Thursday, 10 April 2008
Volume 646
Sitting date: 10 April 2008
Thursday, 10 April 2008
Thursday, 10 April 2008
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 Government notice of motion No. 1, the first reading of the Walking Access Bill, the next stages of the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) and the Family Court Matters Bill, the second reading of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill, and progress—probably for 1 hour—in the 3-hour debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Motions
Sir Keith Rodney Park GCB, KBE, MC & Bar, DFC—Memorial
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I move, That this House recognises the vision and skill of Air Chief Marshal Sir Keith Rodney Park, GCB, KBE, MC and Bar, DFC, RAF, in leading to victory those who fought on the ground and in the air during the Battle of Britain; notes that the failure of Nazi Germany to defeat the RAF in 1940 was Hitler’s first major setback, forcing him to call off the planned invasion of Britain; supports the Sir Keith Park Memorial Campaign to erect a permanent statue of Sir Keith on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square; believes that such a memorial is long overdue to redress the lack of public acknowledgment of this great man’s leadership and would ensure the role of the RAF in defending Britain is formally recognised in Trafalgar Square; notes that a memorial would be particularly fitting given that RAF will be celebrating its 90th anniversary in 2008; and recognises that such a memorial could provide an iconic reminder of the selfless action shown by many of those from Britain, New Zealand and the Commonwealth in the heroic and victorious defence of our country.
Motion agreed to.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
We’re Making a Difference for Everyone—Distribution
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement to the House on Tuesday, regarding the Labour pamphlet We’re Making a Difference for Everyone, “Any of those pamphlets that have been distributed this year have to count against the Labour Party”; if not, why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice): Yes; because the general secretary of the Labour Party has already said in the election advertisement that it is attributable to the party expenses, or will be attributed.
Hon Bill English: Does she therefore agree with this statement yesterday from the Deputy Prime Minister: “the law is quite clear that where an MP is acting in accordance with their normal duties as a member of Parliament that, in fact, that [material] is not attributable.”; if so, how does she reconcile this with her statement in her third reading speech on the bill that there was “clearly not a strict definition” of parliamentary activity and that a strict definition “would be undesirable”?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The secretary of the Labour Party has decided that this particular booklet—which Mr English brings out on a regular basis every day; a book that was published and distributed last year, as many of National’s own pamphlets were—will be apportioned against Labour Party expenses.
Hon Bill English: Does that mean that it is now the Government’s position that the secretary of the Labour Party will decide what matters are within the normal practice of a member of Parliament?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The secretary of the Labour Party—and, I presume, the financial agent of any party—will decide that matter.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen an advertisement in a February edition of the Hindi newspaper, under the slogan “Working for you”, a photograph of the National Party leader, John Key, and Pansy Wong; and why would it be that one party thinks that it can do any old thing it likes, yet it questions what another party is doing legitimately?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I have seen that, and it is a case of “seen yours and up yours”, because I have found a second advertisement. We have here not only the one that was in the Indian paper but also one that is in another publication called Migrant News. One of them contains the parliamentary crest; one does not—so I would ask whether Parliament paid for that one. The other one has the National Party logo on it, and we do not know whether it counts. Maybe National members would like to check it out, because they are certainly very quick to criticise every other party in this House. They have become the tell-tale tits of Parliament.
Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that, in fact, the confusion around what “capacity as an MP” means was caused by her because she came to the House during the debate on the legislation with two completely different definitions, with the first stating that “capacity as an MP” “excludes statements of policy made outside the House that are intended to be enacted by a future Parliament.”—whatever that means—and then she came back to the House later and stated that actually she got it wrong, and a definition “would be undesirable”?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh!
Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh, would members listen to Dr Nick Smith! He is away already, and we are only on question No. 1. I have to say to Mr Power to hold him in his seat. I listened to that member yesterday and he has a habit of mis-speaking, because yesterday—
Hon Members: You weren’t in the House.
Hon ANNETTE KING: —as I drove from Waiuku, in the electorate of Dr Hutchison, I heard Mr English say that I came into this House and said what the definition was and that I rushed down the very next day and changed it. That is incorrect; in fact, it is mis-speaking and it was made up. During my second reading speech I said what I believed it could be. Then we had a debate of this Parliament—of the Committee of the whole House—and during that, one of the members who said that I was not right was Bill English. So when we came to the Committee stage and put in amendments, we put in amendments to take account of the views of the members of this House. Those members do not like democracy, they have never liked democracy, and now Bill English comes in here with his daily dose of conspiracy theories.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Has the Minister received any reports indicating that all parties understand what is meant by—and I quote the member opposite—“statements of policy made outside the House that are expected to be carried out under a future Parliament.”, except for National, which, when it makes such statements, never intends for them to be carried out under a future Parliament?
Madam SPEAKER: Well, the first part of the question may be addressed.
Hon ANNETTE KING: That has proven to be the case. But also, it is very difficult for them to say it, because they have not got any policies to tell the people of New Zealand.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister advise the House, and the country, whether she has any reports on the fact that, despite National’s allegations yesterday, fondly supported by the New Zealand media, National was challenged to a debate on Morning Report between me and Bill English. He failed to turn up and would not send anybody else from the National Party either, and what do members think of that?
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In fact, Morning Report told me that Winston Peters would not turn up so they shoved me back to 6.30.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: My office received a call at 10 o’clock last night to say that Bill English was backing out, and the National Party could not decide who else it would send and it probably would not send anyone, so the debate was scrapped. That is the truth, not what Mr English just told the House.
Madam SPEAKER: This is a very good example of points of order that are not points of order but points of debate. But we will come back now to question time.
Hon ANNETTE KING: I heard the interview with the Hon Bill English at about 6.35 this morning.
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister cannot possibly be responsible for the wrongful statements that Winston Peters has made about a media interview. There is no ministerial responsibility.
Madam SPEAKER: No, that was not the question, as I recall it. Would the member please repeat the question for the benefit of all members.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: My question went like this: would the Minister tell the House, and, indeed, the whole country, whether she has received any reports that yesterday, whilst the National Party was laying allegations of impropriety of our advertisements, when challenged to go on a debate on Morning Report this morning it refused to send Bill English or anybody else to have a go in public, and what do members think of that?
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister has no responsibility for whether members turn up for a debate. So that part of the question is definitely out of order. The first part was about reports, generally, but not about the specifics of whether someone turns up.
Hon ANNETTE KING: I have not had any reports, but I did hear an interview from the member opposite. I suppose he was mis-speaking again, but he did say—and Winston needs to be very assured by this—that they will be doing a lot of cosying up to him if they should ever get into Government. Because if one listens to that interview he has done absolutely nothing wrong and it is everybody else’s fault.
Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that it is actually all her fault and the Labour Government’s fault with its Draconian Electoral Finance Act, because having broken the rules about parliamentary spending in the last election, made undertakings that they did not keep, got away with not being prosecuted, they then spent 2 years rewriting the rules, and as the Minister in charge of that she said today in the House that she did not know what they meant. So how could Winston Peters know?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Can I just say, Madam Speaker, that you have just heard an example of that member mis-speaking. Because I never said any such thing. No, I do not agree with the first part of the member’s question—
Hon Bill English: What’s the definition?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I wish the member opposite, along with his close mate, Nick Smith, did have a bit of common sense and maybe we would not have wasted thousands of dollars in this House with that member there trying to play his political cards rather than the issues that New Zealand is interested in—the issues of importance in this country. They have no policy and they have nothing to say, so we get this claptrap every day.
Hon Bill English: If the Minister, having just said that she did not know what the definition of parliamentary activity is, now believes she does, can she tell the House whether she believes that the New Zealand First advertisement run in the newspapers yesterday is for a parliamentary purpose?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I did not say what the member said, and it is not my job—
Hon Bill English: Answer the question!
Hon ANNETTE KING: There were two questions—and the member does not even know when he asks two. Firstly, no I do not agree with the first part. Secondly, it is not for me to decide whether the advertisement is an election advertisement. I do not give legal opinions, and the Standing Orders will tell the members that.
Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that having spent 2 years drafting law to apply to MPs using taxpayers’ money for political purposes she gave the House one definition, then she came down to the House and said that no, that was the wrong definition, then she said that there was not clearly a strict definition, and then she said that no one should even ask what the definition is? In the meantime, Labour has been caught breaching the policy, even though it did get away with not being prosecuted, and what kind of confidence can that give taxpayers in preventing the Labour Party from using hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money again, as with the pledge card?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The public of New Zealand can be assured that the Labour Party, as with most other parties in this House, will abide by the Electoral Finance Act and the Electoral Act. What I cannot give New Zealanders an assurance about is that National Party members will not pull the old rorts they have pulled in the past, and I suspect they are already on the job and getting their money salted away to be used in some way that is not accountable. I cannot give New Zealanders an assurance that that is not what they will do. They have done it for generations. They have done it in election after election, and they do not like this Act, because it caught them out.
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is not permitted to make allegations of illegal behaviour going back “generations”. I take offence at that and I ask her to withdraw.
Hon ANNETTE KING: Speaking to the point of order, I say that members on this side of the House, New Zealand First, and the Green Party have had to put up with a series of allegations from that member, month after month. Those members cannot take it when we throw it back at them. That member takes a point of order whenever there is any challenging of him, and we take it on the chin because we know that what we are doing is right. That member is a bit worried about what they have done.
Hon Bill English: The Minister seems to overlook the fact that the Electoral Commission has found that Labour broke the law. It is not an allegation; it is a fact. We are quite free to recite that fact in this House, and if it causes Labour offence, that says more about its sense of moral superiority than anything else.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: It hardly behoves one who belongs to a party that failed to pay GST, which is a crime—not under the Electoral Act but under our other laws—to get up in this House and feel discomforted when somebody alleges that that party broke the law.
Madam SPEAKER: These points of order are merging into matters of debate again. However, the member took offence and the practice is that the Minister withdraw and apologise.
Hon ANNETTE KING: I withdraw and apologise.
Western Ring Route, Auckland—Progress
2. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has the Government made in terms of Auckland’s western ring route since 1999?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): Yesterday I turned the first sod for the Manukau Harbour crossing, one of a number of key projects that make up the core of the $3.1 billion western ring route. Good progress is now being made on all the key projects. The Mount Roskill extension is near completion, and the Manukau extension is expected to be finished by 2010. Of the upper harbour projects, the Greenhithe deviation and the upper harbour bridge duplication are completed, work on the Hobsonville deviation is set to begin in September, and additional lanes on the north-western motorway are in the early planning stages. Transit has also finished investigations around the Waterview Connection, and is currently consulting on design options.
Hon Mark Gosche: What reports has the Minister received on progress on Auckland’s western ring route?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Last month I listened to the Opposition spokesperson on transport, Maurice Williamson, speaking at the Automobile Association conference. He said it was “a bloody disgrace” how little progress had been made in joining up Auckland’s roading network on State Highway 20. [Interruption] Those members should just listen to this: in 1999 construction had not started on any of the key projects on the western ring route. What is more, funding had not been approved for those projects. That is what I call a disgrace. Maurice Williamson is trying to reinvent history and has joined the group of mis-speakers on the other side of the House.
Keith Locke: Is it still a good idea to spend around $2 billion on a 4.5-kilometre bit of motorway—the bit to Waterview that she mentioned, which has an appalling benefit-cost ratio according to the Auckland Regional Council—when oil prices are rising, when car traffic on the motorways in Auckland is levelling off, and when people are looking more and more towards public transport rather than towards more motorways?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Maybe one could mount that argument if the Government was not also investing a large amount of money in public transport in Auckland, as seen by the opening of the Northern Busway only a few weeks ago. The member will be interested to know that throughout the 1990s public transport expenditure across all New Zealand was frozen at $40 million. This Government has increased it manifold.
Peter Brown: Noting the Minister’s earlier answer, will she confirm that the process of constructing the western ring route, which commenced in the 1970s and early 1980s, is still incomplete largely because a major portion of the excise tax taken on petrol was put into the Crown bank account, and that as a result of this tortoise-like approach—which occurred mainly under National, I might add—the cost to the Auckland economy has been billions of dollars?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The cost to the economy is huge, in that we have congestion and slow movement of freight around Auckland. As Auckland is our major city and our major economic mover in this country, we have to have investment in transport infrastructure, and the completion of the western ring route is crucial to that. It would be unfair, though, to say that nothing has happened since the 1960s. In fact, only one part of the western ring route had any work done on it. That work was done around 1995-96 and was a $10 million project. That was all that was done. There was no commitment in terms of funding to have any more done under the previous Government. This has been done under this Labour Government.
Hon Maurice Williamson: 9 years and there’s not one—
Hon ANNETTE KING: The member says it has been 9 years. Well, in that 9 years every part of that western ring route has been started or completed, or is planned and under way. That did not happen under a National Government. I do not mind how often National members yell out “9 years”. They had the opportunity to do it, but they never did it.
Hon Mark Gosche: What other reports has the Minister received on progress on Auckland’s western ring route?
Hon ANNETTE KING: At the Automobile Association conference the same Opposition spokesperson, before being slippery about his climate change beliefs, said that the National Party—
Hon Bill English: Point of order—
Madam SPEAKER: I agree. Would the Minister just address the question without terms of abuse being part of the answer.
Hon ANNETTE KING: At the Automobile Association conference, before Maurice Williamson—
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could give some more consideration to the issue you have raised. Government members have developed a habit of inserting terms of personal abuse into most of their answers. I draw your attention to Standing Order 116, “Personal reflections”, which states “A member may not make an imputation of improper motives against a member, an offensive reference to a member’s private affairs or a personal reflection against a member.” The House has the choice of descending into mutual personal abuse. I do not think that is what the public wants, and I think that Parliament would regret it if it went down that path. Given that it has become a developed pattern, I ask you to consider whether it is something that should continue in the House.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It is always good to hear a reformed sinner—[Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: Does the member want to stay in this House or not? You know that you do not talk when there are points of order. That is the last warning.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Madam Speaker, it is always good to hear a reformed sinner coming out in public immediately, but if you are going to enforce that Standing Order literally, then that will carry out a great deal of the questioners in this House, as well. I would be a little bit surprised, Madam Speaker, if the word “slippery” used in any context was now to be ruled out. My dictionary is getting shorter and shorter by the day.
Madam SPEAKER: I am happy to look at the matter. In terms of the general point that the member raised, if all members of the House took note of that, not just some, then there would not be so much disorder in the House.
Hon ANNETTE KING: At the Automobile Association conference, before Mr Williamson refused to disclose his views about climate change, he said that the National Party would build a whole lot more roads. Well, I find that fascinating, because when he had the opportunity to do that he did not do so. He did not increase funding for public transport, either. It has been this Labour Government that has progressively increased funding for our transport infrastructure. If we take Auckland as an example, National was spending around $230 million in 1999 and we are spending almost $1 billion in 2007-08.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Congestion has got worse.
Hon ANNETTE KING: Of course, congestion cannot be fixed overnight. If National spends 9 years doing nothing and putting no money into public transport—freezing it over that time—of course the number of cars on the roads builds up. Thank goodness this Labour-led Government is taking it seriously.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why does a $2 billion new motorway tunnel, which cannot meet any reasonable benefit-cost ratio at all, have priority for Government spending over the much cheaper Britomart rail loop tunnel, which would raise the capacity of the whole rail system by more than 30 million passenger trips a year, and without which few of the economic benefits of the Auckland rail electrification that the Government has already funded will be reached?
Hon ANNETTE KING: It is this Government that has put funding into electrification of rail—double tracking, and so on. It has been done under this Government. But we also have to take some account of regional priorities that regional people put in place for a region, and the completion of the western ring route is one of the priorities that local people see as important. There is one thing that I do agree with Maurice Williamson about: we cannot have half a western ring route that goes nowhere, then leave it and go on to building arterial roads, before having the ring route join up somewhere else. It does need to be completed, but that does not mean we do not continue to invest in public transport, and we have shown the commitment to do just that.
I seek leave to table Transit’s document showing the western ring route—
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. [Interruption] This is a point of order. Obviously, some members want to go home early.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon ANNETTE KING: I seek leave to table a graph showing the investment in Auckland land transport since Labour became the Government in 1999.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Debt, Government—Target
3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding the Government’s debt target that “debt has for a time fallen under that target”; if so, is that an indication that he intends to increase Government debt from its current level?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I can confirm that the Budget will reiterate the Government’s medium-term debt target, which is to maintain gross debt, excluding Reserve Bank settlement cash, as a proportion of GDP, broadly stable at around 20 percent. Unlike Mr Key, I have no intention of moving this target upwards to 25 percent of GDP.
Hon Bill English: Does the Minister recall saying, in respect of tax cuts, “When you cut your income, you either borrow more or spend less.”, and also that any increase in borrowing is “fiscal lunacy.”; and what is his opinion, now that he is planning to increase debt at the same time as cut taxes?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member makes a habit of making assertions on the basis of an answer that did not give him the answer he wanted to hear in the first place. I tell the member that the growth in spending in the future, and the rate of increase in social services, will have to be slower given tax cuts.
Hon Bill English: Does the Minister recall telling workers just over a year ago that they could not have tax cuts because “if we were to clear the headroom for tax cuts it would mean huge cuts in spending.”, and what faith can they have in a Minister of Finance who has just told the House that because of his tax cuts he will have to reduce his spending?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Again the member did not listen, but interpolated on what I said. What I said is the rate of growth in spending on social services—
Hon Bill English: Oh!
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member has got it, you know. The member has got there. It took him a wee while, a couple of minutes, but it sank in finally. The rate of growth in spending on social services will have to be slower than it has been. We have, of course, achieved a remarkable increase in the level of social services, and can afford to do that.
