Tuesday, 8 May 2007

Tuesday, 8 May 2007

Tuesday, 8 May 2007

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Carbon Neutrality—Business Encouragement

1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: What kind of encouragement, if any, does she believe businesses will need to help achieve her goal for New Zealand to be carbon neutral and sustainable?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Putting a price on carbon would be effective encouragement, as it would focus business on reducing emissions. That would be good not only for the environment but also for bottom lines through the impact of better energy efficiency and conservation.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Prime Minister agree that the hard part of a carbon trading policy such as was announced this morning is how to allocate the permits, and that the resultant political lobbying on this issue will delay action until well into the first Kyoto period; if so, will she consider adopting as an interim measure the Greens’ proposal, which could lead towards full carbon trading and put a price on carbon by the end of this year?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I agree with the member that the transition issues are big issues, and that they have to be worked through. I am aware of the member’s proposal, and I encourage her to keep talking with the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. I sense that there is a lot of interest in the community, including in the business community, around the emissions trading concept. One hopes there can be a lot of discussion not only across sectors in the economy but across political parties, which might see us make faster progress on these issues than perhaps some pessimists might think is possible.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that her Government, having ratified the Kyoto Protocol, has sat back and done absolutely nothing in relation to New Zealand carbon dioxide emissions, to the extent that those emissions have spiralled out of control, and that New Zealand now faces a liability of potentially billions of dollars; if so, will she be taking responsibility for that multibillion-dollar liability with New Zealand’s taxpayers?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, of course I am not aware of any such thing, as I am aware of a number of policies that were followed to deal with those issues. One of those issues that has now borne fruit is the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative, with the very substantial announcement from the East Coast in that direction. A number of new, second-generation policies are being worked on, and will work.

Peter Brown: Will the Prime Minister tell us what her views are on the Australian Labor Party’s ideas of providing of interest-free loans for solar water heating; and, if she thinks that is a good idea, does she think there is any possibility of her Government taking up the idea?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I have seen that initiative, and it is one of a number of possible things that can be done. The Government, for example, is in a programme of supporting the retrofitting of houses for greater energy efficiency. We passed the 30,000 mark in that particular programme a few weeks ago, and we have budgeted for another 12,000 in the present financial year. So all those kinds of initiatives are helpful in getting more energy efficiency and conservation in our homes.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Prime Minister agree with the OECD that New Zealand could make better use of economic instruments to achieve environmentally sustainable outcomes; if so, why is it that none of the options being floated for upcoming business tax cuts include any targeted incentives for sustainability or carbon neutrality?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I think the OECD is right, and that is why the Government is, obviously, exploring very thoroughly the issue of emissions trading, which will need a cap if it is to be effective as a mechanism in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I am also aware of the member’s long-time advocacy of eco-taxes. That is not something on which the Government consulted the business community in the recent business tax review, but I have no doubt it will keep coming back as possibilities for the future.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is Government support parties that are standing in the way of the tax cuts being used to foster sustainability?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Not to my knowledge; it is simply that in the package of measures that were consulted on in the business tax review, those options were not put up for consideration. I certainly would not rule out consideration of them for the future.

Economy—OECD Ratings

2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she still stand by her statement last year, with respect to the economy, that “Our job in government has been to stop New Zealand running the race to the bottom, and to aim for the top.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

John Key: Is the reason the Prime Minister will not give a date for getting New Zealand to the top half of the OECD the same reason she will not give a date for getting New Zealand to be carbon neutral—that is, because under her policies, short of a miracle, neither goal is practicably attainable?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course such goals are attainable, but when New Zealand’s GDP per capita steadily falls from being, in 1950, third in the world, down to around the 20 or so mark over the course of half a century, that is not easily turned round. These things require clear, deliberate policy programmes that are sustained over time. When New Zealand gets mindless policy lurches backward from National from time to time, it does not help.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that the only OECD countries with poorer-performing economies than ours are Korea, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Mexico, and Turkey, which is hardly a stellar line-up, and when will she do something about actually raising the level of the New Zealand economy—not just enjoying the spend-up that she has been enjoying in the last few years?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is somewhat disingenuous to quote New Zealand growth at the bottom of the business cycle—and no one has worked out how to eliminate business cycles—and overlook the fact that New Zealand’s growth under a Labour Government has been above the average for the OECD, when under National it was consistently below.

Darren Hughes: What reports has the Prime Minister seen about the importance of the Government making an effort to contain fiscal stimulus in the economy at this time?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have seen the IMF report out today to that effect, and I note that any suggestion of large-scale fiscal loosening of the type the National Party keeps promising would, in the IMF’s view, make imbalances in the economy much worse.

Peter Brown: Does the Prime Minister recognise that minimal unemployment is a worthwhile goal; if she does, will she tell us where New Zealand currently stands on the OECD scale with regard to unemployment?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Over the course of the last 2 years or so there have been a number of occasions when New Zealand’s unemployment has been at the very lowest level in the OECD. We have been in competition with Korea for that honour from time to time. We are still right down there in the bottom group. Again, as I advised the House last week, under the Labour Government employment growth in New Zealand has been well above the OECD average. Our growth in employment from 2001 to 2005 was 2.6 percent, and the OECD average was 0.6 percent—not a record that National ever managed in the 1990s.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that when she came into office she promised New Zealanders she would lift their incomes to above the average of the OECD, that when she came into office we were 20th, and that we have now fallen to 22nd out of 30 countries; and why will she not start admitting that rather than her raising New Zealand up the OECD ladder, we have in fact fallen? She should she stop arguing that falling is somehow rising; if that is what she calls success, she should leave office now, before she does so in 18 months’ time.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am well aware that the member pumps himself up with that sort of rhetoric, but he is not convincing very many others. There is absolutely no doubt that wealth in this country has risen in the course of the last 7½ years. The reality is that Greece changed the base on which it calculates its GDP per capita. That has had an impact. What we have done is stop New Zealand’s decline.

John Key: On that note, is it not a sign of our declining economy that, relative to Australia, in the last 4 years under Labour the number of people moving across the Tasman has gone from 500 4 years ago to 600, then to 650, and last week it was finally announced that 700 Kiwis a week are leaving for Australia; if her economic management is so strong, why are they all deserting us?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am sure the member fancies himself as knowing something about global trends. Any insight into that tells us that what is happening around world labour markets is a major brain exchange, and we have a net skills gain coming here.

John Key: Has the Prime Minister noticed that the release of yesterday’s labour cost index showed that for the 22nd quarter in a row employees in the State sector received a larger pay increase that those in the private sector, and can she tell New Zealand private sector workers why they deserve to have a lower pay rise than those in the public sector?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am particularly pleased that the member has raised this issue, because what the figures actually show is that central government administrative and defence wages have risen to a level equivalent, over a number of years, to wages in the private sector generally. Where New Zealand public sector wage rates have risen above the private sector is in health and education, where we are trying to recruit, retain, and pay properly very valued people who teach and who provide health services.

John Key: If that is the case, is that the same reason why Child, Youth and Family decided to use its vote to pay a $650 bonus to everyone who belonged to the Public Service Association, and does she describe that as a good use for its vote?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would describe it as collective bargaining, which gives workers strength.

Craig Foss: I seek leave to table the IMF report that the Prime Minister referred to, which, amongst other things, states that fiscal stimulus is being added to a still overheated economy.

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

Sedition—Law Reform

3. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to the Minister of Justice: Does he propose to introduce legislation repealing the law on sedition?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes. The matter was signed off yesterday by Cabinet, and I will be introducing a bill to the House following appropriate consultation.

Hon Peter Dunne: Will the Minister concede that the reason that this decision has been brought forward from the original October response date that he announced at the time the Law Commission’s report was released is the call by United Future, the Greens, ACT, and the Māori Party for urgent action on this question; and can he indicate to the House, given the lightness of the timetable of the legislative programme and the fact that the Law Commission has already drafted the bill, precisely when the bill will come before the House?

Hon MARK BURTON: As much as I hate to rain on the member’s parade, I can say that the matter came forward as soon as it was ready. This was a simple matter, and I think the member will recall that on the day the report was tabled I made the comment publicly that the commission had made a compelling case and that I expected the bill to receive wide support in the House. I would anticipate that with the agreement of the Leader of the House, the bill will come before the House quite soon.

Hon Peter Dunne: Why, then, if this is all so urgent and immediate, did the Minister say at the time the original report was tabled that he would be responding in October, which is still many months away?

Hon MARK BURTON: I would be happy to be corrected, but I believe I simply indicated to the House that the Government was required to respond by October. If I said “in October” then I apologise to the member, but I was certainly indicating to the House that there is a statutory obligation to respond within the 6-month time limit.

Keith Locke: Will the Minister’s bill removing the sedition provisions in the Crimes Act also remove the remaining thought crime provision in the Act, that in section 123, ”Blasphemous libel”, which not only undermines the separation of church and State but can also put people in prison for criticising certain religious institutions or practices?

Hon MARK BURTON: I do not have the draft bill with me in the House, but my best recollection is that the matter the member raises is somewhat outside the scope of the bill and the report from the Law Commission.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table the joint statement by United Future, the Greens, ACT, and the Māori Party on 24 April, explaining how freedom of expression is compromised—

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

Public Sector Pay—Comparisons

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Has he seen figures showing that public sector wage growth has been ahead of private sector wage growth for the past 5 years; if so, what does he consider to be the fiscal and other implications for upcoming public sector pay negotiations?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes; the statistics are being driven mainly by the health sector and, to a lesser extent, the education sector. This has obvious fiscal implications. Core State sector wage growth has been the same as that in the private sector throughout the last 5 years.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that further public sector wage increases without improved productivity—as is the recent track record—will be inflationary and, therefore, will increase interest rates paid by families and businesses?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That, of course, is always a possibility. Therefore, it has always staggered me that the National Party has consistently supported every wage demand that has been made in the health sector over the last 5 years.

R Doug Woolerton: Can the Minister confirm that public sector wage growth over the past 5 years has driven up public sector growth, thus helping to build a higher-wage economy, whereas in the 1990s the policy was to hold public sector wages down, thus holding down private sector wages—creating a low-wage economy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is certainly true to say that there are increasing difficulties in retaining highly skilled staff in the public sector, through a process of trying to constrain wages in the public sector unnecessarily and unfairly. In particular, in the health sector there is a need to compete not just within New Zealand but also in an international arena.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister plan to inform public sector unions about the advice of the IMF released just yesterday, where, in describing his policies, it states “… fiscal stimulus is being added to a still over-heated economy.”, and will he explain to them that this means his planned spending surge in the run-up to the 2008 election will push up interest rates higher for longer?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I will continue to explain to lots of people the distinction that the report draws between the fiscal space available owing to the strength of the overall Budget, and the macroeconomic space provided by the cyclical position of the economy. Unfortunately, I will have to start with Mr Key first, who has never understood that distinction.

Shane Jones: Why has the Government invested in improving pay and conditions in health and education?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Because we were struggling to retain skilled staff. People demand good doctors and good nurses; we need to pay the appropriate rates to retain them. I note that although Mr English on Radio New Zealand National this morning was criticising such increases, the National Party’s industrial relations spokesperson was on Bay of Plenty’s Radio 1XX encouraging hospital workers to strike for higher pay.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that the IMF quotes so-called authorities as saying that fiscal expansion would be contained to the extent possible, and does this mean that Treasury has been telling him to watch his spending because it is causing inflation and higher interest rates, and that is what it is telling the IMF, but he is ignoring its advice?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. It does mean that we have not had anything like the fiscal expansion that National was planning for the current term of this Parliament, which by now would be putting $3 billion a year extra of tax cuts into the economy. It does mean, as the IMF stated, that should revenues over perform, as they have in recent years, the 2006-07 surplus will be allowed to increase as an automatic stabiliser. That is, in fact, happening and I anticipate Mr Key promising to spend a lot on Budget night on tax cuts.

Hon Annette King: Can the Minister confirm that if we remove health and education from the equation, from June 2001 salary and wage rates, including overtime, in the public service have increased by 14.8 percent compared with 15.3 percent in the private sector?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can confirm that. The labour cost index, which takes into account all the movements, shows the private sector and the central government administration and defence sector tracking extraordinarily close to each other throughout the last 5 years.

Hon Bill English: Has the Minister of Finance discussed with New Zealand First and United Future his commitment to policies that are pushing up inflation and, therefore, pushing up interest rates, and in Export Year, which is promoted by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, are also pushing up the exchange rate to record highs; and what did New Zealand First and United Future say to him about that?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have, of course, discussed with United Future particularly, but also with New Zealand First, the issue of business taxation. I am pleased to report that they will be supporting sensible changes in that respect, which Mr English last week indicated to the House he would be voting against.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister at all concerned that he now appears to not be managing the economy at all, when the company tax cuts in the Budget were pushed by United Future, the savings incentives were pushed by New Zealand First, and he is trying to deal with his high-interest and exchange rate policy by shuffling it off to a futile select committee inquiry?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is always good to see an Opposition person rejecting a select committee inquiry as being futile. It is about all one gets to do in Opposition.

New Zealand Sign Language—Recent Announcements

5. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made regarding New Zealand Sign Language?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues): I am very pleased to inform the House that last night I launched the very first New Zealand Sign Language Week. By establishing this special week of recognition of our unique language, New Zealand’s Deaf community now has a central focus point for celebrating and lifting the profile of what has recently become our country’s third and newest official language. I would encourage all members of the House to join in the celebrations and events that are happening around the country this week.

Steve Chadwick: Can the Minister inform the House what progress has been driven by the New Zealand Sign Language Act?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I can. The list of progress is long and growing. A few highlights are that the Office for Disability Issues is working with the police and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that Deaf people have fair access to the justice system, using professional interpreters. Progress in the education sector includes the recently announced launch of the Sign Language curriculum, offering Sign Language as a choice alongside other languages offered in schools. I am also pleased to see the Accident Compensation Corporation taking a leadership role in reducing the barriers to the scheme for the Deaf community, by offering dedicated email and fax lines to their deaf clients, and also targeted information, specialised training, and a DVD of deaf people talking about their injury and the help that is available through the scheme.

Gangs—Government Action

6. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement regarding the Government’s response to gangs that “No one has been idle here. People have been very proactive.”?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes, and I also agree with the second part of the Prime Minister’s statement, which the member has chosen to omit, that “if there are ways that prove to be effective, where the law can be strengthened, and practice can be strengthened, of course we will also look at them.”

Simon Power: Why should the people of Wanganui and the rest of the country believe that the Minister’s Government cares about stopping gangs from spraying bullets around our streets, when the organised crimes strategy he promised at the last election was going to be released only in another 10 months’ time—March 2008—and when asked about it last year he replied that the most recent work done on this issue was a report from March 2005?

Hon MARK BURTON: Because, although reports and ongoing strategy work is of course being done, a great deal of practical action has been taken—

Simon Power: Like what?

Hon MARK BURTON: I point out to the member, to name but a few: the strengthening of the Bail Act, the Sentencing Act, the Parole Act, section 98(a) of the Crimes Act, of course, under which some successful prosecutions have been taken—

Simon Power: Some successful prosecutions? Twelve!

Hon MARK BURTON: No—more than 40, actually. I am sorry, the member is unfortunately not possessed of the facts. The member’s own party has voted for some of the legislation, even—the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2004, for instance, toughening up on re-trading. Right before the Parliament right now is legislation that will cut off the money supply to gangs. This Government is determined to be tough on those organised criminals, and it will be interesting to see whether that member helps or attempts to hinder the progress of that legislation through the select committee.

Madam SPEAKER: I just remind members that all members are entitled to hear both the questions and the answers. It was very difficult to do so in that instance. I also remind members, however, that both questions and answers are meant to be succinct and to the point.

Jill Pettis: Could the Minister please advise the House what the Government is doing about the problem of gang violence in Wanganui?

Hon MARK BURTON: A multi-agency approach to gang-related issues is currently being led by the police, and I think they are doing a good job. In addition, over the last 12 months the police in Wanganui have commenced an operation based on previous successful operations. This has resulted in over 100 arrests for various offences including firearms and intimidation. In response to the immediate tragic incident and to defuse the situation, police have swamped the area with officers and are undertaking armed patrols. In addition, two iwi liaison officers have also been deployed to the area to assist with community liaison.

Ron Mark: Does he think that the public can be confident that police are equipped with adequate legislative tools to enable them to tackle gangs and gang activities; if so, how does he reconcile this with the statement of Police Association president, Greg O’Connor, who said with regard to gangs: “Every time something happens and hits the airwaves the police say ‘we are on top of this’ and outline things they are doing, which is just crap. The commissioner now is saying it is all right, well it’s bullshit, it is out of control.”?

Hon MARK BURTON: In the end I think the Commissioner of Police is the most credible source of advice. But I have to say to the member in answer to his principal question that a raft of legislative provisions strengthening the tools available to the police have been introduced, further ones are in front of this House, and we have brought together senior representatives across Government agencies that will be reporting to Ministers this week. If there are further measures that can be taken to further strengthen the tool kit for police, we will do it.

Simon Power: How will the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act prevent a reoccurrence of the drive-by shooting that occurred in Wanganui in recent days?

Hon MARK BURTON: That, frankly, is an insulting and ridiculous question. It is an offence to the death of the 2-year-old child, frankly.

Madam SPEAKER: Now we are getting very close to having question time in silence. I ask the Minister to start his answer again, and just address the question.

Hon MARK BURTON: I presume that when the member’s party supported that legislation it did so because it understood that it was one small part of making it harder for organised criminals to deal in stolen goods. There is a much more substantial measure in front of a select committee right now, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. This can have the potential to cut off the money supply to organised crime.

Simon Power: For 8 years you have been promising that.

Hon MARK BURTON: Well, I will be interested to see whether that member’s presence on the committee helps or hinders its progress back to this House.

Ron Mark: Does he recall the statement of his colleague Phil Goff during the debate on the counter-terrorism legislation that “New Zealand is committed on every front to combat terrorism.”, and why is it that this Government is prepared to talk and act tough with regard to international terrorism but when it comes to domestic terrorists it rolls over and admits defeat?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, I recall the comment. Yes, I agree with the comment, and as I indicated in an earlier answer—and the member may not have heard it, because of the noise—if there are further provisions that will have an effect on organised criminals and gangs in New Zealand, then the Government will consider them.

Simon Power: Can he confirm that legislation passed by National in 1997 gave police the power to remove gang fortifications, and will he be asking the Minister of Police why she signed off on a statement of intent, which includes that as one of the Government’s key operational practices, when it has consistently refused to say how many times it has removed fortifications, and when are we going to get some real action instead of more reports and ongoing strategies?

Hon MARK BURTON: I have given the member a long list of real actions that have already been taken. If the member wants to put down a question to the Minister of Police, he should of course do so.

Heather Roy: Is not the real answer in dealing with gangs, rather than making new law, enforcing the laws we have now such as prosecuting gangs for building fences higher than by-laws allow, and the Inland Revenue Department investigating gangs rather than chasing productive New Zealanders; and why will this Government not issue to all Government departments a zero-tolerance policy on gangs for breaking any law, no matter how trivial?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member raises a fair question in terms of the extent to which proper use is being made of existing law. That is one of the specific questions that Ministers have put to senior officials, and we will get a report this week. If there are provisions not being adequately used, then we will expect them to be more adequately used.

Simon Power: Does he agree with the statement made by the Prime Minister that getting tough on gangs would only increase their mana and drive them underground, and what would the public see this as, other than a total cop-out from a Government that already has laws in place to deal with these issues but lacks the political will to get on and do the job?

Rt Hon Helen Clark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to a question that attributed a statement to me that was not made. I do not think it is fair to the House for questions to be premised on inaccuracies.

Madam SPEAKER: That is a matter of debate. [Interruption] All members know that if a member says that he or she did not make a statement, then that has to be accepted. Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon MARK BURTON: I agree with what the Prime Minister said, rather than what the member misrepresented.

Simon Power: What did she say?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member raised the question; he should pay better attention. The Prime Minister said, very clearly, that this Government will take actions that will have effect—not just cheap political posturing at a time of tragedy.

Chester Borrows: How can he claim that the Government is doing all that it can to protect the people of Wanganui from gangs, when Mongrel Mob cars, guarding their fort, are able to have rifles prominently displayed in the back seat—or does this just confirm the lack of political will to actually enforce the law where gangs are concerned?

Hon MARK BURTON: Nobody has said that everything possible is being done. That is why we have senior officials providing advice, this week, to Ministers in terms of what is being done and what, if anything, needs to be added to the long list of actions that are being taken. If that member has evidence of a crime being committed, he should report it.

Chester Borrows: Will the Government support my local bill to allow Wanganui to ban gang patches, yes or no?

Hon MARK BURTON: The Government will give careful consideration to the member’s—[Interruption] I have only the member’s word that he is going to introduce a bill. We have not seen any bill. How could we possibly say we will support something that does not yet exist? When the member produces a copy of a bill, the Government will give it fair and proper consideration. If it proved to be an effective mechanism for having an impact on criminal gang activity, then of course we would give it strong consideration.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table Tuesday’s New Zealand Herald report in which Greg O’Connor says that gangs are “out of control”.

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

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table the Hansard of Phil Goff’s speech during the debate on counter-terrorism legislation, where he states New Zealand is committed on every front to fight against terrorism.

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

Diabetes—Type 2 Incidence

7. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Health: Has he been informed of comments made yesterday by Diabetes New Zealand president, Murray Dear, that the prevalence of type 2 diabetes has rocketed ahead of official predictions, and there will be a severe impact not only “on the suffering of thousands of people with severe diabetes complications, but … across the whole health system as funds are dragged from other areas of need to stem the demands of diabetes.”; if so, what is his response?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Health): Yes, I am aware of the comments made, and the modelling, by Diabetes New Zealand, which are a welcome and useful addition to our understanding of the future challenges that the incidence of diabetes will provide to all of the world’s developed nations. Paradoxically, it is important to stress that the increase in the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes is due in part to the fact that our improved screening processes have identified that more people are suffering from this disease than previously, and that they can now receive treatment and lifestyle advice to prevent complications.

Dr Pita Sharples: What plans are in place to ensure the Government will invest an additional $50 million to prevent and treat diabetes, as recommended by PricewaterhouseCoopers, if the country is to avoid the massive future cost of preventing and treating diabetes, such as that involved in heart failure, blindness, circulatory problems, and amputations?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: A range of initiatives is in place that looks particularly at obesity, which is the single biggest cause of about 30 percent of the increase in diabetes. The Healthy Eating - Healthy Action initiative of the Ministry of Health has been applauded by a number of international medical publications, including The Lancet from the UK.

Barbara Stewart: Does the Minister believe that taxpayers got value for money from the recently ended 3-year, $4.26 million Māori diabetes prevention study organised by Auckland University’s Waikato clinical school; if so, why?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I cannot give the member a specific answer to that, but I can say that there has been a 29 percent increase in the Māori “Get Checked” figures—that is, the figures of Māori detected with diabetes in the last 3 years. I think that that is a pretty good, significant result.

Dr Pita Sharples: So what response will the Minister offer to the 15,000 Māori people who are reported to be feeling ripped off and betrayed by the canning of the $4.26 million diabetes prevention study managed by Auckland University’s Waikato clinical school—a project funded by the Ministry of Health, the Health Research Council of New Zealand, and two district health boards—which aimed to respond to the crisis situation that 40 percent of Māori are expected to develop type 2 diabetes, with 5 percent of that number dying each year?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: All studies have a beginning and an end, and I cannot comment on the fact that 4 years have gone by with this particular study. But I can say that the incidence of type 2 diabetes is increasing in every developed country as a result of changes in lifestyle and ageing populations. New Zealand, however, compares very favourably with other countries of a similar social and economic background. I think that that in itself indicates that New Zealand is up with the play and is doing everything reasonable in this area at the present time.

Dr Pita Sharples: Has the Minister seen comments from Waikato District Health Board member David Gilgen that criticised the failure of the Waikato clinical school’s Māori diabetes prevention strategy, saying that Māori felt patronised and used as second-class citizens; and what assurances can the Minister give that ethical standards will be reviewed to ensure that future research does not exploit Māori for the benefit of the researcher and not for the people, as appears to have happened in this instance?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: No, I have not seen those comments. All I can say is that in my experience of the health system in New Zealand, high ethical standards are maintained pretty consistently.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy

8. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with the statement of the Southland Kindergarten Association president, Paddy Lewis, regarding the 20 free hours policy, that “If we don’t raise the fees … then we are not going to be viable.”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I note that the Southland Kindergarten Association has just issued a media release to clarify its position in which it notes that it is unfortunate it is being used as a political football. It states: “If parents bring their 20 Hours to a Southland Kindergarten they will not pay any fee, they will not pay any optional charges—so any talk over increased fees is irrelevant to them.”

Katherine Rich: How does he feel about being the guy who is, through his 20 hours free policy, turning the once-proud free kindergarten movement into one that is considering charging fees that, in some cases, are 700 percent more than the present donations?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: A whole lot better than the girl who seems to want to undermine a policy that is hugely popular around the country.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Does the Minister accept recent survey findings that the vast majority of early childhood education managers, teachers, and parents support the principles of free early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I do, and the Labour-led Government will deliver on this principle. But I also challenge the National Party to come clean with New Zealand families and admit that by the next election it will support this policy, too.

Katherine Rich: The girl has this to ask: what did the Minister mean when he said that after the early childhood reforms are rolled out, “the chances of making a profit” from early childhood education provision will be “very, very low … simply because the sector will over time become more like the compulsory schooling sector and the chances of making a profit will be almost nil.” It looks like he is telling the 1,100 private operators to get out of the business now.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: On behalf of this guy, can I say that the policy was never intended to make profits for particular centres. We are, of course, keen that centres make a surplus that they can reinvest in improving their property, or wages, or conditions, or whatever they might want to do. But this policy has never been a profit-making policy.

Katherine Rich: Why should anyone invest in early childhood education provision to reduce the current waiting lists that working parents face, when he, as Minister, has gone out and said that he wants the early childhood sector to be controlled like the State sector is, and that “the chances of making a profit will be almost nil.”—why does he think people invest?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The second part of the question is wrong; I have not gone out and said anything of the kind that the member has indicated. But I would say to anybody who wants to go into early childhood education provision that the Government pays for the establishment of centres; we are, both through Work and Income and through the Ministry of Education, paying for this particular service; we are in the kindergarten area, of course, paying for teachers’ wages; we are paying for enhancement of performance; and we are paying for computers. I say that if I were looking at entering this area at the present time, I would want in.

Katherine Rich: Is the Minister now resiling from his comments to the Sunday Star-Times that for those thinking of getting involved in providing early childhood education “the chances of making a profit” will be “very, very low … simply because the sector will over time become more like the compulsory schooling sector and the chances of making a profit will be almost nil.”; does he not understand that people go into business to pay their bills and make a profit?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think we have a divide between the two parties here. Of course we want to see all early childhood educators in a position to be able to provide high-quality early childhood education. I was pointing out that we are in the middle of a 10-year strategy—we are 5 years in, and we have 5 years to go. As we move through that strategy, for example, we will build a fully qualified, fully registered teaching workforce, and all of its members will be paid proper teachers’ wages. Those are the kinds of things we are focused on; we are not focused on the notion that the member seems to be obsessed with, which is that people should be able to make a profit.

