility of sending the bill back to the select committee. Very important issues are at stake. As a former Minister—and I was a Minister for many years—I find it problematic that so many amendments have been brought to the Committee. They are pretty detailed, and there has been no chance for any select committee to consider the issues. For example, a number of detailed issues in Minister Maharey’s Supplementary Order Paper 25 change totally what the previous select committee was reporting back to Parliament. The select committee in the previous Parliament reported back the bill, and now, suddenly, the Minister comes in with some major amendments that no select committee has considered. It is not as if these things are hugely political issues; they are detailed issues. I would argue there is very good, sound reason for the bill—given the particular circumstances surrounding it—to be sent back to the select committee.

Certainly, if that helped the United Future Party to consider further the amendments of the Hon Bill English, it would be hugely valuable, because it would give the chance for those very important and serious amendments to be considered further. I think a number of parties in the Chamber would welcome that opportunity. I realise that as the Committee we cannot do that—it is a matter the House has to determine. But I would certainly urge members who are involved in this debate in the Committee to talk to their parties so, when the House resumes, the bill can be sent back to the select committee, because a number of amendments—not just the excellent amendment of my colleague Bill English but also amendments from other parties in the Chamber—would benefit if the Education and Science Committee of this Parliament had the chance to consider them.

So I want to make it very clear that National will be supportive of that move, and, obviously, United Future will be supportive of it. I am sure the Māori Party would be supportive of it, and I suspect New Zealand First might be supportive of it, because I am sure the chairman of the previous select committee, Mr Brian Donnelly, has some concerns about the extent of the modification to the bill. A number of amendments have been brought forward since his committee had the chance to hear the bill. This is important, serious business, and I hope the House can treat it with the seriousness that it is due.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): I want to point out to the Committee that the reason the amendments to the boards’ reporting are actually in the Education Amendment Bill at all is that the intention of the bill was to remove the requirement for boards to have an AGM. The AGM has become a bit of a farce with boards, so we said that was fair enough. Those structural, operational requirements around boards were made back in 1989. Times have changed, so we said we could look at that. But the one thing we insisted upon was that boards had to report to parents. That is why the reporting part of the legislation was in there. At no time was there any mention at all—it was not even raised—that there should be a highly complex issue around reporting against standards. That was never brought up at all, so we never even started to get our heads around that particular issue.

Of course, our concern with regard to the amendment is that we simply do not have the time to address that particular capacity—it is a very complex issue. The former Minister of Education will know that when the New Zealand First - National Government got together, it found that the previous National Government had a national testing programme all ready to go. New Zealand First opposed the programme, because it thought it was simplistic and would not give the information that would be required to move our system forward. The programme was canned, we put out a green paper on assessment, and I travelled to Toronto and England and looked at their systems. Some of the recommendations that were made ended up being implemented as the asTTle type of thing, because we strongly believed that parents need information about the progress of their children that is based around norms—national norms.

But that does not mean national testing; it means providing some sort of tools that are, in fact, standardised, such as asTTle or the progressive achievement tests. That is already in the legislation—it was in the Act of 1989. As a principal, I always operated under legislation that required me to report regularly on the progress of students. Some of the deficiencies in that reporting were around the deficiencies in the tools that schools had to operate with. But they did not come around by comparing one school with another. Once we start to get into those sorts of comparisons, we start to get into real fish-hooks. Therefore, the asTTle stuff, which was an upgrade and a modernisation of the progressive achievement test stuff, took into account the way that the national curriculum structure was built. Rather than the norm being based around the standard distribution curve, it was around levels that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith had put into place. So it gave a measure against the particular levels that were there.

We believe very strongly in that, and we believe there is a real need for a debate. But, certainly, this Committee at this particular moment does not have the capacity to go through all the complexities of that particular debate—whether or not the issue goes back to the Education and Science Committee. In some respects I believe the Opposition is actually catching a bus that has gone by, rather than having utilised the opportunity to bring up those particular issues when the legislation was in the select committee. Nevertheless, we believe very strongly that the issue being raised is a very important one and needs to be fully debated in the environment of a select committee, rather than in the environment of the Committee at this particular stage.

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

DIANNE YATES (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Bill English to Part 1 be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause:

5A National education guidelines

Section 60A is amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (b):

(ba) national standards, which are standards for literacy and numeracy applicable to all students in an age or year group:.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand National 48; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 67

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new clause 5A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 70A(2) in clause 6(1), to omit and substitute word, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 70A(2) in clause 6(1), to add words, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 70A in clause 6(1), to insert new subsections, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The amendment in the name of the Hon Bill English to insert new clause 6A is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 26 in the name of Colin King to section 139C(2) in clause 29, to insert words, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 71

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 26 in the name of Colin King to section 139C in clause 29, to add new subsection (3), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 71

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 30 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 309 in clause 43, to the definition of early childhood service, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 309 in clause 43, to the definition of playgroup, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 309 in clause 43, to the definition of service provider, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 310(2) in clause 43, to insert new paragraph, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 316 in clause 43, to insert words, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 316 in clause 43, to omit and substitute words, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 317(1) in clause 43, to omit and substitute words, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 317(1) in clause 43 be agreed to:

to omit from proposed new paragraph (c) the word “issuing”, and substitute the words “authorising the secretary to issue”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 317(1) in clause 43, to add new paragraph (c), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 317(2) in clause 43 be agreed to:

to omit from proposed new paragraph (b) the word “assess”, and substitute the words “use in assessing”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 317(2) in clause 43, to omit and substitute paragraph (b), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 29 in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to section 317 in clause 43 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 71

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 29 in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to section 319 in clause 43 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 71

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 71

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 24 in the name of Allan Peachey to section 342 in clause 44 be agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 24 in the name of Allan Peachey to section 344(2) in clause 44 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 71

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 24 in the name of Allan Peachey to Part 30 in clause 44, to insert new section 345A, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 71

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 71

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 71

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Other enactments

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): This part has a number of innocuous and fairly inconsequential amendments to other enactments—the State Sector Act and the Student Loan Scheme Act—consequential amendments to other enactments, and repeals and revocations. What is interesting about this part and the schedules is that they are the last parts of any significant education legislation that we will see for the rest of the life of this Government. Schedule 1 tidies up some loose ends to do with the definitions of early childhood service and makes other inconsequential changes like omitting the words “management of” and substituting the words “employer at”. Is that not a damp squib on which the Labour Government’s legislative programme in respect of education comes to an end? The Minister in the chair, Steve Maharey, will not come up with anything smarter than changing the definition of “early childhood centre” to “early childhood education and care centre”. That was the last good idea of Trevor Mallard, but at least he had one, even if the last one was not much. This Minister has none.

The House should debate this bill at some length, because we will not get to debate another piece of education legislation under this Minister or under the Labour Government. This is the end; this is the tail end. If the best they can do is devote legislative time to changing the definition of “early childhood centre” to “early childhood education and care centre”, then there is nothing else to be said. The select committee has no legislation in front of it. The Government finds itself increasingly on the wrong side of a number of arguments and a number of directions in respect of education that the public are headed in, and it cannot take the risk of bringing to this Parliament any more education legislation of any significance. I suspect we may see some legislation to fix mess-ups, because that is part of the normal business of Government—although this Minister, of course, is an expert in messes, and unfortunately he will ruin the tail end of Dr Cullen’s career in trying to fix up his tertiary education mess. But we will not see anything significant.

Some of these definitions do flow from a fairly wide-ranging change in early childhood funding. The reference in clause 48 to the kindergarten movement is a signal of that. The kindergarten movement is only now really beginning to understand the scale of change that this change in funding brings about. I am sure that if a National Government had brought about the changes in this bill, there would have been protest marches in the streets about the end of free kindergartens—because free kindergartens have ended. This part talks about free kindergartens. Kindergartens can charge. If parents send children there now they are eligible for the childcare subsidy. Kindergartens are now writing to parents and saying that, thank God, fund-raising is now over, because they will charge parents and the parents will get it back through the childcare subsidy. That is all going on right now.

