Thursday, 6 September 2007
Volume 641
Sitting date: 6 September 2007
Thursday, 6 September 2007
Thursday, 6 September 2007
Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House priority will be given to the Aviation Security Legislation Bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill, the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill, the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill, the Property Law Bill, and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. Priority will also be given to the first readings of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill, and the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill.
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the Leader of the House for that. Noting that the Electoral Finance Bill is currently going through the select committee, can we expect at any time the Government to move item 20 on the agenda—the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill in his name—somewhere closer to the top of the Order Paper, or does it remain without the support necessary to pass it?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): We remain just shy of a majority on that matter. Should anybody change his or her mind, I shall happily move the matter to No. 1 straight away.
Points of Order
Misleading Statement to the House—5 September 2007
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that yesterday a member may have misled the House, and I would like to provide the opportunity for him to correct the statement.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. It is for any member who feels that that may have happened to do so himself or herself.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Food Industry—Nutrition and Obesity
1. ANN HARTLEY (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What initiatives does the Government have under way in the food industry to improve nutrition and reduce obesity?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): The Government has an accord with the industry, which is now some years old and has started to deliver some really good results. Nestlé, for example, has removed 73 tonnes of trans-fatty acids from all of its products out of its Wiri factory, and Hubbard’s Foods has removed 42 tonnes of sugar from breakfast cereals. In addition, the National Heart Foundation’s Pick the Tick programme is also working—33 tonnes of salt have gone from breads and cereals, and fibre has been increased in over 100 products.
Ann Hartley: Noting that progress, is the Minister satisfied that it is sufficient; if not, how can we do even better?
Hon PETE HODGSON: No, it is nowhere sufficient. It is, however, a really good start. More is obviously needed, although the industry warns that people’s tastes change slowly. We are working with the industry to settle some realistic targets with it. I should acknowledge that Coca-Cola Amatil and Frucor have decided to remove all full-sugar drinks from schools—a world first.
Ann Hartley: Has the Minister seen any expert commentary on the Health Committee’s report on the inquiry into obesity and type 2 diabetes?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I have. Robert Quigley, a public health specialist—the gentleman whom John Key rushed to quote, incorrectly—earlier this year, on children who skip breakfast, said: “The National Party’s response within the Health Committee Report on the Inquiry into Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes is simple-minded”. He said: “It’s almost like the National Party want to make our Kiwi kids fatter—they really couldn’t have got it more wrong.”
Dr Jonathan Coleman: Has the Minister seen any reports from experts who are not Labour Party supporters who say that the Minister cannot reverse the obesity problem unless he changes sociocultural attitudes to food; and does he understand that the Government’s agenda of regulation, compulsion, and control lacks insight into the underlying causes of obesity?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The member is correct in saying that the causes of obesity are multifactorial. The point that I think Mr Quigley was making is that he has come to the view that National’s approach to this issue is one that is based on cant and hypocrisy. It is one that is full of hand-wringing, but one that ensures that nothing will ever be done. That is not good enough.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Was that an acceptable answer? Was it within the bounds of what is reasonable in Parliament? Were all of the words used by the Minister appropriate for Parliament?
Madam SPEAKER: Is the member taking objection to the words that were used?
Gerry Brownlee: I am seeking guidance, because if the Minister gets away with that answer, then we will most certainly take your lead and use that sort of approach, as well.
Madam SPEAKER: The reason I am hesitating is that I am trying to reflect on the answer again. Certainly, Mr Brownlee is correct—if there was a personal reflection of hypocrisy on a particular member, then that was out of order. I ask the Minister to clarify that that was not the case.
Hon PETE HODGSON: It certainly was not, but let me give the answer again, and change it a little, because I can understand that the member is distressed. I think Mr Quigley has come to the view that National’s approach to obesity and type 2 diabetes is based on cant—that is, that National has put together a minority report that is full of hand-wringing but that is apparently devoid of any real action. This is probably the most important public health issue this country faces.
Sue Kedgley: Does the Minister agree with the Health Committee that advertising, marketing, and promotion help to condition food preferences and normalise unhealthy food, and can undermine parental authority, and that the broadcast media should therefore restrict their advertisements on television for unhealthy food before 8.30 at night?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The member raises a good, important issue. However, I think that the starting point in reply is to acknowledge freely that the main television companies in this country have come to the Government themselves and said: “We will remove certain types of advertising from programmes that are particularly watched by children.” I might add that this does not extend until 8.30 p.m. In addition, they are funding programmes that will help to change people’s attitude to food in general, so that is a remarkable and positive step. The select committee, quite properly, challenges the Government to ask whether more should be done.
Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to take a document that shows that children watch television until 8.30 and 9.30 p.m.—
Document not tabled.
Dr Jonathan Coleman: I seek leave to table an article quoting MP Sue Kedgley: “Fat-fight MP plans Happy Meal ban”.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Emissions—Greenhouse Gas
2. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: Is he proud of the Government’s record on greenhouse gas emissions since 1999?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): I am proud of the many steps this Government has taken towards carbon neutrality. We have brought wind power forward by many years. We have saved enough electricity to power a medium-sized city through our light bulb initiative. We have encouraged biofuels, drafted an energy strategy that is already influencing our energy companies to go green, and announced a $4 million per annum low carbon fund to bring forward new technologies. The full effect of all of these and other measures will be felt over many years to come, and at the end of this question I will seek leave to table a 15-page list of all of the initiatives we have under way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister accept the official United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, which shows that New Zealand’s emissions from 1999 have increased by 12 percent—at a faster rate than Australia’s at 8 percent, the United States’ at 4 percent, and Japan’s at 2 percent—and that New Zealand has the 18th worst emission figures in the OECD; and how can the Prime Minister go to Sydney saying she will call on other countries to cut emissions, when at home emissions are growing like there is no tomorrow?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I accept the statistics of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I also record again, as I did yesterday, that Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions per capita have been growing faster than New Zealand’s—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Carbon dioxide?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Carbon dioxide.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about methane?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I will come to that. Of course, Australia’s livestock emissions have come down because its livestock has been dying as a consequence of a drought. The Government, in addition to the measures that I have previously set out, is the first in the developed world to devolve Kyoto carbon credits for our permanent forests. We have set up a marine energy fund; we have changed Government procurement initiatives; we are strengthening our national grid, which was neglected by the National Government; we are facilitating distributed generation; we have ramped up solar hot water heating; we have retrofitted tens of thousands of houses with energy insulation; and, last but not least, we have had a tenfold increase in funding for public transport. The full effect of these measures will be felt for many years.
Steve Chadwick: Can the Minister please tell the House of other recent reports on approaches to managing greenhouse gases in New Zealand and beyond?
Hon DAVID PARKER: A 2004 article in the Nelson Mail newspaper quotes a member of this House as saying the party he belongs to would opt out of Kyoto at the first chance. I cannot reconcile this report with a subsequent report that the same member wrote to the Nelson Mail, which claimed he had never suggested pulling out of Kyoto. Dr Smith’s statements are typical of a party whose current leader has said climate change is a hoax, and whose previous leader was equally sceptical about climate change.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did he say to Parliament yesterday: “We have not grown our coal-fired power”, when his own ministry figures show that from 1999 to 2006 there was more than a trebling in the amount of electricity produced from coal, which is the dirtiest way to produce electricity?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Yesterday I said, and it is true, that New Zealand has not built a new coal-fired power station for decades. If the member cares to hold up the graph again, he will prove the point I made yesterday that coal-related emissions are dropping.
Steve Chadwick: Can the Minister share other reports on alternative approaches to climate change policy with the House?
Hon DAVID PARKER: One hundred and seventy-five countries ratified Kyoto, and only three backed out of their early agreement—Australia, the United States, and Kazakhstan. We know which side the National Party was on. The National Party has attempted to block every positive step this Government has taken on climate change, and it has voted against every sensible measure this Government has put before the House. I note on the wires today a New Zealand Press Association article about Mr Key, which states: “He would not criticise Mr Howard and US President George Bush for their position on Kyoto saying they were ‘going in the right direction.’ ”—yet again today!
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Minister, both today in the House and yesterday in a press release, when comparing New Zealand and Australian emissions, conveniently use only the figure for carbon dioxide, when everyone knows that half of New Zealand’s emissions are methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture; and is he now disputing the inclusion of all greenhouse gases in both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The point I was making yesterday—and I am happy to repeat it; I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to do so—is that the member stated that because emissions growth in carbon dioxide and other gases was higher in percentage terms in New Zealand than Australia, Australia was more credible on climate change and doing better. In fact, because Australia has such a high rate of carbon dioxide emissions, its lower percentage growth on a per capita basis is twice as high as New Zealand’s. That is because Australia is a higher polluter, and in terms of carbon dioxide it is growing that gap fast.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Minister yesterday, in arguing that New Zealand’s emissions had gone up by less than Australia’s, conveniently refer back to 1990 rather than 1999 when Labour came to office, given that the official figures show that between 1990 and 1999 New Zealand’s emissions grew by 1.3 percent as compared with Australia’s 2 percent, but that since 1999 New Zealand’s emissions have grown by 2 percent per annum as compared with Australia’s 1.4 percent; and does this not show that emissions under this Labour Government are growing faster than they did for the 9 years of the previous National Government and faster than those of Australia over the same period?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I have not got the table in front of me, but I recall that the statistic I was referring to yesterday was the growth in carbon dioxide emissions between 2000 and 2005. During that period New Zealand’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions grew by 0.4 tonnes per person and Australia’s grew by 0.8 tonnes per person. Clearly, New Zealand is doing better than Australia in that regard. I made the point in respect of non - carbon dioxide emissions, which in New Zealand’s case are mainly agricultural emissions, that the big difference in recent years between Australia and New Zealand is that Australia has had declining output because of the terrible drought, which has killed many of its livestock. National is scaremongering again. It is time National stopped trying to frighten the public and got along to being part of the solution.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister say that he is proud of this Government’s record on greenhouse gas emissions, when Labour promised that emissions would be reduced by 20 percent by 2005, but the official records show that emissions went up by 12 percent; and what credibility can Helen Clark have internationally when her own Government’s record domestically is so poor?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The growth in New Zealand’s emissions in recent years is typical of the growth in emissions in many countries. It shows how difficult the challenge is of mitigating climate change - related emissions. But the long list of initiatives that I have already given will actually see New Zealand’s emissions going on a downward track. Indeed, in recent months we have already seen power-related emissions decreasing.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: When the Minister told the House on Tuesday that New Zealand’s delegation to the UN climate change talks in Vienna had said that New Zealand would commit to binding targets after 2012, what specific targets did New Zealand offer to commit to at Vienna?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No specific figure was mentioned, and it would be premature in those negotiations to do so.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: What sort of panic is the Minister in that he is trying to hide the Government’s appalling record on climate change by, firstly, denying that coal-generated power has increased dramatically under this Government, despite his own ministry’s figures stating that it has trebled; secondly, conveniently excluding methane and nitrous oxide figures in the comparison with Australia; thirdly, using a base year of 1990 rather than when this Government came to power in 1999, knowing that emissions actually grew more slowly under the previous Government; and, finally, despite all the international conventions like Kyoto, and policy papers like the Stern report, which are based on percentage reductions emissions, he now wants to move off to a different measure; and why does he not just come clean and admit that emissions have been going up rapidly and that forests are being felled like they have never been before?
Hon DAVID PARKER: In response to the first leg of those many questions, I say the answer is none. I would say that when it comes to credibility on climate change, it seems to me that Dr Smith is like a polar bear skating on thin ice. On 18 July he misrepresented to this House that in the last year there had been a 9.7 percent increase in coal-fired electricity, when there had been a 4.8 percent drop. Again, I am very happy to stand by the record of this Government.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the graph.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is a press release from Greenpeace on 3 September, stating: “New Zealand should be utterly ashamed of its performance … ”—
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave to table a small piece from the transcript of Steve Maharey’s speech in the House yesterday.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave to table a press release put out by Greenpeace today about Steve Maharey telling curious tales in Parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table a 15-page list of sensible climate change policies that the Government has—
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table a long list of National Party votes against measures in this House relating to climate change.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table the two irreconcilable and contradictory statements made by Nick Smith to the Nelson Mail—
Document not tabled.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the Government’s actual record of increased—
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Fishing—Set-net Restrictions
3. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister of Fisheries: Has he seen any reports or plans that propose restrictions on commercial and recreational set-net fishing; if so, what reasons are given for the restrictions?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries: Yes, I have. The Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation have produced a draft threat management plan that seeks to address all threats to Māui’s and Hector’s dolphins, including fishing threats, seabed mining, pollution, and tourism. Set netting has been identified in the draft threat management plan as a threat to Māui’s and Hector’s dolphins. The draft threat management plan contains a range of options to address that threat, including further restrictions on the use of set nets by commercial and recreational fishers.
Metiria Turei: Can the Minister confirm that set nets are responsible for 63 percent of Hector’s dolphin deaths where the cause of death is known, and that alternative fishing methods exist for all species caught by set nets?
Hon PETE HODGSON: No, I cannot confirm that figure; I do not have it with me, I am sorry. But from when I was the Minister of Fisheries at an earlier time, I can say that it is a figure that feels to be about right. Set nets are certainly a significant part of the mortality complex of Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins.
Metiria Turei: Why has the proposal to equip all trawling vessels with monitoring systems not made it into this plan, when it has been supported by both fishers and conservationists, and given that in the last 2 years there were no observers on those vessels?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I think it is important for the member to acknowledge that what the Government has just done in the last few days is to begin a process: to put out a draft plan, so that people can comment on it. People will comment from either side of that plan, and in due course decisions will need to be made. In the meantime, the Government must, of course, remain very open-minded as to what is a reasoned response to the issue.
Electoral Finance Bill—Community Groups
4. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all the statements he made in his recent letter to community groups regarding the Electoral Finance Bill?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes, because the letter repeats the Government’s intention to advance legislation that protects our electoral system from manipulation, and notes that the bill is now before the Justice and Electoral Committee, at which, the letter expresses confidence, improvements and refinements for inclusion in the bill may well be suggested.
Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister’s letter tell community groups that: “Electioneering activities are intended by Government to have a narrow scope in their definition in law.”; if so, why is it that the definition in clause 5(1)(a) of the bill is in fact extremely wide, as is noted by many of the submissions coming in on the bill?
Hon MARK BURTON: I believe that the member makes an accurate reflection on the content of the letter, and does so because, like it or not, we cannot avoid in this bill attempting to deal with the rorts that were visited upon our electoral system in 2005. Those, precisely, used the sorts of materials that purported to be non - party - political and non-electoral advertising, but which quite literally sought, according to their own authors, to spend $1 million with the sole goal of getting votes for National. You see, we are trying to close a loophole that was used and abused by the National Party and its friends to undermine our electoral system.
Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister’s letter tell community groups that the bill will not restrict their ability to play an active role in public debate; if so, what does he call the requirement for them to register as a third party, the cap of $60,000 on their spending, the requirement for them to appoint a financial agent, the requirement for them to appoint an auditor, and the requirement for them to file a return of their expenses and donations—and if those are not restrictions, what are they?
Hon MARK BURTON: I call them the provisions that apply only to those who seek to become participants as third parties in the electoral process. Of course, unlike the impression given in Mr English’s taxpayer-funded extremist and misleading letter, those organisations will be able to go about their normal business without any reference. For instance, the Plunket Society runs a very good car seat campaign, and it calls for public donations. That activity will not in any way be caught by the provisions of this bill. Yet the impression given by the National Party is that such activities as the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society’s excellent Kiwi Conservation Club for kids will be caught—the sort of campaign I am sure that members in this House have supported and given resourcing to. The impression given by the National Party is that all of those sorts of activities will somehow be fettered. That is absolute nonsense, and National members know that.
Gerry Brownlee: What should people making submissions on this bill base their submissions on: the vague intentions of the Minister or the black and white facts as they are presented in this bill?
Hon MARK BURTON: All submissions to a bill should be based on the understanding of the bill the person making the submission has. I say to Mr Brownlee that that is the point of a select committee process.
Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister provide to the House a list of references showing which clauses each of the statements he makes are based on; and if Mr English is wrong but able to list everything he claims against a clause in this bill, why cannot the Minister do that for his vague intentions?
Hon MARK BURTON: I would be interested to know how Mr English could find a clause that “relates to every—[Interruption] Hang on—if members want to hear it! According to Mr English’s letter: “The bill will restrict your freedom to have your say on important issues in election year. We believe robust and diverse debate is widely held …”. It goes on to say: “The scope of the bill is so broad that any public communication”—any public communication—“by your organisation in election year will need to be scrutinised.” I challenge that member to point to the clause in the bill that says “any—
Gerry Brownlee: It’s true!
Hon MARK BURTON: So the member is suggesting that the Plunket Society putting out a public appeal for donations to the car seat campaign would have to be scrutinised under this bill. That is a patent nonsense. There is no such reference in the bill.
Gerry Brownlee: Is it not the case that the Labour Government is so terrified of public scrutiny of its record that it has simply decided to legislate against it?
Hon MARK BURTON: It is the case that this Government is happy to have a contest of ideas with a National Party that is so bereft of policy that the only thing it parades is apparent policy on a change-by-day basis—that is, our policies—and the only way that it sees for itself to contest a campaign is to have the unfettered use of millions of dollars of other people’s money to try to buy a result.
Gerry Brownlee: If the Minister is to be believed, then why will this bill restrict Opposition parties on the amount they can spend on an attack on and criticism of the Government for some 11 months prior to an election, but allow the Government itself to dive into the taxpayer pool, in an unfettered way, to promote itself throughout that time?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As, by the time the election comes, every Government programme that any such publicity will be supporting will have been adopted by the National Party, then it will be a very even-handed approach.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Hon MARK BURTON: There is that, but—
Hon Member: You’re going to answer the question.