Hon Bill English: Can the Minister now confirm that when National says it will slow the growth in social spending, it is called a spending cut, but when the Minister has just said he will slow the growth in social spending, it is what one does to pay for a tax cut that one never wanted?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What I know is that I can judge things by the record. When that member was in Government he froze the pension for 3 years. He chaired the select committee that approved the cutting of benefits. He was part of a Government that imposed hospital charges on New Zealanders. We know what cuts in social spending look like. They look like what a National Government does when it gets its hands on power.
Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that he will be raising spending, and does he agree with Helen Clark’s statement that “cutting taxes and raising spending is a recipe for disaster.”; and when will he tell his Prime Minister that he plans to implement her recipe for disaster?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member is proposing that there be no increase in spending at all, I wish he would say so. That would mean no wage or salary increases for anybody in the public sector, no increases in any benefits, no increases in New Zealand superannuation, and, clearly, a cutting of services in the health system throughout the country. The question is what the forward path will be, and the member will find that out in just over 8 sitting days.
Metiria Turei: What is the Government’s ultimate target for student debt, because it has just reached a whopping $10 billion today, and will he correct his Minister for Tertiary Education and admit that fewer students received a student allowance in 2006 than did when Labour took over in 1999?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not have the latter data. The student loan scheme began in the early 1990s and, therefore, is yet to reach full maturity. It has also been coping with an expanding number of students over that period of time. Therefore, inevitably, the total debt is going to be higher. The question is how burdensome that debt is on the individual. The time taken to repay a student loan has gone down by more than a third under this Government.
Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like some clarification as to which is the bigger number. I am surprised that the Minister of Finance cannot quite do the maths right. Is it 64,000, which is the number of students who got a student allowance in 2006; or 59,000, which is the number of students who got the student allowance—it is the opposite way. I will do that one again.
Madam SPEAKER: I think we have the gist of the—
Metiria Turei: Point of order—
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, actually.
Metiria Turei: I would just like to confirm whether 64,000, which is the number of students who got a student allowance in 1999, is higher than the number of—
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry but the member has had more than her share of what is not a point of order. However, if the Minister wants to make any other comment I invite him to do so.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not have the information in front of me. Of course, many people do not realise that eligibility for student allowances is not based solely on parental income tests. There is a whole set of other tests that apply around full-time courses, such as previous academic performance and so on and so forth. Most students who do not get a student allowance are not disqualified on the basis of the parental income test; they are disqualified on the basis of other criteria.
Hon Bill English: What credibility can the Minister of Finance have when he ends up doing exactly the opposite of what he has argued for—namely, he has said that people should not cut taxes because that will mean more borrowing—and it just turns out by coincidence that in the year when he is planning to cut taxes he is going to increase his borrowing?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member is rushing to certain conclusions. What I have said very clearly is that we will stick to the medium-term debt target of around 20 percent of GDP. I quote Mr Key: “We’re sort of comfortable with a notional debt-to-GDP of around about 25 percent, so that’s gross debt.” That is $700 million a year of extra servicing costs compared with 20 percent of GDP. The member may not like it, but that is what his leader said.
Hon Bill English: If the Minister thinks I am speculating about borrowing, what is the item in the February accounts to the Government that shows borrowing has gone up by $867 million; is that something Treasury just made up, like the $600 million gap in the previous month’s accounts?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member could work it out, he would see that if debt were to remain at exactly 20 percent of GDP every year, irrespective of managing through economic cycles, nominal debt would still go up. Otherwise the Government, every year, would be paying for every item out of its income, which is not the long-term fiscal target.
Foreign Affairs, Minister—Confidence
4. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she agree with the view of the Hon Peter Dunne as reported in media today that the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ position as Minister of Foreign Affairs is untenable; if so, will she call for his resignation?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: No.
Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister agree with her Minister of Trade, the Hon Phil Goff, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ opposing a free-trade deal with China is a “bullshit” situation—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have here, confirmed also by a phone call to my office, a document that says Phil Goff made no such statement. The document—from Mr Trow, who is press secretary for Mr Goff—goes on to state: “Mr Goff had not criticised Peters at all, and had made no comment on the foreign Minister’s remarks, either formally or informally.” In short, Madam Speaker, this is the New Zealand Herald setting about lying abroad again, and I want an apology.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a point of best information, but really it is a point for discussion.
Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister agree with her Minister of Trade, the Hon Phil Goff, as reported in the New Zealand Herald—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Whether or not one seeks to hide behind a media fabrication, one should not get up and swear something in this House in the way that Mr Hide seeks to now. In the interests of the standards of this House, you should stop him from doing that.
Madam SPEAKER: I am not quite sure what the member said. As I heard the question, it asked about the report of the comments. It did not assert the comments were true, and the member is perfectly within his rights to ask that question. If he said anything else that I did not hear and the member took offence at it, then of course the member can ask for him to withdraw and apologise. But I did not hear anything except a perfectly legitimate question—or part of it.
Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister agree with her Minister of Trade, the Hon Phil Goff, as reported in the New Zealand Herald, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ opposing a free-trade deal with China is a “bullshit” situation?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am assured by Mr Goff that he made no such comment in relation to Mr Peters—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yeah, right!
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Well, the High Court judge said to that member that he had committed a contempt of court. That ruling was on the basis that what he told the court was completely incredible. He is the only person in this House who has had a court decision about his credibility, which is nil. I am assured by Mr Goff that he made no such comment about Mr Peters’ position.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister received any reports directly from Mr Goff, or from his press secretary, totally denying that that word was ever said, and does he also recall the correspondent in question here making the same mistake at APEC and being found out 2 years ago, in Seoul, again demonstrably lying about the circumstances; and does he not think that in the interests of ministerial integrity the Minister deserves a fulsome apology?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have been assured by Mr Goff that he did not say that about Mr Peters’ position—his stance—in terms of being Minister of Foreign Affairs. But we are well aware that some of the media do not seem to understand yet the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and the Labour Party on these matters, even though it has now been in existence for nearly 2½ years.
Rodney Hide: Does she agree then with John Key that it is OK to have a Minister of Foreign Affairs who is a racist xenophobe; if not, why is she not demanding his immediate resignation?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You can see why he went on Dancing with the Stars; he suffers from recognition hunger. He gets up and makes outrageous, unparliamentary statements, and you allow him to get away with it. I ask you to stop him and ask him to desist from that and behave himself, or to go and get a new job.
Madam SPEAKER: I am afraid that is not within my power, but I can ask the member, consistent with a comment that was made before about derogatory terms that are mentioned in this House about others, to rephrase his question, removing those terms.
Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister agree with John Key that it is OK to have a Minister of Foreign Affairs who pushes policies that display racist “xenophoba”?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the member means xenophobia, but never mind. The confidence and supply agreement between the two parties defines clearly the areas of responsibility for which Mr Peters speaks on behalf of the Government. He is not bound in other areas of policy. I do note that when that agreement was signed, it was attacked by the National Party as totally unworkable. National said it would fall apart within months, was an entire breach of the Westminster tradition, and was somehow the biggest denial of our democratic tradition that one could find—until Mr Moore unburdened himself with some similar comments today. But now the National members have decided it is actually quite a good idea, and a great deal of buttering-up was occurring as early as 6.30-odd this morning on the radio, in that respect.
Peter Brown: Will the Minister advise whether he has heard any reports that over 100 members of this House will endorse the Rt Hon Winston Peters as foreign Minister of this country?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think probably in both cases there is a small piece of fine print down the bottom: depending on the election results.
Rodney Hide: Does she agree with a statement made by her Minister for Ethnic Affairs, the Hon Chris Carter, that Peter Brown’s comments, endorsed by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, are “absolutely racist”; if not, why not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Brown’s comments were fearing a complete change in the nature of our society. I suspect that if the member turned to his left and spoke to Mrs Turia, she would tell him that already occurred rather long ago, and was done by people who come from very much the same part of the world as Mr Brown and I do.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm that as late as the evening of last Tuesday the leader of the National Party was saying: “The broad foreign policy framework will stay the same.”, and how does that sound as an endorsement of the Government’s foreign policy?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That sounds to me like a fairly fulsome endorsement of the Government’s policy, but then we seem to have fulsome endorsements of almost every aspect of the Government’s policy. It is hard to find what a National Government would choose to change, other than perhaps going back to freezing the level of New Zealand superannuation, cutting benefits, putting hospital charges in place, cutting back the roading programme, and so on and so forth.
Rodney Hide: I seek the leave of the House to table a transcript of a BBC interview with the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, on 11 July 2003, when she compared Mr Winston Peters with French fascist leader—
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister in any way concerned that these questions arise because a New Zealand Herald correspondent decided to lie again, in the same way as in the story in this morning’s New Zealand Herald about recruiting police in Singapore, when the police utterly refute that, one, there is a memorandum of understanding, and, two, that the police in Singapore will be recruiting Singaporeans; and how can we possibly conduct the business and politics of this nation when one of its so-called leading newspapers engages in such deceit on a constant basis?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think one can say about those—and indeed many other—articles that the New Zealand Herald, which is under the profound belief that free speech came to an end last December, continually proves day by day that it continues to exist no matter whether there is any regard to the truth.
Education, Ministry—Confidence
5. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Education: Does he have confidence in the Ministry of Education; if so, why?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Acting Minister of Education): Yes, but I am sure the ministry, like all of us, can always do better.
Anne Tolley: How can the Minister have confidence in his ministry, when I raised the case yesterday with the Minister for Social Development and Employment about the family camping out in the backblocks of Wairoa with 10 school-aged children who have not been at school since August last year, and his ministry has taken no action to get these children into school?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The ministry, along with other services like Child, Youth and Family and the community as a whole, needs to put a lot more effort into it. I have told the ministry to get there and do something about it.
Hon Marian Hobbs: How has the Labour-led Government, through the Ministry of Education, delivered for all New Zealanders?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The Labour-led Government has increased funding for education by a whopping 72 percent. This huge additional investment has enabled us since 1999 to introduce 20 hours’ free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds, to increase teachers’ pay by 40 percent, to employ more than 5,000 additional teachers over and above roll growth, to build 34 new schools and 1,500 new school rooms, and to do heaps more.
Anne Tolley: What advice did the Ministry of Education receive following the absence of these 10 children from school in August, September, October, November, and December last year, and what action was taken to find them and get them back into school?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The ministry needs to continue to look into this situation. The ministry is responsible for truants whom it knows about. It needs to spend more time, as I have directed, to get there, have a look at the situation, and sort it out.
Hon Tariana Turia: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Has the Minister seen reports that almost 20,000 schoolchildren a week nationwide need feeding during their school day because of empty cupboards at home; and what actions can the Ministry of Education take to respond to the educational disadvantage that more and more New Zealanders are experiencing as a result of escalating child poverty?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It is quite clear that child poverty in this Government’s period of time has reduced by nearly 34 percent. Over and above that, those issues relevant to children not being fed or being in the poverty trap is something that everybody, including the Ministry of Education, has to front—
Hon Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was very specific. We have 20,000 children a week needing feeding, and I asked what the Ministry of Education can do to respond to the educational disadvantage that more and more New Zealanders are experiencing as a result of escalating child poverty.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, if the Minister is allowed to finish his answer, we may well hear that question being addressed.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: There are a host of reasons why students and pupils do not have breakfast. They are trying to stay trim, or else there may be poverty in the house. Over and above all those issues, it is the community reply that is important.
Anne Tolley: What sort of system is the Minister running when 10 children from one family could be missing from school for 5 months last year, and did not enrol for the first 2 months of school this year, yet the only way the ministry knows this is because my office told it?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: As I said earlier on, I have asked the ministry to get there and sort it out. The Ministry of Education has changed its contract with the Non-enrolment Truancy Service this year, and has now taken back the responsibility for dealing with the most complex cases—for example, those who have been in contact with Child, Youth and Family or the police, and those approaching the school leaving age.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think for the sake of the Minister that he may want to correct an answer he gave, where he said that children were missing out on breakfast to stay thin. I am sure that that was a slip, and he did not mean that.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order; it is a point of profile, maybe, but not a point of order.
Anne Tolley: Does the Minister think it acceptable that the Ministry of Education has done nothing since I notified it in early March, except to explain to the parents their legal obligations, because these parents have said they are applying to home-school their 10 children; and does he think that the appalling living conditions of this family could ever possibly meet the required home-schooling standards?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I would need further details from that member. But I want her to be sure of her facts, as she was mixing things up when she asked questions last week about union pay. She was on about notification coming only several hours before, when the ministry had informed the organisation 3 weeks before, 2 weeks before, and on the morning prior to the deal being settled.
Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister a specific question about the actions of the Ministry of Education in regard to a particular family. That question had nothing to do with the questions I might have asked last week. I ask you to direct the Minister to address my question.
Madam SPEAKER: No, the first part of the answer did actually address the question in asking for further information. The second part did not; the member is right.
Hon Tariana Turia: Does the Minister seriously believe the answer he gave before, when he said that children living in poverty do not eat breakfast because they want to stay slim, or does this Minister believe in the importance of children having breakfast to help them to achieve educationally?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I said there were several reasons why pupils do not have breakfast, and there are a host of reasons that most teenagers practise this. There are issues relevant to poverty, there are reasons relevant to pupils going to school too early, and there are issues relevant to them not wanting even to have breakfast. So at the end of the day, I am saying that the poverty slip in relation to education in this country has declined dramatically, but some people like to hype it up and make out that everybody needs breakfast at school. This Government, along with the Ministry of Education, has certainly been supportive, and is quite clear on backing parents and the community to look after poor children.
Anne Tolley: While the Minister is explaining his answers, does he agree that in order for this family to be considered seriously to home-school 10 or more children, it actually needs to have a home?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I certainly do agree with that, and I need more detail. But I would ask the member to give the detail and to be truthful about what she is saying to the ministry.
Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take offence at the implication that I am being dishonest.
Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please withdraw and apologise for the reference to the member’s not being truthful.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I withdraw and apologise.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Children and Families—Improvement in Outcomes
6. Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she received on investment in research to improve outcomes for New Zealand’s children and families?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Last Friday I launched a new longitudinal study that will follow more than 7,500 children and their families through birth, childhood, adolescence, and on to adulthood. I am proud to say that our Government has committed a total of $14 million to support this new research, which will give us information on children growing up in 21st century New Zealand. Our Government is committed to supporting research that will help us to continue to deliver evidence-based policies that will benefit New Zealand families.
Hon Steve Maharey: How has social research contributed to the policies rolled out by the Labour-led Government?
Hon RUTH DYSON: New Zealand has a proud history of high-quality longitudinal studies. The Christchurch and Dunedin studies have informed policies such as early intervention with vulnerable children and families, support for women to encourage breastfeeding, free health-care for children under the age of 6, and the Working for Families package of targeted assistance, which is on track to lift 130,000 children out of poverty. All of these are solid, evidence-based policies from the Labour-led Government, and they are quite a contrast to the confused and contradictory ideas that the National Party has been struggling to develop.
Public Health Bill—Powers of Director-General of Health
7. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Has he taken note of reports that the Commonwealth Press Union’s media freedom committee is alarmed about the powers that the Director-General of Health would have under the Public Health Bill?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health): Yes, and I note that the bill is currently before the Health Committee and I am respectful of that process. The member is a member of that committee, so I expect that the member is helping to run that show.
Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister aware that clause 83 of the Public Health Bill provides that codes and regulation can be imposed on “the ways in which specified goods, substances, or services are advertised, sponsored, or marketed (whether directly or indirectly):”, and can he see why the media freedom committee is concerned that such far-reaching powers could lead to restrictions on journalists reporting on food, alcohol, and other societal issues?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: To take the answers in order: yes; no; and it is very important to realise that the Government has no plans to introduce regulation around non-communicable diseases. At the same time, we have an obesity epidemic, with 180,000 New Zealanders affected.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind members who shift their seats to the front bench that they will please remove themselves to their normal seats if they wish to interject.
Hon Tony Ryall: If the Government has no plans to regulate, then why is it giving itself the powers to do so?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: This legislation has not been revised in a number of decades, and it is not likely to be revised again for decades more. It would be irresponsible not to provide an appropriate future-proofing provision in the bill, to take account of the No. 1 health pandemic facing this country.
Lesley Soper: Has the Minister seen any reports from other submitters who presented submissions to the Health Committee yesterday on the Public Health Bill?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes. I am advised that there are more submissions supporting the non-communicable disease provisions than there are ones opposing them. For example, even McDonald’s told the committee yesterday that it already self-regulates, and advertises only healthy food during children’s television viewing hours. The New Zealand Medical Association is delighted with the non-communicable disease provisions. The resident medical officers of health—my best friends—would prefer tougher regulation on advertising to children than what is proposed, and the Cancer Society says it is essential that a proactive approach is taken.
Sue Kedgley: Why does he think that there is a deliberate campaign of exaggerated attacks and scaremongering on two small clauses of the 384-page Public Health Bill, and is it not time that all of us, including those who presently profit from the promotion and advertising of unhealthy food to children, set aside our vested interests and put the health of our nation’s children first?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I would prefer to put it that there are some unfounded fears, such as those expressed by a representative of the Newspaper Publishers Association at a meeting in my office, who suggested that the bill was a device to allow the Labour Government to regulate editorials. That proposition was received with general mirth when I asked why, if that was the intent, Labour had not moved somewhat earlier in that regard.