Katherine Rich: When the Minister’s own officials tell him that in the event that his so-called 20 free hours policy is a success—which we all doubt—30 percent of our communities will not have the capacity in terms of spaces, does he think he will somehow provide that capacity through just the State sector, without the assistance of private providers, who invest their own money into setting up these centres?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It seems to have escaped the member’s attention that the State owns none of the early childhood education sector. The sector is either community-owned or privately owned; we own none of it. What we are doing, however, is funding the most massive expansion of early childhood education that the member will see anywhere around the world. On top of that, we are funding the professionalisation strategy, the regulation strategy, the building of these centres, and the equipment of these centres. I am not quite sure what the member wants us to do. But I come back to the point that we do not own these centres.

Katherine Rich: Why did the Minister single out Kidicorp for comment when he made the bizarre statement that the Government would trawl through financial reports to see whether centres were making a profit, then look at whether the Government subsidy was appropriate, when the Prime Minister had opened one of Kidicorp’s centres only a few weeks earlier, thereby endorsing it?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I too would go on record as endorsing Kidicorp as a quality provider of early childhood education. But I would single out all providers of early childhood education. We have a system for monitoring how they run their centres. We audit them every year. We do not single anybody out. But, of course, this money is taxpayers’ money and we will make sure it is spent properly.

Question No. 7 to Minister

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I seek leave to table the New Zealand Herald article of 7 May 2007, headed “Diabetes cases soar beyond forecasts”.

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

Dr PITA SHARPLES: I seek leave to table the Waikato Times article of 5 May 2007 headed “Waikato diabetes study ends in failure”.

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

Quality Regulation Review—Second Milestone Report

9. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce: Has she received any responses to the second milestone report of the Quality Regulation Review; if so, what did they say?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): Yes, I received a copy of the statement put out by Business New Zealand’s Phil O’Reilly. He welcomed the report, stating that it should be seen as a first step towards a significant and ongoing improvement in the quality of regulation. He went on to say that a key outcome was the strengthening of the regulatory impact analysis process for regulation, which came into effect on 1 April this year.

Maryan Street: Is the Minister confident that the review will produce improvements in the business environment; if so, why?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, I am, because the actual proposals have come from the individual businesses that have either participated in the sector reviews or submitted to the Business Consultation Website. This is very much a bottom-up review from the perspective of business. Given that New Zealand ranks No. 2 in the World Bank ease of doing business survey, it is not surprising that relatively small changes make a big difference to small to medium sized enterprises.

Child, Youth and Family—Juvenile Sex Offenders

10. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Does she have confidence in Child, Youth and Family’s ability to supervise juvenile sex offenders; if so, why?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): I have confidence in Child, Youth and Family’s approval process and selection procedure for the caregivers of the young people who are in the youth justice system, around 130 of whom are sex offenders. I am very disturbed that the young man who is the subject of public attention currently was able to breach the court-imposed conditions of his supervision order. The department is reviewing the situation to see why that occurred and what can be done to ensure that it does not happen again. I can assure the House that the caregivers involved are very aware of the fact that this situation was unacceptable.

Anne Tolley: Why did Child, Youth and Family not notify Napier police when it moved a convicted teenage sex offender into the district and placed him in a home next door to a vulnerable 5-year-old girl?

Hon RUTH DYSON: It was not a requirement of the court decision for anyone to be informed of that, but in my view—and, actually, in the agreed protocols between Child, Youth and Family and the police—that should have happened. When he was originally put into the community 1 year ago, the police were informed. The police were not informed when he was transferred. That was a breach of the protocols. I have told the department that that is not acceptable.

Russell Fairbrother: What are the key pieces of work that Child, Youth and Family is engaged in that support and rehabilitate young offenders in New Zealand?

Hon RUTH DYSON: A great deal of work is under way. It includes the implementation of the recommendations of the youth justice capability review, which strengthens Child, Youth and Family’s ability in this area; working with other agencies, particularly health and education agencies, at an early stage, such as through the health and education assessment programme; implementing a range of actions under the Youth Offending Strategy; working in partnership with both the police and Women’s Refuge with the new case management system; increasing the number of social workers, and, in particular, the number of registered social workers; and increasing the workforce training and capacity of the youth justice services generally.

Barbara Stewart: Are there other sex offenders under full-time supervision in communities that are also unaware of the danger to their children; if so, what is the Minister doing to ensure that the Napier situation is not repeated elsewhere around the country?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I am advised that about 130 young people who are sex offenders are living in the community.

Anne Tolley: How did this sex offender, who has been convicted of four heinous crimes against young children and who is under 24-hour supervision, manage to get away from his three supervisors 14 times in 3 weeks, without any action being taken to remove this predator from the neighbourhood at risk?

Hon RUTH DYSON: It happened because the supervisor, who was paid and required to maintain him under 24/7 supervision, breached that condition of the contract between the supervisor and Child, Youth and Family. That is not acceptable. On the first occasion that the department was alerted to that, action was taken and the young man was removed.

Anne Tolley: Does the Minister realise that two of the supervisors charged with protecting the community from this man were in fact away getting Chinese takeaways when the 5-year-old’s mother discovered this sexual predator with his face pressed hard against the window, staring into her daughter’s playroom?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I certainly have read that report. I am also advised that the primary caregiver did advise the neighbour that this young man was not to leave the property and that he did have significant behavioural challenges, and asked that he be advised if he left. So I am surprised that it took as long as it did for any action to be taken. That does not justify any of the caregivers breaching the requirements of their contract.

Chris Tremain: Is the Minister aware that the person responsible for the supervision of this juvenile sex offender had previously departed under a cloud from Kauri Trust Youth Services in Auckland, a trust responsible for high-risk residential clients, and was this information considered when making the appointment for the Napier contract?

Hon RUTH DYSON: No, actually, and having heard the member’s reported comments, I am not sure whether anything at all that that member says in relation to this case is accurate. I am confident about both the approval and the selection procedures that Child, Youth and Family undertakes when contracting with caregivers of this kind.

Chris Tremain: Has the juvenile sex offender in question been relocated in Napier with the same supervisor; if so, what assurances can the Minister give to the Napier mother of the five-year-old girl and the parents of other Napier children that their children are safe from this predator?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The primary caregiver is still the same person—not all the supervisors that are required; the primary caregiver is. The young man will be appearing in court tomorrow, and after that his situation will be in the hands of the justice system.

Beachheads and Incubator Programmes—Support

11. DAVE HEREORA (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: Has he received any reports on support for the Government’s Beachheads and Incubator programmes?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Acting Minister for Economic Development): Yes, many. One described the Government’s Incubator programme as “very impressive” and “doing a good job”. It also commented that the Beachheads programme was “very promising”. However, an alternative commentator said that the Beachheads programme has “made little impact, had incomplete policy objectives, and a lack of data to provide full analysis.” The first was John Key; the second was Katherine Rich. It is pretty clear that Bill English is not the only one in the National Party whom John Key fails to consult.

Dave Hereora: Has he received any reports on the results delivered by the Beachheads programme?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes. Unlimited magazine has commented that the Beachheads programme is “speeding the growth of some of our brightest stars.” The success of Beachheads shows that this Labour-led Government is enabling New Zealand firms to become world class and internationally competitive.

Health, Minister—Consultation by District Health Boards and Crown Entities

12. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: What recent reports, if any, has he received regarding problems with consultation undertaken by district health boards and Crown entities under his jurisdiction?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Health): The Minister receives many reports on consultation. Consultation requirements are laid out in legislation and policy. District health boards and Crown entities are expected to comply with those requirements. A number of parties, as the member knows, are currently testing or considering testing that issue.

Dr Jackie Blue: Will the Minister explain why his inability to step in to ensure proper consultation has now resulted in an unprecedented number of legal actions, such as the appeal of the Labtests Auckland case, the judicial review of the Waikato and Bay of Plenty district health boards’ community laboratory contracts, the proposed legal action by pharmacists against the district health board pharmacy contract, and now the possible judicial review of Pharmac’s decision to fund 9 weeks of Herceptin?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: All those actions seem to me to be within the framework of the rule of law and democratic action that people are entitled to take in this country. I ask whether the member would have us stop them doing that.

Dr Jackie Blue: Why is it that the district health boards, during the pharmacy contract consultation process, treated the pharmacists so appallingly, by stalling, threatening, imposing unilateral conditions, and completely failing to consult; and can he understand why those first-line health professionals feel as though they have been backed into a corner?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: All I can say is that as a constituency member I know there has been considerable consultation on the pharmacy contract. The fact that some pharmacists are not happy with it does not surprise me—that goes with the territory—but in the end these are matters that have to be worked out by the district health boards themselves, because our framework requires that they have the authority and delegated responsibility for doing so.

Dr Jackie Blue: Does the Minister believe that the Pharmac board entered into the Herceptin consultation process with an open mind, when half the Pharmac board members are either board members or chairs of district health boards, another is involved in district health board funding, and the observer member is the chief executive of a district heath board; and when, because of the board make-up, the final decision was biased and based purely on budgets and not the scientific evidence?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am advised that Pharmac consulted on that issue and received 250 submissions. If the member has any specific information on any bias or leanings by members of Pharmac that she believes are outside of the framework required of independent agency members like the members of Pharmac, she should supply them to the Minister or to me, and I will see that they are looked at.

Dr Jackie Blue: Can the Minister see that he has failed miserably as Minister of Health and that the unprecedented number of legal actions is a resounding vote of no confidence in his appalling, arrogant management; and instead of using taxpayers’ money to pay massive legal bills, would it not be better to use that money to improve the health of the people who need it?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: What I can say, after many years in this Parliament, is that our health system is inordinately better than it used to be, and that basically every single member of this House who has to deal with health matters knows that. At a primary, secondary, and tertiary level we are doing much, much better than ever before. If the member wants chapter and verse on that, she should ask me a written question and I will give her a book on it.

Dr Jackie Blue: I seek leave of the House to table two documents. The first is a letter dated 24 April from Chen Palmer and Partners to the chief executive officer of the Otago District Health Board, outlining the concerns the Pharmacy Guild of New Zealand has with the pharmacy services agreement.

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

Dr Jackie Blue: The second is the Pharmac board’s interest register dated March 2007, indicating that half of the Pharmac board members are either board members or chairs of district health boards.

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

Urgent Debates Declined

Wanganui—Gang-related Tensions

Madam SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 gang-related tensions in Wanganui. The urgent debate procedure is intended to allow the House to debate a particular event that has occurred that involves ministerial responsibility; it is not a means of debating a general state of affairs—however concerning it may be—such as gang-related tensions. I therefore cannot accept this application.

Bills

Social Security Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 3 May.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): In considering the complex web of issues entangled in our social security system, I sought some conventional wisdom from the Waitangi Tribunal. I found its conclusions highly relevant to today’s debate: “When such a system produces children who are not adequately educated they are put at a disadvantage when they try to find work. If they cannot get work that satisfies them they become unemployed and live on the dole. When they live on the dole they become disillusioned, discontented and angry. … They are no more than representatives of many others in our community. When one significant section of the community burns with a sense of injustice”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Could members leave quietly, please; there is too much noise.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: —“the rest of the community cannot safely pretend that there is no reason for their discontent. This is a recipe for social unrest and all that goes with it.” That description is as true in 2007 as it was 21 years ago in 1986, yet when we in the Māori Party dared to raise the heat on the issue of welfare dependency the wolves were on the attack, accusing us of redneck politics, benefit bashing, joining with the right, te mea, te mea, te mea. The issue that all should have sufficient income to be able to participate in society and in their communities must be above the petty politicking we see from time to time in this House. The Māori Party will continue to bring heat to bear on the debate and to talk about the alarming dependency on welfare in Aotearoa, which is a symptom of a much bigger picture—a picture that successive Governments desperately try to hide and deny, or to blame previous Governments for. We refuse to refrain from asking questions. Why are 28 percent of Māori over 15 receiving a benefit, compared with 10.5 percent for the national average? Why is it that of those receiving sickness benefit—some 48,000—26 percent are Māori? [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am sorry; yes, it really is far too loud. Can I just ask members to give the speakers a fair go. It really is just impossible for people to hear the speaker. I do apologise. Dr Pita Sharples.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: Why is that of those receiving invalids benefits—some 77,000 in our country—21 percent are Māori? The last time I spoke on the Social Security Amendment Bill, I said it had at its core a clever move by the Government to focus on beneficiaries, claiming the necessity for people to participate in the labour market with work as an appropriate outcome. I am pleased that this most obvious neo-liberal tenet has been removed and that it is not now a requirement for beneficiaries to undertake activities in the community in order to receive a benefit. But the ever-pervasive threat of neo-liberalism can still be found in the “work first” approach that any paid work—however menial, however poor the conditions and rate of pay—is better than no paid work at all.

We must work together in this House to ensure that people are not isolated, alienated, or made to feel they have little value. We must work to dispel any notion that the circumstances in which individuals find themselves are a result of their individual failings and shortcomings. Let us instead sit down and really examine the notion of market forces, the role of the State in that, and the creation and maintenance of the rich and the poor. There is one thing I can say, which is that the poor did not create poverty. So if they did not, then who did?

Too often in this debate, individual beneficiaries are targeted. The Māori Party knows too well a sense of hopelessness that exists amongst some of our benefit-dependent families. We have tasted the terror of substance abuse, of alcohol, and of negative health statistics that devour some of our whānau. We have smelt the fear of rising crime, and violence, and suicide statistics. We have watched in horror as whānau disintegrate, falling through the cracks of the education system, alienated from their families by the State, and incarcerated in ever-increasing droves. It has worn out our people. Where does hope lie?

We are intolerant of a persistent focus on producing and supplying workers without necessarily considering the availability of appropriate jobs. I am concerned at the impact in my very own electorate of Tamaki Makaurau of the closing of the Fisher and Paykel factory and the loss of 350 jobs. This House demands to know the economic philosophies and circumstances that have caused this. We have had enough of our people becoming entrapped in a welfare net, with the only hope of escape being a job paying an amount that no one in this Chamber would get out of bed for. When will we see a “Let’s Create Full Employment Bill”, a “Good Jobs Only Bill” prohibiting poor work conditions, and an “Affordable for All Quality Childcare Bill”? This House pulled together last week to progress legislation to increase the safety and well-being of children, but we are back here today to debate a bill that entrenches the poverty of the most vulnerable of them. We must face these particular failures before we can even hope to address welfare dependency—the failure of an economic system to redistribute wealth equitably and the failure of a political system to provide meaningful work, sufficient income to participate in society, and optimum conditions to stimulate well-being.

This bill, the Social Security Amendment Bill, seeks to change the benefit application process—to tinker with the bureaucracy. We do welcome some of this tinkering as a matter of course. We support the fact that beneficiaries are not going to be required to submit to ever-increasing processes for determining eligibility—the Scoble principle. We welcome confirmation that the Taylor principle will be upheld in part—that is, that applications do not necessarily need to be in writing. But despite the Scoble and Taylor case laws, we do not see any incentives in this bill for the quality of service that Māori clients receive to be improved. Nowhere in this bill does it do anything to look at the broader structural problems—the problems that for well over a century our Māori leaders have identified as undermining our tikanga, our thinking, and endangering our life force. Yes, I am referring to the colonial policies of land thefts and the appropriation of resources. For we can never forget this context in any debate on Māori welfare dependency—a context that the Foreshore and Seabed Act proved is also a “this” century context.

There is little or no analysis of why the numbers of people on sickness and invalid benefits have increased in the first place. We know that the number of New Zealanders in these two categories of benefits has risen sharply to 124,000. The Minister confirmed in March this year that there has been a transfer of 8.5 percent of people from the unemployment benefit to the sickness benefit. The Child Poverty Action Group has explained the increase in the number of people on sickness and invalids benefits as being part of a broader cycle throughout OECD nations. They see it as the “cyclical feedback loop of poverty—the more people there are in poverty, the more people there are who get sick.”

We must talk real in this House. The bill does nothing to address the disproportionate and ongoing unemployment of Māori. This bill does nothing to put a halt to the spiralling storms of cynicism, apathy, anger, and despondency that beset too many of our communities. This bill does not address the trauma of the working poor, the tragedy of unrealised potential, the desperation of inadequate housing, and the morbid consequences of escalating levels of crime. The bill continues to paint the proposition that the beneficiaries are victims of their own making. It ignores the deep, underlying systemic causes of poverty and of vast disparities; issues such as institutional racism. We have called, and will continue to call for, a fresh look at the way in which we can assist people to be productive—to be gainfully employed in work that is meaningful, productive, and skill-enhancing. By that we do not mean people being pushed into programmes that make it look as if society is busy being busy.

I liked the comment from Daniel Quinn in Beyond Civilization: Humanity’s Next Great Adventure, where he said: “If programs don’t work, then what does work? In fact I have an even better way of asking the question: What works so well that programs are superfluous? What works so well that it never occurs to anyone to create programmes to make it work? The answer to all these questions is: vision.” This Social Security Amendment Bill is not about vision; it is not about hope. The Māori Party will not support this bill.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to support the second reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill. The bill introduces some important changes to the principal Act, the Social Security Act, which provides the framework for income support in New Zealand. The most significant is an addition to the principles of the Act so that, where appropriate, benefits are paid to people with a clear work focus underpinning the support on offer.

Work and Income will have three streams of work in regard to its clients. The first is work support, which will target people on the unemployment benefit and includes some pre-benefit activities. The second stream is work development support for those who have commitments or challenges that make paid work a goal but not an immediate reality—for instance, people on the domestic purposes benefit, sickness benefit, and some people on the invalids benefit. The third stream of work will be community support for clients who have no realistic chance of participating in paid work but who require support to find appropriate ways to connect with others in their community, and that would include some people on the sickness and invalids benefits.

This bill is all about expectations. Most people in New Zealand derive income by meeting a set of expectations that are either self-imposed, in the case of the self-employed, or imposed by an employer. Expectation is the basis of a person’s work ethic. United Future has always advocated for the notion that paying a benefit minus a reasonable expectation is foolish. Expectations need to be tailored to the type of benefit being paid. For instance, the expectation on those receiving the unemployment benefit should be understandably different from those that apply to a beneficiary on a sickness benefit or invalids benefit. The unemployed need to be actively meeting expectations that see them doing all that is in their power to be work-ready. Sickness beneficiaries need to respond to an expectation regarding making every effort to recover.

The bill also increases the expectations placed on the staff of Work and Income. More active case management includes being more responsive to the needs of beneficiaries for whom we have no work expectation—those for whom any expectation of this kind would be unrealistic and, quite probably, cruel. United Future is pleased that the community support section of this fresh approach recognises that beneficiaries can often need support beyond income, and that Work and Income case managers will now have an explicit mandate to cater in a more holistic way to those clients.

This brings me to the United Future minority view included in the commentary on this bill. We were concerned—and others agreed with us—that removing work with the community agencies from sanction provisions within the bill was included. We were particularly concerned that those on the unemployment benefit living in more rural communities where other work experience options are more limited may miss out by excluding those provisions. We felt that a case manager should be able to require a client to gain relevant experience with a community organisation, particularly where there were no other options.

I have explored ways in which a Supplementary Order Paper could be designed to that end. However, with the way that this bill is structured it became obvious that it would be very difficult to change the bill without having the unintentional consequence of creating sanction provisions for beneficiaries with severe and complex disabilities. It was also difficult to design and word a Supplementary Order Paper that did not reduce the flexibility of case managers, who need to tailor plans to individual clients.

We also believe that although community organisations still present a real opportunity for work experience, further work with the community sector would need to be done so that it was comfortable about taking on a role that included sanction provisions, whereby it would possibly have a role in regard to sanctions. I believe it would be wrong to change this bill by Supplementary Order Paper, to satisfy my concerns at this point, without proper consultation with those directly implicated, and by that I mean those in the community sector. So at this stage United Future is prepared not to move a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage as we had planned, because one does not do that unless one is sure one is adding value and getting it right. We do not believe right now that the timing of this would be correct.

However, we would like to encourage some more discussion to begin between the department and the community sector. We think there is real potential for a relationship between Work and Income and the community sector in this regard. We particularly think there is relevance in this regard in provincial centres where there are limited opportunities for work experience opportunities to be offered, particularly to those on the unemployment benefit. We think there is real opportunity for dialogue in this regard, so we signal that interest. I thank the officials who have worked patiently with me on this matter as I have tried to find a way forward and been unsuccessful.

As I said earlier, we could make progress, but it would be to the detriment of people whom we did not intend to hit with a sanction, and I am not prepared to do that—I know that the Green member will be very pleased about that. But I kind of support our minority view in that I still think there is much to be discussed around this matter. I think the community sector would be very open in some cases to helping with this, and I encourage the department to continue exploring those options, but we will support the second reading.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am pleased to rise in support of the Social Security Amendment Bill. As members are aware, the bill signals the commitment the Government has to work with people to assist them to move into work appropriate for their circumstances. We believe that delivering the services that get people working is a key priority. Work changes people’s lives; it is very simple.

Getting New Zealanders into work—real work for real wages—is pivotal to Labour’s economic transformation agenda. This Labour-led Government has had huge success in reducing unemployment numbers. Since first taking office in 1999 Labour has reduced unemployment numbers from around 161,000 then, to a 27-year low a month ago of 28,845. That is a dramatic decrease in numbers on the unemployment benefit of over 132,000 New Zealanders.

Long-term unemployment has continued to drop, with an 83 percent reduction since 1999. In December 1999 there were 70,438 people on the unemployment benefit for over a year, and in March this year, that number was just over 12,000—as I say, 83 percent fewer. Of course, the decline in the number of people on the unemployment benefit means that it is very timely to take action to build on the progress that has been made by ensuring that all people have the right, work-focused services right from the start.

The bill introduces a number of additional requirements for people on the unemployment benefit that will ensure that these fantastic trends continue. These requirements build on the success of the Job Search Service to date. The Job Search Service is Work and Income’s new 13-week job search support programme for unemployment benefit clients and for any people who are receiving other benefits who choose to take part. Providing Work and Income with the ability to require people on the unemployment benefit to include a particular activity in their job seeker agreement will mean that people can be directed towards skills training that will be beneficial for their search for work, their placement in work, and the quality of the work they do.

The introduction of a pre-benefit activity requirement will also encourage those people for whom an unemployment benefit is the appropriate benefit to engage upfront with Work and Income—a very positive step to have taken. Work and Income intends to make pre-benefit activities available quickly; usually within 3 working days. The member’s proposed amendments to the bill to require any pre-benefit activity to be specified in writing first would inevitably result in delays in providing those opportunities, which, I am sure, is something that she would not wish for, either. Removing activity in the community from the activities that people on the unemployment benefit can do in order to meet their work test requirements is also, in my view, a very positive step in this legislation.

We all know what good shape the economy is in. There are plenty of real, sustainable jobs out there, so why should we tie people on the unemployment benefit who are available for work now into a 26-week programme that has not demonstrated its effectiveness? Work-tested clients will still be able to access other programmes that have been shown to have positive employment outcomes—like work experience, wage subsidies, and training programmes.

This bill also introduces an activity test for 16 and 17-year-olds on the independent youth benefit. This is, I believe, much more appropriate than the work test they currently face. I am sure we all agree that young people should actively be encouraged to participate in education and training. Staying within the education system will have a far more positive long-term outcome for them than their leaving school and attempting to find work. Having our young people engaged in an agreed activity of some description for a set number of hours per week sends the right message to them.

Many people who are not able to work because of an impairment are able to do so with appropriate support. The bill encourages this and provides for people to plan to move towards work in the future. Planning is the start of a dialogue about the services and support that can be offered to assist people to move towards work as their personal circumstances allow.

Working New Zealand makes available to all the support that was previously available only to those on the unemployment benefit, and it makes it available at an enhanced level. We are saying that people’s aspirations will be recognised and that support will be based on individual needs and circumstances—not on benefit categories.

The bill also introduces a number of new provisions. To give one example, the ministry has not previously had a mechanism to correct the situation where a person has not completed an application for a benefit because of an error on the part of the ministry. The introduction of the new correction power addresses this lack. The bill also introduces a number of highly beneficial changes. For example, people will no longer face an income stand-down of up to 10 weeks; people will have to wait for a maximum of 2 weeks only. Carers for people who would need to be in residential care of some kind without that care will now be able to receive a benefit—previously this applied to hospital care only. Someone who is applying for an invalids benefit will no longer have to have been a New Zealand resident for 10 years; a reduction to 2 years’ qualification is a significant change.

A further Government-proposed amendment would extend the current discretion for Work and Income to continue to pay a benefit to people in receipt of the invalids benefit due to blindness when they are undertaking vocational or guide dog training overseas. The extension to the profoundly deaf community on the invalids benefit has some merit, but I consider that the amendment will discriminate against other disabled people. Therefore, we have prepared an amendment—which will be tabled this afternoon—to extend the provision to anyone who is eligible for and receiving the invalids benefit. I thank my colleague Lynne Pillay for her role in strongly advocating this amendment and bringing it so assiduously to the attention of Cabinet.

In addition, for the first time the bill introduces purpose and principles provisions into the Social Security Act. Some of these statements are new, others are based on existing case law. They are intended to make the law easier to understand and much more accessible. Certainly there is no intent to undermine the purposes set out in the long title of the 1938 Act. Nor is there any intention to undervalue the caring roles that people have or to devalue the importance of parenting and the care of children. Paid work is key in people’s lives, but people for whom work is not appropriate will continue to be supported—certainly while this Government is on the Treasury benches.

The approach that this bill takes towards investing in people underpins the social policies at the heart of this Labour-led Government. Nowhere has that investment shown greater value than in the results of our policy for the Māori and Pacific Island community. The number of Māori on the unemployment benefit in 1999 was 44,378. That number is now 9,902. The number of Māori aged 18 and 19 on the unemployment benefit in 1999 was 6,276. That number is now an extraordinary 605. Māori who had been long-term unemployed for more than 1 year in 1999 numbered 20,598. That number is now 3,711.

As for the Pacific Island community, well, in 1999, 12,317 Pacific Islanders were receiving the unemployment benefit. That number is now 2,568—a 79 percent reduction. In 1999, when National was last in Government, the number of Pacific Islanders in the category of 18 and 19-year-old unemployment was 1,544. That number is now a commendable 194.

The most powerful figure is the final one I will share with the House—that is, the total number of 18 and 19-year-old recipients of the unemployment benefit. In 1999 that number stood at 15,855. After nearly 8 years of this Government that number is now 1,566—a 90 percent reduction in youth unemployment. That is the most powerful message that this Government could give to any community.

Finally, may I commend the highly professional and diligent work of Sue Mackwell and her team in the ministry. I am delighted that they are able to be with us today. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Social Security Amendment Bill, which our colleague Pita Sharples has pointed out is not about vision and is not about hope. I would add that it is about Labour Government bureaucracy and Labour Government social engineering.