So kindergartens are no longer free. They are also starting to figure out that they will lose their distinctiveness as kindergartens. That is something that many New Zealanders do not yet understand but will come to understand over the next few months. This bill, of course, does not trumpet that change; nor does the Minister, I might say. I was waiting for him to get up and give a lyrical speech somewhere about the end of free kindergartens, the destruction of a New Zealand icon, and the nasty right-wing forces that brought it about. But, funnily enough, he has not done that because, of course, compared to Steve Maharey, Trevor Mallard is a nasty, right-wing force and the early childhood funding in this bill is his brainchild.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): I want to make a few comments. It is very interesting that a couple of impassioned speeches have been made by National members about kindergartens, and the need to protect kindergartens and their iconic status. I ask members who it was who took kindergarten teachers out of the State Sector Act, back in 1997. It seems to me that there is a bit of tension between what was done in 1997 and some of the statements that are coming out in the debate this evening.

The only other thing I want to make a point about is the Student Loan Scheme Act, because it is really the guts of this part. It refers to scholarships, which is something I have a bit of personal pride in because it was a policy that I put through the coalition Government initially. The incoming Labour Government, in 1999, saw there was merit in expanding it, in terms of gaining additional teachers in various areas of particular need, so I have a particular interest in that matter.

All that this measure does—as I think everybody in the Committee would agree—is to ensure that if somebody who gets a scholarship does not fulfil the requirements of it, then the funds can be extracted back under the Student Loan Scheme Act in the same way as student loans. I think most people would agree that if somebody signs up to one of the scholarship schemes and fulfils all the requirements of it, then that person should keep the dough. But if a person does not fulfil the requirements, then surely he or she has a responsibility to refund the money to the State. This legislation provides a sure-fire mechanism for that to happen. I am sure that all members of the Committee would see that as the responsibility to the taxpayer referred to in clause 49.

The rest of it is really just nuts and bolts stuff. I think the Hon Bill English was correct in saying that, and I do not think it is worthwhile to spend a large amount of time debating this particular part. It would probably be better to spend that time traversing the whole tenor of the bill when we get to the title clause.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): I rise once again to oppose the Education Amendment Bill and to speak to Part 2. Part 2, as previous speakers have said, is a nuts and bolts part, but it is actually very important. It is important to repeal outdated legislation and to revoke regulations that are no longer relevant. Some of us in this Chamber, particularly those of us on this side, are of the view that much more legislation could be repealed, that many more regulations could be revoked, and that New Zealand schooling would be the better for it. Sometimes it is fanciful to contemplate what schooling would look like if we got rid of 85 percent of the legislation that affects schools.

But I think the more serious point is that this amendment bill takes as its principal Act the Education Act 1989. It is with great sadness that I observe that Parliament did not hold its nerve and stick with the 1989 Act and give it a chance to work. It could not resist the pressure from bureaucracies and interest groups to interfere, to regulate, and to control. This bill is just one more step in that process. It is one more step that says that centralisation is how we solve the underlying problems of education.

Well, I have to make clear to the Government that I am not aware of one child, anywhere, who has learnt anything in the office of a bureaucrat, a Minister, a politician, or a review officer. Children learn in classrooms. I think that those of us who were principals—and my New Zealand First colleague was one, as well—in the years straight after 1989, in the era of Tomorrow’s Schools, were fortunate. They were years when we could actually make a difference. We were genuine educational leaders, and those of us who had the courage to seize the opportunity to be innovative, creative, and brave, transformed schools.

But, increasingly, as more and more legislation came out of the House and more and more regulations came out of the ministry, we suddenly realised we were not being creative and innovative in finding solutions for children’s learning needs; we were becoming obsessed with compliance and with ticking the right box. Our teachers suddenly began to work it out—take no risks, be safe, comply, get a tick from the Education Review Office and it would be all right. It did not matter whether children were learning to the maximum of their capacity, because teachers just had to get the right boxes ticked and it would be all right. All this legislation is taking us to an obsession with process—get the process right and nothing else matters. It does not matter that maybe 15 or 20 percent of children are not experiencing success at school. Teachers will not be criticised for that if they get the right boxes ticked. That is where the successive bits of legislation that have been coming out of Parliament since 1989 have led us.

Let us contemplate for a moment what the schooling scene would look like if we could wipe away everything that has happened in the last 16 years and go back to the purity of the 1989 Education Act—to the vision and plan of Tomorrow’s Schools. Let us just think about what it would look like.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Part 2.

ALLAN PEACHEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Hon Brian Donnelly: You have just used up your title speech.

ALLAN PEACHEY: I am afraid they are not letting me have another speech; I have to get it all into this one. The reference in Part 1 to the Education Standards Act 2001 is a typical example of the type of legislation I am referring to. It is legislation that gets in the way of what really needs to happen. If the Government is to bring in an amendment bill, then let us do the job properly.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura): It is significant that the second part of this incredible Education Amendment Bill is such a small part. However, other amendments have been covered by other members, the Hon Bill English and Allan Peachey, and that is relevant in the sense that from time to time it is necessary to tidy up aspects that are covered within the body of a bill.

In speaking to Part 2, I would like to take the opportunity to say that as far as the definitions go, some clarification is added to the meaning of the intent of the bill. But changing the word “management” to “employer” in schedule 1 is inconsequential.

The whole range of amendments required by this bill is significant, in that education does span an enormous range of subjects and it is appropriate to keep it all in order. It was said before that it was as though the National Party was catching the last bus from the rank, and, as a member—along with Allan Peachey, Bill English, and Jacqui Dean—of the Science and Education Committee, I do feel a bit like that myself. This was our last opportunity, along with the Māori Party, to have an input into education, going forward.

I say to my chairman, with great respect, that only two members of the previous Education and Science Committee are actually still in Parliament. Over 60 percent of the present Education and Science Committee members who have actually spoken and put forward amendments—[Interruption] The lady member had no voting power.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Ashraf is out there with Bill English himself.

COLIN KING: Ashraf is not here.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We are talking about Part 2, and I ask the member to please not use members’ first names. The full name should be used.

COLIN KING: I will steer away from that, Mr Chairman. I must commend those members for their efforts on and input into this bill.

We see this bill fading into the sunset. I just trust that when the opportunity comes again, we will not lose our nerve and will grasp the nettle with regard to the education of our children. I hope we will do something far more constructive than we are doing with the amendment bill in front of us.

Clause 50 deals with consequential amendments to other enactments. It was quite interesting to go through my PC in the dinner break, to try to catch up on the history of those enactments. We see reference to the Revocation of Soldier Teachers Grading Adjustment Regulations, and to the Revocation of the Combined Secondary and Technical Schools Regulations, and on and on it goes. I suppose they all served their purpose. However, they will now pass into history.

From that point of view, I have no doubt that when the Education and Science Committee next has the opportunity to look at this legislation, we will wonder why so much time was spent on it. The bill came forward to the committee in November 2004 and has had a moderate gestation period. I do not see that it will be one of the things that stands out in my mind as having achieved an enormous amount other than far more bureaucracy, far more regulation, less innovation, and more costs. By and by, it will be the bureaucrats who will tell us how we want our children to be brought up, not their parents.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 48; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 48; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 48; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to schedule 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 48; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 48; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago): I was going through my mail just before, and this little story is relevant to the title and commencement of this bill: I spent a wonderful hour with the pupils of St Josephs School in Ōāmaru a couple of months ago, speaking to them about leadership and challenges. I have just received the replies from the students. They are year 8 students in a school of year 7 and 8 students. It is excellent to receive these replies. They are absolutely delightful and they speak from the heart.

I want to read to members one little paragraph from a pupil: “Once I have compared your job to my role as a year 8, there is not much difference in them, because we both have people relying on us. We also have to make decisions that would affect others.” So that is a little bit relevant, because I believe that education is about children. There is so much to enjoy and to celebrate in education, and to see the level of literacy and the level of good thinking going on in those year 8 children is wonderful.

The Education Amendment Bill should be about children, but I believe that some parts of it are more about an increase in bureaucracy, an increase in regulation, and a decrease in the role of parents. I believe that the bill proposes to impose extra costs on early childhood centres. Those costs come as costs in time, extra costs in money, and costs in teacher resources.

I will confine my comments mostly to Part 1. When parents drop their children off at an early childhood centre, they really need to know that the teachers are caring for their children and looking after them—and that “care” word is very important. They need to know that the early childhood educators at those licensed centres are not just filling in forms, not spending too much of their time in a cramped office—because that is what they always are, very cramped—filling in forms and accounting for themselves, measuring, reporting, and prescribing minimum standards. What we want in our early childhood educators, those people looking after our kids, is for them to be out there with our kids—playing with them, reading to them, reading with them, talking to them, and doing numbers with them.

