Tuesday, 3 April 2007

Tuesday, 3 April 2007

Tuesday, 3 April 2007

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Co-operative Republic of Guyana—Minister of Amerindian Affairs

Madam SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Mrs Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, Minister of Amerindian Affairs of the National Assembly of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that she be welcomed.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Health, Minister—Confidence

1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Health; if so, why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

John Key: Does she believe that the Minister of Health exercised the appropriate level of oversight when the Auckland district health boards negotiated the contract for pathology services with Labtests Auckland; if so, does she therefore think that sole responsibility for any alleged wrongdoing could rest only with those who, in fact, signed the contract, in particular Wayne Brown and Ross Keenan?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes and yes.

John Key: Does she agreed with the Minister of Health that the appropriate time for the Government to determine accountability of this mess was after the interim contract was signed with Diagnostic Medlab last week, in which case will she today express confidence or otherwise in Wayne Brown and Ross Keenan?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, because “after” has a while to run.

John Key: Why does she still have confidence in a Minister of Health who did not act against Government-appointed officials who signed a contract with someone who was—to use her words—“duplicitous” and had “a blatant conflict of interest”, but now wants to act against the same officials or the same individuals before the Crown can even determine whether an appeal will be lodged?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Because the extent of that Tory friend’s duplicity has only become visible with the court judgment.

John Key: Has it not dawned on the Prime Minister that by delaying any statement of confidence in the Auckland district health boards until after the appeal process has played out, she is practically inviting those directors to lodge an appeal in order to save their jobs for at least a year, if not more?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, nor do I intend to cut across appeal rights.

John Key: Has she, as Prime Minister, or has her Minister of Health, sought or received legal advice on sacking the directors of the Auckland district health boards?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That is premature. Obviously, the Government proceeds carefully. There is an appeal period yet to expire. What is being explored is the full range of options; and the full range, of course, goes from expressing confidence, to people going.

John Key: If the conflict of interest that Dr Bierre had was “blatantly obvious”, as she said last week, why does she need to wait any longer before she expresses confidence or otherwise in those who signed the flawed contract with Dr Bierre?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would have thought it was blatantly obvious, which is why I am rather well disposed towards the court judgment, but I am aware there is an appeal period yet to expire.

Minimum Wage—Recent Changes

2. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Labour: What changes were made to the minimum wage last Sunday?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): I am very pleased that last Sunday the adult minimum wage had its biggest increase since 1999, from $10.25 to $11.25 an hour. The youth rate increased from $8.20 to $9 an hour. This change effectively gives 109,100 workers a pay rise.

Hon Mark Gosche: Has she seen any reports on changes to the minimum wage?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I have. I have seen a report that notes that the Labour-led Government has raised the minimum wage each and every year it has been in office, from $7 an hour in 1999 to $11.25 this year—a total rise of $4.25 an hour, or 61 percent. This result stands in stark contrast to the last National Government, which over 9 years raised the minimum wage by less than $1 an hour, or 14 percent.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister able to assure the House that by this time next year the minimum wage will have increased a further 35c, which is a mere 3.1 percent, to make $12 per hour as stipulated in the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First; if not, will she tell the House how the minimum wage will reach $12 per hour before the end of 2008?

Hon RUTH DYSON: If the minimum wage was to rise by only 35c an hour, that would be in breach of the accord we have with both New Zealand First and the Green Party. We are aiming to increase the adult minimum wage by 75c an hour next year, which will take it to $12 an hour.

Hon Mark Gosche: Has she seen any other reports on other changes to the minimum wage?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I have. I am pleased to say that I have seen supportive statements from different sectors, including health care providers, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, New Zealand First, the Greens, and the Progressive party. However, I seem to be missing one—from a so-called supporter of raising the minimum wage, who again confirms the surveyed opinion of a growing number of New Zealanders that he is simply more style than substance. That person is John Key.

Schools—Standards and Achievement

3. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that “In the school sector, our main focus will continue to be on standards and achievement, especially in literacy and numeracy.”; if so, what are those standards?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes; and the standards reached in our schools are very high, with the achievement level of New Zealand students overall ranked sixth in the OECD, and the top 40 percent said to rate as the best in the OECD.

John Key: How many New Zealand children left primary school last year without reaching the standard expected of them in reading, writing, and maths?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Unlike the member, the Government does not support age-related national standards, testing, and league tables. We do not impose centrally minimum standards. We know that the National Party thinks National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) sometimes runs the risk of ticking the box; now it wants to do this for 6-year-olds.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the Prime Minister seen reports of how the New Zealand education system compares with systems with national standards?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have indeed seen a report from the New Zealand Principals Federation, which states that our education system is the envy of countries that have standardised testing. I would further say that in the very week when 1,400 principals have come from around the world because they admire our education system, the Leader of the Opposition has bagged it.

Hon Brian Donnelly: What proportion of primary schools does the Prime Minister believe send out reports that read like real estate ads, and does she believe that anyone who suggests that that is the practice of most schools is blatantly insulting the professionalism of our primary education service?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Such a person not only would be insulting the professionalism of our teachers, which I have great respect for, but also would be totally out of touch with what happens in our State schools.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree that a policy to test kids more but then failed to provide any additional funding for support staff or more programmes would serve only to stigmatise young students, without offering them any support they may need to do better?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Absolutely, and such a policy would be a very empty policy. I would add to “empty” the description “confusing”, after what the Leader of the Opposition offered yesterday.

Judy Turner: Does the Prime Minister agree that testing primary-aged children against standards should, and does, take place regularly, but that its primary purpose is as a diagnostic tool for teachers and parents, and that, as such, this information must be readily available for parents at all times?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I absolutely agree with the assertion in the member’s question, and say that information is available to our parents—as it should be.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Is the Prime Minister aware of the Ministry of Education report, Achievement at Maori Immersion and Bilingual Schools, which shows that year 11 candidates at bilingual schools did very well in meeting the literacy and numeracy requirements of NCEA level 1, and were more likely to meet these requirements than both Māori and non-Māori in English medium schools; and how will she use that information to support Māori immersion programmes?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am broadly aware of those results and of the fact that our bilingual schools are doing particularly well for our students, and I think that it does show what investment in te reo can do to help raise achievement overall.

John Key: Is the reason that the Prime Minister would not answer my earlier supplementary question—which asked how many children were leaving primary school without reaching the expected standard in literacy of reading, writing, or maths—that the Government has not actually set a standard, and therefore the Government has absolutely no clue how many children fail to meet the standard?

Hon Trevor Mallard: That approach was abolished in the 1930s.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As my colleague the previous Minister of Education said, that approach was abolished in the 1930s. We do not have centrally imposed minimum standards that result in a “tick the box” approach to education.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the purpose of testing tools, such as asTTle and Supplementary Test of Achievement in Reading, is diagnostic to enable teachers to recognise where remedial work is required, and the kind of national testing in standards advocated by the Leader of the Opposition stigmatises children early in their school career, leading to later failure rather than success?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I absolutely agree with that. The Leader of the Opposition’s approach reminds me very much of the failed Eleven plus approach that used to prevail in the United Kingdom and saw so many children condemned to failure from an early age.

John Key: Will the Prime Minister come with me to Glen Taylor School, a decile 1 school in Glen Innes, and observe the work of the principal, Lyn Avery, who has used exactly the formula I outlined yesterday—a school that has received outstanding Education Review Office reports since she took over but that, for the previous 12 years, received Education Review Office reports that were very poor indeed; and will she explain to Lyn Avery that what she is doing is wrong and she would rather they go back to the failed policies of the past?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That school is one of hundreds and hundreds of good State schools, about which the member knows little, that apply those assessment tools to develop children’s learning. The member really is very out of touch with what happens in our State schools.

Madam SPEAKER: I could not hear that answer, at all. The level of barracking is now rising again. I am sure members at the back of the Chamber could not hear the answer, either. I ask all members to keep the noise down or we will be having questions and answers in silence.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Is the Prime Minister receiving reports suggesting why it is sensible to introduce standards-based assessment in primary school when people are in the early stages of education and reject it in their late stages of secondary school?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am indeed struck by the irony that the National Party preaches one thing for primary school students and another for secondary school students.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister explain to the country and to the parents of New Zealand what is wrong with determining a minimum standard about whether their child can read, write, and do maths, what is wrong with using one of the well and truly approved tests such as asTTle, Supplementary Test of Achievement in Reading, or progressive achievement test, what is wrong with using the diagnostic information that comes from those tests to improve teaching standards and to improve the outcome of those schools, and, finally, what is wrong with giving that information to parents in New Zealand about what their child is doing—because if the Prime Minister thinks that is wrong, then she is the one that is out of touch, not the National Party?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Obviously, some of my answers have really stung the member today because he is out of touch with what happens in our State schools. I am advised that our Education Review Office finds that something like 90 percent of our schools are good or very good at informing parents on how our children are doing, and we are working on the others.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Education Review Office stated last week that one in two schools are not effectively reporting to parents about their children’s education, and has it now dawned on the Prime Minister that the one of us who is out of touch is not me, but her?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course the member has just managed to utterly misrepresent what the Education Review Office report stated. What actually happened is that in the past assessment used to be put on the shelf and not looked at again; now it is supposed to be used to inform a teacher as he or she prepares the learning programme. About half our schools are making progress on that; the other half could do better—and we are working on it.

Hon Steve Maharey: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Education Review Office report shows that 90 percent of primary schools—the schools the Leader of the Opposition is attacking—are said to provide feedback that is very good, or good, to all parents, and that only 4 percent of primary schools were identified as not doing this; and would the Prime Minister say that this is an inopportune time for the Leader of the Opposition to attack these schools as 1,400 principals from around the world are gathered in Auckland because the system is so good and they have come to look at it, while he is bagging it?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Minister is exactly right. Firstly, 90 percent of our schools are said to be good or very good at informing parents about how their children are doing. Secondly, 1,400 principals have come from around the world because they admire the New Zealand school system. Thirdly, the member just does not get direct feedback from our State school system.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government’s own agency, the Education Review Office, says that one in five children is not succeeding at school and that schools are, in fact, doing a bad job of identifying those students who are struggling; and, if the Prime Minister cares about all of the children in New Zealand, she will focus not just on those who absolutely do achieve well at school but will take some time to work out why 150,000 children are now failing to reach even minimum standards in literacy and numeracy?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member should be well aware that across the population there is a range of levels of ability and that there are, conventionally, thought to be something like one in five children who may have difficulty even fitting into the discipline structure of a school, which makes it hard to learn. Our Government is absolutely committed to raising standards for those children.

Hon Steve Maharey: Can the Prime Minister confirm that at the international conference in Auckland, where 1,400 principals from around the world are joining principals in this country, the emeritus professor at Warwick University, Sir Ken Robinson, told the conference that in most education systems there is confusion between standardising education and raising education standards, and that he described standardising tests as the “enemy of achievement”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have indeed had that statement referred to me, and I believe it would be consistent with a wide body of professional opinion about testing. I am further aware that the chief executive of the exams watchdog in the United Kingdom, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, has come out and suggested that in that country the tests for 11-year-olds should be scrapped. At the very time these issues are being reconsidered in the United Kingdom, the National Party wants age-related national standards, testing, and league tables. Unless ACT has spoken up, I am not aware of any political party in this Parliament that would support it, because it is so old-fashioned and wrong.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You regularly appeal to the House to come to order to give questioners a fair go, and all the rest of it. Although none of that is, strictly speaking, written in the Standing Orders, there is a convention that the House would, obviously, follow that. Question time is for the Opposition to question the executive. I suggest to you that there is also a strong convention that the executive does not question itself during question time. Yet today we have had no less than four Ministers ask a total of six supplementary questions of the Prime Minister. We have even seen the absurdity of the Minister of Education asking the Prime Minister questions about his own portfolio.

Madam SPEAKER: Do members want to stay in the Chamber? Points of order are heard in silence.

Gerry Brownlee: Parliament is supposed to be a place where information is made available to people—at least, question time is—by virtue of Opposition questions. I know you will say that there is no strict restriction on members of the executive asking each other questions, or perhaps taking the opportunity of having the time to talk to one another, but I think it would be fair to say that that is not how question time runs. It may help with the general order of the House if members of the Labour Government recognised that and started having their conversations in the lobbies or in their own offices.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I notice that the member referred to “no less than four Ministers”. Of course, in the light of the previous range of questions, it should have been “no fewer than four Ministers”, so the member failed that standards-based achievement. But apart from that, there is no such convention in this House. Ministers have raised supplementary questions on many occasions over many, many years.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank members. As the member who raised the original point of order noted, I have ruled on this before. There is nothing to prevent Ministers from asking supplementary questions. There is, however—and I think we are fast getting to it—not only a convention but also a Standing Order stating that members are entitled to be heard in the House. So if we have a continuation of what we have had so far, then we will be having question time in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It was very clear from the beginning what the tenor and purpose of the last point of order was. In short, it had no merit, whatsoever. So, Madam Speaker, my inquiry is to ask why you heard the member out when the point of order was nonsense. I do not believe that you would have heard out another member from this end of the House, had he or she sought to raise such a spurious point of order.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I do hear lots of spurious points of order. Perhaps at times I should cut them short, but I find it quicker sometimes to hear them than to not hear them. Could we please now proceed.

Real Estate Industry—Reform Proposals

4. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What response has he received to proposals to reform the real estate industry?

Madam SPEAKER: I understand that this is a slightly longer answer than normal, but not too long, I hope.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice): The response has been overwhelmingly positive. Deb Leask, whose agents attempted to lowball her property sale by around $120,000, states she is “absolutely very impressed” with the proposals, and that the “overhaul will ensure that consumers are protected from real estate agents who could take advantage of them”. John Ottaway, who, with his partner, Caitlin, was ripped off to the tune of $35,000, stated: “The overhaul was the best thing that could happen.”, and: “What’s taken place with us is rank. It stinks of the old boys’ network and them looking after their own.” John Haycock, who was ripped off to the tune of $20,000, stated: “I want to see a complete restructure. I think its essential that they have an independent body to handle complaints. Under the present system everything is slanted in the real estate agent’s favour.” Finally, Chris Taylor of the real estate agent company The Joneses commended the proposal, stating: “Tinkering with the current legislation, as the Real Estate Institute had suggested, was never going to solve the fundamental problems arising from real estate agents regulating themselves.”

Maryan Street: What measures are proposed to reform the real estate industry?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: There will be a complete overhaul of the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 in order to deliver accountability—

Hon Members: When?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —hold on, I say to those members; help is on the way—transparency, and openness within the sector, and an independent and open complaints and disciplinary system. The freedom to self-regulate that is granted by current legislation is now perceived as industry protectionism rather than consumer protection. The overhaul will deal with licensing, training, complaints, discipline, and regulation of real estate activity, including whether compulsory membership of the real estate agents institute is appropriate, whether all facets of licensing should be independent of the industry, and whether the industry itself should fund the reforms, rather than the taxpayer. To answer the members’ question, a paper setting out the detailed proposal for reform will be released in May.

District Health Boards, Auckland—Confidence in Chairs

5. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Does he have confidence in the chairs of the Auckland district health boards, Wayne Brown, Pat Snedden, and Kay McKelvie; if so, why?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): All chairs and board members retain their full roles and responsibilities right now. The bright line of confidence or no confidence is of limited value at present, for two reasons. One is that the judgment may be appealed; another is that there is legal debate as to whether the judgment is new law. That said, the judgment of serious procedural error has been made, and that is, therefore, the current position.

Hon Tony Ryall: What is the Minister’s position now on when he will deliver accountability in the Auckland lab testing fiasco: his original view, when he promised that it would happen once the interim contract was signed, the Prime Minister’s view that it would occur after the appeal period, or his view expressed this morning, when he said he may have announcements later this week?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I will probably have announcements later today, actually. In respect of the interim contract, I simply said that my confidence hinged on the district health boards’ ability to get that done in a timely way—and they did so. I thank all of those who were involved in that negotiation. The interim agreement saves 10 million valuable health dollars over 18 months, without any reduction in quality or service. Those savings are sufficient to produce about 50 additional cataract operations for Aucklanders every week.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister realise that an appeal may take years to be heard, and why is he denying accountability by colluding with the Prime Minister to put political mateship before the public interest?

Hon PETE HODGSON: One presumes that the political mateship the member refers to is the political mateship that apparently exists between this Government and Wayne Brown or this Government and Ross Keenan. The first Government to appoint Wayne Brown or Ross Keenan to the health system was not this Government but the previous National Government.

Hon Tony Ryall: What correspondence did the Minister receive, in the months following the awarding of the Auckland laboratory contract, concerning Dr Bierre’s conflicts, and what action did he take in response to that correspondence?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I received, from memory, a question from Dr Paul Hutchison in July of 2006 that first raised the issue of a conflict of interest, and I went immediately to the Auckland District Health Board for its view of that. Its view was—and, until the court case judgment came out, it remained—that the conflict of interest had been properly dealt with. On top of that, of course, I received a large amount of correspondence.

Hon Tony Ryall: What inquiries did the Minister make as a result of receiving that large amount of correspondence?

Hon PETE HODGSON: All correspondence was responded to. The assurance that the Auckland district health boards gave me, through the Ministry of Health, regarding the conflict of interest was an assurance that stood right through the process—and, in fact, right through until the Tuesday before last.

Hon Tony Ryall: Was the only time that the Minister sought information on Dr Bierre’s conflict of interest when he was replying to a written question in July 2006; if not, on which other occasions did he seek assurances or ask questions about the allegations around Dr Bierre’s behaviour?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I maintained a close watch on that laboratory contract, as did a number of people, including the Health Committee, which had the Auckland district health boards in front of it. I do not recall any questions about a conflict of interest from the member of the select committee who is asking these questions. However—

Hon Tony Ryall: That’s because it was sub judice. What an idiot!

Hon PETE HODGSON: I see. So somehow—

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister is attempting to answer the question despite constant interruptions, and being called an idiot is likely to cause disorder. Would the Minister please continue.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member seems to specialise in politics—

Madam SPEAKER: Let us just get on with it, please.

Hon PETE HODGSON: —that are destructive and vindictive. I prefer a style that respects natural justice, that responds to facts as they continue to unfold, and that does not respond to the hysteria of others.

Hon Tony Ryall: So from the upshot of questions in the House today, is the Minister admitting that the only time he ever sought information, asked questions, or tried to satisfy himself around the number of allegations surrounding Dr Bierre’s behaviour, in terms of this contract, was when he referred a written question once to his ministry—and that he never again sought to ask further questions or satisfy himself in respect of those allegations; if that is the case, how does he deserve to have a ministerial warrant when he did not even seek basic information?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I sought advice around the issue of laboratory testing in Auckland for over a year on a consistent basis.

Hon Tony Ryall: Did you ask anyone about—

Hon PETE HODGSON:. I asked the Ministry of Health about various aspects of the tender. I asked the Auckland District Health Board, when I met its members the month before last, about various aspects of the tender—and on it went. There was a lot of information to be received, and there was a lot of concern, including concerns raised by the Health Committee, which that member was on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the light of Mr Ryall’s attack on Wayne Brown, I seek leave to table the list of appointments of Wayne Brown made by the previous National Government, of which Mr Ryall was a member.

Document not tabled.

Pharmac—Herceptin, International Clinical Trial

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that the Pharmac board signed off on the decision to commit $3.2 million to the international clinical trial that is planned on Herceptin on 31 January 2007; if so, why?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I can say to the member that yes, I do, because it is true.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is true, why then is Pharmac on record, on 7 March 2007, as saying that this money did not have Pharmac board approval; and why is Pharmac proposing to fund 9-week trials of Herceptin and Docetaxel, which is on the Pharmaceutical Schedule for New Zealand women with early-stage breast cancer, from June 2007, when the Ministry of Health’s Medsafe will approve such a treatment only if it is to be used for at least 12 months?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The answer to the first question is that the meeting of 7 March was between the chief executive of Pharmac and someone from the Breast Cancer Advocacy Coalition—I think that is its name—and the chief executive of Pharmac made a mistake. He then realised later that he had made a mistake, and on 19 March he phoned the spokesperson to correct the error. That is the case, and the phone message is documented.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was trying to clear up the first issue, but the real issue in that second question concerns why Pharmac is proposing to fund 9-week trials of Herceptin and Docetaxel, which is on the Pharmaceutical Schedule for New Zealand women with early-stage breast cancer, from June 2007, when the Ministry of Health’s Medsafe will approve such a treatment only if it is to be used for at least 12 months. I want an answer to that question.

Madam SPEAKER: That was not a point of order; it was in the form of a question. Is the member’s point of order that the Minister did not address the question? Well, it seemed to me that he did actually address that question, but the Minister may wish to address the supplementary question.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The process is still continuing. The district health boards are in a consultation phase to see whether they will proceed with 9-week treatments from 1 July. If they do, that may be in the form of a trial, or it may not. If it is to be in the form of a trial, it will be compared, one assumes, against 12-month treatments. The reason for that trial, if it is to proceed, is simply that although the 9-week research is significant—that is to say, the non-return rate of breast cancer is statistically significant—the trial is somewhat underpowered because the numbers were low. It was considered legitimate and reasonable for taxpayers’ money to take part in a larger trial to ensure that 9-weeks’ treatment is as significant as early indications would suggest.

Dr Jackie Blue: How was it that the chief executive of Pharmac made such a serious error when he clearly stated, on 7 March to a breast cancer group, that it was a “management and not a board decision”—a decision, which can only be described as radical, by Pharmac to fund, with $3.2 million of taxpayers’ money, an offshore Finnish trial in which no New Zealand women may ever participate—and why is it that this research was not flagged in its statement of intent?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not know how many of these questions, Madam Speaker, you would like me to answer, but just going with the statement of intent, I say that it refers to Pharmac’s statute. The statute of Pharmac expressly allows for research. How is it that this gentleman made what is called a serious mistake? I am not sure, but a few days later he found it out and corrected it. Is the research radical? Well, no, not if it is allowed for in statute.

Dr Jackie Blue: Yes, it’s radical.

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, I do not think it is radical.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When did Pharmac conduct such a trial; and on what basis is Pharmac doing its pricing calculation, when in respect of Roche and Herceptin, and sanofi-aventis and Docetaxel, Pharmac has not even negotiated a price on these two drugs; in short, on what basis is he constructing his costings, and why is the New Zealand taxpayer funding an international multicentre trial?

Hon PETE HODGSON: We are participating, prospectively, in a trial; it is not yet clear to me whether it will go ahead. If it is to go ahead, it will have to be international to get the numbers. There are not enough people with that form of breast cancer in New Zealand for a trial to be carried out. As to the issue of costing, I say that it is fairly straightforward that if there is 9 weeks’ treatment versus 52, the cost will be about 20 percent of the original cost.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I want to table the list of 22 countries—First World countries—that have Herceptin available on the basis of 12 months’ treatment, not some mythical 9-week treatment dreamt up by Pharmac.

Document not tabled.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours, Providers

7. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Is he concerned by the Early Childhood Council’s latest survey, which shows that only 23.9 percent of its centres will offer the policy of 20 free hours; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): This survey, which represents the views of 300 providers out of a potential 2,600, told us that 23.9 percent of centres have decided to come to the scheme, as we speak today; that 46 percent are making up their mind; and the others feel that they will not. I spoke at the early childhood conference this weekend and talked to a wide range of providers, all of whom are very enthusiastic about the policy. So I remain optimistic that on 1 July we will have a very good muster. Of course, I remind the member that centres cannot actually enrol for the programme until May.

Katherine Rich: How can the Minister deliver access for all 3 and 4-year-old children to his 20 free hours policy when only 12 percent of Auckland centres and only 19 percent of Christchurch centres say they are going to opt in—just 3 months before the whole policy goes live?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I said, I remain optimistic. But I do think one of the problems we have is that, I understand, the National Party is going to meetings at the moment saying it will run its own monitoring of the scheme in the future, and if it decides that centres do not comply with the rules the way National interprets them, it will sue. That might actually scare a few people.

Katherine Rich: Does he regret his very first promise to New Zealand parents that 92,000 children will definitely get 20 hours free—when, based on a minority of centres that say they are going to opt in, he has not got a hope in hell of delivering that level of access to those children?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is colourful language, but, as this member always misquotes everybody, I have to go back and say we have repeatedly said that up to 92,000 3 to 4-year-olds will be eligible for this policy. I have said to the member, I do not know how many times, it is a voluntary policy. People come into the policy if they want to, but up to 92,000 young people will be eligible.

Katherine Rich: Why does the Minister not admit that centres will continue to reject his 20 free hours policy unless he allows them to charge fees to cover the full cost of providing a basic but quality service of early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Because that is wrong. Why does the member not admit that National would scrap the policy—and let National be honest with people when its members are travelling round the country?

Paula Bennett: If the funding for 20 free hours does not cover basic costs, how does the Minister suggest a centre make up the shortfall?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I will explain to the member for the 600th time that this cost was figured out by talking with centres right across the country. We have now got what we believe is the average cost of the regulated level of quality early childhood education. That is what we are paying for. If a centre decides that it wants to provide more than that, then it simply talks to the parents and says: “You may be pocketing $80 for the regulated level of early childhood education. We would like to provide you with more teachers. Would you like us to do that, and a charge can be established?”.

Paula Bennett: If by the very definition of average there is 50 percent under and 50 percent over, how can a centre pay the mortgage and teachers’ salaries on optional charges and donations that might not get paid, when the centres clearly need certainty of income?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As has been explained numerous times, many centres charge for more teachers, hot lunches, and travels around the community, which means they have set fees considerably higher than the average across the country or the regulated level of early childhood education. If they wish to continue that, then it is fine. What they will do is talk to the parents and establish an optional charge.

Methyl Bromide—Proximity to Schools

8. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister for Biosecurity: How many of the transitional facilities where methyl bromide fumigation took place last year are within 500 metres of schools?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity): The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry records the names and locations of transitional and port facilities where methyl bromide has been used in fumigation. In order to identify the proximity to schools of every one of the 6,119 transitional facilities where methyl bromide may have been required to be used in the last year, it would be necessary to physically map each transitional facility and then cross-reference its location to the nearest schools. It would take both considerable effort and cost to query 12 months’ data. I would not expect Biosecurity New Zealand to undertake such an exhaustive and arbitrary task, because the health and safety of fumigation operations are governed by extensive regulations issued by the Environmental Risk Management Authority and enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Service, and as well come under the Resource Management Act consents process.

Sue Kedgley: Is the Minister saying that he has no idea how many methyl bromide fumigation facilities are near schools, and can he confirm that there are many methyl bromide fumigation facilities near schools such as Otahuhu School, Otahuhu College, King’s College in Auckland, Kelvin Christian School, and other examples that I will table; and does the Government have concerns that children in those schools may be exposed to harmful concentrations of this highly toxic, odourless gas, especially when, despite all the regulations he referred to, there is no monitoring of methyl bromide concentrations even in residential areas and near schools; if not, why not?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Decisions on permitted or non-permitted activities like methyl bromide use in urban and regional areas are made by the relevant local authority under the Resource Management Act. The Government is currently investigating different ways of monitoring gas discharge and exposure rates over time, and also the idea of using a recovery and destruction method for the gas. A person who intends to carry out fumigation with methyl bromide must notify every person who may be affected by the fumigation of the intention to carry out that fumigation. Those regulations are enforced by the Department of Labour.