Hon Tony Ryall: Why, in the event that the Director-General of Health could not get agreement from all sectors of the media, does not clause 374(x) allow the Government to enact a code by regulation, whether or not affected parties agree?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Two points: firstly, it may come as a surprise to both that member and the media that, in fact, the media do not make policy in New Zealand, but, more important, the bill’s current provisions provide that even in the case of a proposed binding set of guidelines, there are no penalties for the first 3 years, and a full consultation process would be required to make them binding. One commentator has said that the bill “could hardly be less Draconian” in that regard.
Hon Tony Ryall: Is it the Government’s intention to regulate how the media report on food, alcohol, and other lifestyle issues; if it is not, is the Government willing to remove those clauses and provide protections for freedom of speech?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: No. As the member is currently a member of the Health Committee that is running that show, he would no doubt prefer that I was fully respectful of the select committee process of which he is a part—reportedly.
Katrina Shanks: Why is the Minister more focused on telling New Zealanders which restaurant reviews they can read in the newspapers than on the maternity workforce crisis, when over 4,000 expectant mothers are unable to find a community midwife, and when 15 out of 21 district health boards are reporting they have a midwife shortage?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: What this Government is concerned about is the obesity and diabetes epidemic that is about to break like a wave over this country. Nearly 200,000 New Zealanders are already affected, and 60 percent—I repeat: 60 percent—of Pasifika New Zealanders are either seriously overweight or obese. Something will have to be done.
Question No. 1 to Minister
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on this issue. We have checked with Morning Report staff, who have informed my office that any claim by Mr Peters that I would not turn up for a debate on radio is false. Mr Peters has made a number of statements of exactly the opposite, which according to Morning Report and me are absolutely false. What is the opportunity for redress on this matter?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Morning Report is lying. That is the fact of the matter here. My chief of staff reported to me this morning that at 10 o’clock last night he had that message left on his answerphone. Those are the facts, and they probably can be obtained from telecommunications records, so we will find out who is telling the truth, but it ain’t Bill.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not for the Speaker to determine—
Hon Bill English: He cannot make that accusation.
Madam SPEAKER: These are matters of debate. Accusations have gone both ways. It is not for the Speaker to determine the truth or otherwise of any statement in this House. I suggest the member take it up elsewhere.
Immigration Service—Bahareh Moradi
8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Has he ordered the New Zealand Immigration Service to secure a passport for failed Iranian refugee seeker Bahareh Moradi from the Iranian Embassy or a visa from the Fijian Embassy; if so, have any of these documents been obtained?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration): No. For the member’s information I am advised that in this case, as it is a refused entry, neither a passport nor a visa is required to remove the individual.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: What evidence does the Minister have that the Moradi family have claimed conversion to Christianity as part of what the authorities now say is “an elaborate and meticulously crafted web of lies”, and what reaction has the Minister got to those findings?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: As the member would know, it is not appropriate to go into individual cases in any great detail. I have, indeed, seen speculation in respect of the conversion to Christianity. I would note that it is on the public record that in the Moradi case the refugee status branch declined the claim, the Refugee Status Appeals Authority declined the claim, the High Court refused to intervene in the removal, and the Associate Minister of Immigration, on application, declined to intervene. We are currently in the process of ascertaining the whereabouts of Ms Moradi so that the removal can take place.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm that this woman’s brother, who is also claiming a conversion to Christianity and being at risk of being penalised back in Iran, nevertheless took a direct flight back to Iran on five occasions between September 2003 and September 2005; and does he think, as the Minister, that an MP who has pushed this case should use his best offices to assist the department when a failed refugee applicant runs amok or goes to ground?
Madam SPEAKER: I think the first part of the question is in order, but the second part is not.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, I think the Minister would like to know that there are 120 members of Parliament here who would seek to help his officers as part of their responsibilities and duties. That is my question here, and I do not see how that could possibly be out of order. I want to know whether it is Government policy to invite advice from members of Parliament that might constructively help them in any given case.
Madam SPEAKER: Framed in that way, it is appropriate.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: In the case of the Moradi family, I cannot go into the detail about speculative claims that are made. I can inform the member that the two members of her family who were accepted as legitimate refuges went through the robust clearance process. In respect of his second question, I am not responsible for the actions of members. However, I would hope that if any member in this House had information pertaining to an absconding immigrant, they would provide it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Like Dr Coleman?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The only thing I could say in respect of Dr Coleman is that he may well be able to assist, as I am advised that he has some expertise in smoking people out.
Madam SPEAKER: That was inappropriate.
Dr Jonathan Coleman: Would it be tenable for the Minister of Immigration to remain in his post if he did not agree with Government policy on these immigration matters being discussed, and has the Minister heard any reports of Ministers who disagree with major Government policies relating to their portfolios?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With the greatest respect, I know that Dr Coleman is a new member but he cannot just get up and shoot an arrow into the air, not knowing where it might land, and call that a related parliamentary question.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. Many arrows that are shot go nowhere here. There is no ministerial responsibility. If the member wishes to ask another supplementary—
Dr Jonathan Coleman: Point of order—
Madam SPEAKER: No, I have ruled on the point of order; it is too late. If the member wants to ask a supplementary question that relates to the question, that is fine, but there must be ministerial responsibility.
Keith Locke: I seek leave to table items from the draft Iranian penal law, showing that execution is the penalty for Christian converts.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to inform the House that Winston Peters has raised his 14th point of order during question time this week. He had 18 points of order during question time last week.
Madam SPEAKER: This is starting to trifle with the House.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave—which will be part of the numbers that that young amateur MP just read out—to table evidence to suggest that what Mr Locke has just said is demonstrably wrong and has been so for the last 10 years.
Document not tabled.
Electoral Finance Act—Third Party Registration
9. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Is it Government policy that groups involved in the administration of political parties should be ineligible to register as third parties under the Electoral Finance Act 2007; if not, why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice): The intention of Parliament is reflected in the Electoral Finance Act. The registration of third parties is the responsibility of the Electoral Commission.
Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that information removed from the Labour Party’s website 2 days ago told us that members of any affiliated union are automatically members of the Labour Party if they wish to be, which means that they have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as ordinary Labour Party members, and was it the Government’s intention that unions such as the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union—whose members are automatically members of the Labour Party—should be able to register as a third party?
Hon ANNETTE KING: That is very much a matter for the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union.
Hon Bill English: Was it the Government’s intention that a group whose membership overlaps completely with membership of the Labour Party would be able to register to campaign as if it is independent of the Labour Party?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Any decision on who is registered as a third party is a matter for the Electoral Commission.
Hon Bill English: What did the Government intend when it drafted section 13 of the Electoral Finance Act, which explicitly rules out actual persons who are involved in the administration of a political party from being allowed to register as third parties?
Hon ANNETTE KING: This Parliament decided what would be in the Electoral Finance Act, and any interpretation of what a third party is will be decided by the Electoral Commission.
Hon Bill English: Does the Minister agree with the secretary of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union that it keeps close liaison with the Labour Party through the transport and industrial relations caucus committee, that members of the union serve on Labour Party bodies, and that the Labour Party itself has said that members of affiliated unions such as the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union and the Service and Food Workers Union are automatically members of the Labour Party; and was it the intention of the Government that a group so closely entwined with the Labour Party could be used to help Labour to escape from the election expense cap?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The decision on whether the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, or any other union, or Federated Farmers, or David Farrar—the front for the National Party—is registered as a third party is very much the decision of the Electoral Commission.
Hon Bill English: Is the Minister now telling us that the Government had no intention of ensuring that groups that are very close to a political party should be banned from registering as a third party, and therefore Labour intends to spend about another $500,000 by getting the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, the Service and Food Workers Union, and the Dairy Workers Union, plus Young Labour, Labour’s rainbow branch, and any other Labour group to register as third parties?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The member talks a lot of nonsense. We will leave it in the hands of the independent Electoral Commission to decide who will be a third party. I am wondering when that member is going to stop accusing everybody of breaking the law, and when he is going to apologise to the Public Service Association (PSA) for saying it broke the law. When I asked him in this House whether he would apologise, he refused to apologise. I notice that the PSA—
Hon Bill English: That’s not true.
Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh yes, it is true. The PSA has put out a statement that has asked that member to apologise.
Hon Bill English: Wrong union.
Hon ANNETTE KING: No way; it is not the wrong union. The PSA has asked that member to apologise, in the statement “PSA national secretary expects an apology from Bill English”. Why? Because he accused the PSA of breaking the law. The PSA did not break the law. It knew it had not broken the law, but he said it had. When will he apologise? I think that a lot of organisations around New Zealand have had a gutsful of that member accusing them of breaking the law, when they have not done so.
Hon Bill English: The PSA agreed with me when I spoke to it about that. I met it yesterday, and it did not ask for an apology.
Hon ANNETTE KING: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I will table the statement from the PSA, which totally denies what that member just said. The PSA said that Mr English was wrong when he claimed in Parliament that it had told him it had not lodged a correct third-party application. It is in the statement.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated or you will both be leaving the House. We cannot have this situation going on. If the member wishes to table the document she will do so consistent with the Standing Orders, whereby she will describe it succinctly and not give us a dissertation on its substance.
Hon ANNETTE KING: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think I need some help here. The member has made a claim that he did not say something. The PSA has put out a statement for everybody to see, saying that he was wrong. The PSA has said he was wrong. In this House, where the PSA has no protection, the member continues to make the claim. I find that to be reprehensible. I believe that that member should front up and apologise to the people whom he is insulting publicly.
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister has made her point. Does the member want to respond?
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am just surprised that you are allowing this matter to go on. We raised a point of order yesterday about the way you treated people who were seeking leave to table documents. You made your ruling clear: that you would treat both sides of the House in the same way. The member then stood up and went into a tirade in the process of seeking leave, and you tolerated that until we drew your attention to it.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry; I will not have this. It was not clear whether the Minister was using a point of order to make a speech or was foreshadowing an intention to do so. That is why I stopped it and asked her to be explicit about whether she was seeking leave to table that document—so we could move on.
Hon ANNETTE KING: I seek leave to table the PSA national secretary’s statement in which she states that she expects an apology from Bill English.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the course of the point of order that preceded the one you have just dealt with, there was a considerable amount of barracking from the Opposition front bench. You yourself were trying to hear what the Minister was saying. It was an extensive point of order. The Minister was trying to get across her point of view. There was a considerable amount of rude disruption. I think we have all had a gutsful of it, to be very blunt, and I think people should be tossed out of the Chamber for it.
Madam SPEAKER: The member has a point. The accusation that the Speaker is not acting fairly to all members of the House is coming close to an offence for which there needs to be an apology. I tell members that there is a reason why points of order are heard in silence; it is so that we can in fact hear what is happening. Members should come back to the purpose of these particular proceedings, which is for supplementary questions to be asked.
Hon Bill English: Is it not a measure of the incompetence of this Government that it put section 13 into the Electoral Finance Act with the intention of preventing parties from setting up proxy organisations in order to escape the electoral expense cap, and the first third party that has been registered is the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union—of which, by the Labour Party’s own definition, every member is a member of the Labour Party, and the leadership of which serves on the Labour Party’s governing councils—when that has exactly the opposite effect of what the Government aimed for?
Hon ANNETTE KING: No, and I cannot be assured that the first party that registered as a third party was the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union. According to the Electoral Commission, the first person who registered was Anthony John Gavigan.
Hon Bill English: Can we now take it from the Minister’s answer that it was the Government’s intention in passing the Electoral Finance Act that an entity can register as a third party when all its members are members of a political party and when the leadership of that entity serves on the governing councils of the political party, and that that is regarded as being independent?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The assumptions underlying that question are wrong.
Customs Service—Passenger Processing and Border Agency Efficiency
10. JILL PETTIS (Labour) to the Minister of Customs: What recent initiatives has the New Zealand Customs Service taken to improve passenger processing and border agency efficiency at Auckland International Airport?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs): Last week, on behalf of the Government, I attended the opening of the new arrivals hall at Auckland International Airport. The redevelopment project is a major initiative of Auckland International Airport that has involved the New Zealand Customs Service and other border agencies in the design of facilities better suited to efficient processing standards. There is now more space, more processing booths, and a distinct Aotearoa New Zealand feel to the arrivals area. The Customs Service shares the enlarged space with the Immigration Service, allowing the agencies to work together to achieve maximum efficiency for passenger processing.
Jill Pettis: What further initiatives are under way to improve processing times and efficiencies at Auckland International Airport?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The opening of the new arrivals hall is only the first stage of the redevelopment. The next stage will be to revamp the baggage hall, allowing more space for Customs Service and Biosecurity New Zealand staff to clear arriving passengers and their luggage. I am advised that this is due to open in July. The new design and layout will again greatly improve the arrival experience of visitors to Aotearoa New Zealand and improve passenger processing.
Peter Brown: Noting those answers, can the Minister give this House an absolute assurance that Auckland International Airport will not, in any way, shape, or form, turn into a farce like the one that has occurred at Heathrow?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: What I can assure the member is that the 3A redevelopment will ensure a better experience for those visitors coming to New Zealand, and it will also enable border agencies to carry out their role most efficiently.
Violence, Reported—Increase
11. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Justice: Does she agree with the statement by the Minister of Police that “there have been increases in violence in New Zealand. I can also confirm that most of it is driven by reported domestic violence.”; if so, what responsibility should the justice system bear for this?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice): Yes, I do agree, because those are the facts as presented by the statistics. The responsibility for domestic violence in New Zealand lies fairly and squarely with the perpetrators, and to blame a system is an attempt to deny that we have a problem.
Simon Power: How does she reconcile that statement with the fact that there has been a 25 percent decline in temporary protection orders granted since 2000 and a 30 percent decline in final protection orders, and does not this suggest that if reporting is occurring in greater numbers, victims of domestic violence have less confidence in the justice system, and that it will protect them, since her Government came to office?
Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I do not agree with that and it is certainly not what we hear from those working with victims of domestic violence, nor from the police, nor from almost anyone else I know of. In fact, urgent action and taking family violence seriously in its early stages is likely to lead to a better outcome than waiting until the situation has become so bad that people are applying for protection orders.
Simon Power: How could she agree with the Minister of Police that increases in violence are being driven by reported domestic violence, when the number of applications for protection orders was 4,511 in 2007, compared with 6,520 such applications in 1999?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I can agree with the Minister of Police because the facts are as I have set them out. Reported violence has gone up considerably; it has almost doubled—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Making it up.
Hon ANNETTE KING: I resent the comment made by Dr Smith, that I am making this up. The statistics come from the New Zealand Police. I do not make them up. National members might not like them, but they are the statistics.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why fewer protection orders?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I am sorry, but these are the statistics. Reported domestic violence in New Zealand has increased hugely over the last decade. Fortunately, reporting has as well, but also so has prosecution of those people who commit family violence. I think we have to get our heads around the fact that when people report domestic and family violence, it is a good thing because we are starting to get an idea of the level of family violence in our society. I cannot understand why members opposite want to minimise reported domestic violence.
Kate Wilkinson: Why should the public believe she is serious about domestic violence, when nearly 2 years ago the Government was alerted by Women’s Refuge to the severe shortage of family lawyers in Blenheim, which led some women to give up on taking out protection orders, and now that Nick Smith, the Nelson Women’s Centre, the Nelson Bays Community Law Service, and the Nelson District Law Society all wrote to her last month to alert her to the same problems occurring in Nelson, when will she do something about it?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I am assured by the Legal Services Agency that it is certainly addressing those issues. The people of New Zealand can take comfort from this Government taking it seriously, for a number of reasons. First of all, we did set up a multiparty family violence team. I am pleased to say that we have members on that team from the Progressive party, United Future, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, the Green Party, and the ACT party. People will note that there is one party missing. It is the National Party. It was asked to join the group but withdrew in September 2006. National was again invited to join in August 2007 and again it declined. If anybody is not taking family violence seriously, it is the members of Parliament opposite.
Simon Power: What practical difference will be made to the lives of victims of domestic violence by the recent appointment of members to a Criminal Justice Advisory Board, including the person who cleared the Electoral Finance Bill of any New Zealand Bill of Rights concerns, when the purpose of the board is to “advise justice sector Ministers on further improvements to the criminal justice system”, merely confirming that Labour has well and truly run out of ideas on how to deal with this issue?
Hon ANNETTE KING: To the contrary, this Government established the task force on family violence. It was established in 2005. Let me just read out a list of the achievements that have come from that task force from its first programme of action: the launching of the successful It’s Not OK campaign—something the member said in the press statement he did not think had been going for long enough to make any difference, but that was contrary to what people like Ms Henare from the Women’s Refuge said. We have also had a new police area and district family violence coordinator set up, a new police prosecution service for family violence policy, increased legal aid eligibility thresholds for orders under the Domestic Violence Act 1995, and four more Family Court violence courts—three in Wellington and one in Auckland. Madam Speaker, I know that you want me to stop because this answer is long, but the list is also very long.
Statistics New Zealand—Business Assistance
12. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Statistics: What is Statistics New Zealand doing to assist business?
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Minister of Statistics): Heaps. The successful Go Stats! seminars are shortly starting up again. These are a very popular way of distributing information to business. Statistics New Zealand is sponsoring an information zone at the Small Business Expos, and the Statistics New Zealand stand will show businesses how to use statistics products relevant to them. And last month free, detailed business demography data was released under the initiative to make information freely available. Previously, this information would have cost businesses around $500 for every request, but under this Labour-led Government it is now free.
Darien Fenton: I thank the Minister for his answer. Has the Budget initiative to make information freely available met the Government’s expectations in regard to business?
Hon DARREN HUGHES: Absolutely it has. The initiative to make information freely available aims to make over a quarter of a billion pieces of statistical information available for free. The value of this initiative in the period to the end of March was in excess of $19 million—money that ordinarily would have been charged to the business community. It represents huge value for New Zealand businesses, community organisations, and individuals.
Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I cannot see how nearly 30,000 New Zealanders leaving to go to Australia every year actually helps New Zealand businesses.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Would the member please be seated.
Nathan Guy: I seek leave to table the external migration figures for the year ended February 2008, showing that—
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Bills
Family Courts Matters Bill
Second Reading
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister for Courts: I move, That the Family Courts Matters Bill be now read a second time. The Family Courts Matters Bill is an omnibus bill that extends the openness of the Family Courts, introduces non-judicial mediation, makes a number of other useful improvements, and tidies up legislation designed to improve processes and procedures in the Family Courts.
A number of further changes to the bill were considered by the Social Services Committee, and I acknowledge the committee’s work, which has resulted in a number of useful improvements to the bill. The bill extends the openness of the Family Court along the same lines as those provided under the Care of Children Act. It was proposed that anyone could publish reports of proceedings unless a child or a vulnerable person was involved in the proceedings. A provision then allowed a child or a vulnerable person to publish a report, provided the publication did not include identifying information on other children or vulnerable persons. After considering submitters’ concerns that children and vulnerable persons may be manipulated, or may not understand the longer-term implications of their decision, that provision was removed from the bill and will remain a court decision.
This bill amends 12 different Acts. When the bill was introduced there were separate provisions in many of those Acts dealing with who could report on proceedings and general provisions in the Family Courts Act or other Family Court legislation. The reporting provisions are now to be consolidated into the Family Courts Act, which will make it easier for people to find and comply with them. Another change to the bill made at the select committee was to split the counselling and non-judicial mediation provisions between the Care of Children Act and the Family Proceedings Act. It is now proposed that the new and existing provisions for counselling and non-judicial mediation in respect of care arrangements for children are to be solely in the Care of Children Act, and those regarding relationship counselling are to be in the Family Proceedings Act.
For the purpose of reporting proceedings, the definition of “child” is amended to refer to people under 18 years of age, as the definition was not intended to refer to someone between the ages of 18 and 20 who is married, in a civil union, or in a de facto relationship.
The bill extends the existing provisions in relation to counselling through the Family Court to cover others involved in a child’s care, such as grandparents or other family members, who may now take part in counselling. The bill also introduces non-judicial or family mediation as an alternative means for parents to resolve their disputes without judicial involvement. Research tells us that mediation reduces conflict and enables families to reach agreements that are likely to be more flexible and durable than judicial decisions. Support people are able to attend the mediation, and children can also attend with the agreement of the mediator.
During the select committee process the Government considered the need for counselling for children, and it made several recommendations to the committee. The committee agreed to all the Government’s proposals, and those recommendations are now part of the bill. Three new provisions take a targeted approach to the provision of counselling for children. The first of those is to take better account of the views of children. The bill proposes that where parents agree, children may speak with a counsellor about what is important to them and what they would like their parents to know when they are making decisions about their care. The participation of children in this will be voluntary, as not all children will feel comfortable about participating in this process. The second type of counselling for children is to help those children who are taking part in family mediation. Children will be able to speak with a counsellor prior to mediation, to help them to formulate and clarify their views. Finally, counselling may be necessary in a small number of cases where the child has an exceptional need of assistance in accepting the terms of a court order, or would have difficulty in complying with the order.
I want to raise one matter that is outside the scope of the bill, but that has attracted some interest. It is the question of whether parentage testing to establish paternity should be compulsory. As the Government has said previously, paternity testing is a complex issue. There are questions about the extent to which adults and children should be forced to undergo a DNA test against their will, about the counselling and support that is needed to help people to make decisions to undergo testing and deal with any adverse consequences from a parentage test, and about the impact paternity testing has on informal adoptions. The Government has said it supports compulsory parentage testing in principle, subject to further policy consideration. However, the Family Courts Matters Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to implement what would be a significant policy change. I note that Judy Turner has recently introduced her Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill, and members will have the opportunity to consider parentage-testing issues in that context.
I also take this opportunity to signal my intention to introduce two Supplementary Order Papers. The first addresses two matters related to Family Court - directed supervised contact. The second enables the appointment of senior Family Court registrars. Government funding for supervised contact was introduced in the Care of Children Act 2004. The Supplementary Order Paper inserts new sections in the Domestic Violence Act in order to enable supervised contact to be funded in the same way as it is under the Care of Children Act. The other proposal is to allow Family Courts to approve supervised-contact providers in order to meet the demand for services in their region.
The second Supplementary Order Paper enables the appointment of senior Family Court registrars. This change has arisen as a consequence of submissions from the Law Commission and Family Court judges. Currently judges spend a significant amount of time performing administrative work, deflecting their ability to concentrate on case management and other matters requiring their expertise and authority. I propose that a new role is established, called the senior Family Court registrar. Senior Family Court registrars will hold quasi-judicial powers that will be broadly set out in the Act, with detailed provisions set out in regulations. Any appeal from any decision of a senior Family Courts registrar will be heard by a Family Court judge. Senior Family Court registrars are expected to have a positive impact on the performance of the Family Courts by alleviating current pressures on judicial resources and ensuring applications are dealt with more quickly, especially in the smaller courts.
The Family Court emphasises the importance of parents putting aside their grievances with each other in order to ensure the best long-term outcome for their children. The courts already provide a range of free services and information to assist parents to resolve disputes themselves, including counselling programmes and mediation. I am confident that this bill will further enhance the Family Courts and improve public understanding of how they operate, by making it easier for people to publish reports of proceedings while still protecting the privacy of children and vulnerable people. It will support people to resolve their disputes through counselling and mediation and to take better account of the needs of children, by involving them in counselling and mediation where appropriate. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): I rise to speak on this very important Family Courts Matters Bill, which the National Party is pleased to support. I note that in the first reading debate the Hon Rick Barker described this bill as pertaining just to technical changes. That is very far from the truth; in fact, there are some profoundly important changes relating to the openness of the court.
I believe that the Social Services Committee worked very well. It is always a pleasure to help keep the Labour Government from erring and straying unnecessarily, and some very positive results occurred through the select committee members working together on this legislation.
It is important to reiterate that the bill is a response to criticism from individuals, interest groups, and the media about the closed nature of the Family Court. I think it is relevant to once again say that much of what the bill incorporates is a result of two Law Commission reports: Dispute Resolution in the Family Court, released in 2003, and Delivering Justice For All, released in 2004. I note that an important balance is required, and this was made clear in the opening statement of the first reading debate. Any change to the openness of the Family Court must strike a balance between open justice and the privacy of the individuals, children, and families involved.
With regard to children’s privacy, I understand that the Australian system is entirely open and that individuals—particularly, vulnerable children—can from time to time be exposed to very serious intrusions on their privacy. On the other hand, the English Law Commission has stated: “What is more serious is that the parties and, more especially, their innocent children whose identity is frequently revealed as a result of the details which can be published, suffer the disturbing experience of having the most intimate details of the family life exposed. While it may be said that the parties have only themselves to blame, no such argument can apply to the children whose privacy the law takes pains to protect in other cases.”
The select committee has reported the bill back with suggested amendments, including protecting the disclosure of identifying information where a person under the age of 18 years is involved and broadening the definition of “vulnerable person”. These amendments are very important to what the bill is trying to do.
I must say that one of the very powerful submissions, to my mind, came from the Principal Family Court Judge, Judge Peter Boshier. He noticed how very important it is to have qualified expert counsellors, psychologists, and mediators. He noted that all of these people should be registered, that they should be subject to continuous quality control, and that there should be high standard of professional quality. He noted that judge-led mediation should be removed, which was very interesting to hear.
Judge Boshier pointed out that judges are able to sort out the legal aspects of disputes, but that the number of cases in which judges try to sort out who gets the child for Christmas Day swamp the courts—and, indeed, the courts are very swamped. He said that it is much better to have a well-trained mediator of high quality for those cases. He pointed out that the courts at present are given only 1½ hours for this process, whereas the mediation services have about 6 hours available.
Judge Boshier cited one very poignant case of a child aged 12, who said that he never wanted to see his father again. Judge Boshier took the effort to try to ask why the child had this response, but he could not find out through mediation or through any other way. Judge Boshier asked the boy whether, if he met his father on the footpath, he would say hello, and the boy said: “No, I would cross the road.” The response from the judge was: “This is particularly sad; in fact, profoundly so.” This is the sort of case where it is so important to have high-quality mediation and counselling available to individuals in the Family Court, so that at least individuals have the opportunity to be able to express their feelings, if they wish to.
I will not speak much longer on this bill, although there are many other points that I would like to make. One is the DNA testing one, and I think that Parliament should address this matter in the future. I just want to relate a experience that I had personally as registrar at National Women’s Hospital, when I was asked to go out to the Pukekohe Family Court to give expert witness evidence on a case where seven young men were being held responsible for having possibly fathered a child. As it happened, only one of them had any assets to his name and the ability to be able to support this woman and child. On my reckoning of the dates at the time, he was the least likely to have been the father, but, unfortunately, the judge nailed him as the one who was responsible. In this day and age, when we have DNA testing available, it is highly important that we use the new technology.
I will finish on that note. I will just say that National is pleased to be able to support the Family Courts Matters Bill going to the Committee stage.
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is good to have an opportunity to speak in the House again. I will, with the indulgence of the House, begin with a couple of comments about the select committee process, to pick up on comments that were made by Dr Hutchison during his speech. I have, obviously, just rejoined the select committee procedure, after about 8-plus years away from it as a member of the executive, and the observations I would make are these. I think the select committee procedure has matured quite a lot over the last 8 years. If people will think back to what we might call the bad old days of first past the post, I can recall going to select committees and arriving to find that a number of members had brought their mail, their papers, or whatever they had decided to do, because they felt that the select committee process was decided already because of the numbers that were on the side of whoever happened to be the Government. The Government members who were turning up knew they had the numbers and did not have to do anything, and quite often they did not; that included walking out in the middle of submissions that people might be giving, because they did not feel they needed to hear them. I remember saying to people at the time: “How can this be? We’re supposed to be professional people. We’re supposed to be doing a job of work here.” I was told by a chorus of people that the whole process was irrelevant anyway because the executive made all those decisions, and that I should just relax.
Now, jump forward to today. I joined a select committee that Dr Hutchison is on, and I found a pretty impressive process going on. It is well chaired by Russell Fairbrother. The leading person for the National Party is Judith Collins. We know that there are people on that committee who in other parts of their life would probably argue backwards and forwards about things, but there is a culture in there that says we should do a job of work there, because we are there to do that on behalf of the select committee. So we have people focusing on the issue; people have read the papers, they ask questions, and they are respectful to the people who have come along to make a submission. Those people feel well heard and go home happily.
I think that is a great part of Parliament that I have rejoined. I would make just one plea. I think having got this far, we should go further. I would hope that future Parliaments and their executives may decide to take the same pathway as the German Parliament and simply cut off the process of select committees from the executive, to say: “You get on with your job of work. You have your own role to play and the executive will receive bills back and get on with them.” I know this is something that perhaps people who have come in during the MMP era would feel more sympathy for than those who were here during the first past the post era, but I believe that as the balance of the House changes and more and more people are here from that time of MMP, they will see the value in having select committees carry on down the road of doing more and more of their own work, in the way that they appear to be doing now. I think it is a great transition that is going on; if it is given a little bit more of a shove, then we will have very, very professional activity going on in select committees. That will be appreciated by everybody once people get used to the independence of those select committees. So hopefully that will go on.
Hon David Cunliffe: Well, some are better than others.
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can hear a member of the executive saying, well, with a few reservations, and so on.
Hon David Cunliffe: Sounds like it’s already operating that way.
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is to a degree, and that is why I am saying I am impressed by it.
Chris Tremain: He’s impressed by it now that they’re on the other side.
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member on the other side, if I can say, says: “Now that they’re on the other side.” Actually, I used to argue it when I was in the executive, as well, for the very simple reason that I think if we have select committees that are neither fish nor fowl, it causes them a little bit of a wobble. It also causes everybody else that little bit of a wobble—what does a select committee do; how does it relate to the executive? My plea is it should be independent in the way that the German system is, and the executive then receives back the committee’s work and gets on with it. I think that would create the right kind of atmosphere for what we are trying to do.
Let me come back to the Family Courts Matters Bill itself, because, as I said, I thought the bill proceeded through in a way that was exemplary. We had good submissions, we had good discussions, and I hope we have ended up with something that takes this matter forward. It is a delicate issue; I have no reason to believe it will not be revisited for the following reasons. We know that people have come to all of our clinics, and so on, to talk to us about the Family Court, because it is perceived to be too closed. When we meet someone like Peter Boshier, we think the court is in very, very good hands and wonder what people are on about. Members will have read Peter Boshier’s papers where he quite rightly defends the court against a great deal of criticism; and, of course, a good deal of that criticism has come—
Dail Jones: Judge Peter Boshier.
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, sorry; Judge Peter Boshier is his full title. I am corrected by my friend Mr Dail Jones. Many of the critics of this are people who belong to men’s groups, who, on the whole, are people who have come together because of their own bitter experiences around their own relationships and they translate that often, I think a little unfairly, into their criticism of the Family Court. They have some criticisms that they ought to make—I think we would all make them—but I think undoubtedly they go a bit far. In this bill we have to remember that we have to balance the fact that we want some more openness in the court but we also want to recognise that there are people here who are making criticisms that go a step too far in relation to the court. Also, the court is dealing with extremely serious issues, often—always, in fact—dealing with children, and often involving people who may have a disability of one kind or another, as we were reminded in the select committee hearings.
We have tried to arrive at a reasonable balance between openness and the need for privacy when it should be there so that we do not have open disclosure of somebody who is quite young, for example. It may be said: “The child is 18. Let’s allow the disclosure. That’s a reasonable age for the child to be able to tell their own story.” But as someone else pointed out, that child undoubtedly has a brother or sister who happens to be 11, and is that younger child to be put in a situation where his or her life story is being told when he or she is not really of an age to understand the situation or to defend his or herself? We need to make sure those privacy provisions are there.
There are three other issues in the bill I would not mind just touching on, because they are quite important developments, I think. One of those issues is counselling. The issues that arise in the Family Court are almost without exception ones that are highly emotionally charged. By the time they get there anybody who has a connection with the family concerned is likely to be involved in some way; grandparents, grandchildren—all sorts of wider networked people for the family will be involved.
One of the things I like about the bill is that it extends the provision of counselling to a wider range of people and allows them to have access to that. Unless people have been through—or close to—these processes, it is hard to understand the level of meltdown that a family can get into once it gets to the court process. The court process often focuses on the immediate family, but there are many other people with a serious stake in a family by the time it gets to this stage of debate and they, too, often find themselves in situations where they do not cope so well and need to be able to turn to somebody—there is certainly nobody left in the family they can turn to because they are all busy arguing through the court process by this time and it has become quite bitter. I think extending the provision of counselling was a very good development on behalf of the Government and it has been well supported by the select committee.
We talked for a while about mediation and whether we ought to have a situation where mediation was compulsory so that people were forced to go off and have a discussion. In the end the select committee came to the same conclusion that most of the submitters did—that it is impossible to have people go off to compulsory mediation when they feel this badly about each other. They should be offered the voluntary chance to go and do this with an experienced person. If they can be made to understand that by sitting and talking about these issues with experienced mediators, allowing, when it is appropriate, their children to be part of that process, they could arrive at an answer that will settle them and there is a real chance for some forward movement. But if they do not go voluntarily by the time they have got to the court process, they are not going to do anything in the mediation process; they will just sit and wait until they can get back into court and have a legal go at each other once again. So hopefully people understand that the select committee was not averse to the idea that people would go off to counselling—it just felt that if it was not done by choice then nothing of merit would come of it.
The last thing I have to say is this. When I was Minister I extended the payment for supervised access to families, and I am pleased to see that we are extending it even further here. It is an extraordinary problem for families, many of whom have spent every last cent on the battle with each other, so that by the time they get to the point where they are having supervised access, they find they simply cannot afford to carry out the kind of orders that have been set down by the court because they cannot even drive the car from Masterton to Palmerston North, as one woman told me. That was because she could not afford a car and even if she did, she could not afford to put the gas in it. She had spent everything on the process of getting the whole thing settled.
Whatever happens, it is our responsibility as a society to ensure that those orders can be carried out. In many ways I do not have a lot of sympathy with the parents by the time it gets to that point but I certainly have sympathy with the children, and they should not be the ones who suffer from the activities of their parents. If the parents have bled themselves dry I still think I am happy as a citizen of this country that some of my money is spent on making sure those children can have access to their parents, who no doubt love them—they may not love each other, but they probably love their children and want to have access to them, and those children deserve to have it. I am pleased to see that supervision being extended.
I thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for allowing me to speak today and I thank the Social Services Committee. It is pretty heartening to see how this legislation can be treated. It has been done well.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I listened closely to that caring, sharing speech from the member for Palmerston North. I have to say that I agree with him about the principle of cooperation at the Social Services Committee, especially when one is dealing with extremely sensitive issues such as this, where there is a balancing act, which I will talk about in a few minutes.
But I was less than impressed to hear towards the end of the Minister’s speech that some Supplementary Order Papers are proposed, including a Supplementary Order Paper to deal with the role of senior Family Court registrars. I cannot understand it—and this is the second time I have said it this week: why is it beyond the wit of the Government and this Minister in particular to make sure that Opposition spokespeople get hold of the Supplementary Order Papers at the first available opportunity so they can be closely studied and so that there can be a sensible discussion? Earlier this week, in the context of the copyright legislation—again, very technical and important legislation—I received the Supplementary Order Paper on the morning of the debate. Quite frankly, it is hopeless. If the Government wants cooperation not just in the select committees but also when bills come back to the House for debate, particularly in the Committee stage, then I suggest that it has to cooperate with the Opposition a little bit more and make sure that the Supplementary Order Papers are provided earlier than they are being provided at the moment.