We have just heard the Minister quoting selectively the unemployment figures since 1999, but the real legacy of Labour must go back to 1990 when, after 6 years in Government, it left Pacific Island unemployment in the order of 35 percent and Māori unemployment in the order of 22 percent. Over the succeeding 9 years there was a dramatic trend downwards. Where the Minister goes to claim that Labour has made any difference at all to unemployment figures, the difference has occurred despite the Labour Government, not because of it—despite the Labour Government, not because of it.

We in National would have gladly supported this bill for its objectives, but, sadly, it has been manipulated and distorted in the usual way that Labour is inclined to do in its Pavlovian-dog reflex, which requires it to bring in more and more bureaucracy and more and more complication. I just quote to members the Ministry of Social Development’s aim in September 2007 for support case managers: 55 new employment coordinators, principal health adviser, principal disability adviser, 13 health advisers, 13 disability advisers, and 13 health and disability provider liaison coordinators—whatever they are. [Interruption] I ask Steve Chadwick over on the Government benches to tell us what these 13 health and disability provider liaison coordinators will be doing. They are just adding more and more bureaucracy to this ever-increasing mountain of bureaucracy that we have seen this Labour Government preside over in the last 9 years.

This Government’s spending has caused interest rates to go sky high and exporters have been crippled because of it. When we hear David Benson-Pope showing some sympathy for Fisher and Paykel, we should just remember that his Government has been utterly profligate. When we look at his plans in this bill to bring more and more bureaucracy, we realise what a mess Labour has made to New Zealand over the last 9 years.

When I hear Pita Sharples saying: “This bill is not about vision, it is not about hope. What has it done for Māori?”, I agree with him. Because, after all, it was Sir Apirana Ngata back in the 1930s who said to all New Zealanders, Māori and non-Māori: “Just be careful of being trapped in the welfare dependency trap.” He was absolutely right in saying that—and this is the very sort of thing that this bill is doing. This Government is in denial of knowing that that is what is happening.

One of the things that is particularly interesting in this bill is the requirement for the plan. The plan was to go to all the various beneficiaries and was to be the forerunner of what they were expected to do. Well, we find out that beneficiaries might be shown the plan, but they do not have to keep the plan. Some of them are given the plan but then it is taken away from them and they do not see it for a year. They do not have to act on the plan in any way or show responsibility for the plan. That is an absolute sop of what this Government was trying to initially do in this bill, which I understand was to begin the movement towards a work-focused system by ensuring that requirements on recipients are aligned with significant developments in service delivery and support.

Here we have a plan that beneficiaries are supposed to work out with support and then do something about, but in actuality we heard from the Rotorua Peoples Advocacy Centre, which did a study for the Families Commission, that the plans are put in place rather than a work test, but there is no need to act on them whatsoever or even to carry the plan out. That is the sort of lack of accountability this Labour Government requires of those beneficiaries. That is the sort of looseness this Labour Government perpetuates in this area of welfare, and it is very, very bad for New Zealand.

Of course, we have seen this phenomenal increase in the number of invalids and sickness beneficiaries over the last 7 years—a 50 percent increase. There is absolutely no requirement made by the Labour Government to make sure that the assessment to go on those benefits has improved in any way. We have heard the Minister say that one in five of those sickness and invalids beneficiaries is actually fit for work, but there has been absolutely no effort made on behalf of this Labour Government to tighten those assessments. That again is another indictment on this Labour Government.

I think it is fair to say that this bill does tinker with the bureaucracy. It does not do anything to bring in the basic, simple incentives that should be brought in—reward for effort, reward for individual responsibility, and reward for accomplishments or qualifications. None of those signals are there, and they should be absolutely spelt out, cleanly and clearly.

It is very interesting that we have in the commentary the definition of full-time employment. I would have thought that this would be pretty easy. I think that back in the days of Richard Seddon it used to be 8 hours’ work, 8 hours’ play, and 8 hours’ sleep. That was just one of the basic definitions. But in the commentary on the bill we see that the Labour Government is recommending the deletion of the new definition of “full employment or full-time employment”—because the Government thinks it is too hard. It thinks it is unclear because it refers to an average period.

We see that it was thought that the proposed change would clarify the definition, and that the intent of the proposal was to increase rather than reduce the period over which employment could be averaged. Once again, the Government is unable even to define the basis on which the Labour Party began—back in the good old days. It cannot do that; it is just too hard.

In the meantime the newly elected French President has said to the French people that a 35-hour week is not enough to increase their economic growth and that their hours of work will have to be increased. That country’s productivity rate exceeds New Zealand’s enormously. Under this Labour Government our rate of productivity has been stagnant over the last 7 years—and Labour cannot even define what full employment is all about. It cannot even define what Seddon defined way back in the early part of the last century.

Unfortunately, the Social Security Amendment Bill has been eroded and jumbled up by this Labour Government in a very bad way. It was an opportunity to see a new vision for, and to put new hope into, the benefit system in New Zealand, which would have allowed clear incentives for people to proceed on to work. Instead the bill is mired in bureaucracy; it is mired in social engineering.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): What a sad speech that was from the member of the Opposition, who does not even take account of the number of people in this country whom we are proud of: beneficiaries who have moved into work. It is great as a Government to be able to go out there and say: “Well done, and we’ve got more work to do.”. We know that on this side of the House. I shall hold up this graph, so that all members can see the stunning decline in the number of New Zealanders who are receiving a benefit since this Labour-led coalition came into Government in 1999.

I think the Social Security Amendment Bill, the title of which does not say much about the bill itself, at least holds on to the fundamental tenets of a social security system and provides a social benefit net for all those people who genuinely need a benefit at different phases of their life. We keep proud to that brand, but this bill launches a new approach in terms of the way we work alongside, and with, beneficiaries.

I will just mention the unemployment figures in Rotorua. The Government is getting good coverage at home, because that is one of our good news stories. We used to talk about youth crime, truancy, and the problems of vagrancy, and that was all because so many people were unemployed, doing nothing, and getting up to mischief. Well, our jobless figures at home are really impressive. We have only 1,182 locals in the Rotorua electorate who are receiving the unemployment benefit. That is a 27-year low. I will not accept the Opposition’s claim that we have done nothing and are benefiting from a booming economy that is humming along. The improvement has happened because of an active, hands-on approach by the Ministry of Social Development and the fantastic work done locally, along with youth transitions programmes—principals at schools identifying young people who want to leave school and go on to school-based training, apprenticeships, or university careers, or to get some good in-work training.

Our figures are very impressive. In 1999, 4,769 people were on the unemployment benefit. No one can tell me that reducing that figure has not had a huge impact on our community in Rotorua. It goes alongside the sense of pride that people have when they bring a cheque home and put food down on the table. That makes work pay, and that has been the fundamental tenet of this Government—that people can bring home the bacon and feed their families—along with helping people through the Working for Families package. I just mention that the Opposition has an approach whereby John Key has admitted that his tax cuts would not help as many Kiwi families as the Working for Families package does. He is not really sure what he would do about that, but if he scrapped Working for Families, 160,000 Kiwi families would be worse off than they are now. So that improvement does not happen just by chance, and that is the context that I want to mention.

We also have 500 fewer domestic purpose beneficiares than we had in 1999, and that is because of initiatives like our teen parent unit and a variety of hands-on approaches—work-ready programmes that help women to return into work after having lost confidence in their skills to get a job. Also, the bill assists people with disabilities. They have always said Governments should not tell them what they cannot do but tell them, and help them with, what they can do. They said the Government should get in beside them, get them some part-time work opportunities, and work with them. I think the figures we see at home and nationally show us that the mentoring and upskilling of those who were previously on a benefit are starting to work. Making work pay, and having that more aggressive approach to getting people off a benefit—those who genuinely work—is a wonderful approach.

Because there are so many fewer beneficiaries, we are noticing that staff are now undertaking work training that they did not have the time for when the number of beneficiaries meant it was like working in a processing unit. So 112 offices right throughout New Zealand have completed their training in readiness for the introduction of the key aspects of this legislation. We are seeing a fantastic approach today. We do need a flexible approach, and some aspects of this bill give us a little flexibility, especially in areas like Rotorua. We have a lot of forestry workers on contract work, and when suddenly the contract is over, they have a stand-down period of 10 weeks, which is too long, until they can get out and seek other work. I have had Work and Income come out to the tiny village of Kaingaroa, which is full of forestry workers, work with those workers, and say that as soon as their contract has expired, they should let the ministry know. Staff have told those workers that Work and Income will come in beside them, that the stand-down period would be only 2 weeks, and that the ministry would either get them back into training or help them to pick up another contract.

So this bill is about putting in the right services around people, at the right place and at the right time, getting a working New Zealand, and putting New Zealanders on their feet. The bill also heralds a second phase, as we get into a more targeted approach to those on a benefit. It is about simplifying the benefit. I have often heard the Opposition ask when the Minister is going to bring in a simplified benefit. We are flagging today that that is the next phase after this amendment bill, which is focused on service delivery and removing the barriers to work. Next year we will see that more simplified approach to the benefit.

I congratulate the Social Services Committee on the work it did on this bill. We looked at it very well as a committee. One good thing is the application process. It is much, much smarter. It was never set out in the legislation before, which always resulted in a lack of clarity and transparency in that area. It is also quite a complex area, so I think it is good to have it in the law. In the past we have had to rely on case law to interpret policy. So it is great to have that specificity in the bill. I think it is also great to know about the period of residency—for 2 years—for all benefits. That makes the situation much simpler. Removing the qualifying child criteria for the domestic purposes benefit and the widows benefit, and extending the definition of hospital care, which used to work in the past, out into new types of residential care—those are all amendments that may seem small, but to beneficiaries having to go on to a benefit when it is necessary, they will be helpful. It think this is a great bill. It will take us to the next step in getting New Zealanders out of the philosophy that the dole was an opt-in solution, and into work.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 59

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Arbitration Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice: I move, That the Arbitration Amendment Bill be now read a second time. On behalf of the Minister I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its careful and efficient consideration of the bill. I agree with and wholly support the committee’s amendments. The changes, I believe, improve the bill and will help encourage the use of arbitration as an alternative means of dispute resolution. The Arbitration Amendment Bill is the first of four bills giving effect to Law Commission reports that the Associate Minister of Justice is responsible for. The Wills Bill and the Succession (Homicide) Bill now await their second readings, while the Property Law Bill is currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee.

The Arbitration Amendment Bill follows the Law Commission’s review of the Arbitration Act in 1996, which was completed in 2003. The Law Commission found that although the Act was working well, some minor improvements were desirable. The Arbitration Act 1996 provides an important and increasingly preferred method for resolving civil disputes, especially where underlying relationships must be maintained. Common examples include construction projects, landlord and commercial tenant disputes, and sharemilking agreements. The bill makes a number of minor amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996 to improve its operation, with the goal of enhancing arbitration as a means of dispute resolution in New Zealand. The bill is consistent with the underlying themes of the Act—party autonomy, limited scope for judicial involvement, appropriate powers for the arbitral tribunal, and the promotion of New Zealand as a place for international arbitrations. All of the amendments contained in the bill reflect one or other of these main themes.

I now turn to the committee’s recommendations. At present under schedule 1 of the Act, if a party is having difficulty with a witness or obtaining evidence, that party is required to approach the arbitral tribunal for its assistance. Clause 8, as introduced, proposed to remove that requirement, instead enabling parties to go straight to the District Court or High Court for a subpoena. Following public submissions, the committee considered that the amendment to this provision was not necessary. Submissions revealed that in practice the arbitral tribunal is generally able to resolve any issues that parties are having in regard to witnesses and evidence, without needing to engage the courts.

The effect of the proposed amendment would be to reduce the control the tribunal has over the process, instead providing for easier access to the courts. This is at odds with the underlying themes of the Arbitration Act—namely, reduced judicial intervention and increased control of the process by an arbitral tribunal. The committee recommends the removal of this proposed amendment to leave the current provisions in force, and the Minister agrees with the committee’s recommendations.

The committee has also made a similar recommendation in relation to clause 9, which amends schedule 2 of the Act. Clause 9 would have removed a default procedure for the appointment of an arbitrator, where parties were unable to agree. The proposed amendment would have allowed parties to agree in their arbitration agreement on a process to resolve any difficulties they were having in appointing an arbitral tribunal. The committee recommended the removal of this proposed amendment. It was pointed out by submitters that in practice there are few problems with the current provision; under the status quo, parties are already able to avoid the default procedure by providing for an agreed process in their arbitration agreement. As a result of the committee’s recommendations, the default procedure will remain in the Act. I welcome the committee’s amendment.

The committee has also recommended the inclusion in the bill of further amendments not initially proposed. The Arbitration Act is based on the model law on international commercial arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law in 1985. In December 2006 the United Nations General Assembly adopted changes to the model law, which were agreed to by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law earlier last year. The committee considered that it was suitable for the amendments to be included in the bill. The additional amendments are found in clause 8, and include a more comprehensive regime for dealing with interim measures during the course of arbitral proceedings. Arbitral tribunals will be better able to ensure, for example, that evidence and assets are preserved while the process occurs. This means that a party to the arbitration will be prevented, for example, from destroying or concealing evidence, from taking assets out of the country, and also from dealing with assets in a manner that would make enforcing a judgment by the other party worthless.

The amendments to the model law now contained in the bill provide a lot more detail and guidance than what is currently found in the Act around the use of interim measures. The changes also include the introduction of preliminary orders, where a party can apply for an addition to an interim measure. A preliminary order, which may be granted without a hearing, acts as a bridging device until the proper hearing for the interim measure application can be arranged.

One change that was not made to the model law but that the committee has recommended is the inclusion of security for costs as an interim measure for international arbitrations. The proposed measure is very similar to the practice in New Zealand court proceedings. Again, the Minister agrees with the committee’s inclusion of these additional amendments to the bill. The purpose of the revision of the model law is to ensure that the model law continues to meet the needs of its users, reflecting best practice in the field of international arbitration. Having New Zealand law reflect international best practice can only enhance New Zealand’s reputation in this area of law and dispute resolution.

The thorough consideration given to this bill by the Justice and Electoral Committee has resulted in a much-improved bill being returned to the House. The Minister greatly appreciates the work of the committee and its efforts to ensure that this bill achieves its aims of improving the operation of the Act and enhancing arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution method in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): As the Minister Judith Tizard, speaking on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice, said, three reports that were commissioned by the Law Commission have resulted in technical legislation. The first of these is the Arbitration Amendment Bill, the second reading of which we are dealing with right now.

It is interesting to observe that this bill is a result of a discussion paper published by the Law Commission in September 2001, and it raises—as the Minister quite correctly and accurately observed—a number of technical matters. Why it has taken so long to get back to the House in the form of legislation, I do not know. Certainly, the Justice and Electoral Committee dealt with the issues as quickly as possible. The same applies, really, to report No. 38 of the Law Commission, dealing with homicidal heirs and succession, which was published in July 1997, and the Wills Act proposals of the Law Commission in report No. 41, which was published in October 1997. So it took 10 years for that legislation to get back to the House. I suggest that is very poor indeed.

There are only two things I want to say in this second reading speech about the Arbitration Amendment Bill. The first is to endorse what the Minister said about the control of the arbitral tribunal in relation to witness subpoenas, because the select committee recommended that clause 8(1) be deleted from the bill. The Minister has explained the rationale for that. We were trying to ensure that the tribunal’s control over the arbitration process would be maintained, and that parties to an arbitration could not shoot off to the court to seek that subpoenas be issued, without at least involving the arbitral tribunal.

The second matter, which was of some interest—and perhaps Mr Chauvel, if he takes a call, will address it—concerns interim measures. A number of proposals to amend the model law were adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) some months ago, and it was very timely that this bill was before the select committee, because we could address those. As the Minister said, we have included those matters by amending clause 8 to pick them up. One of the issues that the select committee looked at—and it is a very interesting issue—is whether, when UNCITRAL proposes changes to the model law, there is some mechanism to update the New Zealand law in some way without the need to have recourse to Parliament. After consulting the clerk and after reflecting on the issue, we decided there was not any way other than to introduce amending legislation.

They were the matters that I wanted to address. The bill is a technical piece of legislation. It is good that it will shortly be law. The real issue is why it has taken so long for a straightforward, technical matter to come before this House. This Government’s law reform agenda is pretty pathetic and the way it carries it out is even worse.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): As the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, it is a pleasure to speak in support of the Arbitration Amendment Bill. In doing so I want to acknowledge, as the previous speaker Christopher Finlayson acknowledged, that the committee worked in a very efficient and timely manner, and—I am very pleased to say—in a very constructive manner, which is not always the case with legislation but certainly was this case with this bill. We were able to present a unanimously supported report back to the House that not only supported the bill but also made some very constructive recommendations.

Obviously, the bill is an alternative disputes resolution bill. Arbitration and mediation are a growing trend in New Zealand, and I think it is a very commendable trend. It is one that this Government certainly supports. Arbitration encourages the private resolution of disputes in both a timely and a cost-efficient manner, thereby enabling the resumption of commercial or other contractual arrangements and relationships. Arbitration provides a forum that is less adversarial than traditional litigation. It achieves results in a way that enables parties to move forward and progress to be made in a timely manner, and, effectively, life goes on.

The purpose of this bill is to enhance arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution in New Zealand. Confidentiality, consumers’ rights, and choice of arbiter are all enhanced through this bill. Examples of where this bill would be used include construction projects, both landlord and commercial tenants’ disputes, and such things as sharemilking agreements.

In terms of the bill, as Mr Finlayson has acknowledged, the Law Commission reviewed the 1996 Arbitration Act in 2003 and presented a report. Although acknowledging that the Act was working very well, the commission recommended some amendments to make the Act work better. This amendment bill is based on the Law Commission’s recommendations, and I take this opportunity to thank the Law Commission for the work it has done on this bill. Indeed, it has prepared many reports that come before the Justice and Electoral Committee, and it is a pleasure to improve the Acts that we have in our system as a result of the work undertaken by both the Law Commission and the select committee.

The bill is divided into two parts. The first amends the Arbitration Act, the second the Disputes Tribunals Act. Many of the features of this bill are relatively small and technical changes, such as clarifying definitions. The most significant change comes in clause 6, and ensures total confidentiality in arbitral proceedings, with a few very well-defined exceptions. Confidentiality is a feature that makes arbitration very attractive to parties considering dispute resolution, but it is currently only an assumption. As a general rule, court action that takes place after arbitration is conducted publicly.

The Justice and Electoral Committee has made a number of changes to the bill. It recommends that clause 8(1) be deleted. At present, under schedule 1 of the Act, if a party is having difficulty with a witness or with obtaining evidence, that party is required to approach the tribunal for assistance. The committee members had considerable discussion about this, because the bill as introduced proposed to remove that requirement and, instead, enable parties to go straight to the District Court for a subpoena. Following public submissions, however, we gave strong consideration to what the submissions revealed, which was that, in practice, the arbitral tribunal is generally able to resolve any issues parties are having in regard to witnesses and evidence, and the parties do not need to go to the court. The effect of subclause (1) would have been to reduce the control that the arbitral tribunal has over the process, and to provide parties with easier access to the court without their having first exhausted the tribunal process.

This, we believe, does not quite fit in with the themes of the Arbitration Act, which are to reduce judicial intervention and to increase control of the process by the arbitral tribunal. Therefore, the committee has recommended the removal of that subclause and keeping what is, in effect, the status quo. I believe that was very constructive consideration, and I can see Chris Finlayson nodding wisely in agreement.

Charles Chauvel: There’s a first time for everything!

LYNNE PILLAY: There is a first time for everything, another member says, but certainly in this instance Chris is agreeing. It was a very constructive process undertaken by the committee. I commend it for the assistance it gave. I also acknowledge all the advisers and staff, who worked very efficiently and helpfully on this bill and report.

As I said before, I am very happy to stand in this House, acknowledge the bill, and recommend it to the House. Thank you.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): We have been entertained and informed by the speech that Mr Finlayson made on behalf of the National Party concerning this important legislation, the Arbitration Amendment Bill—legislation that National supports. I am just going to make some brief comments with particular reference to the hard work of the Justice and Electoral Committee. Perhaps I will start by saying that arbitration is probably the oldest adjudicative form of resolving disputes. If one were to look at a continuum, one would see that it would run from the top with consultation, then there would be negotiation, then there is a concept called good offices, then there is mediation, then there is arbitration, and finally there is judicial determination.

As is well known, arbitration has a number of significant advantages. The object of an arbitration is to resolve a dispute and to have resolution of the dispute recorded in an enforceable award. So it is quite different from mediation. It is generally intended that the award should be final and unchallengeable. As others have said, the benefits of arbitration in a private law context flow into international law and they include advantages relating to the ability of the parties to determine what the key issues are, such as the composition of the arbitral tribunal, the rules of procedure, the pace of the dispute resolution programme, and—if appropriate—the remedies available to the arbitral tribunal.

So when this bill was introduced—a bill that had as its purpose a plan to make “a small number of relatively technical amendments designed to strengthen arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution in New Zealand.”—we saw that these particular amendments focused on increasing party autonomy, which is very much the hallmark of arbitration, while reducing judicial involvement in the arbitral process.

Others have spoken about the work that the Justice and Electoral Committee did in terms of substantive change to the bill. I just note that work has been done in connection with control of the arbitral tribunal in relation to witness subpoenas, and with an important new section relating to interim measures.

Mr Finlayson, in his thoughtful comments to the House, spoke about the interesting issue whereby one has a model law sitting outside a country that changes. This issue is commonly encountered in the world of delegated legislation, where we have international standards that may be updated or amended in some way, yet the law in New Zealand remains static. That is why the Parliamentary Counsel Office, in the delegated legislation context, has devised templates that will enable the law to be kept up to the mark. That is much more difficult to do in primary legislation like this, where the voice of the legislature must be heard and the process must be seen with every substantive law change.

Here we have, as others have said, the picking up of a change of the model law, which has been able to be incorporated in this legislation. It is probably in the area of interim measures that the big changes occur. Those changes centre on clause 8, where there is a definition of “interim measure”. One of the problems in litigation and in arbitration is that because of the delays that can occur in those processes, the parties may take steps to try to stymie an outcome and to try to compromise a position. That is why provision for interim measures, which will perhaps hold the ground, become so important. So interim measures are defined in the bill; and, in addition to that, conditions for granting interim measures are set out.

It is worth noting finally, perhaps, that this is an amendment bill; it is not a bill in its own right. So it sits alongside the Arbitration Act of 1996. If members look at that particular legislation they will see that it contains three schedules in the back. Two of those schedules are those that contain all of the procedural rules that in general terms, unless the parties opt out of them, are the rules that govern, in process terms, what occurs in the arbitration context.

So I commend this legislation to the House. I look forward to more scintillating comments flowing from members as particular passages in the bill are analysed in greater depth.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I begin by thanking members for their various contributions, both in the House today and in the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think there was quite a valuable and an open discussion about a number of issues that have been raised here. I make the point, in echoing the comments of Dr Worth, that the Arbitration Amendment Bill is important legislation. There were few submissions on it, but that is an indication of the technical nature of the bill rather than it being any slight on the bill’s importance. By my reckoning we had six submissions, but they were mostly reasonably substantive in the sense of recommending quite specific technical changes—and I will touch on those in relation to the select committee’s report in a second.

I thank Dr Worth for giving us a good context for how we should view arbitration within the scheme of different methods of resolving disputes. The Greens are very supportive of methods of dispute resolution that operate at a lower level of formality and a lower level of cost than the courts. Hence, we are supportive of mediation, arbitration, and other processes. But, as Dr Worth pointed out, what makes arbitration a little bit different from other processes is that it is recordable, it is enforceable, and the intention is that it be final and unchallengeable. So in that sense it is important that we get the framework for arbitration right, and that we update our law in line with international best practice. This bill is important in that regard. The bill, as has been said, is designed to strengthen arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution and focuses on increasing party autonomy, reducing judicial involvement in the process, and ensuring that we are consistent with other jurisdictions.

Mr Finlayson has referred to some discussions about whether we could use a speedier process for adopting new innovations in the model law into New Zealand law. Of course, there are issues of constitutionality about the right place for making certain changes, and, certainly, to amend primary legislation through some of the processes we explored would be inappropriate. The other point is that not all countries adopt all the elements. There has to be some recognition of the differences in different jurisdictions, because there is a certain element of inconsistency in any case. That is just an element that we have to live with.

I will refer to just a couple of submissions, because of the response of the select committee to them. The first one was the submission of the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand. That organisation, in its submission, opposed the removal of the default appointment provision. It said the invocation of that provision often leads to the early appointment of an arbitrator, whether by mutual agreement or by the operation of the measure in clause 1 itself. The institute said there was sufficient safeguard in the gloss placed on the provision by the Hon Justice Rodney Hansen in the Hitex Plastering case, namely that the use of the clause was not permissible unless there had first been a reasonable attempt to resolve differences as to an appointment, and the abolition of the provision would force many parties into lengthy and costly High Court proceedings. That is something that the committee put its mind to, and we have recommended that clause 9(2) be deleted from the bill. That is the clause that would remove the default procedure for the appointment of an arbitrator where parties are unable to agree.

The other submission I refer to is that of the New Zealand Law Society. It referred to the position of the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute in proposing the establishment of a private arbitration appeal tribunal. It said that the introduction of that tribunal would have significant implications for the courts in terms of the development of New Zealand commercial and civil law, and it proposed that new section 14F in clause 6 be amended to provide a presumption that court proceedings in relation to arbitral awards should be held in private, with confidentiality preserved unless the court orders otherwise. Again, that is something that we considered in our consideration of the bill, but we have not recommended that it be amended as the Law Society suggested. That section has been left in the bill as introduced.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is technical legislation. Nevertheless, it is very important legislation in terms of supporting arbitration, supporting private dispute resolution, preserving and increasing party autonomy, and limiting judicial involvement in the arbitral process. We think that is important, and we support this bill.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou te Whare. When we first came into Parliament, I think a lot of the public and, I know, a lot of the politicians thought that the Māori Party would be a one-issue party—the foreshore and seabed, with maybe a bit of social justice chucked in on the side. Now, however, when people ask what issues are important to us, they are no longer surprised when we tell them, “Everything.” I am proud to say that after only 18 months in the House, everybody now knows that every issue, every bill, and every policy statement will be responded to by the Māori Party with a strong, independent, and, hopefully, influential Māori voice. We want to be able to accentuate the positives of the indigenous world, to use those values to improve our wider society, to enhance social justice, and to help us all live up to the expectations of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The big question, of course, is how that influence and those values might impact on this Arbitration Amendment Bill. We know that Māori occasionally use arbitration to deal with rental reviews of Māori land, and although there has not been much consultation with Māori over this bill, we know from our own discussions with Māori over land issues that the significance of land to tangata whenua is absolutely fundamental. Toitū te whenua, whatungarongaro te tangata; the land is permanent, though man disappears.