When I was in Alexandra several months ago—this is another story—I visited an early childhood centre, and it was a wonderful place. The sun was shining and the kids were all playing under a shady tree and having a wonderful time. But the supervisor of the childcare centre spent all her time showing me what she has to do to account for what she does—and this was before the provisions of this bill have been brought in, which will add further to the work she does. For example, she showed me a box full of notebooks. Each one of those notebooks described the progress of a 2-year-old. Well, OK! Then there was another set of notebooks that had other pieces of information in them. It seemed to me that we already have plenty of regulation in the early childhood sector.

I am also concerned about section 317(2)(b) in clause 43, which states: “authorise the Secretary, after consultation with those organisations that appear to the Secretary to be representative of persons likely to be substantially affected by these regulations, to prescribe criteria to be used by the Secretary to assess compliance with the minimum standards imposed by these regulations:”. So it is not the parents who are making the regulations and minimum standards for early childhood centres, and it is not the parents who are making decisions about the care of their children, but a ministry representative. Now I am not sure that I support that. In fact, I do not support that.

Parents will not be making regulations and minimum standards; the Ministry of Education bureaucrats will be. I do not support anything that takes power away from parents in this regard. The ministry will have the ability to make regulations that take responsibility away from Parliament. I do not think that a bureaucrat is the best person to set standards for the care of my child. I think that parents need to have a very strong say in the care of their children. A basic principle to me is that all of us are in danger of regulating all the fun and risk out of childhood.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura): In speaking to the title of the Education Amendment Bill, I thank Jacqui Dean for her very appropriate comments. We know that this amendment bill is just an exercise in more bureaucracy, more control, and more regulation, and there is a bit of carrot in behind the stick in the sense that if the early childhood sector does conform appropriately to the criteria and the regulations, then it will get the funding.

I do hope that we do not strangle the innovation, the flair, and the individual skill of the teachers who are so committed to and passionate about our education sector. I think that there is an enormous risk of putting so many regulations in place that an enormous amount of time will be spent on compliance. Sometimes that compliance can put an enormous burden on a small rural community or a provincial area. I am also quite sure, because of the way this bill has been handled during the Committee stage, that we will see it come back very quickly with a large number of amendments. I make that comment because of the genuine effort that was put into the Supplementary Order Papers and how beneficial they would have been in relation to moving forward, not only as a country but as an important sector of society—education.

Looking at it all now in hindsight, I still have some huge fears that we have not appropriately linked and strengthened the hand of the teachers in relation to the abuse and intimidation of staff. It is very easy for that to occur in a way that is removed from witnesses. It could be done electronically or in private, yet there is no way that we can link or empower the school back to the Crimes Act. So that is one part that really does concern me.

The introduction of the National Student Number, going right down to the early childhood learning situation, is also quite an important situation. It was an enormous opportunity for us to move forward, and to be able to measure and manage. One tries to bring up a family in a way that recognises the individuality of one’s children, whether they are boys or girls. I just feel that we are missing out here on that opportunity to be able to empower the parents to have the input and show that inclusiveness as far as moving forward as a unit closely associated with the school or the early childhood centre and on into the tertiary education sector.

I do believe that we will continue to have situations where people will fall through the cracks. As a teacher from Blenheim said to me only the other day: “If it comes to Friday and you’ve got an accelerant child and you’ve got a very average child, it becomes one size fits all.” I believe that in the sense of the amendments in this bill, effectively all we have done is a snow job—a whitewash. We have paid particular attention to rules and regulations, and the only carrot that is sitting in behind it all is that the Government will fund the schools. If the schools do not do as the Government tells them, they will not get funded. I find it very difficult to get any pleasure whatsoever from this Education Amendment Bill.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): This is a broad-ranging bill, and we have not traversed many of the areas it covers—for example, the area of school housing and the effect of that on rural schooling. Colin King has referred to student numbers but not necessarily to the element of why they were brought in and some of the benefits, even notwithstanding the fact that Supplementary Order Paper amendments were not passed. So I hope people will indulge me on this.

First of all, I say to Allan Peachey, who criticised the Education Standards Act, that when that legislation went to the Committee stage it was called an Education Amendment Bill. A member of the National caucus recommended that the legislation be renamed the Education Standards Bill. So enamoured was he with that particular bill that he put a motion, and the House voted in favour of it. The person’s name happened to be Alec Neill. I never could quite work out how that rush of blood went to his head.

However, first of all I will cover a couple of areas around the so-called potential over-regulation. At the moment we have the Revised Statement of Desirable Objectives and Practices (DOPs) for Chartered Early Childhood Services in New Zealand. That will go through Cabinet and through Order in Council, etc. I can tell members here and now that within that, one thing requires all early childhood providers to keep a record of every meal that is delivered at lunchtime on every day to every child. Now, that set of Desirable Objectives and Practices actually went through Cabinet in 1998, when a certain Tau Henare sat around the table and agreed to approve that particular level of regulation. It exists at the moment. The whole idea behind this was, in fact, to collapse the Desirable Objectives and Practices—to relook at the whole licensing criteria in a much more rational fashion. A process has been going on for 2 years whereby all the Desirable Objectives and Practices have been looked at and the question asked of whether they are still current and still necessary. In fact, we are trying to rationalise the whole thing. So rather than increase the regulation, this bill actually has the potential to reduce the amount of regulation, if the consultation process is gone through correctly. I am very pleased that a couple of amendments that I got through will take out the most draconian risk that exists in the way the legislation is drawn up. But I am comfortable that the process will not lead to smothering levels of regulation within the early childhood sector.

I mention student numbers, which have been only briefly referred to. The bill introduces student numbers down into the compulsory and early childhood sectors. One of the real problems we have at the moment, particularly in the compulsory sector, is keeping track of students—the students who fall between the cracks between one level of schooling and the other, or between moving from one place to the other. Our major problem in this country is not truancy; it is transiency. It is when people move from one school to the other and often have a number of weeks’ break. There is no way, under the present system, of keeping track of those students. There used to be a system of white cards, if members recall—anyone who was in the system would know it. Now there is not, and those students simply fall through the cracks. This legislation actually gives a lot more power to agencies to be able to put in place mechanisms to look after that major problem that we have in our society.

I also mention school housing. One of the most disastrous things that any Government ever did to rural education in this country was to bring in market rentals of school houses in the 1980s. At the area school I was at, I think we had something like 12 teachers in school houses. We were absolutely dependent on school houses. Within 6 months we had one teacher left in a school house. The school houses were left to go to rack and ruin because they were handed over to property management groups that did not give two hoots about them. The groups did not maintain them, so teachers did not want to go into them, anyhow. Now, of course, the houses have been transferred over. The ideal opportunity for them to be transferred over to boards of trustees to operate was in 1989. They were not, and as a result of that we have not only lost a lot of those school houses but alienated teachers in rural areas.

In my time, school houses were a great incentive to get teachers into rural areas. There was a salary bar, as well. Once teachers were in rural areas, some people, like myself, loved it and stayed teaching in rural areas; others spent 2 or 3 years there, maybe 5, saved up their money, and went back and bought a house in the city. But it certainly fed the rural areas with staff, and we have had continuous problems in terms of that ever since the Government got rid of school houses in rural areas. The Government has handed over the houses to boards of trustees, albeit far too late and, as I said, in a deplorable state. But it also wants to establish some mechanism for renting them, and New Zealand First agrees with that.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I rise to speak to the title of the Education Amendment Bill. It is with some distress and some sadness that I notice that the amendments so eloquently put forward by the Hon Bill English, by other National members Allan Peachey and Colin King, and by my parliamentary colleague Mr Pita Sharples have been denied by the narrowest of margins. Indeed, “narrow” is the word, for it describes fairly precisely the width of the present Government’s mind: narrow. It is distressing that so much was said before rising for dinner—so much that represented wide consultation with good dialogue—that demonstrated cross-party interest in perhaps supporting the amendments. Indeed, Mr Donnelly was keen—or at least there was a suggestion that it would be a good idea to refer the bill back to the Education and Science Committee for additional discussion and amendment.