After I gave that little homily earlier in the week, I heard that the Hon Paul Swain, MP for Rimutaka, said that that was simply the way it was done, that it happened to them in the 1990s, that we would have to simply get on with it and live with it, and that if I am ever a Minister—and he hopes it will not happen during his lifetime—he would challenge me to make sure that this sort of thing does not happen again. I am happy to rise to that challenge. I give an undertaking to Mr Swain that if I am ever a Minister, particularly dealing with matters such as this, I will regard it as a very important undertaking to ensure that my Opposition number did have the Supplementary Order Papers at the earliest possible stage.
On the face of it, the idea of giving registrars greater responsibility is a very sensible measure. I for one have always believed that registrars, not only in the Family Court but in other courts, should have additional responsibilities in order to free up judges, so that judges can concentrate, as the Minister said, on case management and hearing cases. So a little bit of cooperation on these matters would go a long way, and I hope that I shall be able to see that Supplementary Order Paper very quickly.
The second thing Mr Maharey said—and it is a very sensible point—concerns mediation. The concept of compulsory mediation is, frankly, oxymoronic. People cannot be compelled to mediate. I tried it in the context of settling a fisheries dispute that followed the settlement of the Māori fisheries matter in the early 1990s. I tried to get some people on the Chathams to a compulsory mediation; it did not work. The essence of mediation is that it is consensual, and I completely agree with him that if people cannot be brought to the table to mediate by agreement, then it is best forgotten.
This is a very important bill and, as Dr Hutchison said, the National Party supports it. This legislation tries to address a very difficult balancing act, because it is a fundamental principle of our courts that they must be open to all—not only to the participants but also open to the public. There are very few exceptions to that fundamental principle in the context of civil litigation. On occasion, cases are heard in chambers, as Mr Dail Jones would know. They are normally routine matters involving matters of law only, so they can be brought before the judge without the need for members of the public to be present. On very, very rare occasions there will be an in-camera hearing—for example, if someone is giving evidence on a complex commercial matter, a patent matter, or something like that, and the evidence, if given in public, would cause major harm.
So that is the general principle and, as I said, it relates to civil litigation. It is much more difficult when one is dealing with family litigation, because of the kinds of factors that Mr Maharey mentioned, so a complex balancing act is undertaken. I think that this bill is a valiant effort to open the Family Courts to a little more sunlight while retaining the very real need to ensure that the welfare of children in particular is preserved. In many respects this is the most difficult sort of litigation. It is very sensitive stuff, and one has to tread very warily.
I am very much looking forward to the Committee stage, because a number of matters are going to arise where I think we as legislators will have to spend a little bit of time and descend to the detail. Let me give members one illustration. New section 46D, inserted by clause 9, talks about the “Duty of lawyers to promote reconciliation and conciliation”. Actually, that heading could be slightly misleading, because subsection (1) does not exactly address that. But I will be interested to learn from the Minister whether this creates a new duty on lawyers. I will be interested to know what will happen, for example—and Mr Jones, as a lawyer, may be interested in this—if someone decides that a lawyer has not promoted reconciliation or mediation. Could there be an action against that lawyer for breach of some kind of statutory duty? The general rule is that I do not owe any obligations to the other side; I owe my duties to the court and to my client. I think that that provision will give rise to some interesting questions, and I think that we as legislators owe it to the profession to give that a little more thought during the Committee stage.
As we know, the bill breaks up the various Family Court provisions and puts them in particular Acts. I think there is quite a lot of over-prescriptive legislation in this particular bill. Let me give members some examples. The first example is clause 44. It can be found in Part 6, which amends the Family Courts Act 1980. Clause 44 deals with the avoidance of unnecessary formality. It amends the Act so that a judge sitting in the Family Court may wear a gown but must not wear a wig, and so that a lawyer appearing in a Family Court must not wear a gown or a wig. To me, that is just an example of typical, overly prescriptive Labour legislation.
Why does one need that provision in the legislation? As a matter of practice, as far as I am aware, ever since the Family Courts were created, judges have never worn wigs. Wigs, indeed, have been out of date in the general jurisdiction since 1996 when they were abolished in the superior courts, the rationale being that to wear a headpiece made of horse hair in the style of some 18th century fop did not necessarily increase one’s mental acuity, and I tend to agree with that. I do not think that a lot of this stuff is needed. It is overly prescriptive and overly wordy, which is the style of legislation these days, and I do not approve of it.
None the less, this bill does raise, as I said, some very sensitive and important matters. I think a good effort has been made by the Social Services Committee to weigh up the various considerations, which are often competing—on the one hand, the desire for privacy when one is dealing with this very difficult litigation and, on the other hand, that general principle I referred to that the courts of the land must be open to all. I very much look forward to the Committee stage, but I do say there are some matters that we should not lightly gloss over, because there are some important consequences we will have to talk about.
DAIL JONES (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I tell the House that we support the Family Courts Matters Bill. I was very interested in Mr Christopher Finlayson’s undertaking that if he ever becomes a Minister, he will provide the Opposition with his Supplementary Order Papers at the earliest possible moment. He has put himself rather in the case of the policeman giving a warning to a person. His undertaking has been noted, and if he ever graces the Government benches, it will be used against him at the very first opportunity—which probably will not take very long, in the way that things go. So he has made a very dangerous comment there.
I have looked at this legislation. I was not in the House when it was introduced, but I have been through the bill. I probably would have been in the House even in 1980, when some of the legislation was first passed. The Care of Children Act was passed in 2004, when I was here. I think I have practised in cases relating to all but two of the 11 Acts that are referred to in the legislation. Those two Acts concern mental health and stability legislation, relating to an area that I am very pleased to have never practised in. It is a very difficult area and, as Dr Hutchison would probably know, it requires specialised legal expertise of the sort that I do not have.
This bill is good, basic, general law, which is of great importance in the family law area. As Mr Maharey pointed out, most of this legislation, in so far as the Family Court is concerned, really relates to the situation of two people who have just hated each other so much that they cannot reconcile their differences in any way whatsoever and finally have to go to court to do so. I have been out of the House for a couple of years and have come back again, and have experienced one or two of these cases as counsel. It is really sad when we see that type of case happen. One feels that one’s client is right and that the other counsel’s client is wrong, but it is terribly sad.
Fortunately, very few of these cases end up in court. In New Zealand people do tend to see sense. They realise that the relationship has come to an end. They can work out who gets what and they realise that, in the interests of the child, the party who has the greatest amount of time will look after the child and will agree that the other party will have plenty of access to the child. Often the party who has the day-to-day care—as it is now called instead of custody—is very relieved that the children go to the other side once a fortnight, so that that party can have a bit of a break. People with common sense realise that that is the very least that one can do—to give oneself a break and to have a bit of free time away from the children, knowing they are in the good care of the other partner. Sadly, that is not the case with some separations, and although probably less than 0.5 percent of separations—I hope—in New Zealand end up in court, those in that 0.5 percent cause us a tremendous amount of difficulty.
I started reading through the bill and got a bit of a start, a bit of a surprise, when I was looking at the Adoption Act amendment. Section 22(1), to be inserted into the Adoption Act by clause 4 of the bill, refers to attendance at hearings. It allows attendance at hearings of an application for adoption in certain circumstances. Section 22(1)(e) states that “accredited news media reporters” may attend hearings, which took me by surprise a bit—and I think it will take most lawyers and other people by surprise—until I looked at the next page. There we realise that in section 22(5) a judge can turn that provision around. It is a very clumsy way of doing the legislation, I would have thought. People need to be warned not to jump up and down when they see section 22(1)(e), because for some reason, instead of stating “subject to subsection (5)” etc., it states that accredited news media reporters can be in court. But I am sure that that matter will be worked out.
In respect of the part of the bill on the Care of Children Act 2004, I take the point that has just been made by Mr Chris Finlayson about the duty of lawyers to promote reconciliation and conciliation with regard to section 46D, which is to be inserted into the Care of Children Act by clause 9 of the bill. This is not a new requirement. In a general sense it was in the 1980 Act and all lawyers have had to promote reconciliation and conciliation in order to advise their clients. It is the first thing lawyers must tell clients who are starting to tell them about their problems and saying that they will leave their partners. Lawyers have a duty to ask clients whether they want to reconcile. They have to ask that question and make a note on the file that they have asked it. This legal requirement slipped away in the early 1990s, I think, but it is in the original statute. The Law Society had to put out some sort of a warning on that point, and I assume that lawyers are starting to ask that question again. If lawyers do not ask that question, then they could be in trouble—ethically, at least—with the Law Society.
However, section 46D seems to take it a lot further, as Mr Chris Finlayson has said. I am concerned that the compulsory nature of promoting reconciliation will be a problem. It seems to require that one must ensure that the facilities for promoting and reconciliation exist and must “take such further steps as in the opinion of the lawyer may assist in promoting reconciliation or, if reconciliation is not possible, conciliation.” That goes a lot further than the present requirement does, and I would just ask who will pay for this. When people in this situation go to see a lawyer, all they really want to do is separate from their partner, but here we have the lawyer being required by this statute to promote this approach in an active and fairly detailed sort of way.
It is very difficult in many of these cases for those people, because they are doing it on legal aid. We all know about the poor rates of legal aid that exist today. We know, for example, as has already been mentioned in the House today, that in Blenheim there might be no lawyers prepared to do legally aided cases. So what happens in Blenheim if someone there wants to separate? What happens in Nelson or in many parts of New Zealand where lawyers have refused to do legally aided cases because of the ridiculous rate of pay? I think that the rate of pay in criminal legal aid is the same as it was in 1996. I ask who in this House would be prepared to work on an MP’s salary at 1996 rates. Who in New Zealand would work at such rates? Well, Mr Clarkson would be prepared to do it; I will just leave it at that! Some people can afford to do that in the old, gentlemanly way, but other people do need some kind of a standard of living brought about by their role as a member of Parliament. Very few of us in this country can now afford to work at 1996 pay rates. I suspect that we should look again at section 46D and at the obligations put on lawyers to get conciliation under way, because we are not making any provision for lawyers to be paid. As we know, many times when people go to their lawyer, whether today or in the past, they are so burdened by mortgage payments, insurance payments, and other things that they can hardly manage to pay the lawyer for the main part of the work, let alone having this extra burden placed upon them. That provision looks good and it is a great idea. It exists at the moment, but we will have to wait and see how well it works in practice.
The other area I was interested in is in regard to the provisions in Part 2, which amends the Care of Children Act 2004. In particular I am interested in clause 19, “Reports from other persons”. Clause 19(2) states that if the court is satisfied that it is necessary for the proper disposition of an application, it may request various reports such as a psychological report. I know from my own experience in the courts in the Auckland area that a judge can make an order requiring, as a result of a conference, the preparation of a psychological report, and 3 months later not even a request has been made by the court staff for the report to be sent to a particular psychologist. There are grave problems in the administration of the system. It is all very well having a provision in the Act saying that we will get these reports, but I ask what is being done in the actual administration of the Act to make sure that it is happening promptly.
In the particular case I have in mind, I am pleased to have put the case to the Minister’s office. I put it to the Minister today, but just a few days ago the particular people involved ordered that the report be under way. To take 3 months for a psychological report to be sought is going a bit far. The case occurred in Mr Cunliffe’s area, and I am sure he will take a closer interest in this particular court to make sure that his constituents are well looked after. I hope it was just a glitch—these things can happen—but people are keeping an eye on things.
In this legislation I was interested in the provisions regarding the involvement of the media. I will be very interested to hear in the Committee stage precisely what these provisions mean. This bill is essentially technical and New Zealand First supports it.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I call Te Ururoa Flavell.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Beautiful, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora rawa atu. Tēnā tātou katoa e hoa mā i tēnei ahiahi.
[Well done. Greetings to us all this afternoon, fellow colleagues.]
The Family Courts Matters Bill, according to the commentary on the bill, seeks to make Family Court proceedings more open and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Family Courts. In giving consideration to matters covered in the Family Court, I say that the goal is all well and good, but it would be our observation that there seems to be a preoccupation with adult problems that have the harshest impact on children, or a focus on restoring relationships between former partners at the expense of the child. We say that there is a need to get it right, to stop the cycle, and to restore wellness, hauora, and well-being to the whānau, if we are to prevent sad life stories playing out in subsequent generations, as alluded to by Mr Jones. To that end, the Māori Party has a keen interest in ensuring that the promise of the Law Commission report of “delivering justice for all” will be given priority through the Family Courts Matters Bill.
We are pleased to see that two very significant issues have been raised by submitters—the proper protection of the children in court proceedings, and the provision of counselling for children. Both of those issues, we believe, have been addressed through the select committee process. We are particularly pleased to see protections in place to ensure that the leave of the court must be sought before reports on Family Court proceedings involving vulnerable persons or children can be published. We agree with the focus of the family violence protection alliance that the proposed greater openness of the Family Court needs to be balanced with protecting a child’s right to privacy and the paramount need for his or her protection and safety. It was the recommendation of the alliance that detailed guidelines need to be provided to the news media about what can be published when a child is the subject of proceedings.
I recall the devastating photographs published last August of a young boy battered to death by his mother and her partner. At the time, the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Cindy Kiro, spoke out about a horrifying email petition that was circulating the autopsy photograph. She said: “Circulating them allows for further abuse in death of a child who was abused in life”. That matter was a cause for concern, and it was one that was close to the heart of my colleague Tariana Turia, who some years ago laid an official complaint against Television New Zealand for allowing footage to be shown featuring a tūpāpaku, the body of a murdered child. Although both of these actions represent the extreme end of the continuum, they illustrate how blasé some of our media have become about what information should become public fodder. We hope the advice of the family violence prevention alliance will be taken into account in the amended reporting provisions, to ensure the ongoing and further protection of vulnerable persons.
The other significant advance in this bill is the three amendments that extend counselling services to children. We note the view of the Families Commission that recent research shows that child-inclusive mediation lowers parental conflict and greatly enhances conciliation. We were, however, concerned that the needs of Māori and other cultural groups have not been adequately covered in looking at how groups may wish to access conciliation services. The bill has respected the right of children to have access to counselling, which also helps them to distil their views prior to mediation.
That is all well and good, but the crucial feature missing from the bill is the need to provide more fully and appropriately for whānau. I remind the House that the current demographics indicate that one in four children under 5 is Māori, and that the trend is all about growth in terms of a young Māori population. Although the Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act 1989 made specific provisions for whānau, hapū, and iwi involvement in decision making about the lives of children and young persons, there are other pieces of legislation that feed into the Family Court that do so without necessarily considering Māori views regarding whānau. Legislation such as the Guardianship Act 1968 and the Domestic Violence Act 1995 can also result in the involvement of the Family Court, as does the Care of Children Act 2004 and the Family Proceedings Act 1980.
In this respect I was very impressed with the joint submission from Te Korowai Aroha and Relationship Services Whakawhanaungatanga. While Te Korowai Aroha has been operating for some 16 years, delivering culturally appropriate services to tangata whenua, Relationship Services Whakawhanaungatanga is the single biggest provider of counselling services to the Family Court. Therefore, the collective authority of these organisations is pretty much beyond doubt. Their view was that as Te Tiriti o Waitangi promised to protect Māori custom and cultural values, Māori expect that the Family Court and its processes should promote partnership between Māori and the Crown. They went further and constructed a model of practice that represents the development of a parallel process, which reflects Māori world views. Some of the guiding principles that would underpin such a process include every Māori child having whakapapa; tamariki Māori belonging to whānau, hapū, and iwi; the rights and responsibilities for raising children being shared; and children having rights and responsibilities to their whānau.
The submission from Amokura, a collaborative iwi-led community change initiative to address family violence in Te Tai Tokerau, reflected this same commitment to seeking alignment of the new policies and procedures to tikanga Māori. The Amokura project advocates the recognition of whakapapa, whanaungatanga, and the roles and responsibilities of whānau, hapū, and iwi. Amokura also highlighted that seeking recognition of the significance of whakapapa in Family Court dealings, in respect of whānau Māori, requires an understanding that the broader whānau, other than birth parents, also have responsibilities and obligations in determining the future of tamariki Māori. It is not simply a matter of mum and dad and the nuclear family. Whānau oranga, whānau well-being, is absolutely linked to child well-being, and the reverse applies.
The significance of whānau was given explicit recognition in another model put forward by Te Korowai Aroha o Aotearoa and Relationship Services Whakawhanaungatanga. They endorsed a proposal for non - judge-led whānau mediation, seeing it as a crucial means of respecting whānau involvement at all levels of decision making. Te Korowai Aroha has trained and licensed some 250 whānau practitioners from across 70 Māori social and health non-governmental organisation providers in whānau conciliation practices. The very successful project called Project Mauriora is in itself based on Māori mediation and conciliation practices. The organisation estimates that it has worked with 19,000 whānau in the past 5 years, and one would imagine that 19,000 whānau cannot be wrong.
Although the submissions referred to lent their support to the bill—a position that clearly influences us in the Māori Party—it was ultimately disheartening to read the select committee report and see that there was no reference to non - judge-led whānau mediation, that there was no reference to the crucial role that whānau, hapū, and iwi play in resolving disputes, and that there was not even a cursory acknowledgement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We will support the bill at the second reading, but we hope to anticipate changes at the Committee of the whole House stage that will reflect the very useful contributions made by Māori throughout the consultation process.