Hon MARK BURTON: Who said that? Notwithstanding that Dr Cullen’s contribution probably represents the fact, of course the member confuses two completely different things. Like National members of Parliament, members on this side of the House are constrained in the use of parliamentary budgets—absolutely constrained. For legitimate purposes—
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Dr Cullen’s intervention has clearly meant that the Minister has not understood the question, and I would like to ask it again.
Madam SPEAKER: Could we just hear the Minister’s reply. If he could get on with the reply, then it would help us a lot.
Hon MARK BURTON: The fact is that any expenditure to promote a Government service, for instance, is constrained by very strict parameters. It is under the absolute scrutiny of the Auditor-General, and the member knows it. It is a red herring. The central issue here is the absolute terror of the National Party at fighting an election on policy and ideas rather than on fat bank balances.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you are not responsible for the answers that a Minister gives, but I think you probably do have some responsibility to ensure that the question asked is addressed by the Minister. The Minister who stood up and gave that answer clearly had not listened to the question he was asked.
Madam SPEAKER: I did listen quite closely and know a little about this, and I do think, actually, that the Minister did address the question this time.
Rodney Hide: Does the Electoral Finance Bill comply with the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines, and was a regulatory impact assessment undertaken, as prescribed by the Minister for Economic Development; if not, why not, given the importance of this bill?
Hon MARK BURTON: It is my recollection that the answer to both the questions is yes.
Ron Mark: Will the Electoral Finance Bill provide protection for a third-party group that put a million dollars into a parallel election campaign to get votes for a political party on the basis that that party would rebuild the New Zealand Defence Force and reinstate an air strike capability, when that party then reneged on that deal; or is the situation simply that the Exclusive Brethren have blown their money and should never have trusted National in the first place?
Madam SPEAKER: I cannot see where the ministerial responsibility is for that question.
Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the start of my question I asked the Minister: “Will the Electoral Finance Bill provide protection for” third parties, and that does fit within the Minister’s responsibilities.
Madam SPEAKER: That does, and if the question had stopped there it might have been all right.
Hon MARK BURTON: In a sense it will—[Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: If members ask questions, they are entitled to hear the answers.
Hon MARK BURTON: In a sense it will, because it will prevent the likes of the Exclusive Brethren from undertaking that sort of covert campaign in the future. But, of course, the Brethren could take a read of their own top line and wake up, because they have been ripped off by the National Party.
Gerry Brownlee: Will the Electoral Finance Act prevent the Labour Party from using taxpayer money to distribute another pledge card?
Hon MARK BURTON: The question of pledge cards is not in any way covered by this bill. Nor am I convinced that the bill will deliver the GST that is still outstanding from the National Party. [Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: I will be asking two members to take their argument outside if there is any more of this across-the-Chamber chat.
Rates—Inquiry
5. Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) to the Minister of Local Government: Is he satisfied with the quality of evidence gathering, analysis of the issues, and conclusions drawn by the inquiry led by David Shand into local government rates, and does he believe the report adequately meets the terms of reference for the inquiry?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government): The report—which, I should acknowledge, owes much to New Zealand First’s constructive engagement, particularly during the development of the terms of reference—is an extensive and significant piece of work, was completed in the required time frame. An across-Government work programme to respond to the report’s recommendations is now under way. As to the member’s second question, I believe that the panel sought in its report to address comprehensively the terms of reference.
Hon Brian Donnelly: Will the Minister confirm that this inquiry was initially called for by New Zealand First, that it was vigorously resisted by him and this Government, and that it was only when New Zealand First steadfastly held to its position in relation to the need for an independent inquiry that the Government finally relented, the night before Rodney Hide’s bill went to the vote?
Hon MARK BURTON: I can happily confirm the first part of the member’s question—that this inquiry was actively promoted by New Zealand First. As to the second part, I can confirm that this Government was convinced by the vigour of, and the compelling arguments brought forward by, New Zealand First to reach a conclusion to proceed with such an inquiry.
Martin Gallagher: With reference to the report, does the Government already have under way any work that potentially addresses any of the report’s very significant recommendations?
Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, indeed. The Government has increased spending on the Rates Rebate Scheme by almost $50 million, and I have officials already reviewing a number of matters that have arisen as a result of the greater uptake of the scheme. Other allocations are $154 million over 10 years for drinking-water schemes, $150 million over 10 years for the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme, and $1.3 billion over 5 years for new transport funding, and a significant proportion of that will, of course, go on local projects. There are many, many more examples.
Hon Brian Donnelly: Have he or his staff been briefed on the details of the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First, and in particular the part that states: “The relationship between New Zealand First and the government will be based on good faith and no surprises.”, and does he believe that his failure to provide a timely pre - public release briefing to New Zealand First, his failure to inform New Zealand First of the press conference until the day it was to take place, the failure of his staff to send a copy of the report although they had promised to do so, and his complete exclusion of any reference to New Zealand First’s role in securing the inquiry demonstrate acting in good faith with no surprises?
Hon MARK BURTON: As the—
Madam SPEAKER: No, be seated. We are in danger of having to hear the answer in silence.
Hon MARK BURTON: I can only say to the member that the—
Hon Trevor Mallard: Kia orana!
Hon MARK BURTON: Kia ora! The one thing I cannot take responsibility for is the weather, which caused his plane to be cancelled; otherwise, he would have got to the briefing, which had been set up, as the member well knows, to occur prior to that.
Hon Brian Donnelly: Would the Minister consider taking lessons in how to treat confidence and supply partners from his fellow Minister Pete Hodgson, who, in stark contrast to the Minister’s own actions, gave credit where credit was due at the recent announcement of free doctors’ visits for under-sixes, including ensuring that my colleague Barbara Stewart was at the official photo opportunity, keeping her fully informed, and giving appropriate credit to New Zealand First in his press release; if not, why not?
Hon MARK BURTON: I am always happy to learn from the experience of my colleagues.
Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister understand what the terms “good faith” and “no surprises” mean, and if his poor judgment in this matter jeopardises the otherwise constructive relationship between New Zealand First and the Government, would he do the honourable thing and resign; if not, why not?
Hon MARK BURTON: If I could take responsibility for the weather, I would, but I cannot. The member knows that good faith is a two-way street, and the briefing that had been set up could not be completed because the member could not get there. The plane he was booked on did not take off.
Hon Brian Donnelly: Will the Minister confirm that after cancelling three briefings, his office offered one the night before the so-called press release, the public release of this document, which he had not informed his New Zealand First counterpart was even going to occur, and that as a result of his office not allowing for that briefing until the day before, and not providing advice to the New Zealand First office until only an hour before the press conference, New Zealand First had to go into the whole thing without actually ever seeing the document?
Hon MARK BURTON: At this point we part company. I cannot confirm all of those assertions. The briefing that was set up was confirmed as soon as it was able to be, which was when we had final confirmation of the availability of the chair of the panel, who had been overseas. It was important that we had him back in the country before we finally nailed down the release of the document. Secondly, the important thing is that it was simply the release of the document. It was not a response to it; it was a simple release. The primary job of the day was having the chair of the committee back in New Zealand to ensure that he could front the release of his committee’s document, which was what that occasion was about.
Hon Brian Donnelly: I seek leave to table an email from the Minister’s office to my office, sent at 10.12 a.m. on 28 August, advising that a media conference on the report would be held at 11.30—
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: It is becoming very difficult to hear with all the chat.
Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave for there to be an immediate vote in order to test the House’s confidence in the Government.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Hon Brian Donnelly: I seek leave to table for the Minister’s benefit a copy of the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First—
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Corrections, Department—Confidence
6. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in his department; if so, why?
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Corrections) on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: Yes, but there is always room for improvement.
Simon Power: How can the Minister continue to claim that the new prisons are not gold-plated, when the report released by Treasury yesterday states that facilities at Spring Hill and Otago exceed those of comparable Australian prisons, sacrificing “significant savings in capital cost as well as operational savings”, including en suites for medium to low security inmates, because these would be “more attractive than communal showers”, costing an extra $11.5 million?
Hon MITA RIRINUI: The member may not be aware that the Treasury report was commissioned by this Government in December 2005, and therefore the Government welcomes the recommendations and the key findings of the report. If the member wishes to compare New Zealand prisons with prisons in Australia, then I advise him that the next time Hone Harawira goes to the outback of Australia he should accompany him to have a good look at how the indigenous people of Australia are treated.
Simon Power: How does the Minister reconcile his statement to the House in February last year that the costs of the prisons had escalated because “the costs of steel and concrete have increased considerably”, with the finding in this report that most of the significant materials required “had been prepurchased to guard against potential shifts in materials’ prices”?
Hon MITA RIRINUI: Once again, the member is wrong.
Hon Members: Aw!
Hon MITA RIRINUI: Once again, the member is wrong. I can advise that member that the increased costs in the regional prisons development project in terms of construction costs was simply the difference between the time when the decisions to make the construction were made and the time it actually took to start the construction, and it would be expected in any project of this size that there would be a significant difference in the cost of construction materials. If the member has difficulty in understanding that, then I recommend that he talks to his colleague from Tauranga, Bob Clarkson.
Simon Power: Can he confirm that the report identifies a number of savings that still could have been made in the final stages of construction, such as $600,000 for slightly less opulent landscaping, and could not even more money have been saved had this report been delivered on time, by the end of June last year, rather than over a year later?
Hon MITA RIRINUI: For the benefit of that member, I say the landscaping undertaken at the facilities is to a basic requirement under the Resource Management Act. The member should know that there are community issues and environmental issues, and there are issues surrounding the protection of local communities in terms of security.
Simon Power: How does he reconcile his statement to the House in February last year that: “Private prisons have proven not to be less costly.”, with the recommendation from this report, which I trust he has read, that one option for reducing the costs of building prisons would be to reintroduce the private sector in the development and management of prisons, because “it’s proved very cost-effective in Australia”; and could private providers do a worse job than his department?
Hon MITA RIRINUI: The member will be aware that under the Labour-led Government, prisons will remain a fundamental role of the State. In answer to the latter part of the question, the member needs to know that overseas experience shows that private prisons have lower staff / prisoner ratios, and inferior pay and conditions for staff, compared with those in public prisons. The member needs to understand that—or is he saying that conditions for prison staff are irrelevant in terms of National Party policy?
Ron Mark: Despite the evidence about the running of the Auckland Central Remand Prison by private enterprise and the contents of this report being so clear, why is this Government still philosophically, fundamentally, and ideologically so opposed to a balanced mix of privately run prisons and State-run prisons?
Hon MITA RIRINUI: That member might like to go to Ngāwhā prison one day and have a look at the programmes being run; they are provided by non-governmental organisations.
Simon Power: What did his department mean when it told the authors of the Treasury report that the department took an “organic approach” to value management for regional prisons?
Hon MITA RIRINUI: I tell the member again, the review report was commissioned by this Government in an effort to look at better ways of prison construction and prisoner management, going forward into the next 100 years—unlike that member’s Government in the 1990s, which allowed prisons to become run down.
Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question simply asked what his department meant by “organic approach”. I am sure he did not address that matter.
Madam SPEAKER: No, the Minister did not address it. Would the Minister address the question, please.
Hon MITA RIRINUI: The member raises an important issue, but I think if he went around and looked at our prisons, and saw the facilities that have been built as part of the regional development programme, instead of referring to them as places where prisoners live in the lap of luxury he would see that the security of communities surrounding prisons is a high priority, and that there are programmes run within prisons designed—
Simon Power: What does “organic” mean?
Hon MITA RIRINUI: The member talked about landscaping, and he will find that it is very organic.
Email—Control of Unsolicited Emails
7. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What is the Government doing to combat unsolicited emails?
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): The Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 was passed to help reduce spam with a New Zealand link. The legislation took effect yesterday, following a 6-month transition period to allow organisations to get their email practices and database systems in order. The Act alone will not solve the issue of spam. However, enforcement agencies are now in a position to bring New Zealand - based spammers to task for all their illegitimate activities.
Darien Fenton: What other reports has the Minister seen on unsolicited emails?
Hon RICK BARKER: I have seen reports on emails being received or not received, read or not read, opened or not opened, forwarded or not forwarded, replied to or not replied to, and on the contents of emails being remembered or not remembered, discussed or not discussed, actioned or not actioned. That report was called The Hollow Men, and although the new Act has the power to stop unsolicited emails, it will not help John Key’s selective memory.
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Corruption Allegations
8. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statements reported by IRN, NewsRoom, and TV3 respectively in June 2007 that he “is promising corruption allegations involving Housing New Zealand will be looked into thoroughly”, has “asked the board to look into a claim that the former Mangere tenant might have been helped by someone inside the corporation to get a house”, and “says he will look into allegations that insider help was given to a tenant who managed to sublet a state house”; if so, why did he say yesterday that “The investigation that we have had has been about the length of time it has been taking to investigate allegations.”?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): Yes. I advised the House on 28 June 2007: “Today I have written to the chair of Housing New Zealand, requesting that the board review the corporation’s investigation processes”. I did that because I was not satisfied that the case the member raises, and other cases, had been dealt with in a timely or an efficient manner. As far as the particular case the member raised yesterday and again today is concerned, which is part of that process of review, I can assure the House that it has been carefully investigated. There is no basis for believing that unjustified assistance was provided by corporation staff. However, I am not prepared to comment further, as that could jeopardise pending legal action.
Phil Heatley: Is the Minister saying that the investigation into corruption is part of the wider investigation into the length of time it has been taking to investigate allegations?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Absolutely. As I am sure that the member reads all of my press statements very thoroughly, he would have seen that on 28 June 2007 I listed the four issues I wanted Housing New Zealand Corporation to look at. They were—and I will repeat them—why a refocusing of the investigations unit by the corporation management last year did not seem to have improved its performance; how many other cases have been affected; what impact any of the delays have had on the cases; and, finally, the causes of the delay in the Māngere case.
Russell Fairbrother: What reports has the Minister seen about allegations of corruption in Housing New Zealand Corporation?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Last year the allegations that were repeatedly raised in this House by National’s spokesperson on housing about corruption in Housing New Zealand Corporation were found, after a thorough investigation by the Auditor-General, to be false. This year the same member raised allegations of corruption by Housing New Zealand Corporation staff at our Māngere office. An internal audit, peer reviewed by an external agency, has confirmed that there is no basis to believe there is any truth in the latest allegations of corruption. I can only agree with the editorial in the Waikato Times of 1 August this year, which stated: “Mr Heatley has sensationalised his criticisms. They are mischievous and illogical.”
Phil Heatley: In regard to the investigation report’s due date, why did he say in this House yesterday that “No such date as the end of July was given.”, when in this House on 28 June he said: “Today I have written to the chair of Housing New Zealand … with a due date for report back to me of 27 July.”; was he misleading the House then, or was he misleading the House yesterday?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: In my answer halfway through the questions from that member yesterday, I realised at that point that he was talking about two different investigations. I had answered the question yesterday about the investigation into the processes at Housing New Zealand Corporation, and I gave some answers about that, but I realised quickly, as the questions went on, that the issue was actually about the Māngere case. I received a report on 6 July about the Māngere case, and I was commenting about that.
Phil Heatley: The Minister has just admitted and conceded to this House that he realised during question time yesterday that his answer was, in fact, incorrect. Why did he not correct it at the time?
Madam SPEAKER: I think it was obvious.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: There is a difference between giving an incorrect answer to a question that one has understood, and answering a question that one has not understood the purport of, but answering it to the best of one’s ability at the time.
Madam SPEAKER: As I recall the exchanges, eventually we did get to the heart of the matter.
Phil Heatley: Why has the report sat on the Minister’s desk since 27 July—because we understand from him that that is when he demanded it be delivered to him—and why does he not release it now, 6 weeks after he received it?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I like to have any report that I receive checked. It has to be peer reviewed by the Department of Building and Housing, which is the monitoring agency for Housing New Zealand Corporation. That has now happened. In the Māngere case, which the member has been making a lot of noise about, but which we have now found to be false, the report was also checked by an external agency just to make sure that there was absolutely no possibility of corruption being involved. That all takes time. I now have the reports back, and they will be released soon.
Phil Heatley: Does the Minister see the irony of his investigation into “the length of time it has been taking to investigate allegations”, when he himself is sitting on a report he promised 6 weeks ago?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I do see the irony of that member once again making false allegations about corruption at Housing New Zealand Corporation and wasting taxpayers’ money.
Phil Heatley: How can it be that a Bay of Islands holiday homeowner is dobbed in for subletting a State house in February 2006, an investigation into that takes till May 2006 to start, a report on it is completed in August, it sits around on a corporation desk for 10 months until questions are raised in this House in June 2007, and it is then sent to the Crown solicitor, where it is still sitting on his desk; and why, oh why is the Minister himself still sitting on a report that he received 6 weeks ago?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Those very questions facilitated my getting Housing New Zealand Corporation to work on that. I thanked that member in this House 3 months ago for raising those issues. They are valid issues. The nonsense about corruption is not a valid issue, but there is a valid issue about process. I can assure this House that I am on to it and we are fixing it up.
Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Minister promising, in various media reports, there would be a corruption investigation.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.
Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Minister demanding a July 27 report back from Housing New Zealand Corporation.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I seek leave to table an editorial from the Waikato Times of 1 August.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.