R Doug Woolerton: Can the Minister tell the House whether there are any negative side effects to our agricultural exports from not using methyl bromides; if so, what are they?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Our sawn timber exports to Australia, which are a significant element of our export wood industry, are required by the Australian authorities to be treated by methyl bromide. If we did not treat them with methyl bromide, we would not be able to export any timber at all. On the import side, of course, if we did not have treatment like methyl bromide for incursions in New Zealand, we would almost certainly have greater incursions of red fire ants, black widow spiders, and Asian tiger mosquitoes—which could be arranged, of course.

Sue Kedgley: Does he agree that methyl bromide is a highly toxic and odourless gas and that it should not be permitted to be used for fumigation near schools and in residential areas; if not, why not?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Clearly it is a toxic gas, both to animal habitats and, of course, to the ecosystem itself—we acknowledge that. But the member has to understand that under the Ozone Layer Protection Act, which controls imports of ozone-depleting substances including methyl bromide, and in line with our commitments under the Montreal Protocol, we can use methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment services. That is a permitted use of methyl bromide that can legitimately occur under that protocol.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have twice asked the Minister whether he believes that methyl bromide fumigation facilities should be permitted to be used near schools. I have asked that very simply. Could the Minister answer that question and not a number of other irrelevant issues?

Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, Ministers are not required to answer yes or no or to give the answers expected by members. They must address the question, and I think that question has been addressed at length.

Sue Kedgley: Can I take it from the Minister’s answers that this Government is happy to turn a blind eye to the fact that methyl bromide fumigation is taking place near to schools, possibly endangering the health of pupils, and now that the technology to recapture methyl bromide has been proven to be practical and cost effective and is in use in Australia and other countries, why will this Government not require the recapturing of this highly toxic and ozone-depleting gas as a condition of its use?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: No.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a map showing the location of four fumigation sites in close proximity to schools.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table some documents that show other Governments, such as those in Belgium and Australia, have passed regulations requiring the recapture of methyl bromide.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

9. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in his department; if so, why?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Simon Power: How can he have confidence in his department when someone as senior as the Wellington regional prisons manager, Dave East, who only 2 weeks ago was fronting to the media regarding allegations that four guards had allowed a convicted rapist to have a conjugal visit, has himself now been suspended for allegedly stymying investigations, bullying staff, and giving preferential treatment to his wife and three children as employees of the department?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware of a number of allegations that have been made. There is currently an investigation under way. That person is under investigation not for corruption but for other inappropriate issues and actions around the prison. I am not prepared to prejudge the outcome.

Ron Mark: Does it not, in fact, increase the public’s confidence in the Department of Corrections when in the short space of about 4 weeks, an anti-corruption team having been launched that was given the task of rooting out corruption and finding areas of incompetence, we have seen 11 officers suspended and we now see a manager—showing that no favour is being given to those of senior rank—also suspended and facing charges; does that not give some confidence that the investigations in hand are producing results?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: It is about time the National Party acknowledged that we will investigate, identify, follow through on, and prosecute anyone who does not abide by the law or protocol within the Department of Corrections.

Simon Power: Does the Minister stand by his statement to the House that claims that corruption at Rimutaka Prison does not go on without the knowledge of management were “ridiculous”, when an ex-employee has described management’s attempts to stifle dissent as “mafia-like”, when one of those currently under scrutiny by the corruption investigation is a unit manager, and when a current guard says: “It hasn’t stopped because of this. It’s just gone underground. They haven’t got the really big fish.”?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I do not accept that for a moment, but Mr Patten is carrying out an independent investigation at Rimutaka Prison. He will identify any areas of inappropriate or illegal behaviour, and we will follow through and prosecute anyone, be they at senior management level or be they a prison officer.

Simon Power: How could a second prisoner, Arthur Taylor, allegedly father a child from inside without help from prison staff, when he was able to pass a container to his wife, or should we not be surprised, as Taylor himself said last year that when he first arrived at Rimutaka Prison he was approached by guards offering their services, saying: “Do you need anything, Arthur?”

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am not about to give that member a lesson in biology. I would suggest that he take on board the fact that Arthur Taylor is a lying, scheming, violent, manipulative person who has been convicted of many, many crimes, and if that is where that member gets his advice from, I suggest he change his sources.

Simon Power: Is he at all concerned—

Hon Phil Goff: He’s certainly pretty enterprising.

Simon Power: Mr Goff might want to hear this. Is he at all concerned that it appears that a high proportion of key staff in the department are in relationships with other staff?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I do not consider that the few staff in the department who have relationships with other staff is a high proportion. I am aware of the situation, and senior management have been informed. There is not a large number, and wherever it has occurred the issue has been made quite public.

Horowhenua District Council—Rubbish Transfer

10. TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Local Government: Will he take any action to ensure consultation with Ngāti Pareraukawa and the Muaūpoko Tribal Authority regarding the decision of the Horowhenua District Council to allow the transfer of rubbish from the Kapiti district to the Hōkio Beach landfill, in light of the Crown’s responsibility to maintain and improve opportunities for Māori to contribute to local government decision-making processes?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government): Under the Local Government Act 2002, decisions relating to a council’s waste management plan are for a council to make within the requirements of that Act. Decisions relating to specific resource consents, such as those at the Hōkio Beach landfill, fall under the Resource Management Act 1991. Accordingly, any questions relating to the council’s decision-making process under that Act are the province of the Minister for the Environment.

Tariana Turia: What consultation has there been with the Muaūpoko Tribal Authority about the decision to open up the Hōkio Beach site as a repository for nationwide rubbish—a site that has sacred significance for the people in terms of its close proximity to traditional burial grounds?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I indicated in the opening answer, the decisions, and the executing of those decisions, under the Local Government Act are the province of the local council in question. I am advised that the long-term council community plan for that district provided for out-of-district waste to be dumped at the Hōkio Beach landfill. Of course, that plan was, as is required by law, a matter of consultation.

Tariana Turia: In light of section 4 of the Local Government Act 2002, which places a very clear requirement on local authorities to consult with mana whenua, what consultation has been undertaken with Ngāti Pareraukawa, given that the landfill is literally on the backyard of their tribal marae at Ngātokowaru?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I have answered twice already, this is a decision and responsibility, under the very Act that the member is referring to, of the appropriate territorial local authority. It is, of course, potentially judicially reviewable under that Act, should the conditions for such a review be met.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Minister agree that building a landfill on a highly porous base such as sand, then relying on a plastic liner to catch all of the leachate, on the assumption that it will never fail, which is what is happening at Hōkio, is a stupid and unnecessary risk that leaves the council exposed to future liability, and directly cuts across the ability of Ngāti Pareraukawa and the Muaūpoko Tribal Authority to exercise their kaitiakitanga, or, indeed, of the Pākehā community to care for their waterways?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I have tried to explain—three times now—this decision is properly made by the territorial local authority, which among its staffing expertise should have drainage and disposal engineering expertise. That is not expertise that I would ever claim to have.

Tariana Turia: Is the Minister aware that Ngāti Pareraukawa, as a party directly affected by this activity, have raised their concerns over subsequent decades about the longstanding pollution caused by the sewage discharge, which has compromised the health of their streams, affected their marine environment, and impacted adversely on the health of their tuna; and what initiatives will he take as a result of this, to ensure that waste disposal policies do not at the same time create environmental hazards?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I also indicated in the substantive answer, the aspect that the member now strays on to deals more with the resource consent, which is a matter for the Resource Management Act, which is the province of the Minister for the Environment.

Floods—Government Response, Northland

11. JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What response, if any, has the Government made to last week’s flood damage in Northland?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Civil Defence): Firstly, the three Northland councils did not declare a civil defence emergency, because they had good plans and excellent systems, and they were on top of their job. The local civil defence emergency management staff should feel well satisfied with the management of this event. In such cases it is the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management that undertakes a monitoring role, and, when asked, it will provide whatever support is necessary to respond. When my colleague Dover Samuels and I surveyed the damage in Northland on Saturday, we advised that the Government would pay in full any council costs associated with the housing and moving of people displaced by the flood. As well as this, the Ministry of Social Development offices were open on Saturday and Sunday, and an 0800 Government helpline number was activated. Further, the Government will assist substantially with any road repairs.

John Carter: Does the Minister stand by his promise on Radio New Zealand National yesterday that “Transit will pay the full cost of restoring each road in full—no question about that.”?

Hon RICK BARKER: I did not make such a blunt statement. What I did say was that the Government will fund substantially the costs associated with it. In the far north the Government is committed to paying 56 percent of the total cost, and 52 percent for Whangarei. That is over half of the costs. The mayors have already asked me whether we would contribute more than that, and I have said that once the exact costs are known, then they can put their requests to the Government and they will be considered.

H V Ross Robertson: What has the Minister done in his role as Minister of Civil Defence to ensure that people are better prepared to cope with civil defence emergencies?

Hon RICK BARKER: Last year I implemented two public education programmes—one in schools, called What’s the Plan Stan?, and the other was a broader public education programme called Get Ready Get Thru. Initial results show that three-quarters of New Zealanders have done something to better prepare for the event of a disaster. These initial results are heartening, but we have a long way to go. But people are better prepared, and better preparation leads to fewer losses. This directly contradicts Mr Carter’s comments in June last year, when he said that to spend money on a public education programme was “a farce and a disgrace”. I doubt that the people of Northland would agree with that statement.

Phil Heatley: Does the Minister stand by his second promise to the people of Northland on Radio New Zealand National yesterday, when he stated: “Anything to do with public safety we will pay for in full.”?

Hon RICK BARKER: I do stand by that promise. If any person was required to be evacuated by whatever means and accommodated, the Crown will reimburse in full the costs to that council.

John Carter: Has the Minister heard from Minister Jim Anderton since he told Mr Anderton over the weekend that his staff needed to look at the issue of suspensory loans in the Hikurangi area again; if so, what was the reply from Mr Anderton?

Hon RICK BARKER: The member again misquotes me. I never mentioned suspensory loans. What I did say was that I would take the matter up with the Minister. I have done so, and his staff are investigating the matter further.

Phil Heatley: Does he stand by his fourth and final promise on Radio New Zealand National yesterday that “The Government will make a substantial contribution to this flood without a question of a doubt.”, and does he absolutely guarantee a refund of “all that the council spent on housing and relocating people temporarily”, on “public safety”, and on repairing all roads, not just Transit roads, in Northland?

Hon RICK BARKER: I repeat my answer further. Where people were dislocated by the floods, and the council incurred costs, then we will pay the full cost of that. There is no question about that. In terms of repairing the roads, I have already said the Government is committed, and in the case of the far north we will pay 56 percent of the cost, and in the case of Whangarei 52 percent of the cost. That is a substantial contribution. The councils have asked whether we would look at further increasing the taxpayer subsidy, and I have said we would.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the transcript of all the promises on Radio New Zealand National yesterday.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Schools—Assessment at Primary Level

12. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports, if any, has he received regarding changes to assessment policies in primary schools?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Firstly, I have seen reports stating that 90 percent of primary schools are making effective use of assessment data in core areas such as English and maths to improve student achievement. Secondly, I have also seen reports stating that New Zealand ranks in the second group of nations in the world in core areas such as reading and maths. Thirdly, I have seen reports from the National Party, which wants to undermine that success by introducing age-related standardised tests for 5-year-olds and league tables. It is no wonder a typical response is that of Judy Hanna, President of the New Zealand Principals Federation, who said: “This is nothing more than a cynical attack on a world class education system.”

Moana Mackey: What is the Government’s policy on assessment in schools?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Labour-led Government is supporting the development of what is called assessment for learning in New Zealand schools. This is where teachers actively make use of assessment to find out what a student is doing, and then apply that knowledge to improve the student’s performance. We have supported that policy with very substantial investment in teacher professional development and in such world-class assessment tools as asTTle. The approach ensures that teachers, parents, and students understand where students went wrong and how to improve their performance. Our focus is on achieving the full potential of a student rather than on centrally imposed minimum standards.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Has the Minister been informed of the radio interview with a principal this morning where the interviewee claimed she had, 1 week ago, introduced John Key to the idea of benchmarking as used in her school, and what does he think of educational policy developed on the basis of the last school visited by a party’s leader?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I thought the interview revealed what we all know, which is that the only person who knows anything about education on the National side is Bill English, the co-leader. It tells us a great deal about why John Key has approached these issues from the point of view of such old ideas as those he has proposed. But I tell the member that if Mr Key goes to almost any of the schools in this country, I will be very proud of what they will tell him about how the education system works. Glen Taylor School is an excellent example of such a school.

Katherine Rich: When John Key has clearly said that National is not introducing standardised testing or league tables and wants a diagnostic assessment of learning in order to inform classroom teaching, does the Minister think that he should be the first one to have his reading ability assessed—because, frankly, he has not read the speech or understood it—and what is he going to do to stop one in five kids from leaving school without being able to read and write?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I would just say this to the member. I was at a conference yesterday of 1,600 principals from around the world. Every single one of them thinks John Key wants national standardised testing. The National Party, I am afraid, has a lot of work to do.

Urgent Debates

Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct—Report

Madam SPEAKER: I have received letters from Keith Locke and Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release of the commission of inquiry report into police conduct. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility, and I consider that it does justify the immediate attention of the House. I therefore accept the applications. The first application was received from Keith Locke and I therefore call on Mr Locke to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. The Green Party will be splitting its time. I will speak for the first half and my colleague Sue Kedgley will speak for the second half.

On behalf of the Greens, I would like to congratulate Dame Margaret Bazley on a thorough report. She has exposed shocking behaviour in the New Zealand Police Force—a pattern of sexual offending against women by so many police officers that we as a Parliament have to take it extremely seriously.

In the complaints of sexual assault that Dame Margaret looked at, 141 were regarded as containing sufficient evidence on which to lay charges or undertake some sort of disciplinary action. She does report significant improvement since the worst days of the 1980s and 1990s, but that may be due, mainly, to changes in society, which has meant that sexual violence against women is much less tolerated and more often reported, and this modern reality is reflected more within the police force. The police still have a huge way to go to reassure us that complaints by women will be properly heard and to make it more acceptable for the police to tell on their mates when they cross the line into unacceptable behaviour or criminality.

At bottom is the ongoing problem of what Dame Margaret Bazley calls “the wall of silence” from colleagues when complaints are made. The starting point of the problem, as outlined in this morning’s Press in a quote from Victoria University’s Michael Rowe, is that everywhere in the world police officers have extraordinary loyalty to one another. This loyalty is forged on the dangerous frontline, where officers count on their mates to back them up and there is strong pressure to overlook the misbehaviour of a fellow officer on whom they might be counting to protect them the next day or the next week. That is precisely why police systems for detecting wrongdoing in their ranks have to be much stronger than other Government agencies, not much weaker, which is the picture that we get from Dame Margaret’s report.

The police must start right now to create a culture of openness, and, as Margaret Bazley points out, an effective whistleblower mechanism is an essential component of this. I think that the best judge of whether the police are really changing their culture for the better is their demonstrating in their future practice that police whistleblowers will be protected and their careers not stymied. Whistleblowers have to be protected by the police hierarchy and by a much better Police Complaints Authority than we have now—one that is fully independent.

The police can no longer be in charge of investigating complaints against themselves. The new Independent Police Complaints Authority, now proposed in a bill before Parliament, is an improvement, but it is not sufficient to deal with the problems we see in this report. It is not sufficient just to increase the number of appointees on the authority from one to three. Any new investigative body has to be given much greater resources, with its own staff sufficient to carry out all of its investigations without relying in any way on police investigators.

In fact, the Greens are in favour of a new body that combines the functions of the Police Complaints Authority and a new prison inspectorate, with considerable staffing in the joint agency and a wide range of expertise so that it can be effective and completely independent from either the police or prison management. We use the term “inspectorate” deliberately, because any new body should not only deal with individual complaints against, for example, the police, but also be able to initiate its own investigations when it sees any signs of systemic problems of the sort Dame Margaret has just investigated.

There is still too much of a cover-up culture in the police, as we have seen over the past couple of weeks. Last week the police tried to cover-up their exclusion of a press gallery journalist from a photo opportunity with the Chinese Vice-Premier. The police blamed the journalist, and they may have got away with that cover-up but for the fact that, perhaps unbeknown to them, their actions were being videoed. The previous week an unarmed man in West Auckland was “Tasered” while on the ground surrounded by four police officers. This again was action clearly beyond the police mandate in the taser trial, which was that tasers should be used only when there is a threat of injury, which there clearly was not in this case. Again, the police might have got away with their cover-up but for the fact that an onlooker filmed the event on his cellphone.

This police culture of “back your mates even when they are wrong” lies at the heart of the problem of the sex offending we are dealing with today. All kinds of police knew what was going on in Rotorua at the time and either said nothing or tried to cover it up. Inspector John Dewar, who handled the original complaint of Louise Nicholas in Rotorua, is now belatedly, and after huge publicity, being charged with attempting to obstruct or defeat the course of justice. In the Nicholas case, the Police Complaints Authority relied on the police to do the investigation, which was like putting foxes in charge of the chicken coop.

Dame Margaret Bazley has exposed a very rickety and deficient system of dealing with complaints today. She had to put forward very basic organisational changes, like the national commissioner’s office being informed of serious complaints against the police, which has not been the case up until now, and proper information being given to complainants about the progress of their complaints, which also has not been the situation up until now—either within the police or with the Police Complaints Authority. She also exposed a whole lot of other things, like the fact that some people, when they are subject to a serious allegation, simply slide out by resigning from the force.

I think we have to realise that with the police force we are dealing with a very powerful institution, particularly when it is acting collectively. Complainants can feel very vulnerable, so every opportunity and avenue has to be open for them to complain. At this point I will hand over to my colleague Sue Kedgley, who will explain the Green position further.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party is particularly pleased that the Commissioner of Police has, at long last, offered an unequivocal public apology and thereby made an implicit admission of guilt by the police for what this inquiry has uncovered and the harm that has been done to so many New Zealand women over the past few decades, in particular to women who have been abused by police officers, to women whose complaints were not taken seriously by police officers, and to women who were turned away from police stations and so forth.

I believe that both the apology by the commissioner and this report are important steps in helping to close this tragic saga, but, as my colleague Keith Locke has said, much more needs to be done. We need processes to reassure New Zealand women that the culture of violence and abuse that flourished in certain parts of the force, and which has been documented in this report, will no longer be tolerated, and that any complaints of sexual abuse made to the police in the future will be treated with the utmost seriousness, with compassion, and with respect.

The Minister of Police made a public statement today that the public can have confidence in the calibre of police investigations into allegations of sexual assault made by police officers and that women will feel reassured and safe about reporting sexual violence offences. Sadly, I am afraid that this is not the case. The truth is that most women who have been raped do not take their cases to the police because they believe they will be damaged and re-victimised all over again by the investigation and by the court processes. I believe that this report and the recent court cases, sadly, will have fuelled and reinforced their fears, not assuaged them. Therefore, the confidence of New Zealand women in reporting sexual offences will have to be won over time. This report today is the first step in what will be a long healing process. It will be a long process of turning around the police culture and regaining trust—in particular, the trust of New Zealand women—in the police force.

The report has confirmed what so many women have been saying anecdotally over recent years. Much of what women have said has been dismissed, but this report gives proof that there was a culture of scepticism in the police’s dealing with complainants of sexual abuse; that these stereotyped attitudes may have prejudiced the police’s approach to complaints; that there was evidence that police officers turned a blind eye to sexual activity of an inappropriate nature carried out by police officers; and, of course, that there was a wall of silence from police officers in order to protect their colleagues. These are incredibly serious findings that really amount to an admission of a cover-up in certain parts of the police force, which obviously caused huge harm to every single woman whose case was denied or covered up in this way in the past.

I guess that it is particularly concerning, when we look at the release of the report and its findings today, and consider the very long history of this sort of culture in the police force. Eleven years ago, in 1996, a study noted that there was “an organisational culture in the police force that was dominated by male values”. It spoke of sexual harassment, discrimination, “tolerance of forms of male behaviour that marginalised the contribution of women”, and of degrading pastimes such as night-shift sexist videos. The question we must ask is what has happened as a result of that very revealing report. How much has changed since then, and what has been done to change the male work-culture of the police? These matters are what we need to be reassured about if women are to have their faith, their confidence, and their trust in the police restored.

The report also confirms that there was a sexual assault investigation policy, which governed how police should handle sexual assaults and investigations into them. But it also states that as recently as March of 2005, experienced detectives were arriving at the Royal New Zealand Police College for courses and admitting that they did not even know that such a policy existed, let alone what it specified. They said that the lack of implementation of this particular policy was also reflected in the fact that no attempt was made to appoint a national sexual assault coordinator until 2005—8 years after the policy’s introduction. Also, the policy was supposed to be mandatory. It stated that it was a mandatory policy, yet the way that it was implemented meant that compliance with it remained an aspirational target. So all of these events of the past suggest that much needs to happen for New Zealand women to be reassured that there has been a profound and real change in the police culture, and for them to feel they can have the confidence and trust in the police that is essential for the police force to be effective.

What is also of concern is that some of the women who have bared their souls to the commission have said that they feel they have been left hanging, and that they feel they have been hung out to dry by the inquiry. Some of them, I think, were expecting that the process would bring them personal resolution, reconciliation, and closure. They say that they feel they have been treated with an attitude of: “ ‘thank you very much for your story, you are no longer required, goodbye.’ ” I think that this is a real concern. No doubt, those women will be pleased with the unequivocal and generic apology made by the commissioner, and they will be pleased by this report. But I think that more needs to be done so that the women who have bared their souls feel that they are able to have personal closure of their own agony over secrets that many of them have nurtured for many decades.

I am astonished that there was no code of conduct for police officers. It is hard to believe. We are delighted that, finally, there will be a code of conduct for police officers. Thank you very much.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): The Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct was established in February 2004 to carry out a full, independent investigation into the way in which the New Zealand Police had dealt with allegations of sexual assault made against members of the police and associates of the police. This followed the publication of allegations made independently by two women, Ms Louise Nicholas and Ms Judith Garrett, suggesting that police officers might have deliberately undermined or mishandled investigations into complaints of sexual assault that had been made against other officers. A set of terms of reference was established for the inquiry, and those terms of reference were subsequently altered somewhat in May 2005 as a result of the commission’s concern that police inquiries currently before the courts could be jeopardised.

The commission of inquiry report is a very important document, and I thank those members who have spoken on it so far. I thank Dame Margaret Bazley for her comprehensive report. I am impressed with the scope, depth, and thoroughness of the investigation, and with the common sense she has taken in her recommendations. I also acknowledge the Prime Minister’s role in setting up the inquiry to ensure that allegations made over a period of years were examined and brought out into the open. It is clear that this inquiry has acted as a catalyst for change in the New Zealand Police.

Further, I acknowledge the courage and persistence of the women who brought forward the complaints that resulted in this inquiry. I also express in this House my disgust at the actions of individual police officers who indulged in disgraceful conduct at any time during the 25-year period covered by the inquiry. They let down their colleagues, the women of New Zealand, and New Zealanders in general. I sincerely regret what has happened to individuals, and I feel confident that Ministers who have held this portfolio previously would feel the same as I do today. I am pleased to see that the Commissioner of Police, Howard Broad, has, in a statement, unreservedly and unequivocally apologised to the victims of the actions of a few officers who have let down the police and let down the public. As the member Sue Kedgley said, that is a very important part of the healing process in going forward from here.

As Minister of Police, I will do all I can to try to make sure that this sort of unacceptable behaviour does not happen again, but I acknowledge that in any profession there will always be individuals who transgress. The important consideration is to minimise the risk of such individuals emerging within the New Zealand Police and to identify and remove such individuals from the service as expeditiously as possible. They were not wanted then, and they are not wanted now—if any of them remain. I know that that is exactly how the Commissioner of Police feels, as well.

Turning to the report, I can do no better than to quote the words of Dame Margaret. She said that the report has presented “a series of ‘snapshots’ of police standards and practices over a 25 year period. Much of the Commission’s focus was necessarily on historical matters.” The snapshots, especially those from the earlier years, are sometimes ugly. Her report also notes, however, that there have been “significant improvements in standards and practices over that period.” She also points out: “New Zealand is fortunate to have a police force in which this kind of misconduct is a relatively rare occurrence. However, the risk that misconduct, particularly sexual misconduct, poses to public confidence in the police is a significant one.” That is why this report is being taken so seriously by this Government and by members in the House, who, I know, will participate in this debate.

Dame Margaret has said many things in her report, but I want to respond to Sue Kedgley’s comments in relation to two of those things. Sue Kedgley quoted me as saying that the public should have confidence in the calibre of the police. In fact, I was quoting the words of Dame Margaret Bazley in her report. In her report, that is exactly what she says. She said: “it is my view that, at the present time, the public can have confidence in the calibre of police investigations into allegations of sexual assault by police officers and police associates. Although the evidence the Commission has seen highlights some failings in the past, the policies and procedures surrounding how such allegations are investigated have improved markedly over the past 25 years. Nevertheless, further improvements are needed, in particular to address the proliferation of policies and procedures …”. She makes the point that although there has been improvement and women can have confidence in the calibre of those investigations, there is still further improvement to be made. She also said—and I think it is important to answer Sue Kedgley on this—that “there was no evidence of any concerted attempt across the organisation as a whole to cover up unacceptable behaviour.”

So what I believe we have here are individual police officers who have indulged in disgusting behaviour and who have attempted to keep that behaviour from fellow officers. But it is important to point out that Dame Margaret does not believe that there was a culture of cover-up within the New Zealand Police then, or that there is now.

It is important to look at the recommendations of the report itself. The report, as members know, makes 60 recommendations. Forty-eight of them apply to the New Zealand Police; 12 of them apply to the Police Complaints Authority. I am really encouraged that the police have already begun acting across a range of these complex issues. I made the point that I believe that the commission of inquiry itself has been a catalyst; but that would be to say that nothing happened from the 1980s right through to the time of the inquiry. In fact, many, many things have happened. We could look back at the reporting of sexual harassment, for example. The report points out that a lot of work was done in the early to mid-1990s to develop policy around sexual harassment. That developed over time and is just one example of things that have changed.

I agree with the member Sue Kedgley that society has also changed over those 25 years. Attitudes that were held by New Zealanders 25 years ago would not be acceptable to many people in our society today. Margaret Bazley points out in the report that if we take an issue like the use of alcohol within the police, when there was a culture of heavy drinking and there were police bars, we see that, over time, that culture has changed. Today we do not build bars in police stations. And let us look at society as a whole. Attitudes towards alcohol have changed. I came into this House in 1984 when there were many, many bars in Parliament. In 1984 the drinking culture in this place was different. Today Parliament has one bar, which is shared by all, including members, the media, and staff. So there has been a change in culture, and I welcome that.

