Tuesday, 28 April 2009

Tuesday, 28 April 2009

Tuesday, 28 April 2009

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Resignations

Rt Hon Helen Clark, Member for Mt Albert

Rt Hon Helen Clark, resigning her seat in the House with effect at midnight on Saturday, 18 April 2009.

Mr SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the

Points of Order

Sri Lanka—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate on the dire humanitarian situation in northern Sri Lanka.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is objection.

Ministerial Statements

Swine Flu—New Zealand Response

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): I wish to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 347 in relation to the global influenza situation and the responses here in New Zealand. As has been said, this is a time for concern and caution, not alarm.

On Saturday morning Air New Zealand flight NZ1 arrived in Auckland from Los Angeles at 5 a.m. On board was a school group from Rangitoto College travelling home from a trip to Mexico. Several of the students had flu symptoms. Their teacher insisted they see their doctors. Just a few hours later, at 12.30 p.m., one of those general practitioners contacted the Auckland Regional Public Health Service. The Auckland public health response centre was activated by 3 p.m., and by 6 p.m. a team of nurses had been assembled, equipped, and were out assessing the Rangitoto group. All were treated with Tamiflu and isolated with their families by 10 o’clock that night.

The Ministry of Health activated its coordination centre on that same day in accordance with the emergency Influenza Pandemic Action Plan, and the national Tamiflu stock at Middlemore Hospital was made available. On Sunday night, testing revealed that 10 of the Rangitoto College group had influenza A; swine flu is a subset of influenza A. Because of their recent travel to Mexico and a greater sense of caution, ministry officials decided that the group should be treated as probable cases of swine flu. Our health services’ response was rapid, thorough, and appropriate for the level of risk apparent at that time. The work of the past 4 years, preparing for a situation such as this, needs to be acknowledged. It is important to be clear that there are no confirmed cases of swine flu in New Zealand, but I am advised that at this point health authorities are operating as though there are.

The Rangitoto College samples are now being tested for H1N1 swine flu at the World Health Organization laboratory in Melbourne. To date, the Rangitoto College group’s flu symptoms have been mild, and all 10 are on the road to recovery. This is consistent with the pattern experienced so far in other countries outside of Mexico. Public health officials tell me that they have contact-traced almost all of the passengers on flight NZ1 who disembarked in Auckland. They have all been medically assessed, offered Tamiflu as a precaution, and asked to stay at home. Three students from Northcote College with flu-like symptoms, who also visited Mexico and returned home later that Saturday morning, have tested negative for influenza A. Public health officials were able to tell them and their families late last night that they are no longer at risk.

Since Sunday night, there have been doctors and nurses at Auckland Airport meeting all international flights arriving from North America, and passengers are being assessed. I am advised that as a result of the increasing international spread of swine flu, the Ministry of Health has asked that a statement providing information and advice on swine flu should be read on all incoming flights into New Zealand. In addition, the ministry has requested a travel health notice is given to all incoming passengers on arrival. Regional public health services around the country are supporting this effort. At last count, in addition to the 10 Rangitoto College students, 56 people are being monitored around New Zealand. Those suspected cases are being tested to see whether they too have influenza A.

The key public health message is this: people who have been in Mexico or the United States in the past fortnight and have flu-like symptoms should contact their general practitioner or a health professional. The Ministry of Health says that if people have flu-like symptoms and they have not been to Mexico or the United States in the past fortnight, then they should treat any flu symptoms as normal seasonal influenza—they should do what they would normally do. I have been advised in the past few minutes that later today the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade will be upgrading its travel advisory to suggest that people defer non-essential travel to Mexico. The existing health measures are fully justified. Officials are ready for any escalation in the domestic or international swine flu situation. As this rapidly changing situation evolves, updates are being issued and press briefings are being held. This is a matter that the Government and officials are treating with the utmost caution and concern. This is a threat that New Zealand has planned for, and many of the best people in the New Zealand health services are working night and day to protect the health of our country.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I begin by assuring the Minister and the House that this is not a time for any political point-scoring when we have such an important issue facing our nation. I wish all speed to those who work in the health sector, and, of course, a return to full health for all those who are potentially affected. Those who work in the health sector are vital, and should be valued at all times.

I am very pleased to hear the Minister acknowledge the work that the previous Government started on pandemic planning in 2002, with Operation McGill in 2007 involving the whole emergency management health sector. We increased the public Tamiflu stocks from around 800,000 to 1.2 million in March 2007, from coverage of 20 percent of the population to 30 percent—a fact that I recall the current Minister of Health criticising at the time. He now understands the importance of that point.

I am concerned about the vulnerability of the entire spectrum of the health services under the current proceedings. Pandemic modelling and the rehearsal have shown time after time that hospital-based services can quickly become overwhelmed if we do not ensure that community-based and home-based services are supported and are in place. We know, from the district health boards’ latest plans, that those are the very services that are being cut. The services that make the delivery of a pandemic response possible are the ones under threat.

I also remind the Minister of Health of the comments from Ian Powell, the executive director of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, when he talked about the range of staff who are critical in the health sector. He said: “It is one of the major concerns of our members, who would rather be underpaid specialists than overpaid secretaries.”

To all the health workers, I say the focus and intensity of this work is significant and will be supported, I am sure, by every party in Parliament. I thank the Minister for the acknowledgment of the work over the last 6 years. I also thank him for his generous offer of a briefing on this issue. That is appreciated by me, as well. I recommend respectfully that he reflect now on how critical the support workers in the health system, who are otherwise often known as backroom workers, are to the delivery of health services for all New Zealanders and ensure that they continue to be valued for the critical role that they play in delivering health services in our nation.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I wish to begin by joining the Minister and the Hon Ruth Dyson in conveying the Green Party’s very best wishes to the health professionals, and to those who have been affected by this infection to date, for a speedy recovery, and for all possible strength to their arm for those fighting to combat the epidemic. At this time it is uncertain what the course of this global pandemic will be. Its spread is uncertain, but it already appears to be extensive, suggesting that containment will be difficult. The nature of the virus is also uncertain. It is clear that it has significant ability to develop or strengthen particular characteristics through mutation, and that means there are particular risks associated with this virus that we need to prepare for.

It is at a time like this that we indeed must be grateful for the pandemic planning that has been undertaken over the past several years, and I pay tribute to the previous Government. I also bring to the House’s attention the Green Party’s contribution towards that pandemic preparedness. I had some personal part to play in some of the pandemic preparedness exercises and I can assure the House that district health boards have taken this process extremely seriously.

It is critical that we maintain a sense of perspective. It is inevitable that at some point there will be a further influenza pandemic that will cause very substantial illness and death. It is possible that this could be it, or that it could develop into such a pandemic. But it is crucial that all New Zealanders understand that in fact influenza causes illness and death at a substantial level around the world every day. It is essential that our response takes seriously the risk that this poses, while at the same time not fuelling a sense of panic about that risk.