Of course, we have only to think of some of the issues that have occupied the nation’s attention this year to know how important land issues are for Māori, including the repossession of Rangiputa Station on the Karikari Peninsula by the people of Ngāti Kahu; Ngāti Hei’s land claims over Ngātea and Whenuakite, resulting from Crown action under the native lands legislation to render the tribe virtually landless; the concerns of the people of Whanganui and Tūwharetoa over the sale of the Taurewa block south of Tūrangi and a nearby block at Raurimu; and the Government’s mishandling of land belonging to Taranaki hapū Ngāti Tama a Hūroa and Tītahi. Indeed, so important are land issues for Māori that we are considering an amendment to this bill to refer all Māori land disputes to the Māori Land Court.

Arbitration as a method of solving disputes is a useful tool, particularly in commercial litigation, but we do not think arbitration of Māori land issues should go through either the District Court or an arbitration appeals tribunal. The Māori Land Court has the expertise to handle complex Māori land issues and is able to deal with land disputes in a more user-friendly way because of its awareness of tikanga Māori, and Māori attitudes towards land. The other alternatives are either too lawyer-driven or too costly. So we will recommend that when Māori land or general land owned by Māori, as defined in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, is in dispute, the matter should be dealt with not by arbitration but by application to the Māori Land Court.

There are precedents. Under the Fencing Act and under property law jurisdiction, Māori land disputes have been referred from the general court to the Māori Land Court under the terms of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act.

I also want to look at other areas of the Arbitration Act, particularly the area of consumer protection, which this bill aims to improve. I note that arbitration can take effect only if it has been agreed to by both parties, and that the jurisdiction of disputes tribunals can be set aside if both parties agree to arbitration. As an example of arbitration highlighting the need for consumer protection I turn to the legacy of Sir Apirana Ngata, as we farewell his mokopuna, the legendary Māori broadcaster Hēnare Te Ua. One of Sir Apirana’s dreams was to set up a fund to help Māori World War I veterans, and in 1954 some 63 applications were received for grants from the Maori Soldiers’ Fund for needy Māori veterans. One of these applications was approved for a sum of £16,000 by arbitration, but for some reason the Government’s appointee said that “for many reasons it seemed equitable to ask much less …” and the figure was reduced to £8,000. The fact that the compensation was reduced by half after arbitration had already been agreed does not say much for the arbitration of the past.

We are also interested to note the proposal to extend the Arbitration Act to cover employment arbitration, which is currently managed through the dispute resolution procedures of the Employment Relations Act. Although that is outside the scope of this bill, we certainly agree that it is an idea worthy of further consideration. We do not want to threaten or dilute the good-faith obligations under the Employment Relations Act, but it would not hurt to have access to this type of arbitration in the area of employment law.

Arbitration, of course, can be a positive and meaningful way of getting justice. It can be even further enhanced through greater recognition and utilisation of tikanga Māori in dispute resolution. This revised bill does much to enact the recommendations of the Law Commission’s 2003 report Improving the Arbitration Act 1996, and on that basis the Māori Party is happy to support this bill at its second reading. Kia ora tātou.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): In taking a call on the second reading of the Arbitration Amendment Bill I shall start by pointing out a little of the history of the legislation, in response to some comments made by Mr Finlayson, which I thought were an unfortunate and ungracious reflection on the generally bipartisan way in which the legislation has proceeded.

The facts of the matter as to the timing of the legislation are as follows. The Law Commission report—report No. 83, Improving the Arbitration Act 1996—was published in 2003. The Law Commission then provided draft legislation in October 2004. Cabinet approved the introduction of a bill in late 2005, and the bill was duly introduced in 2006. It simply is not justifiable to suggest that there has been any delay in expediting this very good report from the Law Commission. I hope it is in order to start by setting the facts straight right at the outset.

Indeed, I was fortunate, in August last year, to attend the Law Commission’s 20th anniversary conference, where some speakers expressed some disquiet at the habit, over the past dozen years, of Governments letting certain Law Commission reports languish on the bookshelves, and I am glad to say, as the acting Minister signalled in her speech, that that criticism certainly cannot be levelled at this Government. If members look at the Succession (Homicide) Bill and the Wills Bill, which, I suspect, we will shortly be debating, and at the fact that the Property Law Bill is now before the Justice and Electoral Committee, they can see that the expert and very good work of the Law Commission, across the areas of its technical expertise, is being taken seriously and expedited by this Government.

In fact, if one looks at the history of the Arbitration Act itself, one can see quite a contrast between the records of this Government and the previous one. As speeches on the first reading of the bill demonstrate, the Arbitration Act 1996 was also legislation that was developed in response to a Law Commission report. That was the 1991 Law Commission report entitled Arbitration. But the Government of the day did not move to adopt the report. It languished for 5 years, until it was adopted by a member, Mr Peter Hilt, and introduced as members’ legislation.

That bill, when it was enacted, repealed the 1908 Arbitration Act, which had been based on English legislation. The legislation that was introduced to replace it, based on the Law Commission report, was modelled on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) model law, which has been mentioned by previous speakers. Coincidentally, the Westminster Parliament, in the same year that we did—1996—repealed its old arbitration legislation and adopted an arbitration law that was also based on the UNCITRAL model law. So it can be seen that it is a good thing to keep abreast with developments in this area. Our international trade partners are moving to a uniform series of models for matters such as private sector arbitration. The UNCITRAL model is an example of that, and it is one that we should keep ourselves up to date with, which is something that this legislation achieves.

It can be seen from the Law Commission report that, generally speaking, the Law Commission thought the Arbitration Act was working well. The courts were consistently applying the Act, with its four major underlying principles: party autonomy, reduced judicial involvement in the arbitral process, consistency with laws in other jurisdictions, and an increased set of powers for the arbitral tribunal itself.

Before I move on, I would just like to make sure that appropriate tribute is paid to Justice Heath, or Paul Heath QC as he then was, who is acknowledged as the author of this report. This Parliament is clearly in his debt for the careful and very well-thought-out recommendations that have made their way into the amendment bill.

I would like to turn now to the changes recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I am very pleased and proud to be a member of that committee, and to have been there since February, working with my colleague Lynne Pillay, the chair, and you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and the other members of the committee. I think the fact that the acting Minister has signalled and other parties have indicated that the amendments recommended by the committee will be adopted is a tribute to the fact that the committee worked well in this area.

I would like to mention in detail two of the changes recommended by the committee. Others have touched on the other two. The four in total are enhancing control of the arbitral tribunal, dealing with interim measures, dealing with default procedures and questions of law, and employment arbitration. I want to deal with just the interim measures question and the employment arbitration question.

We asked officials to consider whether there was some better or less clumsy mechanism for dealing in New Zealand law with amendments to international legislation such as the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) model. Mr Worth touched on this issue in his speech. It seemed to some of us that there must be a better way, rather than reinventing the wheel each time through primary legislation in this House, to incorporate the expert recommendations of an international body dealing in its sphere of expertise with something as arcane as private sector arbitration law. Unfortunately, constitutional objections were raised to the suggestion of incorporating the model law into regulation, for example, and allowing it to be updated by ministerial notice that could go, for example, before the Regulations Review Committee, from time to time when the model law was updated. But I do think that particularly in the field of international commercial law, where transnational regulation is becoming a greater feature of our regulatory system, we have to find a better way than trying to update legislation every time the international model changes, and, worse, picking and choosing from those models so that we do not always get the full benefit of the international system.

The other point the committee dealt with—and Mr Harawira touched on it—is the employment arbitration point. The select committee heard evidence from Mr Pitchforth that at the moment the exclusion of employment arbitration from the Arbitration Act 1996 means that it is possible to go to arbitration with an employment problem, but if people do that, then the UNCITRAL model law procedures in the 1996 Act do not apply, and people have to rely on very old-fashioned, out-of-date English common law. It seemed to a number of us that that was an undesirable situation that ought to be remedied. But, as has been mentioned, an amendment to the Employment Relations Act was thought to be outside the scope of this bill.

Also, as the committee report indicates, the alternative dispute resolution procedures already provided for in the employment sphere—the Mediation Service and the Employment Relations Authority—provide a very satisfactory and speedy form of dispute resolution. So, really, recourse to arbitration in the employment area is largely an academic question at the moment. It may not always be that way, and it is appropriate to signal that at some point it would be desirable to tidy up the law in this area to ensure that if parties to an employment agreement did want to proceed to arbitration, they were able to do so under modern and effective procedures such as those set out in the principal Act and its schedule 1.

So, with the exception of the point relating to the Employment Relations Act that I have just raised, and reserving the position for further thought about the automatic incorporation of changes to the model procedure, I am very pleased to support the second reading of the Arbitration Amendment Bill, to thank witnesses and officials as well as the other members of the committee, and to commend the bill to the House.

NICKY WAGNER (National): I rise to speak to the second reading of the Arbitration Amendment Bill. The key to arbitration, as we have all been discussing today, is simply that one can use an independent person, often an expert, to resolve disputes between parties. The key to this is the fact that it is quicker, better, more efficient, and cheaper than using the courts. There has been a marked increase in the use of arbitration in recent years. Although there are no statistics to tell us the total number of arbitrations, the number of defended civil cases filed in the High Court dropped about 40 percent between 1999 and 2003.

This tells us that many parties prefer arbitration before proceedings reach courts, and we know why. The whole arbitration process is cheaper, easier, and quicker than going to court, particularly now that many courts are overcrowded and disputes that come before the court take longer and are much more difficult. And, of course, in the modern world, time is of the essence.

The general attitude of business in terms of using arbitration comes from that fact that when it looks at the court system, it can see that even when people win, they lose. So arbitration is a particularly useful alternative.

The amendments in this bill are based on the recommendations of the New Zealand Law Commission of 2003. The key area I would like to look at is the concerns with consumer arbitration. Specific provisions apply when one party is in trade—selling a business, or doing business—and one party is a consumer. The Act recognises that at times arbitrarial clauses can work to the disadvantage of a consumer. So the bill seeks to protect the genuinely uninformed consumer. With that in mind, the definition of consumer has been redefined in this bill. In the past it was generally pretty broad. It included schools, churches, and local authorities. With the changes in this bill, a consumer is now defined as an individual who is not in trade—and that makes sense to me.

The existing law allowed arbitration to be used only if the consumer had signed a separate agreement agreeing to arbitrate at the same time as the original contract was entered into. This became a routine sort of process, and it was often done by consumers without much thought. The bill now allows for consumers to decide whether they want to agree to arbitration after a dispute has arisen, so they would be making a much more thoughtful decision, and arbitration will proceed only if both parties agree.

I believe that this is good common sense and the best course of action. Having two willing parties to arbitration will improve the success rate of the process. To do that, there also needs to be a further technical tweak to the bill, which removes the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal where a consumer and a business enterprise execute an arbitration agreement. So with those changes in terms of consumers, National supports this bill as an attempt to improve the 1996 Act and to find the most cost-effective and efficient way to resolve disputes.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Succession (Homicide) Bill

Second Reading

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice: I move, That the Succession (Homicide) Bill be now read a second time. The Succession (Homicide) Bill arose from a 1997 Law Commission report on the judge-made rule that a killer cannot inherit from his or her victim’s estate. That report was part of the commission’s wider review of succession law. The commission concluded that although the rule was well accepted it was unclear how it should be applied in some cases. The commission recommended enacting legislation to codify and clarify the general rule. This bill is based on the Law Commission’s report and is one of a suite of recent Government bills giving effect to Law Commission reports.

I would like to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its thorough and efficient consideration of the bill. I endorse its amendments. The committee made a number of sensible changes to the bill and I would like to comment on some of the key changes. The committee made an important change to the treatment of cases whereby a killer and his or her victim own property as joint tenants. Joint tenancy is a form of co-ownership of property. When a joint tenant dies, his or her share in the property automatically passes to the surviving joint tenant or tenants. It would be repugnant to allow a person who killed a fellow joint tenant to automatically receive the victim’s share of the jointly owned property in the normal way. The bill therefore treated a person who killed a fellow joint tenant as having died before the victim. That would have resulted in the killer losing his or her entire interest in the joint tenancy. However, if the joint tenants were in a relationship, then the killer could have reclaimed an interest in the property under the Property (Relationships) Act. The same would not have applied to other joint tenants—for example, if the killer and victim were siblings. That could have produced inconsistent results.

I therefore endorse the amendment to clause 8 that now provides that the killing of one joint tenant by another joint tenant will instead be treated as converting the joint tenancy into a tenancy in common. The killer, victim, and any other joint tenants will each retain a share in the property. That amendment is also consistent with the policy that although killers should not be able to benefit from their crime, neither should they be deprived of prior interests.

Clause 12, which allows a caveat to be lodged to prevent registration of a transmission by survivorship of property held in a joint tenancy when one joint tenant is alleged to have killed another joint tenant, has also been amended to reflect the amendments to clause 8 and to improve its operation. The bill seeks to prevent killers from benefiting from their wrongdoing without depriving them of pre-existing entitlements. That means that the killer can still claim against a victim’s estate under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act. That Act applies when a person is providing work or services to the deceased in return for the deceased’s promise to reward him or her in the deceased’s will. If the deceased failed to reward that person as promised, then he or she can claim against the estate.

However, as introduced, the bill could have produced inconsistent results in relation to those promises. Clause 7 prevents a killer from receiving anything under the victim’s will. If the victim kept his or her promise and provided for the killer in the victim’s will, then that disposition would be revoked by clause 7, but the killer could not claim under the testamentary promises legislation. Claims can be made only if the deceased actually failed to make provision in his or her will.

In this case, the victim did make provision, but it was revoked by clause 7. That meant that the killer would have been better off if the victim failed to keep a promise, in his or her will, to reward the killer—an odd result. The bill has been amended to provide that a killer can claim under the testamentary promises legislation, regardless of whether the victim actually provided for the killer in the victim’s will. I agree with that amendment, which is consistent with the policy that killers should not be deprived of pre-existing rights. In this case, the killer is being compensated for services already provided and in respect of which the killer has a prior expectation of reward.

As introduced, the bill set out the procedure for establishing whether a person had committed homicide, for the purposes of the bill, in three scenarios: firstly, where the alleged killer has been prosecuted and convicted in New Zealand; secondly, where the alleged killer has been prosecuted in New Zealand but acquitted on the grounds of insanity; and, thirdly, where the alleged killer has not been prosecuted in New Zealand at all, whether or not they were prosecuted elsewhere. The bill did not specify the procedure whereby an alleged killer has faced criminal proceedings in New Zealand but been acquitted other than on the grounds of insanity. In such cases, someone could still assert in civil proceedings that, for the purposes of the bill, the alleged killer committed homicide. The bill has been amended to clarify that the same procedure applies in this case as when the person has not been prosecuted at all in New Zealand. A court can decide on the balance of probabilities whether the alleged killer is guilty of homicide for the purposes of the bill or whether he or she is not guilty by reason of insanity. This makes the application of the bill clearer and avoids any confusion as to procedure.

As introduced, clauses 10 and 11 of the bill preserved certain of the killer’s pre-existing entitlements and interests, provided they were not rendered more certain, more immediate, or more valuable by the victim’s death. The words “more immediate” have been deleted from clauses 10 and 11, and I agree with that change. The words could have been misunderstood as meaning that the interest had to be withheld from the killer until the time of the victim’s likely natural death. That would be impractical and was not intended. The real concern is that a killer’s interest should not be improved or made more valuable as a result of the killing.

In conclusion, I would like to again thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its careful and detailed consideration of this bill. The committee’s amendments promote certainty and clarity and are entirely consistent with the overall policy of the bill. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): The Succession (Homicide) Bill is the second of the trilogy of bills that we are dealing with this afternoon that arises out of a Law Commission report—in this case, the report Succession Law: Homicidal Heirs, dated 15 July 1997. If one reads the introduction to that report, one sees that this issue has had a very long history. In this case it goes back almost 30 years. The then Property Law and Equity Reform Committee wrote a report in 1976 called The Effect of Culpable Homicide on Rights of Succession. Then, as a result of a case in the High Court in 1996, the then Minister of Justice, Sir Douglas Graham, asked the Law Commission to look at this issue. It reported back on 15 July 1997, and 10 years later we have this technical legislation.

I will reserve most of my comments on the detail of the bill to the Committee stage. As the Minister Ruth Dyson said, the bill codifies the law that precludes a person who unlawfully kills another person from benefiting from the death of that person. Of course, that includes benefit from the proceeds of the victim’s estate or from any non-probate assets.

The Justice and Electoral Committee worked very methodically through the legislation. Surprisingly, a few issues were raised relating to joint tenancies and restrictions on claims that could be made. An important issue that I will deal with in the Committee stage is about the application by the victim’s estate under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. Another important issue arises under clause 15, and that is on what is to happen in terms of evidence if there is no criminal prosecution in New Zealand. Members will see a minor change has been made to subclause (1) in relation to a person who has been prosecuted in respect of a homicide but who has been acquitted other than on grounds of insanity or, for example, if the prosecution has been stayed or withdrawn. I will address those issues in the Committee stage.

There are only brief points that I want to address now, to illustrate the careful nature of the select committee’s work. We looked at the possible impact of the Simultaneous Deaths Act 1958 and are satisfied that if a killer and a victim died simultaneously, then the killer would be treated as predeceasing the victim. The only other point I want to raise at the second reading stage concerns the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. I do not know whether the commentary on this bill is exactly accurate, because it states that the select committee was satisfied that Māori land succession under that Act would not be “unduly affected” by this bill. That is a classic case of why one should be very careful about using adverbs, because the adverb “unduly” renders the commentary a little misleading. I thought the select committee was satisfied that the 1993 Act would not be affected at all by this bill, but maybe Mr Chauvel or my friend Ms Pillay may care to deal with that matter in their speeches.

That is all I have to say on the second reading of this bill. National supports this legislation. It is overdue by about 30 years.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of, as the previous speaker said, the second of three bills to come before this House today from the hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee. I will start off again by thanking all the members of the select committee—it was yet another unanimous report—and also those who helped us, both officials and the hard-working select committee staff. Their assistance is very much appreciated.

The Succession (Homicide) Bill is based on the principle that nobody should profit from his or her wrongdoing. That is a settled principle in New Zealand’s law. However, despite that, there can be uncertainties as to how this principle should be applied in certain cases. These uncertainties have resulted in costly and time-consuming litigation. About half of all homicides are domestic, thus the issue of profiting from murder, for example, through inheritance is very pertinent. The Succession (Homicide) Bill seeks to codify the law that prevents a killer from inheriting his or her victim’s estate. This will reduce the number and scope of disputes over the victim’s estate.

The background comes, again, from a Law Commission report, which was carried out in 1997. Again I thank the Law Commission for ploughing through case law and coming out with a very good recommendation on which the bill was able to be based. The commission recommended clarifying and codifying the law in regard to homicide, and the bill follows that recommendation. The Law Commission was consulted during the drafting of the bill. In essence, a perpetrator who intentionally or recklessly kills another person or an unborn child will now be excluded from any profit from that act. Thus the property of the deceased will be distributed as if the killer had died before the victim, and the killer will be ruled out of any profit. Those who kill by negligence, infanticide, suicide pacts, and assisted suicide will not be excluded from profiting. This is because they are not so morally repugnant. Those who kill their abuser—for example, battered partners, who are predominantly women, and children—will also be able to profit if they are found not guilty of murder on the basis that the killing was self-defence. These exemptions reflect the definition of homicide in the Crimes Act.

If someone is convicted of homicide, the bill uses that conviction as conclusive evidence that the killer was criminally responsible for the victim’s death. Currently, a criminal conviction is not conclusive evidence in civil proceedings of criminal responsibility for the victim’s death. Under existing case law it is well established that killers cannot inherit from their victims, but how it should apply can be uncertain in individual cases. The new law will clarify the issues and reduce the scope for any disputes that may arise. In the decade before the report’s release, about 50 estates were disputed in court, and the Law Commission recommended that a new law would make trustees’ jobs much easier and avoid disputes at difficult times.

As I said before, two tricky areas addressed by the bill were mercy killings and whether battered spouses who killed their abusers could be disinherited. I believe that those matters have been canvassed and addressed through the bill.

The select committee made some recommendations, as has been acknowledged by the acting Minister, Ruth Dyson, to amend clause 8, which ensures that killers do not gain under the Property (Relationships) Act from a victim’s death, and also to clause 10, which allows killers to receive benefits promised to them by the victim, to ensure that the bill only stops killers from inheriting from the act of killing, and does not rule out any pre-existing rights that are not related to the act of killing. A new clause 11A ensures that the victim’s estate is not prevented from bringing proceedings against the killer under the Property (Relationships) Act. Clause 15 is extended to include those acquitted other than on the grounds of insanity, or where the prosecution has been stayed or withdrawn.

In summary, the Succession (Homicide) Bill will achieve many things. It set outs very clearly in legislation, and clarifies with absolute certainty, the general rule that a killer cannot inherit from his or her victim in any way. The bill also defines in a clear way when a killer is prevented from inheriting from his or victim. It ensures that a killer is not generally deprived of pre-existing property rights, and, in doing so—and I think this is important—it will reduce the number of disputes that need to be referred to the courts, and it will reduce the scope of any disputes that do arise. That is a very important point, not only, as I said earlier, because a number of cases have been before the court—up to 50—but also because bringing these cases before the courts, having them heard, and having them defended takes quite some time, and, frankly, the courts’ time can be used much more constructively.

It is worth acknowledging that these cases are extraordinarily tragic and generally involve families in terrible, terrible circumstances. Those families have lost a loved one in dreadful circumstances. To then have the indignity, the stress, and the anxiety of going to court to assert what should not happen in relation to the property of their loved one who has been murdered by— to use the term in the legislation—a killer adds insult to injury in a very real way.

I think the bill is very constructive. Certainly, there is the logistics of the courts’ time not being wasted, but also the bill is constructive in a very much empathetic way, in that families do not have to go through the duress of a gruelling court case after their loved one has been murdered. To then have to face litigation and dispute because the killer believes that he or she has a case to inherit really does, as I said before, add insult to injury. This bill is very constructive.

I thank the Law Commission and the members of the select committee. We heard a number of submissions. The issues surrounding this bill meant that it was quite an emotional experience, and I thank the committee for its constructive approach. I believe that the good work carried out by the Law Commission, the drafting of the bill, and the work of the select committee have resulted in an excellent bill. As the chair of the select committee I am proud to stand in this House and commend the bill.

KATE WILKINSON (National): I take a brief call in support of the Succession (Homicide) Bill. I would, however, like to raise a couple of issues that I think perhaps need some clarification. I can certainly go into further detail on them in the Committee stage—assuming, of course, I am permitted to take a call in that stage.

Mention has been made a couple of times, in relation to clause 10, of attempts to provide that killers should not be deprived of pre-existing rights. That has been expanded to include claims under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act. I would like to run a scenario past the House, because if the intention of the House here is indeed uncertain—as I believe it perhaps is—then an amendment may be necessary.

Let us imagine a case where a housekeeper has killed a flatmate. The flatmate has provided in a will—obviously, before being killed—that in recognition of such a great job in housekeeping and looking after the flatmate, he or she bequeaths the housekeeper $1,000. Under this legislation, the killer would not be allowed to receive the $1,000. But if, for example, the flatmate had forgotten to put the bequest in the will but had promised that in recognition of such a great job of housekeeping, he or she would leave the housekeeper $1,000, then under this legislation and under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act, the killer would be allowed to keep the $1,000. We have to question how it can be lawful to get to keep $1,000 for housekeeping only if it is not provided for in the will, and to lose it if it is provided for in the will. The amount of the promise is still the same. The service rendered is still the same. The only difference is whether the promise is included in the will. Unlikely though that scenario may be, I wonder whether that provision may lead to some uncertainty.

One of the other issues that I raise in relation to the bill—and it was actually raised by the New Zealand Law Society in one of its submissions—is in relation to flexibility and, in particular, flexibility in relation to culpability. If a battered wife, for example, finally snaps and kills her abuser, should there be under this legislation an exception whereby she can in fact inherit her share of the estate? Or in the case of a mercy killing that does not amount to assisted suicide, which is provided for in the bill, should the killer be treated in the same way as he or she would be in the case of a cold-hearted, premeditated killing? In another scenario, if someone is a killer by virtue of failing to provide the necessities of life, should he or she be treated in the same way as a cold-hearted, premeditating killer? The scenario I raised at the first reading was that of someone who was a killer by virtue of the fact that he or she was a reckless driver who had killed his or her spouse in a car accident. Should such a driver be treated in the same way as a cold-hearted murderer?

I do note that other jurisdictions have given the courts some discretion to modify the rules in exceptional circumstances. Those jurisdictions provide that forfeiture of an inheritance applies unless there are special circumstances—for example, if the moral culpability of the killer at the time supports such an exception. I certainly would like that point to be debated a little more in the Committee stage. If it is the intention of the House to treat all killers, whatever their circumstances, as being the same and therefore to deprive them of any benefit under a will, then so be it, but I do think that issue can be raised.

The third and final point that I raise is in relation to timing. I have mentioned the issue, in other speeches, of the delays in our courts. We could have a scenario whereby a killer inherits from his or her victim’s estate and it is not until some years later that the death is attributed to the killer. In other words, perhaps at the time it was regarded as an accidental death, and subsequently it was in fact found to be a murder, but, because of the time lapse between the act of killing and the charging of the killer, the estate may have already been distributed. If it has been distributed, so be it, but is this legislation intended to apply retrospectively? Will the estate that has already been inherited then be forfeited years later and, if there is anything left of it, be redistributed?

In speaking to the first reading, I also drew the attention of the House to two instances referred to in the Law Commission report where there was a delay of some 4 years between a killing and the court actually giving a judgment. During those 4 years the estate, of course, remains dormant. The executors have a duty to properly and expeditiously administer the estate, but under this proposed legislation they cannot. The estate, in effect, is in limbo.

I think this bill is certainly well intentioned. It is timely; it has taken some 10 years since the Law Commission report. Like many laws, though, I do not believe it is perfect, and I would like some of those imperfections to perhaps be addressed in the Committee stage. Having said that, we do support this reading of the bill.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou te Whare. Some 30 years ago Bob Geldof and the Boomtown Rats took their song “I Don’t Like Mondays” all the way to number one in the UK. It was a story of a horrific shooting spree of 16-year-old Brenda Ann Spencer, who killed two adults and injured eight kids and a police officer. Her only explanation was: “I don’t like Mondays.” Yesterday was just such a Monday here in Aotearoa, as the nation reeled from the tragic effects of the deaths over the weekend of three innocent kids in Christchurch and Wanganui.

While the country woke up to those horrifying stories, other reports of homicide were coming in from other parts of the nation, as well. In Rotorua the jury heard the case of a Waikato man on trial for a domestic double murder, in Napier a depositions hearing began for the man accused of murdering Hawke’s Bay farmer Jack Nicholas, and in Auckland the defence opened its case in the trial of a 32-year-old woman and her 27-year-old partner for murdering the woman’s 3-year-old son.