Business—Quality Regulation Review
9. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce: What have been the outcomes of the Quality Regulation Review in terms of improving the regulatory environment for business?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): The process of the Quality Regulation Review has been excellent because it has enabled the Government to consider regulation from the perception of business, and to hear not only their concerns but also their solutions. A key outcome has been the strengthened regulatory impact assessment regime, which came in on 1 April this year, including the requirement that discussion documents have draft regulatory impact statements, or, at least, include the questions that will enable a high-quality regulatory impact statement to be developed. In addition, the Business Consultation Website used in the review is being retained so that business can continue to give feedback on rules that affect them, and next year we start a 2-year trial of a business cost calculator, so that we can quantify the compliance costs of regulation.
Maryan Street: Can the Minister identify specific improvements made to various regulatory frameworks, and how some of the overlapping issues have been addressed?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: There are actually too many to list in the time that I have available, but I shall mention just a few. The Accident Compensation Corporation and the Inland Revenue Department have agreed to improve the coordination of data collection, and to share information on businesses. The adjustment dates for excise and for the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand levy paid by the wine industry have now been aligned. The Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Department of Labour have developed information and tools to assist Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act compliance in the farming and horticultural industries. The Ministry of Health is working with the health sector to reduce contractual and legislative requirements placed on suppliers of health-related services, including duplicated audit requirements. The Department of Building and Housing, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry for the Environment, and Local Government New Zealand are collaborating to sort out issues where the Resource Management Act and the Building Act coincide. The Department of Labour and the Ministry of Justice will soon issue a discussion document on Easter weekend and the rules around shop trading hours, sale of liquor, and statutory holidays. The list goes on.
Lindsay Tisch: Will the Minister confirm that the report released today, Streamlining the System, states: “A large number of issues raised related to … underlying policy and so were outside the scope of the review.”; if so, can she inform the House when she or the Prime Minister will be announcing a new review that actually deals with the real issues, such as employment law, occupational safety and health, and the Resource Management Act, all of which concern New Zealand businesses of all sizes?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes; and no.
Maryan Street: What future steps will be taken as a result of the decisions taken under the Quality Regulation Review?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Due to the success of the sector studies contained in the report Streamlining the System, the Ministry of Economic Development is to report to me on proposals for a 5-year programme of sector studies, to be commenced next year. The Government will examine the feasibility of introducing standard business reporting, as used in the Netherlands and soon to be used in Australia, whereby businesses can submit financial data to several Government agencies in just one transaction, cutting the time and effort spent preparing and filing reports to the Government. New Zealand’s regulatory environment is in good shape, which is confirmed by our rating in world surveys, such as our No. 2 ranking in the World Bank’s Doing Business survey, and yesterday’s announcement that we have retained our No. 3 standing in the Fraser Institute’s report on world economic freedom. Doing business in New Zealand is good.
Police—Stab-resistant Vests
10. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Police: What proportion of response staff had been issued with stab-resistant vests by the end of July 2007, not including temporary covert body armour?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): As of 24 July 2007, 66 percent of response staff had been issued with permanent stab-resistant body armour, and a further 11 percent of response staff had been issued with temporary stab-resistant body armour. As of 8 August 2007, 5,510 members of police had received stab-resistant body armour. That means that 75 percent of the total target of 7,293 staff have a level of protection that was not available to them previously.
Chester Borrows: Can the Minister confirm that 2,000 vests are gathering dust in storage because over a quarter of officers were given vests that were too small due to “variability in skill level of the measurers”, and why has no one been held accountable for this bungle?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I think it is fair to say that many mistakes have been made in this project, and that has been acknowledged by the New Zealand Police. But since deputy commissioner Rob Pope took over this project when he became deputy commissioner, the project has got back on track. There are 2,000 vests in stock, and these will be issued—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Small ones!
Hon ANNETTE KING: No, they are not all small. This is some of the nonsense that is being spoken. The vests will be issued to members of the New Zealand Police—to new recruits, to those returning to the workforce, and to those returning from overseas. At the end of that time the department will then see which sizes are left. The vests are not all small.
Jill Pettis: How is the time frame looking for finishing the roll-out of stab-resistant body armour by the end of the year?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I have been advised that the goal of finishing the roll-out by the end of the year is on target. I understand that the second to last shipment of stab-resistant body armour for the project arrived in New Zealand in late August, a month ahead of schedule. The vests are currently being quality-checked before being sent to districts for distribution.
Chester Borrows: When will all of the 2,000 vests in storage actually be used, in light of the fact that the Minister has had to bring forward the purchase of 2,000 replacement vests of the right sizes, costing another $2.7 million, or is the truth that those vests will be sitting in storage when Labour gets the boot in 12 months?
Hon ANNETTE KING: No, the vests will not all be sitting in storage in 12 months when Labour is re-elected as the Government. Many of the vests will be issued to those who come back into the workforce, to those who return from overseas, and to new recruits.
Chester Borrows: Why did the Minister state in May that only 1,200 vests would need to be stored, when records show she knew in March that up to 2,000 would need to be put into storage?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Because those were the figures that the New Zealand Police gave me at that time.
Chester Borrows: How can the Minister be sure that all of the 2,000 vests will be used, when the surplus of the second, third, and fourth-smallest sizes are being “held in stock for issue to staff whose physical dimensions match, including new recruits”; and does she agree that even at current rates of recruitment, if all recruits were small enough to fit those vests, it would take 6 years before they were issued?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The thing about these vests is that they do not go off; they do not rot. So whether it takes 1 year or 5 years to roll them out, they are still going to be there. However, I have to tell the member that in the New Zealand Police the size of police officers goes from petite to XXX, so to be able to provide vests there has to be that range. Of the 2,000 vests there happen to be big ones and small ones.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the answer that the Minister just gave the House. I think it was important. These vests do not go off. But do they go out of fashion?
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, nor is it a supplementary question, however interesting it may have been.
Television New Zealand—Māori Strategy
11. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Kei te whakaae ia ki te kōrero o te Tumuaki o Whakaata Māori a Jim Mather i kī, ka raru a Whakaata Māori a ngā rā kei te heke iho, ā, ka raru hoki te pūtea i te rautaki reo Māori hōu kua whakaritea e TVNZ, ā, meina kei te whakaae ia, me pēhea a ia e mau tonu ki tōna kupu i te rua tekau mā ono o Hōngongoi, arā, “e kore e iti iho te nui o ngā whakaari reo Māori” i runga i a Whakaata Māori?
[Does he agree with the Māori Television chief executive, Jim Mather, who has described the State broadcaster’s newly developed Māori strategy as a threat to Māori Television’s future and to its funding base; if so, how will he keep the commitment he gave on 26 July 2007 that “There will be no decrease in the amount of Māori language programming” on Māori Television?]
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs: No. Māori Television, as an emerging public service broadcaster, has secured a leadership role in providing a broad range of Māori language and general content programmes that appeal to many viewers in the New Zealand audience. The Māori Television Service is quickly becoming the channel of choice for many people. Recent figures support that trend. In an industry where audience share is everything, Television New Zealand has realised that it needs to lift its game. I, for one, welcome more Māori language and content programmes on all public service broadcasters.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Nā te mea ko ia te Minita mō ngā Take Māori ka tūturu tana whakapono, e kī nei, “i kōrero tahi ake anō tātou mō tōku whakaaro, kāore e whakaae ake awau ki te nekeneke i a Te Karere me Marae”; ā, meina āe, he aha ai?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Does the Minister of Māori Affairs stand by his comment: “I made it clear that I don’t support the proposed changes to Te Karere and Marae”; if so, why?]
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Comments were made with the understanding that all editorial comments in relation to TVNZ are a matter to be dealt with by the Minister of Broadcasting.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Kei te mātau ia ki ngā āwangawanga o tana hoa, a Dover Samuels, i tana kōrero “he pōrangi, pōhauhau” te wā hōu kua whakaritea e TVNZ hei wā pāoho, ā, “e whakaiti ana i tō tātou reo”, ā, he aha ōna tohutohu ki te Minita Whakapāoho mō te whānui o te whakaahunga a te Māori mō ēnei whakarerekētanga ?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Is the Minister of Māori Affairs aware of the concerns of his fellow Māori MP Dover Samuels that the changes instigated by TVNZ are “ridiculous” and that the new time format “belittles our language”; and what advice will he be giving the Minister of Broadcasting about the widespread dissatisfaction among Māori about these changes?]
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Minister of Māori Affairs has no problem expressing views about the way in which any broadcaster addresses issues concerning Māori, and neither should he. In relation to colleagues who have made statements with similar content, they well know that those are issues for the Minister of Broadcasting. However, let me say that the Minister of Māori Affairs has been no stranger to supporting Māori language programming on all public service broadcasters. He will continue to do so, in an effort to ensure that, both in front of and behind the camera, Māori continue to thrive in the broadcasting industry.
Moana Mackey: What reports has the Minister received about the Māori Television Service?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Minister has received a number of reports that show that the number of people watching the Māori Television Service has increased, and that is a positive thing. TVNZ has lifted its game to try to respond. What that will do is to increase Māori language and content programming on all public service broadcasters. That too is a positive thing.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Kua rongo ia i te kōrero o Whai Ngata, te Kaiwhakahaere Māori mō TVNZ e kī ana, ehara i te mea nā te iti o ngā whakatauranga mō te karere te take i neke ia i te mea ko Te Karere kei mua noa atu o ngā whakaari Māori katoa, ā, ko ngā whika tonu a TVNZ kei te kī, ka heke ngā kaititiro Māori ki te tekau ō-rau mēnā kā neke a Te Karere ki te tekau mā rima meneti ki te whā karaka i te ahiahi, nā, ka taea e ia te whakamārama, he aha i mahi ai a TVNZ i tēnei mahi, ahakoa, he rerekē ngā whakaaturanga?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Is the Minister of Māori Affairs aware that TVNZ’s General Manager, Whai Ngata, has stated that poor ratings are not the reason for moving Te Karere, as it was the best performing of all Māori content programmes, and that TVNZ’s own figures suggest that a 3.45 p.m. slot would reduce the number of Māori viewers to just 10 percent; and can he explain why TVNZ is taking this action despite all evidence suggesting otherwise?]
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I restate on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs that issues of an editorial nature are a matter for the Minister of Broadcasting. I am sure that the Minister of Māori Affairs will relay a number of concerns to that Minister. However, TVNZ may care to reflect on the timing issues, which may advantage the Māori Television Service and its programming timing slots.
Crown Minerals—Confidence
12. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to the Associate Minister of Energy: Does he have confidence in Crown Minerals?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy): Yes, but there is always room for improvement. In addition, with reference to the matter raised by the same member in his similar question yesterday, I tell him that contrary to his allegations, I acted in accordance with officials’ advice. I will seek leave to table that advice at the end of the question.
Chris Auchinvole: When the Minister personally granted a petroleum mining permit to Macdonald Investments Ltd, was he aware that over the previous 15 years, despite two terms of exploration permits, the company had never made a discovery?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: First, the member should get his facts right. [Interruption] Yes, I invite the member to repeat his allegation outside. I am sorry, Madame Speaker. In response to the comment by Maurice Williamson, I invite the member to take the comments he made yesterday and say them again outside. I will be very much prepared to have a dictaphone there. I say to the member Chris Auchinvole that he should get his facts right. Macdonald Investments had operated the permit for approximately 8½ years when it came to Crown Minerals wishing to review its operation and look at some alternative way of resolving the issues it had come across. This particular permit was an exploration permit in its second term. The terms were of 5 years and 5 years, and Macdonald Investments had not completed the second term. The application that it made in the end, after discussion with Crown Minerals, was for a mining licence, which is quite different to the original application. It has not been unusual, when a licence is of a new or an interesting nature, for me to take a personal interest in it and to sign it personally. This was the first occasion on which a coal-seam gas mining licence had ever been applied for in New Zealand. That is why I signed it personally, just as I signed licences for the Pohokura project and many others projects of national importance.
Chris Auchinvole: Why did the Minister personally grant the mining licence, knowing that Macdonald Investments had made no previous discoveries; and did he also know that in the period from 2002 to 2006 Macdonald Investments did not complete its scheduled work programme?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Yes, I did know that it had not completed its obligations under its previous application. However, I absolutely complied with the statutory responsibilities, and when I table the information members will all be able to see just how wrong the member is. He should support the company, which is making a significant investment in his own area.
Chris Auchinvole: Is the Minister aware that section 38 of the Crown Minerals Act states that the Minister “shall decline” permit amendments and extensions where holders have failed to substantially comply with permit conditions; if so, what was the compelling argument that caused him to not only fail to revoke Macdonald Investments’ exploration permit in the face of non-performance but to open-handedly grant it a 40 - year mining permit?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Most mining permits are of that sort of duration. That is the first point. The second point is that—
Hon Member: Where are your interests, Harry?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I am sorry, but I take offence at that remark. I will deal with that at the end of the question. The second point that I make to the member is that he should not listen to disgruntled former employees of the company and should actually look properly at the legislation himself, because the legislation that Macdonald Investments applied for the original permit under was, in fact, related to an exploration permit. The permit the company now has is a mining permit. Those are two quite different things. What the company has done, and what the application was for, is to considerably increase the investment being made by the company and to take what is a not inconsiderable commercial risk itself. But that is the company’s choice. In addition I will say this. Since acquiring the mining permit, Macdonald Investments Ltd has seen considerable commercial interest in its operations, and it has successfully managed to utilise the skills of an organisation with considerable international specialisation in coal-seam gas technology. That is new to New Zealand, and it is something the member should be aware of because he lives in the area. I do not think he is doing a good job at all for the company involved.
Sue Moroney: Has the level of mineral and petroleum activity on the South Island’s West Coast increased in recent years?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Yes, considerably so. Since I became the Associate Minister of Energy, there has been a marked increase in activity in the region. During that time, 199 permits have been issued. Of those, 160 have been for minerals, 13 have been for petroleum activity, and the remainder have been for coal.
Chris Auchinvole: What is the Minister’s explanation for not following section 38 of the Act, for not listening to all of the advice of Crown Minerals officials, and for taking the unusual step of becoming personally involved and signing off on an unprecedented mining permit after only 1 month of consideration?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: The member is wrong on virtually every point he made in his question. The 1-month period was the period in which the actual formal application had been made, but the company had been involved in discussions with Crown Minerals over that application, if not for years then certainly for many months. Also, I will tell the member that I have signed many permits. It is not unusual. Just recently, I signed the Great South Basin permits.
Hon Paul Swain: Given that a former Associate Minister of Energy in this Labour-led Government was not as successful as the current one is, could the Minister outline the specific things that the current Associate Minister has done that were not achieved as much by the former Associate Minister of Energy?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I certainly would not want to embarrass my colleague. But can I say that there has been a considerable upgrade of the ability, particularly technology-wise, within Crown Minerals to enable it to respond to a greatly more competitive world exploration environment. I also say that this allegation has been rather a surprise to me. I would have thought that the member Chris Auchinvole would support his local company, actually support what it is doing, and at least go to talk with the company about what it is involved with. It is no wonder he is not the local member there. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the documentation and advice on Macdonald Investments Ltd—the company outlined by the member.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Question No 11 to Minister
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs: I seek leave to table a document that demonstrates that the viewer audience of Māori Television has increased.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Points of Order
Fiji, Martial Law—Government Statement
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a relatively serious matter. I am not sure whether people in the House are aware that in recent hours martial law has been declared in Fiji. I wonder whether we might get an indication from the Deputy Prime Minister as to whether there will be a statement from the Government on that at some time today, preferably to the House.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I have not been informed on this matter. I will make inquiries to see whether that is appropriate, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am, of course, the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs in Mr Peters’ absence.
Bills
Broadcasting Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State), on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting: I move, That the Broadcasting Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Commerce Committee.
The object of this bill is to bring New Zealand’s broadcasting funding agencies in line with the digital age. Internationally, broadcasting is moving to digital transmission to the point where analogue transmission will be obsolete within a number of years. New Zealand, too, is moving with increasing speed to an era of digital-only broadcasts. At the same time, broadcasting-like content is appearing on a variety of media and devices. Broadcasters and content creators are making use of these media, or platforms, to retain and expand their audiences, and to serve them better. It is vital that our broadcasting infrastructure and ways of supporting local content remain relevant and effective in the new era. Our broadcasting funding agencies need to be able to respond to the opportunities and challenges of the digital world. They need to provide support and services to meet the changing needs and expectations of producers, broadcasters, and the New Zealand public. The bill will enable them to do so.
The Broadcasting Amendment Bill will allow the broadcasting funding agencies, New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho, to fund the types of content, archiving, and transmission that are likely to be integral to digital radio and television platforms—platforms such as the Internet, mobile phones, and other mobile services—the common feature of which is that transmission occurs at the demand of the individual viewer or listener, in contrast to traditional broadcasting. It is currently outside the scope of the Broadcasting Act 1989 for these agencies to fund content made or adapted specifically for such platforms. Nor are the agencies able to support the new platforms for the digital transmissions themselves, or the archiving of content created specifically for digital platforms other than conventional television or radio.
The Broadcasting Act’s definition of “broadcasting” simply does not extend to the increasing array of interactive and on-demand forms of distribution made possible by digital technology. Broadcasting is evolving steadily towards an era in which the audience will, as a matter of course, expect to access content through a choice of platforms, and at times of their choosing. A range of broadcasters, from national institutions like Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and Radio New Zealand to local access radio stations, are increasingly using these platforms to reach their audiences in new ways. The exact pace and final outcome of this change in broadcasting are difficult to predict, but experience to date indicates that the pace will be fast and the changes comprehensive. Our broadcasting agencies need to be equipped to respond to these developments. This bill, therefore, amends Part 4 of the Broadcasting Act relating to the functions of New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho—or the Broadcasting Commission and Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi, to give their formal, statutory names. It also adds certain terms in section 2(1) of the Act. A further important change made by the bill is to allow Te Māngai Pāho to fund the archiving of Māori language and culture programmes in general. It has been anomalous that, to date, New Zealand On Air has had such a function in relation to general broadcast content, while Te Māngai Pāho has not.