I am aware that there will be questions about the timeliness of response; I am sure that those will be addressed at some point in the future. But, for now, our focus must be on the process going forward, and on minimising the impact of this epidemic for New Zealand. For my own part, I know a number of the officials involved in this process. I have a great deal of trust in their judgment, and I believe that New Zealanders can be confident in their work. What is most required now is a commitment from all political parties to act together to minimise the impact of this epidemic, and in that spirit I offer the Green Party’s cooperation to the Government, in any way that we can be helpful in minimising the impact of this epidemic. Thank you.

Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): I respond on behalf of the ACT Party to the ministerial statement. The Minister of Health is quite right when he says that balance is important; this is a time for caution but not alarm. I would like to congratulate the health professionals involved, who to date have so swiftly, efficiently, and appropriately dealt with this threat to the New Zealand population. Pandemic planning, in fact, is very important, and we find ourselves well-prepared because of the 4 years of work that has gone on in relation to, firstly, the perceived threat of bird flu in 2005.

One of the most important things to do, I think, in this sort of situation is to educate people about the threats, and to tell them what they need to do to keep themselves and those around them safe in situations like this. I think there is a lot of confusion about how viruses that are usually confined to animal populations can suddenly find themselves operating in human populations. The swine influenza virus is usually endemic, obviously, to pig populations, but it can mutate into a form that allows it to pass from human to human. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that the symptoms of swine flu are much like those of any seasonal flu—commonly, fever, lethargy, lack of appetite, and coughing. Some people with swine flu have also reported runny noses, sore throats, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea. As has already been pointed out, it is important when someone has influenza to treat those symptoms sensibly, and those education messages should be put out amongst the general population. Affected people are most contagious during the first 5 days.

It is also important that people do not panic and suddenly worry about the food supply. Swine flu cannot be spread by pork products, because the virus is not transmitted through food. These viruses—bird flu and swine flu—seem to be descendants of the 1918 influenza outbreak. I think it is important to take a sensible approach to these things, to monitor the situation carefully—as we are doing here in New Zealand—and to take advice from organisations like the World Health Organization. Thank you.

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): The Māori Party expresses its concern for those who have been affected by the swine flu virus. Long before our lifetimes, but part of the legacy left by the generation of our parents and grandparents, was a period of time referred to as Black November. That was when 8,573 New Zealanders lost their lives in the 1918 influenza epidemic. So we need to be cautious and we need to be careful. I understand that history, because every time we go to Parewanui we see in one of the urupā the tragic shape of the very small coffins that carried our children to their final resting place.

We must not alarm the general public unnecessarily, but we have every reason to be cautious. I guess the most important thing is that people have good access to information, and I believe that the Ministry of Health is providing that. The two biggest factors for vulnerability to swine flu are, of course, having recently visited Mexico, and exposure to somebody with swine flu. There is an added concern around the similarity of the symptoms and effects of swine flu and those of the traditional flu, which hits hard in winter. So we must be careful, we must be vigilant, and all of us must execute caution.

The announcement of the precautions that are being taken by the students and staff who returned from Mexico at the weekend could have provoked undue alarm. I recognise the important role that being prepared with pandemic planning has played in New Zealand’s response. The fact that we had a plan already in place meant that the action could immediately take place, as announced earlier by the Minister of Health. We are not out of the woods by any means, but if there is one message that we should take from this situation, it is the vital importance of being prepared. I finish off by saying that we should not use this issue as an opportunity to play politics.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I want to make a very brief comment on the Minister’s statement. Firstly, I share with colleagues the sense of support and anguish for the health workers and the people who are at risk at the moment. This is a very stressful time for all. Our thoughts must be with them, and we wish those who are at risk a speedy recovery. Secondly, I acknowledge the preparedness that has been put in place over the last 4 years, which means that New Zealand is in a position to respond strongly if, in fact, a pandemic is confirmed.

Thirdly, and perhaps finally, I make this point: a number of the contributions this afternoon have, quite properly, stressed the need to move prudently and soberly with regard to this issue. We cannot be in a mode of causing undue alarm or panic, but we do need to be vigilant about its potential implications. In this regard, the news media have a very powerful role to play. I would urge the media to think very carefully about how they handle this situation. I do not think that, for instance, the sensationalism of Television New Zealand’s approach on Sunday evening, and again last night, is actually helpful in terms of conveying accurate public information, or also in downplaying an element of public fear and anxiety. I urge our broadcasters and our news media to take very seriously their responsibilities to inform people accurately about what is happening, and to not take this as an opportunity to ramp up the way in which they make good television or write exciting newspaper articles. This issue is far too serious for that. We serve our people well when we do the best by them, not when we try to make a dangerous situation more serious.

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): I acknowledge the contributions of all members on this quite serious issue, and the offers of further contribution from the Opposition parties.

To pick up on the point from Mr Dunne—without commenting on any specific cases—I say that the New Zealand media actually have been doing their level best to assist us in providing clear and consistent public health messages to New Zealanders. Their role is important because it is quite clear that we cannot trace everybody who may have an issue here. Although there may be some criticism about individual cases, the messages that the media are providing are still fundamental and important to the public health message.

I also acknowledge members’ recognition of our front-line health staff and the work that they are doing. Thank you.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Government Expenditure—Increase

1. Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Is he aware that successive increases in Government spending over the last 13 years mean Government expenditure is today $30 billion higher per year having allowed for population growth and inflation, and what does he intend to do about it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As I pointed out last week, core Crown spending in the year ending 30 June 2009 is expected to be $63.5 billion, up $21.6 billion—or 50 percent—in the last 5 years alone, during which time the economy grew by 23 percent and tax revenue grew by 24 percent. The Budget on 28 May will reprioritise low-quality spending, reduce the rate of spending increase, and set out a credible plan for getting the Government’s finances in order.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Does the Minister agree that tax cuts are good for growth; and, given that ultimately the tax burden is what the Government spends, does he agree that cutting Government spending is an essential element in any programme to boost economic growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I agree with the member that tax cuts are good for growth and I agree that the very high rates of spending increase under the previous Government have to be brought under control—if only because a lot of that spending increase did not lead to better services for the public.

Hon David Cunliffe: Further to the Minister’s answer, does he agree that tax cuts misdirected to those least likely to need them and least likely to recycle them through spending are an inappropriate attempt at stimulus; if so, can he confirm that if the Government does not proceed with its earlier proposed tax cuts in 2010 and 2011 it will rebalance this year’s tax cuts to benefit all New Zealanders and particularly those with below-average incomes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member was genuinely concerned about New Zealanders getting the benefit of fairness in tax cuts, his party would have given some tax cuts in the 9 years that the Government had large surpluses.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Is the Minister comfortable with the fact that the growth in Government expenditure over the last 13 years is equivalent to $7,567 for every man, woman, and child in New Zealand, compared with a reduction of $300 over the previous 12 years; and how will the Government’s forthcoming Budget demonstrate the Government’s willingness to cut low-quality Government spending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I agree that much of that increase in expenditure has not led to better, smarter public services. The Budget will take the first steps towards controlling that rapid rate of growth, which is now unsustainable, and focusing on better, smarter public services for the money we are spending. We do not believe more spending is the measure of success; we believe better services are the measure of success.

Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Minister seen the Prime Minister’s comment that Government debt will track down after the Budget; if so, is he aware of any other developed country that is responding to the global economic crisis by reducing Government debt?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen the Prime Minister’s comment. It is the objective of this Government to get on top of sharply rising public debt and bring it down. If we do not do that a whole generation of New Zealanders could end up carrying the burden of a large debt. That member should remember as well as anyone the pain this country went through to get the last mountain of debt down.

Prime Minister—Statements

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “we are not so arrogant that we don’t listen to the views of the community”; if not, why not?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, and I also stand by my caucus, which is more than the Leader of the Opposition did when it came to Mt Albert, where he was more than happy to drop Phil Twyford for David Shearer.

Hon Phil Goff: Why, then, was the Government so arrogant as to assume that after 1 week’s consideration, no analysis, and no consultation it could substitute its views for those of the royal commission, which did consult and did analyse extensively, and then ram the Government’s view through in legislation against the wishes of Aucklanders?

Hon JOHN KEY: For a start-off, after millions of dollars worth of expenditure on the royal commission, three and a half thousand submissions, with 550 oral submissions, what came out from the royal commission was a situation where it supported a regional-wide body in the form of Auckland City Council. That has been carried forward by the Government. The Government does believe there should be more democracy at a lower level, and that view is supported by the community chairs.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Prime Minister listen to, and act upon, the views of Aucklanders—including the 72 percent of people polled in his own electorate of Helensville—who said they preferred the royal commission governance model to the hasty, ill-prepared, and unconsulted model that his Government was trying to ram through; if not, why not?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the Government will be undertaking change in Auckland. Secondly, the Government will be supporting a region-wide structure, which will deliver change for Auckland. Funnily enough, in one of the many positions that Phil Goff has had on that issue, he was on the radio today supporting exactly that by saying: “Labour’s position is broadly to support the concept of having a strong regional government to deal with the regional issues. I think that is really important.” Then he said that maybe we should have six local councils; maybe we should have a dozen. That has all changed from the royal commission’s report. The National Government will lead change in Auckland, which will deliver better results for New Zealanders. We will continue to engage with the public.

Sue Kedgley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Local Government Act spells out that before any significant reorganisation of local government can take place, an extensive formal consultation must take place, including formally notifying the draft proposal, calling for submissions on it, and having a poll of electors; and can he explain why that has not happened in Auckland since the Government chucked out the royal commission’s proposals?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I am aware. I am also aware that the royal commission’s report, which forms the main body of the regional structure of the Auckland City Council it has proposed, has been adopted by the Government. I am also aware that there is a select committee process where members of the public will be able to put forward their submissions. Finally, I assure the member that, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I am aware of the name of the co-leader of the Greens. I say that because when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking on 95bFM and was asked about the co-leader of the Greens, he said: “Russel um; God; oh, I’ve forgotten his name. Ah, Russel, help me; who is the co-leader of the Greens? Oh, it’s Russel Norman, that’s right.”

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the House rose for the adjournment last time, I raised with you the issue of noise and amplification in the House. What we have just seen was a really good example of the concern that I expressed. The Prime Minister was shouting at the top of his voice. I could see that from the way his facial muscles were contorting. The barracking over here was so loud that it was impossible to hear anything that the Prime Minister said in answer to that question. I plead for some fairness here. Members are entitled to hear answers and to hear what is being said, so they can form a view upon them. At the moment it is simply impossible.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: We are in the classic situation that where an answer goes on for a long time and drifts off into major and provocative irrelevancy, then I am afraid it does come back again upon the person giving the answer. So if the Prime Minister perhaps could control himself to a briefer, more precise and concise answer, there is less likely to be a lot of noise.

Hon Rodney Hide: Dr Cullen may well be right, but the appropriate response would be to stand and take a point of order, not to have the Leader of the Opposition and his mates screaming down so no one can actually hear what the Prime Minister has to say. The fact that the Labour members, once again, wanted to shut down the answer, meant that I was all the more keen to hear what it was.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe I need more advice on this issue. It was my perception that both sides of the House were making considerable noise on an issue where there was a lot of—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Interest.

Mr SPEAKER: —the member says “interest”; where there are a lot of quite strongly and passionately held views. I would simply ask members to be a little more reasonable with the amount of noise, but if I come back to the original point the Hon Peter Dunne raised, he was quite correct. He raised the issue of the volume and effectiveness of the amplification system in the House. I have had that investigated. I expect to receive a report on that this afternoon and I will be following it up to see whether there is anything that can be done. I must say that I did not hear the answer either, but there are times when the House gets so exuberant, and that may be the case. If it was hugely important, we might have sought further remedy, but let us just move on to the next supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you have now made a very important point. If you cannot hear an answer, then you cannot possibly rule or intervene if something is out of order. I suggest that in future if you cannot hear, you should do something about it.

Mr SPEAKER: It is my perception that the House was engaged in one of its sessions across the House of combative political exchange, and I think sometimes it is best to let that run. It did run, and I think we should now move on to the next supplementary question.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect, I do not believe that that ruling is right, because what you are saying is that both sides of the House were engaged in this yelling out, and, therefore, no one could hear it, and that that was fair enough. Actually I do not think that is right, because what that is saying is that if a loud group, particularly close to the Speaker, decides to shut someone down, the rest of us back here, who are actually straining to hear the answer because we are interested, are actually denied that opportunity. The person on his or her feet is denied that opportunity, and I think the requirement is that the answer should be able to be heard. If it is out of order, someone should take a point of order, and then you rule. You should not say that because 20 people want to scream and shut down an answer, that is acceptable.

Mr SPEAKER: I take on board the point the member has made—

Hon Peter Dunne: I suggest that the way through this might be to invite the Prime Minister to repeat his answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I think if we are to do that we just invite more—I heard enough of the answer to satisfy myself; the answer was not essential to the question asked, and maybe I should have closed it down. There are times when the House does let off a little steam, and that is not unreasonable. If it had been a hugely important matter that was being debated, of course I would have stopped the noise and made sure the Prime Minister could be heard on it. But it was clear from both sides of the House that the matter was purely political. We will move on now to the next supplementary question.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the Prime Minister, therefore, telling the House that he is reconsidering his stance of ramming through the Government’s elitist view on Auckland restructuring in the face of comments from the suburban newspapers—for example, that his Government was adopting a bullying approach, and making changes that actually stripped democracy from local residents in Auckland.

Hon JOHN KEY: Far from doing that, I will quote from community newspapers. The Auckland City Harbour News says that “Community board chairs are applauding the government’s decision to retain grassroots democracy”. The Avondale Community Board chair says “By the looks of this the local is back in local politics.” In the Eastern Courier the Pakuranga Community Board chair is quoted as saying “It’s a lot closer to what’s acceptable.” The Government is working hard to get a good solution for Auckland.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table the front page of every community newspaper in Auckland that ran the view that the Government was adopting a bullying approach—

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that the House takes a dim view of the tabling of newspaper articles. He sought leave to table the front page of every community newspaper. That would be a difficult challenge for him, because under the Standing Orders he must do that if leave is granted. If he raised that point of order purely to try to inject the comment he injected, that is out of order. The House will come back to order. I will put the leave he has sought, but I do not want to see the Standing Order abused.