Of the 48 recommendations that Dame Margaret Bazley has made, four have been completed. I have for members, if they have not already received it, a list, put out by the New Zealand Police, of all the recommendations, showing what action has been taken, what action will be taken, and a date of completion for those recommendations. I know that my colleague Tariana Turia will recognise that format; it is the same one we used after the inquiry into the under-reporting of cervical smear abnormalities in Gisborne. The document sets out the recommendations and gives the public some clear indication as to what action will be taken and when. Four of the recommendations have already been completed, two are partially completed, 31 are under way, eight are yet to be done, and three will be ongoing matters. Some of these recommendations must always be ongoing matters, such as looking at the health of an organisation and at its practices. One has constantly to be looking at that. One cannot say: “That is finished; we will never look at it again.”

I will outline in my comments today what I think are five or six really important recommendations that require urgent attention. The first one relates to the code of conduct. It is true that the New Zealand Police has never had a code of conduct. It is not part of the New Zealand Police. Obviously, officers swear an oath, but they do not have a code of conduct. A code of conduct has been drawn up. It was agreed with the Police Association during its industrial relations negotiations last year. That code of conduct will be put in place this year, 2007, and today the Commissioner of Police released the draft for everybody to see. It has gone out for consultation and it is available for members to see. I believe that it is a very important step forward, because the code deals with many of the issues that came up in this report. I think it has to be the basis of the industrial relations strategy, going forward, for the New Zealand Police. I also believe that the drawing up of new police regulations, which revoke the disciplinary tribunal system and implement the best-practice State sector disciplinary system—based on a code of conduct, and in keeping with the principles of fairness and natural justice as part of employment relationships—must be implemented as soon as possible.

I believe that we can implement those regulations this year. There needs to be the implementation of an early warning system to identify officers at risk of inappropriate behaviour. Although there is a regional ability to alert commanding officers of inappropriate behaviour, what is being sought is to bring that information into a central database. I see that very much—and I am sure that my colleague Georgina te Heuheu will relate to this—as being like the Medical Council of New Zealand, in that when there are complaints against a professional, those complaints are reported in and come up as a red flag against the actions of that officer. So the reports are taken into a central database, all the data is collected, and a warning is given as to whether there is a persistent problem. Of course there will be officers who have complaints against them; that is the nature of policing, as we know. But when we can identify that an officer is displaying inappropriate behaviour, we will get the red light—the alert—early. I have also already asked the State Services Commissioner to carry out an annual health audit of the organisation, of police culture, and that will be asked for by the Commissioner of Police. Actually, he intends to ask for it. I checked with the State Services Commissioner as to whether he can do that, and the commissioner believes he can. I think that that is a very important recommendation.

I have one other matter, because I know I am running out of time. I think it is important that the recommendations in this report are not just implemented but also audited, to see whether they are implemented over the period of time. It is recommended in the report that there be a 10-year audit by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General in order to make sure that every one of the recommendations is implemented. I hope it will be done in less than 10 years, but the commission of inquiry suggests a time of 10 years for that audit.

One other step has been decided on by the New Zealand Police—and Tariana Turia will recognise this, as well. It is that the police intend, on a quarterly basis, to update a public website of those recommendations, stating what has been implemented and what progress has been made. That is exactly what we did with the commission of inquiry into the under-reporting of cervical screening abnormalities in Gisborne. That means that the public can, at any time, access that website and, on a quarterly basis, know what progress has been made towards the implementation of those recommendations.

I believe that the public of New Zealand and the New Zealand Police will welcome this report today, because it has been a long time in coming. There is no doubt that the police in New Zealand have felt the weight of these inquiries and court cases. I believe that the police in New Zealand want to move from this position to a position that is positive, and to show their faces to the people of New Zealand. There can be no tolerance for the sorts of examples identified by Dame Margaret. It was disgraceful conduct by police officers and associates over a period of 25 years, involving exploitation of vulnerable people, particularly women. It cannot be acceptable.

We have to move forward from here, and I welcome the positive nature in which this report has been received. This is a serious debate; it is not one that puts glory on anybody in this House or outside it, in terms of the actions of a number of individuals. We have to resolve this issue, move on, and ensure that the confidence the public has in the New Zealand Police continues.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I rise on behalf of the National Party in this snap debate. Let us not underestimate how much of a thunderbolt this particular report is. It has ultimately resulted in the police being put on notice for a period of 10 years by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. It has resulted in the police now being subject to annual reports from the State Services Commission investigating the culture of policing in New Zealand. This is a significant and far-reaching report. Thank goodness for public servants like Dame Margaret Bazley and Kevin Brady, who are prepared in the name of the public good to make the tough calls, and to state without fear or favour the facts as they actually exist. One would hope that those types of approaches could be taken to other departments and ministries over the course of the next wee while.

As the Minister has said, this report is extremely important, particularly for the women of New Zealand, and particularly for those women who originally made complaints about police conduct in the 1980s. But the women of New Zealand must have no fear, at any time or at any place in New Zealand, when they approach the New Zealand Police over an issue that has concerned them. The Police is an institution—unlike, frankly, some other Government departments or ministries—that the public must have 100 percent confidence in, at all times. This report is a blow, frankly, for the Police, and I will talk about that in some detail shortly. But it is now up to this Government, and to subsequent Governments, to make sure that that confidence in the police is restored, and that the public are able to trust that when they make a complaint, it is dealt with in a professional way.

Dame Margaret did find evidence of disgraceful conduct, and she found that 141 of those complaints contained enough evidence for criminal or disciplinary charges. Dame Margaret also said that there were incidents of officers attempting to protect alleged perpetrators—which is unforgivable. As the Minister said, Dame Margaret has made 60 recommendations, and although I acknowledge that the Commissioner of Police today has unreservedly and unequivocally apologised to victims for the actions of those officers who let the police and the public down—which should be acknowledged, and he should be congratulated on that—he went on in his statement to make the most curious remark: “ ‘However, following close and thorough scrutiny of the way we go about our business, the report does not point to systemic failings with Police policy, procedure, standards, training or behaviour.’ ”

I am afraid that Dame Margaret Bazley found the opposite, when she stated: “In my view police management lacks the policies, procedures, and practices necessary for effectively dealing with such misconduct, and for removing the officers concerned.” She went on in her report to make this statement: “The good work done by many investigating officers, particularly in the past 15 years, has been placed in jeopardy by systemic flaws that need attention from both police management and Government legislators.” Yet the commissioner undid what I am sure was a genuine apology to the New Zealand public by stating further down in his press release that the report did not point to systemic failings with police policy.

Well, I tell the commissioner that it did. The report did point to systemic failures, particularly relating to matters surrounding policy, procedures, and standards. In fact, Dame Margaret is particularly concerned about this issue, because she went on to say, tellingly, in her statement this morning—something the Minister did not mention when she related the fact that the Government will now put in place a 10-yearly audit of the Police, plus an annual culture check by the State Services Commission—“… I am concerned that the police impetus for change may not be sustained once the commission is discharged.” In other words, it was not the Government’s idea to put in place the State Services Commission’s annual culture review, or the Audit Office’s 10-year watchdog role. Dame Margaret says in her comments that she is “concerned that the police impetus for change may not be sustained once the commission is discharged.” We need to take this matter seriously, because Dame Margaret is a fearless public servant, and in this House we do her no good unless we honestly repeat her statements as they are written down. The report makes it clear that there are long-term concerns.

We are looking forward to hearing from the Minister of Justice on the Police Complaints Authority matter, because Justice Lowell Goddard, who is, in National’s view, a fine appointment to the job of Police Complaints Authority—in fact, she is the Authority—has started the process of strengthening the independence of that office. National waits with interest to see how that will be reinforced by the Government. She is, in our view, doing a good job on that front.

This report states that the culture that existed in the Police was unacceptable to the public and those who wish to make complaints to the police from time to time, but it goes on to state, in Dame Margaret’s straightforward way, that she does not trust these matters to be implemented without continuing audit and review processes. That should concern those members of the police who believed a substantial document that sets out all the positive things the commentary said about the New Zealand Police, which was released this morning. That was very quickly put up on the Police website today. It is titled “Positive commentary about NZ Police and the Commission of Inquiry report”, and lists various quotes that say positive things about the police—which is to be encouraged. But it would have been nice if Dame Margaret had been able to say that, upon the findings of her inquiry, she had an absolute gut feeling and total confidence that no further audit or follow-up would be needed.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: She didn’t.

SIMON POWER: She did not say that. It was odd and concerning to National that the Commissioner of Police, after his apology—which was well intentioned and well meant, I am sure—actually said that Dame Margaret did not find systemic failure, whereas Dame Margaret herself makes it absolutely crystal clear, on at least two occasions in her commentary and media release, that she did find systemic failure.

Now begins the job of rebuilding—not only for this Government, but, no doubt, for the next Government as well. We welcome that opportunity to restore the public’s confidence in the police to the level that it should be—100 percent. But this thunderbolt from Dame Margaret today will make all of us realise this is a big job. This is a huge job. Let us not underestimate it and think that one snap debate today is the end of the matter politically, because it is not. The audit function and review will continue and will be monitored by National, both in Opposition and in Government, because the people, and, in particular, the women of New Zealand deserve better.

RON MARK (NZ First): I rise to contribute to this debate on behalf of New Zealand First, and I want to start by reading these words to the House:

“The New Zealand public have a ‘holier than thou’ attitude to Australia when it comes to policing, and while there may have been some justification for this in the past, it is certainly not the case now.

At least the Australians have ordered commissions to look into their various police services. Some of them can now move on.

New Zealand has steadfastly refused to do so, apart from the Compton inquiry earlier this century when a Police Commissioner was using police constables to work for him personally. Instead, they have just talked about it: ‘Isn’t it awful, isn’t that dreadful, isn’t this wicked …’ That seems to be the way of New Zealanders and their media.

Does the whole common structure need to be reviewed? Many experts would say at least one tier of that structure should be removed.

Police I have spoken to believe that a massive restructuring of the New Zealand Police Service is long overdue, with the main reform aim being to have less police bureaucracy.

In New Zealand, senior police officers are not used to public scrutiny and, in fact, resent it. To be fair to them, however, neither are politicians, the judiciary, the legal profession or public servants.

As the New Zealand police have made an ‘art form’ out of writing off complaints over the years the Police Complaints Authority is a toothless tiger.

It is hoped this book will cause the public to think more about the corruption and coverups in our society and then, hopefully, do something about it when they encounter it.

Surely, it’s time for some professionalism at the top? Not just in the police, but across the board.

While this book is often critical, it does offer some solutions based on twenty years’ experience in the police and a further twelve years studying the Australasian legal system and police departments around the world.”

This was written by Tom Lewis in January 1998 in the introduction to his book Coverups & Copouts, which I hold in my hand. It is interesting that as far back as 1998 some long-serving police officers were expressing their concern about practices in the police force and some deficiencies within the public service—deficiencies that were not giving the public the confidence they needed that all was well within our police force. Tom goes on to talk about other Government departments as well, but we are talking specifically about the police force, as did the bulk of his book.

New Zealand First thinks that warts and all, as bad as it is, and as horrible as the reading in this report will be for most New Zealanders, this is a very good day. It is a good day for democracy, a good day for the public service, and a good day for the police force, because we have to hand the long-awaited Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct produced for us by Dame Margaret Bazley. I also take the opportunity to say that it is a good thing that Margaret Bazley is a Dame, because, on the basis of this report New Zealand First says she certainly deserves such a title. Unfortunately, in the future, public servants who serve us as well as she has will not have the privilege of being accorded that title, because the Government has removed such systems of recognition from the statute.

The report is not good reading for New Zealanders and is not good reading for the police force. It is encouraging that Dame Margaret Bazley points out that the number of incidents of police misconduct over the years—although, as Mr Power pointed out, she found 313 complaints of sexual assault against 222 officers, and 141 of those she said contained sufficient evidence for which criminal charges could have been laid—was “relatively rare across the force”. She goes on to say that the public could have confidence in the calibre of police investigations into allegations of sexual assault by police officers “in more recent times”.

It is no secret, and it is widely accepted and known, that certain sectors in the communities’ minority groups in this country have for years expressed concern about how they have been treated by the police. It is regrettable, sad, and a blight on our history—on our record—that one of those groups should be New Zealand women and that they should have been treated so badly by a few officers in the police force, and also that senior officers who were in a position to have done something in those times, did not. Had they simply done one thing—that is, their duty, which is something they took an oath on and swore to uphold—then we would not be reading the sordid tales we are reading in this report.

New Zealand First takes some pride in the fact that it has played a major role in increasing the size of New Zealand’s police force and thereby its diversity, which is encouraging. We are also encouraged by the increasing number of women who are joining the force. From that will come—it has already come—a change in the culture, a change in the attitudes, and a change in the way the police operate today and, more important, will operate in the future. I am reminded of the words of a proverb that has often been said in the past: “All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.” Sadly, this report tells us that for a very long time good people who could have done something did nothing. That is in the past, and we should not just consign it to history and just say: “Well, we’ve dealt with it. Let’s move on.”; it is useful henceforth for us to remind ourselves about our history and our past so that we may do better and serve the citizens of this nation better.

New Zealand First has long championed for this country a stronger police force, tougher laws for transgressors, and victims’ rights and we have championed an increase in the budget for the New Zealand Police. We have championed an increase in the numbers of police officers on the beat. But we also stand by the view that we want, and demand, an increase in the quality and standards demonstrated by our policemen and policewomen who actually do their duty for us on the streets. This will come only with the code of conduct.

The announcement that the code of conduct is to be part of the review is welcomed, but let us not underestimate the difficulty of that. Here are a couple of points to ponder. New Zealand has changed, as the Minister said. We would have thought it unacceptable that a police officer could take up after-hours work as a prostitute and that that police officer be allowed to continue in the job. There will be challenges now, because prostitution is a legitimate form of employment in this country. That is something this Parliament has done. The challenges now for the police as to what the code of conduct will look like should not be underestimated. We have introduced a range of standards that other New Zealanders will challenge to this very day.

I also put on record here today that the Police Complaints Authority now needs to be absolutely, 100 percent independent. New Zealand First asks now that the Minister change the legislation he has drafted to make the Police Complaints Authority an Office of Parliament, to make the commissioner for the Police Complaints Authority a commissioner’s appointment, and to put that office under the New Zealand Parliament and under the Officers of Parliament Committee, which is chaired by the Speaker, has all parties represented on it, receives totally independent funding, is not in any way subordinate to the Ministry of Justice or the police, and is seen to be totally and absolutely independent of those bodies. This report now makes it absolutely imperative.

We have a good person in Justice Goddard. We have faith and confidence that she can do the work that has to be done. But New Zealand First is now saying that we should go one step further. Let us give the Police Complaints Authority absolute and total autonomy to investigate without fear or favour any allegations of this type that are ever brought before it again, and let us make sure that it is resourced so that it can conduct those investigations from a first principles starting point. No more should it be seen to be party, or subordinate, to the police or the Ministry of Justice in any way, shape, or form.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou te Whare. The UMR Research report released last month described a common goal for police to be ethical, professional, well respected, and effective. Yet, 3 hours ago, a report was released that upheld against police 141 complaints of sexual assault between 1979 and 2005 that demonstrated sufficient evidence for criminal charges or disciplinary action. It is a report that barely skims the surface of the traumatic impact and devastation that sexual violence leaves in its wake.

This nation has been battered by the storms of violence for far too long. Sexual violence costs the economy approximately $1.2 billion per year. But its cost in leaving women and families annihilated by the fear, the memories, and the pain of assault cannot be quantified. Today we must as politicians restore faith in the police so that our women can be reassured and have faith that justice will be done. This report sends that message. We know that sexual violence is significantly under-reported in New Zealand. Now we have it in black and white—the proof of police officers turning a blind eye to inappropriate sexual behaviour. The report describes incident upon incident of disgraceful conduct.

First and foremost, as a nation we must be bold enough to face the epidemic of sexual violence we are seeing evidence of in the policing sector that also manifests itself across other areas of our community. We absolutely must front up and dispel any illusion that violence of any kind is normal and acceptable. Our first responsibility is to provide leadership in our own whānau, hapū, and iwi to take responsibility to live without violence. Today the opportunity is provided by the very public, high-profile review of the police, to send a message that we are a nation that refuses to shirk away from the disgraceful conduct and the terror of sexual assault that some members of our police force have inflicted upon others.

The Māori Party commends the work of Dame Margaret Bazley and the commitment of the commission in reviewing all relevant investigation files on complaints of alleged sexual assault by police or police associates since January 1979. This report today is just another link in a chain of dysfunction and disarray that has been associated with the New Zealand Police. We have had a crisis with 111 calls, with too many emergency calls unanswered and New Zealanders being left in the lurch. We have heard former Police Commissioner Rob Robinson detail the filth that was clogging up the capacity of the police computers—emails, images, and movie clips of a pornographic nature. There have been other crises of confidence with the police system, as we witnessed in the report of Māori perceptions of police, which stated that simply being Māori was a sufficient cause for suspicion by the police. The studies revealed that Māori respondents believed that police viewed Māori essentially as criminal. I repeat that simply being Māori was a sufficient cause for suspicion. It is not a new story.

I looked today at another report about the police, The Māori and the Criminal Justice System: a new perspective—he whaipainga hou. In that report Moana Jackson describes a level of disillusionment that has grave portents for Māori and police relations. He drew on analysis from the Waitangi Tribunal, which stated: “When one significant section of the community burns with a sense of injustice, the rest of the community cannot safely pretend that there is no reason for their discontent. That is a recipe for social unrest …”.

The challenge before this House today is what we do with the burning sense of injustice that New Zealand citizens are experiencing today, as they have over the last few months and, indeed, decades. We do not want a police system whereby Māori believe they will be ignored or unfairly targeted for apprehension, arrest, and prosecution. We want to see cultural competence included in police employment contracts. It was former Police Commissioner Peter Doone who argued in the year 2000 that we must look for a fundamentally different approach required to break the cycle in which many police and Māori hold negative perceptions of each other. I think of our young women who have been sexually abused and have ended up in institutions in this country, full of anger and outrage at what has happened to them and not able to trust the police or the State systems to provide them with protection. They are women who are criminalised by their anger and outrage, and by the trauma of sexual abuse that has never been addressed.

Where have we got to when those whom we turn to for help are, instead, condoning or turning a blind eye to sexual activity of an inappropriate nature? Where have we got to if the evidence of assault is greeted with a wall of silence from colleagues protecting those officers complained about? What sort of police system has emerged for complainants to become the subject of negative stereotypes and to be treated with what the report describes as a culture of scepticism?

The Māori Party was pleased to see the unreserved apology from Commissioner of Police, Howard Broad—his genuine remorse that families and friends have suffered from such hurt and harm. We appreciated the statement from the Police Association that it supported the need for a code of conduct for the police. We are even more pleased to learn of the Prime Minister’s immediate response that the Government is promising to implement all of the 60 recommendations made by the commission of inquiry.

The recommendations are extremely full and comprehensive, detailing examples of training and discipline reaction and recommending a code of conduct for police. The report gives us a new start, an opportunity to strip away the sapwood and start again. The first recommendation says it all. It is what one would have thought to be a standard—indeed, an essential policy—for any business to operate by. It is: “New Zealand Police should develop standards, policies, and guidelines on inappropriate sexual conduct towards, and the forming of sexual relationships with, members of the public. These should be incorporated into all codes of conduct and relevant policy …”. But how much hope can we expect from a response from police made shortly after the report was released, which states: “The report does not point to systemic failings with police policy, procedures, standards, training, or behaviour.”

This report is totally about systemic failures of policy, procedures, standards, training, and behaviour. How much more must the public of New Zealand be exposed to before failings are recognised and something done? Then again, I was absolutely appalled that the President of the Police Association, Greg O’Connor, on today of all days, could come out with a statement that says he hopes police can get on with the job now and move on from “the distractions which have occurred over the last few years”. Sexual assault is not a distraction. One hundred and forty-one upheld complaints are not a distraction.

We welcome the call from the report for a culture to be created where people are willing to stand up and challenge unethical or criminal behaviour. As the report states: “Cases where misconduct went unchallenged for months or years undoubtedly had a dampening effect on the morale of female and male officers.” We must do better.

Recommendation 57 suggests that police districts should establish groups of community representatives who meet regularly to provide comment and feedback on police service delivery and policing issues throughout the district. Perhaps this is where our greatest hope can lie—hope that our communities are heard, that longstanding concerns are registered and addressed, and that failings are identified and successes are shared. We must today make a mark in the sand so that never again will we see such deplorable actions and disgraceful behaviour carried out by the police of this land—as we see in this report. And in this respect the Māori Party welcomes this report—we also know that we are lucky that we have a Minister of Police who will make sure that all of those recommendations in the report will be carried out. Tēnā koutou.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): Today is the culmination of what has been a very grim sense of foreboding for a long time, as we have witnessed the trials, the aftermath of those trials, and the speculation about the way that evidence was presented to the juries of those trials, over the conduct of certain police officers and a prevailing culture within the organisation at that time. Although, like many New Zealanders, I welcome the report as being a chance to put all those issues out in the open where they belong and as providing a chance for us to move forward now and resolve them, I am not entirely confident that will prove to be the case. I say that for these reasons. I support the recommendations that have been outlined in the report, and I am pleased that the Government is going to implement them. But, from a cursory reading of them, I am not satisfied that they go far enough.

The fundamental issue here concerns a deeply ingrained culture within that organisation, premised around loyalty to colleagues—and that is a great thing to have. But it is a culture blemished and blinded by that loyalty having become so overriding that wrongdoing cannot be seen as not being part of it. Without addressing the way that appointments at senior middle-management level and above are made and introducing more transparency into that process—notwithstanding the fact that there will be a code of conduct, and notwithstanding the commitments that have been given—I am not entirely convinced that the fundamental problem will be addressed. If members cast their minds back to the recent trials, they will remember that it became clear there was a profound, deeply interwoven culture of everyone looking out for everyone else, and of making sure either that they all had the same story to tell or that the processes by which the various complaints were investigated were coordinated in order to make sure that only in the most extreme instances did things ever progress. That is the root of the problem that has given rise to the crisis of confidence in the police that this report seeks to address.

In fact, to put the situation into some sense of perspective, this report is the worst moment for the New Zealand Police since a previous commissioner, Mr Compton, was dismissed for corruption in the late 1950s. This is a half-century crisis of confidence in the New Zealand Police. The solution has to be bold in order to replace the sense of suspicion, intimidation, and scepticism that there will be, in many sectors of the public, as a result of these events. As I say, I laud the inquiry; I think it is a positive step forward. Dame Margaret Bazley is a superb person, and her judgment is acute and needs to be respected. But the inquiry has to be followed up with action as well.

I want to make two further points in the time available to me. There is one group of people who deserve our absolute admiration at the moment. They are the women who came forward with their complaints and who continue to come forward today in very difficult, stressful, and often hostile situations. Without them, we would not be having this discussion today. We owe it to them to act.

There is one final group that we also need to remember today. As we speak in this House, policemen and women are out on the beat—good, decent policewomen and men. We should respect them and the job they have to do. They are the ones today who will bear the brunt of the criticism that arises from this report, because they are there. They are innocent parties in the main, but we owe it to them to put things right too, because their careers, their future, and our nation’s community security are at stake.

This is a very positive report. I am not entirely convinced, though, that it goes far enough. The onus now rests on the Government and on this House to make sure that the messages the report contains regarding what is unacceptable behaviour are translated into new procedures and new practices that endeavour, as best we can, to ensure there is no repetition of such behaviour in the future.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Dame Margaret Bazley has been a fine servant of this country—a public servant—and, I think, never more than in the quality, depth, and thoroughness of the report she has given to us today, with all of the challenges that it represents.

I echo the comment of Mr Dunne, who has just resumed his seat. First and foremost we should acknowledge the courage of the women who made this report—and, therefore, the recommendations arising from it—possible. I refer to the 60 recommendations we have been addressing in the course of this debate this afternoon. I will be addressing, in particular, the balance of the report’s recommendations—the 12 or so dealing with the Police Complaints Authority. The others have been quite well canvassed by previous speakers.

As Minister of Justice I have responsibility for policy, and for securing and managing funding for the Police Complaints Authority, and, of course, I am involved in the appointment of its members. The Police Complaints Authority is a critical part of the architecture of providing not only a police service but also the access to a proper complaints process, should it be required, that is the right of the public of New Zealand.

The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct relating to the authority fall broadly into two areas: recommendations relating to the handling of complaints by the authority, and those that require legislative change. Briefly, 10 of the 12 recommendations deal with improving the authority’s accessibility to people who may wish to make a complaint; developing a communications strategy to increase awareness of the authority; enabling complainants to make submissions and statements orally to the authority; ensuring that the authority has more regular communication with complainants, once complaints have been lodged; looking at ways of effecting regular feedback from a sample of complainants, partly by way of quality control of the work that is being undertaken; dealing with the backlog of complaints; ensuring that the authority exercises its discretion in favour of accepting historical sexual assault complaints; putting a very tight time limit on taking action in terms of communicating with complainants; removing the discretion in terms of the authority communicating with the Attorney-General and the Minister of Police over any matter where the authority does not believe the police have taken necessary and timely action when recommended to do so; and, finally, looking at the availability and freedom of information concerning the detail around complaints, and that, in part, requires looking at some of the provisions around privacy of information dealing with individuals.

Those are a wide range of recommendations and I want to say, without ambiguity, that all of the recommendations will be actioned. All of the recommendations in the inquiry report dealing with the Police Complaints Authority will be implemented.

With regard to the recommendations requiring legislative change, they will be actioned through amendments to the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill, which, as members know, was put on hold specifically so that any outcome from this inquiry requiring legislative change could be actioned as quickly as possible. Keeping this new legislation effectively ready in the wings has meant that we can now move quickly on the recommendations. The bill provides an appropriate vehicle for implementing these changes; indeed, I have already instructed Ministry of Justice officials to develop the appropriate amendments.

I have discussed with the Police Complaints Authority, Justice Goddard, those recommendations that are of a more operational nature and focus, and I thank Simon Power for his strong endorsement of Justice Goddard and the work she is already doing as the new Police Complaints Authority. I absolutely agree. She has indicated her strong commitment to action these recommendations, and work is already under way on a number of them.

This report provides a clear set of recommendations to strengthen the effectiveness of the authority. Although work has been undertaken to date, the Government certainly does intend to make any other changes required to address the issues that the report raises. Similar to the situation with the Commissioner of Police, media statements have been made available on a table, and members certainly can avail themselves of them. They give more detail of the recommendations concerning the authority and the action that either is being taken or is being proposed to take.

I also want to touch briefly on additional action that has already been taken that is relevant to some of the issues raised in this report. A team of four investigating officers was established to enable the authority to investigate major matters independently. I think that was an important step, and further work needs to be done to advance it. As part of last year’s Budget, the authority received additional funding to help address the backlog issue that is identified in this report. Again, that work is well under way. That was over half a million dollars of additional funding specifically to target the backlog.