The Government’s public broadcasting policies collectively expressed in the broadcasting programme of action aim to maintain and strengthen the availability of public broadcasting content in the digital era. Public broadcasting content is, broadly speaking, content that a commercial market would not produce of its own accord and that serves the broadcasting needs of every section of the audience rather than only those of the most interest to advertisers. A rich variety of local content is, of course, a fundamental objective of any public broadcasting policy and it is crucial to its success. The key means of funding local content in New Zealand is the maintenance of distribution agencies allocating funding to producers and broadcasters on a largely contestable basis.
The Government’s programme of action has provided for the re-examination of the functions of New Zealand On Air in order to identify where changes may be necessary to clarify its role and to permit it to support a more diverse range of content, taking into account the new kinds of content made possible by the recent developments in broadcasting and communications technology. In collaboration with my colleague the Minister of Māori Affairs, this review has also embraced Te Māngai Pāho, the Māori broadcasting agency. The shift to a multi-platform world is a challenge for public broadcasting policy, but it is also an excellent opportunity to provide the public with greater choice and richer content. Our re-examination of the two agencies’ functions goes hand in hand with our other policies to promote free-to-air digital broadcasting through the establishment of the FreeView platform and funding of the new non-commercial digital channels on TVNZ. The Government’s measures to improve New Zealand’s broadband capacity, which will be vital to the development of Internet protocol television, are another complementary area of policy.
The Broadcasting Amendment Bill makes the changes necessary for our funding agency to be able to keep pace with these developments in broadcasting. It introduces a new definition of “content” and of “transmit on demand”, in order to encompass types of content or producers of content intended for digital platforms that fall outside the Act’s current definitions of “broadcasting” and “programmes”. These existing definitions, which also apply elsewhere in the Act, will be retained, but for the purposes of the two funding agencies they will be supplemented by the new terms. The bulk of the bill is concerned with permitting the two agencies to fund the desired forms of digital content, transmission, and archiving. It also extends to these new areas the Act’s existing provisions relating to the promotion of New Zealand content, and the requirement for the agencies to consult various interests when making funding decisions. In addition, it carries over the Act’s existing protection against ministerial interference in such decisions.
The Broadcasting Amendment Bill is not intended to prompt radical change in the funding agencies’ operations or to expose them to a sudden increase in demand. The new functions are presented as supplementing and enhancing the delivery of their existing objectives, which the bill deems to be primary. The aim is to allow the agencies themselves, at their discretion, to assess the way that broadcasting and other media are developing over the next few years and to adjust their own funding policies in a gradual and considered way. The bill has been developed in consultation with them. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): As the Minister has outlined, the purpose of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill is to amend the Broadcasting Act to allow Government funding for a wider range of digital programmes in a variety of formats, for instance the Internet, mobile phones, video on demand, etc. We still do not know what is coming down the line in any event, so I suggest it is proper to be prepared.
Currently, the Broadcasting Act allows the two funding agencies, New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho, to fund programmes for television viewing only. This bill enables the change to allow them to fund new formats. The bill also changes Te Māngai Pāho’s role to allow it to fund the archiving of Māori culture and language programmes. Currently, New Zealand On Air is the only agency with the ability to do that. I acknowledge that that is a very important provision. Māori language and culture are key to New Zealand’s identity, and it is very important that the proper archiving of Māori language and culture is accommodated.
The bill was created to deal with rapid technological change in the broadcasting industry, especially in terms of digital media. National supports the bill. We accept that in a digital environment there is a need to bring funding arrangements into line with modern and evolving broadcasting technology. It is sensible and proper to update arrangements. We also accept that publicly funded content needs to be available to the public, whether through analog television, the Internet, or FreeView. However, National would be concerned if this funding were used for programming that could be viewed only through a pay per view cellphone platform, and we will be holding the Government to account on this issue.
Of course, funding for different formats is sensible, but in the modern broadcasting environment, content reigns supreme, and until the Minister of Broadcasting gets his broadcasting policy online these provisions could be superfluous, anyway. Minister Maharey’s performance to date has been woeful in National’s view. He was given a charter for Television New Zealand (TVNZ) to implement along with the commercial format, and that has proved to be a disaster. This dual public broadcasting and commercial remit does not seem to have worked at all over the last 6 years, and National on many occasions has pointed this out. Steve Maharey does not seem to have taken much note of it, but as far as we are concerned, in terms of content, $80 million worth of public money has been seemingly going down a black hole every year. The proof of the pudding, of course, is that TV audiences are still dropping, and at the same time the Government is trying to develop the digital platform.
We acknowledge that that is a big job to do, but the Minister has given very little real leadership to enable the public broadcaster to do this in a way whereby the viewing public of New Zealand, who expect a decent public broadcaster—and whose money funds this development—can be confident that we in fact have a decent public broadcaster in our presence. So there is a lot of work to do, and, as I said, the Minister has been a lacklustre leader in terms of the Government’s broadcasting policy. Although we recognise that these changes are probably necessary and make sense, in terms of the bigger picture that needs to be addressed I think Steve Maharey, for the short time he has left as the Minister of Broadcasting, has a lot of work to do. So we are asking him what the plan is. What, for instance, will he do about improving local content on TVNZ?
I recall the time when Rick Ellis came to the Māori Affairs Committee, about 2 months ago. We wanted to know how he thought he was doing in terms of Māori programming on TVNZ in relation to his charter responsibilities, and, surprise, surprise, he thought he was doing great. He thought that programmes like Location Location Location and Police Ten 7 and other programmes were satisfying the Māori content responsibility. What a laugh! What an absolute scandal! Just because there are Māori in prison on a TV programme, he thought that that satisfied the Māori programme requirement on television. So, as I said, although the changes in this bill are sensible, content reigns supreme when it comes to making them. The audiences will tell us that. They either watch or they do not, and, of course, TVNZ audiences have been dropping away, anyway. So there is another area in which the Minister has been very lacklustre. Game of Two Halves with Mike King is a very funny sports programme that I watch and enjoy, but I have to say that Mike King’s presence there does not a Māori programme make.
There was nothing in TVNZ’s announcements 7 or 8 days ago about its new Māori programming format that gave me, at least, or I am sure any other Māori MP in this Chamber, any confidence that it knew that tripling the number of hours is not necessarily improving local Māori content. Where is the funding for that, anyway? It is all very well to announce that it will triple the hours for Māori programming, but no funding is appearing to meet that. That is fine, because, as it says, it will compete with Māori TV for the same pūtea, so we will see how it does.
Tripling the hours is one thing, but getting decent local content is another. Perhaps TVNZ is going to triple the hours and have more ridiculous things. Maybe instead of one Māori family on Location Location Location, buying a house, it will have two families; perhaps that is the way it is going to do it. [Interruption] Kai Time is on Māori Television, I say to Dover Samuels. We are talking about TVNZ here. This is the broadcaster that gets $80 million worth of that member’s taxes and my taxes every year, and has still to prove that it can properly manage its charter responsibilities and its commercial remit at the same time. So far it has not done that.
Just to finish off, in terms of Māori programming, I say that TVNZ will be competing with Māori Television for the same pūtea, the same pot of money. It does not deserve to get any if its content is not going to improve from the kinds of things it has produced in the past, and that Rick Ellis has said was Māori programming. As I say, it is scandalous that he should come to the select committee and sell those programmes as Māori programming. It is an insult to Māori audiences, and it is an insult to New Zealand audiences, actually. If the charter were working properly, then every New Zealander, and especially Māori, would feel they were getting a perspective of the Māori world view that they might not otherwise get. That is what these kinds of changes are aimed at, and that is what the charter funding is aimed at. Until the Minister of Broadcasting, Minister Maharey, winds the public broadcaster in the right direction, then this is possibly designed to fail, as well. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I think this Broadcasting Amendment Bill is a very good bill. It was interesting to listen to the previous speaker, who was the one small voice in the National Party, out of 48, who defended Māori Television when it was first established. As I recall, National Party members are crystal clear that if they have their way, Māori Television will be closed down. Have they made a clear and concise statement of apology to the people of New Zealand for their short-sighted criticism of what is now a wonderful television channel? I have to say that I find it absolutely ironic. Georgina te Heuheu was actually the best member in that caucus then. At least she raised one small voice in favour of Māori Television, and I commend her for that. But please do not let me hear criticism of Māori Television content, in terms of Television New Zealand (TVNZ), from the party opposite, when those members themselves, as I understand it, have been dedicated to closing down Māori Television. Quite frankly, I think their protestations with regard to Māori content on TVNZ ring hollow.
I compliment the dynamic and energetic Minister of Broadcasting, Steve Maharey, who is more than equal to all the 48 members—or however many—National has over there in his vision and leadership in this portfolio. I also acknowledge the previous Minister of Broadcasting, Marian Hobbs, for her energy, drive, and vision. Obviously this bill is very, very important.
Katrina Shanks: Let’s talk about TVNZ failing financially.
MARTIN GALLAGHER: Oh, members opposite are asking questions about TVNZ. I challenge them to stand in this House and give an unequivocal public guarantee that TVNZ will survive as a public service broadcaster in this country. The secret agenda is absolutely obvious. National will hock it off. This is the National Party that when in Government, as I understand it, was going to allow the former Concert Programme on Radio New Zealand to be contracted out. We should look very closely at National’s agenda. Its agenda, very clearly, would be to get rid of public service broadcasting in this country, and certainly to get rid of TVNZ.
TVNZ is not perfect, but certainly it is adapting to and evolving with technology. I think the TVNZ ondemand website is very, very good. If we are overseas, we can click in and watch TVNZ’s breakfast programmes and its news programmes. I think TVNZ is doing a good job. I do not always agree with some of its programming, but so be it. I am one who, along with 4 million people, from time to time would not agree with some of TVNZ’s programming.
But instead of the Opposition—including the Wellington-based member—slamming and slagging off TVNZ, why do those members not, for once in their lives, give it a bit of praise? Why do they not acknowledge the enormous creative energy of our public broadcaster in this country, instead of slagging it off? The reason they are slagging it off, of course, in my view, is that they are secretly preparing TVNZ for sale, should National ever lead a future Government.
I return to the content of the bill. I am enthusiastic about this bill, because it is talking about the new era of broadcasting, the new era of communications, in this country. I think it is an excellent bill that will take us a step forward in terms of funding mechanisms, acknowledging that we are now in the digital age, and acknowledging that our children and grandchildren will be accessing our broadcast programming on their cellphones.
I acknowledge that we are on the edge of digital radio, in terms of overseas satellite radio. It is very important that the public, the community, should be part of that. We should be making sure that public broadcasters, community broadcasters, are adequately resourced and that even the other free-to-air channels have adequate means to ensure that their content in their programming can be transmitted through this new format.
The previous speaker correctly talked about audience. I think one of the important things is to make sure that we reach different types of audiences, and that is where, again, digital programming and digital content gives us so much more potential to go for specific audiences. I am a very strong supporter of the wonderful Community Radio Hamilton. Indeed, just the other day I clicked into its live-web streaming on the Internet. I say well done to Phil Grey of Community Radio Hamilton; what an excellent radio station it is. I was listening to a young woman doing a youth programme at about 4 o’clock while I was working in my office, and I thought how wonderful it was to be able to sit in my office in Wellington and tune into my community radio station—our community radio station in Hamilton—and hear the content. [Interruption] I hope Hansard records the member for Coromandel’s interjection. Is it not sad that she pooh-poohs these wonderful local initiatives? Frankly, she should listen to Community Radio Hamilton and hear what a great service it provides for the Waikato. It is a good example of community broadcasting, and I believe that it is those broadcasters that this bill, in the medium and long term, will help.
The other positive thing to note is how wonderful it is that Triangle Television is now going up on to the satellite platform so that its particular programming will go right across New Zealand. Again, I think this bill will free up the flexibilities of our funding agencies to look at the appropriate assistance for these kinds of public service and community broadcasters—free-to-air broadcasters—to vary their content.
I know that Georgina te Heuheu supports me in thanking Māori Television. What a wonderful television station it is. Georgina te Heuheu, in her heart of hearts, would say that she is so sorry that Gerry Brownlee and others pooh-poohed it and were negative about its creation and beginning, because it has evolved into a wonderful public service. Even my mother watches Ask Your Auntie, and all those wonderful programmes. Māori Television is a wonderful example of a creative public service channel. So it is really important that the technology moves with what is happening out there.
How has all this come about—Māori Television, better content for Television New Zealand, TVNZ ondemand, the growth of community access radio, and getting Triangle Television, for example, on the satellite? Under whose leadership in Government has this occurred? It has occurred under the Labour-led Government. What was the record of the previous National Government? It was maybe going to hock off TVNZ if it had enough time. Certainly it was starting to dismantle and underfund it. This was the crowd that led Radio New Zealand to the wall. We are the Government that has funded public radio, that has improved Radio New Zealand funding, that has backed community and access radio, and that has backed the new technology to ensure that we see ourselves as a country on air through new technology.
I think this Broadcasting Amendment Bill is a very, very good bill. I have to compliment Georgina te Heuheu on her speech, which was good until she started to talk a bit negatively and to get a bit negative. She does not actually believe in it herself—she actually likes Steve Maharey. But I think she was making a very good contribution, and I compliment her on it. I join with her and Mita Ririnui, who is a very good Minister, in hailing this legislation and saying that this is a great bill. I envy the members of the Commerce Committee who will be able to get their teeth into this really good bill. This is taking us forward as a country, enabling us to see ourselves through the new medium of broadcasting. I think that is very important. I commend this bill.
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I would just like to take up from where the previous speaker left off. I think his name is Martin Gallagher. What did he say? He said: “I join with her.”, and he was talking about the Hon Georgina te Heuheu from the National benches. Clearly, he is feeling the pressure of being part of this Government and already he wants to jump ship. Well, we have news for him!
I too would like to extend my congratulations to my most excellent colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. In spite of what the member Martin Gallagher said, we have some contrary views here. Experts are saying that Labour’s broadcasting policy is in tatters, with Steve Maharey failing to front up to the public. So why, under Steve Maharey’s stewardship of Television New Zealand (TVNZ), are 160 people being laid off, and why are experienced news staff expressing serious doubts about the quality of news and current affairs?
This is a huge bill of about three pages, which, again, is really indicative of this Government’s failing position. It is bereft of ideas, bereft of initiatives, and bereft of policy. Its members are constantly hammering us for policy, because they have no ideas of their own. They have no ideas of their own, so they come out with a bill that is tantamount to about three pages in length.
Let us look at those three pages. I note that clause 9, “Commission to have regard to Government policy”, amends, in subclause (2), section 44(2)(b) by omitting the words “current affairs programmes” and substituting the words “any current affairs programme or content”. The commission is to “have regard to Government policy” and “any current affairs programme or content”. So now the commission has to have regard to the Government’s policy on content. I just wonder what that will really mean for us in the future, given the very sound words from my most honourable colleague Georgina te Heuheu, who talked about Māori programming in relation to programmes such as Police Ten 7, Dancing with the Stars, and Game of Two Halves.
When we look at that one clause, we then have to start thinking seriously about what the Government’s policy is. Is it going to be robust? That is another area where Steve Maharey has absolutely failed. He is saying that the charter is under review. Well, we know that there are plenty of reviews going on currently, because all that this Government can do is to have review after review. I do not know how many documents are out there in the public forum for consultation. I read another one just recently that said: “Carers, tell us what you need and what works.” Hello! How many times have carers been asked that question? If we look at how many documents are out there for public input under this Government, we will see that they cover just about every single subject one can think of.
Hon Georgina te Heuheu: The public are fed up.
SANDRA GOUDIE: The public are absolutely fed up. They do not want more of this sort of thing, but this bill is the best the Government can do. It has no charter yet, because that is under review. The Government has no policy in regard to that issue. Mr Maharey is not moving that forward.
This Government has brought in this three-page bill, and clause 9(2) will amend section 44(2)(b) and substitute the words: “any current affairs programme or content”. Therefore, content has to be considered by the Broadcasting Commission in light of Government policy. But how can that happen if the Government does not have any policy? That is bizarre in the extreme.
The member Martin Gallagher claimed that everything was all sweet and rosy at TVNZ, despite the launch of digital television. I have to say it is great that New Zealand may be keeping up with technology, but I am sure that technology will have moved on by the time we catch up. That is just the nature of these things. All the Minister said about redundancies—the 160 people being laid off—was that it is an “employment issue”. He has refused to front up on that issue, even though he and Labour have made some very strong statements about the quality of television at the State broadcaster and its responsibilities to regional New Zealand. On the one hand we have Martin Gallagher saying everything is fantastic at TVNZ and what a wonderful job it is doing, and on the other hand the Government has made some very strong statements about the quality of television at the State broadcaster and its responsibilities to regional New Zealand.
Martin Gallagher said I was pooh-poohing the proposals in the bill. No, we are supporting the bill, such as it is. However, we understand that the Minister gets things wrong sometimes. When Martin Gallagher said he would love to join with her, he was referring to the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. It is starting to look as though he wants to be on this side of the House, rather than the other side. This is the sort of pressure that the Government is under, and we are left with this sort of bill—three pages, pretty much.
I read the definition of “content” in clause 4, because at times we have to come back to the actual content of the bill. That is really quite important, and I am sure all members would agree. In relation to transmitting on demand, content means programmes, visual images that consist predominantly of alphanumeric text, and so on. Do members know what that is? I do; I looked it up. It means alphabet and numbers!