Hon Phil Goff: Can I speak further to the point of order, Mr Speaker? If a question is asked where I legitimately quote accurately the views that are expressed in the media, and the Prime Minister said, no, far from saying that, they said something else—in other words saying that the original quote was wrong—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is bringing the substance of a debate into a point of order. The Standing Orders are very clear on how members should seek leave to table documents. I am merely pointing out that it is not acceptable to use that Standing Order to make a political point. The Standing Order is available for the tabling of documents. The member has sought leave to table the front page of every community newspaper in Auckland. If leave is granted, he will do that. Leave is sought to table the front page—

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The leave that was sought was to table the front page of every community newspaper in Auckland that had stated that the Government was acting in a bullying capacity.

Mr SPEAKER: Because it has been alleged that I misrepresented what the member sought leave for, I ask whether the member agrees that he is seeking leave to table the front page of every community newspaper.

Hon Phil Goff: To clarify the point, I am seeking leave to table an identical front page in every suburban newspaper in Auckland.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the front page of every suburban newspaper in Auckland. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. Those front pages will be tabled before the end of this sitting.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Mr Goff.

Hon Phil Goff: The truth will out.

Mr SPEAKER: That point of order has been dealt with. Is the member asking a further supplementary question? He has the right to do so.

Hon Phil Goff: Why—

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before Mr Goff sought leave to table his documents, you had already called Sue Kedgley to ask her supplementary question. I ask that you allow her to pursue her question.

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Greens. Would the honourable member Mr Goff allow me to come back to the Greens. I do apologise. You are quite correct.

Sue Kedgley: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the submissions on legislation that he mentioned in no way substitute for the formal consultation processes required under the Local Government Act? Why should Aucklanders be denied the right to a formal consultation process under the Local Government Act that all other New Zealanders are afforded, especially when the Auckland super-city proposal involves the mother of all mergers—the biggest in New Zealand’s history—involving $23 billion in assets and over 6,000 staff?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, there has been substantial engagement with Auckland. The royal commission was not a small event. There were 3,500 submissions. Secondly, the Government is continuing to engage with Aucklanders. I met with all of the Auckland mayors last week, with the exception of John Banks. To give the member some comfort, I will quote Mike Lee, the chairman of the Auckland Regional Council: “Over the last 20 years there have been a number of changes to governance in Auckland imposed on us by central government. Never before have we had a Government committed to such a high level of engagement with us, and I want to thank the Minister of Local Government for all that he is doing.”

Hon Phil Goff: Why is the Prime Minister insisting on eight out of 20 councillors being elected at large, given the universal opposition to that proposal, and the overwhelming preference for a full ward system—or is his position yet another on which he will do a flip-flop?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. He was telling us before that we should listen to the royal commission. The royal commission recommended councillors at large. The Leader of the Opposition is now saying we should ignore it. He cannot have it both ways. Secondly, the decision was made because councillors at large are deemed to have a region-wide response to what is a regional problem. If there is someone who cannot make up his mind, it is Chris Carter, who was asked last night whether, if Labour became the Government, he would roll back the super-city. He said: “I cannot possibly answer that.”

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has quoted me incorrectly. I seek leave to make a personal statement on the issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal statement. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.

Hon Chris Carter: Last night over 250 people came to a meeting in West Auckland that was co-hosted by me, David Cunliffe, and Lynne Pillay. We had an open question and answer session. At the end I was asked what a future Labour Government would do about any reorganisation of Auckland. My answer was that we would look at it at the time, but we certainly would not follow the Key-Hide programme.

Mr SPEAKER: The House has let off some steam. Now could we have a little bit of order, please, and show some courtesy to Sue Bradford.

Sue Bradford: Does the Prime Minister agree with one of the Auckland mayors, who said recently: “The voices of everyone else in the city are relegated to the 20 or 30 toothless local boards, with no power or resources, who like Oliver Twist will be left to pluck up their courage to beg their new lords and masters”—that is the super-city council—“for a little bit more for their communities”; if he does not agree with that statement, why not, and what is he going to do about it?

Hon JOHN KEY: No. The reason for that is that the Auckland City Council will be well represented and will have those region-wide activities. The aim is for the second tier, whatever its structure, to be a strong voice for the local community, and to be able to carry out the programmes that are already being carried out today. In my view, that will deliver a much better governance structure for Auckland.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Prime Minister follow the law under section 49 of the Local Government Act and seek a mandate from Aucklanders as to whether they agree with the proposed very radical restructuring, or is he concerned that it would show that, overwhelmingly, Aucklanders do not like what he is proposing, and will he, therefore, override that Act?

Hon JOHN KEY: Well, firstly, I would not take the assumption made by the Leader of the Opposition as being correct. The polling I have seen supports a super-city for Auckland. In fact, I can say—and I do not think it is breaking any confidences—that all of the mayors whom I met last week actually supported the regional structure. Yes, there is some debate on the second tier. We will carry on with that.

Hon Phil Goff: Has the Prime Minister instructed the Minister of Local Government, Mr Rodney Hide, that his proposal to meet some of the costs of the restructuring by selling assets is not acceptable; if not, why not?

Hon JOHN KEY: There has been no discussion on that point.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Prime Minister finally acknowledge to the House that not only most Aucklanders but even his own MPs, including some of his own Cabinet Ministers, like Paula Bennett, have said that they do not have confidence in many of the changes that he and Mr Hide are proposing, because the Government has got it wrong?

Hon JOHN KEY: Far from the Government having got it wrong, I am sure that by the time this proposal for Auckland is rolled out we will have got it right, which is a lot better than the decision made by Mr Goff when he drop kicked Phil Twyford out of the Mt Albert electorate.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being raised.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the public interest in this issue, and the fact that the Māori Party, particularly, does have an interest in it, I would like to offer one of our supplementary questions to it—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He is using the point of order system to play political games, and that is not consistent with the Standing—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Not at all!

Mr SPEAKER: And he will not interject while I am on my feet.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That was a very serious offer to the Māori Party to take one of our supplementary questions, if it wanted it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. If the member can show me the Standing Order where he can take a point of order and do that, I will consider the matter further.

Government Debt—Increase

3. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What would be the financial situation if no changes to current policy were made in the forthcoming Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Budget Policy Statement announced in December showed that the Government had inherited a large and ongoing fiscal imbalance. This was due largely to a 50 percent increase in expenditure over the past 5 years without matching revenue increases. Preliminary Budget forecasts show recurring operating deficits of more than $10 billion a year, and that the Government would be continually in deficit for the next 15 years. As a result, if nothing was changed, gross debt would climb steadily from the current level of around 20 percent of GDP to in excess of 70 percent by 2023, and still be climbing.