We also already have mechanisms in place to address some of the quite specific issues raised in the inquiry report. The commission recommends changes to the way that sexual assault complaints are investigated, and, in addition, the resourcing of support groups involved in assessing and supporting complainants. The recently established sexual violence ministerial group and the Task Force for Action on Sexual Violence will take a leading role in recommendations in this area. Again, that ministerial group and task force are already established. There has been significant consultation with key sector groups to ensure that the terms of reference of the task force are appropriate and supported by the wider field, both governmental and non-governmental. The task force supports the work of the sexual violence ministerial group, which I chair as Minister of Justice, and also comprises the Minister of Women’s Affairs, the Minister for ACC, and the Minister of Police. The aim of that task force is to achieve better coordination of responses to sexual violence—a key area of concern addressed in this report.

Finally, later today I will be asking Parliament to support a recommendation to the Governor-General to appoint Acting District Court Judge Michael Lance QC as Deputy Police Complaints Authority, which will further enhance the authority’s work and effectiveness.

I conclude by simply noting that, as I said at the start, Dame Margaret Bazley has done this country and this Parliament a fine service with the quality, depth, and thoroughness of this report. She has clearly articulated the issues and, yes, the failings that need to be addressed. She has made recommendations—60 of them—each of which requires action, and it is our job to take that action. This Government will act on all 60 of those recommendations. The police are committed to implementing the change that is required. The Police Complaints Authority is absolutely committed to implementing the recommendations that relate to it. I believe that this report does indeed represent both a dark day but also the beginning of the significant transformation and change that are required. I am confident that the steps are now being put in place to ensure that the recommendations are genuinely implemented, and that the oversight of that process will ensure that it is a long-term and sustainable process of change.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): If there is one organisation in this country that we need to have implicit faith in, it is the New Zealand Police, because that organisation carries the can for a lot of other organisations and agencies. When they are unavailable, it is the police that people think of to call on when they are at their most vulnerable. I find today to be a particularly difficult day, and as the Minister of Justice has said earlier, it is a particularly black day for the New Zealand Police.

I am wary of some comments made that suggest the New Zealand Police needs in some way to put this issue behind it and move on. I believe that that is the last thing it needs to do. I believe that the New Zealand Police needs to be able to carry in the back of its mind today the lessons it can learn from this report, and the lessons it has taken on board over the last few embarrassing years, as various incidents have come to light. I feel sorry for the vast number of police officers; I think about half of them have been in the police for only 10 years.

But I believe that the underlying theme at the bottom of this report is one of satisfaction on the part of the public with the work of the police. It is not up to the police or to the rest of us to decide whether people can have confidence in the police. In the end, it is those people—the most vulnerable in our community—who will decide whether they have the confidence in that organisation that is needed in order to be able to bare their souls, in some respects, and to make complaints of a most personal nature.

The initial complaints that led to this report are welded into the minds of police officers and former police officers like myself. In thinking back on the culture that existed at that time, I say, thankfully, that there have been a large number of changes. I can say that I, like many others, am very proud of the service I had with the New Zealand Police—in my case, between 1975 and 1999. But I feel tainted by these complaints, particularly as a member of the Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB) through the 1980s and 1990s, and I feel tainted by the tenor of this report, although I believe that every one of its recommendations is completely justified. I agree with the Government, which has said it will implement every one of them.

The fact is that although individual officers have been the subject of complaints, individual officers have the ability to change the culture of the groups in which they operate. Although the commissioner has made the point, as he sees it and as he has viewed it, that there is no suggestion within the report of systemic failure, I agree with others who have spoken and said that, in fact, Dame Margaret Bazley has found exactly that to have occurred.

I think back to the early 1980s and to training within the CIB. For instance, the detective manual that existed at that time called upon detectives to be very wary of complainants in sexual abuse matters, and reminded detectives that those complaints were easy to make and hard to defend. In actual fact, of course, such complaints are incredibly hard to make. Thankfully, in the mid-1980s there were law changes in respect of sex crimes within the Crimes Act that protected victims and encouraged them to be able to give good evidence that could lead to a conviction. The fact is too that at that time the police implemented a number of sexual abuse and child abuse teams, which led each of us to a new understanding of the psychology of sexual victims and sexual offenders.

What I find most despicable about the complaints, of which a lot has been made in the media—and so it should have been—is that each of the three offenders whose names we heard mentioned time and time again had been members of the CIB. Each of them would have been fully aware of the nature of the psychology of sex victims. Each of them would have known that the behaviour exhibited by 18-year-old and 16-year-old girls, and by those who had been the subject of abuse, showed a consent that was not soberly given in full awareness of the facts as to what they were consenting to at the time. I do not believe, personally, that the police officers had any right to rely on any consent they had been given. Even today—20 years down the track—to try to argue that it was all a matter of consent is something I find absolutely abhorrent. The public demand higher standards of the police than of those in other professions, and that has been underlined time and time again when dealing with members of the public.

I notice that recommendation R18 seeks consistency and transparency in the complaints process, so that there is a consistent level of service across the country. I think that particular recommendation goes to the heart of what I was speaking about just a couple of minutes ago: the ability of an individual or a couple of individuals to dictate the culture within the group. No one would look back on the history of the Rotorua CIB squad and see that there was anything less than a disgusting level of public service in relation to sexual crimes. It is important that members of the public who wish to make a complaint are able to go into any police station around the country and to receive the same high level of service that they would receive anywhere else.

I also note the recommendations that there is to be an annual “health of the organisation” audit by the State Services Commission and, under recommendation R60, annual auditing for 10 years by the Auditor-General in relation to the implementation of new measures. I see those audits as being entirely necessary, because no matter what changes may have been made in recent times or will be made in the next couple of weeks in respect of this organisation, we have to know—and to have confidence—that the changes will be implemented not only this year but next year, the year after that, and the decade after that. The fact that Dame Margaret Bazley saw fit to put into writing her concern that the organisation may move on too quickly from this inquiry—and believe, once it is over, that the boxes have been ticked—and the fact that she has seen fit to put in not one but two audit measures that will operate over at least the next decade is hugely embarrassing for members of the New Zealand Police. And that is embarrassing to myself, as someone who was associated with that organisation.

I do not wish to continue speaking much longer, other than to say that the complainants in all matters who are making complaints against the police take their complaints seriously. It is incredibly important—in fact, it is fundamental—to life within a civilisation that the members of the public can have full confidence in their State’s agent. I am very happy with the recommendations in respect of the Police Complaints Authority. I know that the authority will do all it can to give substance and confidence to its work in respect of the New Zealand Police. Although this is a black day, I look forward to a day sometime down the track when every one of our country’s citizens can have a full level of confidence in our police service.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limitedand Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill

First Reading

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): I move, That the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Commerce Committee, and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 April 2007.

The purpose of the bill is twofold. Firstly, it permits a merger of AgriQuality and Asure to occur, provided that shareholding Ministers are satisfied that a merger is viable. Secondly, the bill allows shareholding Ministers to direct the board of AgriQuality not to provide certain services under the Animal Products Act 1999.

To understand why a merger of the two companies is being contemplated, it is necessary to briefly review their history. AgriQuality and Asure were established as State-owned enterprises on 1 November 1998 from the former MAF Quality Management. The reason for establishing these companies as State-owned enterprises was to improve the efficiency of the services provided by both organisations and to separate the service delivery function from the policy and regulatory advice provided by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. They were created as separate State-owned enterprises because they had distinct product offerings, and the operations of the new entities faced distinctly different challenges at that time. They were also structured in a way to ensure that there was minimal market overlap, as competition between the two was not envisaged.

Much has happened in the 9 years since AgriQuality and Asure were established. Consumers have become much more demanding about food safety and traceability, thus placing greater pressure on companies like AgriQuality to provide comprehensive end-to-end food safety solutions. The New Zealand economy has also become more vulnerable to biosecurity threats as the international community has become more interconnected—and probably we have become aware of some of the threats we were not aware of previously, as well. This has placed greater value on the provision of an integrated and comprehensive biosecurity response capability. AgriQuality and Asure currently compete to provide these services. Better New Zealand - wide outcomes could result from a more collaborative approach, particularly in the provision of a highly skilled and coordinated standing army, should a major biosecurity threat such as foot-and-mouth or a similar disease strike.

In respect of the key provisions of the bill, it is right to consider the merger of the companies for the reasons I have already mentioned, should the business case currently being developed make financial and strategic sense from the perspective of the shareholders and the Ministers, but on behalf of the taxpayers.

To enable a possible future merger, legislation is required to remove one company, or both, from schedules 1 and 2 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, and to consequently amend a number of other enactments. The bill enables this to occur. The bill also provides that certain matters are not affected simply by reason of the merger of the two companies. For example, a merger cannot be used by a third party to claim that there has been a breach of contract, and an employee cannot claim that there has been a technical redundancy effectively through the merger.

Part 2 enables that a merger of the two companies is time limited. It expires 2 years after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent. The bill enables shareholding Ministers to direct AgriQuality’s board of directors not to provide export red meat inspection services under the Animal Products Act 1999 without specific authorising legislation preventing AgriQuality from providing export red meat services, which could breach Part 2 of the Commerce Act 1986. The bill also specifies how the direction must be given to the board of directors and how direction must be notified. Furthermore, it provides that the board of directors of AgriQuality must comply with that direction. I commend the bill to the House.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country): I rise on behalf of the National Party in opposition to the proposals laid out in the bill by the Minister, for a number of reasons. The first, and most important, is that the reason the two companies were set up in the first place was to provide a source of competition within the two structures, one doing meat inspection and other doing food safety—completely different roles. It is interesting to hear the opposition from the two Ministers. Let me read what the Hon Paul Swain, one of their former ministerial colleagues, said at the time: “It is the second time that member has criticised the Opposition for doing its job. The point of the legislation going to the committee”—then presumably further on—“is so that the Opposition can ask the hard questions.” Well, here the Opposition is doing its job, and the Ministers’ colleague who criticised the Opposition last time for doing exactly what I am doing, is over there chirping back; so nothing changes, just the people on either side of the House.

The reason why National is opposed to this bill is that we are seeing another intervening socialist ministerial directive telling these guys how they should do their job. At the end of the day, there is no evidence to say that the competition that has been provided by having the two separate entities has any less merit now than it had then. As the Minister leaves the Chamber I just want to point out to him that the Animal Health Board chairman and chief executive have raised very serious concerns about the proposal, because they have some major doubt as to whether the tuberculosis and possum eradication process can continue under the proposed merger in the way the Minister is proposing.

I wonder whether the Minister has had a submission from this organisation; if not, I suggest that it gets its submission in quickly to the Commerce Committee, because I understand that that is the committee hearing submissions on this bill. The Chief Executive of the Animal Health Board, Mr William McCook, told farmers that TB levy payers had enjoyed real benefits from competition between TB testing contractors. I know, as a farmer, that that is correct. I know, prior to the set-up of the two entities, we used to be dictated to as to who would come to the farm, when they would come to the farm, and what they would do when they were on the farm, and it was just tough if we did not like that. If we could not comply with that, then we were penalised. Since there has been competition in regard to that, we have had a far more conciliatory and far more organised approach to that, with a much more cost-effective provision of service. So I tell the Minister that he needs to listen carefully to the Animal Health Board and its members, because they have done a fine job in getting TB in this country under control.

Further, I understand that one of the concerns the Minister has is the issue of meat inspection. I invite members to go back to have a look prior to the division of AgriQuality and Asure from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry structure they came out of, and what used to happen in our meatworks in regard to meat inspection. A cartel held farmers and the meatworks to ransom. It used to demand exorbitant fees to provide that service. Its service was often found to be wanting. As an effect of that we had the highest killing charges in our meatworks of any of the OECD countries. Here we are, a competing nation, exporting our products to the world, and what we have is a Government structure piling thousands of dollars of costs into that structure for no net gain to anybody—not in terms of quality, not in terms of what the meat inspectors are there for in the first place, and not in terms of market access. There is no gain.

So I invite members to go back and look at that and ask the question whether having the ability of another suitable organisation that would be recognised internationally, and having the ability of that organisation to say “I will” or “we might” compete in this area, has brought huge benefits. I have no understanding of what it is that has brought the Minister to his conclusion that these two organisations should be merged and then come under the jurisdiction of the Minister himself.

The two State-owned enterprises were created, as the Minister said, in November 1998 out of the corporatisation of the MAF Quality Management business units. AgriQuality’s core business is the provision of food safety and biosecurity services. I agree with the Minister that we need to do whatever it takes to ensure that we have solid biosecurity structures in place; on that I have no disagreement with the Minister. But what I do disagree with the Minister over is that merging, and thereby reducing the number of organisations that can have input or provide technical advice, or respond in the case of a biosecurity incursion, is not the way to make sure we achieve that outcome.

I remind the Minister of what happened on Waiheke Island at the time of the foot-and-mouth hoax. We had the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry scurrying around trying to round up enough people to get out there and find out whether this was a real foot-and-mouth incursion, or a hoax. Media people were travelling to farms, and travelling back and furnishing their reports in Auckland and other such places before the ministry could get there. That says a lot about the resourcing, but how will merging these two organisations together, thereby presumably reducing the amount of expertise that exists, help in that matter? For the life of me, I have not heard anybody submit to me that this would somehow or other have assisted on that particular occasion. The Minister has a lot more questions to answer than he has given answers to, and I am sure we might hear some of those answers during the course of this debate, but I doubt whether they will come from that Minister.

So I suggest that the Government makes sure that all the relevant bodies are able to submit to the select committee and that it does stand back and not just take advice from those within various departments that have vested interests. It should stand back and listen to the stakeholders themselves—the farmers, the meat companies, the biosecurity agencies, and all those who feed into the various aspects of this bill—to justify where the improved efficiency the Minister speaks of can come from, when one turns what is now a competitive environment into a monopoly service provider, and justify also to the select committee how it is that it will increase the resourcing into certain areas such as biosecurity, when one actually reduces the efficiency of the service provided. I would like answers to those questions, and I am sure they may be forthcoming in that select committee.

The aim of the bill, as the Minister put it, is to merge AgriQuality and Asure New Zealand, and to give the Minister himself powers to direct those agencies where and when they should or should not poke their beaks, as it were. It defies logic how Ministers of the Crown will ever be in a position to have that kind of micromanagement, advice, or expertise to ensure we get the right outcome. I just say to the Minister that wherever this has happened before, the outcome the Minister was seeking has always been the opposite of that set out by those groups who have advised the Minister on it. I suggest that the Minister should also take a look at some of the articles being written by some within the agricultural sector who are overwhelmingly opposed to what is being proposed. He should take the time to go through the detail of some of their argument so that he can have a clearer view of what he is trying to achieve and whether this will achieve it.

I think that this is a backwards step. I think it is a mistake. I hope that during the select committee process the Government will come to realise that and drop the idea altogether, although its track record suggests that that would be unlikely. If the Government does go ahead with this, I can see further amendments, not too far down the track, to what is being proposed.

MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill 2007. I thank the member opposite, Shane Ardern, for his comments, and I look forward to the National Party’s constructive contribution at the Commerce Committee when it is considering this bill.

The two entities,AgriQuality and Asure New Zealand, were, as has been traversed already, established in November 1998, but I think it is important to remember what the functions of the two organisations were in order to work out the sense of now contemplating a merger. The AgriQuality core business was the provision of food safety and biosecurity services—that is, its business was to inspect live meat, as it were—whereas Asure New Zealand inspected dead meat, or processed meat. Those two functions were important and, perhaps in their day, justified establishing separate organisations—although personally I would query that, as well; I am not sure whether it was altogether sensible to separate out those two functions. It was as though in 1998 the corporatisation model was being extrapolated out to another level again, beyond that to which it was originally intended to apply. It is one thing to create a State-owned enterprise for the purpose of establishing greater efficiencies in delivering public services, but then to split those out into two different organisations with different functions was a kind of atomisation of the process that really did not stack up, or has not stacked up in recent times.

I want to traverse a little of that history. The corporatisation move was established under the fourth Labour Government in the 1980s, and it resulted in a lot of improved efficiencies in businesses that were core business of the State. Certainly, when the key export earner of the economy is agriculture, it is right and proper that the State has a direct and hands-on function in the administration and quality supervision of that part of the economy. But to separate out the functions into two different organisations—and for my own understanding more than for anything else, I refer to them as live meat and dead meat; people will understand what I mean by that: the meat inspectors, and the inspection of processed meat—was to carry corporatisation to an extreme.

It becomes important to say that a number of things have changed in the intervening years. There are two things that make the consideration of a merger, and therefore this bill that is in front of Parliament, a sensible suggestion and a sensible proposition from the Government. First of all, consumers now require higher and more transparent standards of quality than they used to. Although that is no reflection on the standards that were met in the past, it does mean that if two State entities were to compete with each other—which is the proposition that gave rise to this bill—then the interests of consumers are not likely to be observed or met in that instance. The second thing that has become important in the course of the intervening years has been the need to track meat—the need to track live and processed meat in order to be able to determine, in the event of a biosecurity risk, the precise herd from which a piece of processed meat has come, and, therefore, to go back to that particular farmer and that particular herd and contain any identified risk.

The images that will come into the minds of the public in the consideration of this bill will be those ghastly images from the late 1990s of the burning of herds in the United Kingdom, which showed the need to track back exactly where the biosecurity risks came from. My colleague on the other side of the House referred also to the recent putative outbreak of foot-and-mouth on Waiheke Island. That is a very good contemporary example. Although, of course, it came to nothing, it was an essential test.

It is the view of the Government that creating the possibility for these two Crown entities to merge will, in fact, provide a greater efficiency, in that if there ever were a need to separate out the two functions, the time has long since passed for that to be the most effective way to administer the quality standards we need, not only to assure consumers here and abroad but also to maintain the integrity of our biosecurity protections in New Zealand. Those twin challenges have emerged over the last few years—the higher expectations of consumers, and the need to identify, contain, and sheet back to its origins any biosecurity risk.

The purpose of this bill is to put into legislation a way of preventing these two bodies from competing with each other in the provision of export red meat inspection services, and to allow for the merging of the two organisations at some point. It is interesting and pertinent to note that the Public Service Association (PSA)# welcomes the announcement of this legislation. The PSA national secretary, Richard Wagstaff, has stated: “The benefits to PSA members at these enterprises and the New Zealand taxpayer will be significant. It’s a common-sense solution to issues that hamper efficiency and effectiveness.” He went on to state that the two enterprises must provide an integrated service in order to protect New Zealand’s biosecurity interests, that that is almost impossible to achieve if the two organisations are running against each other head-to-head in competition, so a merger will promote a more strategic and responsive capacity to address biosecurity threats. I welcome those comments, because the PSA represents almost totally the workers who work in both organisations, and they have been the ones who have experienced some career instability and uncertainty, which has affected recruitment and retention. Certainly, their endorsement of the potential merger of the two organisations is significant, in that it comes from those who are the experts within the two organisations.

In conclusion, I think it will become obvious what the benefits of the potential merger are. I look forward to debating this matter when it comes before the Commerce Committee. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

NATHAN GUY (National): I rise to take a call on the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. This bill is all about the merger of two State-owned enterprises that are in direct competition with each other. We in the National Party think that competition is quite a good thing. These two State-owned enterprises compete for a variety of services. They compete for TB testing. Asure has about 40 percent of that market share; AgriQuality has most of the remainder. They compete for biosecurity work, they compete for livestock inspections, and now AgriQuality wants to move into red meat inspection. Of course, the Labour Government and the Minister for State Owned Enterprises say no. They say that this is terrible because they say we cannot have State-owned enterprises competing. So the Minister says no to competition, yet there is a whole list of State-owned enterprises already competing against one another.

We have had AgriQuality and Asure in front of the Primary Production Committee since I have been in Parliament in the last 18 months. We went down and visited Asure in Belfast on the outskirts of Christchurch. It is doing a fantastic job, and it is a very, very good operation. We have had AgriQuality out on our farm doing our TB testing, and doing a very, very good job. It has a very professional approach and it gives great service. So when I look back through the collection of financial reviews in 2004 and 2005, one really strikes a chord. I quote from the comment made by the select committee on the merger in the bill that is in front of us now: “This merger will reduce competition in the provision of the quality assurance services, significantly disadvantaging the New Zealand primary sector.” So up will go the meat inspection charges, up will go TB testing, up will go the price that people pay at the supermarket counter, and so it will flow on.

Then I looked through the Bills Digest, particularly with regard to this bill. I will quote from it: “The Government would prefer to see SOEs collaborate and coordinate their activities rather than compete against each other at a cost to the Crown and taxpayers.” Well, what about this? We have Meridian Energy, we have TrustPower, we have Genesis Energy—the list goes on and on.

R Doug Woolerton: That’s a bit ho-hum sometimes, too.

NATHAN GUY: That is exactly right. But they are all competing to try to bring the cost down, not to remove competition so that the cost will go up.

It is interesting when I followed on from looking at the Bills Digest to find that the business case for this merger still has not even been established. So we do not know what will happen in the business case. We do not know the economic benefits of this merger. We have not seen those. We did not hear about them when Mr Mallard stood up and spoke in front of us today. He did not talk about that. He was silent on any economic benefits he believes it may have. So I think we have some serious flaws in this whole merger of these two State-owned enterprises.

It is ironic that Minister Mallard wrote in June 2006, within the last year, to all the chairs of State-owned enterprises, suggesting that they should go ahead and invest in areas outside but related to their core business. In other words, he said: “Here is the chequebook. Get out there and diversify.” When I put on my rural hat and think about it, I would ask whether farmers would want public sector entities such as Landcorp diversifying into milk production. Would farmers want Landcorp setting up a milk plant in competition with Fonterra?

Here we have a Minister saying we do not want competition and we do not believe that it is very good with regard to AgriQuality and Asure, but on the other hand we actually want to see all State-owned enterprises diversifying. Mr Mallard believes that this role will bring about economic transformation. Well, is that not a buzzword? It is very like the buzzwords about carbon neutrality that we hear—it is more hollow words, more bumper stickers, from this Government.

Yet Treasury has concerns with this move. The Ministry of Economic Development has concerns with Mr Mallard’s approach and it states that State-owned enterprises should be able to diversify. So we in the National Party have real concerns about this matter.

When I did a little bit of research on what the Labour Government thinks about these State-owned enterprises, I came up with this comment from Graeme Hunt: “In former times the Labour Government acquired business influence by nationalisation or licensing. Now the Government extends its reach into the private sector by regulation and through the power of State-owned enterprises.”

Labour was founded about 90 years ago on a wild socialism sort of agenda. It is immensely distrustful of business, but it is willing to let it prosper in a State-owned enterprise straitjacket of regulation and high taxes. When I looked at this matter, I also noticed that Dr Richard Norman, a senior lecturer in human resource management and industrial relations at Victoria University, did a study in August last year—just in 2006—and it was not one where he was going to damn the public sector. What he did was to go out and survey all those directors to see what they thought of the State-owned enterprises.

He did a survey of 62 directors who are currently on the boards of State-owned enterprises. He found that two-thirds of those who responded—28 directors—had serious questions about the process of selecting directors. There were rumblings about directors being chosen to satisfy the political correctness of the Labour Government and not for their skills and experience. Here we have the Minister Trevor Mallard wanting State-owned enterprises to diversify, yet he goes around and handpicks his Labour lackeys to put on these State-owned enterprise boards. Mr Norman found that the competence of these boards is left floundering. It is a long, and sometimes unprofessional and embarrassing, appointment process—that is what Mr Norman found when he looked at State-owned enterprise boards.

Darren Hughes: Like Jim Bolger.

NATHAN GUY: Some of them are very good, but some of them are actually left floundering. That is what his study confirmed when he researched and got 28 replies from those directors on State-owned enterprise boards.

Right now, a big part of this bill is that the national biosecurity response capability will somehow improve under the merger of these two entities. It needs to, because Biosecurity New Zealand is an embarrassment—it is an embarrassment to the landowners of New Zealand. Recently we had a GE corn outbreak that got into this country, somehow, because of human error. The Ogden report found that there were big problems with the computer system at Biosecurity New Zealand and with the human resource capability of its staff. As a result, 18 farms in New Zealand planted 260 hectares of corn contaminated with GE. So there are big concerns about Biosecurity New Zealand’s response—and I cannot see how merging these two State-owned enterprises will improve that. Didymo has broken out right throughout the rivers of the South Island. We have real concerns.

Let me tell members what I think is really important when we look at this whole State-owned enterprise debate. Recently, 400 millimetres of rain fell in Northland. I, as a farmer who was flooded in the Manawatū floods of 2004, am very sympathetic towards those people, and I hope they are bearing up OK. But when we look at the Meteorological Service, which is a State-owned enterprise, and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, which is a Crown research institute, we see that those two organisations need to work closer together. The institute has a multimillion-dollar Cray supercomputer that can forecast weather bombs and flood events 12 to 36 hours ahead of the Meteorological Service, yet the service has the contract for weather forecasting in New Zealand. If ever there was a case for a State-owned enterprise and a Crown research institute to get together and work more collaboratively, then there it is. There is the evidence. If the institute can get that information to the Meteorological Service and stop Mr Maharey and Mr Mallard from fighting, then that will deliver a better response to rural New Zealand landowners.

In looking forward, National has some real concerns about this bill, and we will have to iron those out in the Commerce Committee. What I have identified today is that the Minister for State Owned Enterprises has double standards. He does not want competition. He is willing to open up the cheque book and say that State-owned enterprises should diversify. At the end of the day, the public do not trust Mr Mallard, because he has closed so many schools and has made a complete shambles of the Rugby World Cup stadium in Auckland. Right now, he wants to see less competition, which will drive up the costs for rural New Zealand.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): When I was on the Primary Production Committee, which is the select committee that these two organisations used to—and presumably still do—report to, I remember one thing that stood out above all others. These two organisations went at it in the courts. They sued each other. I listened carefully to the words of Shane Ardern—a man I admire and whom I think I would like to call a friend—and some of them did not ring true. They were not the words of the Shane Ardern I know. I know what Mr Ardern thinks, and he does not like waste. He does like competition, that is true, but he does not like waste. This State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill will eliminate waste, because in this situation the so-called competition is actually illusory. There is very little competition, in real terms, between these two companies. There is fighting, there are court cases, and there are takeover bids—there are all of those things—but I am not too sure that there is true competition in the way there should be.

I liked the words of Maryan Street, who said that this is State-owned enterprise privatisation to an extent that is ridiculous. I think she used the word “atomised”; I would just about go to the word “vaporised” as far as these two organisations are concerned. That is quite true. I think it is eminently sensible that some cooperation and collaboration be brought into it—in other words, that common sense begins to prevail again. It is a matter of ideology. I can understand the ideology of both the Labour and National sides when it comes to services—because that is what we are talking about here, at the end of the day—and how they are delivered through Government agencies, which I think it would be fair to say is Labour’s preferred model; or trading enterprises, which is the National Party’s preference.