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): It is a pleasure to stand and speak very briefly—because I am not in much of a condition to speak too much today—on the Family Courts Matters Bill. I am a relatively new member of the Social Services Committee, but I acknowledge my good friend Russell Fairbrother who I think does an excellent job chairing the committee. I also acknowledge all the members of the committee who worked on the bill, because I think there was a genuine commitment to working through the issues and ensuring that when the bill came back to the House, it was as transparent as possible and also recognised the rights of our young people in this country.
It is very important legislation and there is far more fairness and transparency. I know that it will have a positive impact on our families who need to go through the Family Court process. In saying that, I can see Mr Clarkson over there smiling in a friendly way, nodding and endorsing what I say, and that is a very good thing. It does not always happen in this House.
We recognise that the Family Court is the last call in the process, and we always wish to see matters—particularly in the care of children—resolved in families far before they go to the court process. In most cases, they are. When it gets to issues not being resolved before that, and it is necessary for attendance at the Family Court, there is more openness in the proceedings. I think that the requirement or the provision for non-judicial mediation is very good and enhances the bill. It means that there is more opportunity to resolve issues without going to court.
Some of the more notable changes include identifying the information about those under 18; that information is protected from disclosure. That is very important. We had considerable discussion around counselling for children, and we wanted to extend the right for children to be directed to counselling if it would help. We know that often when there are court orders the changes in a young person’s life—certainly intended to be in his or her interests—can still be difficult, especially for children, to comply with or accept. Often in such instances counselling is a very valuable and helpful thing. Another change, that guardianship disputes are referred to mediation with a lawyer acting in the interests of the child, is also beneficial.
I know that many organisations have supported the bill. I have been told that Relationship Services helped 8,600 parents last year, and that this bill and the further improvements made by the select committee were welcomed by that organisation. I am not supposed to be speaking too much with my laryngitis, but I just could not help myself from jumping to my feet and saying a few things in support of this bill. Thank you. I commend it to the House.
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central): I will take a similarly brief call on the Family Courts Matters Bill. I was really inspired by the words of Steve Maharey earlier, when he reflected on the way that select committees are working very much more effectively than prior to MMP being introduced. Now we have much more of a cross-party nature to the work of select committees, and also committees are able to follow themes. In saying that, I just want to reflect on the fact that when I chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee—
Hon David Cunliffe: A fine chairman.
TIM BARNETT: I thank my colleague very much—and we dealt with the Care of Children Bill, we listened very carefully to the submitters who came to us on this very matter. As a result of that, we made a number of changes beyond the bill that was presented to our committee. The changes were around trying to open up the Family Court, in terms of who can attend the court and what can be reported, particularly in respect of guardianship issues.
I think all of us who do a lot of local casework as members of Parliament are well aware of the continued frustration of many in relation to Family Court matters. The moves in this legislation continue the trend that we began under the Care of Children Bill. They are extremely welcome. They spread throughout the other parts of the Family Court and also take things just a little further, in terms of the depth and breadth of service, particularly with the introduction of non-judicial mediation. Many of us who maybe doubted the validity of some of what we were being told, on hearing the story of these cases, recognised that the winners in these cases are very often the lawyers on both sides, in terms of the money they receive. The frustration of people on both sides—among both parties—is great.
It seems to me that the Social Services Committee, in working with this bill, has taken things further than the current legislation in a really positive way. I am very happy to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) on behalf of the Minister of Energy: I move, That the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill will assist domestic electricity consumers. The bill really has two parts and purposes. Clause 4(1) of the bill amends the definition of a low-use consumer set out in section 172B(2) of the Electricity Act 1992. This will allow regulations to be made that will enable a greater number of low-use consumers of the lower South Island to benefit from a low fixed-charge tariff option. This part of the bill will also extend the Minister’s powers to grant exemptions from applications of the regulations to electricity distributors or retailers. This change is directed at small, isolated networks that are not connected to the national grid, where the cost of servicing customers can be far higher than is normal for grid-connected networks. This exemption is not automatic but is subject to an application verifying that because of the small size of the network and its position, a low fixed-charge tariff would not be beneficial to all consumers overall.
The low fixed-charge regulations were introduced in 2004, with the purpose of assisting low-use domestic consumers and to encourage energy efficiency. Prior to the introduction of the regulations, low-use consumers in many areas faced unreasonably high fixed daily charges for their limited or low electricity usage. The introduction of the regulations provided these low-use consumers with a tariff option that was more equitable for low energy usage and was compatible with the Government’s energy efficiency objectives. The regime particularly benefits small, low-use households, including older people on fixed benefits, by lowering their fixed energy costs. These regulations require electricity networks and retailers to make available a low fixed-charge tariff option to all domestic consumers whom they service and who have consumption rates at their primary dwelling of less than 8,000 kilowatts per annum. This bill alters the definition of a low fixed-charge consumer from a fixed threshold of 8,000 kilowatts currently defined in the Act to a definition to be provided in the regulations, so that the different regional locations and averages can be used.
Once the bill is passed the Minister will finalise new regulations that are currently under development, which will address any inequality currently being experienced by South Island electricity consumers. At the moment, 52 percent of households in and to the north of Auckland are on a low fixed-charge tariff, whereas only 9 percent of households in and to the south of Christchurch are on the tariff. Many in the lower South Island are missing out on the opportunity to take advantage of this rate of low electricity, due in part to the colder weather in these regions. The benefits, although not large, are material for some people. These new regulations will set the lower South Island threshold at 9,000 kilowatts, which is the average domestic consumption level for this region.
The second part of the bill responds to concerns about the disconnection practices of electricity retailers, particularly in relation to vulnerable consumers. The bill amends the Electricity Act so that the regulations can be set if electricity retailers do not follow the new disconnection guidelines developed by the Electricity Commission. The revised guideline on arrangements to assist low-income and vulnerable customers contains significantly improved arrangements, in relation to disconnection of vulnerable consumers. Significant improvements include retailers, first, reporting on compliance annually and explaining any non-compliance; second, having a process for identifying vulnerable customers; third, ensuring that disconnection notices contain information on where to obtain assistance and details on the costs of the disconnection; fourth, ensuring that all reasonable efforts have been made to contact the person, including at least one visit to the premises, if necessary, prior to disconnection; and, fifth, providing suitable training to staff and contractors interacting with consumers on overdue bills or involved in identifying vulnerable consumers. Further, retailers are compelled to follow a process to obtain the authorisation of consumers to consult the Ministry of Social Development prior to disconnecting any vulnerable consumer, and not to disconnect any consumer who is dependent on electricity for critical medical support. The revised guideline places responsibility on electricity retailers to identify vulnerable consumers and then consult Work and Income prior to disconnecting their power supply.
To give effect to the revised guideline Work and Income, together with the Electricity Commission and electricity retailers, developed a set of business processes that would guide how they work with one another to support vulnerable and low-income consumers. These processes were implemented in October 2007. There has been ongoing communication between Work and Income, the Electricity Commission, and retailers to ensure these processes work for all stakeholders and ensure low-income and vulnerable consumers have access to all of the support available to them. This bill will enable regulations to be made that may regulate for arrangements regarding the process for disconnection following non-payment of accounts, re-connection, billing information, and processes for alternative payment options such as smoothed payments, the redirection of income and debt recovery, and the process for identifying—
Phil Heatley: Well, the member can read, anyway.
Hon MAHARA OKEROA: —I cannot say that for the member; I will put him as being part of the illiterate—consumers who would be at risk if their electricity was disconnected. The regulation-making powers in the bill will act as an important backstop if the voluntary process proves to be ineffective.
The Minister has been pleased with the attitudes shown by retailers regarding disconnections over the last 10 months. The number of disconnections has dropped significantly and steadily, from between 5,000 to 6,000 per month to 1,000 to 2,000 per month. The Electricity Commission has reported that retailers have been fully compliant with the guidelines. The commission will continue to monitor retailers’ compliance and publish disconnection statistics on its website. The Minister’s expectation at this time is that regulation-making powers will not need to be used but their existence will act as a deterrent for the industry against reverting to its old ways.
In conclusion, I would like to commend the Commerce Committee for its work on the bill and I also thank those who made submissions on it. This bill has widespread support from within Parliament and also from the outside. I commend the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill to the House and move that it be now read a third time. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): Mr Maharey might be able to afford to eat his lunch in this Parliament, Labour Party members might be able to afford to eat their lunch here, and National Party members also eat their lunch in the proper confines of Copperfields, where we are supposed to do that sort of stuff. But we have people across this country who cannot afford to pay their electricity bills. They cannot afford to pay their electricity bills or go to the supermarket and buy a block of cheese, a bottle of milk, or some lunch for Mr Maharey. They cannot go to the service station and fill up their petrol tank or their diesel tank. They are being taxed to death on everything they do, whether it is accident compensation levies, personal income taxes, petrol taxes, taxes on this, and taxes on that.
The situation in this country is that interest rates are going up, taxes are going up, petrol prices are going up, the price of Steve Maharey’s lunch is going up, rents are going up, and power prices are going up. We have a Minister who stands up in this Chamber and says that it is good news for New Zealanders that when electricity companies cut off their power they will not do it in a couple of weeks but they will spread it out; they will wait for a month. Electricity companies will cut off people’s power, but not in 2 weeks’ time; they will cut it off in a month’s time.
The Government is not so worried about the fact that people are in poverty because of the cost of food, rent, petrol, taxes, and everything else. The Government is saying that it will arrange it so that those people can pay their electricity bills, if they can afford them, over a 12-month period instead of monthly. The Government will smooth out the pain for them. It will drag out the pain for them.
I argue in this Chamber today that the Labour Government, rather than saying it will drag out the pain for people or that it will not cut off their electricity in 2 weeks’ time but will wait for a month—it will cut them 2 weeks’ slack—should be saying that it will lower their taxes, get interest rates under control, get the economy running so that petrol prices and transport costs are not going through the roof, supply housing so that rents are not going through the roof, and somehow make it easier for businesses so that the cost of a block of cheese, a bottle of milk, and every other basic dietary supplement that we eat is not going through the roof. Those are the things that we will address.
The former MP from Taupō—“Sam the Eagle”—may be sitting in that seat there, remembering the good old days when he was a Minister. He should remember that he had his chance to help struggling Kiwis, the most vulnerable, and he failed. He should not be voting for a bill that delays cutting off electricity; he should have looked at interest rates, petrol prices, and everything else.
National will be voting for this legislation, but it goes a very, very small way towards helping the poor. “Sam the Eagle” from Taupō had his chance. He is now a backbencher. What we are saying now is that it is actually John Key and his team who will help the underclass, not those guys. The country is looking forward to it.
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs): Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. I rise to speak in support of the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. I rise also to honour a mother, wife, daughter, sister, auntie, cousin, and friend—a woman of the Pacific. Folole Muliaga was a 44-year-old mother of four children. She worked as a preschool teacher at the local aoga amata—Samoan preschool—and she cared for her community. She was working hard to provide for her family. She was also studying to further educate herself.
Like many Pacific Islanders, Mr and Mrs Muliaga left their homes, families, and country to come to New Zealand in order to provide their children with education and opportunity. They worked very hard so that they would be able to succeed. Mrs Muliaga and her husband were low-income earners living in Māngere and were working hard to stay on top of their finances. This became even more difficult when Mrs Muliaga was hospitalised, and the family got behind in paying their power bill.
As members of Parliament, it is a story that we have heard before from our constituents. As a Labour-led Government we have worked hard to ensure that those who need it most are supported, especially when times are tough. Numerous policies are aimed at families like the Muliagas, such as Working for Families, increases to the minimum wage, income-related rents, and cheaper doctors’ visits—the list goes on and on. None of us expected that the tragic circumstances around Mrs Muliaga’s death could ever happen in New Zealand. As we know, she was using an electrically powered oxygen machine when her family’s power was disconnected because of an overdue account.
Her death was unnecessary and terribly saddening, and it shocked us as a nation. I will never forget the tears of sadness when, together with the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, some of us visited the Muliaga family. There is a Samoan proverb that goes like this: “Ua tagi le fatu ma le eleele”—the stones and the earth wept. The expression designates great sorrow at the death of a loved one. “A ua toe fa’e’e le manuia ma le filemu tumau”—after the event, peace and tranquillity prevail.
The way the Muliaga family have dealt with the death of their loved one illustrates to all New Zealanders the spirit of forgiveness and the humanity of how Pacific people can deal with tragedy, leading to healing and reconciliation. The contractor who cut the power and the electricity provider, Mercury Energy and Mighty River Power, were invited by the family to Mrs Muliaga’s funeral. The family said they had only love for the contractor, not hate. That kindness and alofa is extremely admirable and inspirational. I am not sure that many of us could say that we would be so forgiving if we lost a much-loved mother and wife in these kinds of circumstances.
Since this tragedy, the Electricity Commission has worked with electricity retailers, Government departments, and community organisations to develop guidelines for dealing with disconnections for low-income and vulnerable consumers. These guidelines ensure that regulations are in place to protect vulnerable consumers and those reliant on electricity for medical equipment to maintain life. This bill ensures—
Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to my colleague, but, frankly, for Mr Clarkson to yell out for the fourth time “Pay your bills.” in the circumstances in which the member is speaking is callous, heartless, and offensive. I take deep personal offence at his behaviour. I ask that the member be asked to withdraw and apologise and to desist from that shameful behaviour.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): The member takes offence.
Bob Clarkson: Sorry, that’s his problem.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I am sorry, you are being asked to withdraw and apologise. That is the custom.
Bob Clarkson: I’ll leave the Chamber, Madam Assistant Speaker.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): That means that you cannot come back unless you withdraw and apologise.
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN: These guidelines ensure that regulations are in place to protect vulnerable consumers and those reliant on electricity for medical equipment to maintain life. This bill ensures that the Government can regulate the content of those regulations if electricity retailers do not adhere to them voluntarily. I am pleased to hear that electricity retailers have taken this issue very seriously and have been voluntarily implementing practices for their vulnerable and medically dependent consumers. I am told that in communities like Māngere, these guidelines are already making a real difference.
Ensuring that we take social responsibility for our vulnerable or disadvantaged, whether it be because of age, health, disability, income, culture, or language, is vital for all members of our community and our society. Strong communities and cultures are building blocks for nationhood and our identity as New Zealanders. We all have a role to play.
As a proud New Zealand - born Samoan, I know that my community is based on families and extended families. The Samoan words are “aiga” and “aigapotopoto”. Many other Pacific Island communities are based on similar values, as well. In turn, our community is based on the Samoan values of alofa, fa’aaloalo, and agaga—love, respect, reciprocity, and spirituality—which are important values to live by and to base communities on.
The circumstances of Mrs Muliaga’s death have highlighted that we need to ensure that our Government agencies, community providers, and electricity retailers are connecting with all of our grassroots communities. We need to work together to ensure that help and assistance are reaching those in our community they are designed to reach. Information needs to be accessible and available, and our people need to be encouraged to seek help when they need it.
This bill is a result of our Government taking this issue very seriously, protecting our disadvantaged, and ensuring the well-being of all of our families and children in New Zealand. I am very proud to be part of a Labour-led Government that encourages protection for some of the most vulnerable in New Zealand society. Labour will always go in to bat for those who are struggling and in need.
As I support this bill in its third reading, I, and we all, remember Folole Muliaga. I think of her children and husband, extended family, and community, who have lost so much. I hope that this legislation ensures that a tragedy like this never happens again. Fa’afetai tele lava.
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): I follow a Labour speaker who has indicated support for this legislation, and that is assuredly National’s position also. We support the passage of the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill.
The previous speaker, Winnie Laban, spoke on only one aspect of the bill: that which touched on the question of the vulnerability of particular consumers. The bill is actually wider than that; it has two unrelated purposes. The first part of the bill amends the definition of “low-use consumer” in section 172B of the Electricity Act, so that regulations can be made that will enable a greater number of low-use consumers in the lower South Island to benefit from a low fixed-charge tariff option. The second part of the bill—which the previous speaker addressed—amends the Electricity Act to ensure that regulations can be made in relation to the content of the disconnection guidelines developed by the Electricity Commission. I will deal just very briefly with both parts.
First, I will provide some background on the issue of low fixed charges. In 2004 the Electricity Act was amended to enable the making of regulations that required a low fixed-charge tariff option for low-use domestic consumers. The regulations made under that Act were made for the purpose of assisting low-use domestic customers and to encourage energy efficiency. Obviously, with high fixed charges consumers gain very little financial benefit from reducing their consumption. The regulations required networks and retailers to make available a low fixed-charge tariff option to all domestic consumers whom they service who have consumption at their primary dwelling of less than 8,000 kilowatt hours per annum. The same threshold was used across the entire country.
The review that was carried out by the Ministry of Economic Development identified that an adjustment to the eligibility threshold was warranted, because far fewer consumers are on the low fixed-charge tariff in the lower South Island than in other parts of the country. So, really, this part of the legislation is about providing a framework to set for the lower South Island—the area from Christchurch southwards, excluding the West Coast—a threshold of 9,000 kilowatt hours per annum, which is the average domestic consumption level for that region. An amendment to the Act is required before the eligibility criteria can be adjusted.
In respect of the second part of the bill—which concerns changes to the electricity governance regulations—it is a trite saying, a matter of legal principle, that hard cases make bad law. The previous speaker dealt with the circumstances surrounding the Muliaga death. This is not a case where hard cases make bad law, and these changes are clearly warranted. The bill responds in an effective way to concerns about the disconnection practices of electricity retailers, particularly in relation to vulnerable consumers.