Craig Foss: What consequences would follow if these projections were to be realised?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the Government continued the projected spending levels under the previous Government, combined with the recession’s impact on our tax revenue, Government debt would quadruple over the next decade, eventually reaching $30,000 per New Zealander. Of course, at that level it would require radical steps to bring it under control. It would also create additional finance costs equivalent to around $5 billion per annum today. These costs do not allow for the detrimental impact on growth and access to credit that such an outcome would inevitably create.

Hon David Cunliffe: Which of the Minister’s two positions does he now stand by: his earlier position that there was no debt problem, and that therefore tax cuts should have been given earlier to New Zealanders; or his position now that there is a debt problem, and that therefore he must have been wrong to call for earlier tax cuts?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is certain there is potentially a debt problem, and a significant driver of that debt problem was the previous Government’s refusal to implement tax cuts. It used those surpluses to commit to structural spending levels growing at twice the rate of the economy. That is unsustainable and will have to change.

Craig Foss: What principles will the Government follow in outlining a responsible Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has already outlined a number of principles. It is committed to retaining social entitlements, committed to improving public services, and committed to reprioritising spending so that taxpayers’ money goes to those areas where we can make a real difference to New Zealanders and maintain better, smarter public services.

Nine-day Working Fortnight—Employment

4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: How many jobs does he expect the 9-day fortnight will save?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I expect the 9-day fortnight programme will save as many jobs as businesses, unions, and employees can negotiate to enter the scheme. So far 123 jobs have been saved. We expect more jobs will be saved in coming weeks and months. Work and Income has had approaches from 67 firms, and a further seven smaller firms have made inquiries about the extended scheme announced by Prime Minister John Key last week.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can he confirm, therefore, that last week’s changes to the 9-day fortnight were a political patch-up because the scheme was simply not working, and that with unemployment up by more than 17,000, National’s efforts to protect 123 jobs, although worthwhile, were simply inadequate; if so, how can he insist that the 9-day fortnight has been successful when Fisher and Paykel Appliances has cut another 20 Kiwi jobs after having received public funds from the scheme?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be interested to know that the scheme has been operating for 1 month and that the Government has provided sufficient funding for many workplaces, businesses, unions, and employees to negotiate to use the 9-day fortnight. In the end it is up to them. The member should understand that many of them face some difficult and stark choices between people keeping their jobs or losing them, people taking pay cuts, and people going on the 9-day fortnight.

Amy Adams: How does New Zealand’s unemployment rate compare with that in other parts of the world?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Unemployment started to rise at the beginning of 2008 under the previous Government. It currently stands at 4.6 percent which is relatively low compared with the United Kingdom’s rate at 6.7 percent, and the 8.5 percent rate in the United States and in the eurozone. The Government is keen to do everything it can to help people to retain jobs, but it also wants to build confidence in the economy, so that we can create the new jobs that will replace those that are inevitably being lost as part of the global recession.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given that approximately 1,160 Public Service workers have been “capped” in recent months, why are they not being afforded the benefits of the 9-day working fortnight?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government made the decision that the best way it could contribute to inhibiting job loss was to have a scheme applicable to the private sector; the Government can make its own decisions about the public sector.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister therefore confirm to the House that John Key’s unfunded cycleway—that is, not this year, next year, or the year after—the 9-day working fortnight, and the scrapped equity scheme have failed to live up to their hype; and does this not just confirm that Mr Key’s Job Summit was the talkfest that everybody suspected it would prove to be?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No; the Job Summit was a very interesting and effective interaction between the Government and the private sector—a bunch of people that the Labour members forgot about when they were in Government, to the extent that they were completely ignored. A number of initiatives will be pursued, and the cycleway, in particular, will be pursued with vigour because it is a great idea.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Ngāi Tahu Treaty Settlement

5. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Has he received advice that the emissions trading scheme will cost Ngāi Tahu up to $120 million; if so, what strategies will he establish to ensure that the scheme is not prejudicial for assets transferred under Treaty settlements?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I am advised that Ngāi Tahu is affected by the emissions trading scheme in the same way as all pre-1990 forest owners, in that if their areas are deforested they incur very substantial liabilities. The cost is difficult to assess as it depends on which areas of forests would give higher returns from alternative land uses. This issue adds complexity to the Treaty settlement process as it significantly affects land values and the quantum of settlements. The Government wants to act in good faith with Māori on these complex Treaty and climate change issues, while also acknowledging that issues over the emissions trading scheme application to forestry also impact significantly on the property rights of all landowners.

Rahui Katene: What responsibility do forest companies have for situations such as that of Ngāi Tahu, which has no control over trees on its land that are cleared by forest companies, but thereby incurs a liability of $40 million to $120 million?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Landowners who may be faced with forest companies removing their trees have the option of either replanting trees themselves, contracting with an alternative forest company to plant trees on the land, or, in the event that they want to change the land use, incurring those liabilities. I think there are legitimate questions and debate to be had about the application of the emissions trading scheme in respect of forestry, and that is one of the reasons the Government is reviewing the scheme through the select committee process.

Hekia Parata: Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā tātou e te Whare.

[And greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and to us the House.]

Has the Minister received any specific reports on Ngāi Tahu’s concerns about the impacts of the emissions trading scheme on its settlement?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, the previous Government commissioned a report by Helen Aikman QC on the very specific concern of Ngāi Tahu that they were prejudicially adversely affected by the emissions trading scheme, in that the Government knew but did not disclose the adverse effect that climate change policy would have on forest values. This independent report rejected this claim and concluded that the Government had acted in good faith. I have provided this report to Ngāi Tahu and want them to have the opportunity to comment on its analysis and conclusions.

Rahui Katene: What progress has been made to respond to the concerns of Te Ohu Kai Moana, Aotearoa Fisheries, Sealord Group, and Endurance Fishing that during the process of reviewing the scheme the effect of emissions trading on Māori fishing interests must be explicitly recognised?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: An issue with the emissions trading scheme is that for industries like cement, steel, aluminium, and dairy a 90 percent allocation of its emissions is provided through to 2018 and then phased out, as compared with the fishing industry, which receives an allocation of only 50 percent of its emissions and for a period of only 3 years. I know that the Māori Party has a keen interest in that issue, and it is one on which the Government is keen to have a dialogue to ensure that our important fishing industry is treated fairly.

Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill—Implications

6. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Justice: Will his Government continue to support its Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill in light of advice suggesting it may lead to criminals attempting to kill police and victims in order to avoid arrest?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): Yes, but the ultimate form the bill takes will be shaped by the outcome of the select committee process. The member might be interested to know that I am also advised that similar concerns that offenders may kill their victims to avoid liability for an increased penalty were raised when the maximum penalty for sexual violation was increased from 14 to 20 years in 1993. The Ministry of Justice is not aware of any evidence that this has occurred.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will his Government continue to support its Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill in light of advice that it could lead to judges giving shorter sentences to offenders to avoid the no-parole policy, cause havoc in prisons, and clog our court system?

Hon SIMON POWER: Yes. As I said in response to the first question, I have an open mind about what shape the bill may take when it emerges from the select committee. The member might be interested to know that the advice I have is that the number of offenders before the courts at any one time under this legislation would be small. With regard to court backlogs, I can assure the member that much work is under way in this space, and real change is on the way.