If these two companies were to be merged and, for some reason or another, voters had a hiccup and put National into Government, I would be very, very surprised if National split asunder these two organisations. I think that would be most unlikely. So I think the competition we are seeing now is illusory and that efficiencies can be made. New Zealand First supports this bill.

It saddens me that too often when we have a debate like this we forget what it is all about. This bill is about ensuring that the food products that leave our shore, the products that set the standard of living for almost all New Zealanders, are paramount. It must be, and it is essential, that these companies that oversee our product quality are absolutely beyond any shadow of doubt when it comes to their efficiency and diligence. Companies overseas, and other countries, will use anything they can—any little slip-up—to bar our products from their shores. Mr Guy knows that, Mr Ardern knows that, and Eric Roy, who I see is getting ready for a major speech, knows that, because I have heard them talking in the select committee.

I think that to regard these operations as services is right and proper, and it is right that the Government exercises some control over them. Certainly, I think it fits the New Zealand First model, because we are interested in one thing: that the products leave our shores in the highest possible bracket as far as finance and quality go, so that we can return the goods to this country. I do not think it is excessive to say that when companies are fighting each other, are in takeover mode, and are in the business of going to the lawyers rather than getting on with their job, that must indeed result in them taking their eyes off the prize. It must be a situation that is not conducive to good business.

I think that New Zealand First will support this bill right through. I will be interested, like Mr Ardern and the other speakers, to see what comes out of the Commerce Committee. I hope the wise heads on that committee do not overlook the service aspect of this bill, and I hope they do not get bogged down in ideology. I know that Mr Guy, Mr Ardern, and Mr Roy will not do that, and I ask them to restrain some of their colleagues who have a bent for that sort of thing. So New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party supports the essence of this State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill, which merges the two organisations and creates a non-competitive model for such things as our meat inspection services. But we do have some concerns about the bill, which is why we will be abstaining. We think there is a problem with the merger in that the system may become too bureaucratic.

We would prefer that the merged entity was not a State-owned enterprise, which is not really a very transparent model and not terribly accountable. It could be a bit too bureaucratic and repeat some of the problems that have accompanied Asure New Zealand over the years. Asure New Zealand was in a terrible mess, particularly in terms of relations with its staff. It laid people off and there was all kinds of skulduggery a few years ago. Apparently, that has been largely sorted out now, but if this bill creates just one organisation using an State-owned enterprise model without more transparency, we could find that the organisation is not efficient and that there are other problems associated with that model. So we would favour some more transparent form of Crown entity rather than a State-owned enterprise.

I see two problems in using a competitive model in this area. I have some experience in this area. I was at one point in my career a meat grader at the Gear meatworks. I worked closely with the meat inspectors, who at that time worked under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. So I am pretty aware of what they do, at least in terms of operations on the mutton chain and beef chains.

I can see two problems with the competitive model. The first is that if firms are competing for a contract and want to get their costs down, the easiest way to do that is to employ less qualified staff—they do not have to be paid as much—and to push the meat through a bit quicker, which is quite easy to do. Of course, mistakes follow, and the product can create problems for New Zealand when it is exported and the mistakes are discovered overseas. We are talking here, to a large extent, about an export industry. I know, from the way things work, that if firms are put into that competitive model to get costs down, what suffers is quality, and that is something we want to protect at all costs.

My friend Shane Ardern has talked about the fact that on the farm different inspectors come in to check for TB. Even there the competitive model may have some problems. But I think that with TB, either it is there or it is not, and with a bit of quality testing it can be worked out whether each contractor is performing its duties. But with the sorts of things that meat inspectors do on the chain in a meatworks, there is a fine line, often, between what is acceptable as a disease and what is not.

For example, pleurisy is one of the common diseases that comes down the chain, and whether the animal is deemed to have pleurisy depends on the amount of pleurisy. There is a shifting dividing line; it is not an exact science. A lot of meat inspection and meat grading is not an exact science. I can imagine that under a competitive model, to try to please the farmers or the meatworks, the inspector might put that line of where pleurisy exists more in the direction of the meatworks and the farmer—at the cost of our overseas markets. That could easily be done if we got too much into this competitive model.

My experience with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries model in the past was that meat inspectors did not have any pressure on them to push the line in the wrong direction, or to push the meat through too fast. They were just doing their job to the best ability they had. So the Green Party certainly thinks that a non-competitive model is best, but we just do not want it to be too much of a bureaucratic model or an inefficient model. Thank you.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to have a chance to speak about the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. I do not know a great deal about it, but I have listened carefully to what people have said in the House today. I guess we have an interest in the way in which this nation assesses the quality of animal products and materials, and in particular the way in which it invests in the export red meat market, given the number of Māori people who are involved in farming.

This bill is about services, and we do support it at this first reading. The Māori Party has taken an interest in the way in which quality outcomes and services can be achieved through two key State enterprises established to do so—AgriQuality Ltd and Asure New Zealand Ltd. Part of our interest concerns how a merger can be planned between two very similar enterprises, and it would appear that the process is thoroughly agreeable to all parties, despite all the flexing of muscles between these agencies.

We have on one hand Asure New Zealand, bound by its mission: “Whāia ko taikākā, Building Consumer Confidence”. Its stated mission is to provide “simple and efficient solutions to complex food safety issues”, with key values such as objectivity, know-how, and integrity. It is already well on the way towards creating a trusted partnership. Importantly, it has already established relationships with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, based on the State-owned enterprise model. On the other hand we have AgriQuality Ltd, an entity that last week issued a release saying that it was committed to creating value for its ultimate stakeholders, the New Zealand public. It then went on to further suggest that in the past 7 years we have witnessed immense changes across the international global supply-chain and regulatory environment, and that there is now a strong case to be considered for merging the two companies. Both companies are firmly focused on creating value, which will benefit the agricultural and food industries in New Zealand, with a particular focus on enhancing their reputations for the good of the New Zealand public.

There has been a bit of an X factor as far as the Māori Party is concerned. I want to draw to the attention of this House the fact that one of these entities, AgriQuality Ltd, is chaired by a Ngāi Tahu person, Hēnare Rākihia Tau, and that a Ngāti Porou and Ngāti Kahungunu person, Tom Mulligan, is a director of Asure New Zealand Ltd. Too often in this House we hear about issues of disparities and problems that the Government has identified in another sector that seem to be disproportionately falling upon Māori, yet every day throughout this land Māori directors, managers, leaders, and entrepreneurs are helping to shape the society that we are a part of. I am thinking of some of New Zealand’s finest leaders and movers and shakers who are on boards—people like June McCabe, a director of Television New Zealand Ltd and New Zealand Venture Investment Fund Ltd; Taari Nicholas, a director of Transmission Holdings Ltd; Mavis Mullins, a director of Landcorp Farming Ltd; Sir Paul Reeves, a director of Mighty River Power Ltd; Dr Mere Roberts, a director of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd; Tem Hall, deputy chair of the New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd; Professor Ngātata Love, a director of New Zealand Post Ltd, and Witi Ihimaera-Smiler, a director of Learning Media Ltd—and that is to name but a few. The great thing is that this is a sample of much, much more to come. We have a wealth of talent out there in governance and in leadership, which this bill demonstrates.

We believe that the bill reflects the desire for cooperation, in that it will prevent AgriQuality Ltd from providing export red meat inspection services. It would appear to be good business sense for the business case of AgriQuality Ltd not to be in competition with Asure New Zealand Ltd. At the end of the day, the Māori Party would prefer to see State-owned enterprises collaborate and coordinate their activities rather than compete against each other, with a cost to the Crown and, more important, to taxpayers. It would appear really good business sense to maximise the commercial and non-commercial ownership benefits of both entities. If they were private enterprises, then I would probably agree with Shane Ardern in regard to competition, but they are not. So merging AgriQuality and Asure must mean that there will be more efficiencies.

In its most recently completed financial year, AgriQuality Ltd had a total operating revenue of $79 million, had total assets of $54.6 million, and had 750 fulltime-equivalent staff. The needs of stakeholders in the dairy, meat, horticulture, and food industries are central to the New Zealand brand. The proposal to merge AgriQuality and Asure will now mean a far more effective surveillance and monitoring of food, from the paddock right through to the shop shelf. In the interests of safe and wholesome food, for opportunities for our future export markets, and for the sense of confidence we have in Māori as successful managers, governors, and directors, we are happy to support this bill at its first reading.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): United Future will be supporting the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill, at least for the first reading and referral to the Commerce Committee, on which I serve as deputy chair. The whole question of assurance, particularly with regard to New Zealand’s meat export products, probably takes on an added significance today compared with the recent past. The development of new technology is one of the reasons for that.

I remember when the House was debating very vigorously the microchipping of dogs about a year ago. At that time, I attended a meeting in Hamilton where vets were saying to farmers that it was necessary for New Zealand to microchip cattle and other animals that produce red meat, because our international markets demand the ability to trace a particular cut of meat from the plate of the consumer, whether in France, Britain, or elsewhere, right back to the exact animal it came from. That has happened because of the way in which mad cow disease and other transmitted diseases have been highlighted, and the consciousness of consumers today who want to be assured that the products they consume are safe to eat.

The spotlight is also on the question of carbon miles, I think it is, which is the amount of carbon used to send meat from New Zealand, for example, to export markets in Europe.

R Doug Woolerton: “Food miles”.

GORDON COPELAND: I thank the member very much; I knew I had the term slightly wrong. I think that is a smokescreen. New Zealand will successfully defend itself, I have no doubt, because we will be able to demonstrate exactly the amount of carbon used in producing meat in New Zealand versus the amount used by our major competitors overseas. In that regard, we have the very temperate New Zealand climate on our side.

I say, though, that this bill highlights some problems for United Future in respect of the present arrangements for State-owned enterprises. Let us not forget that the shareholders of these two State-owned enterprises are the people of New Zealand, and under a normal corporate model the shareholders of a company are its proprietors. So the reality for both AgriQuality Ltd and Asure New Zealand Ltd is that the people of New Zealand should be exercising proprietorship for these two organisations, and they do that through their shareholding Minister—in this case, the Hon Trevor Mallard.

But when we come to the State-owned enterprise model we find, as Keith Locke of the Green Party has pointed out, that in some ways these organisations are neither fish nor fowl. They are somewhere in between a truly corporate model and a Crown entity. That is highlighted by this bill, because we find that the proprietor of the company—the shareholding Minister on behalf of the people of New Zealand—is not able to give a directive to AgriQuality Ltd that it should not enter into competitive arrangements and into the patch that is presently occupied by Asure New Zealand Ltd. That is why the Minister has to come to Parliament to get our permission to give a directive to AgriQuality Ltd that it is not to compete with Asure New Zealand Ltd when it comes to red meat inspection.

That says to us that we have something a little bit wrong with this whole State-owned enterprise model. If these were publicly listed companies, a majority of the shareholders could exercise their proprietary rights and give a directive to the board of a company that it is not to engage in certain activities and it is to engage in others. But this is not able to be done under the present State-owned enterprise model. That is why United Future believes that the model itself needs to be changed in the interests of better outcomes for the people of New Zealand.

United Future is proposing a suggestion that is different from any other party’s suggestion, to my knowledge. We think it is time to sell down a 40 percent interest in State-owned enterprises to mum and dad investors but to have the Crown retain the other 60 percent, and thereby always ensure that the Crown will be in control of State-owned enterprises. I add that in respect of the 40 percent interest sold down to mum and dad investors, and, for example, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, those shareholders would have the ability to onsell to non-resident shareholders only up to a maximum of 20 percent of the total shares in a State-owned enterprise.

In other words, the model we propose has the safeguard that 80 percent of the ownership of State-owned enterprises would continue not only to be controlled from New Zealand but also to be owned by New Zealanders. I should add that in the case of Television New Zealand we would raise that to 90 percent. But that would actually change the face of the whole State-owned enterprise model quite dramatically.

We could adopt a genuine, if you like, public company model, where directors would be elected by all the shareholders of the company, and would not be appointed by the Minister and the Government of the day. Indeed, the Crown would have a 60 percent say, but potentially a 40 percent interest would be the view of other shareholders who are independent of the Crown. I know for a fact that State-owned enterprises would welcome that change, because the confidential survey undertaken by Victoria University about 18 months ago indicated that even the directors of State-owned enterprises themselves say that a major problem they see with the model is political interference. Ministers cannot direct State-owned enterprises what to do, but, of course, they can change the composition of the board, which I guess is another way of sanctioning various activities.

We believe that this change would give a far better outcome, not only for these two State-owned enterprises but also for others. We would then see boards comprised of people who were elected at an annual general meeting and it would be more representative. It would depoliticise the appointment process to some extent, and we think that is all very positive for State-owned enterprises, not to mention the fact that they would also start to answer to the financial disciplines that would accompany the listing of those 40 percent shareholdings on the New Zealand Exchange.

Also, of course, I cannot overemphasise the importance that we attach to building a genuine ownership model in New Zealand. In this economy an unusually large share of all commercial activity is Crown-owned. The debate that has gone on for years between the two major parties about 100 percent Crown ownership versus 100 percent privatisation has, I think, become counter-productive, and we need to look for a new and different way forward.

Having said that, the other provisions of the legislation seem to be quite sound—that we should look to the possibility of merging these two State-owned enterprises into one single seamless organisation. That makes sense to us. I liken it a little bit to the Customs Service. I do agree wholeheartedly, in normal circumstances, with the idea of competition to get costs down, but we do not have a competitive arrangement for customs because it is an official function. On the other side of the ledger, when we are giving assurance to our export markets and overseas consumers, competition does not make a lot of sense there either, because those involved are carrying out something that is official in nature.

I think Keith Locke made the point correctly that we need to put quality assurance at the top of the list in this area, otherwise our getting this wrong has the potential to jeopardise our entire meat exports. That, of course, is something that none of us can take a risk with. So with those remarks, I again signal United Future’s support for the bill’s referral to the select committee and for the compressed time frame in that regard.

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. It is my pleasure, indeed, to stand and speak in support of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. This bill makes for good common sense and is very well supported by the sector.

I wish to make a couple of points about it. The bill provides for a possible merger between the two State-owned enterprises—AgriQuality and Asure New Zealand. The bill does not force a merger or require a merger; it simply enables a merger between the two State-owned enterprises to take place. It is good to see that both AgriQuality and Asure New Zealand have both agreed to work together to explore the possibility of a merger. Rākihia Tau, Chair of AgriQuality, has expressed his company’s strong support for this initiative, and Asure New Zealand has also agreed to cooperate. In a recent media statement, the Chair of the board confirmed Asure’s willingness to cooperate fully in the preparation of a business case to assess the economic viability of the merger.

Unions also support the bill, and, as my colleague Maryan Street said, the Public Service Association, which represents meat inspectors employed at Asure and staff at AgriQuality, says that the benefits of a possible merger to union members and the taxpayer are significant. It is really heartening to see the two State-owned enterprises and the union in agreement at such an early stage, as this Labour-led Government prefers to see State-owned enterprises collaborating and cooperating together where they can, instead of competing with each other and spending taxpayers’ money to do so.

The bill will also prevent direct competition between the two State-owned enterprises and companies in delivering export red meat inspection services. Our Labour-led Government is committed to value for money and value for people, and to competing in the global market to maximise gains for New Zealand quality product, quality service, and quality business. That is the Kiwi way. That also feeds nicely into an important provision of this bill. It authorises shareholding Ministers to issue a direction to AgriQuality to prevent it from providing export red meat inspection services. It is very important that the interests of the wider public and the sector are represented, and this bill allows shareholding Ministers to do that.

If in the future it is seen as viable, and AgriQuality and Asure merge, there will be many benefits for taxpayers and the sector. As outlined earlier by our Minister for State Owned Enterprises, Trevor Mallard, there will be cost efficiencies from having a single national provider. There will be improved integration of national biosecurity capability, which is a point not to be missed, I might add, given the increased vulnerability of New Zealand and other nations to breaches in biosecurity in today’s interdependent, interconnected, and global world. There would also be the ability to provide better information for consumers about where their food comes from, and additional revenue opportunities from offering quality assurance services to the wider food industry. A single integrated service provider would be better placed against international competition.

Again, Rākihia Tau, Chair of AgriQuality, sums this up better than I can in his recent media statement when he said: “The possible merger of AgriQuality and Asure would have the added advantage of allowing effective traceability of food from the paddock right through to the supermarket shelf, strengthening access to international markets across the breadth of the supply chain. Any move in this direction will see our reputation for producing safe and wholesome food products enhanced with the potential to benefit the wider agricultural and food industries in New Zealand.”

A previous speaker, Nathan Guy, made many assumptions about this bill—for example, that there would be increased costs with this process, and that competition is good. We are not disputing that. It is also important to have the pragmatic business savvy to collaboratively work out the best bang for our buck for business consumers, taxpayers, and the State. Each has a role to play in order to keep the checks and balances of our respective responsibilities to ensure we get a win-win for New Zealand. It is also important that we support AgriQuality Ltd and Asure New Zealand Ltd’s decision to work together to explore the possibility of a merger and to not make assumptions and pre-empt the process at this stage.

This is a common-sense bill. It is also an example of a proactive Government working on behalf of all New Zealanders to ensure that where opportunities that benefit the taxpayer and industry exist they are acted on, properly explored, and, if viable, fully implemented. I congratulate my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard for his leadership in introducing this bill, and I look forward to discussing it further at our Commerce Committee. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I was sitting up in my office and I heard this bill being debated, and I felt I should come and make a contribution. I do so for several reasons. I am a little confused as to why we are having this State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. The bill sets out a provision for a merger or a takeover, although that is not actually defined. But before I get on to that I will talk about some important principles that this House needs to engage in before it goes any further with this bill.

There are perhaps two key elements to our prosperity as an exporting nation of primary produce. One is that we can assure the consumer—the purchaser—of the quality of that produce. Ninety-odd percent of our primary produce, particularly in the meat area, is exported. We need to have an unequivocal, unchallenged assurance that the product is safe and wholesome. After that comes a whole range of things about the processing being done in a sustainable way and the upholding of animal welfare issues. All of that stuff helps, but right at the top is assurance. We have had two State-owned enterprises providing that assurance—AgriQuality Ltd and Asure Ltd.

Is there an issue that the model we have now has not been confirming, assuring, and asserting the absolute quality and safety of our products? No speaker has stood up and said that is the case. We would hold that AgriQuality and Asure have done it well because they are mandated to do so and because they abide by the Codex Alimentarius laws, which are the meat hygiene phytosanitary requirements that must be met before that assurance can be given. Both companies have done that, so there is not an issue in that regard. The second thing is the supply to the market, which requires farmers to produce lambs at such a rate that it becomes a viable land use option.

That is where I have some difficulty. As I go round New Zealand and talk to provincial New Zealanders and farmers, I hear several cries. But one cry that I hear everywhere I go—and Government members will have heard it—is: “The cost of compliance is killing us. Everything we do is going up a little bit more every year.” I will give one very good example of that. The Holidays Act came into force on 1 April. The meat companies tell us that it will cost them $1 a lamb. OK, it is a fine principle. We have actually redefined the cake and the workers are getting a bit of a bigger slice, but someone else is getting less. The cost of compliance—that is where it fits.

Darren Hughes: National voted for it.

ERIC ROY: Well, that is OK; we did—and we are not going to change it. I would just say to Darren Hughes that we cannot keep on doing it. We cannot keep on changing the wedge shapes of the pie; we actually have to grow the cake. We have to do that. I am not arguing, but I am just giving that as an example.

Here we will do something else. We will merge two companies that provide a valuable service into one. I respect what Keith Locke said about the old Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries model. He said that was a good idea but that he did not want it to get too bureaucratic. How do we stop that? We stop it by using a competitive model, surely. Is there another way that stops too many people sitting in offices, fiddling with computers, not being productive, and having high overheads? How can we get the focus on that? It is the competitive model.

As my good friend Nathan Guy pointed out, there are many examples where we have State-owned enterprises competing. We have just had Quotable Value New Zealand before our select committee, and it is now competing in Australia. There is no reason why either Asure or AgriQuality could not go and compete somewhere overseas with their expertise, which is world-renowned. But we are actually putting a fence around them and saying that they have to get into one kind of unit in order to deliver.

The principle we need to remember before we go any further is that there needs to be assurance—no question about it—and there needs to be competitiveness to ensure that. The second principle is that there has to be some viability in the producer. Otherwise there is no point in having Asure or AgriQuality in New Zealand, because there will be a diminishing amount of product that will need to be assured. There is a huge question about that.

I have read the explanatory note. It states: “The Government wishes to prevent this competition from occurring”—that is, between the two entities—“as it considers that it would result in a net cost to the Crown as the owner of both AgriQuality and Asure.” No speaker has told us how that happens. No one has come along and said what the reason will be for the cost to the Crown or what that cost will be. Members actually do not know what the reason for this bill is.

Then, goodness me, my cousin Luamanuvao Winnie Laban made a speech and said that the merger may not happen. So why on earth are we doing this if it may not actually happen? Yes, it may not happen—I am going to talk about the process in a minute—but I saw when I read the bill that there is a sunset clause in clause 11. This legislation will die in 2 years. I am reasonably astute about these matters, and I think the Government has a plan to make this merger happen within 2 years. I think we can assume that it is the Government’s plan to actually make it happen. I say to Winnie Laban that she may be my cousin, but I think she is misleading members a bit. This legislation will happen.

There are some other issues about this merger that quite intrigue me. The next point is the methodology by which this will happen. Winnie Laban could be right, because the explanatory note states: “The Government is also considering the possibility of merging …”. So why are we doing this if the Government is only considering the possibility? These words are just trying to soften the blow.

Let us talk about the methodology. If we go to Part 2 of the legislation, to clauses 5 and 6, we see that under the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, as amended in 1988, it is the responsibility of the Minister to issue an authority for either of these two companies to go and do an Asure or AgriQuality kind of assessment, which is the stuff they are required to do under Codex Alimentarius. This bill allows, under the State-Owned Enterprise Act, for that warrant not to be given.

So we now have a very messy style of approach to this, because the Government is to pick a winner. It will say that it will go with Asure or with AgriQuality New Zealand. We do not know which one it is. The bill has a provision for the Government to pick a winner without telling us which one it will go with. National members would say: “Hang on a minute. If there is to be a merger, we need a little more detail about how that is to happen.”

What I also find rather interesting is clause 9, “Part 3 of Commerce Act 1986 does not apply to the merger of AgriQuality and Asure”. Well, does it not apply—or is this clause giving an exclusion for that not to happen? Why should the Commerce Commission not be involved in something that takes competition out of the market when we have a huge cry in the provinces to get the cost of compliance down? I think that the Commerce Act would apply if this clause was not in the legislation.

Surely, if we are taking away the element of competition in an area where producers are crying out about the costs of compliance and saying that they want competition—and we should remember that there is no issue about the assurance side of it; there is absolutely no issue—then why do we have clause 9, which states that the Commerce Act 1986 does not apply? Quite frankly, there are so many odd things about this bill that I can see why my colleagues have said that National does not want to support it.

We have a responsibility to go back to those first two principles that I talked about: that there is assurance—no question—and that there is viability in the industry. This is a very messy bill. We are having this debate on this bill for unspecified reasons. No one in the Government has come out and said that we are being put in a position of allowing winners to be picked. We are excluding the Commerce Commission. There is so much uncertainty on this bill—which has a sunset clause of 2 years—that we certainly do not want to support it. We say that it is a mess and that the Government must do better to protect the producers of this country.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): I rise to take a brief call on the first reading of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. It has been very interesting to sit through the debate and listen to the contributions that have been made by all the parties. I offer my sympathies to the Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban. The member for Invercargill, a National MP, just told the nation that they are cousins. It seemed a very nasty thing to do in the debate. What amazes me about this Parliament is how many people do have cousins on the other side of the House; quite a few have been named. I actually have one but I am just too proud to fess up about which one of them it is. I keep it quiet that our family managed to produce someone who ended up in the New Zealand National Party—my goodness! It is obviously a big country that we have here where members of a family can be on different sides of the House.

The bill is an unusual one because it amends the State-Owned Enterprises Act only to enable something to happen. It is does not actually direct the merger, but, clearly, a lot of work and thought has gone into that in order for it to come to legislation at this time. I am not sure whether we have had a bill similar to this one before. It amends quite an important piece of the reforms from the 1980s and then leaves that provision in the bill in order to bring together these two businesses, if that is what the shareholding Ministers want to see happen.

Up until now, of course, AgriQuality’s core business has been the provision of food safety and biosecurity services, and Asure has focused on the provision of export red meat inspection services. They have gone along those separate paths. Then the issue arose last year when AgriQuality signalled it wanted to move into an area where Asure has been working. I guess that is what prompted the shareholding Ministers who own both companies to ask whether it is in the best interests of the taxpayers—the whole country—as the owners to have competition between two things they already own if that competition ends up reducing the worth of both companies. That is what is being looked at here.

I do take the point that was made by Mr Roy about the costs; service users of these two agencies do not want to see their costs continuing to go up. I would like to think that maybe there will be some efficiency gains that will flow right through to the people who are having to pay to have these inspection services done. As every speaker has noted, biosecurity is a very important part of our country—making sure our reputation is intact for what is a very heavily dependent agriculture industry—and a sector that, of course, has a world reputation that is the envy of many countries. We have to make sure that that continues to survive in that way. I support the first reading of the bill and its referral to the Commerce Committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 48.

Abstentions 6

Green Party 6.

Bill read a first time.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: I move, That the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill be considered by the Commerce Committee, and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 April 2007.

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

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 48.

Abstentions 6

Green Party 6.

Motion agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Appointments

Deputy Police Complaints Authority

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): I move, That, pursuant to section 8 of the Police Complaints Authority Act 1988, this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Judge Michael Henry Walkinton Lance, acting District Court Judge of Wellington, as deputy to the Police Complaints Authority for a term of one year commencing on the date of appointment. The Police Complaints Authority Act 1988 provides for the appointment of a Deputy Police Complaints Authority, who, subject to the control of the authority, has all the powers, duties, and functions of the authority. A Deputy Police Complaints Authority was appointed in June 2005 for a 2-year term, but unfortunately was unable to complete the term, due to ill health. The appointment is in effect, therefore, to fill a vacancy.

Appointment is by the Governor-General, on the recommendation of this House of Representatives. The leaders of all political parties represented in the House have been consulted in writing about the proposed appointment, and I am pleased to advise the House that all have indicated their parties’ support for the nominee. I think, given the announcements earlier today and the pivotal role that the Police Complaints Authority will play in future, the full support of the Parliament is particularly helpful for this important appointment.