Hon Brian Donnelly: You had to look that up?
SANDRA GOUDIE: I did, and I am not ashamed of the fact. I love using a dictionary, because the English language is absolutely important. Alphanumeric means alphabet and numbers. So will we be seeing more of the alphabet and numbers on television? That is content, and that is what the bill states in relation to transmitting on demand. Content also means “software intended to—(i) inform, enlighten, or entertain; or (ii) promote the interests of any person; or (iii) promote any product or service”.
In that sense, perhaps we will get to see a little bit more of Mike Moore. That would be interesting! He could become a star in his own right. I think he could command a whole programme—a series, if you like. It could be written, produced, and performed by Mike Moore. That would be fantastic. We could do with a sequel. His comments have been most amusing for many New Zealanders lately, and very entertaining.
I am interested in the words “predominantly of alphanumeric text”. That means that the alphabet and numbers will take predominance over other visual content. I thought that was very interesting. I am sure all these matters will be considered by the Commerce Committee, in depth. I am sure it will give close scrutiny to those phrases and the real intent of the bill. The smallest details can often contain the most serious consequences in terms of change.
I would like to mention the Television New Zealand charter, where confusion reigns. The chief executive officer and the political masters are constantly at odds, which really flies in the face of the sorts of proclamations being made by Martin Gallagher. I would be concerned that the New Zealand public are being misled on that score. If Dr Cullen does not think that Dancing with the Stars is charter programming but TVNZ thinks it is, then what confidence can the public have in any of the charter statistics that are bandied about from time to time by Labour? It behoves us all to keep a very close eye on this three-page Broadcasting Amendment Bill; it is a very serious matter. National will support the bill going to the select committee.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa te Whare. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill gives the House a good chance, a good opportunity, to look back on some of the first principles of broadcasting in Aotearoa. When I talk about principles, I am talking about those Treaty principles that both New Zealand First and Labour, with their large bands of Tontos, voted to dump from legislation, but that Māori up and down the country hold fast to as the only validation of the Treaty in legislation in this country.
This bill arises out of the broadcasting assets case New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General of December 1993, where the Privy Council noted in its decision that “The Treaty records an agreement executed by the Crown and Maori which over 150 years later is of the greatest constitutional importance to New Zealand.” It is such an important point that it is worth repeating: “The Treaty records an agreement executed by the Crown and Maori which over 150 years later is of the greatest constitutional importance to New Zealand.” The Privy Council decision also stated: “Foremost among those ‘principles’ are the obligations which the Crown undertook of protecting and preserving Maori property, including the Maori language as taonga, in return for being recognised as the legitimate government of the whole nation by Maori.” It further stated: “Again, if, as is the case with the Maori language at the present time, a taonga is in a vulnerable state, this has to be taken into account by the Crown … and may well require the Crown to take especially vigorous action for its protection.”
That is the basis from which we need to consider this bill. Does the bill include the vigorous action by which Māori language and culture will be promoted and protected? Does it bear in mind the constitutional importance of the Treaty? Does it deal properly with the obligations of the Crown to protect and preserve Māori property? It is with those guidelines in mind that the Māori Party will support the proposal to amend the Broadcasting Act 1989 to enable New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho to fund digital broadcasting content, archiving, and transmission.
But we still ask the question: “Does it stack up against those criteria established by the Privy Council?”. Well, the Minister of Māori Affairs thought so when he said on 26 July 2007 that: “Without a dedicated Maori digital television service, there is the potential for a diminished presence of Māori language and culture in the lives of all New Zealanders”, and gave the assurance, particularly in relation to Māori television, that “there will be no decrease in the amount of Maori language programming on the first channel”. The Minister’s words are important, because the debate over Television New Zealand (TVNZ)’s Māori programming strategy suggests that some clear direction about Māori language programming across all channels is needed.
The Māori Party supports the current framework for purchasing programmes and broadcast services through New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho. Both agencies continue to have a focus on Māori programmes and services, and archiving of those programmes is a positive step. But we also firmly believe that Māori must have a greater say about the way that resources are allocated for the promotion of Māori language and culture through broadcasting. The TVNZ Māori programme tragedy is a classic example of the need for that. When it was first announced, the increase in Māori programming hours sounded great, but when one looked at the scheduling one quickly realised what a sham it really was.
For example, if we take Te Karere, TVNZ’s Māori news flagship, we find it has never ever been treated by TVNZ as a news programme, and its timing has always reflected that. For years it played second fiddle to sport, getting shunted back to midnight whenever cricket was on. Then, when cricket shifted to Sky, Te Karere got left out in the boonies—out in the kids’ programming slot at 4.30 p.m., and replayed at 6.05 a.m. on the following day. Now, with TVNZ’s new Māori programming tragedy being announced in a blaze of publicity, we find that Te Karere is—wait for it; drum roll and all the rest of it—being dumped into an even worse slot. It is going to be out with the soaps at 3.45 in the afternoon, and replayed at midnight and 5.45 a.m., for heaven’s sake! Then we find that Waka Huia and Marae, TVNZ’s major Māori documentary and current affairs programmes, have just been slashed in half, and that Waka Huia has just been shunted back into Sunday morning, after slowly building a solid audience in its Saturday morning slot. That is just another insult to Māori programming. I challenge the Minister of Māori Affairs to take steps to ensure that Māori language programming is not downgraded by people whose ignorance of Māori programming is already clear for all to see.
The Sunday morning shuffle that TVNZ is engaged in with regard to Waka Huia reminded me of a similar dance from a few years back, so I had a look through the records, and can members guess what I found? I found a Listener article that described the time when Waka Huia was pushed back from 11 a.m. on Sunday to 10 a.m., to make way for the life-changing, New Zealand society - building, revolutionary children’s programme Little House on the Prairie. It reported a comment from Hone Kaa, a former presenter and co-producer of Waka Huia, who said at the time: “There are powers which determine when you might be seen … I think it’s about time those people started to realise that we are the indigenous tangata whenua, and that maybe we ought to have priority over some of the American shit that we’re watching.” The date of that article was 28 March 1987—20 years ago—but it could have been written yesterday, for all the progress that has not been made on Māori programming at Television New Zealand.
The point is that this bill looks good and we support moves for video on demand, interactivity, reversioning, and so on, but it all means diddly-squat if the State broadcaster is using that process to relegate Māori programming to the twilight hours. That brings me back to the point of giving Māori a more direct stake in the growth of Māori language and culture through broadcasting. The Māori Television Service is an enormous achievement, but the Government must continue to support the development of management and technical skills and experience within the industry, and as well allow the service to grow its commitment to Māori language and culture. It is great that in its short life the Māori Television Service has taken prizes for best event coverage at the 2006 Qantas television awards, awards for best documentaries, people’s choice awards, and other awards, but we must not blind ourselves to the reality that TVNZ was fully, absolutely, and totally State-funded for 40 years, whereas the Māori Television Service has only ever been part-funded, for 5 years. Māori radio has not received an operational increase in its funding in almost 20 years. The Government needs to accept a great obligation to Māori broadcasting, to ensure continuous and ongoing improvement in both radio and television.
I also want to refer to the amendments in the bill to change Te Māngai Pāho’s primary function by adding the archiving of Māori language and culture programmes to its role. I am reminded of a story from another trailblazing Māori broadcaster, Ernie Leonard, who said that while watching the elders walking up the steps of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art during the Te Māori exhibition, the hairs rose on the back of his neck as he thought about what would happen if the plane carrying those people home crashed and they were all lost. Preserving and protecting our stories is absolutely vital to our future as a people and as a nation, and is a development that we support fully.
I leave us with one final comment. The Māori Party is gravely concerned that Māori language programme funding is already very tight, in spite of the ruling of the Privy Council, in spite of the statutory direction of the Broadcasting Act, and in spite of the huge surpluses that TVNZ has run up. I have to ask the obvious questions. First, what strategy does the Government have to provide annual increases in Māori broadcasting funding to support the development of management and technical skills and experience within the industry, as well as allowing the Māori Television Service to grow its commitment to Māori language and culture? Second, what funding increases have been determined to enable Māori radio and television to benefit properly from digital broadcast development? Third, is Māori broadcasting expected to take on video on demand, interactivity, reversioning, and digital broadcast content, archiving, and transmission without the funding to do so? Or will Māori broadcasting be expected to cut back even further, to enable its funding to be used for mainstream digital broadcast development? Budget 2007 gave some money to Māori radio and the Māori Television Service, but it falls well short of what is required to properly develop those services and their products, and we hope to use the select committee process to raise those constitutional, legal, and financial issues, to ensure that Māori broadcasting is not neutralised in this new digital era. Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa.
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): Tēnā koutou. The Green Party will be supporting this bill, although it must be said that we have not had any briefing on it. The bill seems to have been put rather hastily on the Order Paper today, and we have not had the time to be briefed or to research it. Recently I asked the Minister some questions about its implications and he was not able to answer them. So with that caveat—that we do not fully understand the ramifications of this bill—we will seek to be on the select committee that considers it. We think this is a very important piece of legislation, but we do not fully understand its implications. I will explain what I understand they are in the very brief time that we have had to come to grips with it, and in the absence of any briefings.
The digital revolution is well and truly upon us, and it is good to see. Firstly, Television One, TV2, and TV3 are actually providing new digital free-to-air channels on FreeView, and, secondly, the Government is recognising that in this bill by allowing funding for digital initiatives, whether that is new digital platforms—and the bill outlines what some of those might be—interactivity, or video on demand, etc. The Minister did point out that there are rapid changes here, so some new developments may be about to come upon us that we do not even know about today. It is good that the Government is responding proactively to the need to allocate funding and provide for the new digital initiatives, and that it acknowledges we are well and truly in the digital age. The Minister talked about how we need to be ready to radically change and adapt to that.
The positive from this, as far as we can see, is that the legislation will enable producers to apply for and get funding from New Zealand On Air for programmes that can be screened on these other platforms, including the new digital channels—one of which is about to be launched very shortly. We think that that is a very positive development. But we understand that in so doing it will fundamentally change the way funding for New Zealand On Air is allocated. At present two things need to happen. Firstly, a producer needs to have a good idea for a programme and, secondly, he or she needs to get a commitment from one of the main free-to-air broadcasters that that broadcaster will agree to screen the programme. Otherwise, the producer will not be able to get funding from New Zealand On Air. So in our understanding this will radically change the process, and there will no longer be a requirement, as we understand it, to get that agreement from one of the main broadcasters to fund a programme.
We think that that probably is a very good idea. At the moment, the requirement to get approval from—normally—Television One or TV3 to screen a programme has actually been something of a stranglehold for many small producers, who have not been able to get that commitment. So we think it could help smaller producers to get the chance to develop ideas that have not yet had funding from New Zealand On Air. The thing is that it sounds reasonable to ask: “Well, why not give publicly funded money—taxpayer-funded money—through New Zealand On Air only if a programme is going to be screened?”. That does seem fair and reasonable. The problem is that the people who are deciding what they are going to screen on television are not driven by what is high-quality, intelligent programming; they are driven by what will maximise their profits, what will please their advertisers, and what will drive up their ratings.
That has effectively been the driver for all programming on Television New Zealand (TVNZ), and explains why we have Agenda on Saturday mornings, Marae in some obscure—I cannot remember what—time slot, and Tagata Pasifika at 11 o’clock on a Thursday night; why we have the charter-funded programmes screened in very obscure time slots; and why we have New Zealand On Air funding going mainly to programmes such as Dancing with the Stars—programmes where the programmers, above all, are concerned with the advertisers. So this may usher a change—we do not fully understand—and if it does we think that is good.
We note that the Minister has reminded us that—and it is referred to in the bill—one of the purposes of New Zealand On Air and, indeed, of public service broadcasting, is to increase the amount of New Zealand content. Sadly, this has not happened. We have New Zealand On Air, and we have a charter. We were told that all of this would usher in a new era of quality New Zealand programming that would reflect New Zealand to New Zealanders. Instead, what has happened since the charter was introduced is that the quality and the amount of New Zealand programmes have steadily declined. TVNZ does not appear to feel the need to even give lip service to the charter any more. TVNZ, particularly TV2, has become almost indistinguishable from any other commercial television channel. Indeed, I think TV2 is screening some absurdly low amount of local programming—something like 19 percent. So 80 percent, or the vast majority, of programmes on TV2 are foreign programmes, such as repeat action programmes from America. We have to wonder what the point is of having public service television, if all we are going to do for 80 percent of the time is screen inane foreign action programmes, almost all from America. How does that reflect New Zealand to New Zealanders, and how does it do all the other things that Television New Zealand’s statement of corporate intent and the charter say TVNZ should do?
Of course, the problem, the fundamental flaw at the heart of TVNZ causing this terrible dilemma for the broadcaster, is the dual conflicting remit on the one hand to make a profit, and on the other to somehow or other be a public broadcaster. I think we are the only public broadcaster in the world, other than Ireland, that has this absurd dual remit. We know full well that producing commercial revenue is the overriding objective. We are even returning dividends to the Government—how absurd! The consequence is that on New Zealand television we have the lowest levels of local content of any country in the Western World, by a country mile. England has 91 percent of local programming, Italy has 83 percent, and Canada has 75 percent. Even America has well in excess of 90 percent. And what do we have? We are down on something like 30 or 35 percent, across channels, and down to 19 percent on TV2. [Interruption]
These details are causing conniptions for Mr Mapp, but I want to assure him that New Zealanders share the Greens’ dismay about the state of television in New Zealand, about the lack of New Zealand programmes on New Zealand television, and about the fact that we are swamped mostly with inane action-adventure programmes from America. Many, many New Zealanders are questioning why TV2, the channel our young people watch, has barely any local content whatsoever. Why is it that TV2, when it does have local content, plays it almost in the middle of the night?
These are fundamental questions and they are what we should be asking ourselves as we contemplate this Broadcasting Amendment Bill. The Green Party will certainly be raising these and other questions in the select committee. Thank you.
KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to stand to take a call on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill.
I would like to refer to the purpose of this bill, for the benefit of all those Aucklanders stuck in cars going along at 5 kilometres an hour who have another hour to go before they get home tonight. I want them to understand the purpose of the bill. I also speak to those mothers in their cars in Auckland tonight who have kids in the car and who have been in the car for half an hour. They have food, they have drink, and their cars are a bit of a tip because they do this every day. They are tuning into the radio because there is nothing else to do, unless they put their iPods on and listen to music in their cars, because we are in a technical age now—or, if they were members of the Labour Government, they would have their Walkmans on in the car, and they would be listening to music and driving along with only another 48 minutes to go, now that I have spoken for 2 minutes, until they arrive home to make dinner for their families, only to start all over again tomorrow, in their cars, taking an hour to get to work because the roads are so poor in Auckland. So I thank anyone who is tuning in this afternoon.
The purpose of this bill—not many people have actually spoken to the purpose—is to allow Government funding for a wider range of digital programming in a variety of formats. Many of us around my age, and even up to the age of 50, understand that digital programming is extremely important in New Zealand. It has actually been around for quite some time now. If I were just to go into the background of this bill briefly—for those still in their cars with their children, who are just handing Moro bars into the back seat, or apples, whichever type of food they have in their car at the moment, depending on whether they have come from sport or from picking up their children from after school—
Russell Fairbrother: Stop mumbling.
KATRINA SHANKS: Russell Fairbrother is over there taking the mickey out of those poor mothers in their cars who are driving along listening to this tonight. That is what he thinks of those poor people in Auckland—not much.
The Minister has said that the bill would keep Government funding up to pace with the move to digital technology by allowing agencies to fund such things as video on demand on the Internet and to adapt programmes and other content for alternative platforms like the Internet and mobile phones. I find it intriguing that this has not happened until 2007. I know we have had a history lesson today from Martin Gallagher. As always, he referred back to 1910, 1920, 1940, 1970, and, especially, the 1990s. He gets stuck on the 1990s when he speaks in the House, and on what National did in the 1990s. Instead of talking about what the Labour Government is doing now or about its vision, he continually goes back to the 1990s.
But I do not want to give members a history lesson; I want to tell them that this bill is addressing the technical age that we are in today—the digital age that we are in today. That is a good thing. But I have to ask myself why, after 8 years in Government, this Government is addressing this now. I think I have had a cellphone for 10 years. I think I have had digital television for about the same amount of time, and most people had it a lot earlier than our family, because in our family we are a bit slow in catching up with technology compared with some of our friends. I am wondering why it has taken this Government 8 years to get this legislation here. Surely it would have been more relevant earlier on. It seems to take a while for this Government to get up to speed. But once Government members take off their Walkmans and put on their iPods, they might come into the technology age with the rest of us.
Martin Gallagher: What’s an iPod?
Dr Wayne Mapp: Labour does not know what they are yet.
KATRINA SHANKS: We realise that iPods are cutting edge for this Labour Government, but some of us have had iPods for a little while now and understand the need for legislation to stay relevant with technology.
So that is basically the background of why this legislation is here. That is all very good.
I spoke last night in the debate on the second reading of the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill. That legislation was brought about by the good National Party person Dr Jackie Blue, who made this Government realise that, once again, it has been on the Government benches for 8 years. She put through a little, tiny bit of legislation, only 2 pages long, but very concise and very well written by Dr Jackie Blue and by the select committee—because, obviously, that member’s bill went to the select committee. That bill was about making legislation relevant and current to the environment we are in now, and was very, very similar to this Broadcasting Amendment Bill 2007, which is a bill that could have happened 8 years ago when technology was moving, but no, the Walkman era and the Walkman Labour caucus were not quite there. But it is good to see it.