The tragedy about these cases is that this was just another Monday in Godzone. Since 1990 we have had nearly 120 homicides each and every year, a tragic figure that is but a glimpse into the wide-scale trauma that rocks our world. It is with that background in mind that we come to the House today to debate the Succession (Homicide) Bill, a bill that is a sad but logical consequence of living in a nation with such a high homicide rate, and a bill born of the crime of murder enacted far too often in this country.

The purpose of the bill is to clarify the law so that killers cannot benefit from the estate of those they have killed—a clarification the Māori Party supports, although noting some issues raised at the Justice and Electoral Committee that still need closer attention. Negligence is one of those issues. I note the submission from the National Council of Women recommending that causing death by negligence, such as when someone driving negligently causes the death of a passenger in a car, should also be included under the terms of this Act. The New Zealand Police Association also wanted negligence included within the terms of the Act. It was concerned that in cases where somebody had killed his or her spouse, the killer might still profit from the victim’s estate through a claim that the murder was an act of recklessness, and nothing more than a negligent act.

A finer point of the bill, though, is to ensure that although people should not profit from murder, neither should they be deprived of rights not related to the murder. It took a while to get my head around, but in the end I accept that being wrong for one thing should not mean having to suffer for everything.

An issue I raised during the first reading of this bill was the impact the bill might have on the succession to Māori land under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993, which states that owners of Māori land can will their land to only whānau, and that where somebody dies without leaving a will the Act will ensure that the property stays within the whānau. This is a laudable concept. During the select committee debate we were told that if a killer loses his or her property interests under the bill, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act will ensure the land remains in the family. That principle comes from traditional practice first introduced into law through the New Zealand Māori Council in 1983 when it called for Māori land to be kept in the hands of its owners and for law and policy to reflect Māori land ownership and use by the whānau and hapū.

Māori communal ownership and strong links to the whenua became the overriding priority rather than the rights of the individual. We were keen to ensure that the bill did not cut children out from succession to land because of the sins of the parents. We were also told that the Succession (Homicide) Bill would not stop whānau from giving a person back his or her land interest if the whānau so wished, even if that person had been responsible for the death of another whānau member.

Given the significance of Māori connection to the whenua we are keen to hear the Minister’s call during the Committee stage to see how much consultation there was with tangata whenua over this bill. I know that the Law Commission was consulted, and in preparing the original report in draft legislation it consulted with the Public Trust, academics, and a former law commissioner. We know, too, that specific consultation with Māori was a key suggestion in the 1996 working paper of Drs Pat Hōhepa and David Williams, and we hope the Government sees the value of that to this piece of legislation as well.

Finally, I wish to return to yesterday’s events. Alongside the reports of court hearings and tragic eyewitness accounts came new research from Victoria University’s Liz Moore about the homicide of some 70 kids murdered over the past 20 years, which showed that most of them lived in normal family situations with both parents, but because of poor record-keeping and classification of coronial records, data gaps were common, and proper research could not be completed. We need that research. We need answers and we need firm action to deal with questions, such as, “What value do we place on human life?”, “How do we protect our most vulnerable from attack?”, and “How do we ensure that kids are not denied their rights because of the actions of their parents?”. In questioning the futility of life, Bob Geldof says in his song:

And he can see no reasons because there are no reasons

‘Cos there are no reasons

What reason do you need to die, die?

My reply would be that there may be many reasons why we do die, but there are no excuses for us to continue to accept the actions that lead to the scourge of homicide that blights our world. Kia ora tātou.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): This Succession (Homicide) Bill is another bill that had its genesis in a Law Commission report and is now being enacted into the laws of New Zealand. The report, Succession Law: Homicidal Heirs, was report No. 38 of the Law Commission, published in July 1997. The foreword to the report records that the Minister in charge of the Public Trust Office had asked the commission, as part of its project, to review the law of succession in order to expedite its work on the effect of homicide on rights of succession. The Minister’s interest in the subject was aroused in part by the problems demonstrated by the case of Hunter’s estate: Farrell v Public Trustee.

The commission in its foreword goes on to note that the need for homicidal heir legislation was, as a previous speaker indicated, identified more than 30 years ago by the former Property Law and Equity Reform Committee in its 1976 report The Effect of Culpable Homicide on Rights of Succession. It has been noted that this report is over 30 years old. I agree with the previous speaker that it is high time that legislation was brought down to codify the common law in this area, and I am proud it is a Labour-led Government that is finally doing that.

The commission sets out in its report the rules that should codify the common law relating to the succession of killers. It can be seen that the legislation before the House draws heavily on the draft bill set out in the Law Commission’s report. At the time the commission was working on a project concerning the statutes that govern succession generally. Embraced within the ambit of that project were the Wills Act 1837 of the Imperial Parliament, the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949, the Family Protection Act 1955, the Matrimonial Property Act 1963, and the Administration Act 1969. The commission aimed to have the new succession legislation drafted in plain language providing for the matters dealt with in all those statutes. It aimed to have it in fewer statutes, trying to simplify the law and to enable better effect to be given to the intentions of lawmakers and taking into account the diversity of New Zealand families.

Later today it is likely that we will consider a new Wills Bill, which had formed part of this commission project at the time. That bill will govern will-making for the first time in a statute of this Parliament. It is another fruit of the succession project that the commission was pursuing in the late 1990s.

Before proceeding to discuss the provisions of the Succession (Homicide) Bill it is appropriate, in my view, to pay tribute to the members of the Law Commission and others who were responsible for the work leading to the 1997 report. Former commissioner Professor Richard Sutton, Mr Brian Blacktop, who was Deputy Public Trustee at the time, and Nicola Peart, who was a senior law lecturer at the time were all acknowledged in the commission’s report, which was issued during the presidency of Justice Baragwanath. Nicola Peart’s involvement with the legislation has continued. She presented the submissions of the New Zealand Law Society to the Justice and Electoral Committee on this bill.

There are six provisions of note in the legislation as introduced. First is the definitions of “killer” and “victim” contained in clause 4 of Part 1. Having dealt with definitions, the bill goes on to provide that a killer as defined may take no interest in any property under the will or intestacy of the killer’s victim.

Clause 7 provides that the interest in the relevant property will be distributed as if the killer had predeceased the killer’s victim, unless there is an expressed testamentary provision to the contrary. Clause 8 goes on to prevent a killer from taking any interest in property transmitted outside the estate disposed of by the will of the victim. Non-probate assets in this category could include real property jointly owned by the killer and the victim. Again the principle followed by the legislation is that the killer is to be treated as if he or she predeceased the killer’s victim when considering how the interests in the relevant real property should pass.

Clause 9 goes on to provide that the killer is not entitled to apply under the Family Protection Act 1955 to be provided for out of the estate of the killer’s victim. Clause 10 deals with three types of claim: claims made under the Matrimonial Property Act or the Property (Relationships) Act, as a previous speaker indicated, relating to property disputes between spousal partners; valid claims made for restitution of economic benefits conferred on the killer’s victim in anticipation of a reward; and claims made under the Law Reform (Testamentary) Promises Act 1949. In the case of any of these types of claims, the bill provides that the killer can make a claim, but the death of the victim gives the killer no more certain, immediate, or valuable benefit than that to which the killer would otherwise have been entitled but for the homicide.

The final major provision of the original bill is in clauses 13 through to 15 and relates to evidence of homicide. The rules are relatively simple. The conviction in New Zealand of a person for homicide is conclusive evidence of that homicide and of that person’s guilt, unless there has been a successful appeal resulting in an acquittal. Acquittal in New Zealand by reason of insanity in the case of homicide is conclusive evidence that the killer is not guilty of homicide for the purposes of the bill. Where a person is alleged to have committed homicide but no prosecution has occurred in New Zealand in respect of the homicide, the court may decide whether the person did commit homicide, but will do so on the civil standard. In such cases, a person who alleges that he or she is not guilty by reason of insanity must prove that state of affairs, again on the civil standard of the balance of probability. A conviction for homicide outside New Zealand is admissible evidence as to the person’s guilt of homicide and is to be given such weight as the court determines.

Having had the privilege of sitting on the Justice and Electoral Committee, I can say that the quality of the submissions we heard was extremely high. Generally speaking, the submissions were supportive of the need to codify the common law in this area. We recommended three major changes to the original legislation. I am pleased to hear that the Minister and the Government will support these. First, in respect of property owned in joint tenancy by the victim, the victim’s killer—and any other person, if any—that property should be distributed on the death of the victim as if it were the property of each of the owners as tenants in common in equal shares. Obviously, this will allow for only the share of the property owned by the killer to continue in the killer’s ownership, but it will not allow the killer to profit to any greater extent.

In respect of claims as to matrimonial property, testamentary promises, and restitution, we were at pains to make clear that any payment for services promised to the killer by the victim prior to death would not be regarded as an additional benefit from the victim’s death. We felt that this change was consistent with the general principle of the bill, which was to deprive unlawful killers of any profit from their wrongdoing but otherwise not to adversely penalise them or affect them any further.

Finally, also hopefully acting consistently with that principle, we recommended in our report—and the Government has accepted—that when applying section 88(2) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, the court should be at great pains to favour the granting of leave in those cases, if refusing to do so would allow the killer to retain a more certain, or more valuable, interest in the property than that he or she would have had but for the unlawful killing. Again we have tried to reinforce the principle of not profiting from wrongful action.

I am glad that this Parliament has progressed legislation on this issue and I am pleased to have risen and taken a call in support of the second reading of the bill. Thank you.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I rise to give a reasonably brief contribution on behalf of the Green Party to the Succession (Homicide) Bill, because much has been said already about the bill and colleagues have made very useful contributions. The bill is more or less a codification of the law as it stands; it is primarily that.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge, as previous speakers have done, the excellent work of the Law Commission in one of its reports. I have to say that one of the criticisms of successive Governments is that the enormous amount of very valuable work done by the Law Commission, often on fairly technical areas of law reform, is often shelved and ignored by Governments. I think the current Labour-led coalition Government is to be commended for having found the time, in its extremely busy and tight legislative schedule, to progress these important pieces of work by the Law Commission. I commend the Associate Minister of Justice and the Leader of the House for having made the space to do this very important work.

I want to touch on a couple of areas in the bill. One area mentioned by previous speakers concerns the definition of homicide. Clause 4 defines “homicide” as “the killing of a person or a child who has not become a person, by another person, intentionally or recklessly by any means that would be an offence under New Zealand law, whether done in New Zealand or elsewhere; but does not include— (a) a killing caused by negligent act or omission;”—which Mr Harawira referred to—“or (b) infanticide under section 178 of the Crimes Act 1961; or (c) a killing of a person by another in pursuance of a suicide pact; or, (d) an assisted suicide.” It is important to dwell on these exemptions for a second. An earlier speaker, Lynne Pillay, referred to the principle behind the bill, and I think she is right, but moral culpability is what we are trying to get at. So I think it is right that those issues are exempt from the definition of homicide.

Another area that caused me a little bit of concern, and that the previous speaker, Mr Chauvel, talked about, was around clause 15, “Evidence if no criminal prosecution or unsuccessful prosecution in New Zealand”. Subclause (2)(a) states: “the court hearing the proceedings may decide for the purposes of this Act whether the killing of a person or a child that has not become a person has taken place …”. Basically, it is saying the court would decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether the person was guilty, and that the conviction of a person elsewhere than in New Zealand is admissible evidence and is to be given any weight that the court determines. I have to say that it causes me concern that a person who has not been prosecuted, or who has been acquitted other than on the grounds of insanity, or where the prosecution has been stayed or withdrawn, can undergo a second process for the purposes of this bill to decide whether he or she has committed homicide. So in that respect a bit of disquiet remains with me.

I also want to touch on the issue of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, because Mr Finlayson is right about the need for some clarification. My understanding was the same as Mr Harawira’s understanding, and that was that the select committee was reassured that the interests of children would not be affected by the passage of this provision, and that, in addition—and this was something that needed to be checked—when the bill came into effect the killer could still have any interest in that land returned to him or her, as well. We do need to be reassured that those provisions in Te Ture Whenua Māori Act are not affected, not unduly affected. Because the meaning is quite different. When we say “not unduly affected”, we have to ask what the residual effect is. What does it actually mean? My understanding is as I have stated.

The final area I will just touch on is where someone has a valid claim against the State with regard to a testamentary promise. As previous speakers have said, there was a little bit of twisting our heads around the idea that someone who has been assured of some kind of benefit would continue to receive that benefit—despite having killed that person—because that benefit was not dependent on the killing but was a pre-existing matter. In working through the principle of what we are trying to get at here—that a killer should not benefit from his or her deed—we could see that, in that case, that principle did not apply. So that is as stated.

Once again, I thank the Government for progressing important pieces of Law Commission work, because the commission does important work. It is often not highly exciting, inflammatory kind of law reform, but it is important work. Given that the Government has such a tight schedule and the Order Paper is so full, it is gratifying to see that the Government has made a special place to ensure that this important work is progressed.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): I rise to support this bill, and to say it is good that it is written down and cast in stone that people should not profit from murder. That is the way it should be, and it amazes me that it has not been done before, but all credit to the Government for doing that.

Having said that, when we look to the future there are a few areas in this respect that one could be concerned about. One area is euthanasia and matters like that, which are quite socially changing steps, but there are people who propose them. In this area one would have to be a little bit worried, and I think this legislation at some time in the future could be extended to cover those situations.

It is not so much the fear that one would go and kill a person, because that is covered in this legislation, but I would put forward the thought for people to ponder how they would feel if one day we should have a law that allows euthanasia. How would those people who already feel under some obligation to family members now because they are infirm, or they have to be looked after by their sons, daughters, relatives, or even by their partner, feel if we were to have such a law?

I put it to this House that if such a law came to pass, those people would need some protection from themselves, as well as from the people around them. This legislation covers the people around them, but they need some protection from themselves, when they feel so guilty about being a burden on their family that they would look to, would be talked into, or would be persuaded into taking their own lives by way of euthanasia. I think that that would be a very, very sad thing, and an added burden on elderly people who are already in a situation of guilt, shall we say.

So although I applaud the architects of this bill, and I applaud the Law Commission that brought it about, I agree with Nandor Tanczos when he said that in the past not enough consideration has been given to the thought processes of, and reports brought down by, the Law Commission. But this legislation is a result of that, and I think it is wonderful that it should be so.

I just put it out there so the House can think about what could happen in the future and the pressure that people could be under in the future. Although I am not a lawyer myself—and nobody would ever accuse me of having too many deep thoughts in this area—the area of euthanasia is one area that I think should be considered in the future. It is being talked about, and I think that in a bill such as this, it should be covered. So I leave that with people to ponder.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I am happy to rise and speak to this Succession (Homicide) Bill. I think that it was the Justice and Electoral Committee chair, Lynne Pillay, who used the word “repugnant” when we were discussing this bill at the select committee. The whole subject does have a degree of repugnance associated with it. It was pretty grim stuff. But Parliament has to face these issues; indeed, I would like to add my voice to those who have commended the Law Commission for bringing this one forward. The question, of course, is why it has taken so long to reach this point.

When we spoke with Law Commission members at the select committee, it was interesting that one of their concerns was that over the past 7 years, a large number of their recommendations have been, frankly, ignored. So it is very heartening to know that at least people are starting to listen to the commission. I would share with the speaker before last in congratulating the Government on finding time in its extraordinarily busy schedule to fit this bill in. The bill codifies the law to stop a person who kills another from benefiting through that action. I think that the details of the bill have been widely canvassed and spoken about by other speakers.

Where the bill took us in debate at the select committee was interesting. The submissions we received were moving and of a very high quality. The one that particularly interested me concerned Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. It is a very interesting aspect, and I agree with previous speakers that that yet requires resolution.

In terms of what was said by the previous speaker, I tell the House that assisted suicide has in fact been excluded, so that has been determined—

Christopher Finlayson: I think we can look at that.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I am not sure, but it does need to be looked at. But that is what it is called—assisted suicide. It has been provided for; we can put it that way. A sad aspect of this entire bill is that a significant proportion of homicides occurs in a domestic setting.

Just to conclude—because so much has already been said about it, and there is not a great deal left to say—I guess one aspect of the purpose of the bill that does need touching on is the emphasis that is given to the fact that people should not benefit from their crimes, and that this consideration should be applied consistently by the Government. It makes one wonder, therefore, when one gives consideration to the fracas over the pledge card, whether the present Government would care not to benefit from that particular crime and whether it would like to resign 18 months early. Thank you.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): I am pleased to be following the previous speaker in this debate—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Why?

Hon MARK GOSCHE: —because at least he was on the Justice and Electoral Committee; I do not have an excuse.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: He doesn’t even know the name of the bill.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: I think I know the name of the bill—it is the Succession (Homicide) Bill. It has been an interesting afternoon, listening to those who sat on the select committee that debated this bill, because it has made me a little bit wiser. Having read some of the notes that were provided to me for this speech, and having listened to the debate, I think it is now my turn to explain why this bill is necessary.

It was interesting to note that we have dealt with this issue on a case by case basis through the courts in New Zealand’s past, and that must have been a very painful experience for a lot of people. The good thing about this legislation, when it comes to be, is that people will not have to go through that agony again, because we are putting into law something I think that most—in fact, all—New Zealanders would agree with.

There have been some interesting changes made by the select committee members, who obviously heard from a lot of people who are knowledgable on these facts, and I think it is good that the select committee has taken note of those things. I, like Doug Woolerton, found it interesting that there are areas where people have killed by negligence, infanticide, suicide pacts, and assisted suicide, and that the law in those cases recognises that they are not so morally repugnant. I guess there will be some debate, as Doug Woolerton suggested, about whether that is commonly agreed. But in this situation it is agreed, so those people would not be excluded from profiting. Obviously, though, there are provisos in the law that will deal with that.

The other issue that has been raised by speakers in the debate relates to the sense of people not being punished twice. So if they were to receive a benefit of sorts that was not related to the killing, then that benefit would not be excluded. I suppose it will take a bit of effort in getting people’s heads around that issue, but I think I understand what the law and the committee is proposing, and I suppose that, on balance, it will be a correct principle to take forward in this legislation.

Having not been on the select committee and having not studied this bill greatly in the past but having heard the debate of those people who did, and having read the explanations made by the select committee in its commentary for the changes that have been promoted, I am sure that this will be one bill that will go through without any real contention. It is good that we are passing legislation that will remove people from having to challenge these things on a case by case basis in the courts, which, as I said earlier in my speech, must have been a painful exercise. I suppose the only people who would have profited, in a narrow sense, would have been those who represented such people in the courts. So we will now have a law that takes the pain away, and I am pleased to support it.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Wills Bill

Second Reading

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce), on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice: I move, That the Wills Bill be now read a second time. The Law Commission reviewed the existing wills legislation in 1997 as part of a wider review of succession law. The commission concluded that the current law generally works well and that there is no need for radical change, but it recommended restating the existing legislation in one statute in plain language, and modernising certain aspects of the substantive law. This bill is based on the Law Commission’s report and was introduced alongside several other bills that give effect to Law Commission reports, such as the Arbitration Amendment Bill, the Property Law Bill, and the bill that we have just previously dealt with, the Succession (Homicide) Bill. That bill also arose out of the Law Commission’s broader review of succession law.

This bill improves the legal framework for will-making. It makes the law on wills easier to understand, ensures that better effect can be given to will-makers’ intentions, and makes it easier for certain people to make wills. On behalf of my colleague Clayton Cosgrove, I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its very careful consideration of the bill. I endorse the committee’s amendments to the bill, which are entirely in keeping with the spirit of the bill and its objective of modernising the current legislation and making it more user-friendly.

The Justice and Electoral Committee made a number of helpful changes to the bill. The majority of the committee’s changes relate to the drafting of the bill. One of the bill’s express purposes is to modernise the language of the Wills Act 1837—an old imperial statute—and its numerous amending Acts. The language of those Acts is often difficult for a modern-day reader and layperson to read, and the committee’s changes make the bill easier to understand. Of course, this will be very depressing for a lot of lawyers, because they will not be able to rely on the fact that the language is completely dense and impossible for people to penetrate, on their own ability. Tragically, this will probably reduce reliance on the legal profession—which is very, very sad. Seriously though—

Darren Hughes: Does it include a compensation package?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: It does not include a compensation package but it probably would have been nice if it did. It is probably appropriate that people do actually understand what the legislation means when they are trying to deal with what will happen to their property after they pass on. Of course, if any mistakes are made in that particular provision, there ain’t nothing they can do about it afterwards.

I want to look at some of the examples in the legislation of language that has been changed. The word “testator” is now seen as an outdated term, and I think that is fair enough. It has been replaced by the more commonly used term “will-maker”. At the same time, references to doing a testamentary action have been removed and the bill now refers instead to making, revoking, changing, and reviving a will, as appropriate language that would be more readily understood by the average reader. I think that that is a good thing; to make the language a lot more accessible to the general public is a very good move, indeed.

Some provisions have been moved around to make the bill easier to navigate—another disappointing feature for the legal profession. That people will be able to find their way easily through legislation is a tragedy, obviously, for those who rely on the complexity of legislation as the basis for their legal practices. For example, new clause 10A combines original clause 10(3) and clause 18(4), which relate to wills made by young persons who have agreed to marry or enter into a civil union with another person. Those two provisions had to be read together, anyway. The amendment recognises that they are easier to understand if they are combined in a single clause, and the reader does not have to work through the whole bill in order to understand the relevant rule.

Another example of a change that makes the bill easier for laypersons to understand is the inclusion of an express statement that the definition of a de facto relationship for the purposes of the bill is the standard definition in the Interpretation Act 1999. I know that I sat on the select committee with my colleague Tim Barnett and we looked at the issue of statutory references. The Wills Bill was one of the ones that we left out because we knew that this particular provision was coming. So we are very pleased to be able to see this particular measure introduced and now proceed through the House. The change does not alter the effect of the bill in the absence of a specific definition in the bill—the default definition is the one set out in the Interpretation Act. However, including an express cross-reference to the generic definition assists the layperson who may not be aware of the significance of that other Act. I endorse the committee’s improvements to the drafting of the bill. The bill is relevant—

Chris Auchinvole: Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I say that to Mr Chris Auchinvole, whom I think has shown tremendous focus and attention on matters of detail when he is not a lawyer himself. I think that that is fantastic, and it shows members just how far we have come in making the language accessible to the layperson, because Chris Auchinvole can understand it, too. The bill is relevant to all New Zealanders and the changes make what is, by necessity, a set of very technical provisions much more user-friendly.

The committee also amended the provisions in the bill that relate to wills made in contemplation of marriage and civil unions. The general rule is that an existing will is revoked by a subsequent marriage or civil union unless the will was in fact made to provide for that marriage or civil union. I remember learning these rules when I did my degree a million years ago; my friend Charles Chauvel will remember learning the rules about wills in contemplation of marriage, as well. The original clause 18 followed the existing law. It required that to avoid being revoked by the marriage or civil union in question, the will had to expressly state that it was made in contemplation of that marriage or civil union. Actually, that is not quite correct, because of course there was no such thing as a civil union when Charles and I did our law degrees. It is, however, readily conceivable that a will that did not expressly state that it was made in contemplation of marriage or civil union might nevertheless have deliberately been made to provide for that change of affairs. The committee has amended the bill so that even if the will does not expressly say that it was made in contemplation of the marriage or civil union, it will not be revoked if the circumstances in which the will was made clearly show that it was nevertheless made in contemplation of that marriage or civil union. That change ensures that although a will should normally be revoked by a subsequent marriage or civil union—a significant change of circumstances for the will-maker—that is not the case where the will-maker deliberately made a will to provide for that anticipated change. Consistent with those changes, the provisions relating to wills made by young persons in contemplation of marriage or civil union have also been amended.

Finally, I would like to note that the Government expects to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that changes the commencement date to allow for time for the bill to proceed through the House, and for a consequential amendment of the High Court Rules relating to probate. It will also amend a minor definition in the bill. Again I would like to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its work on this bill. The committee has approached this bill in an efficient and professional manner, and has made a valuable contribution to its development. The committee’s changes serve to promote the laudable goal of creating a plain language bill that is so much more accessible to the average New Zealander. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I thank Minister Lianne Dalziel for her generous remarks about the hard work of the Justice and Electoral Committee, but I have to say that they were a bit over the top because really it was not too much hard work, at all. This is legislation that has been hanging around for an eternity. As I said a few minutes ago, this bill was based on report No. 41 of the Law Commission, which was published in about July 1997. So it has had a 10-year gestation period.

The Minister rightly addressed the primary concern with the legislation, and that is to simplify the language. What the bill does is restate the existing law, which goes back to 1837—and there have been some amendments since then—in a single statute in plain, modern language. I certainly hope that we have achieved that aim. That is really the point that I want to address tonight, because some of the more technical material can await the Committee stage.

There is a real need to express this legislation in contemporary, plain English. I would be very interested in hearing contributions from some of the lay members of the House—the non-lawyers—as to whether we have actually achieved that aim. In some respects, that is open to debate. There is no doubt that we have improved on the definition of “will” from the 1837 Act. That definition stated: “The word ‘will’ shall extend to a testament, and to a codicil, and to an appointment by will or by writing in the nature of a will in exercise of a power, and also to a disposition by will and testament or devise of the custody and tuition of any child, by virtue of [the Tenures Abolition Act 1660], or by virtue of an Act passed in the Parliament of Ireland in the fourteenth and fifteenth years of the reign of King Charles the Second, intituled ‘An Act for taking away the Court of Wards and Liveries, and tenures in capite and by knight’s service,’ and to any other testamentary disposition;”.

The Law Commission proposed that that rather fulsome definition of will could be replaced by: “A will includes a codicil and any other testamentary disposition.” Members will note that clause 8 of the proposed legislation does not pick up what the Law Commission recommended but has a slightly lengthier definition of “will”. So I hope we have done our job to make the language simpler—I have my doubts in one or two circumstances.

As to some of the other terms that were changed, I tell members that we removed the word “natural” from “natural person”, and we also replaced the term “doing a testamentary action”, which is ambiguous at least, with “making a will”. We replaced the term “testamentary document” with “will”, which everyone understands and, as the Minister said, we certainly replaced the terms “testator” and “testatrix” with “will-maker”. So there has been a genuine attempt on the part of Parliament, through the Justice and Electoral Committee, to simplify the language. As the Minister correctly observed, we really need to make this kind of legislation readily available to all people, not just to lawyers.

With those brief comments in mind, I am happy to say that National will support this legislation based on this ancient report. We commend the bill to the House, and we look forward to the Committee stage when some of the more technical material that was canvassed before the select committee can be properly discussed.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I rise to support the second reading of the Wills Bill. I just note that the bill is intended not to radically reform existing law relating to wills but, rather, to improve understanding of the laws that are relevant. Obviously, the bill also repatriates New Zealand law, given that the current legislation is, as mentioned earlier, an Act of the Imperial Parliament—the 1837 Wills Act of the United Kingdom. The Act was made part of our law—most recently, for the avoidance of doubt—by the first schedule of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. It has often been commented that the current laws relating to wills are archaic, verbose, and often difficult to understand—clearly, this is undesirable—to the extent that the law makes it difficult for the wishes of the will-maker to be carried out.