Would the Labour-Progressive - part-time New Zealand First - part-time United Future Government perhaps show some illuminating intelligence, some luminance, some width of thought, or some understanding of what New Zealanders listening to the debate would earnestly want them to do? Oh no! Like automatons set on an inexorable path towards ultimate failure, the Labour-Progressive - part-time New Zealand First - part-time United Future Government marches on to its own demise with its eyes wide shut. To accommodate the requirement of the Hon Harry Duynhoven, who wants a thorough source of quotes, I quote that expression, “eyes wide shut”, from a range of books written by John Le Carré, in which he uses the phrase to describe those who walk in a blind manner, missing the obvious—a good analogy for the present Government.

Dr Richard Worth: Who was the publisher?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Collins, I think—and it was not printed in New Zealand.

But let us look at the title of this bill, the Education Amendment Bill 2004. Does it really amend education? Does it actually do anything for education without the excellent amendments from this side of the Committee? No, it does not. It simply amends which box to tick, because this Government is rapidly becoming known as a box-ticking Government.

We heard earlier an impassioned speech from my colleague Allan Peachey, a man who is not exactly lacking in educational record and who is not exactly a low-level academic. In our family, I have seen my wife commit years of her life, her own time, to excellence in education. Teachers of that stamp will not be stopped from delivering, in spite of the efforts of the present Government to stop them. The problem is that the restrictive regulations imposed are merely an impediment. Members should think about it. They stand in the way of teachers delivering excellence. My colleague Mr King hopes that perhaps common sense will prevail over the time of this Government, but the tragic truth is that it will not. I guess, though, that we in the National Party can be grateful for one thing: by denying the amendments, which would have been useful and would have made this bill of some purpose, the present Labour-Progressive - part-time other-parties Government has established a point of difference between us and the public, and the public will show us the favour at the next election.

We have heard today a mayday call. Earlier today in the Chamber, reference was made to the mayday call. The origin is from the French word “m’aidez”, which translates as “Help me!”. During the debate, I heard the voices of children saying: “Help me!”. Labour members did not hear them, do not hear them, and will not hear them or anybody else. They were not always deaf, but, boy, are they now—and the voters know it.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 48; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to clause 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 48; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 48; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Coroners Bill

Second Reading

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): I move, That the Coroners Bill be now read a second time. The Coroners Bill reforms the coronial system to improve the quality, consistency, and timeliness of coroners’ investigations and decision making, and to take better account of the needs of families. The bill repeals and replaces the Coroners Act 1988. The Government introduced the Coroners Bill, firstly, to enhance public confidence in the integrity and independence of the coronial system; secondly, to take better account of the diverse social, cultural, and spiritual needs of families; thirdly, to maintain the need to understand the causes and circumstances of death in a timely way; and, fourthly, to promote cooperation between coroners and other agencies also involved in the investigations of deaths.

I would like to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its work on the bill. The committee dealt with some difficult issues, such as the retention of body parts and bodily samples, and the making public of the details of self-inflicted deaths. I want to highlight two areas in the bill that have received particular attention. The first is about the reporting of suicide deaths. The bill largely continues existing restrictions on the making public of details of deaths that appear to be suicide. Like the committee, the Government gave considerable thought to whether to continue the restrictions. Suicide affects all sectors of the community, regardless of age, economic status, or ethnicity. Youth suicide is clearly a tragic event and an area of legitimate concern for all New Zealanders. The most recent provisional suicide statistics published by the Ministry of Health reveal that, contrary to public perception, men between the ages of 25 and 44 years continue to have the highest age-specific suicide rate.

The reasons behind New Zealand’s suicide rates are complex. Possible explanations include the increasing rates of depression, alcohol and drug abuse, changes in the family structure, and the trends towards a more risk-taking society. What is clear is that suicide is a sensitive area for family members. Families struggling emotionally with a bereavement by suicide often feel stigmatised, shamed, and socially isolated by the death, as well. It is important that those families’ privacy be given due weight and consideration and not be trampled on by others seeking to sensationalise the tragedy for their own purposes.

Some people have suggested that removing the restrictions might improve public understanding of the issues and reduce the number of self-inflicted deaths. No evidence is offered for this, and it is contrary to overseas research. The Government supports the status quo until such time as health studies support a change. Studies show that the way the media report suicide can influence suicidal behaviour and increase the overall number of suicide deaths. The risk of imitative suicide means that we must take a more cautious approach.

The bill ensures that the coroner considers whether making details public is likely to have a detrimental effect on public safety. It also helps protect the privacy of deceased persons and their families. The bill is not about restricting freedom of the press. It does not prevent public discussion of the public health issue of suicide. It may restrict the publication of the particulars of a specific case, such as how the person died, but for good reasons: they are essentially private, family matters.

The second point I want to make is about the number of coroners. This bill is a major reform of the coronial system and is widely supported. Central to the new system will be a team of mostly full-time, legally qualified, and well-trained coroners, led by a chief coroner. Working full time means coroners can develop and maintain expertise much more easily than coroners who deal with only a few inquests each year. This means that coroners will not have to juggle coronial work with other work commitments, so cases are likely to be completed more quickly. It also means that coroners will be able to spend more time building relationships with communities and groups that have special cultural and spiritual requirements following a death.

Appointing full-time coroners means that fewer people will be required. At present there are about 60, mostly part-time, coroners, many of whom deal with a small number of cases each year. Although some coroners are nearing retirement, many current coroners could continue in office for years to come. Under the new Act, all existing positions will be disestablished. However, all legally qualified coroners will be able to apply for positions under the new Act. Some existing coroners may not wish to work full time, but may be happy to continue their involvement as relief coroners.

Suggestions were raised by National members of the committee that coroners rely on coronial work for income and they will be financially disadvantaged if they are not appointed under the new Act. Those members suggest that coroners should be paid compensation for the loss of office. The Government does not agree. Coroners are judicial officers with a limited and specialised jurisdiction. They are not judges of a superior court, and the bill does not undermine judicial independence in a manner that requires Parliament to compensate them for loss of office. Most coroners work part time, and, apart from two full-time coroners, coroners are paid fees set by regulation.

As an example, a coroner who receives a report of a death but decides not to hold an inquest is paid a fee of $80. A coroner who completes an inquest lasting less than 2 hours is paid $250. A coroner is paid at a rate of $100 per hour for an inquest lasting more than 2 hours. The fees I have listed account for most of a coroner’s role. Most coroners do not earn a significant income from coronial work, and those who do are well qualified to be considered for appointment under the new Act. The bill allows former coroners to continue in office to complete inquests and to deal with any deaths that have been reported to them. Coroners will be paid any fees due to them for the work they have done. The existing coronial system needs to be wound up so that we can put the new system in place. This bill will give us a much better coronial system.

I now want to mention briefly some of the valuable contributions the committee made towards improving the bill to be more responsive to families. The coronial process is distressing for people who have lost a close family member. We want to ensure that the coronial system responds to the needs of families, and also to ensure that the wider public can have confidence in an excellent coronial system. Some of the changes include: firstly, returning body parts and bodily samples to the family, only when specifically requested; secondly, ensuring coroners perform their duties without delay; thirdly, maintaining a register of coroners’ recommendations; and, fourthly, considering the location of family members, interested people, and witnesses when fixing the place for the inquest.

I am confident that this bill will enhance public confidence in the coronial system; improve the quality, consistency, and timeliness of coronial decision-making; and take better account of the cultural and spiritual needs of families. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): With my colleagues Chris Finlayson and Nicky Wagner, I indicate that National supports the second reading of this bill, but the bill is not without controversy. I hope that the aspirations the previous speaker expressed in respect of this legislation in the form that it has been modified by the Justice and Electoral Committee will truly come to pass.

A coroner is either an officer of a special court—a medical officer—or an officer of law responsible for investigating deaths, particularly those happening under unusual circumstances. Many jurisdictions have the office of coroner or its equivalent; “medical examiner” is a frequent alternative title in the United States, as those who watch programmes such as CSI will know.