We support this bill, because it is actually good legislation.
Martin Gallagher: Where were you in the 1990s?
KATRINA SHANKS: Where was I in the 1990s? I say to Martin that I was just talking about the history lecture that he gives us every day he speaks in the House. We are talking about vision. We are talking about New Zealand’s future. We are talking about the people of New Zealand. Are the people of New Zealand really interested in Martin’s history of 1990?
I say to those mothers who are in their cars in Auckland, driving along the motorway with their children in the back, handing back the drinks, the apples, and the oranges because the traffic is so horrific in Auckland, that I know exactly how they feel when they have a car full of kids, especially if they have been to a sports event and have half the soccer team in the car. Mothers give so much to our communities. They are out there, in the sports clubs and schools. They have a car full of children. They are taking them from a soccer practice back home again and they are listening to this now on their radios. They are not interested in the 1990s; they are interested in 2007, in the future, and in our vision.
This National caucus has so much vision. In 2008, when National is sitting on the Government benches, Labour will see our vision and how good we really are. We will not sit back and talk about what happened in 1910, 1940, 1970, or 1990—like the members over there do—because we have vision and we will go forward. We will be producing legislation that is relevant in the period in which it is actually produced, and we will be moving forward with society and being relevant in people’s lives—unlike this current Labour Government, which does not seem to understand what relevance is.
I must say I am really concerned about the type of legislation that is coming through this Parliament. It is not about volume; it is about the quality of legislation. This bill is three pages long and it does not seem to be too bad. But what really concerns me is what happened about a month ago in this Parliament when, for the first time in 12 years, the Standing Orders were suspended. For those mothers in their cars who are absolutely intrigued to know what happens when the Standing Orders are suspended, I can tell them that we have a process for legislation to make sure it goes through a system. It is a robust system to ensure that the public gets to understand and to make submissions on legislation before it is made into law. That is when it goes to a select committee. What people are listening to today is the debate on the first reading of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 2007. From here it will go to a select committee. Then, at the select committee, those mothers in their cars, who will be in traffic for the next 43 minutes, I would say, if they have been listening for the last 8 minutes, will have an opportunity to give their opinion on this legislation. But when the Government suspended the Standing Orders last month, it bypassed the public’s right to have input into legislation, and bypassed the way we make law in New Zealand.
It frightens me that something might happen to this bill before it gets to its third reading, that it might go to a select committee—[Interruption] It might. It might not go to a select committee. It might get submissions heard, it might go to the second reading, it might go to the Committee stage—but no, the Government might want to whip it back, attach another bill to it, and sneak it through like a Trojan Horse, just like it did with the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill only 1 month ago. The senior whip over there is rubbing his head and scratching his hair—not that there is that much hair left; it is starting to disappear a little bit, I have noticed—thinking: “The weathertight homes amendment bill … did we really suspend Standing Orders? And is that really important?”. I can tell members that it is important and that it brought this House into disrepute. It actually happened. I hope this legislation goes through without those problems. Thank you.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.
Bills
Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Today represents the end of a very long legislative journey for this bill. It was introduced in December 2002 to implement the recommendations of Sir Rodney Gallen’s review of the Police Complaints Authority. The bill provides the legislative basis for a strengthened and independent authority in which the public, I believe, will be able to have real confidence.
The bill was deferred while the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct looked into allegations that surfaced in 2004 that suggested that police officers might have deliberately undermined or mishandled investigations into complaints of sexual assault that had been made against other officers. The commission has now reported back with a total of 60 recommendations, 12 of which relate directly to the Police Complaints Authority. The commission’s recommendations fall within two main areas: those relating to the authority’s complaints handling processes and those that require legislative change.
This Government is committed to New Zealand having a police force that all New Zealanders can have pride and confidence in. Therefore, New Zealand needs a robust and independent oversight body. That is why the Government is implementing all recommendations relating to the authority in the commission’s report.
This bill implements the four of those recommendations that require legislative change. Those four recommendations are as follows. In regards to the jurisdiction of the authority, the bill includes a new provision to clarify that the authority may investigate historical complaints relating to incidents that occurred prior to its establishment. Second, in regards to the time limit on notification of complaints, the bill includes a new provision to require the police to notify the authority within 5 working days of receipt of a complaint. I think this is a significant improvement, and something that will be of particular interest to those who perhaps in the past had concerns about what they have seen as a delay. I think this constraint and requirement will be welcomed by many. Third, in regards to the reports to Government Ministers, the bill includes a provision that requires the authority to provide a copy of its opinion and recommendations to the Minister of Police and to the Attorney-General in certain situations where it is not satisfied with a police response to a recommendation. Again, I think this is a significant movement in terms of the oversight and transparency of the authority. Fourth, in regards to the authority membership, the bill significantly increases the membership of the authority to up to five members.
A further recommendation of the commission is being incorporated into a review of the authority currently being undertaken by the Ministry of Justice and New Zealand Police in consultation with the authority and the State Services Commission. Officials will report back on options to enhance the role of the authority by December 2007. This work is progressing well.
As well as implementing the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, the bill changes the name of the authority to Independent Police Conduct Authority. There was some question raised by one of my colleagues opposite as to whether the change of name signified anything of real significance. Well, I say to members that it does. The change in name will emphasise the authority’s status as an independent entity, and, I think, better clarify and describe its role. The authority is not confined to the investigation of complaints. It investigates incidents that involve death or serious harm, as well as serious misconduct or neglect of duty. So I think in the title of Independent Police Conduct Authority we get a better sense and description of the broader range of responsibilities that the authority carries.
The bill makes a number of amendments to authority processes, including an amendment to enable the authority to refer a complaint back to the police for investigation by the police. This will enable the authority to concentrate on investigating serious matters. The authority will maintain overall supervision of the police handling of referred-back complaints, and complainants will still be able to raise a matter with the authority if they are dissatisfied in any way with the outcome of any police investigation.
The commission of inquiry also made a number of recommendations relating to improving the processes employed by the authority. These recommendations are being implemented by the authority alongside a comprehensive review of the authority that is currently being carried out. Of note is that on 1 September of this year a new database became operational. The database will incorporate a file management and auto bring-up system and provide for more flexibility for reporting. The data capacity will be greater so that information captured will be more comprehensive and its gathering will be more efficient.
The passage of this bill is, in my view, a significant event in the history of civilian oversight of the police in New Zealand. The independence of the authority will be greatly enhanced. The public will be able to have more confidence in the authority and in the police. I thank the authority for its important work over the years, and I am confident that the new Independent Police Conduct Authority will continue this tradition of service and of building a record of excellence into the future. Finally, in commending the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill to the House, I acknowledge and thank members from across the House for the wide support the bill is enjoying. I think that is indicative of the significance and importance that members recognise is being advanced by this legislation.
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I rise to speak to the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill. Again, as we have moved through the Committee stage and so come to the third reading, I can confirm that National supports this legislation because it is necessary. The fact is that this bill will give more independence to what was the Police Complaints Authority and is now quite rightly called the Independent Police Conduct Authority. With more independence will come the ability for the public to scrutinise what is happening within the authority, and, of course, probably more important—or at least as important—the ability of the authority to scrutinise the actions of the police.
I find it a shame that a person cannot support more scrutiny of the police, and of the way they do their work, without then being told he or she is anti-police or is stirring the pot by, for instance, recommending that there needs to be a little more transparency. I guess I come at this not only as one who has been “the investigated” through the Police Complaints Authority, but as one who, in another life, has been “the investigator” on behalf of the authority. Public perception has always been that having the police investigate themselves is less than satisfactory. Although it happens in other areas of our society, the fact is that there is a huge imbalance of power between the average member of the public and members of the police who are carrying out an inquiry, an investigation, or a prosecution.
Historically, that perception has come through—the lack of fairness and the need to counter that imbalance in order to maintain a “rule of law” type of fairness within this very strong body that is the New Zealand Police. It has also come out of recent proceedings within our courts, and the ongoing investigation. Obviously, I am speaking about the complaints made by Louise Nicholas and what flowed on from those.
The bill will allow greater speed and handling of complaints, as well. What we have found on the Law and Order Committee, with the Police Complaints Authority reporting to us, has been a huge carry-over, year to year, of matters that have not been finalised because they are largely waiting for the police to get around to fully investigating the complaints before them, and because of the lack of an ability, for instance, for the Police Complaints Authority to be able to crack the whip and demand a response, because it is requiring another Government agency to carry out its work for it. As we know, the police have been under-resourced and have had to work on other investigations that take them away from this most important business.
Initially, the Police Complaints Authority could not tell us how much it was carrying over from one year to another, and only in recent times has it been able to tell us the exact figure. It worked out to be about 40 percent. Having the scrutineer to be kept at bay or to be beholden to the organisation it is supposed to be scrutinising is not the way for a public scrutineer to be treated. So granting more independence is a good thing, and we look forward to learning more about what is before the Independent Police Conduct Authority, and the reception it will get from the police, and the respect and the confidence that it gains from the public.
I want to touch on part of the discussion raised by the Māori Party at the Committee stage. We had some sympathy for two amendments that those members put forward. One seemed to have some significant validity, but it came up at the last minute and it was difficult to be able to gain support for it. The first thing the Māori Party wanted to do was to have a separate Māori branch, if you like, of the Independent Police Conduct Authority to investigate complaints made by Māori. The second amendment was to install an appellate body for Māori that they could complain to, which would then make suggestions back down to the authority about how matters would be resolved. The Māori Party attempted to do some fixing up in regard to this, and a number of National members had some sympathy for that. It was really a lack of time, and the way in which the matter was raised, that prevented us from supporting the matter at that time.
I do believe that the fact that five authorities will be created under this legislation allows Parliament to make appointments that may at least go some way to addressing the Māori Party’s concerns. The point needs to be made too that strong accusations of institutional racism were made by our colleagues in the Māori Party, and there is some basis for those points. I feel the need to say that we can accept where these accusations come from; Māori are overrepresented in prison numbers and vastly overrepresented in numbers of people arrested, and I have to say from some experience that Māori turn out to be the offenders because, frequently, they are the targets.
Sometimes, I guess, it is a little bit like someone who always fishes in the fishing holes. There are two groups of young guys walking down the street; one has a majority of Pākehā, one has a majority of Māori. The policemen are in a police car driving down the road, and maybe there are just two groups, and the cops are doing their job, and they think they will stop and have a yarn to those guys. They wonder whom they will have a yarn to, and they look up and see, say, Billy Smith. They might say: “That is Bobby Smith’s boy, and I know him from the footy club”—or they know him from the RSA, or from here or there—“and that is fine. Who is on the other side of the street? Well, that is some little Māori chap, and I know his old man because I locked him up.” So they stop and talk to those guys, who get a bit upset, and call the police a few names, and the police decide to go through their pockets to find what is in them. Maybe it is an illegal substance, a screwdriver, or whatever. There is an argument or an accusation, and there are arrests for disorderly behaviour, or for whatever is in the pockets, but they never find out what is in the pockets of the little white kids walking down the street.
I do not believe that that is a conscious form of racism, but it is a form of bias that exists. The police in that example never knew what was in the pockets of the little white guys—and whether or not we accept it, or people find it is comfortable to think about it happening in that way, that is the way it happens. Whatever the police find in the pockets, only goes to reinforce what they have in their heads.
We in the National Party made the point at the time that the Māori Party made its amendment known to us that we believe we should live in a country where there is one law for all. People in this House do not like the phrase “one law for all”, but I would like to reinforce this point. When the National Party talks about one law for all, it is talking about an aspiration. We want to live in a country where there is one law for all, so we do not see a need for a specific branch of the Independent Police Conduct Authority. We want to live in a country where people are equal before the law. We do not pretend for one moment that that situation currently exists in this country. I know that I hear Māori, particularly, saying when we talk about one law for all: “Bring it on.”, because they long for a day when there is one law for all and when everyone will be treated in exactly the same way. But in relation to law and order matters, Māori, because they are overrepresented in negative statistics within this country, are limited in their ability to take on this arm of the State. They are limited, for instance, in terms of finance. They are limited to legal aid solicitors and all the constraints that the Legal Services Agency puts on their ability to defend themselves, as opposed to the ability of Pākehā and other races who do have other options.
I accept that I have wandered a little from this third reading debate, but I do want to make the point that I believe strongly that the Independent Police Conduct Authority is a step up for all of us, and I believe that Māori will be far better served, and will have less reason to doubt the scrutiny that the police come under, as a result of the implementation of this legislation. I am proud to support this bill, and I am also proud that my party so strongly supports it.
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour): I welcome this opportunity to speak in the third reading debate on the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill. I welcome its passing into law, because it is a major step in the evolution of an independent review of the area where State intervention through the police cuts into the day-to-day activities of individuals.
It has for a long time been a presumption that the police are well motivated and that their actions are always beyond criticism. Certainly, in my experience, the police force was not full of the ability to have self-criticism but was brimming with urgent self-defence on any accusation of improper conduct. This was the challenge that the first Police Complaints Authority met when the authority was established in 1988. Although many criticised that authority for being timid in its findings and criticised the subsequent authority for continuing that line, one will note that there has been a gradual development of boldness in the decision making of the authority as people have come to recognise that police, although often well-intentioned, are not above making mistakes. Those mistakes, of course, are understandable because in the white hot light of police investigations, when they carry the responsibility for the rest of the community in investigating allegations both minor and serious, they do so with a single-minded purpose that has to be applauded, but that single-minded purpose can often be at the expense of civil and human rights.
I listened to my friend Chester Borrows give the example of two groups walking along the street and one group being described as the little white boys and the other as the little Māori boys. He said that may not be racist but may be biased. I have to say that his recall of two groups is exactly my experience, but I say it is racism rather than bias, although not deliberate racism. It is racism because a conclusion has automatically been drawn because of the colour of one group, and for no other reason. That is the complaint that has often been levelled at the police and has led to areas of dissatisfaction that I think may have been reflected in the Māori Party’s two amendments, which were defeated during the Committee stage earlier this week. The argument evolved during that debate, and it was an interesting debate on some major principles. It was started by Dr Wayne Mapp when he spoke about the importance of equal treatment under the law. It was picked up on by Dr Pita Sharples and Te Ururoa Flavell when they highlighted the degrees of racism that underline some of our important institutions in society, such as the police. The debate was curtailed because of the nature of debates in this House, but I think it was a debate that was touching on some important principles that need to be dealt with.
I do not agree that parties in this House reject the concept of one law for all as referred to by Chester Borrows. I think we are all clear on the concept of one law for all. What is apparent, though, is that that concept is confused, as it was by Dr Wayne Mapp earlier this week, with concepts of equality under the law and equal treatment under the law. Dr Wayne Mapp in his speech was talking about equal treatment under the law, and that is where examples of bias or racism certainly do appear. It is this lack of equal treatment under the law that in fact undermines the concept of one law for all, which, essentially, is what the rule of law is all about. The rule of law exists and is hard to explain, but it is a concept that enables every citizen in this country to go about organising his or her affairs confident that the law that applies to them will also apply to every other person.
So one can conduct one’s life confident that there is a rule of law that applies to everybody. That is not the problem. The difficulty is how it is applied, and this is where the police often run into difficulty—not because they are inherently bad but because they have an onerous responsibility that requires considerable concentration of effort and mind, often after a lack of proper sleep and eating, while they undertake urgent and important investigations right at the knife-edge of human emotions and sensibilities. Mistakes are then made, and conclusions are rapidly reached, and behavioural patterns are sometimes picked up as evidence of responsibility. So the Police Complaints Authority has been an important vent to this potential area of conflict in our society, and the newly structured authority, the Independent Police Conduct Authority, which this bill will bring into being, is a welcome move in the continuing evolution of what has been a good history in our law as we evolve into a human rights – based society.
Chester Borrows also spoke briefly about the Māori Party amendment proposing an appellant authority, and I had no trouble with voting against that although I am one who believes that the appellant system is a hugely important feature of our legal process. The reason I voted against it is that we are a country still bound by precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis. What that does, of course, is encourage a legalistic view of disputes before the court. Appeals bodies generally, almost invariably, do not look at questions of credibility but at legal issues arising by the original finder of fact. If we had an appellant body overlooking the authority, the authority would be hindered by necessarily taking a legalistic approach to inquiries rather than a human-rights approach and a robust approach. That is why I have welcomed the appointment of Justice Lowell Goddard to the chair of the present authority and retired judge Michael Lance QC as her deputy. If those two people are rolled over into the new authority, then the new authority will certainly start out in very good heart. Both of them are hugely experienced in criminal law, issues of human rights and fairness, and the onuses that apply to our various jurisdictions in this country. Both can point to a record, both at the bar and on the bench, of writing decisions and passing judgments that have stood higher scrutiny by the appellant authority. I mention that not because I want to pander to their sensibilities but to demonstrate that the appointment of individuals of competence with great judgment and considerable experience in particular fields arms those individuals with a sense as to what is happening properly and what is not happening properly. These qualities, in a judgment applied in the cold light of consideration, which will be the authority’s office, will enable them to make decisions as to what is important to pursue with vigour and what is less important.
What remains, however, is the vulnerability of the authority to the investigation process by the referral back to the police to investigate complaints. That, of course, will continue to be the Achilles heel under this authority, and it depends upon strong leadership, which I believe the authority is capable of providing, so that the referral-back system is not sabotaged. I can give ample examples of how that system has been sabotaged—and of course it is usually sabotaged to the disadvantage of those least capable of handling it. Previously, individuals would go to the police station to lay a complaint of mistreatment by the police, and the duty senior sergeant would look over the desk and say: “We don’t take written complaints today. Come back tomorrow, or come back another day.” The complainant would be deterred from following through with what was a real grievance. I trust the new authority will look past that difficulty.