So the first aim of the bill is to restate the existing law into a single statute in plain, modern language that is clear and accessible. The second aim is to implement certain reforms to enhance and modernise the law relating to wills, while also removing certain anomalies. It will also reduce the chances of a will or a gift failing or being set aside, and make it easier for young people to make wills. With Youth Week coming up, that, in my view, is an incredibly appropriate thing and a useful accident of timing.

As has been said, in 1997 the Law Commission reviewed wills legislation as part of a wider project. It recommended the restating and modernising of the law into a single statute and also dealing with modernising the law relating to the wills of minors. The bill is based on those recommendations but it takes into account certain developments, such as the regularising of de facto and civil union relationships since the report was published in 1997. The bill also slightly shifts the legislation away from the benefits of what we used to call at law school “formalities” in will-making, that prevent fraud and uncertainty, towards the interest of carrying out the will-maker’s intentions. The bill removes a minimum age at which a person may make a will; those under 18 could make a will if intending to marry or enter into a civil union. A signature will no longer be required at the end of the will. Improperly signed or witnessed wills may be valid, if the High Court determines that they ought to be treated as valid, and if the court is satisfied that the will correctly expresses the will-maker’s intentions.

It is interesting and instructive to look through the original Law Commission report. There is a very helpful history of the laws of England and New Zealand relating to the ways in which the formalities of wills have been dealt with by the law over the years. There is an interesting discussion, for example, of the emergence of the law of wills from the feudal system, and the emergent role after the 17th century of the Court of Chancery in dealing with wills. There is a chronology of the amendments to the 1837 Act as far as New Zealand is concerned, to start to deal with modern phenomena such as divorce. Clearly, the current bill can be seen in the context of that set of changes, dealing as it does, as I have said, with the regularisation of de facto and civil union relationships.

There are also interests in terms of trans-Tasman harmonisation law that ought to be mentioned. In the foreword to the draft bill, the Law Commission expressly acknowledges the work done by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General of Australia in 1991 to try to harmonise the law in this area, and it acknowledges the work of both the Queensland Law Reform Commission and the Victorian Parliamentary Law Reform Committee in 1994. The Law Commission acknowledges the debt owed to those two earlier pieces of work. So I think it is appropriate to acknowledge that part of the whakapapa of this legislation, and also to acknowledge, as I have done in previous speeches, the hard work of the Law Commission and its advisers in bringing the bulk of this work forward to fruition and allowing us to fashion a bill out of it.

I will turn finally to the recommendations from the Justice and Electoral Committee. We have recommended a number of further changes to improve the plain English drafting of the legislation. In clause 8 we recommend—and it is pleasing to hear Minister Dalziel tell us that the Government accepts the recommendation—that the definition of “will” should be further clarified and reordered into a more logical sequence, thereby making it easier to understand. The deletion of clause 9, which is unnecessary and repetitive, is also recommended, and an amendment to clause 18(1) is recommended so as to remove the age restriction for preserving a will where a will-maker gets married. It is anomalous, in the select committee’s view, that a will made by a minor remains intact upon marriage but one made by an adult does not. The final amendment recommended that I would like to highlight, and to express pleasure that the Government has accepted, is the amendment to clause 18(2), which allows the law to be modernised in respect of wills made in contemplation of a marriage or civil union. That was a timely reform, and, as I have said, it is pleasing to know that that recommendation of the select committee will be accepted.

In conclusion, I thank the officials and my colleagues on the select committee. My view is that this is a very good bill, and I commend it to the House.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I, too, would like to stand to support the Wills Bill. As my colleague Mr Finlayson said, its changes are not worthy of too much debate; they are pretty straightforward, though technical in nature, and they will affect only wills made after the new bill comes into force. There are two exceptions to that.

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

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: The changes will affect only wills made after the bill comes into force, with two exceptions. The High Court can modify wills: it has the powers to correct errors in wills, and it can also use external evidence to interpret wills made before the bill comes into force. There is, my solicitor friends tell me, some danger in this, in that it gives the High Court the power to interpret the intention of the will-maker, previously known as the testator. That will continue as a vulnerability under this legislation.

Someone speaking earlier mentioned that this legislation will replace the Wills Act 1837, which is being modernised. Indeed, if one could easily understand the 1837 Act, then I guess one should immediately try to complete the Guardian cryptic crossword, because it would be a dolly.

I am pleased to be cited by Minister Dalziel. I thought she was speaking from the heart, and very sincerely, when she said that on the select committee I was a person who strove to ensure that plain language was being used, and that I did that without the benefit of a law degree. Our laws are designed for ordinary people and I am proud to be an ordinary person.

The main thing I notice about the ever-increasing number of people who call into our little blue office in Greymouth, in the increasingly marginal seat of West Coast - Tasman, is the concern many of those people have in understanding legal and semi-legal documents. Wills are a case in point. The avenues for people in that region to obtain low-level legal assistance is extremely restricted—although we on this side of the House are working on that—so if anything can be done to make life’s complexities simpler, so much the better. This bill does that, and that is why we support it.

Darren Hughes: It’s a great slogan—die easy under National.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I do not really have a great deal to say, but I know that this bill will be of great use to the Labour junior whip. The Labour Government generally will benefit from the use of simple wording and writing, as the junior whip prepares for the never-to-be-repeated last will and testament of the present Labour Government. One can imagine it—“I hereby bequeath to the National Party: to John Key, a country desperate for leadership, principles, and vision; to Bill English, a fiscally overheating and loose economy; to Gerry Brownlee, a complete lack of energy planning and restructuring; to Simon Power, prisons with a completely demoralised service but designed better than Crowne Plaza hotels, and a failing legal aid system; to Tony Ryall, record waiting lists and hospitals that are dangerous to enter, if one can ever get into them; and to Katherine Rich, 32,000 truants, and 92,000 3 to 4-year-olds who were promised but who are not receiving 20 free hours. I could go on—the litany would go on forever—but I think we all know the circumstances in which Labour will leave the country, and I do not wish to depress people who are listening by giving further details.

National supports the Wills Bill. Thank you.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): As the distinguished speaker before me, Chris Auchinvole, indicated, National does support the Wills Bill, which is a re-enactment of some very old law. If one were to reflect on what are probably the two most arcane areas of legal interest, one would conclude they would be our rules relating to property, and our rules relating to wills and estates.

I would like to speak from the outset about the distinguishing feature of a will, which is carried forward into this legislation. I would describe that distinguishing feature as being testamentary, ambulatory, and revocable, because we all know that a will is a document that has no effect at all until the testator’s death. Until then, it really remains just a mere declaration of intention, and can be revoked or varied. So it is said to be ambulatory, or changeable. The execution of a will still leaves the testator free to dispose of his or her property inter vivos, and I will look at that inter vivos aspect in a moment. It is also the case that a will is capable of dealing with property acquired by the testator between the date of the will and the date of the death. So if a will executed in 1996 provides for a gift of “all my sports cars”, that would include those sports cars owned by the testator at the time of the testator’s death in 1997, whether those cars were acquired before or after the date of the will. I will not talk about animus testandi, but, certainly, that is an essential part of a testator’s capability to execute a will.

Probably of greater significance is that we have seen significant legislative change that has intervened in, and has denied to a significant extent, the right that a testator had in the past of complete testamentary freedom. Prior to 2002, the two most important pieces of legislation were the Family Protection Act 1955 and the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949. The first was concerned with circumstances whereby a testator had failed to fill a moral obligation that he or she might have owed to third parties, including, primarily, children, and the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act dealt with situations where promises that had been made by the testator had not been honoured. But what happened in February 2002 was that the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2001 was enacted; it renamed the Matrimonial Property Act 1976, extensively amended that legislation, and made huge inroads in the context of matrimonial property and property in a partnership setting, in the testamentary freedom that those persons would otherwise have had.

The last item I want to deal with briefly is to note the difference that wills have, as distinguished from other transactions. I am particularly thinking of inter vivos transactions, because a will may be distinguished from an inter vivos transaction by two features. An inter vivos gift takes effect immediately, and a will, of course, takes effect only upon death. Another distinguishing mark, in looking at wills and other transactions, is the important class of gift called donatio mortis causa. All these matters are carefully covered in the Wills Bill, and I do not doubt that the work the Justice and Electoral Committee has done in reporting this bill back to Parliament has been done carefully, and well.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was interested to hear the view of a lawyer working with Māori within my electorate, Tamaki Makaurau, just last Friday. Andrew Lawson, who has worked at the Mangere Community Law Centre for the past 10 years, was reflecting on the experiences and perspectives of Māori regarding wills. It should perhaps be pointed out that the Mangere Community Law Centre has recently celebrated 20 years of service, being one of the first law centres in Aotearoa to provide services to address the unmet legal needs of its community. It is a community law centre that is well supported by mana whenua, by Tainui. So when Andrew Lawson described the view of Māori as dismissing the need for wills because they think they are tempting fate, it made me sit up and listen. This is an organisation that knows what it is talking about. Mr Lawson went further and explained that although many Māori view writing a will as bad luck, the misfortune actually occurs following the death in the whānau if deliberations about the inheritance of assets such as taonga and shares in Māori land assets are up for debate.

So with the words from my electorate ringing in my ears, I have taken a particular interest in this, the second reading of the Wills Bill. Its purpose is all about modernisation and simplicity. It replaces the Wills Act 1837 of the UK Parliament with an Act in plain language that updates certain aspects of existing wills law, and brings all matters relating to wills together in a single statute. It is to be written in straightforward, modern language that is clear and accessible to all those who wish to make, update, or revoke their will.

The need for a revamp of current legislation governing wills was recommended in the Law Commission’s 1997 publication Succession Law: A Succession (Wills) Act. As we understand it the interest was a practical one, because the legislation dating back to 1837 was archaic. So, too, were the words and the provisions. Thinking further about the suggestion that Māori are not interested in writing wills in the first place, I wonder, then, whether the process of simplifying and clarifying the legislation may also have an educative function about the value of setting out directions in legal form for the distribution of one’s property after death. Some of the key areas one would think should be included are the answers to questions such as: can I leave my whāngai some of my Māori land interest; how appropriate is it to defer property disposal provisions to the Māori Land Court to determine matters of succession; how are Acts such as the Family Protection Act 1955, the Matrimonial Property Act 1976, and the Administration Act 1969 able to comply with Māori cultural processes and laws; how are the succession rights of individuals, whānau or hapū, whose rights have been previously extinguished, able to be considered; can I ensure my wishes will stand after I pass on, and should I be able to make them stand; and is it time to consider a separate Māori law of succession?

The Māori Party believes that the creation of a will can play a role in maintaining whakapapa links through the succession of resources and taonga to whānau and hapū. As such, we are happy to support any amendments that assist this process. We are also of the opinion that the procedure of establishing wills is not one that applies just to contemporary times. Indeed, Frank Acheson’s essay for the Jacob Joseph Scholarship of 1913 describes the process of ōhākī—verbal wills—as a routine part of Māori custom. In 1914 a former student of the excellent Te Aute College, Hoani Meihana Te Rama Apakura, was employed as a licensed interpreter and clerk of the Native Land Court. Through his work he would be called upon to witness wills and translate official documents from Māori to English. So, clearly, as tangata whenua we have had our own distinct process of establishing wills, which may well be useful in any future wills education programme.

The key issue for the Māori Party in looking at the creation of a bill in plain, modern, accessible language is ensuring that the reforms that take place are explained in such a way as to make it perfectly clear how the law works in relation to key elements of customary law. In 1996 the Law Commission requested that a working paper be written by Professor Pat Hōhepa and Dr David Williams that could help to describe some of the intricacies of Māori law. The paper, entitled The Taking into Account of Te Ao Maori in Relation to Reform of the Law of Succession, noted that there had been legal recognition of Māori customary law in the past in the case of marriage or adoptions, but that such provisions were removed at the convenience of legislators who were not of Māori descent.

A key example of the impacts of this relate to the case of whāngai. Under Māori customary law whāngai are similar to legally adopted children in accordance with tikanga Māori, yet the Adoption Act 1955 does not apply to whāngai. In a precedent established in November 2002, in Keelan v Peach, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court decision stating that whāngai cannot make claims under the Family Protection Act. As a consequence of this case, if Māori want to make it clear that a whāngai child is to be included in a will, he or she has to be named or referred to by the term “whāngai” to be a beneficiary.

But we have been pleased that with the passage of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act on 1 July 1993, there are now clear legal protections with regard to succession to Māori land. It used to be that a person could leave interests to whomever they wished or be imposed upon to do so—as often happened—but now an owner of Māori land interests can leave those interests only as set out in the Act. In summary, Māori land interests or Māori incorporation shares can now be left only to children or descendants; brothers and sisters; anyone else entitled to receive interest by whakapapa, anyone else related to the testator by blood who is a member of the hapū associated with the land; other owners in the land who are members of the hapū associated with the land; whāngai of the testator; trustees of any of the above; and the spouse for life or for a shorter period. If Māori land is willed to someone who does not qualify, that part of the will is invalid. The idea is to continue the collective nature of whakapapa and the maintenance of land within the whenua tīpuna bloodlines. Freedom of choice should not extend to being able to alienate one’s children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren from their whenua.

Finally, one of the issues referred to in a paper by Professor Hōhepa and Dr Williams was the absolute importance of discussing with tangata whenua the context and criteria encompassed in wills. Their discussion paper was always intended as a basis only for going forward to consult with iwi and pan-Māori organisations. Their recommendation was that the consultation process would be crucial in providing answers to questions on the future direction of the law of succession as it affected Māori. It would appear from such a recommendation that what the author suggested was a wide-scale hui process. The Māori Party is more than happy to offer suggestions for, and support, such a nationwide consultation.

It may well be timely to revisit a concept I first raised in my first reading speech—that of ōhākī, a formal speech given when dying that takes the form of an announcement of one’s wishes regarding personal property disposal to the assembled relatives. With regard to ōhākī, I say that the legal oral declaration of intention was at first recognised as legally binding, but powers were removed by legislation last century. The Māori Party believes it is an important succession concept, and we would welcome further debate about its application in a modern-day context. We in the Māori Party support the Wills Bill at its second reading.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): It is a pleasure to stand again and speak in support of the second reading of the Wills Bill, which was before the Justice and Electoral Committee. It was another bill that received unanimous support and very constructive work from the committee.

The Wills Bill does not radically reform the existing laws relating to wills but, instead, aims to better those laws. The current laws relating to wills are verbose, archaic, and difficult for many people to understand. They can also make it difficult for the wishes of the will-maker to be carried out. The aims of this bill are, firstly, to restate the existing law in a single statute in plain modern language that is both clear and accessible. The bill improves the legal framework for will-making. It makes the law on wills easier to understand, ensuring that better effect can be given to will-makers’ intentions and making that process easier. An example of the use of plain English is that the reference, used previously, of “doing a testamentary action’’ has been removed. The bill now refers instead to “making”, “revoking”, “changing” and “reviving” a will, as appropriate. That language would be more readily understood by the average reader or, as former speakers have said, by ordinary people. I myself am quite proud to stand here and say I regard myself as being very much an ordinary person.

Christopher Finlayson: But an extraordinary chair of the committee.

LYNNE PILLAY: Thank you. Secondly, the bill will implement certain reforms to enhance and modernise the law relating to wills, while also removing certain differences. It will also reduce the chances of a will or a gift failing, which does happen now, and make it easier for younger people to make wills.

Once again, I want to thank the Law Commission, which in 1997 reviewed the wills legislation—

Christopher Finlayson: When?

LYNNE PILLAY: —1997—which currently comprises six statutes, the oldest of which goes back to 1837. That was done as part of a wider review of general succession law, and we have seen a number of bills before this House that have come from the work of the Law Commission in that area. The commission recommended restating and modernising the law into a single statute, and modernising the law of wills in certain minor aspects. This bill is based on those recommendations, though it also takes into account certain developments. I refer to de facto and civil union relationships. Civil union relationships have come in as part of our legislation and are now recognised in it. They were not recognised in 1997, when the Law Commission did its work.

The bill slightly shifts the wills legislation away from the benefits of the formalities in will-making, which often prevent fraud and uncertainty, towards the interest of carrying out the will-maker’s intentions. The bill will remove a minimum age at which a person can make a will. Those under 18 years of age can make a will if they are planning to marry or enter into a civil union. Also, a signature will no longer be absolutely required at the end of a will. Improperly signed or witnessed wills may be made valid by the High Court if it is satisfied that the will expresses the will-maker’s intentions.

The select committee heard a number of submissions. I commend the advice we were given during the select committee process; I am sure all members of the committee would agree it was most constructive and helpful. Further changes were brought in by the committee to make the language of the bill plainer and the English easier to understand—for example, using the term “person” rather than “natural person”. Clause 8 was amended to further define the meaning of “will” and was reordered into a more logical sequence, making it easier to understand. The main purpose of the bill is that ordinary people can get good advice from the legislation in a practical way, and can read in plain English about how to make a will and how to ensure that it is valid and delivers exactly what the will-maker or person wants to see happen. The committee saw clause 9 to be unnecessary and repetitive, and it was deleted. We also amended clause 18. As I said before, that clause related to preserving a will when a will-maker gets married. It seemed ridiculous that a will made by a minor remains intact upon marriage but that a will made by an adult does not. So that inconsistency was corrected. Clause 18 was amended—as I spoke about before—so that the circumstances associated with making a will when in contemplation of marriage or a civil union can be taken into account.

Indeed, I thank the select committee. I do not think anyone would claim that this legislation will set the world on fire. It certainly has not engaged much debate in this House nor indeed at the select committee. But I will say that it will probably make quite a substantial change to a number of people’s lives—families’ lives in particular—when someone has passed away and they are looking at and considering what is in the will. The legislation actually ensures there is a fairness and a quality in will-making. I also think that using plain English, which I have always been an advocate for, will enhance wills in the future. There will not be a mystery around them. Will-making will become a simpler process and people will be able to rest in peace, knowing that what they wanted to happen with regard to their will is going to happen because there is some common-sense, plain language to ensure that it does. I think that is important. When I spoke before I thanked the select committee; I would like to do so again. It always helps when legislation is not particularly controversial and members apply themselves very well to it. We had good advice and support, and we were able to bring the bill back before the House in quite a speedy time.

It is with pleasure that I speak in support of this bill at its second reading and, along with other speakers, I commend it to the House. Thank you.

DIANNE YATES (Labour): I rise to speak on the Wills Bill. It is interesting that the bill has a very, very simple title. We have at times discussed what bills are called and said that bills before Parliament should be very explicit and obvious in what they are about. I think it is pretty obvious what the Wills Bill is about; it is about wills. I do not think there is any other bill that has such a short title. I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for the work it did. It is pretty obvious—as has been said by other speakers—that this bill is not one that has caused a great deal of controversy. I am surprised that the committee received only 10 submissions—of which six were heard—given the amount of interest that people in this country have had about violence towards children. One of the most violent things concerning children is when they cannot inherit from a will, or when people change their wills so that their family cannot inherit. I am surprised more people did not make submissions on this bill, which is basically about what people can inherit and what many, many people spend a great deal of time thinking about.

So I was surprised there were only 10 submissions. That obviously indicates that the bill is not about changing the law in any dramatic way but is about making the law easier to understand. Having been an executor, I think that that is something that is perhaps long overdue. As Dr Worth mentioned when he was speaking, we look back to 1837 with this bill. It is not a bill that started off in New Zealand; it is one we inherited. It is a Wills Bill that was inherited by New Zealand.

I am optimistic that the changes that have been made will enable people to more easily understand their rights. As has been mentioned by Lynne Pillay, there was a particular anomaly about someone who marries when under age. This bill has dealt with the anomaly so that the will-making powers and legality of the will have been sorted out in that regard.

I note that on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which dealt with this bill, there are a large number of lawyers—many of them practising lawyers. No doubt they put their minds to this legislation and ensured that this bill would become more workable and easily understood, not only by the law profession but by the laypeople who wish to make their wills.

It is interesting, as we have said, that there are some changes—for example, for those entering into a civil union. There have been changes to other legislation that have this impact. Legislation such as the Civil Union Act contains clauses that change other legislation automatically. Those will no doubt have affected this legislation as well and ensured that there is fairness, and that what applies to marriage applies also to civil unions and, as we have heard, to those under 18 who marry.

It does seem a little strange that the outdated terms are going. I actually quite like the word “testator”, but I guess I am a little old-fashioned. We do understand that a will-maker is a will-maker and that the Wills Bill will make things much easier to understand and use.

Once again we thank those who made submissions on the bill and who came before the select committee to give their opinions. Those whose opinions were taken into account and changes made will be especially pleased. I thank all of those who were on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I thank the staff and all of those who worked on this legislation. We look forward to its going through its other stages in the House and becoming law. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central): I felt moved to take a brief call on the second reading of the Wills Bill.

Christopher Finlayson: Why?

TIM BARNETT: I have three reasons, which is always appropriate in these situations. My first reason is that for some time when talking to audiences in the rainbow community and explaining the process of civil union, I have explained the fact that some legislation was left out of the very comprehensive law reform process that ran parallel to civil union. The statutory references legislation that effectively cleared up discrimination in over 150 New Zealand statutes left unamended and unreformed a range of legislation, including the adoption legislation, the Wills Bill, and what was then the lawyers and conveyancers legislation, because that legislation was undergoing a law reform process.

The phrase “law reform process” is a somewhat mysterious one that probably means very little to the general public. Indeed, if one looks at those different pieces of legislation, one sees that the process was very, very different in terms of adoption law. This House has, through select committees—and notably through committees that my colleague Dianne Yates has been involved in—discussed the issue from time to time but it has never ever got to the point of being legislation, and that remains one of the anomalies in our law in terms of who is and who is not allowed to adopt.

Another piece of legislation that was then at a reasonably early stage was the wills legislation. That reform process, as we have heard from colleagues, was driven by the Law Commission. As we have heard from earlier discussion, only a handful of submissions were received on this process when the bill got to the Justice and Electoral Committee. But I think one should always recognise that when the Law Commission engages in a law reform process, it takes its time. It also receives public submissions. Really, what it is doing, which is a great service to this House, is preparing legislation to the point that what we have to do is just make sure that it has been done properly, then on that basis go ahead and get the legislation through. So not only did the select committee receive only a handful of submissions on the Wills Bill but also the changes the committee made were quite modest.

My first point of interest was the fact that this law reform process, which we have been talking about for at least 3 or 4 years, has now finally culminated, and, secondly, that this process highlights what law reform is all about. Today in discussions elsewhere in this place I heard that the income tax legislation is going through a similar reform process—reform not so much in terms of changing the law but in terms of really making sure it is written in consistent and modern English. Indeed, it seems, in looking at the report we have before us today from the Justice and Electoral Committee, that the committee has adopted much the same approach. We have legislation relating to wills that goes back through 170 years. What will come out of this process, when the bill goes through the Committee stage and the third reading, will be a single Wills Act in plain, modern language that is both clear and accessible. That was the essence of this process, but at the same time there were reforms.

Even though the area of wills is one where there probably are not dynamic changes from year to year, over time changes do happen, anomalies appear, and the law needs to be modernised. What we have is what I think can best be described as modest reform—necessary, quite low-level changes to ensure that this is effective and functioning legislation.

I note from looking through the report of the select committee that it made changes in five areas. As I understand it, those changes were made mainly in response to comments coming from public submitters and also from officials. The reality of our select committee process is that when officials start to put the heat of attention on legislation, then a lot of minor detail starts to emerge. I say that it is minor detail, but in the case of wills it could well be that what seems to be minor detail could be of fundamental importance to somebody faced with a conflict in terms of a will.

The select committee looked at issues of terminology. It was gratifying to know that a committee of politicians could simplify the legislation beyond what the officials could produce. For example, the committee has omitted the word “natural” from “natural person” and replaced the term “doing a testamentary action” with “making a will”, and so forth. That was the first function that the committee undertook. Secondly, it slightly amended the meaning of “will” so that documents that change, revoke, or revive a will are included in that umbrella term, which makes perfect sense to me. Thirdly, it deleted clause 9, which explained the relationship between the clause concerned with people who may change, revoke, or revive wills and clauses later on in the legislation. The committee did that because its members thought that the wording was unnecessary and repetitive. Fourthly, the committee amended the clause concerning age restrictions for preserving a will.

Fifthly, the committee looked at the whole issue of the terms of the will and the surrounding circumstances. That was the amendment particularly relating to civil union. Obviously, the bill already included civil union, as all our legislation does now when it refers to relationships—marriage and civil union are effectively mentioned together—but this amendment talks about the revocation when a will-maker enters into a marriage or civil union. Those are all important points in what is detailed legislation that for most of our lives we will not have any contact with whatsoever. But on some occasions, particularly when there is a death in our families and at the end of our lives, those points will become extremely important.

I commend the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee and the work of the Law Commission. I commend the fact that the select committee was able to, working on a cross-party basis, make good and useful changes to this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

RON MARK (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to say a few short words in support of the Wills Bill and to acknowledge a number of things.

This bill has come on the tail of the Succession (Homicide) Bill, which was debated prior to the dinner break. It is interesting, when one compares the two bills, to note the similarity between the concerns and issues in, and possibly the conflicts that arise from, the two bills. Specifically, I know that the Succession (Homicide) Bill aims to codify the law that precludes a person who unlawfully kills another person from benefiting from the death of that person. That includes benefit from the proceeds of the victim’s estate or from any non-probate estates. It will be interesting to see how that bill goes on. If we look at the clauses relating to restriction of claims, we see that that bill provides that a killer who has a valid claim against the estate of a victim is entitled to make an application in respect of that claim under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949. However, the bill does not allow such an application to be made where a testamentary promise is expressly provided for in the victim’s will.

It is interesting to read on and note that the Justice and Electoral Committee recognised in the hearing of submissions on that bill, and that the House recognised in its consideration of the bill, that the purpose of the bill is to ensure that a person should not profit from the act of killing. Therefore, we consider that killers under the bill should be deprived only of the rights they gained by virtue of the killing. A host of New Zealanders in reading that would say that killers should not get anything, and that it did not matter whether they were entitled to it from a will or from preceding promises that had been made. The mere fact that a person who killed could profit in any way as a result of that killing would, in the eyes of most New Zealanders, be abhorrent. But I am trusting—and New Zealand First is hoping—that given that both of these bills were examined and considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee, its members fully understand the consequences of one bill upon the other.

Moving to the Wills Bill, we note a number of things. We note the extraordinarily large number of MPs who sat on the select committee in the hearings on this bill. Quite clearly, a bit of shuffling was going on, with some members coming in from December and some from February, and some members being there as non-voting members. The honourable Hone Harawira was there as a non-voting member.

I can assure the House that I know the frustrations that can occur. New Zealand First and the Greens are parties that I tend to refer to as alternative parties, not as minor parties. One cannot consider a party that has six or seven MPs—or one that represents four major constituency seats in this country—as being minor. But that is the view of an alternative party member. Alternative party views need to be heard in the hearings on these bills. It is frustrating, to say the least, that alternative parties are permitted on these select committees only at the behest or through the goodwill of the major parties, and that the major parties still inflict their control by removing voting rights. It does not actually speak a lot for the functionality and the performance of MMP.