It is in the general interests of the community that any sudden, unnatural, or unexplained death should be investigated. To reflect this, the role of coroner has adapted over almost eight centuries since the office was formally established in 1194. The role has changed, of course, from being a form of medieval tax-gatherer to being an independent judicial officer charged with the investigation of sudden, violent, or unnatural death. The duties of the early coroners were varied, and they included the investigation of almost any aspect of medieval life that had the potential benefit of revenue for the Crown. So suicides, about which the previous speaker made mention, were investigated on the grounds that the goods and chattels of those found guilty of the crime of self-murder, as it was called—or, in the old Latin, felo de se—would then be forfeited to the Crown, as were wrecks of the sea or fires, and any discovery of buried treasure in the community. Dealing with treasure trove remains one of the coroner’s duties in the United Kingdom today.

Sudden death in the community has been considered important since the early days of the office, and it was also investigated by coroners, although for reasons far different from those of today, as I have indicated. The coronial system continued to adapt over the centuries, but in the 19th century major changes relating to the investigation of deaths in the community occurred. In 1836 the first births and deaths registration Act was passed. That legislation was prompted by public concern and panic caused by inaccurate, parochial recording of the actual numbers of deaths arising from epidemics such as cholera.

There was also a growing concern that given the easy and uncontrolled access to the numerous poisons, and the inadequate medical investigations into the actual cause of death, many homicides were going undetected. By then, of course, the fiscal responsibility of the coroners had diminished. The Coroners Act of 1887 made significant changes that repealed much of the earlier legislation, and the focus changed so that coroners were more concerned with determining the circumstances and the actual medical causes of sudden, violent, and unnatural deaths.

I would also like to say something about the events that led to this legislation. The current legislation is contained in the Coroners Act 1988. It is right to say that public dissatisfaction about the relationship between coroners and grieving families, and the need for better recognition of cultural and spiritual values in the coronial process, was a major impetus in the reforms proposed by the Law Commission. The issues raised by the Law Commission, unsurprisingly, occur in a range of cultures and religions. Those of us from Auckland who are members of Parliament would be very much aware of that issue. There is, of course, an inherent tension between, on the one hand, the family’s right to mourn and bury its deceased, and, on the other hand, the State’s obligation to ascertain the cause of death.

Conducting an internal post-mortem examination disturbs families and may well conflict with their cultural or religious practices. However, the reality is that the cause of death can often not be established without conducting a post-mortem examination. What we see in this bill—and, I think, successfully—is the striking of an appropriate balance between the cultural and spiritual needs of families, and the public good associated with understanding the causes and circumstances of death in an accurate and timely way.

I do not plan to traverse the detail of the bill and its significant highlights. Other speakers who follow me will talk to some of the issues that give us pause to reflect, such as the question of the reporting of suicides, the need for those who are appointed coroners to be professional, and, of course, the changes that have been made to the bill’s provisions relating to the taking and retention of bodily samples.

But I would like to deal with one issue that was rather brushed aside by the Minister—unfortunately, brushed aside, I would say. The issue that concerns National members relates to clause 132 and schedule 3. Two clauses in schedule 3 are relevant. Clause 2 of schedule 3 provides that on the old legislation expiring, “every former coroner vacates office”. So the existing coroners who have given good and faithful service to the people of New Zealand are to be removed from those positions. It is as harsh as that. Worse still, clause 3 of that schedule states: “No former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office”.

The previous speaker said that coroners are judicial officers. There might be an argument in that regard, and he was most unwise, in my view, to make that admission, because it is important to record that under the existing Coroners Act, coroners are appointed by the Governor-General by warrant. They have tenure. They have an ability to continue until reaching the age of 68. That was certainly the position until it was later modified to give them further tenure until the age of 72. Until 2004, when a change was made to the legislation, coroners had some very specific judicial rights and responsibilities. They had the powers, privileges, authorities, and immunities of a District Court Judge exercising jurisdiction under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

So the Minister would say—and I am happy to agree with him, on this particular point—that coroners were judicial officers and that they continued as judicial officers. We all know, as a matter of elementary law, that judges and judicial officers cannot simply be dumped from office. There are very clear provisions dealing with that issue in the Constitution Act. More significantly, and reflecting the protection given to judicial officers, coroners can be removed from office only for “inability or misbehaviour”. There is no suggestion in what the Minister has said that those coroners who have given good service are in some way unable or misbehaving. Instead, the Government, in clear breach of constitutional convention, is riding roughshod over coroners’ rights by denying them the tenure that the statute has given them.

The Ministry of Justice—wrongly, National would say—has taken the view that cancelling coroners’ warrants by statute is not unconstitutional. But even if that view is correct, real care needs to be taken to respect the constitutional provisions that have for their purpose the protection of the separation of powers doctrine. When I say that, I am talking about the fact that there are three elements in a democracy constituting that power structure—the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. What is happening here is that Parliament is being asked to break down the ramparts in respect of the judicial function. That is wholly wrong. I conclude by saying that we do not doubt that a number of coroners would have made commitments on the basis of their security of tenure. That is now to be threatened by this bill.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): It is with great pleasure that I commend the Coroners Bill to the House. The Coroners Bill repeals and replaces the Coroners Act 1988. In doing so, it enhances public confidence in the coronial system by improving the quality of coroners’ investigations and decision making, thus taking better account of the diverse needs of families. The Law Commission became aware of concerns about coronial practice while consulting with Māori for its review of succession law, and it wrote a separate report on the Act that was tabled in August 2000.

The bill draws on both the Law Commission’s recommendations and the Government’s review. The key elements of the bill include establishing the office of the coroner—a chief coroner—moving to a smaller number of mostly full-time, legally qualified coroners; ensuring families are notified, and kept notified at significant steps, of the coronial process; introducing a regime for retention and release of body parts and bodily samples; and enhancing the inquiry and inquest processes.

I thank the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee, who, I think, generally put politics aside and worked to give careful consideration to this bill, which was well-deserved. In saying that, I just have to make a little comment on the previous speaker, Dr Richard Worth, who has become the advocate for the workers in this case. This is quite ironic when he belongs to a party that advocates sacking at will in the first 3 months of employment and slashing workers’ rights and entitlements. I also thank the staff and advisers on the select committee, who worked so diligently to ensure that all the points made by submitters were addressed and carefully considered. I thank the submitters who submitted to the committee, often in very painful circumstances. I want to say in the House how important this contribution was in the consideration of this bill.

I thank the coroners who presented to the committee and also the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices of the Peace Associations. In doing that, I give recognition to the service of coroners under the current system and also the JPs who have made a major contribution as relief coroners over many years. This bill in no way denigrates their contribution but recognises that a professional coronial system with a team of full-time coroners will build on the current system and provide resources and support for those who work in the system in any way, and also for those who use the coronial system—including families and the public—who are often going through a period of intense grief. I am really proud to stand and commend this bill to the House.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Like the member for Waitakere, I too am pleased that this bill has now come back to the House for its second reading debate. As the report states, it was referred to the previous Justice and Electoral Committee on 14 December 2004. It comes back about 18 months later—an elephantine gestation period of the sort that bedevils so much legislation in this House. There must be ways in which, on non - party political but important matters of principle, this kind of legislation can get through the House rather quicker than this bill has.

I begin by congratulating the member for Waitakere on the way she chaired some very sensitive hearings. As she said, we had a number of submitters before us, and there were some very difficult issues that needed to be grappled with. I think the committee worked very well indeed.

It is an important debate and it raises some very important questions, some of which have been touched on by the Minister and some by my friend Dr Worth. As Dr Worth said, the office of coroner is an ancient one in the State; it goes back to medieval times. As he also said, the coronial court is a court of record, which is very important. He touched on the reasons for that in his speech, and I will say something about it myself.

The Coroners Act 1988 was well overdue for reform. As the member for Waitakere said, the regime that operated under that Act has now been replaced by a regime of full-time coroners and gone are the days where, for example, justices of the peace would act as acting coroners. I join with the member for Waitakere in acknowledging the huge contribution to the process of justice by justices of the peace over the years. I know of one justice of the peace in Wellington—a good friend of mine—who was required to be an acting coroner, normally at the most inconvenient times. With no pay whatsoever, she was always available when the police contacted her about untimely deaths, and she did an excellent job. The service by Mrs Bernadine Pool of Wellington as an acting coroner has been reflected across the country by the service of numerous justices of the peace.