As we consider the passing of this bill, I think it reflects the very good work by the select committee and reflects a very good debate in this House, but more important, it reflects a very good history of our police force in investigating difficult crimes and prosecuting them to a high standard. Strangely enough, having an independent authority will strengthen the arm of the police, because it does guarantee to one and all that the actions of the police in times of huge stress can be above reproach, and if they are not above reproach, that there is a resolution to that problem and a resolution to that lowering of standards. The fact that the authority has only recommendatory powers, as does the Ombudsman, does not weaken it at all. It is holding up the mistakes of the police to public scrutiny that is the ultimate sanction. That is the matter that gives the authority its real teeth and its real future.
This is a bill that has taken a while to come through, but when we consider that the original authority was established only 19 years ago, I think the evolution of this bill reflects on the changing standards in this country and indicates that we are moving to a sophisticated society where human rights are at the forefront and senses of responsibility are reposed in individuals, no matter their level or status in society.
I have listened a little to the discussion about how the police arrest Māori people, rather than Pākehā, and I think there is a message behind that, which we should carry out. It is that paradigm of how we prosecute offences in this country. The police, of course, carry out society’s wishes, but it is facile to suggest that offending is solely in the hands of the lower socio-economic group. White-collar crime is endemic in this country, and I would like to conclude with one example. I received a complaint once of lawyers who were inflating their legal aid bill. I tried to lodge it with the police, but they were too busy. The Law Society said it could not handle the matter, and the Legal Services Agency said that it did not look at that sort of thing. So that law firm and the complaint I received of it inflating its legal aid bills continues perhaps to this day. That is where the real crime in this country lies.
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): This has been a week where several select committees have looked long and hard at issues of change to parliamentary process—issues of substance, and issues of process. I was interested to hear the comments of the Minister in charge of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill, the Hon Mark Burton, when he spoke about the legislative history of this bill, because it has been very extended. Here we have a bill that was introduced on 4 December 2002, and nearly 5 years later it comes to the final parliamentary hurdle, which is the third reading.
National supports this legislation; it would never do otherwise. But some very unsatisfactory process issues have occurred. One of the hallmarks of this Government is to spring surprises by way of legislative change, without there being a proper opportunity for analysis and discussion. Nowhere is that more apparent than in respect of this legislation. A Supplementary Order Paper is the term of jargon, but we would know it as a series of amendments that were made at very short notice just a few days ago when this bill went through the Committee stage. I look with a degree of dismay at the changes that were made by a Committee that perhaps was not aware of the full significance of them.
When the bill was reported back by the select committee a number of provisions that had been deleted I believe should have been maintained. One of those provisions dealt with the circumstance where, in the course of an investigation, the Independent Police Complaints Authority—or as it is now to be known, the Independent Police Conduct Authority—came across evidence that tended to suggest that a defendant who had been convicted was in fact innocent. This provision, which was wrapped around former new section 33A, set out in clause 19, enabled a certificate to be given of the existence of that information. For some reason, which is not apparent to me, it has been decided by the Government to scrap that provision. I think that is a great shame, because if it is our task as politicians to create legal frameworks that will identify the guilty and also identify the innocent, we should be slow in the latter case to close down such possibilities. But that is what we have done.
The initiative for this legislation reflects historical changes in our society. The other night I referred to the seminal work done by Professor Klockars, who is well known to Mr Groser. His work drew attention to the fact that what distinguishes the police from every other domestic institution is that they exercise a general right to use coercive power. That is actually what makes the police so valuable to society. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that the use of coercive force will give rise to situations of some stress and, not infrequently, to resentment. It was no doubt such reasons that gave rise to the concern expressed at the time police services were first introduced in the 19th century. I think I noted the other night that Sir Peter Quilliam, who was an early chairman of the authority, referred to reported complaints of excessive police force in 1841. It is also a fact that around the world in Western democracies, wherever there have been suggestions of entities akin to an independent police complaints authority, the police have strongly resisted such authorities being established. It is similarly the case here that there was a degree of substantial misgiving by the police force that an entity such as this be set up.
What has happened, though, as society has changed is that we have seen the advent of various protest movements, and in many cases the persons involved in such movements came from those sections of society that in the past enjoyed a relationship of confidence with the police, and had been prepared to express any disagreement with governmental policies by way of the ballot box. So when the Viet Nam War occurred, for the first time so-called respectable members of society found themselves in direct opposition to the police, and the police were placed, of course, in an extremely invidious situation. On the one hand, they had the obligation to uphold the law as it stood, and, on the other hand, they were confronted by members of society who considered, on moral grounds, that certain governmental activities were unacceptable. We saw that in connection with the Viet Nam protests. We also saw it in connection with the Springbok Tour of 1981; and there were similar results in other countries.
I spoke the other night about the Brixton riots in April 1981, where scenes of violence and disorder occurred in Brixton when the police were attacked on the streets with stones, iron bars, and petrol bombs. That led to Lord Scarman’s inquiry, which led to the setting up of a police complaints authority in the United Kingdom. Of course, at that stage similar proposals were going through the Canadian Parliament that had as their purpose the setting up of an independent system for dealing with complaints against the police.
What does this bill do? Well, it does good things, I would say, and that is certainly what National would say. Here we have established the authority as a separate legal entity that recognises its change of status from a single-person office to now, as proposed in the latest Supplementary Order Paper 116, which has been passed, a body of up to 5 members. It is also made clear that the authority may defer taking action on a complaint if a criminal investigation, or a disciplinary investigation, or both of those, is being conducted by the police in relation to a matter. There are issues relating to interfaces with coroners’ inquests, increased powers are given, appropriately so, that reflect the powers given under the Commissions of Inquiry Act to such commissions, and there are a raft of administration issues.
I would like to deal with one aspect that drew comment to the Law and Order Committee, of which I was not a member, which is that this legislation does preserve the recommendatory role of the authority. Proposals were made that the authority be given the ability to make binding recommendations and impose sanctions. Wisely, in my view, the Law and Order Committee did not run with that recommendation. The current process, which it is intended will continue, is that the Police Complaints Authority conveys its recommendations to the Commissioner of Police and the complainants. The Commissioner of Police then has the obligation to notify the Police Complaints Authority, now to be called the Independent Police Conduct Authority, of any action proposed to be undertaken, including any reasons for any proposal to depart from the recommendations, and, if the commissioner takes no appropriate action, then recommendations can be made to the Attorney-General and the Minister of Police for action to be taken.
I hope that the outcome of the processes that are now the subject of implementation by the bill will significantly advance the interests of police morale, because it is obvious that if the authority is seen as being an unsympathetic and a constant critic of the police, then that will have an effect on morale. On the other hand, if the authority is able to build up the confidence of the police—and I believe that it has that confidence at present—then there should not be any effect on morale. And I would hope that those members of the police, who include the vast majority of persons in the service, can feel confident that if undesirable activities are occurring that those will be dealt with and the standards of the police service maintained.
National supports this legislation as it advances, if passed today, to the final stage of Royal assent and implementation.
RON MARK (NZ First): I am not sure that there is a lot more that can be said on this bill, the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill. I raised the comment during the Committee stage about how long this bill has been in the mill, so to speak. In fact, I acknowledge my former colleague Edwin Perry, who was the New Zealand First member of Parliament on the Law and Order Committee at the time this bill went through it. I also acknowledge another member who did good work on this bill, who goes by the name of Brian Connell, an excellent MP in the South Island. Many of us hope he will continue on there, despite the fact that he has been ostracised by his colleagues, and despite the fact that National still uses the money allocated to him by the Parliamentary Service as part of its leader’s funding to keep its members all in tow—but National does that. Mr Connell has been a superb member of the Law and Order Committee for many years. I served alongside him after I took over on that committee from Edwin Perry. Brian was instrumentally involved in working on this bill, as well, and I want to acknowledge the work done by him.
New Zealand First has always stood for greater independence of the Police Complaints Authority, and we have long argued that we possibly have not gone far enough with this legislation, and that what we possibly should have done was to make the appointment an Officer of Parliament and given it absolute and total autonomy, answerable only to Parliament—that being the people’s Parliament. That would give absolute assurance. But critics of the bill say: “Change the title all you like, but adding the word ‘Independent’ to the name of the authority does not mean the organisation will be independent.” The substitution of the word “Conduct” for “Complaints”, so that the organisation becomes a police conducts authority not a police complaints authority, might well suit the purpose of a Government that has had to battle through a 3-year investigation into police conduct to try to placate the concerns of the public, but at the end of the day, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. The public of New Zealand will label it as such, if they believe that this amendment bill has not gone far enough.
During this debate a lot has been said about the perceived failures of the Police Complaints Authority to meet the needs of those New Zealanders who are aggrieved or unhappy with the procedures the police have applied in either prosecuting cases or not prosecuting cases. I do not think there would be an MP in this Parliament who has not received complaints by members of the public about the police not prosecuting a case; or if there are such members, then the situation will not remain that way for much longer, as they do more time. These people tell us that they gave the police the information and even gave them the names of the people involved in the crime that was committed. They come to us for assistance to get the police to prosecute their case. Well, most MPs have tended to pass those complaints on to the Police Complaints Authority, and trust in that organisation to investigate the appropriateness of decisions made by police. That work goes on.
One of the reasons that New Zealand First supports this bill is the changes in the appointment process and the calibre of the people who have been appointed. The new extent of the powers bestowed upon the authority gives us confidence that they—namely, Justice Goddard and her deputy—will demonstrate to the public a high degree of independence. I would have to say that in the Law and Order Committee, during the review of estimates and financial review, Judge Goddard came before it I think on two occasions. I think that most members of the committee have developed a great deal of confidence in her, and in her ability going forward, to be independent; to be her own person; and to command, rule, and guide the Independent Police Conduct Authority in the manner in which the public believe it should be done.
I want to take the time to focus on that other group of people who are so often ignored in all this debate. It is very easy to have speakers who truck out the woes, problems, and complaints that Māori have with the police, and we have already had a bit of a touch of that from a born-again Māori sympathiser—Chester Borrows. I shuddered while I was up in my office, watching his presentation on TV. One would have thought that he was not involved in the “Kiwi not iwi” campaign; that he had nothing to do with that rather insidious campaign that placed Māori as somewhat a privileged little group of society. Mr Bennett shakes his head, but I tell him to read again his party’s own press releases, his own party’s speeches, and read again what Don Brash actually said when he was trying to justify his “Kiwi not iwi” campaign. I welcome the enlightened Chester Borrows who sees the reality of where the future of politics lies. Maybe he, unlike Mr Bennett, is coming to the realisation that if National wants a coalition partner, it had better start being nicer to Te Ururoa Flavell and more accommodating to Hone Harawira, because National will not be in Government if it does not get its head around that simple fact. It is timely advice, but Mr Borrows, unlike Mr Bennett, is a more intellectual person, a more enlightened person, and a person whom we would more naturally expect to display enlightenment. That is unlike Mr Bennett, who is thick.
I want to talk about police officers. They are the great forgotten people in this bill and in all of this debate. As much as Mr Bennett might not like police officers and might want to denigrate this speech by indicating that fact to the public who are listening to their radios as they drive, police officers are often unfairly those who become the victims of other police officers who want to make their name by hanging out a police officer to dry. That provision has been ably used under the Police Complaints Authority’s inability to more adequately investigate the actions taken by senior police, and used, in particular, by police officers charged with maintaining professional conduct standards. They are the people who so desperately failed to identify some of the huge conduct issues that were besetting the police over the last 4 to 5 years—some say over the last 15 to 20 years.
I point to Constable Kerry Joyce from the South Island as an example of an unfairly treated police officer. He is an outstanding officer. He has a family, he has children. He is 32 years of age, has had long service in the police force, and was credited, along with another officer, with running early-bird campaigns that saw crime in the inner-city of Christchurch plummet as they set about in those early-bird hours of 3 a.m. dealing to, arresting, and taking in hand people who were disturbing the peace and behaving unlawfully, violently, or thuggishly on the streets of Christchurch. Kerry Joyce came upon a group of drunken men who had left a football game at Jade Stadium, and were outside peeing on the wall of the police kiosk. Kerry Joyce led his team and tried to move people along, and, unfortunately, ended up having to arrest these people. One of these people made a malicious claim that Kerry Joyce had kicked him in the mouth and broken his teeth. The New Zealand Police, rather than investigate the matter fully and completely, suspended him from duty, and it was about 18 months—just before Christmas—before the police finally told him and his family in a matter of fact way that they were going to charge him.
The court case came up eventually. It was a terrible way to be told for a start, and amongst all the publicity that he and his family got out at Kaiapoi, no one showed any concern for his well-being. No one bothered to examine the clear evidence, and eventually, about 2½ or 3 years later, the case was finally heard. It was thrown out by Judge Stephen Erber I think after about 12 minutes, or it might have been 20 minutes, of deliberation. Where are we today? Kerry Joyce has not been remunerated. His family have not been compensated. It put huge stress and pressure on his wife, and on his children as their daddy was labelled a thug by people in the media. Today we now know that had the Police Complaints Authority done its job, and had certain people in police headquarters done their job, charges would never have been progressed in the first instance. Kerry Joyce still awaits redress, and that is what New Zealand First finds absolutely despicable about the existing situation.
We look for and hope that under this new order, this new regime, this new Act, and under a new administration, police officers who are accused of wrongdoing will be treated more fairly, more thoroughly, and will be compensated accordingly when it has been found that they have been improperly charged and treated. We will be watching to see how this legislation performs, and, if necessary, we will be back to amend it even further.
David Bennett: Sit down.
RON MARK: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you clarify for me whether it is your authority, as the Deputy Speaker, that requires me to sit down, or is Mr Bennett over there the sole authority who can interject on members and tell them to be seated?
Dr Wayne Mapp: That’s a frivolous point of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a point of order. Ron Mark is quite right. The interjection from Mr Bennett was unnecessary. It is neither his role nor mine to sit people down, except in certain circumstances. Thank you for raising it.
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is not a challenge to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I thought it would have been appropriate to acknowledge that Mr Mark, in his speech, had rather intemperately provoked Mr Bennett. It is only reasonable to expect a certain level of interjection in that situation. I think that Mr Mark was unduly sensitive and that it would have been appropriate for there to be some acknowledgment that Mr Mark had provoked Mr Bennett.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thought that was unnecessary.
KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party is supporting the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill. It has been a long time in the hopper since its former existence as the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill, and I think improvements have been made on the way through.
The formulation of the bill was helped—unfortunately, in one sense—by the experience in Rotorua and all the goings-on there, with the court cases that followed and the trial of Mr Dewar. As members may recall, back in the early days of the furore over what happened in Rotorua, it was Mr Dewar who did a lot of the investigation for the original Police Complaints Authority investigation into those matters. Of course, he gave the police officers concerned a clean bill of health. There were serious problems there, and it highlighted one of the problems in dealing with police misbehaviour—that is, the police sometimes tend to cover up for each other. Partly that is a hazard of the occupation itself, in that the police, by the nature of their work, are forced to work very closely together, often in very dangerous circumstances. They often owe their lives to others supporting them. Close bonds develop, and they do not want to let their mates down, even if their mates are doing something that is very wrong and not in the public interest.
We absolutely need a police force. We often need police officers to engage in dangerous activity, and it is inevitable that there will be that bond whereby officers support each other through thick and thin. The Dewar case illustrated that it is important that any investigatory body be as independent from the police as possible.
It is good that we are now expanding the numbers on the authority. The original Police Complaints Authority had just one person in charge and hardly any staff. The authority had to rely on the police to carry out the investigation, and very few complaints were upheld. There was a lot of disquiet in the community, and there were huge delays. I have had a delay myself for years at a time in terms of a complaint I made back in 1999. I do not think it has been resolved yet. So there was a big problem in the system.
Then under the original bill—the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill—it was provided that the authority be expanded from one officer to three. I see in the bill that the new authority will now consist of up to five members appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House. I think that will give it more capacity. The whole theme, as I understand it, is that the authority will be as independent as possible and have independent staff. Some of those staff may have been police officers who are experts in investigatory situations, but we do not want just police staff or people on very short-term delegation from the police; we want an independent authority.
This is important, as even now the police tend never to see anything wrong in what they are doing. The year-long Taser trial finished on 31 August. It is interesting to read the comments made by the Police Association, various police officers, and the police officers in charge of the trial. For example, they made the comment that in every case that they used the Taser, or every time they brought it out, there was no problem, at all. There is a reluctance to admit that there may have been a few downsides. Of course, there are upsides and downsides. The critics of the Taser—people like myself and Hone Harawira behind me from the Māori Party—would all admit that on occasions there are upsides and downsides. I am not saying that the introduction of the Taser is justified if we look at it overall, but we look at the pluses and minuses of the situation, whereas the police tend just to cover up for each other in respect of the Taser trial and to put a rosy gloss on it. That is an illustration of why it is necessary to have an independent body such as the Police Complaints Authority.
The Green Party will be supporting this bill. We will monitor the progress of the new authority and make sure that it is truly independent and that it truly keeps the police, whom we very much need in our society, in order.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou. At the Committee stage of this bill I spoke of a wing at the Royal New Zealand Police College named after my relation Mita Hikairo Mohi, and, just over a month ago, 75 new police officers graduated from wing 241. Mita is of Ngāti Rangiwewehi and Ngāti Tūwharetoa. For over 25 years he has been sharing his experience and expertise through the Mokoia taiaha wānanga on Mokoia Island in Rotorua. If any members ever have the privilege to attend the mau rakau wānanga, they would be hugely influenced by his teachings of history, whakapapa, and tikanga, and they would see students testing their agility, their speed, their strength, and also their ability to follow instructions and working as an ope taua—as a team. Wing 241, therefore, symbolises the unique strength and skills of Mita.