I guess that is something that the alternative parties need to articulate more to the constituency and to the electorates, so that the electorates understand that when members such as Hone Harawira sit on these committees, they may have the opportunity to listen and to question but they are prevented from exercising a vote. They are prevented from exercising any capacity in terms of the decision-making process. That is something that in time we will have to deal with, and it is something that must be dealt with if we are to have a truly mixed-member proportional Parliament in the full sense of that term.

The other thing that strikes me is the number of submissions: 10 submissions, of which only six were heard. This is curious. I am absolutely confident that all of the 121 MPs in this House, at some stage in the performance of their duties, end up advising citizens of this nation as to their rights, responsibilities, obligations, limitations, and restrictions in respect of the Act in terms of wills. One of the issues that may confront constituents in their lifetime that very often becomes a very personalised and vexed issue is that of wills—what Uncle Bloggs left or did not leave to nephews, aunties, sons, and daughters. It absolutely amazes me that, regardless of the degree of angst and dissatisfaction, the numbers of disputes that arise, and the level of sensitivity and emotion behind those issues, only 10 submissions were received on this bill, and only six of those submissions were actually heard.

I am further puzzled by that when I reflect on my own experience as a citizen and as a member of Parliament. In my time I have acted as an executor of the estate of my sister who passed away with no will. I have personally dealt with the difficulties of trying to manage an estate in such a circumstance to the satisfaction of the wider whanaunga. I was left somewhat frustrated that my sister had not made the time, found the time, or seen the need to make a will. I know that she is not the only New Zealander who has passed away in such circumstances; there are many, many more people out there without wills. As a Parliament we need to impress upon all New Zealanders the absolute importance and necessity of having a will. I accept the concern raised by Pita Sharples that a good number of—not most—Māori do not write wills for specific reasons. Some of those reasons are cultural, some are superstitious, and some are simply other reasons. There is a very definite need for the people of this nation to take on board the need to write a will, and to have confidence in the wills process.

The other thing I have to point out relates to Part 1 of this bill, where it talks about the armed forces and dispositions. As a soldier, nothing focuses the mind more than being told by one’s company sergeant major to sit down and write out a will. For most Defence Force personnel it brings the realisation that they will be deployed and that the chance they will be killed in action is a reality. I can assure the House that when I as a 17 or 18-year-old soldier was told to sit my butt down and write out a will, what was being said crystallised very, very clearly in my mind. At that time I was looking, rightly or wrongly, to go to Viet Nam. In the event, thankfully, it did not happen, but, as is the case for all defence forces personnel who are deployed all over the world right now, I had to write out a will because I was being deployed operationally. It is good that the military does that and that these issues are taken care of in this bill.

It is regrettable that the public as a whole in New Zealand have not taken on the importance and the significance of writing a will. The one fact that remains is we all will die. The condition in which we leave our estate, the ease with which the executors and other whānau members can tidy up our affairs, is often dictated by our ability to take on board that simple message.

I gather that this bill is a good bill in the sense that, if nothing else, it simplifies the language, using plain English. If I can make one plea, it is that it seems that we in this House are forever telling officials to please write things in plain English. Shakespeare died a long time ago. Ordinary New Zealanders, average New Zealanders, even highly educated New Zealanders in this country, prefer that laws be able to be read and interpreted swiftly. It does nobody any good—no matter what the legislation, no matter what the issue—if we continue to tie up our legislation with archaic and secularised terminology that only certain people can understand. That only produces grey areas, and grey areas lead to dissention.

I finish by saying that I have taken on board the comments of Pita Sharples in respect of Māoridom. Specifically, I think he said that ōhākī, which is a form of speech given when one is dying, should have some legal recognition. I say that I am listening, and that it is something I will discuss with my caucus, and I look forward to further debate on it in the Committee stage of this bill. I know that many Māori people—particularly our elderly, our kaumātua and our kuia—have lived a life where the oral word, the spoken word, has been the law. It does seem that sometimes we overlook such things. I am not quite sure—I have not had the opportunity to talk to my caucus about it—but the arguments that I heard put in this debate seem to me to have some sense and some grounds.

We look forward to the debate in the Committee stage. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.

Debate on Crown Entities, Public Organisations,and State Enterprises

In Committee

Debate resumed from 1 May.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Before we continue I remind members that the debates on the individual financial reviews should be relevant to their performance in the 2005-06 financial year and their current operations. A further 1 hour and 18 minutes remain of the 3 hours allowed for the debate. At the conclusion of this time the Chairperson will report to the House.

The list of the financial reviews that are available for debate is appended to the Order Paper. The question currently before the committee is that the report of the Health Committee on the 2005-06 financial review of the Canterbury District Health Board be noted.

Canterbury District Health Board (continued)

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): In speaking to this review of the Canterbury District Health Board for the 2005-06 financial year, I think that when one is looking at this district health board it embodies a lot of the serious issues that are confronting the Government and, by implication, the public, in the management of the health service. A big problem we have in the health service currently is the issue of quality.

This district health board has had a lot of publicity in relation to the case of a young man—a 25-year-old—who turned up at accident and emergency in Christchurch with severe back pain. He was processed through accident and emergency, he saw multiple doctors, and he was turned away from that hospital only to go home and die in agony from a spinal infection, just a few short hours later. That, obviously, is a tragedy for that young man, his partner, and the family. It should never have happened. But what it does highlight is an issue we have of systemic failure throughout the health service.

The incident involving the Canterbury District Health Board, I regret to say, is not isolated. We have had numerous examples of other tragedies occurring throughout the health system. In fact, it is hitting the headlines on a daily basis. The Associate Minister of Health, Jim Anderton, was telling the House at question time today that the New Zealand health system is better than ever. Well, it is really hard to justify that statement, and I am looking forward to the Minister taking a call shortly, before announcing his retirement, to tell us how he can say that the New Zealand health system is better than ever.

We have a system that is confronted by innumerable challenges that this Government is clearly not up to the task of solving. If one looks at the industrial relations situation in the New Zealand health system at the moment, we have an unprecedented situation whereby the senior salaried doctors—the senior specialists—have announced today that they are calling a special stopwork meeting because they feel the situation in our hospitals has got so bad that they can no longer continue working under this regime. That is unprecedented. But it is not the only industrial action we have. We have had radiographers go on strike, we have had three strikes by laboratory workers this year, and we have a climate of continuous industrial unrest that the Minister of Health has been powerless to stop.

One could say that on the one hand industrial relations in the health sector is an issue in itself, but the problem is the flow-on effects to patient care. When one has a laboratory workers dispute, which the Minister is incapable of solving—that he is incompetent to solve—it means that fewer people are getting the operations they need. So when there is a delay there are no X-rays, there are no laboratory services, and the hospital pretty much comes to a stop. People do not get their surgery. That surgery obviously is delayed and it bumps people further down the list. Basically what happens is that the quality of care that New Zealand has come to expect is just not there any more.

When one goes back to the tragic tale of the young man who passed away after his assessment at Christchurch Hospital, one can see that there are many interwoven strands that lead to such a situation. There are laboratory workers on strike, short-staffing of doctors, too many doctors who are not familiar with our health system and culture in New Zealand, and underpaid nurses. There is an industrial climate and a hospital climate in which people are unhappy to be working, patients are consequently getting a lower standard of care, and this basically affects the outcomes for the patient.

It brings us to the issue of accountability. What we are seeing with this Government is a total dearth of accountability, and it is across all sectors, not just in health. We had the Minister of Justice stand up here today and his version of accountability in terms of dealing with gang problems in New Zealand was to say that we are passing legislation such as the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act—that is how we are going to deal with the gang problem. I think this is indicative of an administration that, first, does not want to take accountability, but, second, does not have the answers to the problems that are confronting New Zealanders. There is no question that health is one of those areas.

Report noted.

Capital and Coast District Health Board

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki): Like my colleague before me, I feel that this particular district health board is a window to the health system at the moment. I mean by that that a number of issues were raised in the financial review of the Capital and Coast District Health Board, and they give us a very clear picture of the hot spots in the health system at the moment. There have been some particular hot spots that I will lead in with, and one of those is around anaesthetic staff numbers, which reached crisis levels during the year. That is the very workforce that was reported on in the report.

We were told by the district health board that it is having huge difficulties in recruiting and retaining enough staff in certain workforce groups. We know how many New Zealanders are heading across the Tasman for better conditions and less tax; in fact, this seems to be having quite an impact on the Capital and Coast District Health Board, as it reported to us. There are issues around attracting specialists, and also mental health personnel. The problem is less so with junior doctors but certainly affects getting nurses.

The district health board also acknowledged that it has faced a significant financial challenge in recent years, but when looking at the many more billions—the extra $4 billion a year—that have been poured into the health system, we must wonder where the board’s extra funding has been spent, and we would suggest that it has gone to bureaucrats.

The district health board also mentioned, in terms of workforce, that it is having difficulties attracting a workforce to home and community-based care—we are talking about aged care now—and it is having to look at strategies to ensure that demand can be met. Although it is exploring some innovative new services it certainly is having difficulty, because even though there is low unemployment, that is a sector that is certainly low in morale, as well.

Another pane of glass in the window to the health system is the 2,500 patients who were referred back to primary care in this financial year, when the revised booking system came into effect. As the Health Committee, we had to recommend that the district health board carefully monitor the patients who were referred to primary care, to make sure they had adequate support—that is, that they were not left high and dry with no options other than to continue to suffer in pain. There was some suggestion that their referral visit to their general practitioner would be paid for. But that is not enough; these people had an expectation that they were going to get their surgery. They know that many billions of dollars are being put into the health service, and they are wondering why on earth they are suddenly being left high and dry without either their first specialist appointment or their surgery.

Like other hospital boards, Capital and Coast District Health Board has suffered its share of adverse events. Unfortunately, included in those adverse events was one that hit the headlines—that is, the care and treatment received by a 50-year-old man who died 40 hours after being admitted to Wellington Hospital. The post-mortem found that he died of respiratory failure and pneumonia. The really tragic thing is that he had received very poor care from both medical and nursing staff, as reported by Health and Disability Commissioner Ron Paterson, who advised that the case was not an isolated one. In fact, the gentleman had an X-ray taken that showed he had the early stages of, or was developing, pneumonia, but the X-ray was not read. Staff shortages were no excuse for the failures by Wellington Hospital to care for that man properly, according to Mr Paterson; I have to agree with that view. The hospital took it on the chin, but that case is yet another pane of glass in the window to the health system.

Hospital-acquired infections, generally considered to be adverse events, were reported by this district health board, as by other boards, and also medication-related errors. In fact, there were approximately 320 medication-related errors. This, indeed, is another symptom of an ailing health system.

Work is happening within this district health board in oral health, which is another interest of mine, but the board has found it extremely difficult to attract practitioners from oral health services in the community to look after the oral health of adolescents. This is a country-wide problem and certainly cannot be attributed to this district health board being rural, because in the main it is not. But it does highlight the effect that this Government is having on relationships within the health sector. I have spoken already about anaesthetists, but the issue relates to dentists as well.

Report noted.

Counties Manukau District Health Board

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): Just to continue on from what my colleague Mrs Goodhew was saying, I say it is a massive issue for the public that $4 billion extra per year is going into the New Zealand health system since this Government came into power in 1999, yet we are not seeing any improved health outcomes overall. That is a major problem. Continuing on with the theme we were debating in the discussion of the Canterbury District Health Board, I say we need to have some real accountability from the Minister, and from his Associate Ministers, for what is happening in the health service. I certainly hope that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Jim Anderton, an Associate Minister of Health, will get up at the end of this series of speeches and take a call, because, as I said before, he tells us that the New Zealand health system has never been in better shape than it is at present. Clearly, it is not in such good shape, and that has been a theme throughout these speeches. If he wants to prove there is some accountability, the very least he will have to do is to get up and justify his position.

Accountability goes to the core of what we are missing in the health service. If we look at the Counties Manukau District Health Board, we see the situation where the chairman, Pat Snedden, who was appointed by the Labour Government, signed a contract for laboratory services where there was a major conflict of interest. Helen Clark, the Prime Minister, has said the chairman is responsible for that, but she has refused to endorse the chairpersons of the three Auckland regional health boards and express confidence in them. Clearly, they are accountable for what they did; the Prime Minister does not have any confidence, and the Minister of Heath refuses to express confidence, in them. We went out to Counties Manukau District Health Board just a couple of weeks ago, spoke to the chairman, Mr Snedden, and said to him that the National Party thinks he should resign from his post. The reality is that he is at the helm of that organisation. Mr Snedden said that he did not think he should resign, because the issue that arose regarding the contract was not his fault.

The problem we have is a lack of accountability. There is buck-passing. The Minister does not think he is accountable; he says the chairman is accountable. The chairman says he is responsible, but is not to blame. We have that culture basically interwoven through everything this Government does, whether it is in health or in corrections. The problem with the laboratory contract is that despite what the district health board chairs say, the end does not justify the means. They say there is no problem. They have been through a High Court action and were found to be wrong, but they say that at the end of the day they are saving the public $8 million of taxpayers’ money, so what they did is justified. That theme runs through this Government, as well. It thinks it can do what it likes, as long as it gets the results. Well, I say the Government is not getting the results and that attitude is not acceptable to the New Zealand public.

The debacle over laboratory testing has been an absolute scandal, and the fact that no one has said he or she is responsible for making a mistake and will be resigning is completely unacceptable.

Hon Tau Henare: Doesn’t happen any more.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It does not happen any more. No, it did not happen in terms of the Department of Corrections. The Minister of Corrections, Damien O’Connor, has not resigned. He said he was responsible, but not to blame, for the recent deaths. We cannot see him taking any responsibility at any time. [Interruption] Damien O’Connor thinks we should get over it. The fact is that Liam Ashley’s parents will never get over it. The relatives of the victims of Graeme Burton will never get over it. It is all right for Government Ministers to say people should get over it. In terms of the health service, the partner of the man who died in Christchurch Hospital will never get over it. If the people in Auckland who cannot get access to the elective surgery that they need do not survive, their relatives will not get over it. But it is typical of a Labour Minister to just say the Government is responsible but not to blame for that, and to say people should just get over it. Well, frankly, it is time that Ministers actually got back on track and got back on theme.

I want to hear from Jim Anderton. Rather than just silently tell us to get over it, by not giving a speech, I want him to get up tonight and tell us how he can possibly say the New Zealand health system is better than it was 7 years ago, when frankly it is not.

Report noted.

Pharmaceutical Management Agency

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I have a number of grave concerns about Pharmac’s performance, on a number of levels, and it is really difficult to know where actually to start. A lot of the difficulties relate to the fact that the agency has quite a strict financial mandate, which I will read out for colleagues. The mandate is “to secure, for eligible people in need of pharmaceuticals, the best health outcomes that are reasonably achievable from pharmaceutical treatment and”—this is the emphasis here—“from within the amount of funding provided.” Unfortunately, that phrase “from within the amount of funding provided.”, has become the gospel, the driver, for Pharmac. It has simply lost sight of the human factor when it is balancing the books. Countless men, women, and children have been denied access to medicine that would improve their health and quality of life. A study came out last year that looked at the difference between Australians and New Zealanders, and Australians have far more access to new medicines—in fact, to 58 more—than New Zealanders do.

To keep in budget, to keep to this financial mandate, Pharmac has a number of clever little business practices. They are all very effective; they stimulate competition and pit companies against each another. There is a lot of horse-trading behind the scenes, and that can often yield surprising results with the drugs being funded. All of that is to get the price down to the best deal. One much-loved tactic is just to stall and slow the process right down, so a drug can wait years for funding to improve. In fact, I tell colleagues that it takes 2 years for a drug to get funded, and often that tactic is used to stall the funding of the drug until a patent expires on a medicine, which allows cheaper generics to come through. In the meantime, New Zealanders have missed out on a crucial medication.

This was the case for Taxol last year, when it came through for funding. It had been on the waiting list as a breast cancer drug. It is very important in treating aggressive breast cancer. It had been on the funding list for at least 2 years, then suddenly in September or so last year it became funded. The reason was that its patent had expired and generics had come through, so Pharmac was able to drive a hard bargain and get a good price. Good on Pharmac! But, more important, women had missed out on access to Taxol as a very important chemotherapy agent used in breast cancer.

I think that this typifies everything that needs addressing. As an example, I am going to talk about statins. I sent out a press release last week. Statins are crucial medications that lower cholesterol levels and manage cardiovascular events. New Zealand has a high rate of cardiovascular disease; it is the No. 1 killer in New Zealand. Statins are used widely around the world, and there is very firm evidence that they prevent heart disease and death. New Zealand’s use of statins has lagged behind that of the rest of the world, and it has really been quite shameful. New Zealanders have suffered.

I went to a medical law conference a few weeks ago, and the chief executive from Pharmac held up a graph—he was really quite pleased with himself—that showed a huge gap from about 2002 to 2005 where New Zealanders were missing out on statins, and he admitted as much. People had suffered because of that. “But, look,” he said, “we have caught up.”, and the graphs converged from 2005. People died because of that gap, and he was actually a bit misleading. He said that from 2005 our statin access was similar to that of Australia, but he is wrong. It is actually quite different. Australians have unlimited access to at least five different statins, including one of the most potent statins available. New Zealand, in contrast, has only three statins available—two of which are quite restricted, and the list does not include the stronger statin that Australia has.

So I think the statin legacy that Pharmac has given us is quite a shameful legacy. A readers’ survey had also come through, where 7,000 New Zealanders on statin medication had their cholesterol checked. Only 25 percent were actually in the targeted area according to the guidelines. In other words, we have very poor control, in contrast to 51 percent of Australians. Our control is worse, which means that our protection against cardiovascular disease is reduced.

The next graph that Pharmac’s chief executive held up was a graph showing that we had been saving a lot of money in statins. I think, again, that that is false economy. People have died because of a lack of statins, and the money we are spending now we might as well throw down the toilet because our protection is poorer. I think Pharmac needs to come to terms with that. Cheap is not always necessarily best, and certainly access is important to New Zealanders.

Probably lots of backslapping goes on with Pharmac every time the Budget comes through, and every year it comes in under budget because of its financial mandate: it cannot spend over budget. Last year it came in under budget by $19.4 million, which is astonishing. Over the last 5 years a total of almost $50 million has been underspent by Pharmac. That money could have been spent for medicine access for New Zealanders—and was not.

Report noted.

Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi (Te Māngai Pāho)

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I want to talk about the figment of people’s imagination, Te Māngai Pāho—

Hon Maurice Williamson: It doesn’t exist in statutes.

Hon TAU HENARE: —the organisation we have come to know as Te Māngai Pāho, as my colleague corrects me. I want to say right off that it is the only charter station we have in New Zealand—Māori Television. That has been able to happen because of the sterling work that Te Māngai Pāho has been able to do, in channelling its funding into what I think is a wonderful, wonderful thing for this country: Māori TV.

Just as an example of that, I cite the all-day coverage of Anzac Day. You know, when we awoke on Anzac Day this year and last year, we saw wall-to-wall coverage of old soldiers’ stories and of everything that was nice about Anzac Day. So on behalf of my colleagues in the National Party I officially congratulate the Māori Television Service—and Te Māngai Pāho, which played a very important part in it—on a job well done.

I worry that we have an organisation that is there to fund the Māori content in broadcasting, both on radio and in TV. Although I have my doubts whether the radio component is doing as well as Māori TV—

Hon Members: Now, now, now!

Hon TAU HENARE: Members say: “Now, now, now!”. We are not allowed to criticise, eh? But the fact of the matter is that some—and I am not saying all, so I would not be too defensive—of those radio stations do need the proverbial kick up the backside. Some, however, are using the money they get to offer their communities of interest a real service, and I applaud them for that. To name but a few, there is Ngāti Hine radio, Radio Ngāti Porou, and the one up north. What is it called?

Hone Harawira: Te Hiku.

Hon TAU HENARE: Te Hiku.

But I really want to say that I think that Te Māngai Pāho is wasting a bit of money in funding the Māori content for Television New Zealand. I think that what we have seen in Television New Zealand—and this is not particularly Te Māngai Pāho’s fault and not particularly the Māori part of Television New Zealand’s fault, but it is Television New Zealand management’s fault—is that for a long time the Māori content has been ghettoised. Now we have Māori TV, which as I said is doing a sterling effort. I watched the new programme and went to the launch of Native Affairs, which is an absolutely brilliant idea and a good use of Government money.

I think it is time to recognise that there really is only one charter television station in this country. That is Māori Television, and we should get behind it. OK, yes, in any Crown entity using Government money we have to go through a process of review—and that is what National will be doing when we become the Government after the next election. We will be going through the process of reviewing what is good and what is bad, to make sure that what is bad is put aside.

National does not have the view of Damien O’Connor, when he says to everything: “Get over it.” That is the stock answer of the Labour Government now when it is faced with trials and tribulations—“Get over it!”. Well, National will certainly be getting over it, under it, around it, and on top of it when we are the Government, because—

Hon David Benson-Pope: Dream on!

Hon TAU HENARE: Old “Spanky” says “Dream on!”. I will dream on, but not in the way that he thinks I will. All I can say is that the National Party supports Te Māngai Pāho and its good work.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State): First of all I want to thank the member the Hon Tau Henare. Let us not play politics about Māori Television. He was one of the ones who inspired the concept when he was Minister of Māori Affairs. I carried it on and it came to fruition.

He is quite right in regard to the premium presentation made by Māori Television in regard to Anzac Day. I think every New Zealander should be proud of the professionalism and the presentation that was made giving respect to the many of our tūpuna—many of our forebears—who went overseas and sacrificed their lives so that our country could be free in terms of expression and so we could regain and maintain our way of life.

I differ somewhat in respect of his comments regarding the contribution made by Television New Zealand in that I think Marae, Te Karere, and Waka Huia are also very, very premium and very professional presentations. I think it gives a balance. Although we all have the same whakapapa and the same orators, I think it is appropriate and very useful that we get a balance from professional people who are involved not only in television but in broadcasting.

I also want to say that I am certainly very encouraged about the value, the attitudes, and the way that Māori radio has covered many, many of the issues that are relevant to Māori right across the nation. My whanaunga are at Te Hiku o te Ika. Although we are right up at the top of the island, of course, we get firsthand news in terms of Māori activities and Māori events.

I thank the member for his very valid contribution to the debate and also the performance of Te Māngai Pāho. Kia ora tātou.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I want to take a very short call to echo the sentiments of both my ministerial colleague the Hon Dover Samuels and the member opposite the Hon Tau Henare, in terms of the positive comments they made about Māori Television’s coverage of Anzac Day. As a former Minister of Defence, I think it is pleasing to see that sort of quality coverage. It was consistent with the sort of coverage we saw after the tragic death of the Māori Queen, which again, I think, brought a new standard of coverage that was accessible to all New Zealanders. The feedback I still get—

Hon Tau Henare: Public broadcasting.

Hon MARK BURTON: It really was, and I think Māori Television managed to strike the balance, in its extended coverage of both of those events, of being accessible to all New Zealanders while showing genuine respect for the tikanga that underpinned the events. I simply wanted to add my voice to the acknowledgments of the good work that has been done there.

Report noted.

Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori (Māori Language Commission)

Hon TAU HENARE (National): First off again, in my most humble opinion, I say that Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori is one of the most unloved, underfunded, and overworked of Crown entities. I say this not as a jibe against the Government but to declare that here we have a receptacle of New Zealand’s language—one of the official languages of New Zealand. The other official language is New Zealand Sign Language. Something that members of the House may or may not know is that the English language is not recognised as an official language of New Zealand. We think it is, but it is not recognised in any statute. So I just leave that there on the side; I think it should be.

I worry that the receptacle of the indigenous language of this nation is absolutely underfunded. It struggles on a daily basis to complete projects like the dictionary of New Zealand Māori, which is a first in relation to many, many indigenous peoples around the world. The commission cannot, by virtue of its financial situation, take money from what is known as Mā Te Reo and put it into the finalising of the dictionary project. As I suppose I was a prime mover, in my years as Minister of Māori Affairs, for the initial Mā Te Reo funding, I say to members that I was able to shoehorn that funding out of the Rt Hon Bill Birch. To the former Minister of Māori Affairs in the chair tonight, the Hon Dover Samuels, I must give congratulations on the job that he did when he was Minister in getting Mā Te Reo funding—in terms of keeping it and making it of some use to our language.

But I think we should be able to go a wee bit further than that in the future, and I am looking forward to the day when we look at Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori as a receptacle, as an icon, of our nation’s language. It should be not only us looking at the commission and respecting it as such but also those across our waters, those across the seas, and thinking: “Yeah, maybe that is what we should be doing in terms of our language.”

I think a lot more Government organisations should be listening to, and following the lead of, Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori. They, along with Government, set the Māori Language Strategy. Sometimes I think the Māori Language Strategy over the past few years has been a bit wayward. That is not because our Ministers are particularly dumb; it is because it is such a topic that we fall over ourselves in trying to do the best and right thing. I think sometimes we should leave it to the experts to figure out what our strategy should be, and we should get in behind entities like Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori.

I will not speak for too much longer other than to say I hope that one day—whether it be in the time of this Government or the next—Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori will be placed on a pedestal where the holder of the nation’s indigenous language should be, and be funded, staffed, and listened to, accordingly. The little mention that I made before of New Zealand’s other language—English—should also be recognised in statute—recognised as an official language of this country. Kia ora.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State): Te mea tuatahi māku kei te mihi atu ki a koe, e Tau. Nāu nei i tū ki te whakanui i tō tātou reo rangatira i tēnei pō, kei te mihi atu. Kei te maumahara ahau i te wā i a au e tamariki ana, haere ahau ki te kura, harakau e mōhio ana ki te reo Pākehā. Engari, pēnā e kōrero ana ahau i roto i tō tāua reo rangatira, āe marika, kua wepuwepungia ahau e ngā kura māhita.

[First and foremost I want to thank Tau, who stood up tonight to praise our chiefly language, and I acknowledge that. I recall the time when I was a youngster and went to school, I did not know any English. But when I spoke in our chiefly language I was strapped repeatedly by the teachers. Yes, indeed.]

I thank the member Tau Henare for his contribution. I am reminded of when I used to go to school, not so long ago. The only language I could speak was my own—taku reo rangatira. God help me if I was caught speaking my own language within the school ground parameters, because we did not have the anti-smacking legislation in that time. The teacher, Mr Simpson—I remember him very clearly—was a tall, very strong Pākehā, and he was the only Pākehā in the Whakarara Native School. When he said “Thou shalt not speak Māori.”, we had to listen to him, or otherwise it was the old tradition of six of the best. Every time he dealt to me, I got seven—he could not count. That was my initiation into the difference between the Māori language and the English language.

I concur that the Māori Language Commission has a tough job. It is not easy, especially when one is dominated by another language. I also say, as we commemorate Māori Language Week, that the theme this year is tourism and the Māori language. It is significant that when our manuhiri come across to enjoy our landscape and their wish is also to have an experience with Māori, they too get an experience of what the Māori language is all about. Perhaps that will convey to some of our colleagues in this Chamber how important Māori language is to this nation. Kia ora tātou.