The Act requires that the deputy authority is a qualified barrister and solicitor of the High Court, and possesses suitable legal experience for the task. Because of the considerable responsibilities vested in the position and because of the high public profile of the office, the general practice has been to select both the authority and the deputy authority from nominations supplied by the heads of bench. Nominations for this appointment were sought from the Chief District Court Judge. The nominated appointee, Judge Lance, gained a Bachelor of Laws from Victoria University back in 1960, and was admitted to the Bar in 1961. His career from 1961 to 1983 was in private practice in the good town of Wanganui, with Treadwell Gordon and Co., specialising in criminal, civil, domestic, and tribunal work. During that time he was a member of the Wanganui District Law Society and served as a member and chairman of the central districts disciplinary tribunal. From 1983 to 1990 he practised as a barrister sole, specialising in criminal work and, particularly, jury trials. He was appointed a Queen’s Counsel in 1988. He was appointed a District Court judge in 1990, sitting mainly in the criminal jurisdiction and jury trials. He is currently responsible for administering jury trials in the northern region.

Both Justice Goddard, the Police Complaints Authority, and the Chief Justice attest to Judge Lance’s skills as a jurist and as an administrator, and recommend him as a sound appointment choice. The authority has made excellent progress this year in reducing the number of older complaints on file, and, given, again, the report that we debated in this House a little earlier today, it is particularly pleasing to be able to report on the addressing of those older files and the backlog, because that is indeed one of the recommendations that Dame Margaret Bazley’s report gave to the House. For example, at the end of the last financial year the authority had 219 complaint files that had first been opened in 2003-04. This number has now been reduced to 68.

The previous backlog of complaints had developed as a result of increasing complaint numbers over the years. The authority received additional funding of $550,000 in Budget 2006 to help address this backlog. Some older complaints may remain on file, due to the need for the authority to defer completion until after other proceedings relevant to the complaint have ended. That will always be a challenge in terms of some of the cases before the authority. It would not be appropriate for the authority to pre-empt or prejudice any prosecuting decisions and/or criminal, civil, or disciplinary proceedings that may result from the consideration of the issues by the bodies set up for those purposes—that is, of course, the courts, the coroner, the police, and so on. The authority has opened 943 new complaint files since the start of the current financial year. The total number of complaints on file has reduced from 1,767 at the end of June 2006 to 1,650 currently.

The authority is the most independent of all the independent Crown entities. Appointments and removals can be made only on the recommendation of the House, not a Minister. The current Police Complaints Authority, Justice Lowell Goddard, is a High Court judge with a very good reputation within judicial and wider legal circles, and I think that was attested to by members of the House in the earlier debate. The appointment of a Deputy Police Complaints Authority and the proposal in the Independent Police Complaints Amendment Bill to expand the authority will increase the capacity of the authority to deal with complaints and will enhance its independence. The increase in membership will also mean that the authority will be more representative of different parts of the community.

I should perhaps comment at this point that the duration of this appointment—1 year—has been raised with me, and I want to put on record that this simply reflects the uncertainty of what recommendations the House might be asked to consider by the report into police conduct that we have now received. It was deemed appropriate to keep options open, in order to be able to be responsive to that. But, as it is currently positioned, the deputy authority would indeed assume and continue on under the new bill.

The Gallen review recommended that the authority have an investigative capacity of its own, independent of the police, and that was implemented in 2003. The authority now has a team of four investigators, headed by a manager of investigations. None of the investigators are sworn members of the police. The team includes former senior officers from overseas police forces. The team primarily deals with the most serious complaints and incidents, such as where death or serious injury occurs as a result of police actions. The role and processes of the team are continually developing.

The Government will act on all of the recommendations in the report that was tabled in this House today. I think it is important that we affirm the role of the Police Complaints Authority, and recognise that this proposed appointment will strengthen the capability of the authority in ensuring that, indeed, those recommendations can be quickly and thoroughly acted upon. I have pleasure in recommending this nomination to the House for recommendation to the Governor-General.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): The National Party will certainly be supporting the Government in the proposed appointment of Judge Michael Lance as the Deputy Police Complaints Authority.

It is worth making one or two preliminary points about the suggested appointment. Firstly, can I say formally that the National Party in Opposition is extremely pleased with the appointment of Justice Lowell Goddard. It seems, from her early comments and her two appearances before the Law and Order Committee, that she is someone of some considerable substance and weight who will do an extremely good and fearless job in dealing with matters surrounding the police and any complaints that make it to the Police Complaints Authority.

Could I also say that we had a wide discussion in caucus today about the appointment of Judge Michael Lance, and the caucus unanimously endorses his appointment to become the deputy authority. National believes that Judge Lance, serving alongside Justice Lowell Goddard, will strengthen an authority that, to be fair, until this point has seemed to be perhaps a little lacking in teeth and a little lacking in the processes to be able to take action in a strong way.

We will watch with interest the Government’s proposals surrounding the strengthening of the Police Complaints Authority, both by way of legislation and by way of direction following Dame Margaret Bazley’s report today. That is very important to members on this side of the House, and I acknowledge the Minister Mark Burton for making a statement in a similar vein this evening.

So what will Judge Lance bring to the authority? He will bring three qualities that he has shown in various judgments and public utterances over recent years. The first is that he is unafraid, and this is an important quality for someone on the deputy authority to have—that is, for the deputy authority to have; it is difficult to get my head round the fact that the authority is actually a person, and to use that sort of language. In March 2004 it was Judge Lance who presided over the third trial handling the Louise Nicholas rape case, and, of course, it was he who ordered police to pay $20,000 in costs in respect of that case, thus indicating that he is unafraid to pursue justice no matter who appears before him.

Secondly, the judge is concerned that justice be transparent. So he is unafraid, and he is concerned that justice be transparent. It was this judge who in September 2001 said in public court, in the Auckland District Court, that he was putting his criticisms of under-resourced courts on the public record so that people could “understand that it is not me, not the judges, who cause these delays.” We are all aware of the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. The judge has, in a very forthright manner, voiced his concerns about transparency and justice.

The third quality that Judge Michael Lance—QC, I should say—brings to the role of deputy authority is that he is practical. The House should be reminded that it was Judge Michael Lance QC who gave Mark Middleton a 9-month suspended sentence for threatening to kill Karla Cardno’s murderer. So he brings those three qualities to the Police Complaints Authority, where he will be under the strong leadership of Justice Lowell Goddard.

Hopefully, there will be a speedy resolution of the issue of the legislative framework that the authority is required to work under, as well as of the need for a well-resourced authority. I note the Government’s announcement that the Budget will make provision for some short-term resource in that regard, particularly as Justice Goddard made the point to the Law and Order Committee last week that she sees extra resourcing as being an essential component of the Police Complaints Authority’s ability to do its own investigation into Operation Austin.

Hon Mark Burton: That was this year’s appropriation, which I have already approved.

SIMON POWER: That is right; Justice Goddard made that point clear to the Law and Order Committee last week.

It is also clear that Justice Goddard is determined that the authority will dispense with what I believe she described as lower-level complaints, and use the teeth of the authority to deal with more substantive and significant issues, thereby, I believe, raising the level of credibility that the authority has in the eyes of the public.

Of course, for some time there has been concern that the authority lacks the real and legislative independence that the public would prefer it to have in order for it to do a completely independent job. The way that the complaints are processed is not always clear to the public, and it is a complicated and lengthy process that ensues. We will wait to see, with some interest, how the legislative proposals of the Government take form. Although the National Party will not commit to supporting those proposals until we have seen them in detail, the Government can be assured that an increased strength and an increased independence of the Police Complaints Authority is very important to the main Opposition party in this Parliament.

It is with that in mind that I re-emphasise this party’s acknowledgment of the work Justice Goddard has done already, and also pledge National’s support for the Government’s recommendation to the Governor-General for the appointment of Judge Michael Lance QC as the deputy authority.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. There are a couple of reasons why the Māori Party would support the nomination of Judge Michael Lance. Firstly, I believe that he is married to a woman of Te Arawa descent, and that in itself is a very good recommendation. Secondly, my colleague Tariana Turia says that the judge was born in Wanganui, so she reckons he is pretty good on that account. Neither of those reasons, of course, is enough to endorse his appointment by itself, so it is best that we take a closer look at some of the judgments at key points in time involving the judge.

The first is the case that was talked about by Simon Power, when in February 2001 Judge Lance presided over the conviction of Mark Middleton. Middleton, as most of us know, faced a jail sentence for threatening to kill Paul Dally, the killer of Middleton’s stepdaughter, Karla Cardno. Rather than imposing a 9-month jail sentence, Judge Michael Lance QC issued a suspended sentence for 2 years, but with harsh warning words to the nation that “there is no room whatsoever for vigilante justice and a lynch mob approach is quite unacceptable.” Although the judge recognised the impact of the brutal murder, he called on the court to exercise its residual discretion of mercy. The compassion and humanity shown in that judgment, coupled with a challenge as to the acceptable and appropriate means of being able to address injustice, are qualities that I hope will be transferable to the new role of Deputy Police Complaints Authority.

The second case is one where Judge Lance came to have a public profile when he made history by being the first judge to exercise his legal right to sue the media for unfounded public criticism. Ironically, the comments had been made by Radio Pacific talkback host Mark Bennett, and they related to the same case around Mark Middleton. Bennett described the judge as pigheaded, arrogant, idiotic, overbearing, spitting on justice, and reducing the judicial system to a laughing stock—all because he had jailed Middleton while he was on remand. As I understand it, Judge Lance had had enough of all the attacks and continuing defamation, so he took the radio station to court. In doing so, the judge’s case became precedent setting. It set a benchmark for the quality of reporting that would see abusive tirades result in rebuke. Bennett was instructed to make an on-air retraction and apology for his “extreme, unnecessary personalised criticism and vitriol”, which was “over the top”.

So here we have in Judge Lance a man who is prepared to exercise compassion while also challenging acceptable boundaries, a man who is prepared to break tradition and take on the media, and a man who, when questioned, still upheld decent moral standards that prevented him from commenting in a like manner to the tirade of abuse he had experienced. Such a man will be greatly welcomed in the role of Deputy Police Complaints Authority. I say also that never has there been a more desperate need for people of integrity and independence, and for influential experts, to be in place in order to improve public confidence in the commission—confidence in the police and in the Police Complaints Authority.

The Māori Party has supported both this appointment and that of Justice Lowell Goddard QC as the Police Complaints Authority. We do so, however, only as an interim stopgap measure, as our preference has always been that there be an independent Police Complaints Authority—as mentioned, again, by Simon Power. We have made that call based on the conclusions of the study Māori Perceptions of the Police, which reported a very strong perception from Māori that the Police Complaints Authority would be self-protecting and biased in favour of the police, should Māori bring a complaint against the institution or individuals within it. Even the previous Minister of Justice was aware of the desperate need for independence, in that when he released the review of the Police Complaints Authority, he said at the time: “There is a strong public view that police investigation of complaints against themselves is neither independent or appropriate”, and as such “it is critical that there is full public confidence that such investigations are independent.”

So I believe that the events of the last few months have engendered little confidence or trust in Nga Pirihimana o Aotearoa nei. The UMR research released last month described the common goals for the police as to be ethical, professional, well respected, and effective. The survey also had as one of its key findings that that was more likely to be achieved if the police were representative of, and sensitive to, New Zealand’s multicultural make-up. Why is that necessary? Well, that same research reported that higher perceptions of levels of victimisation from crime and lower levels of responsiveness from the police were reported by Māori, Pasifika, youth, new migrants, 18 to 25-year-olds, and those living in Auckland. Well, I think that would take care of about 90 percent of the survey group.

What did the survey conclude that future policing in New Zealand should rely on? Three key points, I think, need to be considered in the likely work programme that will come before the Police Complaints Authority. The three unique aspects of policing in New Zealand identified in the survey were, first, our multicultural makeup as a nation, second, our small size and therefore our close connections, and, third, the fact that police officers do not normally carry guns. New Zealanders like those things about our police, and in the current context where there is so little that the general public do like about the police, one could think this country would be doing everything it could to preserve their reputation. Unfortunately, however, the police had to go ahead and place a lethal weapon in the hands of ordinary cops: the taser gun. And what do tasers do? They encourage a culture of violence in policing—and with every new weapon, the number of violent options available to the police now increases.

As with other comparable data about ethnic targeting, the taser is more likely to disproportionately affect Māori. In the United States, black Americans are tasered more than twice as much as white people. In Aotearoa the same pattern is apparent with regard to pepper spray—55 percent of pepper spray victims in 2005 were Māori. The Māori Party has been so concerned about the impact of tasers, and in particular their likely adverse impacts on Māori, that it has laid a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, and it is currently in progress. Although our case will be heard in mediation, there is one anomaly that I believe is interesting in the light of the Police Complaints Authority. The response to our complaint about the taser gun stated that racial profiling and racially motivated policing cannot be attributed to the police in the New Zealand environment. Yet the national manager for Māori Pacific ethnic services, Superintendent Wallace Haumaha, has said quite clearly that this country also fits into the pattern of indigenous peoples being overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

And so we come back to the one key question that Justice Lowell Goddard and Judge Lance will need to consider with regard to every complaint that comes before them. Why is it that when Māori are surveyed about their perceptions of the police, when the general public are surveyed about their views of the police, and when the Māori national manager is asked about his view of Māori overrepresentation in the system of injustice, their answers are almost identical? There is a perception that acts against the interests of Māori in any interactions with the police. And conversely, why is it that such strong perceptions about the police are generally denied from within the force itself? We know that police projects involving partnerships with iwi are around, we know that there are almost 50 Pasifika, iwi, and ethnic liaison officers in the police, we know that cultural training is a core part of the recruits’ training course. But as I said at the Police College yesterday in honouring my relation Mita Mohi—who had a new intake of police recruits named after him—in taking up Mita’s name the police must accept some responsibilities. Furthermore, I say iwi agreements like that in Te Aroha amount to nothing if we cannot witness a discernable change in attitude.

So the Māori Party supports the appointment of Judge Lance to the role of Deputy Police Complaints Authority, and we trust that he and Justice Goddard will make an impressive team. But we cannot, and will not, resile from the course of action that whānau, hapū and iwi have long believed in, which is that change will not happen for Māori in relation to the police until the authority exists as a truly independent body. As long as the complaints process is internal, and as long as the State remains judge and jury of its own action, justice will never be seen to be done. Finally, I end with an acknowledgment of a comment that is frequently used in this House, a comment that takes its source in Lord Hewart from Rex v Sussex Justices in 1924, which says: “It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” That is what we all hope will be visible with the new Police Complaints Authority.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to, like other members, support the appointment of Judge Lance as Deputy Police Complaints Authority. Members have spoken about the many reasons Judge Lance makes a very good appointee. Unlike some members, such as Mr Borrows, I am not a lawyer and do not hobnob with judges. I do not know them all by first name or know all their histories. So, like some other members, I had to google. What I found on the public record was an impressive account of independent thought and forthrightness, qualities which other members have referred to in relation to Judge Lance. So the Green Party is very happy to endorse this appointment.

I have to ask, though, what Police Complaints Authority we are appointing him to. Because, as members know, this House has been waiting for some time for the progression of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill. The Government said it was waiting for Dame Margaret Bazley’s report on police conduct before progressing this bill. Other members and I have had occasion to ask, given that the report has been so delayed, whether it would not have been better to just go ahead and progress the bill, then review it after the report was finished.

Well, now the report is finished, and it is a very good and important piece of work, as well. I think it is now time for us to start asking the Government when we are going to see the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill actually progress through the House.

I raise the issue because it is important to reflect on what job Judge Lance is being appointed to, a Police Complaints Authority or an Independent Police Complaints Authority, and whether we are talking about independence in name or in practice. The Minister Mark Burton repeated the assertion that the fact that appointments to the authority are made by the Governor-General on a recommendation of the House of Representatives reflects the constitutional importance of the role and the need to emphasise the independence of the role.

But, of course, as with so much of the Police Complaints Authority, there is a danger that we swap the appearance of independence for the reality. I think it is worth reflecting on whether it is the appointment process or the capacity to actually do independent investigations that is important. It is pretty clear that the Police Complaints Authority has been severely hampered by the inability to do practically any kind of independent investigation until quite recently. That is why the Green Party has welcomed the Government adding additional resource to the authority to allow some independent investigation to be conducted.

In that context we welcome Judge Lance’s appointment as deputy authority, in the hope that the Police Complaints Authority is able to demonstrate a more genuine independence. As I say, members have already referred to Judge Lance’s history in demonstrating independence.

During his speech the Minister Mark Burton referred to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. I would like to touch on a couple of things in the report that are relevant to this appointment, to the context of this Parliament, and to the wishes of this Parliament. I think I am reflecting the views of other members fairly when I say the desire of this Parliament is to see a Police Complaints Authority that is willing to bare its teeth when necessary when it comes to investigating and holding the police to account.

As a minor example, one of the things that is highlighted in this inquiry report is the statutory requirement for the police to notify the authority of any complaint received from a member of the public as soon as practicable, or, if the complaint is of a serious nature, as soon as possible. The reports states: “… I would consider that it would be appropriate for the PCA to be notified within one week …”. Over the page—on page 178—we find a list of a whole range of complaints that were notified to the authority well after the fact. The report states: “Of particular concern to me was the number of complaints that were notified to the PCA after 30 days. In the worst instance it took the police 518 days to notify the PCA of a complaint,”—when the police have a statutory obligation to notify as soon as practicable—“and this notification occurred only after the complainant had made a third complaint about the same officer.”

In another instance the Police Complaints Authority was not notified of a complaint until after the police investigation had been completed. The interesting thing is that far from complaining, the counsel for the Police Complaints Authority said: “nothing turns on the point in this case, because in any event, even if notification had been promptly given … the PCA … with its usual and necessary practice would inevitably have deferred any action on the file until the Police investigation … was complete.” So the counsel said that it did not matter that the authority was not told until after the investigation had been completed, because it would not have made any difference, anyway.

That demonstrates the absolute inadequacy we have had from the Police Complaints Authority. I do not entirely blame the members, because there have been resourcing issues, but some of it does come down to the need to have a Police Complaints Authority that is willing to bare its teeth and hold the police to account. I certainly hope, along with other members, that the new team of Justice Goddard and Judge Lance will demonstrate that willingness.

The other thing I want to touch on in regard to this inquiry report are the changes to the Police Complaints Authority proposed by the police. Given that we are looking at an Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill—which is stuck somewhere in the depths of the labyrinthine processes of this Parliament—it is interesting that the police themselves proposed to this inquiry that primary responsibility for resolution of serious complaints should shift from the New Zealand Police to the Police Complaints Authority. The police envisage the Police Complaints Authority assuming oversight of the investigation of less serious complaints and conducting many more investigations in its own right.

The police have also proposed to remove the secrecy provisions to allow the Police Complaints Authority to take a significantly greater role in the investigation of complaints against members of the police. At the moment investigations by the Police Complaints Authority are hampered by the fact that anything it finds cannot be used in any criminal or disciplinary proceeding. That means that if a serious complaint is made, the Police Complaints Authority backs off until the investigation is completed so that it does not interfere or contaminate the evidence. Although the authority has said that that is OK because the more serious a complaint is the more review and oversight it will give it, the reality is that the more serious a complaint is the less oversight there is, because there is more need for the authority to back away from any involvement in the case. The police themselves are suggesting that those secrecy provisions be done away with, and this is something that the Green Party has raised on numerous occasions, as well. It just seems incredible that there is this secrecy provision, so that either investigations are doubled up—which they are—or the Police Complaints Authority backs away from any oversight of those investigations.

Interestingly, the Police Complaints Authority has opposed those changes—or, at least, it did when this report was being written—as did the New Zealand Police Association. The Police Association said that the Police Complaints Authority “acts effectively as a ‘review authority’ or an ‘appeal authority’ “, and that the suggestion being put forward by the police was being opposed because of “resourcing and the effective removal of the PCA’s appellate and review functions vis-à-vis the Police.” Again, I question whether we want another appeal or review process. I think we really want a credible first-complaint investigation. Actually having the first investigation carried out independently and credibly by an independent authority will ensure that investigations are properly done—not having an appeal process and oversight at second or third hand.

The very last point I would make is in regard to concerns about resourcing. In regard to the issues that would raise, the Green Party has proposed on numerous occasions to join the Police Complaints Authority with an independent prison inspectorate, to allow the development of an investigative capacity across those two bodies, and also to allow the Police Complaints Authority not just to investigate complaints reactively but to proactively identify potential areas of systemic abuse and corruption and investigate them.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I rise to add my voice to endorse Judge Michael Lance as the Deputy Police Complaints Authority. As others have done, I have researched the pedigree, done the google, and made a couple of phone calls, as old investigators tend to do, and I find that Judge Lance was raised in Waverley, later practised law in Wanganui, and was a partner at Treadwell Gordon and Co. As a criminal lawyer working in and around Wanganui and South Taranaki he was somebody who was held in very high regard in respect of his presence in the courtroom and his ability to cut to the chase in respect of criminal trials. He also had a broad experience not only in criminal trials but also in courts martial.

Later on, when he left Treadwell Gordon he became a barrister, then a Queen’s Counsel, and was later appointed as a District Court judge. He was the executive judge, criminal trials. I think it is incredibly important when we are looking at a Deputy Police Complaints Authority that he has a knowledge of the criminal law and brings that expertise with him. For instance, we have had some high-profile Police Complaints Authority investigations in the past. If there were another incident such as that which occurred at Waitara some time ago, or if there were some other police shooting somewhere, Judge Lance would be in a position to jump straight in and fully investigate such an incident, and would be seen to be completely independent in doing so.

I think that on today of all days, what the public are calling for from the Police Complaints Authority is fierce independence. As I mentioned earlier today, the New Zealand Police is one organisation in which all of New Zealand must have complete faith, so restoring that faith is significant.

As has been mentioned, Judge Lance sat on the third trial in the Louise Nicholas rape complaint against three police officers and he made some very telling comments in respect of the way in which the police handled initial complaints, principally Detective Inspector John Dewar, and I want to read out one small portion of what he said: “ ‘I am of the view the failure to record and detail these allegations was not only remarkable, it was utterly incredible,’ Judge Lance said in his decision granting costs against the police. ‘After all, here was an experienced detective inspector investigating allegations of serious sexual offending. During his interview with the complainant, he is told of allegations of potentially serious sexual offending by three other named and current serving police officers. Such disclosures should have triggered alarm bells that would have permanently silenced Big Ben, no matter how vague in terms of time and event.’ ”

So the judge has made it quite plain, not only in awarding $20,000 court costs in that instance, but also on a number of other occasions when he granted stays of prosecution because of a lack of police adherence to police policy, that he is prepared to take hard decisions, prepared to carry the flack for those, and will remain fiercely independent as the Deputy Police Complaints Authority. I believe he will add to the mana of the office of the principal Police Complaints Authority, Judge Goddard, and I look forward to the confidence they will be able to give the New Zealand public in their roles with the Police Complaints Authority. Thank you.

RON MARK (NZ First): I rise to take a brief call on behalf of New Zealand First to endorse, as all other previous speakers have, the appointment of Judge Michael Henry Walkinton Lance as deputy to the Police Complaints Authority. We note that the appointment is only for a 1-year term. Although explanations have been given for that, our view in New Zealand First of the Police Complaints Authority office is that it is seriously under-resourced, it is seriously under-staffed, and it does not have the investigative capabilities that are required to give confidence to the investigations and the reviews that it conducts. In time—in fact, in a short time—we would see a distinct need to go with and even be bolder than the recommendations of Justice Goddard in the strengthening and boosting of the Police Complaints Authority, and in having the appointment of such people as Judge Michael Lance on a longer-term basis.

I will just cover a couple of things. The honourable member Nandor Tanczos has espoused the Greens’ position in respect of the Police Complaints Authority quite well—in fact, I heard a good lump of it while I was at my desk. I say that New Zealand First does not just support that view but endorses it, and it would go further.

With the release of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct today—and I gather that many members of this House will still be wading their way through that document—most of us have read the executive summary and the recommendations, in particular the 12 recommendations that pertain to the Police Complaints Authority, and most of us would endorse those. New Zealand First is of the view that given the seriousness of these allegations, and the serious degradation of police standards during a particular era that will forever be a blot on the history of this nation in terms of law enforcement, there is a need to go further than has been recommended.

I can say to the House that in some discussions held already via the select committee process, we have had the opportunity to talk with Justice Goddard and to test the views of members of Parliament as to the possibility of making the office of the Police Complaints Authority into a commission, affording it the status of an Office of Parliament, and making the appointment of Commissioner for the Police Complaints Authority an Officer of Parliament. The reason we have come to this conclusion is that there is nothing more valuable in the maintenance of law and order, and of a civil society, than a completely reliable, corruption-free, law enforcement arm—that is, the police.

The powers of the police, the judiciary, and Parliament are all separated for very good reasons. That separation of powers gives us the democracy and the freedom that we enjoy as a nation and as citizens of this nation. But, of course, if one of those pillars of our society is undermined in any way, or if the public should lose confidence in one of those pillars, then we run the serious risk of degrading the quality of our democracy and thereby undermining those things that are fundamental to our having a civil society. When we degrade the institutions to that stage, we can hardly be surprised when we find we have anarchy, lawlessness, and vigilantes operating freely on our streets. That is something that no one wants. The guarantee that citizens will not take the law into their own hands and that citizens will trust in the system comes from the confidence that they have in that system and in all the processes and procedures by which they might see citizens prosecuted or their wrongs redressed.

It seems to us in New Zealand First that we need to give the office of the Police Complaints Authority a higher level of status. We need to give it a higher level of authority. We need to make it absolutely, patently clear that it is an autonomous body, that it stands alone, and that it is answerable to nobody—specifically, not to the Ministry of Justice and, in particular, not to the police. It is most important that justice not only be done but also that it be seen to be done, and the New Zealand nature would require that it is seen to be done fairly and honestly.

We hate to say it, but this report, we believe, gives us a new opportunity to review the current systems and structures we have, and to ask ourselves a simple question: is this as good as it could be, or should be? We would ask the House and the parties present here today to consider our suggestion. I most definitely have listened on a number of occasions to the suggestion from Nandor Tanczos and the Green Party about combining the prison inspectorate and the Police Complaints Authority into one body. We would say that the Police Complaints Authority needs to be an Office of Parliament, it needs to be answerable to Parliament only, it needs to be resourced, and it needs to have the investigative capacity to be able to take inquiries or complaints from a first-principles basis—that is, not simply from a basis of reviewing an investigation done by the police into themselves but from a basis of examining the quality of the investigation under review and of determining whether they see the need to go back to first principles and reinvestigate the entire case.

I can also say that this is not a request we make purely on the basis of what is contained in this report in respect of the totally unacceptable conduct of certain police officers around this country over the last 20-odd years. Our position also comes about as a result of our concern over the way in which police officers are disciplined. It is interesting to again note the comments and recommendations from Dame Margaret Bazley as to how the disciplinary procedures and methods operating within the police force have become archaic and outdated, and need restructuring.