Paul Quinn: Is he satisfied with the progress of the Sentencing and Payroll Reform Bill and other justice legislation—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am trying to assist the member. I do not think it is the Sentencing and Payroll Reform Bill.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has made his point. I invite the member to ask his question again.

Paul Quinn: Is he satisfied with the progress of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and other justice legislation?

Hon SIMON POWER: Yes. Since the election the Government has passed five justice bills, introduced another seven, and progressed three others. I am afraid that the member opposite, Clayton Cosgrove, will have to do better than getting his ideas for questions from last week’s Dominion Post. He will have to lift his game.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he agree that National and the Prime Minister have misled the public—

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was unable to hear that question because the member’s own leader was interjecting at the time he was putting the question. I would be happy to answer it if he would repeat the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure, but I do not think it was the honourable Leader of the Opposition. I suspect it was the Hon Trevor Mallard. I confess it did make it— [Interruption] A point of order has been raised by the honourable member, and he is now interjecting on his own point of order. I found it difficult to hear too, so I invite the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to please repeat his question.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does the Minister agree that National and the Prime Minister have misled the public by campaigning on a no-parole policy that they said would see an estimated 572 additional prisoners by 2011, when in reality, as his own Government has only now admitted, its policy would result in just 50 more offenders being added to the prison population over 4 years?

Hon SIMON POWER: No, I agree completely with the Prime Minister’s statements because unlike the previous Labour Government, which saw Damien O’Connor deny the need for a new prison, despite its own forecast that showed another would be needed, we wanted the public to know the cost of what we were putting in front of them. That is why we incorporated the forecast increase in prison numbers into our estimate of the impact of the sentencing policy. That information was provided on our website at the time the policy was launched, and the member might be interested to know that it is still there today.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he agree with his own Government’s spokesman who said in the New Zealand Herald on 18 April 2009, in relation to National’s misleading figures: “In any case, as a responsible opposition we thought it was better to over-estimate rather than under-estimate, because we wanted the public to be clear that parole changes come at a cost.”, and does he think that deliberately misleading the public with a figure that was more than 10 times the factual reality is an acceptable “overestimation”?

Hon SIMON POWER: Yes, I do agree with the Government spokesperson on those numbers because, as I said in answer to the last question, it was quite clear that the forecast numbers had to be included. It was made clear at the time the policy was launched on our website. If the member did his homework he would see that fact is still on our website today.

Kyoto Protocol—Compliance

7. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What do the latest reports on New Zealand’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol show, and how do these vary from previous reports?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): The 2009 net position report shows New Zealand is expected to exceed its Kyoto Protocol obligations by 9.6 million tonnes for the first commitment period, which on current carbon prices equates to $241 million. This is a marked improvement from the 2008 report, which indicated a 21.7 million tonne deficit, equating to $546 million. The Government has responded cautiously to this good news, noting that in previous reports these projections have varied from over a billion dollars in surplus to over a billion dollars in deficit.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why has the Kyoto balance changed by nearly $800 million in the last year?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The big changes have been in forestry and agriculture. Drought conditions in 2007-08 resulted in fewer cattle, sheep, and deer, and together with more accurate data on actual nitrous oxide animal emissions, that has resulted in a predicted reduction in agricultural emissions. New forest data show that the post-1990 forests for which New Zealand gets credits are absorbing significantly more carbon than was anticipated a year ago, because the forests are being planted on better soils than previously and because they have not been thinned, so they are producing thicker stands. There has been no significant change in the projections of emissions for energy, transport, and industrial processes. These significant variations in agricultural and forest data are a cautionary message about the uncertainty and challenges of carbon accounting in respect of natural systems.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What steps is the Government taking to try to get greater certainty in respect of New Zealand’s carbon balance?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is taking three steps. First, these latest figures will be independently audited and internationally reviewed over coming months. Secondly, we are investing heavily in the Land Use and Carbon Analysis System, to get greater certainty on those forestry figures. Satellite data should be available later this year, and we should continue to treat the forestry figures with caution until that satellite information is available. Thirdly, this Government is investing heavily in research on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, as there is still significant uncertainty with regard to emissions from that sector and they are particularly significant for New Zealand’s unique emissions profile.

Charles Chauvel: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand’s gross greenhouse gas emission levels are still some 23 percent higher than the 1990 levels, that the effort required to lower emissions will still be very significant, and that National’s policy-setting so far—such as stalling the implementation of the emissions trading scheme, scrapping the ban on thermal baseload generation, doing away with the biofuels obligation, and generally failing to plan for a transition to a lower-polluting economy—is heading in exactly the wrong direction?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is true that New Zealand’s gross emissions have increased very substantially, and the great irony is that during the course of the previous Government, when there was great talk of carbon neutrality, New Zealand’s emissions grew at a faster rate than those of any other developed country in the Western World. I say the only thing that is currently saving New Zealand’s bacon on the carbon balance is the large tree planting that occurred in the 1990s. That is actually offsetting that large increase in emissions. But no one in this House should doubt the challenge for New Zealand of constraining its emissions and making real progress on climate change.

Resource Management Act Reforms—Minister’s Statements

8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statements that the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill will reduce costs and delays?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes, and this view is supported by the vast bulk of submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this bill. Some submitters have expressed concern about some of the specifics of the 167 clauses of the bill, which is not surprising for a reform of this size. The tragedy is that for the last 9 years the previous Government not only ignored calls for reforms of the Resource Management Act but actually made amendments to the Act that increased costs and delays.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister agree with the Minister of Transport that the New Zealand Transport Agency’s submission in relation to that agency’s notices of requirement is “a minor technical matter”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Transport Agency has made a quite specific submission around how the requiring authority status can work better.

Hon Trevor Mallard: “Minor technical”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is, and it is important. It is minor and technical; it affects one of the 167 clauses. The Minister of Transport noted that the agency wished to make that submission to the select committee, and I think that it was important for the select committee to have the best advice possible because it is crucial for New Zealand that we get this bill right.

Tim Macindoe: What reports has the Minister received on differing views of the Opposition on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That question, as it starts, cannot possibly be the responsibility of that Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member has made a reasonable point. The Minister really has no responsibility for the views of the Opposition. I know that the construction of “What reports …” is an attempt to get around that fact. It is something of a dilemma. We know what is happening: the Minister has no responsibility for the views of the Opposition yet he is asked what reports he has received on the views of the Opposition. In recent time that construction has often sufficed to bring it within the responsibility of the Minister. Maybe I can invite the member to repeat his question in a way that brings it more consistently within the Standing Orders.