Other members have explained, and will continue to explain, aspects of the bill. Suffice it to say that National supports this legislation. That is to be seen from the fact that when the bill went to the Commerce Committee, it came back with no changes made to it.
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): As previous speakers from National have indicated, we will be supporting the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. Although most speakers have focused on the tragedy that happened earlier on, I will direct my comments to the low fixed charges, which are addressed in clause 4 of this bill. It is interesting that this bill does not have any parts; it only has five clauses, and clause 4, “Low fixed charge tariff option for domestic consumers”, is one that most people other than Richard Worth have not spoken on. Most speakers have concentrated on clause 5, “Electricity governance regulations”.
Back in 2002 the Government proposed that low-use domestic electricity consumers be offered a low fixed-charge tariff option with the objective to “Ensure that electricity retailers offer a low fixed charge tariff option or options for the delivered electricity to domestic consumers at their principal place of residence that will assist low-use consumers and encourage energy conservation.” So that was the genesis of what the changes in 2002 were designed to do. We found that there was to be a regulator. This was put in the hands of the Electricity Commission, which was given the responsibility to monitor compliance with the regulations that were promulgated at that time. So the question has to be asked: if we already have a regulator in place, what is the need for this particular bill?
As I said earlier, the bill covers two parts—although it does not have parts, it covers two major issues—and this would indicate to us that the Electricity Commission has not been able to achieve what was set out in that deliberation back in 2002. If we were to look at some of the flaws that are there—which the bill does not address, but I think are significant and need to be highlighted—we would see that the low fixed-charge tariff is calculated so that the consumer’s electricity cost versus the standard option is neutral at the average of 8,000 kilowatts consumption level. The 8,000 kilowatts are mentioned in the introductory comments to the bill. Consumers who are using less than 8,000 are being subsidised by those consumers who are using more than 8,000 kilowatts. Therefore, the lower the consumption below the average, the greater the subsidy. Many low users who use a lot fewer than 8,000 kilowatts on average are not contributing towards even the electricity cost of overheads including network charges, let alone providing a margin to the retailer or the distributor.
Of course, the regulations do not take into account the users of dual fuels—gas and electricity. Those domestic consumers using gas for hot-water heating and space heating will reduce their electricity consumption by about one-half, compared with those using electric power. Those domestic consumers who by good fortune have gas appliances installed in their homes, or can afford to have gas appliances installed, will be able to receive the assistance, simply because they are dual-fuel users. That is also the case for consumers who use another alternative fuel such as solar heating, or coal—as is common on the West Coast and in Otago.
Although National supports the bill, there are certainly areas that needed to be thought through more than they have been. Someone who may live in a $2 million home and may spend 6 to 9 months overseas would well qualify for the low-user charge, yet could afford to pay the higher price but, because of the low consumption, will benefit from those changes. The bill does gives some flexibility, and I think that is significant. In relation to the low fixed-charge tariff, I note that the commentary on the bill states: “As a result of the amendment, the definition of ‘low-use consumer’ would be provided in regulations, so that different regions might have different thresholds, rather than a nationwide threshold of 8,000kWh per annum.” Those are the points I wish to make. I am happy that National supports the bill and I look forward to its passing.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First supports the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. I repeat what I said in the first reading: it was a sad day when the Government had to produce such a bill that basically came about because the power was shut off to the Muliaga family household, where Mrs Muliaga was dependent on electricity for her life. I have just come down to the Chamber to speak on this bill, and I have heard that a National Party member said earlier that it was worthwhile to cut the power off because the family had not paid their bill. That is absolutely appalling. A National Party member said that.
Hon George Hawkins: Who said that?
PETER BROWN: I understand that it was Mr Bob Clarkson. I also understand he was asked to apologise, because a Government member took offence. Mr Clarkson refused and he left the Chamber, having made that statement. I think the National Party should be big enough to stand up and apologise on behalf of Mr Clarkson. I see that the junior Opposition whip is taking it seriously, and I would hope he would give some consideration to that. I do not mind yielding to the member if he wants to apologise on behalf of Mr Clarkson. That statement was absolutely outrageous, and New Zealand First will be looking at the Hansard to make sure we have this factually correct.
Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is referring to someone who has left the Chamber, and the Assistant Speaker at the time, Marian Hobbs, said that the member was not allowed back into the Chamber for the rest of the sitting. That is the discipline that has been imposed on the member—notwithstanding what the member has said—and I think that ends the matter. He is not allowed back into the Chamber for the actions he took, and that should end the matter.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the matter has been dealt with. We are on the third reading of the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. Please speak on that or we will move to another speaker. Thank you.
PETER BROWN: Far be it from me to question your ruling, but I will say that this matter will be raised in other forums if I cannot speak further on it today. But let me just say that the incident that gave rise to this bill was a serious issue at the time; a lady died, and it resulted in this bill.
New Zealand First is totally supportive of this bill. I do not think the National Party agreed to send it to the select committee but it has certainly changed its mind on it now, which is somewhat commendable.
New Zealand First was not represented on the Commerce Committee, and I see a comment about progressive pricing in the commentary on the bill. It states: “Some submitters said that they would prefer progressive pricing to low fixed charge tariffs. This would mean that an electricity retailer would be required to charge the domestic consumer at a rate lower than the standard price for a specified portion of the consumer’s annual electricity consumption.” New Zealand First does not know much about that system, and the select committee dismissed it. I would have thought it would not be a bad idea to include in the commentary some details about that, because electricity pricing now is one of the biggest concerns that New Zealanders face—particularly those on low fixed incomes. They are very, very worried about the ever-escalating price of electricity. New Zealand First would have loved to know more about what this progressive pricing entails, but the select committee dismissed it; I guess that is the end of it.
I do not think there is much more we need to say on this bill. It is a very straightforward bill. It has gone through the House pretty well unchallenged, and New Zealand First is pleased to see it move forward.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I say that 22c is not a lot of money, but 22c was the price on the head of a Hastings woman who was recently threatened with power disconnection. For that woman, 22c was the price between life and death, because she used an electronically powered nebuliser just to be able to breathe at night. An account for 22c was sent out by Energy Online to this woman with a threat to disconnect her power if that 22c was not paid within 24 hours.
I say that 22c is a pretty cheap price for anyone’s life, and that was a particularly nasty threat from a power company that is obviously interested more in corporate profit than in providing a service. The worst thing is that this nasty little piece of corporate greed and malevolence came up not more than 2 months after the country was shocked by the tragedy caused when another power company refused to acknowledge its social obligations, and Folole Muliaga died from its mean-spiritedness.
It is sad that we have had to come to this Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill through a tragedy, but it is good that this bill, which will help to sort out regulations around disconnection and low-charge options for domestic consumers, is before us now. But the very necessity for this bill also highlights the other areas of our economy that impact on a whānau’s ability to meet rising electricity costs, rising interest rates, rising petrol prices, and rising food costs.
We cannot help but shudder, really, when we think of last week’s announcement that nearly 20,000 kids need to be fed at schools every week because there is just no kai at home—20,000. That number is the equivalent of the population of a town the size of Thames or Queenstown. For those members from the north in this House, that is the equivalent of the entire population of Dargaville, Wellsford, Kaikohe, Kerikeri, and Kaitāia. The equivalent of the entire population of all of those towns is having to be fed every single week because there is not enough kai in the cupboards at home. Having 20,000 children living in poverty is a national bloody disgrace.
This morning the Māori Party hosted Kate Green, the chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group in Britain. She told us about the perception that there is a deserving and an undeserving poor. There is sympathy for the disabled child living in poverty, but there is blame for others for poor parenting or making bad lifestyle choices, implying that they are responsible for their fate when often their economic background means that they have almost no other choices. She challenged us to establish a child poverty target to help measure the impact of social and income gaps on our nation’s children.
In a similar vein, 2 months ago, the Salvation Army issued A State of the Nation Report asking what priority we have given to families and to the poor, and, just 2 weeks ago, church leaders called for an increase in benefits to help people cope. What happened? Nothing, actually, because with all the bellowing, bragging, backslapping, and big-noting about our having a free-trade agreement with China, the call to help the poor here in Aotearoa got completely ignored.
There is a forest of reports highlighting the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots, yet still the changes are not being made. I ask members to take the submission of the Auckland Regional Public Health Service as an example. It detailed how living in damp, mouldy, and unheated houses makes illnesses like asthma and bronchitis worse, and it causes massive family stress. It detailed how inadequate lighting increases the risk of injury, it limits children’s educational achievement, and it restricts a family’s options for family activity. It detailed how, when the power is cut off, the fridge turns off, food spoils, milk curdles, people get sick trying to eat kai that they should have chucked out, and families turn to dangerous ways of heating, cooking, and lighting. They start fires in cracked, old chimneys when they should not. They bring old gas-fired barbecues inside the house to cook and they put candles in unsafe places for lighting. The submission of the Auckland Regional Public Health Service highlighted the fact that cutting off power to poor homes causes massive problems for the whole family, which society ends up paying a whole lot more for, later on.
The Māori Party is hugely disappointed that the guidelines provided by the Electricity Commission for electricity retailers in the past have been ignored, leading to the crisis we face now. But I also have to point out that we do not believe that tax cuts—as proposed by Mr Phil Heatley from National—will do anything at all to sort out this problem. I know that, because when poor people get a tax cut, what it means for them is another $2. They will not take that $2 and say: “Hmm, shall I consider what my electricity options are this week? Shall I consider what health insurance company my children should have? Should I consider what scholastic options I might save for my children?” Hell, no; they get another $2 in the pay packet and they spend it.
Tax cuts are great, but in this situation the basics of life are more important, and providing for the needs of people without a proper supply of kai, without decent housing, and without access to low-cost electricity is an absolute must. The Māori Party believes that every effort must be made to protect vulnerable consumers and to give priority to families and to the poor. Accordingly, we will be supporting this bill so that we can put guidelines into place to ensure that people having difficulty paying their bills are not just cut off randomly; that people who are reliant on electricity for medical equipment are not cut off, at all; that power companies are forced to deal properly with vulnerable consumers, whether they live in Kew, Aranui, Porirua, Flaxmere, Ōtara, or Ōtāngarei; and that the Government can step in to deal with power companies that refuse to honour their obligations.
This is not just legislation; it is a call for this House to start turning itself around, to start recognising the needs of people as being more important than profit, and to start restructuring our whole society accordingly. If we do not take that lead, then we certainly cannot expect those on the bottom to want to believe the kinds of things that we say. Mihi atu ki a koe e te Kaiwhakahaere, ki a tātou anō e te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, kia ora tātou katoa.
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party is very, very pleased to support the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill, particularly the clause that allows the Government to regulate the content of guidelines for disconnection because of non-payment.
It is just as well that we are slipping this bill through and giving the Government these powers, because I predict that more and more vulnerable consumers will find themselves at the mercy of electricity companies and at risk of having their power cut off. As other speakers have said, the cost of electricity is going up; that is a huge concern for many New Zealanders. We will be faced with rising food prices, rising oil prices, and rising electricity prices, so many more New Zealanders in coming years will not be able to afford to pay their electricity bills, and will stand at risk of having their electricity disconnected summarily, as happened in the tragic incident that many have talked about today. So thank goodness for that!
I will say a few words about why our electricity prices are rising so dramatically. I well remember back in 1993, when I was newly elected to the Wellington City Council, waging a campaign against the sale of Capital Power—the lines company that Wellington City Council owned. There was a move, which I and a few others opposed, to sell off our lines company to a Canadian company called TransAlta. I think that company bought 49 percent of the shares for about $100 million. Then it managed to take over the Lower Hutt lines company, which it onsold. Mark Blumsky, now a National MP, was one of those who argued strongly in favour of selling our lines company. Those in favour said it would reduce consumers’ electricity prices, enable investment in the lines company, etc. But, of course, instead of saving Wellington ratepayers money, it has cost us literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. If we had sold Capital Power now, we would have millions and millions of dollars. Far from the projected savings, all we had was our lines company onsold from one company to another, and then it was sold off to Vector. Now we have Vector wanting to sell our electricity grid to a Chinese company—well, a number of companies, including the State Grid Corporation of China, are bidding for it.
Meantime, under Vector’s ownership power prices in Wellington, far from declining—as Mark Blumsky, the present mayor, Fran Wilde, and others assured us would happen when we sold off Capital Power—have in the last 10 years increased 600 percent. We have had the extraordinary situation whereby Vector, which owns our Wellington electricity company, has actually charged more to Wellingtonians than it has to Aucklanders. Meantime, an American bank, Wachovia, with a very questionable reputation internationally, owns the grid in the South Island. So, basically, since the National Government introduced its electricity reforms, the situation has gone from bad to worse. The South Island electricity grid should be a strategic asset, should be protected, and should be in New Zealand ownership. Instead it is owned by some strange American bank called Wachovia—which is no doubt watching over us, and watching huge profits being sent off to that American bank at our expense. This explains why our electricity prices are rising so astronomically, why electricity has become such a huge concern for New Zealanders, and why our prices seem to be rising, inexorably, more and more.
It is all really a consequence of the National Government’s reforms, which we were told would, like the sale of Capital Power, result in reduced electricity prices, greater competition, and greater savings. But of course the exact opposite has happened, and now we find ourselves in a situation where electricity prices are rising to such an extent that more and more New Zealanders cannot afford to pay their bills, more and more New Zealanders are having their electricity disconnected, and we are coming in with a rather feeble effort—nevertheless it is better than nothing—of giving guidelines. This bill gives the Government power to regulate guidelines so that companies like Meridian Energy can switch off power only in certain circumstances, not arbitrarily. We have got ourselves into rather a tragic situation with our electricity prices, with astronomical increases, particularly in the Wellington region. Who would have believed that electricity prices could rise by 600 percent in 10 years, when we were sure they were going to come down?
If only we had done what Christchurch City Council did. It retained control of its lines company. All the people of Christchurch are benefiting from the wisdom and foresight of the Christchurch city councillors who retained ownership of their lines company, rather than being like the majority on the Wellington City Council who opposed efforts by me and other councillors to retain control of our power company, Capital Power. So whereas Christchurch is benefiting, we are faced by this ridiculous situation of astronomically increasing electricity prices and the fact that our electricity lines now stand to be controlled by a State electricity company in China. How bizarre and ridiculous is that? Whether the new owner is the State electricity company of China or one of a couple of other companies that I think are lining up—I think some Canadian company is interested; maybe TransAlta in another guise is lining up to buy it back and make more profits on it—I ask whether it will really have our interests at heart. Will it be concerned about our electricity prices and about the social issues we face when we have increasing prices for electricity, food, and oil?
Hone Harawira: No, they won’t give a stuff.
SUE KEDGLEY: As Hone Harawira says, it will not give a stuff. This situation is the consequence of the much-vaunted electricity reforms of the previous National Government. They have got us into the terrible situation we are in today.
This bill is a very small effort to try to protect vulnerable consumers who are at risk of having their electricity cut off. It does not go nearly far enough, but the Green Party is pleased to support this rather modest legislation. Thank you.
DAVE HEREORA (Labour): I take this opportunity to take a call in support of the third reading of the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill, and I want to highlight the two parts of the bill. As the title of the bill indicates, this bill deals with both the disconnection of electricity and low fixed charges.
In respect of disconnection, I would ask the following questions. Were power companies being overzealous in threatening to cut off power due to late payment? And if we revisit the tragic episode that occurred last May, was that due to a lack of awareness of that whānau’s situation and their dependency on electricity, or was it simply the case that a company that supplied essential services did not bother to treat its customers as customers, but rather treated them with contempt? I think those critical questions need to be explored.
Whatever the reason may be for that tragedy, it has become clear that in the absence of a social conscience within this industry particularly, it is necessary to ensure that electricity retailers do more to observe a sense of social responsibility, particularly towards those who are in desperate need and suffering financial difficulty. This also brings to mind the fact that we had to experience the loss of a life before doing something about this issue. When parts of our society breach that fine line—a lack of compassion—we feel a sense of loss. We all feel that sense of loss, which leads to a fear that hardening attitudes will continue to crystallise. The bill, in its title, quite rightly promotes the word “disconnection”.
Because of some of the issues I have raised, there needed to be provision for electricity retailers to be able to provide domestic customers with better billing and payment options. We needed to look at the arrangements around the process of disconnection following the non-payment of accounts, around reconnection, and around billing information and processes, and to look at alternative options, such as smooth payments and the redirection of income. We also needed to consider the process for identifying those consumers who would be at risk if their electricity was to be disconnected. We needed to consider the supply of electricity or line function services by electricity retailers or distributors. We also needed to consider provisions for electricity retailers to provide domestic consumers with information about overdue accounts and disconnection processes, provisions for them to be able to have access to information about a particular domestic consumer—or access to information about the account, with the consumer’s authorisation—and also provisions to ensure that retailers must reconnect a domestic consumer’s electricity supply after a disconnection.
We have a set of guidelines being promoted in this bill that will, at the very least, address the moral issue of social responsibility. It is designed to capture assistance, support, and financial help for those in need.
The second part of the bill relates to low fixed charges. It is about regulating for low fixed-charge tariff options for domestic consumers. The purpose of that is to assist low-use domestic consumers and also to encourage energy efficiency. We learnt that low-use consumers in many areas were facing unreasonably high fixed daily charges for their limited or low electricity usage. The introduction of this regulation provides low-use consumers with a tariff option that is more equitable for low energy usage and is also compatible with the Government’s strategy on efficiency objectives.