It seems to me that this is borne out when I look at a couple of cases in particular that I know have been before the Police Complaints Authority. One of those cases, which involves a police officer down in Christchurch, is still before the authority. The police officer in question has been suspended for coming up to 3 years, despite his assertions that he was innocent of the charges brought against him by the police, and despite the fact that he ended up in court, and that Judge Erber threw the case out and then set about lambasting the police investigative procedures. That in itself tells us in New Zealand First that not only should we be holding police accountable for actions or conduct that is clearly wrong, illegal, and inappropriate but also we should be providing a system and mechanism by which officers who are accused have those accusations dealt with swiftly, speedily, and in accordance with what we consider to be acceptable processes of justice. To have a police officer’s family in Kaiapoi hung out to dry for 3 years is totally, absolutely unacceptable. To find that the judge, as a consequence, has thrown the case out is even more unacceptable. It brings into question the police hierarchy in Canterbury itself and its own systems and procedures.

I think that the only way we can guarantee a fair go for victims, for those who are alleged to have committed crimes, and for the police themselves is for that responsibility to be vested in the Police Complaints Authority, and for the authority to be given the powers and resources to enable it to investigate thoroughly all allegations brought to it from the basis of first principles. We would again say that we will be having discussions with the Minister about a proposal to have this office be made an Office of Parliament.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Miscellaneous amendments

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this very important legislation, which National has supported right through from the first reading, back on 19 July last year, and the second reading. We are now supporting it in the Committee stage, and will be supporting it at the third reading.

Part 1 refers to the appointment of justices of the peace and their continuing in office. One of the concerns that has surprised me over the years that I have dealt with is self-promotion. People in the community will ring up and say that they are interested in becoming a JP. When one questions them and asks why they want to do that, they say they are retired and have the time to put into it. But when one sits down to see what their motivation really is, one sees that it is not necessarily about serving the community but more about saying that they are a JP and having that honorific behind their name.

On occasions, however, there are shortages of JPs. I mentioned in the second reading someone I know very well who is a JP and who no longer lives in the same rural district. Another person who was a JP in that district had died, and a third person had been a JP for about 5 years and was not prepared to do anything at all. That rural community was not being serviced, and that made it very difficult to have continuity and for that community to access the services that JPs are required to do.

One of the aspects of this bill that I fully support is that justices will undertake training before they are actually appointed and gazetted. That will streamline the process considerably. A number of JPs—in fact, the registrar gave me some information about that and it is about 500 or 600—are not members of any justices association in the country. There is no requirement at the present time for them to undertake any training. In Matamata, where I have been the president of the local branch for a number of years, we have undertaken training on a regular basis so that local justices have an opportunity to be up to speed with all the legislation and, more important, the practical aspects of being a ministerial JP.

When 500 to 600 JPs are not members of any justices association, it makes it very difficult to have some continuity and some acceptable standards. It is not an onerous task to become a JP if one meets the requirements and there is a need. If one can ascertain that there is a need in a community for another JP, that is great, but in many cases there is not. I had someone ring today wanting to nominate someone. I said that if that person showed me a need in the community, I would look to support that nomination. Unless that can be done, then I am afraid we are often talking about self-promotion. I see heads nodding on the other side of the Chamber.

Another thing that I think is important as a JP is that I always carry the little booklet. It is always in my possession, because in it one can see exactly what the roles are, and one can refer to it and find out what is actually required. If one is going to issue a summons for a defendant or be involved in a search warrant, it explains word by word what to do and how to go about that. So I always carry that in my bag, and on numerous occasions over the years it has been very, very useful to have.

Of course, most JPs get involved only in witnessing documents. That role is probably very straightforward. Other duties are to take statutory declarations and oaths of allegiance. Probably not many JPs would issue search warrants, but on occasion that happens. JPs issue summonses and warrants to arrest, and also, sometimes, if the Minister wants someone to, they can be involved in citizenship ceremonies. So, all in all, JPs are a very valuable community asset. They have earned prestige and are well respected in the community and they carry that with them.

In the area of training, I think this bill goes a long way to making sure that justices are brought up to speed. JPs must do that training before they are gazetted. I will quote from a submission that was made to the Law and Order Committee. I did not sit on the select committee, but I can identify with this case, and I think it is really worth mentioning it here. A 62-year-old woman who presented herself for training did not cope well with the course. She had three private training sessions, a further round of training with another induction group, and completed a CD-ROM training programme. After all this training, some 14 hours, and a lot of one-on-ones, she sat the test, which is standardised throughout New Zealand. At 12 marks out of 50 she failed the test, but she still became a JP. That is the sort of situation this bill will tidy up. We are looking for standards and we are looking for integrity in the process—that is very, very important.

The other area this bill deals with is the retired status. The registrar emailed me and said that—these figures are probably out of date now, but I think they highlight a point—there are about 220 JPs born before 1920, with 94 of those aged over 90 years. That is a significant number of people, who at that age probably are not really interested in doing JP duties. Having the retired status and the honorific behind their name will show that they have made a valuable contribution to society, and they will be recognised in that way without having to go through the process of any other training or having to be called on for duties.

So with those few words I say that this is important legislation for justices of the peace throughout New Zealand. The Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations can be congratulated. This has been in the pipeline for a long time, and I know how impatient JPs have been getting in some cases. This bill is certainly a move in the right direction.

KATE WILKINSON (National): In rising to take a brief call on Part 1 in the Committee stage of this Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill, I reiterate and certainly endorse what my colleague Mr Tisch has just said. In fact, he has taken half of my notes from me.

By way of background, and just for the record, there are approximately 10,700 JPs in New Zealand, and they undertake a variety of duties. Some duties are more administrative than others, such as witnessing signatures and taking oaths and declarations, and some are more specialised duties, such as issuing search warrants or summons warrants to arrest, etc. I understand that about 400 JPs undertake a judicial role.

JPs have a crucial role in our community. They are, and should be, available for a variety of issues and functions. Mr Tisch has already said that, demographically, most JPs are older. We heard in the Law and Order Committee that 81 percent are aged between 51 and 80—and that is only of those who are members of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations. Not all JPs are members of that federation—in fact, of the 10,700 JPs, only some 7,500 are members, 35 percent being women and 65 percent being men.

In relation to Part 1, which we are addressing, we have already heard that it provides mainly for, firstly, training—JPs will have to undertake training before assuming their duties—and, secondly, a retired status, which allows JPs to use the designation “JP (retired)”. In relation to training, currently training has been made available for most JPs, although this has been under a voluntary regime. Under this bill, however, training will now be mandatory for newly appointed JPs, prior to taking their oath of office.

It is vitally important that JPs do understand the significance and responsibilities of the role they are about to take on, whether or not they intend to undertake judicial work. It is certainly disturbing to hear from some submitters that some of the nominees—and, indeed, some JPs once appointed—simply cannot read and write English to a satisfactory standard. The standard of English required is quite high, as some of the legalistic vocabulary and concepts are unfamiliar to many lay people. They are bad enough for those for whom English is a first language, let alone for those for whom it is a second language. Mr Tisch has already mentioned the appointee who had three training sessions and, even at the end of those, according to submitters, she was unable to perform any of the functions of a JP except to sign her name. It was quoted: “It is an indictment on the current system that she was nominated in the first place, and that she progressed through the system.”

It certainly should be easy to ascertain through scrupulous interviewing whether candidates have the necessary literary levels. This bill also provides for compulsory judicial training, and to have that undertaken before the JP is appointed and sworn in. It is obviously too late if the candidate has already been sworn in and it is found that he or she will never be able to perform his or her duties satisfactorily. I have said that most districts do have a training regime in place, but it is important and comforting to know that that regime is now mandatory. Training is current practice, but now at least it is enshrined in statute and is a statutory requirement.

Many associations already have a policy that JPs must attend a number of refresher courses per year in order to be on the judicial panel. With JPs as judicial officers, consistency of standards is especially vital, and this is emphasised by the requirements of the bill, which enshrines what has become prudent practice. It does recognise the importance of the role of JPs in the court, in the specialist area it is. Although it is not new, at least it is now mandatory. It is aimed at maintaining a degree of national consistency, and now it is supported by legislation.

Mr Tisch has already mentioned that JPs can now have the designation “JP (retired)”. To be a JP is a respected and honourable position, and by allowing the designation “JP (retired)” respect is still shown without the JP having to be active and available for normal JP duties. Needless to say, there is a distinction between a JP resigning and a JP retiring, and the designation reflects that distinction. A “JP (retired)” will no longer be able to exercise any of the duties and functions of the office. On that note, I can say that National supports Part 1 of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice): I will take a call to reinforce—given the unanimity about this bill—some of the comments that have already been mentioned.

I will touch first on Mr Tisch’s point about self-promotion. I think, in essence, that his point is valid, although I have to say that prior to my becoming Minister, probably the vast majority of the JPs I nominated were people I did not know. They were people who had actually come forward as community-minded people. I suspect that Mr Tisch was talking about those who are self-promoters in the worst sense of the word—and he is nodding. But there are community-minded people who come forward and say that they want to contribute; they have heard about this thing called a justice of the peace, and they want to know what it involves and how they can contribute.

I—and, I know, most other members of Parliament—have tended to follow the set of rules that fall outside the legislation and are directives from the office of the Minister of Justice. These are guidelines that require, for instance, a person to go and get three references, if you will, or letters of community support. I often say to my nominees that they should go and pull a CV together and get as many letters of community support as they can. I think, in essence, that for us as members of Parliament who are nominating JPs—and I acknowledge that the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations has also raised this issue—that goes some way towards quality control checking of the motivations of those who have put their names forward. I do not have a problem with people who self-nominate—those who come and say they want to have a go.

Members have made reference to the age of justices of the peace, which is a problem. In one respect it is a great problem to have, because with age, of course, comes experience. We have a large number of mentors and leaders in the justice of the peace community who can provide that leadership and training for younger people as they come on. I know that Gavin Kerr, the immediate past-president of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations with whom I worked closely this year, Alan Hart, the royal federation registrar, and the incoming president, John Falconer, and I are all agreed that we have to encourage younger people and more diverse people in the community, such as those who can speak foreign languages. It is of little help in some ways if a JP is a member of a community with, say, a large number of Korean members, but the JP cannot speak the lingo. There are some in our communities who may frown upon those people of ethnicity becoming JPs, but I think the vast majority of this Parliament—probably the entire Parliament—would welcome it.

So the royal federation, myself, and others believe that there has to be encouragement of diversity and of younger people coming on. We must foster those senior JPs, and ask them to mentor and lead the younger folks through. I support self-promotion but, as Mr Tisch quite rightly says, self-promotion must be for the best motives.

The bill deals with compulsory training. It will be compulsory for new JPs to undergo a training course, whether they are judicial or ministerial. One member has alluded to the fact that there are various customs and practices in different associations, and that one association requires ongoing training for a judicial JP. The issue with that, though, is that there is no legal requirement; it is a sort of custom and practice that has been adopted by one association.

As we go through this legislation it is worth noting in the Committee that, running alongside this, the royal federation, myself, and the ministry have developed a stocktake document, which is being released. That document lists all the customs and practices that have been adopted—some very good, some inspired, and some downright awful. It will be taken out and given to members of Parliament, and to JP associations and their members. They will be asked to comment on the recommendations. So as we pass this bill we are also looking for standardisation of best practice. I believe that that stocktake document was alluded to in the Law and Order Committee.

I have to say that neither training of itself nor anything in this bill of itself gives a JP association or the royal federation the power of veto over a candidate. The power to nominate lies with a member of Parliament, and the power to confer that nomination lies with the Minister of Justice. This bill does not delegate power to an association to effectively vet or veto. As one member has alluded to, I believe that the training—and there are some famous or infamous cases—will allow some quality control. JPs and the royal federation have said to me that there was one individual whose literary skills were not known—or the lack of them, sadly—until the individual picked up the warrant card to swear the oath.

There will be joint, robust interviews between registrars and association members that uncover the motivations and highlight the qualities of nominees. If there are issues, they will be able to be dealt with without, shall we say, the embarrassment as under the present system of having somebody nominated, accepted, and gazetted publicly, and then our finding out there is an issue. The issue may be linguistic or literal, but effectively it creates a huge problem and a huge embarrassment. But I say again that though training is compulsory, it does not confer a power of veto or vetting on the associations.

Can I make just a couple of other points. We have talked about the age of JPs, and I will refer to the late Mick Goldsbro, who had—and my officials may tell me—60 or 70 years as a JP. At the time of his death he was, I think, the longest-serving justice of the peace in New Zealand history. We honoured him. He was residing in Hamilton and I, along with Martin Gallagher, the chair of the Law and Order Committee, had the privilege of meeting him. He exhibited all the best that is our JP community. JPs are volunteers. They are people who give of their time—the late Mick Goldsbro gave of his time throughout his life. In this day and age of hustle and bustle where there is no longer the 8-hour day or the 5-day working week, I think it is noteworthy to remember for a moment the justices of the peace who have passed away and also the current crop, who every day save a heck of a lot of taxpayers’ money in doing their job, whether it be on the bench judicially or in their ministerial capacity.

In respect of training, things have moved on. We now have moved into the new era of the CD-Rom; we have the training manual on CD-Rom. We have a purchase agreement, if you will, for services between the Government and the royal federation. Training is no longer a case of going to the crusty, draughty rugby clubrooms on a Saturday afternoon and doing half a day of training. That does not suit some people’s lives, and sometimes the training product that is given is not appropriate. Now, technology provides for a lot of self-education in one’s own home and at one’s own speed and in one’s time.

There was a call to have compulsory ongoing training. The Government does not support that, because with 10,500-odd JPs, I do not want to spend a bucket load of money on training somebody who is out in a region and may once or twice be asked to give his or her services. I would rather, as many of the associations do, target those, for instance, who are doing technical work like signing search warrants, or whatever, or who are on a preferred list because they are active and actively pursuing regular training. I think that is smarter than simply having a scattergun approach, spending a bucket load of money, and having ongoing training simply for training’s sake.

I thank members of the House, and particularly the chair of the Law and Order Committee, Martin Gallagher, who have supported this bill. I also thank members of the Opposition and others. It was a slightly more drawn out process than any of us expected, but I think the product we have on the Table today is a bipartisan bill that has the general support—or total support, I would hope—of all members.

The point was made that justices of the peace have waited some time for this, and that is true, but I know they look forward to it with relish. They are embarking on the sort of new world order that further professionalises their profession, and far from downgrading any part of the JP community this bill will actually enhance it.

I think the clause providing for the use of “JP (retired)” after 10 years is very apt. It allows those JPs who have given their all but would like to retain the honorific to do so. At the end of the day that is the only gift, as it were, that is conferred upon many of our JPs, especially those in the ministerial role. They can withdraw their service and retain the honorific as a symbol of the service they have rendered to our community and to our nation.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I follow on from the previous speakers, who I think have all given a very excellent summary of some of the issues facing the office of justice of the peace. I just reflect that the office goes back hundreds of years, literally to the Middle Ages—certainly to the ancient realm of England, when it was an ancient realm. Originally, the office of justice of the peace was a very venerable institution—and still is. Over the years it has evolved. Historically, English law spread, as a result of British settlement around the world, and New Zealand, as a former colony, inherited, if you like, this particular office of JP.

I think the first JP in New Zealand was appointed in the early 19th century—I am sure that the Associate Minister of Justice, Clayton Cosgrove, will be quick to correct me if I am wrong. Virtually with the arrival of Samuel Marsden we were looking at some form of justice of the peace—certainly prior to the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. If we look across the Tasman, we see that justices of the peace were obviously established very early on in terms of the initial colonisation by the British of Australia. As we are aware, Australia was a series of colonies before federation. So we are going right back to the 18th century in the case of Australia, and certainly to the very early 19th century in the case of New Zealand.

I know that my good colleague the Hon Dover Samuels is listening very keenly and intently to this debate, and the challenge, as he has mentioned to me on previous occasions, is how we evolve this office to suit the framework of our current society and how we not so much modernise but evolve an office that has a very proud, ancient tradition to suit the needs of society today.

One of the interesting issues that Part 1 raises, and it has been touched on, is the issue of lay involvement, or community participation, in the judiciary, whereby good women and men work and participate in the community and are able to serve in this way.

It was a great pleasure to serve as the chair of the Law and Order Committee that considered this bill, and on previous occasions I have given great praise to the Minister for his considerable encouragement and understanding of the committee in getting this bill on its way. I have had many very warm, good conversations with the Minister. He would say to come to his office after 10 o’clock at night, and he would ask how the bill was going and say he was really keen to get it through. I thank the Minister for his immense encouragement at all times. I certainly hope that I conveyed that to members of the committee.

I have already praised members of the select committee, and I think there are three key people to praise. I want to praise a lot of former presidents of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations. I certainly want to mention Mary Symmans and Bob Armstrong from the Waikato for their historical influence on this bill. There are other presidents of the federation and executive, and I certainly give them particular praise. I previously mentioned Gavin Kerr, who is the immediate past-president of the federation, and I also mention John Falconer, the current president, and the executive team, including Alan Hart, who have impressed upon us over the last 2 or 3 years in particular the need for this bill.

Other speakers have talked about the issue of training suitable people to take up this office. Notwithstanding this bill, I have noted as a member of Parliament that what Ministers—particularly the excellent Minister the Hon Rick Barker and the excellent Minister the Hon Paul Swain, who had oversight of JPs prior to the current Minister—have increasingly insisted on and focused on when a person has been nominated to become a justice of the peace for New Zealand is the need for CVs, personal references, and community references. Certainly, under those previous two Ministers there was very much a raising of the bar and raising of the standard in the Minister’s office in terms of nominations proceeding. In terms of the current Minister, I have to say that my office has had a phone call on a couple of occasions from the Minister’s office saying that I have not provided an adequate CV or that the Minister is looking for a personal reference or another community reference. I praise the staff in the current Minister’s office, because they are doing the job to make sure that all that information is available to the Minister prior to his or her decision on whether to support the nomination of a particular individual.

Lindsay Tisch and Kate Wilkinson have made very good contributions tonight. They also have talked around the issue of training. Lindsay Tisch talked about the example of a person who found some difficulty in coming up to the plate. Hopefully, the personal references, testimonials, and CVs—which, I have to say, have been requested since before this particular bill was introduced—will act as checks and balances. The point Lindsay Tisch made very clearly is that there will be a final backstop if we get that process wrong. The final backstop is that a justice of the peace will need to pass the appropriate training prior to his or her gazetting and appointment.

That also raises a very interesting issue that my good colleague the Hon Paul Swain and I have discussed, along with the current Minister and others, which is to make sure that the training and evaluation are robust. This is not just a situation of the people of the federation making the final decision on whether someone passes a training programme. The decision on whether someone passes a training programme has to stand up to good, objective criteria. The final training session has to be subject to good, objective criteria—and it is—so that the people who are finally sworn in as justices of the peace come up to the plate.

The other thing I will take the opportunity to talk about—and the Minister has alluded to this—is the issue of the information CD and the really excellent work that the royal federation has been doing with the Minister’s office and department officials in terms of the training package, the information package, and aids for current justices of the peace, in particular, as well as for new, intended justices. I know that the current Minister has spent a lot of time with his officials with regard to that CD-Rom and information package. I think that is really important.

In summary, we have a series of steps that make it more rigorous for a person wanting to be nominated and sworn in as a JP. Individuals who are serving as justices of the peace now have an ongoing, developing and, I think, excellent training package—a refresher course, if you like—that the federation itself provides. They are also aided and assisted by things like the CD-Rom, which in my view is absolutely excellent.

I will also talk a little bit about why the select committee has agreed with the federation around the issue of the designation of “JP (retired)”. My good colleague Kate Wilkinson mentioned this before. I will just add to her comments on that; I will not be too much longer. This bill is very, very important, and as chair of the Law and Order Committee I am, naturally, very enthusiastic about it. I want to say a few things about the term “JP (retired)”. I know that this particular item has caused Richard Worth quite a bit of reflection. I acknowledge Richard Worth in the Chamber and the great support he has given to this bill. I respect his very esteemed legal career and know that he is very, very supportive of the role of justices of the peace in New Zealand.

The “JP (retired)” designation does two things. First, it acknowledges absolutely those justices of the peace who have given faithful, meritorious voluntary service over many, many years. Indeed, the designation is a way in which they can hang up their plate, and it is an opportunity for us as a community to acknowledge and honour the work they have done. Second, I think that once this bill comes in, the designation of “JP (retired)” will encourage another group of justices to say that they have done their stint of 20 or 30 years. Clearly, what we are aiming for is to make sure that the justices still out there are active, trained, and able to give excellent service to the community.

I really do not feel I have had enough time, but I will finish here. Finally, I take the opportunity to acknowledge the role of justices of the peace. This bill is a very, very good step along the way, and I look forward to making further contributions to the debate on the other parts of this bill. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 100 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 4 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to provisions relating to discipline and retirement

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I just want to—

Dr Richard Worth: Back again so quickly.

MARTIN GALLAGHER: Well, this is an opportunity for, and the job of, this Parliament to go through bills section by section, as we have done with another bill that was recently in front of this Parliament—in the last day or two. The nature of the role of Parliament is to ensure scrutiny. I know none of us believes in the 7-second - type bill or that bills should go whistling through. It is the role of Parliament to give this bill, and all bills, adequate and excellent scrutiny. I know members opposite will be wanting to take a call; I am sure they will.

With regard to Part 2, I want to talk about the removal or suspension of justices of the peace from office and about the issue of limited tenure. I refer members to that particular issue. There was considerable discussion about it and I acknowledge the role of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations in giving us advice. It had a view, and there was a body of opinion within the federation, which I acknowledge, of people wanting us to give very serious thought to the concept of limited tenure—which we did.

At previous justices of the peace conferences I have listened to the president of JPs from Western Australia, where they have limited tenure. That is a very interesting jurisdiction, because it is such a vast state. Their judicial system, without the role of JPs—particularly voluntary judicial JPs—would literally collapse because of the sheer tyranny of distance. Over in Western Australia, as I understand it—and I do not think it is the only state—there is the situation where a JP is literally appointed for a limited tenure 5-year term, then at the end of that term the justice of the peace has to apply to be reappointed and there is a reappointment process. The simplicity of that in one degree is that if someone is not stepping up to the plate, they are not reappointed. If they disappear into never-never land, they are struck off and not reappointed.

That immediately solves the problem the federation talked about of inactive JPs. The previous speaker talked about it, and certainly the federation has raised the issue. The real concern we have is with having JPs who do not belong even to their local JP branch. I refer to page 3 of the commentary on the bill, which states: “We considered carefully whether to include in the bill provisions limiting the tenure of JPs”—in our case—“to a 10-year period, but decided not to recommend this. We explored the issues giving rise to our initial consideration of limited tenure, and concluded that our concerns could be addressed outside of legislation. We were also mindful of the financial implications of establishing and managing a system of limited tenure.”

When we looked at this as a committee we asked why, if someone is not performing adequately, should we wait 10 years for someone’s limited tenure process. We also asked whether that was the best way to spend our money, because obviously a process of limited tenure would have a higher cost. We would rather put that money into ongoing training and ongoing monitoring of the performance of JPs. Certainly, if local branches and other groups really have concerns about the performance of a particular JP, then the thing is to trigger the mechanism by which that JP can be removed.

I commend to the House the revised disciplinary process. I also want to say that although we gave very serious consideration to the notion of limited tenure, on balance we did not think that that was the way to go. I know, as I said before, that it is common in some states of Australia, particularly Western Australia. I tend to agree with the Minister’s view that we look at the training we are already doing.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): I sense from the amused smiles of those members on the Government side of the House that we are currently being subjected to something akin to filibustering. The Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill is legislation that the National Party supports. There is no need for the honourable member to espouse the virtues of this legislation, which are well known to us, are well known to the select committee, and—presumably—are well known to the public and to the members of the federation to which the member has spoken. Might we just get on with these events instead of this protracted process of non-advancement in terms of merit?

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 100 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 8 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Regulation of immigration advisers

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): This debate includes the schedule.

PANSY WONG (National): First of all, I would like to say that National supported this bill during the first reading and the reporting back. I will share with the public the reason we have supported this bill so far. It is because of headlines like the one in the Christchurch Press in December 2006 that stated: “Recruitment company leaves migrants short of $600,000”. A Christchurch recruitment company owed 229 potential migrants about $600,000 after reneging on the refund policy. At that stage, in the advertisement of the particular company, it described itself as a “registered immigration agent”. Mary Anne Thompson, who heads Immigration New Zealand, said that because currently there is no authority that oversees the registration of immigration advisers, agents can describe themselves in the way they like.

However, with the enactment of this legislation, there is a channel whereby victims can complain. For example, they can complain about registered immigration advisers’ negligence, incompetence, incapacity, dishonesty, misleading behaviour, or breach of the code of conduct. It is because of this that we have supported the passage of the bill up until now, but we are developing some reservations, particularly on Part 2, which we will explore further.

We welcome the Minister of Immigration, David Cunliffe, to the Committee, because I have a problem and I want him to take a few calls and share with us the rationale behind some of the new clauses that have been inserted. During the select committee deliberation a new clause was inserted—one we call a restraint of trade clause—clause 12(2). The Minister apparently believes that anybody who has held any immigration “offices or employment” would not be allowed to be registered as an immigration adviser at any time within 12 months of leaving the office or employment. That would mean that any “immigration officer, visa officer, or refugee status officer” would not be allowed to be registered as an immigration adviser in the 12 months after that person had left immigration employment. I think the Minister needs to take a call to explain to the public why he has no confidence in the current employees of Immigration New Zealand. Let us rehearse this again: the Minister is publicly declaring he has no confidence in the current employees who hold the positions of immigration officer, visa officer, or refugee status official. He has no confidence in them; if they leave their jobs, they are not allowed to register as immigration advisers.

The reasons given are that they would have an unfair advantage, and they might have a close relationship with people who continue to work in the department. I need the Minister to take a call because these two reasons basically spell out that he has no confidence in either the competence or honesty of current employees of, or employees who have just departed from, Immigration New Zealand. He is saying that any immigration officer, visa officer, or refugee status officer would not be allowed to be registered as an immigration adviser. This is despite the fact that we are told that this registration process will be robust, and that if there are complaints there will be penalties for misbehaviour. But the Minister is saying that he has no confidence in the staff and the people who hold those positions. If they finish with Immigration New Zealand, at least for 12 months he does not want to see them operating as immigration advisers.

So what are these people going to do for the 12 months? Are they going on to the unemployment benefit or are they going to be taxi drivers? They are not allowed to use their skills. I think the Minister owes an apology to his own staff as to why he has no confidence in their competence or honesty, and as to why he has no confidence in existing employees, who would not treat differently any staff who have left Immigration New Zealand. If those people become immigration advisers, their applications will be processed just like any other applications, and there will be no favours. The Minister should have confidence in the people who work in Immigration New Zealand.