The Minister outlined key changes introduced in this bill. I really want to touch on three. The first concerns the need for expeditious hearings. I am pleased that the committee saw fit to include what appears in the bill as clause 4A, which is a statement of principle, but it also emphasises to coroners the need for them to conduct their functions, powers, and duties without delay. The committee received a number of submissions that addressed the length of time it sometimes takes to deal with coronial hearings and, as we heard from the people making submissions to the committee, that can place huge stress on the families of deceased people. It is in the interests of justice, of finality, and of the families of the deceased that a coronial inquiry be conducted as quickly as possible. As the clause notes—and I will say a bit more about it in the Committee stage of the debate—the primary consideration must, of course, be that of justice. Coroners obviously cannot be permitted to cut corners in order to reach a quick result, and it must also be practicable to conduct an inquiry without undue delay.

The second issue that the Minister touched on, which is a very important issue, concerns clauses 61 to 63 and the restrictions on the making public of details of self-inflicted deaths. The committee’s report states that we found this a difficult task. We debated it at length. We were very lucky to receive some excellent submissions. I have to say to the House that this issue has troubled me greatly over the past few weeks; indeed, it is the most difficult issue that I have had to deal with in the short time I have been in Parliament. I think it is in the interests of New Zealand that there be a proper debate in the House on this issue, both in the course of this reading and in the Committee stage of the bill, because—as is obvious—suicide, and particularly youth suicide, is a major health issue.

Clause 61 substantially re-enacts what was in the 1988 Act. It is very broad indeed and it applies even before the matter comes before the coroner. I refer members to subclause (1). In the case of a suspected suicide, the media may not state—even in a news item—how the person died unless they have the authority of a coroner, and I really do grapple with the issue of whether it is in the public interest that we have such a protective provision.

On the one hand, we had very powerful submissions from, for example, the New Zealand Press Council, and I will quote what it said because it is very important. The council was concerned with the issue of freedom of expression and said that issue was at the very heart of its submissions: “The Council is strongly of the view that the present statutory provisions inhibiting publication of information and discussion of self-inflicted deaths with no proposed change in the bill are against the public interest. Whatever the reasons in the past for the restriction, they have now been overtaken by the wish of the public to be informed and to discuss the major health issue of suicide, particularly for the young.” The submission was prepared by the Press Council under the chairmanship of Sir John Jeffries, for whom I have enormous respect, and it was presented by Justice Paterson, for whom I also have great respect.

The key issue is that the print media recognises suicide as a grave social issue. The Press Council described it as one of urgent public interest, but it had to confront what it called the “impenetrable thicket” of the current Coroners Act restrictions. The council acknowledged that editors need to continue the utmost responsibility to readers while exercising freedom of the press. It stated that reports of suicide should be tempered by awareness of the language used and by the way articles are used and treated, and, where possible, reports should be accompanied by information about where help is to be found. The council stated that the best way of dealing with this is to reinforce self-regulation in the press rather than to rely on restrictive statutory prohibitions. In concluding its submission, the council stated that the press has a crucial role to play in any public debate about suicide, and its causes and effects. It subscribes to the philosophy of the Canadian Suicide Information and Education Collection centre, which is that suicide affects us all and that we should talk about it.

The contrary argument is comprehensively covered in the Justice and Electoral Committee’s report, and I will not repeat it here. As I have said, I and, I believe, other members of the committee found this a very difficult issue. I acknowledge the importance of freedom of the press and the force of what the committee said in its report. Indeed, since the bill came back to the House I have been making inquiries of people who have had a suicide in their family. One particularly sad case involved friends of mine whose son committed suicide. The mother told me she favours liberalisation of reporting. She thinks that the issue does need to be addressed by the public of New Zealand. So I hope that over the next few weeks as we look at this bill, we will debate it in a manner that befits the hugely important topic we are dealing with.

Finally, Dr Worth has already covered the issue of transitional arrangements, so I will be brief. I have a problem, as other National members do, about the transitional arrangements. The Minister said that most coroners are not really full-time coroners. The reality is that many coroners in this country who are lawyers have given up their practices to concentrate on coronial work. I refer, for example, to Garry Evans, a noted defamation and workers’ compensation lawyer in Wellington for many years in the firm of O’Regan Arndt Peters and Evans. I know for a fact that although he is not a full-time coroner, in effect his old practice has gone because he has needed to concentrate on coronial work.

We in the National Party are concerned about those people if these transitional arrangements apply, because they would cease to operate as coroners and would be cut loose. I would have thought that, after years of doing coronial work, they would not get back into full-time practice easily. So the constitutionality is something we will discuss during the Committee stage. I know the Government obtained an opinion from Crown Law. The coroners, in fact, obtained an opinion from the former Deputy Solicitor-General Mary Scholtens QC, and I happen to prefer her opinion because I think it is correct.

Those are the three issues I wish to address in the second reading debate, but particularly I wish to focus on the issue of suicide. I have had grave difficulty grappling with the policy issues involved there. From my point of view, it is a very finely balanced debate. So I will spend some more time thinking about it before the Committee stage, and I hope that other members will as well.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I, like previous speakers, rise to support the Coroners Bill, although I do so on behalf of the Green Party. We support the bill because it is a good piece of legislation. When the bill was introduced into the House, I spoke in the first reading debate about the many positive aspects of it. The process of the bill going through the Justice and Electoral Committee, where all the political parties worked in a very cooperative and constructive manner, has strengthened the bill and made it better. It is a good example of how this House can, at times, grapple with important issues. It is not the hottest topic on the political agenda but it is extremely important to those who are affected, because these issues are enormously sensitive. So the bill is a very good example of how members of this House can work together on these important issues.

There have been numerous criticisms of coroners in the past. Some coroners have worked extremely well, and some, I think it is fair to say, have been lacking. We heard some of those issues raised at the select committee, and members will have heard about them out among the public, as well. During the select committee hearings I became more convinced that the bill was important, was needed, and was an effective way to address a number of those problems. In particular, establishing coroners as a professional body whose members are primarily full-time, and that has a proper structure and oversight, means that many of the problems that have been identified in the past can be tidied up. There is some possibility of making a formal complaint and addressing problems that exist.

One of things the bill does is start to rectify some of the power imbalance that has existed in the past. Clause 30, “Criteria for decision whether to direct post-mortem”, is important stuff. For the family of a deceased person, the idea that their loved one will go through a post-mortem is quite a traumatic prospect. So there have to be very clear guidelines around the basis of the decision as to whether a post-mortem will happen. It is good to see those things laid out like that in the bill, as well as there being the right to object to a post-mortem.

I regret that one of the issues I would have liked to see addressed at the select committee was not picked up, and that was in relation to who may attend the post-mortem. Clause 36(1)(d) talks about, among a number of other people, “a doctor, nurse, or funeral director attending as the representative of the family of the person …”. Although it is good to have that provision there, one of my concerns is that it does not necessarily pick up all the people who may have a good reason to attend the post-mortem. In particular, I think about people who may represent the family, and are not a registered doctor, a nurse, or a funeral director, but who are versed in issues around dead bodies. I understand that in Māori culture there are people whose specialist knowledge is in dealing with the deceased. I know that is true in other cultures as well, and I would have liked to see the select committee recognise that through some explicit mention in the bill. Unfortunately, that did not happen, but those people are still covered in paragraph (h): “any other person, if authorised …”. So although there is no specific mention of those people, there is still some provision for that to occur.

A couple of issues in the recommendations of the committee are particularly worth highlighting. One of them is around the issue of body parts and bodily samples. Committee members heard from people who talked about the very real sensitivities around bodily samples, as opposed to body parts. We all understand what body parts will be. Bodily samples are minute samples. Often a thin sliver of tissue is taken for some kind of analysis, and it may be held for some time. The committee heard that, sometimes, returning those very small samples—less than matchbox size—to families some time after they have buried their family member can be enormously distressful and can be a real issue for people.

There may be quite important public health reasons for retaining some of those samples for further analysis. Of course, in those kinds of circumstances the family must always retain the right to have that sample returned, but it seemed to the committee that there was value in making a distinction between body parts and bodily samples. Body parts will always be returned to the family unless the coroner directs that they should be retained for a very specific purpose, and very clear parameters as to what that purpose can be are set out in the bill. Bodily samples are somewhat different because of the reasons I have mentioned. The family can always request that they be returned, but we thought it was useful to make a distinction between how those were treated in the legislation, and that has been done in clause 43.