We are all aware that at the moment networks and retailers make available a low fixed-charge tariff option to all domestic consumers who have electricity consumption within their homes of less than 8,000 kilowatt hours per annum. That is used as the threshold across the country, despite the reality that in the colder parts of the South Island the average power use is higher than it is elsewhere, in large part because the climate is colder and there is little reticulated gas available there. Further considerations surrounding the consumption data showed an adjustment to the low fixed-charge eligibility threshold of less than 8,000 kilowatt hours per year was warranted, because far fewer consumers are on the low fixed-charge tariff in the South Island than in any other part of the country. The bill alters the definition of a “low-use consumer” from that of someone who has a fixed threshold of less than 8,000 kilowatt hours per annum to a definition that will be provided in the regulations, to ensure that different regional locations and averages can be used.
A second provision in the bill will extend the Minister’s power to grant exemptions from the application of the regulations to electricity distributors or retailers. This change is directed at small, isolated networks that are not connected to the national grid.
The key parts of this bill support Labour’s plan for the future to ensure the safety and well-being of all Kiwi whānau—that is, to ensure that we continue to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Let us be confident that electricity retailers will follow these guidelines to prevent a repeat of the tragedy that occurred in May last year, but members can be assured that the regulating power is an important last resort, taken to ensure that the Government’s objectives are met. I commend this bill to the House.
LESLEY SOPER (Labour): I stand to take a call in support of the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill for the very good reason that I am a lower South Island MP, and I represent many people who have been waiting for this bill to be passed; people in my city of Invercargill, Bluff, Riverton, Ohai, Nightcaps, Wyndham, Edendale, and all the other towns of the lower South. Why? Because, unlike the National Government that privatised and deregulated the electricity market, and unlike the National Government that created an environment where profit was the motive rather than providing a service to the people, Labour is actually repairing the damage. This bill is part of Labour’s plan for the future to ensure the safety and the well-being of all Kiwi families.
I want to talk particularly about that low fixed charge regime. The low fixed charge regulations were introduced in 2004 by this Labour-led Government with the purpose of assisting low-use domestic consumers, and to encourage energy efficiency. Prior to that introduction, low-use consumers in many areas—and this was a National Government legacy—faced unreasonably high fixed daily charges for their limited or low electricity usage. The introduction of the regulations in 2004 provided those low-use consumers with a tariff option that was more equitable for low energy usage, and compatible with the Government’s energy efficiency objectives.
At present those regulations require networks and retailers to make available a low fixed charge tariff option to all domestic consumers whom they service who have consumption at their primary dwelling of less than 8,000 kilowatts per annum. The same 8,000 kilowatt threshold is used across the entire country, despite the reality that in the colder parts of the South Island average power use is higher, in large part, because the climate is colder and there is little reticulated gas. That is the situation in my Invercargill and Southland area. Analysis of average consumption data shows that an adjustment to the low fixed charge eligibility threshold of 8,000 kilowatts per year is warranted, because far fewer consumers are on the current low-fixed charge tariff in the lower South Island than in other parts of the country. For example, in Auckland and in the north, over 52 percent of domestic consumers are covered by the low fixed charge tariff, whereas in the lower South Island—Christchurch and further south, excluding Westland—only 9.2 percent of domestic consumers are covered by that tariff. Those figures mean quite a bit to my people in the lower South Island.
The bill alters the definition of a low-fixed charge consumer from a fixed-charge eligibility threshold of 8,000 kilowatts per annum to a definition that will be provided in the regulations to ensure different regional locations and averages can be used. That means a great deal indeed to my lower South Island people, and I am very proud that we are passing a bill that will make a difference to their lives. I have had many calls to my office asking when this bill will be passed, and here we are in the third reading tonight, and I am very proud of that fact.
But I also want to dwell for a moment on the other thing that this bill primarily does, and that is that it strengthens the regulation-making powers in the Electricity Act 1992. It responds to recent concerns about the disconnection practices of electricity retailers. I do not think I have to remind anybody of the Muliaga family, and what it went through—and what other families have gone through—when an electricity retailer chose, for the sole reason of its profit, to disconnect its power despite the life-and-death situation that Mrs Muliaga faced.
The Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill is designed to ensure that the Government can, if necessary, regulate the content of the disconnection guidelines that have recently been developed. Retailers are, however, being given the opportunity to follow the voluntary guidelines first.
The changes in this bill will require electricity retailers to observe a sense of social responsibility in respect of those in financial difficulty, and that is a message to the Muliaga family, and to every other family or individual who was ever caught in that terrible disconnection mix.
This bill will protect some of the most vulnerable people in New Zealand society, and that is why it is part of Labour’s plan for the future; a future that ensures the safety and well-being of all Kiwi families. Some of those families are our most vulnerable people. They cannot afford to be forgotten. The National Party forgot them during the 1990s, with benefit cuts, with its changes to bring in the Employment Contracts Act, with its changes to the health system, with its pernicious asset-testing, and with its bed-night charges in hospitals. All that 1990s stuff did nothing but disservice to the most vulnerable families. The benefit cuts in the 1990s that National was so proud of created, and still create, major levels of poverty in this country. Labour has taken a great deal of our term to address this issue, and we are proud of having addressed it.
Let us not forget that in 1999, when we became the Government, the National Government had left us with a minimum wage for adults of $7 per hour, and a minimum wage for youth of $4.20 per hour. That was disgusting. As of 1 April this year, the minimum wage for adults became $12 per hour, and we effectively ended the youth minimum wage. We have delivered that to vulnerable people whom the National Government deliberately forgot about and penalised during the 1990s.
We are confident that electricity retailers will abide by the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. We are confident that they will follow the guidelines to prevent a repeat of the May tragedy for the Muliaga family. The regulating power is an important last resort to ensure that the Government’s objectives are met. That is why we have put it in the bill.
For people listening to the debate in the House, the new disconnection guidelines will ensure that consumers who have difficulty paying their bills are advised of the assistance available from community service providers and from Government agencies—those Government agencies that we have restored after the National Government allowed them to break down in the 1990s. These guidelines will protect vulnerable consumers and those reliant on electricity for medical equipment to maintain life, so that never again does a Mrs Muliaga have her power disconnected in the way that happened in May of last year.
I am immensely proud of both parts of this bill; the part that will deliver to so many of my people in the south, and the part that will deliver to so many vulnerable people throughout this country. I commend this bill to the House. I am proud to have spoken in the third reading.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill
Third Reading
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for Land Information: I move, That the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill be now read a third time. It is with great pleasure that I move that this bill be read a third time. This bill repeals and replaces the New Zealand Geographic Board Act of 1946.
Hon George Hawkins: A good year!
Hon DARREN HUGHES: I am told that that was a very good year by the member for Manurewa, and I will take his word on that for an Act that is 62 years old. Clearly that Act needed to be modernised, and that is what the bill before the House does. It is the result of a comprehensive review and of consultation involving the public, iwi, central and local government, and sectoral groups across our economy, community, and society. The bill will ensure that New Zealand’s sovereign right to officially name our places and our geographic features is given modern legislative backing here in 2008.
A case concerning New Zealand’s continental shelf boundaries has been submitted to the United Nations to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. If that is approved, our country’s legal continental shelf area will be the fourth-largest in the world and 24 times the land area of our country. Having the fourth-largest continental shelf in the world is something for us to pause and reflect on, when we normally consider ourselves to be a small country at the bottom of the earth, with only 4.27 million people. This will give us an area that is quite a size in comparison with the territorial limits of other countries. An official undersea feature naming process will be coordinated by the New Zealand Geographic Board under this bill, which, if it receives its third reading, will become an Act. That will fit with New Zealand’s responsible stewardship of the continental shelf.
New Zealand extends beyond the land we see every day on the maps or on the weather forecasts we see on the television news at night. The undersea part of New Zealand is our legal continental shelf, and, as I have already said and members have commented on during this bill’s passage through the House, an area that is 24 times the size of New Zealand’s land area sits below the sea and the ocean. That area is now the subject of increasing research and exploration activity. The Associate Minister of Energy, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, would no doubt be able to expand on that. Naturally, that area is of high strategic importance for New Zealand and is a new area in terms of our thinking.
The extent of the board’s jurisdiction under the existing Act is only to the 12 nautical mile territorial limit. The bill increases the board’s jurisdiction to include the naming of undersea features within New Zealand’s continental shelf. That is quite an exciting development that I know the House has been debating throughout the passage of the bill. New Zealand Aotearoa has sovereign rights over its continental shelf, as one would expect. In some places it extends to over 200 nautical miles from our coastline. So the bill not only modernises the 1946 Act but also extends the board’s jurisdiction from just 12 nautical miles, which it has been since 1946, to a 2008 version of 200 nautical miles. That will enable us to protect that area and also to ensure that its naming is consistent with the values and principles that we uphold. Exercising those naming rights over the areas under discussion with regard to this bill demonstrates our sovereign right as a country to those areas.
The Government knows that the official naming of geographic places and features is very important to communities. That was evident just last night in the Committee stage of the bill, when members of Parliament took the opportunity to reflect on names from their own areas that they come from, across our country. Members reflected on not only the naming of towns but also the naming of geographic features and waterways that are very important to us for our sense of identity—our sense of where we are from and who we are. We are connected with the names of settlements, localities, mountains, rivers, and lakes, because they reflect our culture and our heritage as New Zealanders. From the Minister for Land Information’s involvement in some of the place names that the board deals with, he has been able to gauge the intensity of feeling that names can generate—sometimes far beyond what it might appear on a first look. These are place names with history and memories for people. Sometimes the memories are of the immediate period—the 40, 50, or 60 years that people’s own lifetime might cover. In other areas, particularly from a Te Ao Māori perspective, the memories go back hundreds or thousands of years—certainly hundreds of years.
Hone Harawira: Thousands; you were right.
Hon DARREN HUGHES: I can correct the Hansard later. There is certainly a much longer point of view, in terms of the memories and shared history that goes on. So getting this bill right is very, very important.
Knowing the correct names for places and their location is also important, from a practical point of view, for the emergency services to be able to respond quickly to incidents. That is very, very important, particularly in rural areas where it is not always apparent, when services are being dispatched, exactly where they have to go. We are reminded of that a lot in our own constituencies. It is also important for business, in their transactions, to know the correct place names, and that is also important for all of us as Kiwis generally, in all manner of everyday communications and activities.
This bill provides for the ongoing work of the board in a modern context, and provides for public input. We believe that has been very important through the passage of this bill through the Government Administration Committee—which I know was chaired very ably by Mr Ardern, the member for Taranaki - King Country—and will also be very important for members of the public who are dealing with the board going forward after today. People in our country want to express their opinion over their place names and place naming, and this bill allows for public involvement to a degree that is heavily expanded from what they have normally been used to. Although there are more opportunities for people to be involved, the bill also streamlines parts of the public consultation processes on proposed names, by enabling any person or organisation to submit a proposal. The bill provides increased flexibility in the board’s arrangements for conducting its consultations for public input.
Land Information New Zealand, the Government agency charged with responsibility for administering this legislation, will be required to provide public access to a record of official geographic names by publishing and maintaining an online gazette of official geographic names. The record will contain locational and historical information for those names, which will be of enormous benefit to people who are researching areas and also to people who are trying to establish in a more formal sense for their community its identity and history. An easily accessible online gazette is needed for both official and public purposes—the work we do as a Government, and the work that communities will want to do together and with each other.
The bill gives the board a concurrent role in determining names for protected areas that are managed by the Department of Conservation, which is responsible for a very large area of New Zealand’s land mass. The bill does that by formally involving the board in the naming process for places on conservation land.
Under the bill, the addition of two new positions on the board will ensure that it better represents a wide range of constituents and fulfils additional responsibilities. One new position is an ex officio position for the official who has prime responsibility for hydrographic standards in New Zealand. That is an important step, given the vast area of ocean that New Zealand has sovereign jurisdiction over. This new board member is required because of the significant extension of the board’s functions to include undersea feature naming over the continental shelf. The other new board member is from local government and will be nominated by Local Government New Zealand. This member is required because of the proposal to devolve responsibility for official suburb and locality naming to local authorities. However, at the same time, it is necessary to ensure that that naming is consistent with the need for standardised, but not duplicated, address information systems across the country.
The bill improves the accountability provisions relating to the board by the requirement to submit an annual report to the Minister on its activities and performance. The board will also now be subject to the Ombudsmen Act 1975. It is already subject, of course, to the Official Information Act, and that will continue.
The Minister, Mr Parker, would again like to thank the select committee and the members thereof for their work in examining this bill and in considering public submissions. The Government is pleased and proud to commend the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill to the House.
Debate interrupted.
Personal Explanations
Withdrawal and Apology—Defying the Chair
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga): I wish to withdraw and apologise for my remark made during the previous debate.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much, Mr Clarkson, for doing that.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Leave was sought for the member to withdraw and apologise for his remark, and also for defying the Chair; that was the real reason he was asked to withdraw from the Chamber. It was not his remark about the Muliaga family in the previous debate that members took offence to. It was the point where he was asked to withdraw and he then defied the Speaker’s ruling, and that is why he was asked to leave. He has now come back to withdraw and apologise for that remark, and we gave leave for that personal statement to occur. The punishment for defying the Speaker, which is to withdraw from the Chamber, must surely still stand.
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): The member knows he has to withdraw from the Chamber. The exclusion was until the end of the session. Mr Clarkson will be leaving the Chamber now.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for raising that, Mr Hughes. Everything has to be done correctly. I thank Mr Clarkson for that. Speaker’s ruling 18/5 was the course to be followed, and it has been done.
Bob Clarkson withdrew from the Chamber.
Bills
New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill
Third Reading
Debate resumed.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It is a sign of how bereft of ideas this Government is that in a year in which Parliament is sitting for fewer days than in any year in recent memory we are debating the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill, which makes some very minor changes to the operation of the New Zealand Geographic Board and the naming of places.
Hon Darren Hughes: Oh, don’t be daft.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member from—where? He only just survived the last election. [Interruption] He is from Otaki. The member questions that. I ask him how many letters he has received from constituents concerned about the naming process of the New Zealand Geographic Board. My constituents are concerned about the high interest rates—the second-highest in the world—that they are paying. My constituents are concerned about business confidence dropping to the lowest level in 33 years. My constituents are concerned about having to pay punitive tax rates under this Government that are making it more difficult than ever for families to survive.
What I find extraordinary—and what I find so pathetic from this Government—is the priority being given to such minor changes. What are the changes that this bill makes to the New Zealand Geographic Board? The first is that it gives the opportunity to name areas beyond the 12-mile territorial waters zone. What is extraordinary is that we are going to be able to name things in the exclusive economic zone, but not protect them. We have absolutely no legislation at all to, for instance, protect against mining or any other activities that might occur in that zone between the 12-mile limit and the 200-mile limit. Is it not extraordinary that we are passing legislation to be able to name things, but we cannot protect them?
The Local Government and Environment Committee had a petition today from thousands of New Zealanders who are concerned about mining in that environment, which has no laws to protect it. There is absolute consensus across environmental organisations that we need laws that will enable us to provide some proper process for the protection of the ocean areas between those 12-mile and 200-mile limits. But is there any bill from Parliament to address that real issue?
Hon Darren Hughes: Maryan Street’s looking good.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, there is not. We have a bill that Darren Hughes says will somehow enable us to claim sovereignty over areas beyond the continental shelf, because this bill will let us name them. Well, I will bet Darren Hughes on any day of the week that he will be cleaned up at the next election by Nathan Guy. I understand that Darren Hughes does not want to argue about the lack of environmental protection beyond the 12-mile limit. He probably wants us to forget the Government’s record in 2002 in relation to its oceans policy, when it promised to have legislation in 2005. [Interruption] I say to Lesley Soper that it did not happen in 2005. It did not happen in 2006. And perhaps Lesley Soper could answer why that is.
Lesley Soper: Hollow man!
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Lesley Soper cannot answer why the Government has not brought in the promised legislation to enable the protection of the area between the 12-mile and 200-mile limits, but will back this pathetic bill that does so little.
The other issue that this bill changes—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The interjections are a running commentary. The member will please cease.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And what is more, she should not be interjecting from a seat that is not her own. Neither Mr Hughes nor Lesley Soper—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: But I do not think they have changed their seats with the specific purpose of interjecting on any speaker.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If I had the record that this Government has, I would be trying to disrupt Parliament. Labour members have no answer for why they have not, after 9 long years in Government, provided any environmental protection law at all in the important area between the 12-mile and 200-mile limits—
Lesley Soper: What about vulnerable people protection, Dr Smith?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We now have from Lesley Soper that she is concerned about protecting people! What about protecting people from record high taxes? How about protecting people from the second-highest interest rates in the Western World? How about protecting people from the rorts that this Labour Government has made in relation to our electoral laws that would put Robert Mugabe to shame? How about protecting the environment from the sorts of issues that were exposed when the Government promised all the way back in 2002 that it would provide legislation in this area, but which it has failed to deliver?
A further point I want to make is to ask why the Government wants to change the law and not allow public consultation over names and changes in places—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt you, Dr Smith, but I said to Lesley Soper before that a running commentary is not allowed. The member is allowed to make only rare and sensible interjections, and whatever else goes with that. The member is carrying on a running commentary. If there is any repetition of it the member will be out.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This bill takes away the public’s right to have a say in the naming of the communities they represent. In my area, a place called St Arnaud is having a very heated argument as to whether St Arnaud should, in fact, be called Rotoiti. I would like to know why the Government wants to take away the requirement for public consultation on any change to the names of communities. I think this bill is another chapter in the story of this Government whereby it says that it knows best, and that it wants to exclude the public from being able to have a legitimate say in the naming of geographic places. Members on this side of the House say that we should not remove the requirement under the existing Act for there to be a proper public role—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.