The other group of people whom he believes should not be allowed to register as immigration advisers, includes himself. He says, under clause 12(2)(a), that if any ”Ministers of Immigration and Associate Ministers of Immigration in the New Zealand Government” have completed their positions, they would not be allowed to be registered as immigration advisers for at least 12 months. It was very clear when this clause was introduced that one of the many former Ministers of Immigration, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, was obviously targeting the Hon John Delamere. But I want to share with the public that the Hon John Delamere was acquitted in court of 20 charges relating to when he ran his own immigration consultancy firm between 2001 and 2004. I ask the Minister to take note of the dates. John Delamere left Parliament in 1999. This restraint of trade clause will never apply to him, so it seems to me that the currency of former Ministers of Immigration is running for much longer than 12 months. If the Minister is serious in trying to stop the so-called problem, he may have to bar those people for life—including himself. Of course, one questions what will happen to existing politicians in the New Zealand Parliament who may come under suspicion for their dealings with regard to immigration issues.

I am looking forward to the Minister giving us an explanation as to why he has no confidence in his staff in Immigration New Zealand. He may like to explain why he thinks it is effective to bar former Ministers of Immigration. At least, Mr John Delamere’s case has shown the public that Mr Delamere was out of the job for more than 12 months, and was prosecuted for his activities almost 3 years out, from the time he left Parliament. This clause is totally ineffective, and I think it is a slight on existing Immigration New Zealand employees. If the Minister does not think they are trustworthy, honest, or competent, then they should not be in the service’s employment.

I have an amendment lying on the Table to delete clause 12(2). I am seeking the assistance of other parties across Parliament to reflect on this clause, and to support my amendment to say that it is not effective and in fact is an insult to the existing staff of Immigration New Zealand. I think having a Minister declare in such a public way that he has no confidence in the honesty and competence of the people of Immigration New Zealand is quite devastating for them.

As I say, the National Party has so far supported the bill, and particularly Part 1. I do not have too much of a problem with the other part. Firstly, I would like to say let us not pass a provision that is ineffective. Secondly, I say that in fact it is a real stigma reflecting badly on the existing Immigration New Zealand staff. Either we have confidence in the licensing regime that is put in, or we do not, so I seek the Committee’s support for my amendment.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Just before the next speaker commences, and so that members can take the opportunity afforded by Standing Order 319(4), I want to mention that the Government has issued a financial veto certificate in relation to Dr Pita Sharples’ amendments to Part 1, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105. Those amendments relate to the establishment and functions of a Māori Immigration Education Council. The amendments are therefore out of order and no question will be put on them, but that Standing Order affords members the opportunity to debate both the amendments and the veto certificate. A copy of the certificate is on the Table.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Ethnic Affairs): I rise to support this excellent legislation. I do so in two capacities. Firstly, I do so as an electorate MP. Probably every member of Parliament in this Chamber has experienced constituency cases that have been brought to his or her office by people who have been to an immigration consultant first of all. Those constituents have spent a great deal of money—sometimes many tens of thousands of dollars—and in many cases have received no support whatsoever. Documents have not been lodged, passports have been confiscated, and very large sums of money have been asked for. I have experienced that many times in my electorate.

Secondly, I support the bill as Minister for Ethnic Affairs. I spend every weekend engaging with ethnic communities. In fact, I was discussing with the Minister of Immigration the other day the fact that two weekends ago, I went to 10 ethnic events during that weekend. I have the opportunity to meet thousands of people, on a monthly basis, from minority ethnic communities. Many of them have had a lot of bad experiences with immigration advisers who purport to help them, often when they are in desperate circumstances, to get residency in this country.

The bill itself was first proposed when Lianne Dalziel was Minister of Immigration. It has been a fair time in its planning, but it is very important legislation in providing safety for the community. The bill creates a licensing regime for people who provide immigration advice both in New Zealand and overseas. Any person who provides advice regarding immigration to New Zealand will have to be licensed, unless explicitly exempt from that requirement. Immigration advisers will have to meet competency standards and be deemed fit to practice, and will of course be subject to complaints and disciplinary procedures. That is long overdue. A number of new offences are also set out, including one of providing immigration advice without a licence. A new statutory body, the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal, will be established to administer the licensing regime.

I think it is important that we are clear in our heads as to what this bill is trying to do. We have heard a few whinges and moans from Opposition members already. Although I am glad to hear that they are supporting this bill, I am disappointed to hear the degree of whingeing from them. I can even hear some barracking while I am talking now. Actually, this bill is about providing safety and security for people who are often in desperate circumstances.

I can remember that about 4 years ago a large delegation of members of the Tuvalu community came to see me in my electorate office in west Auckland. They were very concerned about global warming. They were not climate change deniers—unlike one or two members in this Chamber. They had become alarmed that rising sea levels around the low-lying atolls that make up Tuvalu would impact profoundly on their safety and on their homes. They were, of course, desperate to stay in New Zealand. As a result of the combination of their anxiety about environmental impacts and global warming on Tuvalu and their desperation to remain in New Zealand, those people were extraordinarily vulnerable. They had met some rather unscrupulous individuals on the North Shore in Auckland, who charged them about $10,000 each to issue them with false passports. The individuals concerned called them Aotearoa passports and claimed that they would lodge refugee claims on behalf of the people from Tuvalu, to try to get them refugee status in New Zealand as environmental refugees. Of course that was completely hopeless, and their money was taken.

Refugee claims were, in fact, lodged, and of course when Labour came into Government it issued the transitional policy that allowed people who had been in New Zealand illegally to regularise their status if they had not broken the law, if they were married to a New Zealand citizen or resident, if they had had a child born in New Zealand, if they had not drawn a benefit, and if they had not lodged a refugee claim. That group of Tuvalu residents, all of whom were overstayers, would have qualified completely for the transitional policy, but they achieved a double whammy. Not only had they been ripped off by the unscrupulous individuals from the North Shore but their opportunity to regularise their status in New Zealand was removed because they had, unfortunately, applied for refugee status. Fortunately, through the generosity and wisdom of the then Minister of Immigration—not the present one, who I am sure would have been just the same as the then Minister—many of those people from Tuvalu got special directions.

This is an excellent bill.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): I listened to the Hon Chris Carter speaking just now on the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. He was talking about “unscrupulous” immigration consultants. I just remind the Hon Chris Carter that it was him, not an unscrupulous immigration consultant, who twisted his colleague Damien O’Connor’s arm into allowing into this country a member of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard. Now his colleague the Hon Clayton—

Hon Chris Carter: I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: If the member does not know what I am talking about, I can get the file where the department’s notes show that it responded to representations from Chris Carter in letting this guy into the country—a man who has now caused all sorts of problems. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove now has to deal with this unscrupulous character after Chris Carter convinced Damien O’Connor—it must have been Damien O’Connor; it cannot have been this Minister—to let him into the country. So it is not just immigration consultants—

Hon Chris Carter: What’s the name?

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I do not want to give private information to the public, but I can grab the file for that member so he can refresh his memory. If he wants to do so, I can easily get the file for him.

In speaking to Part 1, I want to cover something that is very unsatisfactory about the bill. National has supported this bill, and we have done so partly because we listened to the submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and those submissions from the immigration industry were positive about this bill. National wants to see a system put in place that works well. Again with this Labour Government we are seeing Supplementary Order Papers brought in after the select committee process that change the nature of the bill and would change totally the nature of support for the bill.

If Supplementary Order Paper 104, which adds bits to clauses 16, 24, and 26(1)—all clauses in Part 1—had been in the bill when it was going through the select committee process, there would be a totally different set of submissions on this bill. This Labour Government does this sort of thing intentionally. We see it done too often now. It brings in bills that receive submissions at the select committee, then, after all those submissions have been considered, it changes the bill totally to something that is very different. Supplementary Order Paper 104, in the Minister’s name, will now introduce a levy and make major changes to this bill. Instead of a simple licensing system, we will see a levy system where a very small number of immigration consultants will have to fund a major bureaucratic set-up that this Government is setting up. Those consultants would never have been positive about that had the bill had that in it from the word go.

I want the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Cunliffe, to explain to the Committee how something as fundamental as a levy regime, and the amendments he is proposing to clauses 16, 24, 26, etc.—and I will go on to clause 77A when we come to Part 2—could not have been part of the bill as introduced. Why was something as fundamental as a levy regime to fund a disputes process, to go through complaints, and to discipline members of the immigration consultancy industry, not part of the bill as introduced? I believe we deserve an explanation from the Minister as to why something as fundamentally important to this legislation was not part of the bill as introduced.

I am prepared to resume my seat so that the Minister can explain to the Committee why something as fundamental to the bill as that was left out of the bill that went to the select committee, to be introduced now, after the public had its opportunity to make submissions on this legislation.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): It is a great pleasure to speak in the Committee stage on the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. We have had a very passionate contribution from my friend and colleague the Hon Chris Carter, who has been detailing his hard work in the weekends at his local electorate office. Since I have been in the chair, we have had two contributions from Opposition members. Although I appreciate their strong support for this bill, I must say that I found their contributions somewhat confusing. It may help if I address their contributions in order.

Ms Wong argued that the 1-year stand-down did not go far enough. In an act of flagrant disloyalty to her former colleague the Hon Tuariki Delamere, she said it would not have been effective in preventing him from committing corrupt practices, because he left Parliament more than 1 year ago. I thought she was going to propose an amendment to extend the stand-down period, but I understand that she has in fact, in a blinding flash of reverse logic, tabled an amendment to remove the stand-down period of 1 year that is already proposed.

Occasionally, as colleagues know, the Opposition suggests that foreign diplomatic posts can become a form of retirement programme for former Ministers and MPs. What is clearly the case with the current Opposition is that the immigration advisory industry is the retirement programme for the National caucus. There is the Hon Aussie Malcolm, who is one of the more respected and longstanding consultants in the industry. There is Tuariki Delamere, who apparently mounted a defence in the Golden Harvest Investment and Trust case along the lines of arguing that yes, the money was moved around, but that he did not think it was illegal at the time, because he had written the legislation. That is kind of interesting, but we respect the judgment of the court. Then there is Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, who is quite concerned about this bill because he has his eyes on retirement at the next election, and he wants to make sure there is a job for him to go to. I suspect that there has been some communication on the National benches between him and Ms Wong, to ensure that he does not have to resort to driving taxis, which seems to be her alternative to becoming an immigration adviser.

The good Dr Smith raised another rather spurious but interesting question in conveying his strong support for the bill, which was the allegation that Supplementary Order Paper 104 in my name was a major change that would somehow bring in a brand-new levy. Well, in fact, I say to Dr Smith that I am advised that the Supplementary Order Paper makes no necessary difference at all to the amount that is being charged to the industry. All that it does—and the member asked the reason for the change—on advice from the legal teams, is to make it clear that it is appropriate to split the amount between fees and levies. The fee is for the actual delivery of the licence; the levy is to fund services received indirectly. That is a technical amendment, based on the appropriate definition of fees and levies. It makes no difference at all to the amount of revenue that may or may not be charged. It cannot be very long ago that Dr Smith was a Minister—maybe it is, but it is not as long as it is going to be—so he may remember the Treasury guidelines for setting fee regulations. One can—in fact, one should—charge cost recovery, but one cannot charge more than cost recovery. Within that framework, it matters not to the amount charged whether it is called a fee or a levy; the same amount would be charged.

In concluding this brief call, I say that it is important for us to recognise why we are here. We are here because ordinary New Zealanders, ordinary new New Zealanders, and aspiring New Zealanders have suffered and been hurt by a few unscrupulous immigration advisers, who give the industry a bad name. They give the industry a bad name, and they actually hurt their colleagues as well as their clients. Now I know colleagues have a number of cases that they would like to relate. I am not going to name one, but I will say that I was at a function, I think it was with Dr Sharples, at Hoani Waititi Marae. A constituent came up to me, described his immigration case, and asked me what he could do. It was clearly a case for which there was no hope. The gentleman concerned met no criteria for any migration category that I could consider, and that was blindingly obvious at the time. But he had approached an immigration adviser who had said: “Give me $1,500 down now. Come back tomorrow with another $3,000, and I should be able to work on this case. If you come back a week later with another $3,000, I think I can pretty much turn the trick for you.” There was no physical way—no humanly possible way—that any consultant or, indeed, any Minister could have got that man through, because he just did not qualify. But that did not stop that adviser from ripping him off to the tune of some $7,000.

I will speak later about the proposed amendments from the Māori Party, but I see that the good Dr Smith is reaching boiling point again, so it is probably a good time for me to resume my seat and allow the Opposition to take a call.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Kia ora tātou kua hui mai i tēnei pō. Greetings to everyone tonight. I rise to follow on from the co-leader of the Māori Party Dr Pita Sharples and the Supplementary Order Paper, so I will probably go off at a tangent, away from the discussion that has been happening tonight. That is the first point—just to take over from Pita Sharples.

The second point is that, as a new member of Parliament, I was taken a little bit aback by the fact that the Government has exercised its right under Standing Order 319 to place a financial veto on our Supplementary Order Paper, which is really disappointing, because we try to take most of these matters that are put before us fairly seriously. My understanding is that the right to move a financial veto is taken up on rare occasions. The last occasion was in June 2006, and prior to that it was in 2004. So obviously the Government takes this particular issue seriously, as do we.

The fact that our Supplementary Order Paper cannot be voted on is really disappointing. I suppose we are happy that at least it can be debated, but the fact that it cannot be voted on is pretty disappointing, and in that sense we are wondering what the rationale is for moving towards this sort of action. Can the Minister perhaps explain at some point why this course of action has been taken up? The rationale that has been presented in the certification, or whatever the document is, talks about costings, and that our Supplementary Order Paper may well have financial constraints or repercussions, and that seems to be the rationale for the “no vote” on this particular amendment.

We think that money is obviously an issue, which we would argue, but the Minister might tell us about that. Dr Cullen announced in December 2006 that the improved position meant that the country would have available around $1 billion for extra headroom for the 2008 Budget, on top of the $2 billion allowance that was set aside in 2006. He also said that the 2007 Budget will continue our progress in building a unique national identity.

On Budget day the Government announced another big operating surplus—$8.5 billion in 2005-06, and $5.8 billion in 2006-07—yet we are still unable to support a clause that is all about trying to give support to the Treaty of Waitangi. So we reckon that we might have put the Government in a bit of a corner actually—either support the Māori Party on one of our initiatives, or run the risk of voting against the Treaty in te reo Māori. So, unfortunately, from what we see, and the Minister might give us an explanation, this is the “get out of jail free” card—an attempt to get out of a political corner.

The reason we put up this particular Supplementary Order Paper was that we mentioned in a number of speeches that the Treaty of Waitangi is the nation’s founding document—a constitutional blueprint for nation-building through relationships; relationships between tangata whenua, the Crown, and newer immigrant groups. So, given this context, we believe that an awareness of the Treaty of Waitangi and its practical implications for daily life in Aotearoa is highly beneficial to newcomers. We hope that the Minister might respond to the view that we hold as the Māori Party that any moves to better prepare migrants for life in Aotearoa, by having access to well-equipped immigration advisers, is advantageous to all involved, including the nation at large. We believe that nation-building is an ongoing project, and it requires new initiatives to imbed a sense of national identity and harmony in the face of increasing cultural diversity. So the Treaty of Waitangi and a respect for the indigenous people of Aotearoa is one of those anchors.

We submitted the Supplementary Order Paper in the knowledge that tangata whenua often refer to the Treaty of Waitangi as being the first immigration policy document for this nation. We mentioned also that Dr Ranginui Walker has described the preamble of the Treaty as the original charter for immigration, and that it allows immigration to Aotearoa from Europe, Australia, and the United Kingdom, but requires consultation with Māori as the Treaty partner for any variation. Dr Ranginui Walker also argues that the Government has ignored the notion of partnership, by unilaterally deciding who can enter New Zealand without consultation with Māori. We say that the Treaty sets the scene by which all subsequent migrants and communities can survive and prosper in Aotearoa. In essence, the Treaty is our first immigration document because it enables all others to come here. With that in mind, our Supplementary Order Paper provides for the establishment of a cultural education programme including the Treaty, and basic tikanga and te reo for immigration advisers.

Alongside this, it established the Māori Immigration Education Council to facilitate and oversee the programme. We thought that was a pretty good idea. The council would be an expert council of up to 10 members, appointed on recommendation by iwi rūnanga. We thought this was an exciting opportunity to develop a cultural education programme that would be a model for all other nations. It gives tangata whenua a real chance to be involved in immigration matters, and this is a call that for too long has been unanswered. We believe that this sort of idea enabled immigration advisers to become proficient in providing a full service to those wishing to make Aotearoa their home.

Finally, the key point in submitting this Supplementary Order Paper is in response to concerns from Māori that immigration policies have been made at the expense of Māori, without consultation with Māori, and of unproven value. If we are committed to restoring any harmonious relationship between Treaty partners, we must honour the importance of creating effective and mutually respectful relationships. If we honour the spirit of the partnership explicit in Te Tiriti o Waitangi surely the Government must give recognition to the need to give effect to Māori involvement in immigration policy.

We thought that our Supplementary Order Paper responded to that imperative. We are obviously disappointed that the Government has taken a different tack by moving to have our Supplementary Order Paper ruled out of order. I ask the Minister to at least give us some explanation as to why our Supplementary Order Paper has been blocked at that stage, believing as we do that if the Treaty is at the heart of this whole notion of nation-building, surely the idea of having an immigration council based around education was a common-sense idea that would allow the nation, and indeed those coming here, to have a good baseline knowledge about Aotearoa and our nationhood.

The fact that fiscal constraints have been used as a buffer to take our Supplementary Order Paper off the Table does not seem to match with the fact that the Government, even by its own reports over a period of time, says that the money is there. We also recognise that somebody has done some costings. I am not too sure where those costings have come from, but the costing on the certification says $1.5 million per annum, yet there is plenty of money in the kitty from the sound of it. We ask that for the purposes of nation-building, surely that amount of money—and it is a figure that has been put up without too much research, we think—would be a good investment in the future of the nation. So we leave that for someone to take a call on. Kia ora tātou.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): I thank the member who has just resumed his seat, Te Ururoa Flavell, for that intervention and say that the Government is sympathetic to the need for migrants to be informed and advised on Treaty issues.

The Government has taken the proposed amendments by the Māori Party very seriously and we have consulted extensively with the kaitiaki of tikanga in the Labour Māori caucus. Unfortunately we do not have provision in the Budget for the expenditure that the proposed Māori Immigration Education Council would require. But, more important, the functions for which such a council would be set up have already been provided for in immigration provisions, and I wish to give some examples. The following materials are provided to new migrants when they arrived in New Zealand. Listeners will not be able to see these examples, but colleagues can.

New migrants get an extensive pack of reading material that briefs them about the Treaty of Waitangi and its importance to contemporary New Zealand society. They are given a booklet called Te Tiriti o Waitangi: The Treaty of Waitangi and Migrants when they arrive. In the Department of Labour’s Linkz magazine there are often articles expounding the importance of the Treaty to New Zealand culture. In addition, when new migrants arrive they are given this pack of Treaty background booklets in their Getting Started pack: All About the Treaty, The Timeline of the Treaty, The Story of the Treaty Part I, The Story of the Treaty Part II, and The Journey of the Treaty. So I am pretty comfortable that a comprehensive set of information materials is made available to new migrants directly when they arrive.

The amendments from the Māori Party propose that the advisers are also well informed of tikanga Māori. Indeed, the bill already caters for this also. Clauses 32, 33, and 34 set out the functions of the registrar and the authority in setting competency, training, and conduct standards. Clause 32 in particular sets out the responsibilities of the registrar, including: “(c) to develop and maintain competency standards … (d) to facilitate the education and professional development of immigration advisers:”, and to carry out functions consequential on functions referred to earlier in the clause. I wish to provide some reassurance to the Committee, and in particular to our colleagues in the Māori Party, that as Minister I expect that the registrar will consult Māori on developing those standards.

Clause 34 covers the code of conduct—the ethical standards and behaviours required of advisers. The code of conduct will bind immigration advisers to being informed on Treaty and tikanga issues. Again, I expect the registrar to consult Māori on developing this code of conduct. As Minister of Immigration I will have the responsibility for signing out the competency standards of the code of conduct and I will be seeking to ensure that Treaty and tikanga matters are explicitly covered in that code.

I thank the Māori Party for bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee because it gives us an opportunity to underline what was the Government’s intention in the first place. I think members can see that, quite honestly, a serious effort is already being made in Treaty education. I agree with the sentiments expressed by our colleagues from across the Chamber, and expressed very strongly by the Labour Māori caucus, that education about the Treaty is non-negotiable, that it is our founding document, and that in many ways it is the glue that binds together the important first people of this land with all of those who have come after—Pākehā from Britain and Europe, and our newer settlers from the Pacific and other countries. That is the spirit with which we enter into this legislation. It is the spirit with which we seek to build a great nation.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I would just like to thank the Hon Mark Gosche for his great work in being our Transport and Industrial Relations Committee chairman during this process. Unfortunately, he did not get the call then, but he has been a very good leader of our select committee and it is a pleasure working with him on that select committee. I also thank the officials who are here today. We went through a few technical issues during the process, and the officials were very helpful. They always researched what we wanted to find out and came back with very good results. So I would give a pat on the back to our officials, who did an excellent job in this case.

However, a major cross has to go against the Government again. Once again, we see a Government that changes its mind at the last minute, and that goes to the public saying one thing and then does another in this Parliament. It is a Government that does not care what New Zealanders think, expect, or want. It is a Government that does what it wants to do under cover of night, at 9.30 o’clock on a Tuesday night. This Government does not look forward and deliver for the people. We have heard that this is a technical amendment—that is what the Government says it is. It says that it is OK to do a technical amendment at the last minute.

Then there has been the sort of Treasury-Cabinet cost recovery model, which the Government says is the only one we can go for; but in saying that we can only go for a cost recovery model, the Government is denying what it is actually doing in this legislation by putting this Supplementary Order Paper forward. In the Supplementary Order Paper the Government is adding another layer on top of that cost recovery. It is making a second charge on immigration consultants—a second charge that will put many immigration consultants out of business. A lot of small businesses will go out of business. It is the same as what happened in Australia, and it is what will happen in New Zealand through this clandestine approach taken by the Government to change things on a whim under clouds of darkness.

I would also say to the Māori Party that it is such a shame to see a financial veto used at this time. Those members came in with genuine amendments that they had put forward, and to get at them the Minister of Finance came through with a shadowy, shameful veto of a financial nature at this stage. The Government did that because it has no provision in the Budget. Well, the Government has enough money in that Budget to sink a ship! They will go out there and buy as many votes as they can over the next 2 years, but, no, they will not look after Māoridom—no, they will not do that. They have bigger priorities than that, have they not? That is what this Government is about. It is just about saving its soul; it is not about doing what is right for New Zealanders.

This Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill had the ability to set up something great for New Zealand. New Zealand is in a region that is growing at enormous rates. We are probably the slowest-growing of the countries in this region—in fact, we are. If we look at our major trading partners in this region—for instance, Australia, China, and India—they all have much faster growth rates than us.

Darien Fenton: They’ve got more people.

DAVID BENNETT: That is the key thing. New Zealand will have a greater population over time, and our population will come from that region. The longer we deny that fact, the longer we will sit here at low growth rates and the longer we will have the situation where we are out of kilter with our neighbours and with our region. In time we will pay the price for that. We cannot insulate New Zealand and then think that it will change and that our growth at 1 percent or 2 percent will be sufficient. Our neighbours are growing at 8 to 9 percent. They have huge populations. New Zealanders need to be competitive in that model, and under this Government we simply are not.

This bill would have given New Zealanders the ability to bring in more people who were specialists, and who really wanted to work hard and to build this country. They will come anyway. We had the chance to choose when they came and how they came, and we have denied ourselves that by putting more and more fees into the system, and by shunting those people who are doing the immigration consulting advice to the bottom of the heap.

We are killing off an industry that had the potential to grow our country, an industry that would have picked the best people from our region at a time when we need to do that. In 10 years’ time it will be too late. The best people in our region will not be coming to this country. They will be going around the world to where they can get the highest incomes. This bill could have given us the chance to go out and target those people now—to actually go out there and make the best for New Zealand. But, no, we have denied ourselves that by putting on another level of fees and really crucifying an industry that had the potential to grow our country.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): I am not quite sure what to make of that speech. It was from one of the bright young stars of the National Party caucus, who had something to say about dark clouds at “9.30 o’clock”—even though it was quarter to ten at night. Nevertheless, I suppose those members have to learn how to filibuster sometime. One would have thought that National had a research unit that would give those members a few notes about what is in the bill. I will talk about that, because I think this stuff is actually quite important. Some of us do work as MPs when we go home from here on a Thursday evening. We have clinics—some of us have them on Friday, some of us on Saturday, some of us on Monday, and some of us on all of those days—and people come to see us about immigration matters a great deal. I do not know about members on the other side of the Chamber. I do not think that the public see National MPs as being interested in the problems of human beings.

Let us just talk about what this bill does, because for Labour MPs it is really important to regulate this industry and to give clear notice to people as to who can do that and who cannot.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How are we going to help Sunan Siriwan?

Hon MARK GOSCHE: We will come to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith a little later. He has gone very silent in his questioning on this matter lately. One would have thought that in his call he may have wanted to add some names to the area of prohibition. But did we hear anything about that? Did we hear Dr Lockwood Smith questioning why MPs and their staff should be exempt under this bill? No, we did not hear a thing about that. He asked a question a day for a year and a half, or whatever it was, on immigration matters—

Hon Chris Carter: And now silence.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: He is completely silent. Why is that? Why has he gone completely silent? Why has he not used the golden opportunity, as any decent Opposition member would, to talk about the exemption for MPs and their staff that is in this part? We have not heard a word from that member over there, yet we had a question today on the matter that lasted a very long time. Why is that? Who are those members over there trying to suck up to? That is what I want to know. Dr Smith is forgetting about that immigration issue just like that, after asking question after question after question.

This bill defines what immigration advice is. If we look at clause 7, we see it spelt out in pretty clear and simple English. Clause 7 refers to “using, or purporting to use, knowledge of or experience in immigration to advise, direct, assist, or represent …”. That probably comes as news to those members opposite—they only sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for months considering this bill! This is the first time they have actually read this bill, and I am just giving them a bit of information.

The bill also states who is prohibited from providing immigration advice—it is basically people who are not licensed or are not exempt. I have talked about exempt people, and they include MPs and their staff.

David Bennett: And lawyers.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: That member over there, who belongs to the lawyers’ trade union, worked very hard to make sure that lawyers were exempt. Most of us were uncomfortable about it, because we have dealt with crooked lawyers as well as immigration consultants. A lot of lawyers actually asked not to be exempt, because they said they operate purely in the area of immigration and should be treated the same as Australian lawyers. David Bennett fought as hard as he could to make sure that crooked lawyers were exempt. Well, we will look forward to the Law Society doing a good job of making sure that those crooked lawyers are put out of business. If it does not do so, this Parliament will have to deal with this matter again, and this Parliament will have to change the law on exemptions for lawyers.

But I will talk a little bit more about who is exempt. There has been nothing from the people on the other side about the Citizens Advice Bureaux, which do wonderful work in this area for nothing.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill with amendment, progress on the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill, and no progress on the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.