The issue of the reporting of self-inflicted deaths has been mentioned at some length by Mr Finlayson. It was something that exercised the minds of committee members to some degree and for some time. It is a sensitive issue, and we heard fairly strong submissions from media representatives in particular about the public interest in the reporting of suicide. I think there is a good case to be made in that we have an extremely high suicide rate in this country, and I think there is good argument to say we need a more informed and deeper public debate around those issues. The committee took that issue very seriously, but we had to balance it against other considerations. In particular, there are the sensitivities of families who are already going through a highly traumatic time. The details of the self-inflicted death of a family member being splashed in the media in some way is something that none of us would want to see done gratuitously.

Another issue, of course, is the risk of increasing suicide. Although a bit of work still needs to be done on some of the evidence, the select committee was presented with reasonably strong evidence that the reporting of suicides can in some circumstances increase the incidence of suicide. It can lead to copycat methodology, which does not necessarily increase the number of suicides but may increase the number of a certain type of suicide. There is some evidence that the net amount of suicide can also be affected by media reporting. Nobody would want that to be a consequence of a decision made by the House. The select committee considered those matters very carefully.

When one works through the issues one sees that the bill strikes a reasonable balance. Only very restricted reporting is allowed before an inquiry has been completed, and the bill provides that once the coroner has found a death to be self-inflicted, no person may, without the coroner’s authority, make public the particulars of the death, other than the person’s name, address, and occupation, and the fact that the death has been found to be self-inflicted. That is highly restrictive, but the coroner may give authority for publication of other details. The only ground on which the coroner may do so is that the making public of particulars of that kind would be unlikely to be detrimental to public safety. That is quite a good provision, because if there is evidence that certain kinds of information are not likely to be harmful to the public good, then the coroner can authorise the publication of that information. Because of the way the provision is worded, the coroner can also take into account family sensitivity. That is important. The information can be published but only if it is not likely to be detrimental.

The committee, having grappled with the issue at some length—and I share many of Mr Finlayson’s concerns around it—stuck with the bill pretty much as it was drafted. That is not a bad place to end up. When we think of the issue of text bullying, we see an excellent example of the leeway the media already have to report the issue of suicide. The media played a very responsible role and engaged in that debate in an informative and responsible manner, within the confines of the current legislation. That indicated to the committee that even under current restrictions there is some leeway to have that public debate, and that has to be the purpose of allowing media reporting. It seemed that maybe the kinds of changes the media were asking for were not necessarily vital in order to allow that public debate to take place.

RON MARK (NZ First): New Zealand First will be supporting the progress of the bill through the House. I have to say that one of the reasons why legislation takes so long to be passed is that people spend so much time talking about things they have already agreed to, so I will not repeat the mistake by dragging this speech out any longer than I have to, but simply indicate—

Bob Clarkson: You weren’t there.

RON MARK: No, that is right. Dail Jones was on the Justice and Electoral Committee previously, and after its winding up and the report back to the House there was a new committee. I was not on that committee, and anyone who can read knows that.

I simply say that the speeches given thus far have pretty much canvassed the entire issue, and it is good to know there are people with a degree of expertise in the matter who are able to speak in the House in respect of coroners and the legislation.

I say to the honourable Chris Finlayson that if the gentleman he knows is as confident, capable, and dedicated to the work as he suggested in his speech to the House, we would assume from our seats that he would be a likely contender to be appointed as a full-time coroner. So where is the problem? Indeed, where, then, does there lie a need for compensation? If such a gentleman were to be confirmed as a full-time employee, why would he need compensation?

Christopher Finlayson: What if he’s not?

RON MARK: Well, there are plenty of casual workers out there who get no compensation whatsoever, and we are still waiting to see someone in the House pick up on the plight of the casual worker, who may get only 20 hours this week, 39.5 hours next week, and no hours the week after. I do not see a lot of heartbreak in the Labour Party camp about such an issue, and I do not expect to see it on the National side, because it is not an issue that it would—

Bob Clarkson: Come on!

RON MARK: “Come on!” says Mr Clarkson, the member for Tauranga for one term. Is he telling me that no friends of his employ casual workers in their businesses, and that he does not know of workers who might get 5 hours one week and 20 hours the next week, and not be able to get a mortgage because they have no surety of income? In fact, these professionals who take on part-time work as coroners are in a far better position to protect themselves and their future than a casual cleaner who comes in to clean Mr Clarkson’s office at 2 o’clock in the morning, while Mr Clarkson is safely tucked up in bed snoring his head off, one would think.

When the bill came to Parliament, New Zealand First expressed some concerns about it, particularly the lack of uniformity amongst coroners, the varying experience levels, and the lack of leadership. The bill seems to take care of those issues. There is formalised training and ongoing employment on a full-time basis, which we supported. We also supported the concept that legislation should take into account spiritual and cultural beliefs, be they Māori, Indian, or whatever. Surely we are in an age where those issues should be taken into account. Clearly, the committee has done that work, and it is reflected in the legislation, and we applaud that.

Some of the opposing views were that 54 mostly part-time coroners in New Zealand would have to step down without compensation, and that was something we noted when the bill was first introduced—and I think Dail Jones spoke on that matter. There are concerns about how the changes will affect small communities in rural areas, with longer travelling distances to coroner hearings. I have not heard that mentioned here, but obviously the committee dealt with those issues.

We also raised our concern about the clause dealing with immediate family and how widely that was defined. We note in the report back that the definition has been expanded further to include civil union partners. I guess one of the concerns we had when it comes to clause 31 is the right of some family members to object to the post-mortem of a deceased person. We expressed a concern that in a case where a close family member who fitted within this very loose, broad description of a family member was in actual fact a suspect in the death of the deceased person, through that clause that person would have an ability to prevent a post-mortem taking place. We signalled that that was an area of concern.

I guess our final area of concern, which has already been discussed by a number of members in their speeches, is the issue of making public details of self-inflicted deaths. We in New Zealand First do not believe that such a move would have been wise, and it is good to see that no such changes were made.

My final comment relates to body parts and bodily samples. Again, it is good to see that finally we have in place clearly defined protocols, procedures, and rights and obligations, because it was the lack of such that led to Green Lane Hospital’s discovery of babies’ body parts. Being the father of a child who died in a cot death, I can tell members that the decision-making process is actually taken right out of parents’ hands. We saw our own wee baby girl taken away, and we knew there was going to be a post-mortem. That was a very difficult thing to come to terms with, as grieving parents. To subsequently find out that there was now doubt as to whether we had received our daughter back completely intact was, let me assure members, an exceedingly distressing moment in our lives. Although we found that Tracey had not been in any way affected like that, our hearts went out to the thousands of parents who received the worst possible news—that they had received their infant baby’s body back minus pieces, without any knowledge whatsoever that that had been the case.

It is pleasing to know that in this day and age in Parliament we have people who sit on select committees and work across party lines, and who do the work to ensure that the protocols, rights, responsibilities, and obligations are clearly defined in respect of such matters, as they have been in this bill. I commend the committee for its work.

New Zealand First supports the passage of this bill and looks forward to further debate during the Committee stage around some of the issues that were raised by Mr Finlayson in respect of compensation.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, tēnā tātou te Whare. Last Sunday marked 6 years since the tragic, unnecessary, and preventable death of Steven Wallace. He was shot and killed by a police officer at Waitara on 30 April 2000. It also marked the point 1 year ago when Chief High Court Judge, Justice Anthony Randerson, ruled to the effect that coroner Gordon Mātenga could restart the much delayed inquest into Steven’s death. This inquest was originally scheduled to start on 21 May 2001. I can imagine the trauma for that family having to wait for so long and not being able to put their son to rest properly because bureaucracy kept him entwined in this world.

With that background in mind, therefore, the Māori Party was poised to see how this new Coroners Bill would advance Māori interests for the benefit of the nation. The aim of the bill, to reform the coronial system to improve its effectiveness and to ensure that the system responds better to the needs of bereaved families, including their cultural and spiritual needs, is somewhere along the track. In some ways we were a bit disappointed that the law commissioners who presented a discussion paper recommending a whole heap of things that would address the inadequacies of the current system were not, I believe, given the consideration that they should have been.