Tim Macindoe: What reports has the Minister received on differing views on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have been amused that there have been reports from the spokesperson on infrastructure opposite saying that the bill does not go nearly far enough, and from the spokesperson on the environment opposite saying that it goes way too far. I think that this is what happens in a dysfunctional family when mum and dad are both leaving home.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister agree with the submission from the chief executive of the Transport Agency that the amendment to the notices of requirement section could “significantly increase project costs”—his estimate in a supplementary submission is that the Manukau Harbour crossing would cost in excess of $100 million more—and does he still think that this is a “minor technical matter”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that the submissions not just from the Transport Agency but also from the electricity industry and other major infrastructure providers make plain that they strongly support the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Those submitters say the bill is crucial to the building of additional infrastructure. The question for this Parliament in respect of a requiring authority is whether it is appropriate for requiring authorities, many of which are private companies, to be both the applicant and the decision maker on such consents, noting that it actually adds an additional stage to the process. That is an issue on which I am very keen to hear the views of the select committee.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question that asked whether the Minister agreed, and whether it was a “minor technical matter”. Neither of those legs to the question was addressed. If he had addressed one of them, I would not have taken this point of order. He gave us an answer to a question that was not asked.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s question referred to a submission from the New Zealand Transport Agency. That submission made plain that the bill will substantially improve its capacity to build roads and infrastructure. It is not good enough for the member to quote simply a small element of a submission. It was perfectly proper for me to refer to the complete submission from that organisation.

Mr SPEAKER: I think I have heard sufficient on this issue. The member was offering to give away a supplementary question a little while ago; he has further supplementary questions to pursue this issue. My judgment is that the Minister did actually address the serious issue around the requiring authorities. The member raised the issue of possible cost. The Minister handled the question by way of pointing out the seriousness of the issue around requiring authorities. However, I invite the member to pursue his interests with a further supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the Minister of Housing share with the Minister the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s view that the Hobsonville project was subject to nimbyism before or after the Minister of Housing supported that submission to the committee—as the committee was told?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A submission was made by some Housing New Zealand Corporation staff. It was not approved by the board, by senior management, or by the Minister, and the Minister has received an apology for that. I note, though, that that submission was very supportive of the Government’s Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, and pointed out the advantages. The submitters wanted to extend the major project provisions for infrastructure to the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s development. I do not think that that is sensible—I think housing issues are best dealt with at the local level—so the Government does not intend to pursue that change.

Catherine Delahunty: Tēnā koutou katoa. How does increasing the filing fee from $55 to $500 for groups wishing to appeal to the Environment Court reduce their costs?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In considering the $500 appeal fee we need to take into account the fact that the actual cost to the court system is well over $1,000. When we look at the cost of appeal to the Environment Court, as compared with the fees for the High Court or for District Courts, we see that they compare very well. I also note that the registrar of our courts has the discretion to waive that fee in the event that he or she believes it would be unfair, and would block out a reasonable appeal.

Trades Academies—Establishment

9. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Education: What announcements has the Government made to progress its promise to establish at least five trades academies?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): The Government has recently asked the education sector for expressions of interest in establishing trades academies. Schools and tertiary institutions have been asked to submit short proposals that can be evaluated. Proposals that are judged to have significant merit will then be taken to a business case stage, so that final decisions can be made by Cabinet.

Colin King: What is the Government looking for in the expressions of interest?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The key attribute we are looking for is relevance. We are looking for proposals that will provide students who prefer to opt for practical, hands-on education experiences with exactly that, and that will provide them with more opportunities to gain the practical skills they need to enter the 21st century workforce. Members opposite may laugh, but I have been really heartened as I have gone around the country, talking to principals and tertiary institutions, to hear about some of the very exciting opportunities that they want the opportunity to create for young New Zealand students.

Hon Chris Carter: How can the replacement of the previous Labour Government’s Schools Plus programme, which was a comprehensive response to student underachievement, with five proposed trade academies over 3 years be considered anything but pathetic, when, currently, 25 percent of young New Zealanders leave school without the equivalent of National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 1?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I can answer that question very simply. I looked high and low in the Ministry of Education for the substantial Schools Plus policy, and I could not find it, and I could not find any money to do anything about it. The principals out there in secondary schools do not know what that substantial policy was, either. Calling for expressions of interest in establishing at least five trades academies, which will be in place by the next election, goes a long way further to actually addressing the issues of young New Zealanders.

Hon Chris Carter: Does the Minister agree with John Key, who said that “National will make the off-site learning opportunities of Gateway and STAR a mainstream part of what schools can offer.”; if so, will she commit to keeping the $21 million for the enhanced Secondary Tertiary Alignment Resource (STAR) programme, which was part of Labour’s Schools Plus initiative?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I can assure that member of the quality and the worth of the STAR and Gateway programmes. [Interruption] National takes credit for those programmes, because we invented them. But I say to that member that he will have to wait for the Budget to see exactly what expenditure will be put into them.

Energy—Gas Supplies

10. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by his statement 9 weeks ago that “gas will be a big part of New Zealand’s energy mix in the future”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes. In a speech on 24 February I also said “New Zealand’s electrical energy future will rely more on wind, hydro and geothermal. Gas will bridge us to that future.” I stand by both those statements.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister agree with the Electricity Commission’s finding last week that even if there is a big new gas discovery in New Zealand, the price of gas will “be very vulnerable to the international LNG price and the $US/$NZ exchange rate”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do not necessarily agree with the position that the Electricity Commission has taken with regard to future gas price, nor do I accept that there will necessarily be the importation of liquefied natural gas into New Zealand. It is interesting to note, though, that estimates of gas reserves in New Zealand regularly change. Indeed, the previous Minister, David Parker, said in 2006 that when it comes to “forecasting gas demand and supply, there is significant uncertainty around a range of factors on both the demand and supply sides.” I agree with him.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Has he seen any reports about the importance of gas to our electricity system?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. I have read a speech from the previous Minister of Energy, the Hon David Parker—

Hon Member: Well done!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I tell you what: it would be a good idea if Charles Chauvel spent a bit of time with Mr Parker, because he said in February 2008 “Fossil fuels, especially gas, will continue to have [an important] role for some time to come. They provide security, versatility, and stability in the delivery of electricity.” I have also seen a speech from Mr Parker in 2006 in which he said “We”—that is, the Labour Party—“accept … that some thermal power from fossil fuels will be needed in our energy system for the foreseeable future,”. I think Mr Chauvel should spend a lot more time talking to Mr Parker.

Charles Chauvel: Does—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Your colleague is asking a question.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister agree with energy analyst Molly Melhuish’s calculation that allowing a linkage to the international price of gas could see household power bills jump by more than $300 a year; if so, how does he reconcile his calls for low energy price rises with his promotion of a gas-fired electricity future for New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is unfortunate that the member does not listen, firstly, to me, and then, as a back-up, to his own colleagues. You see, it is quite evident that gas will be a bridge fuel for the future. It is abundantly clear from everything I have said that we will have greater reliance on renewable energy, and that gas will be sort of the icing on the cake. I might note that due to the previous Government’s absolute failure to look after the transmission infrastructure, right now North Islanders are almost totally dependent on thermal generation, because the Cook Strait cable is out. That Government failed to look after the infrastructure of this country, and it is hopeless for its members to start saying they have clear ideas of where the future lies.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister stand by his statement 9 weeks ago that “The Government is currently considering the best way of carrying out the update of the [New Zealand] Energy Strategy and I will make further announcements about this in the coming weeks.”; if so, how many more coming weeks will have to pass before he makes his further announcements; if not, is it because his Government has no consistent energy policy?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do stand by my statements, and the member has a lot of exciting things to look forward to.