But wait up, there is a bit more. Moana Jackson, a Ngāti Kahungunu lawyer and acclaimed academic, is also the patron of police recruit wing 244, our own Dr Pita Sharples is patron of recruit wing 184, and my brother-in-law, rugby league legend Howie Tāmati—who is going to get some free tickets for me—is the latest wing patron. I come, therefore, to the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill on a bit of a wing and a prayer, wondering whether the symbolic statement being made by the Police College in inviting such prestigious Māori leaders to be wing patrons will make the difference in the relationship between Māori and the police.
Not being one who is comfortable with winging it, I was proud that we, as the Māori Party, put forward two amendments at the Committee stage of this bill in order to make our contribution towards improving the relationship between Māori and the police. I want to place on record our appreciation to all the parties in the Committee of the whole House that gave the two proposals serious consideration. We acknowledge that the proposals were pretty complex and required a depth of analysis that was clearly difficult to do within the time frame in which these amendments came to the House.
The big question is, why did it take so long for the bill to come back to the House? There have been 1,735 days, apparently, since the bill was introduced in 2002—some 56 months. Between the second reading and the Committee stage, there was a period of 882 days; 29 months went by. What is that all about? Anyway, the second reading of this bill, ironically, took place on 5 May 2005, a year to the day that the hīkoi opposing the foreshore and seabed legislation came to Parliament. I think it is quite important to make those connections on matters of justice and injustice, on due process, and on skewed process.
The amendments would have introduced a requirement for an autonomous Māori investigative branch of the Independent Police Complaints Authority to be established. We saw having such a branch as being a key mechanism to review complaints raised by Māori against the police, and it would also have enhanced Māori relationships with the police. This has long been an issue of concern, so it was truly disappointing that we were not able to make up much ground on that.
Dr Sharples talked about a report in the year 2000 from the former Commissioner of Police Peter Doone. It revealed that Māori are significantly overrepresented in apprehension, prosecution, and conviction statistics. That report concluded: “Criminal justice agencies, including the police, must work to improve their responsiveness to Māori, and to overcome any negative perceptions that may inhibit that responsiveness.”
New Zealand has received report after report, responsiveness strategy after responsiveness strategy, yet still the United Nations reported a mere month ago on its concerns regarding the overrepresentation of Māori and Pacific people at every stage of the criminal justice system. Our amendment, therefore, attempted to break the cycle, to recognise Māori ways of looking at things, and to establish an autonomous Māori investigative branch.
We have supported the proposal to establish an independent police complaints authority with an enhanced investigative capacity that is independent of the police, and to ensure there is sufficient resourcing in place for it to do its job properly. The key word is “independent”. Independent conjures up associations of being separate, being free from outside control, and not being subject to the whims and pressures of a greater authority. We in the Māori Party know this word quite well, as the proud, independent Māori voice in Parliament.
The amendments made to the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill are positive in so much as they increase the independence of staff to investigate complaints and hold hearings, and, by increasing the staffing component to five, there is an enhanced capacity to deal with the complaints. But our concern had always been that the changes do not cut the grade in terms of providing an opportunity for Māori to express rangatiratanga—that is, to design and implement Māori solutions. That was the rationale behind setting up an autonomous Māori branch of the authority. It was a proposal that 10 members of this House supported, and we acknowledge the vision of the Greens in joining us to make a difference.
The second set of amendments we put forward arose from our concern at the lack of capacity for the public to have the decisions of the authority reviewed. The amendments would have introduced a requirement for an independent police complaints authority review agency to be established in order to allow the decisions and activities of the authority to be appealed.
This has been a particular priority for Māori following two key reports, Police Perceptions of Māori and Māori Perceptions of the Police. In those reports Māori respondents said they believed that police viewed Māori as being essentially criminal. Simply being Māori was sufficient cause for suspicion by police sort of along the lines that Mr Borrows talked about earlier. Māori participants also felt that there was little point in complaining about these practices, as they did not see the Police Complaints Authority as being independent from the police.
The Māori Perceptions of the Police study reported that a strong perception for Māori was, “the Police Complaints Authority would be self-protecting and biased in favour of the police should Māori bring a complaint against the institution or individuals within it”. As a consequence of such concerns, Māori Perceptions of the Police recommended that another process for hearing Māori grievances should be undertaken immediately. That was the substance of our first amendment—the autonomous Māori investigative branch.
The second amendment was very much a backstop position—to set up a review agency to address complaints and act as an independent scrutiniser outside the police system itself. The vote went against us again, but we were heartened by the comments from speakers from New Zealand First, Labour, and the Greens in particular in terms of their acknowledgment of the urgent need to improve the relationship between Māori and the police by whatever means.
The new president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, at his inauguration in January 2006, stated: “I wish to tell you, my Indian brothers, that the 500-year indigenous and popular campaign of resistance has not been in vain.” Well, I take a lot of heart from that statement in this House on most days. But here is the crunch. Just as Morales recognised his victory as having come from a proud history of resistance, we in the Māori Party believe that we are on the pathway towards ensuring that justice and fairness mean something to our nation.
Surely a basic tenet in all democracies is to ensure that there are checks and balances laid against the authority of the State when it is negotiating with citizens on matters of law and order. We have not experienced success with our amendments to the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill in terms of numbers of votes gained in support, but we do believe that the general climate of the debate was one that signalled a readiness for the belief that we can improve a situation that requires our total and considered cooperation.
We stand by our commitment to having an autonomous Māori investigative branch of the new authority to review Māori complaints against, and Māori relationships with, the police. We recognise also the need for an appeal or review body to consider its activities. This would be particularly important for Māori. So in the end, we will vote in support of this bill at the third reading, and we look forward to further developments to demonstrate cross-party support for improving the relationship between the police and Māori.
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I will take a relatively brief call. It was my privilege and pleasure to be the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee that considered this Independent Police Conduct Authority Bill, now quite some time ago. The reason for the length of time this bill took to finally come to fruition—in terms of this reading, the third reading—has been well documented by the Minister of Justice and by other speakers.
The bill provides the legislative basis for a strengthened and independent authority in which the public can have full confidence. It is really important to ensure that the public of New Zealand has confidence in an independent complaints and review process, and that the public continues to have confidence in the New Zealand Police. Indeed, if the public does not have confidence in the police force of this country, then, in my view, the very functioning of our democracy and its institutions, the notion of separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislative and executive wings, and our whole society as we know it are brought into peril. We see many negative examples around the world of societies that do not have confidence in the operation of their police. So I think this is a very, very important bill.
I acknowledge the previous speakers Dr Richard Worth, the Hon Mark Burton, Russell Fairbrother, and Ron Mark, who have detailed in great depth the importance of the bill. I will not repeat the very important points that they have made. I take an opportunity, however, to thank those who were members of the Law and Order Committee at the time this bill was considered, starting with the deputy chair, Marc Alexander. If Marc Alexander had been No. 3 on the United Future list, he would still be in Parliament today. I think United Future members have a sense of humour, and, dare I say it, I think they would see the irony of Mr Alexander’s placement in terms of what happened to their No. 3 person. That irony would not be lost. Marc Alexander made a very good contribution to the bill and I thank him for being a good deputy chair at the time. I thank the New Zealand First member Edwin Perry for his very good contribution. The deputy leader of New Zealand First is in the House at the moment, and is fully endorsing and nodding avidly at that sentiment—
Peter Brown: I’ll pass it on.
MARTIN GALLAGHER: I say to that member please do pass it on, because Edwin Perry made a good contribution. In respect of National members, the Hon Tony Ryall generally made a good contribution. Brian Connell, a very respected member of the National Party, made an excellent contribution, and I ask the National Party members to convey that to him, please. I also acknowledge Georgina Beyer, Ann Hartley, and the Hon Mahara Okeroa from the Government side for their contribution. I acknowledge the advisers, parliamentary counsel for all their good hard work, and also Tracey Rayner and other members of the select committee staff at the time. I think it is important that we acknowledge those people among the many who made a contribution on this bill.
Without further ado, I believe that this is a relatively historic time in that the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill will give us a truly independent body that is seen to be independent. I also think it will go some way to making sure that we restore full confidence in the New Zealand Police. Whatever faults we have read about and learnt about—and, at least, as a society we have addressed those—I still strongly believe that we have one of the best police forces in the world. It is really important that we collectively get behind it. Where there are one or two bad processes or bad apples, the Independent Police Conduct Authority will be the independent body to review them. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
KATE WILKINSON (National): I rise to speak in support of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill. The National Party has supported this bill throughout its passage through the House, and we will continue to do so at this third reading.
It is fair to say that the third reading of this bill has been a long time coming. As we all know, the amendments to this legislation arose from Sir Rodney Gallen’s report back in 2000, and were introduced to the House in 2002. The bill was first in front of the Law and Order Committee—of which I was not a member—in 2003, around the same time as serious allegations of misconduct were being made against members of the police. At that time the bill was postponed to allow for the Bazley report into police conduct to be completed and released. Those allegations and subsequent criminal proceedings resulted in a huge lack of public confidence in the ability of the police to investigate their own. We believe that this bill is an important step in restoring public confidence, and that it is moving in the right direction to establish an authority that is more independent than the current model. It is all very well to have an Independent Police Conduct Authority, but the challenge is for that authority to actually be seen to be independent.
The perception that having the police investigating their colleagues may detract from its independence is addressed by this bill. Although it is important to note that that perception is just a perception and in the majority of matters the police undertake work on behalf of the authority with competence and integrity, there will now be less reliance on serving police officers having to investigate their own.
The bill also strengthens the effectiveness and efficiency of the Police Complaints Authority—soon to be the Independent Police Conduct Authority—increasing the speed at which complaints before the authority are handled and dealt with. As my colleague Mr Borrows already articulated at the Committee stage, some of the cases presently before the authority actually go back 5 or 6 years. They have been held up waiting for the outcome of other tribunals or agencies, or just simply are caught up in the system. It is clear that a speedier process should have a dramatic impact on the well-being of the complainants but also on the police officers involved, who put their lives on the line every day for the safety of New Zealanders. In saying that, I do not wish to detract from the importance of delivering a fair investigation for the complainant, but I also believe that it is important to consider the toll that investigations take on the officers themselves, especially when many investigations take years to resolve.
The timeliness of investigations was an issue that the Law and Order Committee discussed during financial reviews. We expressed concern about the authority’s ability to complete its work within acceptable time frames. As an example, in the 12 months from February 2006 to January 2007 the authority had approximately 2,500 files, with approximately 800 matters that arose before July 2005 still outstanding. Unfortunately, the authority’s annual report does not contain statistics on files that have been carried over from the previous year. I believe that these statistics, albeit difficult to ascertain, are important in order to reflect accurately the workload of the authority as they contribute to that workload, regardless of which year they were opened.
During the financial review we were advised by Justice Goddard, who is appointed as the authority for 5 years. Again, I echo the sentiment of others and hope that her reign will continue through to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. She said that 70 percent of the authority’s work is about what we could consider to be relatively minor matters, such as alleged roadside rudeness and traffic enforcement. It may well be that the House needs to consider whether this public watchdog needs to be involved in those relatively minor issues in the future.
Lastly, I will speak briefly about the membership of the authority, which in the original bill was set at three members only, one of whom must be a judge. The Supplementary Order Paper increased that membership to five, but still, as I understand it, only one member needs to be a qualified judge. It is a safeguard that the judge is also the chairperson of the authority and also that this House recommends who the other members of the authority will be, but I sound a word of caution in relation to the qualification of those members. There is no qualifying criteria for the other four members. As the New Zealand Law Society submitted: “One of the primary purposes of the Bill is to enhance the independence of the Authority. Screening and/or qualification of the two members other than the chairperson should exist to ensure this happens.”
Originally, before this Supplementary Order Paper, there was also a meeting procedure prescribed that, because of the stipulation of a quorum of only two of the then three members, risked the situation of decisions being made by the two laypersons only, without the judge even needing to be there. If this authority is to have the confidence of both the police and the public, it is important that the other members of the authority have suitable qualifications and experience and are not appointed for political expedience or political favours. How complaints are investigated and who investigates these complaints is fundamental to the independence of the authority.
We welcome this bill, and we support the third reading of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Following the first reading, the bill was examined by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which recommended that it be passed with no amendments.
The bill will amend the International Finance Agreements Act 1961. That Act allows the Government of New Zealand to meet its obligations as a member of various financial institutions, including the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This bill is the next step towards New Zealand becoming a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, which is one of the five institutions that make up the World Bank Group. Currently, this is the only arm of the World Bank Group of which New Zealand is not a member. To become a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, New Zealand first had to become a party to the Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, which we signed up to in late 2005.
As a member of the World Bank Group, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency contributes to the World Bank’s mission of poverty elimination and achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency provides specifically targeted insurance products that seek to mobilise private sector resources to help in addressing stark development challenges, such as the provision of services, the building of infrastructure, and the creation of new jobs. The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency’s products are equity investments targeted at frontier markets, such as developing countries, or countries affected by civil dispute or war. These products are usually of a longer duration than those offered by private sector providers of similar products. Thus, these products aim to support, rather than crowd out, private sector providers. Indeed, in many instances, they lead private sector providers into developing countries, and particularly countries that are rebuilding after civil dispute or war.
The convention has been through a national interest analysis, which concluded as follows. First, New Zealand is fully supportive of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, as its services are well aligned with our broader development interests and, to a lesser extent, our foreign policy interests. Second, the assessment as to whether New Zealand should join the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency was based on three broad categories: supporting the New Zealand private sector, contributing to development goals, and supporting multilateral organisations. Third, by ratifying the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency convention, New Zealand is strengthening its commitment towards international efforts to promote development, and is improving its credibility within the total World Bank Group structure. The select committee, I think, endorsed that national interest analysis, and concluded that the bill should proceed.
Assuming that the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill is passed, New Zealand will be required to deposit a copy of the Act with the World Bank. We will then be required to pay a subscription fee, which will involve the purchase of 513 shares at a cost of approximately US$5.5 million. Of that amount, 10 percent is in cash, 10 percent is via a promissory note, and the remaining US$4.4 million will be subject to call by the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. The fund is unlikely to be called upon, as a call would require the agreement of all shareholders. Thus, for a relatively small investment in terms of our total overseas aid activity, we complete, in effect, our membership of the World Bank Group.
TIM GROSER (National): National has supported the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill, and we will continue to support it through all stages.
As the Minister of Finance has just indicated, this is the way in which New Zealand can become a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. I guess the only surprising thing is that it has taken so long to get the issue through the system to the political level. I was quite surprised that we were not already a member of this agency, given that there are 170 members. I think we are in the good company of Somalia and Djibouti. So it is a little surprising that we are not already a member.
Behind the technical issues—and I just want to focus on the development goal, one of the goals that the Minister of Finance mentioned, to illustrate what this is really about—this is about facilitating development by slightly lowering the risk premia in some of the most vulnerable developing countries. Although I have had no direct experience, I have had indirect experience of this, but if people have had any experience of investment projects in developing countries, they find out very quickly that where, say, a discount rate of 10 percent might be an appropriate benchmark for an investment banker or a company looking at an equity investment in a developed country such as our own, that very sharply increases to, typically, 25-plus percent.
That reflects the greater risk premium of a company investing in a country with less-developed institutions and a far higher political risk, but the practical effect of that, of course, is to crowd out development. Certainly, very good projects have to attain internal rates of return of 20-plus percent, and I think it is not hard for even non-technical people to understand that that crowds out an enormous amount of development. It comes down on useful jobs and new opportunities for people in very vulnerable developing countries. This is a technical matter, but I think that lies at the very heart of it. It is the raison d’être for the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, and it is the very sensible reason why we should be part of this process.
The agency clearly does not cover all risk. It covers sovereign, default, and political risk. The World Bank is uniquely well placed to do that, although I note the explicit provision, in article 21 of the convention in schedule 7 of the bill, reflecting, no doubt, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency’s practical experience, for it to spread the risk through reinsurance and to work with other private insurers in the member countries. The World Bank is uniquely qualified to play this role. This does not mean that if a New Zealand company were to look at an investment in one of these high-risk, frontier countries, it would not need to address other serious insurance issues. This just addresses a certain set of insurance risks, which the private sector is not nearly as well placed to cover.
This role is not forced on the developing countries. There is explicit provision in the bill—in article 15, for example—for consultation with the host Government, so it is being done in a cooperative way with the developing countries concerned. But at the end of the day, it rests on the fact that the World Bank has leverage that not even a very large company from a much larger developed country than our own could possibly hope to match in the event of a catastrophic development such as a civil war, the abandonment of currency convertibility, or any of those other issues.
The basic concept here is that the World Bank would take responsibility, just as an insurance company takes responsibility if we are involved in a motor accident. If it is not considered to be our fault, the insurance company pays us out and then takes over the responsibility for pursuing the responsible party, because the insurance company is better placed to do so institutionally than a private citizen. The same principle is applied in this legislation. The World Bank has enormous leverage, as well as enormous resources, to handle the untangling of the issues that would arise in those extremely rare events. So if a New Zealand company were caught up in some catastrophic political risk or default, then it would be paid out by the agency, and the agency would take over the responsibility for recovering payment from the sovereign Government. Although it operates, if you like, on a macro scale, its essential principle is the same as what ordinary citizens would be familiar with in terms of their own insurance operations.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.