We are still concerned about some things, such as the reduction in the number of coroners to 20, which means it is highly likely that those positions will be regionalised. At a time of death families are often very traumatised, and one has a coroner only if one is in a traumatic situation. So to have to have a coroner whom the family may not know, who lives in another town—and therefore the family will not have the opportunity to have somebody who is advocating for them who is able to ring the coroner as someone whom they know—will, I think, create some difficulties for people who are in that situation.

We hope that when these people are appointed, our people will be able to have some input into the appointment of these coroners. We have only two Māori coroners at present. We believe that if Māori are not going to play a part as coroners, then it is very important that these coroners have cultural competency. We know, from our experience where I come from, how much power the police have in advising coroners to carry out post-mortems or to do whatever is required. We have had some very tragic situations. I listened to Ron, and I mihi to him for the loss of his daughter.

We had a niece from our marae who lost her child to cot death, but the police decided that she must have shaken her baby. I had to go to the hospital to support her while the police were interrogating her as she held her baby in her arms. They took her child and said that it had to have a forensic pathologist’s report. Without the family knowing, the baby’s eyes were removed and flown to Auckland. We as a whānau had to wait for those eyes to be returned to Wanganui to be put back with the child so we could carry on with the tangihanga, and there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the child had been shaken at all. That is what I mean when I say the police have a huge amount of power, and we have seen it on more than one occasion at home.

We as a party have talked about tikanga Māori being incorporated into the whole proceedings, and I know there has been a lot of talk about people being present at post-mortems. Of course, there has been an agreement that only certain people will be admitted. I think that is an issue for the whānau. Although I agree that the circumstances and what happens during post-mortem can be very, very distressing, I still believe that families should have the right to determine who represents them during the post-mortem process. We know how important it is to our families when somebody dies. It does not matter what the circumstances are; but in our culture it is most important that the tūpāpaku is not left alone. The way in which the process has worked to date, where families have not been able to access their loved ones to be able to carry out karakia and to do all those things that are really important, creates trauma for families.

We are saying that with this legislation we hope we will see a huge change in the attitudes not only of coroners but also of police. We also hope that this legislation will be sent to every police station throughout the country so that the police can make sure these issues are addressed—and addressed in a culturally appropriate way. I think Ron is right. It does not matter what the culture is; these issues impact on all cultures. We all have different values, and we have different ways of expressing our culture. Those should be taken into consideration.

Last week I had a very sad young woman come to my office to tell me that she had lost a daughter more than a year ago and that before Christmas, almost a year later, the body parts that had been taken at the time of her daughter’s death were returned to her and her family. It was quite devastating for the family, because they did not know what to do with them. They were traumatised further by that experience. I think it is really important that coroners do notify whānau if a post-mortem is required and if the removal of body parts is required. Whānau should be informed of absolutely everything during that procedure. If we want people to cooperate, and if we want them to believe that all these things are being done in their best interests, then I would expect that they be fully informed. Also, they need to know that if they want to they can challenge the right to a post-mortem in the High Court. They need a good lawyer and they need to know what their rights are in a situation like that.

We look forward to seeing this bill come to fruition. We also look forward to seeing who the coroners will be, and we expect that Māori people particularly will be able to have a say on who the coroner in their region will be. Nā reira, ka nui te mihi ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I want to take just a brief call in support of this bill. I will begin by drawing on the very graphic examples that the member who preceded me has just presented to the House, as compelling evidence of why change is necessary. I think it is worth recalling for the House, at the risk of sounding like an aged veteran, that this current Act was passed in 1988, around the time that we were first coming to grips with the so-called “unfortunate experiment” in Auckland, that the items Mr Mark referred to about the routine storing of babies’ parts at Green Lane Hospital were not public knowledge, that there was a climate that really did not see the cultural issues that have been identified in this debate as being all that significant, and that the air of mystery that surrounded the process was still one that said that this was best left to doctors and coroners, and people who know about those things, and that families ought to be left out in the cold.

That was only 18 years ago, and things have moved a huge way in that time. Technology has changed. DNA sampling, which then was just a concept people mused about, is now a reality. So many horrific “unfortunate experiments” have been revealed, that there is a new mood in the community for a far greater assertion of the rights of the family and those close to the deceased person, in terms of the way in which that person is treated through post-mortems and other such examinations. So it is timely that this bill picks up contemporary trends, and legislates in a way that recognises the concerns that are being expressed. I suspect that if one looked at the record from 18 years ago, when this measure was last debated, one would not see too much concern expressed about how long the process took. The view then would have been as long as we got a decision at some point. That is a measure of how much things have moved in the meantime.

I think that this bill is a positive step forward. I take the comment made earlier by a previous speaker about the elephantine progress of legislation. This Act may well be one that is kept under far more constant review than once every couple of decades, because I think that social attitudes, technology, and other things will change very rapidly.

The second comment I want to make relates to the reporting of self-inflicted death or suicide. I am one who traditionally has held the view that the greater the degree of openness in these matters, the better. Over the years I have worked with a number of suicide prevention groups and other groups, and I have to say that my view has changed somewhat. I think that there is a very real danger—and a lot of the evidence would support this—of creating a situation where the worthy presentation of information about the risks in the situations people get up to actually creates a copycat syndrome. I think we have to be very, very careful about that. I respect immensely the legal mind and intellectual capacity of Sir John Jeffries, and I would be very heavily guided, in the normal course of events, by submissions that he might make. I believe that the submissions he prepared on behalf of the Press Council were well intentioned and noble, and that a man of his integrity would ensure that if the provision were liberalised, the law would be applied in that way.

But I do not have the same confidence with regard to the news media as a whole. I become somewhat anxious when the leading charge for change in this area, in the interests of making the public better informed and more aware, comes from our New Zealand news media. Because my view of them, frankly, in these matters is that the lurid and the sensational win out over the public interest every time. For that reason I think that the position recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I agree it is a close-run thing, is actually the correct one until we do not have a situation where the New Zealand media will treat getting the last sensational detail as a competitive advantage. I do not think, in the interests of our young people in particular, that we can afford to make the reporting of these circumstances more open than it is at the moment.

Finally, I want to make a comment about both Mr Mark’s speech and Ms Turia’s speech. Although I have experienced death at close hand, I have not had the experience of post-mortems. But I have talked to a number of people who clearly have been through that trauma. I think that anything that can be done, firstly, to give the family in those situations more information about what is going on and why; secondly, to assure them of dignity, courtesy, and respect in a process that is timely and considered; and thirdly, to be able to give some confidence that the system is actually undertaking these examinations for a purpose, not just because that is what it always does, has to be an advantage.

I believe that the coronial system has served New Zealand well to date. I take my hat off to people such as the Wellington Coroner who I think has been an outstanding coroner, and I sincerely hope we do not lose his services as a result of this new legislation. But I think that this bill, on the whole, is a step forward, and it deserves to be passed into law at the earliest opportunity.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I rise to take a very quick call on this bill. I think the Justice and Electoral Committee has done a wonderful job and got the bill back in a very balanced format. I used to work in a hospital in liaison with coroners, undertakers, and funeral directors on a daily basis, and I drafted a member’s bill when I first came into Government in 2000. I would like to thank our Ministers of this Government who picked that up and turned it into a Government bill, following on from the Law Commission report.

This is a wonderful bill. It is needed. It is desperately needed by coroners around the country. They have been asking for support for the role of the office of the coroner, and also for cultural supporters to walk beside them. Coroners in the past were not appointed but were asked to consider undertaking the role. My husband, who was asked by Tūariki Delamere, said: “Thank you, but no thank you.”, even when he knew that Māori people really needed Māori coroners. But at that time one used the resources of one’s own office entirely. One had no resources that went with the role of the coroner and no support whatsoever in terms of a network of coronial support.

In this bill there is a chief coroner and cultural advisers to the office of the coroner, and I think that that is the support coroners have been screaming out for, as well as for well-resourced positions. This position does have financial implications and I am really thrilled that the Government has picked that point up. Around the country coroners have been waiting for this bill. At every coroner’s conference they have been asking the Minister when this bill would come in.

I look forward to the next stage of this bill. One other issue that I think is very important is the reporting of the findings of death—not just suicide, but the findings of death—and linking that in to death review teams around the country. By looking at coroners’ findings on those deaths we will certainly start to have an impact on suicide and unintended death in this country, and that will help many people.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.