Report noted.

Legal Services Agency

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): There is often a lot of hyperbole in this House, but I think it is fair to say—and it is certainly not hyperbole to do so—that the Justice and Electoral Committee’s report on the Legal Services Agency is very serious indeed, and that the agency is simply not working. Its financial review revealed a number of serious problems. I will run through some of the major ones, then focus on one. The first problem is the concern expressed by the committee that legal aid forms are if not unintelligible, then certainly far too prolix. There are some real concerns about the supply and quality of legal aid providers. There are some very serious concerns about the closure of community law centres. There are some concerns about the commitment of the agency to the Treaty of Waitangi and the work it is doing there. There are some very real concerns about the problem I intend to focus some time on: the assessment of cases.

In the last year a number of totally unmerited cases have caused a great deal of harm and concern to certain defendants. During the course of the hearing of the select committee, I mentioned one case that had been commenced against an elderly couple. The wife had multiple sclerosis. The husband had given up work in 2002 to help his wife, and they were sued. What is more, the plaintiff knew about the couple’s situation. The plaintiff was granted legal aid and commenced what could be described only as a hare-brained proceeding. It was struck out in the District Court, and Judge Crosbie said the case was so untenable that it could not possibly succeed. He said he struggled to see how any self-respecting lawyer could plead such junk against the defendants. He said the case lacked common sense and balance. Then the case went to the High Court on appeal—again funded by legal aid—and the High Court judge was of the same view. He said the plaintiff’s claim to a constructive trust in respect of the property owned by the second respondents had no merit whatsoever.

The claim had no merit whatsoever, so at the end of it there was an application under section 41 of the Legal Services Act that the successful opponents of the aided person be granted their costs by the Legal Services Agency. That application was filed in 2005, and it was dealt with. Unfortunately, it took 2 years for the matter to be considered by the agency, and it was concluded by the agency only after a hearing of the select committee into the agency. There is a happy ending to this sorry tale. In the last few days the agency has provided payment of the full amount claimed by the second respondents in that case. They were paid the full amount, but there was no apology, and no reasons were given by the agency.

The fact of the matter is that the agency was wrong to fund that particular plaintiff. The agency did not want to face a full review, as that would have resulted in the decision being reduced to writing and being available as a precedent for other claimants. The agency had a particularly hard time at the select committee hearing. It had no grounds not to pay the second respondents, and paying them was the right thing to do. So after 2 years, during which time the lady concerned had become quite ill as a result of her problems with multiple sclerosis, I am pleased to say that the agency did the right thing. Just in the last few days I have learned that it has paid the respondents in full.

That is one case where the agency did the right thing. What about the other cases, where people have had to confront mad legal aid - funded cases and expend huge sums of money? These are very serious matters. These are questions of justice, and something needs to be done to make sure that the agency has people who are capable of analysing cases at the very start, so that some of those cases are not legally aided. I suggest that the Minister read paragraph 10 of the select committee’s report carefully, because it said the committee was very concerned about this matter, and added: “Such cases are expensive and time-consuming for the legal aid system, the courts, and opposing parties.” I would like the Minister to explain what he proposes to do about this particular matter, because these are not anything other than serious questions of justice.

In all litigation there are three interests at stake. There is the undoubted right of the plaintiff to commence his or her proceeding, and, if indigent, he or she is entitled, subject to the criteria of the Act, to be legally aided. But there are other rights at stake, as well. There is the public interest in the swift and economical conduct of litigation, particularly where, as in the case I have mentioned, a person is being assisted to conduct that litigation because he or she qualifies for legal aid. The other interest is the right of the defendant. If someone is legally aided, it certainly behoves the lawyer for that person to conduct sensible litigation expeditiously and economically. It is a matter of grave concern—and it certainly was to the select committee—that that kind of abuse occurs.

So I think some questions need to be answered by the Minister. He should look at paragraph 26 of the select committee’s report, and I invite his comment on it. Has he ever seen an agency, whilst he has been a Minister—or, indeed, since he has been in this House—receive such a caning? The report states: “We consider that the Legal Services Agency needs to improve its performance significantly in a number of key areas. We are concerned that several issues we raise in this report suggest that the agency is not performing adequately. We are particularly concerned that many of these issues appear to be ongoing.” The committee has sent a warning to the agency that: “We intend to monitor this situation closely.”

This afternoon we dealt with three bills, and comments were made by Labour members about the cooperative nature of the work conducted by the Justice and Electoral Committee. That was quite right, not only in relation to those three bills, but also in relation to this financial review. I think it is fair to say that the Labour members on the committee were also concerned about the quality of this particular agency. Members will note that there is no dissenting report. These are matters of justice, and the issue comes back to what we said when we were debating the amendment legislation last year: eligibility for legal aid has been widened by this Government, so that over a million people are now eligible in this country. But the agency has not delivered. It is not delivering. It is too bureaucratic, it buries people in paper and in process, it does not cut to the chase, and it does not provide a very good service at all. It is underfunded, which obviously cannot help the agency. I do understand, in fairness to the agency, that it is underfunded and has to deal with minimal funds to the best extent that it can.

But it is not good enough for an agency such as this to have a report of such seriousness written about it. I went through the other reports, and I did not see another review of a Crown entity that was as critical as the select committee’s report on this agency. So the response of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mark Burton, should be forthcoming on that. These are serious matters of justice and competency, and I fear that unless a strong lead is taken by the Minister, this organisation will continue to drift and a similar sort of financial review will be conducted next year. I warn the Minister that, as I said a few minutes ago, the select committee is seriously concerned about this body. It intends to monitor the situation very closely. But no organisation and no Minister responsible for an organisation such as this can be proud of a report that repeats, almost like a litany, that it is concerned about financial management, legal aid forms, monitoring, the availability of legal aid in rural areas, the closure of community law centres, and legal aid providers, and that it is very concerned about unmeritorious cases. What are the answers?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): I am pleased to take a call in response. Firstly, I acknowledge one point that the member who has just resumed his seat, Christopher Finlayson, made. I think the Justice and Electoral Committee should be acknowledged in this Chamber as a committee that takes its work seriously. Certainly, all the evidence I have seen suggests, as the member said, that it is a committee where members, regardless of party, take the job seriously and work collegially. Obviously, there are differences from time to time, but I think they do an important job for this Parliament, and I want to acknowledge that.

The member who has resumed his seat raises some important issues, and I am not for a moment going to suggest that this agency is perfect in its performance. Clearly, it is not. But, equally, I want to say that it is well and good to take a particular case—the member spent about a third of his time on one particular case—in which, indeed, there was judicial criticism. Such criticism is relatively rare. It happens maybe once a year in an agency that has to look after thousands upon thousands of cases a year. It is one thing to highlight a particular problem with a particular case; it is another thing entirely to run and operate an organisation effectively that deals with many thousands of cases and applications every year.

There are a number of areas in which it is clear that there needs to be improvement. There will be, and are, clear expectations in terms of the agency’s coming year and the focus for that year in terms of key service delivery issues. There are a number of areas that clearly have to be enhanced, where organisational capability needs to be improved or enhanced in some respect. A good example of that is the strengthening in management of the agency’s information technology systems. I think the functionality of that, and its ability to meet some of the workload issues that have been highlighted concerning the increasing volume and complexity in those areas, is critical to doing that effectively and well.

The issues raised around continuing to monitor the quality, supply, and security of supply of legal aid providers are important. I have to say that the facts across the country are not as we often hear in this House, but there is no doubt that from time to time there are areas in which supply is difficult. In any specialist service provision, in a country like New Zealand that has 4 and a bit million people spread over a large land mass, there will always be problems of supply, whether we are talking about Government agencies or other professional services. That is simply a fact of life, living in the sort of country we do. The critical thing is that this agency must monitor and have the willingness and capacity to respond when issues are raised with it, and that is precisely what our expectation is.

There are areas where re-establishing an appropriate level of community legal services needs to be addressed in the coming year. I emphasise Northland and Canterbury in particular, following the termination of provider contracts. Such terminations are difficult issues, but I would ask the member who has resumed his seat whether he would have the agency simply ignore concerns and problems when they arise. That is not an option when delivery of quality service has to be maintained. But the challenge has to be risen to, in terms of re-establishing an appropriate level of community legal aid services, particularly in Northland and Canterbury. That challenge has been laid very clearly before the agency for the coming year. Again, part of the streamlining and improving of the service is the project to modernise legal aid management, granting, and information technology systems. Further work is being done now on the improvement of some of the paper systems, which the member referred to.

I acknowledge, however, that the agency has had a lot of new work to do in the last year, and I think it has certainly done well with a great deal of that. It is a year that has been dominated by the implementation of the new Act, and that has seen a significant increase in the number of those New Zealanders on low and modest incomes who now have eligibility. Several hundred thousand additional people have eligibility for legal aid who did not before. I make no apology, and this Government will make no apology, for making our first priority extending the access to legal aid service to low-income New Zealanders. That is what we have done.

I am not suggesting for a moment that that is all we need to do. Of course it is not. But that was the first priority. I think it is one that we stand by, because, frankly, it really goes to the sort of debate we all saw in 2005 around things like tax cuts. There are those in this House who would say that we should have the sorts of tax cuts that would deliver up to people in this House $100, $200, or $250 a week, and to low-income New Zealanders $5, $8, or $10 a week. This Government says that those who should be targeted should get the first access to tax relief, and that is what we have done. Unfortunately for members in this House, they got nothing. But the consequence of that is that modest-income families raising children are getting $100, $200, or, in some cases, $300 a fortnight in tax relief. That is about setting priorities. It is the same philosophy that drove the decision to make low and modest income New Zealanders’ access to legal aid service the first priority.

So are there challenges in the year ahead? Indeed there are. Quite properly, some of those issues have been raised by the select committee. But has this agency also done a great deal of good work in the last year? Yes, it has, and that too should be acknowledged.

Report noted.

Police Complaints Authority

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): I will take just a short call to put on record the appointment of Justice Lowell Goddard as the new Police Complaints Authority at a time when, as members know, the authority is facing considerable change. We have the bill before Parliament, which is now being progressed. It was delayed, of course, because we needed to see the result of Dame Margaret Bazley’s report on police conduct. That report has been issued. As expected it raised a number of issues and recommendations directly for the Police Complaints Authority—12 in total. Some of those fall to the new authority to implement in terms of administrative organisational procedures. Others will require statute and therefore will be incorporated in a Supplementary Order Paper to the bill that is currently in front of the House.

I simply want to put on record my high level of confidence in the new authority. I think we are fortunate to have someone of her reputation, competence, and focus at a time when the authority is going through a period of new development and change. I certainly look forward to the work that will be undertaken in the year ahead to get the Police Complaints Authority in place, in terms of the new requirements and provisions of the legislation we are working through now, and getting the authority fully functional in that new regime.

Report noted.

Privacy Commissioner

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): I rise to speak to the financial review of the Privacy Commissioner. I have absolutely no complaints at all, I have to say, about the Office of the Privacy Commissioner; I think it is a very well-respected office. The Privacy Commissioner is very well respected the length and breadth of this country, and certainly I have never, I do not think, heard any claims from the Government that are adverse to this. That brings me to the issue I want to raise under this heading as to why the Privacy Commissioner’s office has not been consulted on the next bill on the Order Paper.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner, of course, works to develop and promote a culture in which personal information is protected and respected, and that is absolutely correct. The website of the office also states that the Privacy Commissioner’s office has a wide range of functions. Some of these include investigating complaints about breaches of privacy, running education programmes, and examining proposed legislation—my point—and how it may affect individual privacy, which is a very serious issue.

The bill I am referring to is the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. I wonder why a Minister such as the Minister of Justice, who prides himself on his thoroughness, has not drawn to the attention of the Government the fact this bill should have come before the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. At the Social Services Committee we investigated this bill in detail, and the Law Society gave us a very good submission on clause 5(2), which allows a microchip to be embedded in the SuperGold card—the smart card put forward by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

It is interesting, of course, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs considers himself to be part of the Opposition, yet he is able to put forward a Government bill. It is a very interesting concept indeed, but that is what we have. I guess the Order Paper is so short these days that every bill is welcomed. But I think there is a real issue that needs to be addressed in this bill, and that is that clause 5(2) should be omitted. I propose to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to omit this clause.

I would like, briefly, to go through the recommendations the Law Society made on this bill. The major recommendation was that the committee call for a general review of the principles governing the use of highly functional technology such as microchip technology on Government-issued cards generally, and that the matter be referred to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. I heartily agree with this point that the Law Society has made. Technology that is not being widely used anywhere else—and, in fact, is not available for use on cards—will now be enshrined in law, setting a precedent that has not been through the proper process.

The proposed provision will allow information—the cardholder’s name, identifying numbers assigned, a coded number indicating the cardholder’s class of eligibility, and a couple of other things—to be carried on embedded microchips, which is a precedent we do not have at present. The Law Society stated that the prospect of microchips being embedded on cards issued by the Government raised a more general concern, due to the functionality that microchips can possess, including their ability to operate as radio frequency ID tags. This matter is a very serious one, indeed.

During the select committee process when the commentary on the bill was being put forward, the ACT party put forward a minority view, which was adopted by the New Zealand National Party and United Future. But the minority view went into the body of the report and stated that we were all very concerned about the introduction of clause 5(2) to allow information to be stored on an embedded microchip. The Government claims it has no plans to use this provision, which begs the question of why this clause is in this legislation in the first place.

ACT members believe therefore that the provision regarding microchips should be deleted, and, as I said, I will put forward a Supplementary Order Paper on that during the Committee stage of this debate. Clause 5(2) should be deleted from the legislation. It is our view that a more general inquiry into the use of microchips—particularly around the issues of privacy, which, of course, would rightly go through the Office of the Privacy Commissioner—is necessary before legislation allowing microchips is enacted. This would enshrine in law a precedent that does not exist at the moment. Who knows where this will go? We have had microchipping of dogs. Now we have microchipping of cards. Where does this matter end?

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): It is a delight to rise and speak to the financial review of the Privacy Commissioner.

Gerry Brownlee: Not for the people listening. You’ve already had two goes tonight.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Mr Brownlee should give it a chance; he might find it a delight yet.

It is great to hear that the member from the ACT party has such fine things to say about the Privacy Commissioner. It is an entity that as the financial review demonstrates, is performing extremely well. The Justice and Electoral Committee conducted the financial review for the Privacy Commissioner on 15 March. That is when we heard evidence from the current commissioner, Marie Shroff. I was very new to the committee on that occasion, and it was a pleasure to hear her evidence and have her answer the committee’s questions. I have always thought that the entity of the Privacy Commissioner is probably slightly misnamed. Really, the job of the office is all about information management rather than simply privacy, but judging by the material we received from the Audit Office, and the patently very satisfactory answers we received to our questions, it is very clear that the office is good hands under the current commissioner. We noted that the office received good ratings for all aspects of its financial management, and those same ratings were received in the previous financial year.

One thing we did have some questions about was the fact that organisations in the justice sector, like the police, the Ministry of Social Development, the Accident Compensation Corporation, the Immigration Service, and the Department of Corrections tended to feature consistently on the list of entities that were highly complained about, in terms of raw numbers, to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. So we asked her about that. She said that in fact the numbers that had been reported showed a decline on previous years, and that she felt that the fact there were this number of complaints about these agencies was perhaps at least partly explicable by the nature of their work and the sheer amount of personal information they administer. But it was a good thing to hear that performance was improved there.

We also asked about technology—particularly the effect of increasingly sophisticated technology—on issues such as the greater likelihood of electronic crime, including identity fraud. The commissioner told us that she was aware of these threats, and that she was working very hard to ensure that there was proper awareness by the public about them. In a 2006 public opinion survey, for example, more than 80 percent of respondents signalled that the handling of information on the Internet and by businesses was a key privacy concern. The office has also initiated a regular forum where Government and non-governmental organisations meet to receive information and discuss technology issues regarding the handling of personal information. It is good to see that the commissioner is on the case there, and is dealing with contemporary issues as they arise.

She commented also that the private sector was increasingly taking its privacy obligations seriously, and that the public sector needs to be continually monitored, in terms of the administration of data-matching programmes to ensure that those programmes are being appropriately administered. We welcome that scrutiny.

We were also concerned to ensure that the public had access to information about the role of the commissioner. We heard about a toll-free phone service receiving 6,000 calls a year, a website, and about the plain English information on privacy rights included on it, as well as a text search engine.

We were also very interested to hear that the commissioner’s office was engaged in public education—for example, on changing best practices relating to privacy and information management. One example given was the Credit Reporting Privacy Code 2004 issued by the commissioner, which requires the credit industry to give people free access to their credit records and to limit the information it may store about an individual.

Finally, we heard about the international context of privacy and information management. The office has concluded a memorandum of understanding with the Australian Privacy Commissioner concerning cross-border information exchanges, and is also aware of APEC developments in the privacy and information management area. It is good to know that our international competitiveness is being safeguarded in the privacy and information management area by a very competent and capable public entity such as the Privacy Commissioner.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Again, briefly, I will put on the record my support for, comment on, and acknowledgment of the performance of the Privacy Commissioner. I think Marie Shroff has done an outstanding job. I acknowledge the ACT member Heather Roy’s comments in that regard and thank her for them. Marie has taken a number of steps to further advance the work of the organisation in all areas, in terms of its turn round of inquiry and complaint, and its provision of information. Its reputation, both domestically and internationally, has enhanced the performance of the office.

I thank the members for their comments, although I note that Heather Roy spent a great deal of her time talking about something completely unrelated directly to the financial review. Be that as it may, I thank her for her positive comments.

Report noted.

New Zealand Fire Service Commission

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I want to take a short call on the Fire Service Commission, really to congratulate a commission that is in a very safe pair of hands with Dame Margaret Bazley, because it was an incredibly impressive financial review this year.

One of the things I wanted to mention is that the Fire Service has the lowest rate of residential fires in the world, and that is to be applauded. The Fire Service is in good hands.

The only other comment I want to make is about the number of female firefighters in the service in New Zealand. We really are a bit concerned about this. Only 49 of 1,670 career firefighters are women. That is quite a concern and we raised it with Dame Margaret Bazley. She pointed out that the Fire Service has a positive approach to this, trying to make firefighting a career for women that is attractive to them, and to make them feel well supported. It was nice to hear that women are generally very well accepted by their male counterparts.

One of the other issues I will talk about quickly is the problem that the Fire Service is having now with increasingly more complex call-outs—in particular, for P laboratories, which creates extreme risk for the Fire Service. We want to congratulate the Fire Service on the way it manages this problem.

All in all, the Fire Service is in great hands. It has also stopped bringing in second-hand fire appliances from the UK, which was a practice noticed in the previous financial review that concerned us. It now has its full fleet replacement, which is properly managed. The Fire Service is a service in good heart.

Report noted.

Electricity Commission

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the Labour members for making their contributions short, although those contributions were somewhat numerous on a number of issues that probably did not need any comment, at all.

Most certainly the Electricity Commission does need comment. Surely, no more useless quango has ever been set up by any Government than this one. It was set up in 2002 because we had a crisis in that year with low lake levels and the potential for blackouts in some of our larger cities. Since the Electricity Commission took over, New Zealanders have paid for that every time they switch on the light. Every time New Zealanders turn on the electricity anywhere in their houses or businesses they pay for this particular quango. What has it achieved in its time in existence? It has achieved nothing less than a 48 percent price rise for electricity. That is what it has presided over.

The other thing that is really disturbing about this organisation is that it has completely failed to deal with some of the transmission deficit in this country. We cannot get all of the power capable of being produced in the South Island out of the South Island, because our transmission is not strong enough. Our largest city, Auckland, is under constant threat in relation to the security of its supply, because we do not have strong enough transmission going into that area. Although it might be easy to say that Transpower has mucked us up, the reality is that Transpower cannot do anything without the approval of the Electricity Commission.

Some in this Chamber will remember that last year the substation at Ōtāhuhu failed. A simple guy rope broke because a shackle failed. Ministers in the Government said: “Well, look, Electricity Commission, we want this fixed up, please.” Transpower came to the party and within a month it had a proposal to ensure that that would never happen again. Well, here we are 11 months later and the Electricity Commission still has not made up its mind as to whether that proposal should progress.

Report noted.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The time for the debate has expired. The debate on the performance in 2005-06 of the current operations of Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises is therefore concluded. I will report the debate to the House.

House resumed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I move, That the report be adopted.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Abstentions 9

Green Party 6; Māori Party 3.

Report adopted.

Bills

Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Social Security Act 1964

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on Part 1. Part 1 covers clauses 3, 4, and 5. Clause 5 is split into two subclauses (1) and (2)—very appropriately named for a two-section division. Clause 3 outlines the amendments to the principle Act, which is the Social Security Act 1964.

Clause 4 sets out the purpose of Part 1, which is to amend the regulation-making power currently conferred by section 132A of the principle Act, so that regulations can be made to allow the issue and use of entitlement cards with cardholder photographs and embedded microchips. This clause has been the subject of some misunderstanding and misinterpretation, and that was very broadly demonstrated tonight by the contribution from an ACT member.

It was clearly a historic moment to have an ACT member considering referring this card—because of this clause in the bill—to the Privacy Commissioner. It is a major breakthrough for the ACT party to even acknowledge the role of the Privacy Commissioner, let alone to propose in this House that the card be sent. It may be pure politicking—which would not come as much of a surprise, given that it is the ACT party—but I think it is very inappropriate for a member of Parliament to misrepresent the purpose of an entitlement card and the proposal to have embedded microchips. I am sure that will be debated further throughout this section.

Madam Chair, I wonder whether you could stop the whip from the Opposition from interjecting constantly. It is very disruptive.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It was a constant barrage. I ask the Minister to please continue.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also make reference to Supplementary Order Paper 111—the only one that is tabled in the Committee so far, I think—which amends clause 4 to reflect an amendment to clause 5(2), which relates to the inclusion of barcodes on entitlement cards. Perhaps members who are concerned about the embedded microchips issue, and about the barcodes, privacy considerations, and the potential use or misuse of those barcodes, might read the Supplementary Order Paper. They would then understand that the purpose of this proposal in the legislation is to ensure that, as technology advances, our senior citizens have access to the best available technology in order for them to have access to information they have agreed to have shared—bar-coded information, which is currently available through shops, as we all know—and that they would be able to use directly from their entitlement card. So I recommend that members read that Supplementary Order Paper.

Clause 5 deals with regulations providing for the issue and use of entitlement cards. Clause 5(1) amends section 132A(1) of the Social Security Act 1964 by inserting paragraph (ab). Members will recall that clause 4 amends an earlier provision in that same section to create a new regulation-making power in relation to cardholders’ photographs on entitlement cards. Specifically, paragraph (ab) allows regulations to be made: “providing for cardholders’ photographs to be affixed to or imaged into a category of entitlement cards and prescribing procedures, requirements, and other matters relating to those photographs:”. It is very important, as we seek to enhance the card through the use of the photograph, that those specific regulations are detailed in this legislation.

Section 132A of the Social Security Act allows regulations to be made for the use and issue of entitlement cards, and it has actually been used in the past to make regulations relating to the community services card. We all know that that card preceded the health entitlement card regulations in the 1990s. This section also allows for the making of regulations providing for the issue and use of entitlement cards, and will therefore allow regulations providing for issue of a standard non-photo SuperGold card—because, obviously, that is a discretion that is allowed rather than a mandatory provision. But currently it does not confer the power to make regulations providing for the inclusion of cardholder photographs on entitlement cards.

Clause 5(2) amends section 132A(2) of the Social Security Act 1964 to create a new regulation-making power in relation to embedded microchips on entitlement cards. The clause would allow entitlement cards to contain the information set out in that subsection on a magnetic strip. Members should realise that that is currently allowed—exactly the same information that is being proposed to be allowed on a microchip is allowed currently on a magnetic strip. So if people oppose it and raise concerns, they do not understand that it is exactly the same information that is allowed currently on a magnetic strip rather than on an embedded microchip. That is the conclusion of Part 1 in this debate; we have clauses 3, 4, and 5, with clause 5 being divided into two parts.

I look forward to a robust debate on this very important legislation. This legislation is being watched and monitored by thousands of people over 65 years of age around the country, because they heard the commitment that was made prior to the election by the leader of New Zealand First, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, to have this card introduced. They saw the commitment that was made by Labour and the Progressives after the election in their negotiations and agreement with New Zealand First to deliver on that. This Committee stage of the bill is the next step forward on delivering on that promise and that agreement.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I was the deputy chairperson of the Social Services Committee when we looked at this bill. Concern was expressed about microchips, and I have to say that I am a little bit perturbed at the somewhat mean-spirited contribution from the Minister and the personal attacks on our parliamentary colleague from the ACT party. I thought that was quite nasty and, frankly, nothing much to do with the bill.

I think it is incredibly important that people do, in fact, consider, and state, whether they have any concerns about this provision—the microchipping provision—because, after all, I would have thought the ACT party was more like the Libertarianz Party, who are real liberals as opposed to people like myself who are more conservative by nature. I think that a valid point has been raised. Whether it is something that we need to take further than the concerns that were expressed in the commentary back to the House is another matter.

It is unfortunate that we have this bill when it really does not do an awful lot for superannuitants or veterans. It simply says that somebody is old enough to have a superannuation payment or has a veterans pension. When looking at the explanatory note of the bill, it really just talks about the fact that this is just a discount card so that people can claim a discount if a commercial facility wishes to offer it to them. So that is not really much. In fact, most of us now, when we shop at some of the supermarkets, get discount vouchers for our fuel bill. Certainly I partake of that. I get vouchers from Countdown, New World, or any of the other supermarkets that partake, when I am doing the grocery shopping because basically that is what people do. This is not an awful lot more than that.

What this card does have, however, is provision for a photograph and for a microchip. I was not in the House when my colleague Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport who brought in drivers’ licences with photographs, but I certainly remember all those years ago that there was a huge carry-on that somehow people would have photographs—these modern things called photographs—on drivers’ licences. Today most of us think, well, of course one would have a photograph on one’s driver’s licence. They have, in fact, become a sort of de facto identity card for those of us who have them, and I guess in many ways this is exactly what this is going to be. But I note the concern about microchipping. I note that other information may be put on there.

I also note some of the concerns about the next part of the bill as to the information the Ministry of Social Development can obtain in relation to births, deaths, and marriages. What about people who are living in relationships that are not formally recognised, other than through legislation brought into this House? That information will be difficult to access. It is not going to be a perfect entitlement card. I am not sure whether it will do an awful lot more for veterans, other than to say they get a veterans pension, whereas most veterans would have expected a bit more. Most veterans wanted a veterans’ gold card, as proposed by the National Party, which would have given them some entitlements, not simply something they can wave around and say: “Would you mind giving me a discount, because I’m a pensioner.” Frankly, I think many pensioners and many veterans pensioners, and many national superannuitants, would find this somewhat insulting.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.