Economic Stimulus Package, Housing—Employment

11. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Housing: What has been the impact to date on employment as a result of the housing component of the Government’s jobs and growth stimulus package?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): I was pleased to announce early last week that in fact 935 people were in jobs in March due to the money set aside earlier this year under the stimulus package. Those jobs include work both for upgrades and house construction and we are employing people across the sector. We are talking about design consultants, carpenters, joiners, plumbers, electricians, roofers, insulators, gardeners, and others. It is, quite frankly, fantastic news.

Jo Goodhew: How does this work fulfil commitments made by the National Government?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The member will recall that when the package was announced we made it clear that this work would keep people in jobs and that is what we are doing. Also, the Government’s job summit raised the need to accelerate initiatives to open up opportunities for employment—and we have delivered on that too. We are also delivering on clear commitments to improve the standards of existing Housing New Zealand Corporation stock. That is something that I think the whole country now knows was neglected by the previous Government.

Hon George Hawkins: Does the Minister see the irony in this Government congratulating itself for creating jobs when an estimated 1,160 jobs have been lost so far thanks to this Government’s public sector cuts and a huge opportunity to create more jobs was lost when this Government put the brakes on the Hobsonville State housing project?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I find that quite interesting because Cabinet papers show that the Hobsonville development was passed by Cabinet in 2002. Mr Gosche announced it at that time. I remember that after that Steve Maharey announced it a few years later. I believe Chris Carter announced it after that, and then Maryan Street. When I became Minister of Housing in 2008 there were no consents for Hobsonville; I found out that earthworks had not begun, and not a single house had been built. But now that National is in Government, we have the consents, the earthworks are about to start, and we are actually going to build some houses.

Chris Tremain: What impact is the stimulus package having on employment in the regions?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: When we initiated the package I asked the corporation to ensure that the contracting saw local builders and local tradespeople get work from the infrastructure package. The member from Napier witnessed it in Hawke’s Bay last week, when a local tradesperson approached us and thanked us because he was able to keep in work and to employ an extra person. That is happening right across the country. We are delighted that it is affecting people’s lives so positively.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd—Dr Jim Salinger

12. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: Does he stand by his statement in the Dominion Post last Saturday that the dismissal of internationally renowned scientist Dr Jim Salinger from his position at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research is “an employment dispute, which must be handled by the chief executive and the board”?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): Yes, I do.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is there ever a point where an employment issue justifies his intervention as Minister because of its potential effects on the quality of science and on New Zealand’s international reputation; if so, does he think that the dismissal of a Nobel Laureate on grounds that appear to the public to be quite flimsy might be such a point?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The chief executive of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Mr Morgan, and the chair of the board, Sue Suckling, came and saw me on the matter, in accordance with the no-surprises policy. I advised them that this was a matter for the chief executive officer and the board since it was an employment matter, and was not a matter for the Minister.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will the Minister reconsider his position in the light of the considerable overseas consternation about the dismissal of a Nobel Laureate of Dr Salinger’s status and call in the board of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research again and ask for an assurance that this action by its chief executive was justified, so that we do not, in the words of our Prime Minister, “continue to export scientists and import taxi drivers”?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I am aware of Dr Salinger’s work and reputation. However, as I have said previously, this is an employment matter and is a matter strictly for the board and the chief executive officer.

Moana Mackey: Will the Minister undertake to write to all Crown research institute chief executives this week, assuring them that all publicly employed scientists are still entitled, and, indeed, encouraged, to make scientific information publicly available, including in circumstances where such information may contradict Government policy?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: There is an operating framework—in fact, prepared by the previous Government—that still is current, which states there must be good employment practices conducted by all of the Crown research institutes. I would assume that all of the employees and, indeed, the boards would operate under that practice.

Moana Mackey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I specifically asked whether the Minister would undertake to write to the chief executives this week, and I do not believe that he answered that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I cannot elicit out of a Minister a yes or no answer, but the member does have a further supplementary question.

Moana Mackey: In refusing to call in the board of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research to further investigate this issue, is the Minister telling the House that based on his information, Dr Salinger is not telling the truth in his public comments about his sacking being unfair?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: This is a matter for the board and the chief executive officer, and that is where the issue shall lie. It is not a matter for the Minister.

Bills

ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill

First Reading

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): I move, That the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee with an instruction to the committee that it present its report to the House on or before 25 May 2009. A report presented by the committee on or before 25 May will enable New Zealand to remain on course to complete its domestic procedures for the purposes of the agreement’s entry into force by 1 July 2009. That is the target date set by the parties to the agreement for its entry into force. For that to occur, New Zealand, Australia, and at least four members of the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) must have notified the parties that they have completed their domestic procedures.

This 12-country, region-to-region free-trade agreement is of both commercial and strategic significance. It opens new commercial opportunities for New Zealand businesses and investors, and it integrates our economy more closely with South-east Asia—a region of critical importance. I think the strategic significance to New Zealand’s future prosperity from access to the 10-country ASEAN market should not be underestimated. In terms of political leadership, I acknowledge a number of people who have contributed to this initiative over a very long period of time. The first is the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith, a former Minister of International Trade, who was responsible for initiating the Singapore - New Zealand free-trade agreement. That spawned a thinktank expert group for this very agreement, chaired by the then Deputy Prime Minister of Australia Tim Fischer, with New Zealand being represented by the Rt Hon Bill Birch. Second, I acknowledge the further work done by my two predecessors in the previous Government, the Hon Jim Sutton and the Hon Phil Goff, for their political leadership of this initiative. It has had widespread support over a very long period of time, and I think there are some very important and obvious lessons that arise about the importance of continuity of policy in this area of interest to New Zealand.

The ASEAN market of more than 566 million people is already New Zealand’s third-largest export market for merchandise goods. It was worth approximately NZ$4.6 billion in the year to June 2008, and New Zealand exports to the ASEAN region have grown at an astonishing compound average rate of growth of 24 percent over each of the past 3 years. Incidentally, that rate of growth was faster than our rate of exports to China. It is clear that the ASEAN region is a critical one for New Zealand exports not only for outward investment but also for our wider economy and our future. We are a small, export-driven, and trade-dependent economy, though it is my strong view that we have a great deal of work to do to increase the trade orientation of the New Zealand economy. Trading prosperity provides the basis for much of the current employment in this country and the continuing economic viability of this country. Improving market access for New Zealand firms through a progressive trade agenda, including through this particular agreement that we are examining for the first time today, will stimulate economic growth and will help create and safeguard New Zealand jobs. Let me emphasise that not just in this country but also around the world most research indicates that in the export sector we get higher-quality and higher-paid jobs.

The ASEAN free-trade agreement, like all of our free-trade agreements, helps to create an environment that makes it easier, more profitable, and more predictable for New Zealand businesses to enter markets and to do business in those markets. Now, as we find ourselves in the greatest period of economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s, securing new market access is more critical than ever. New Zealand stands to lose from protectionist measures, which have a severe impact on trade and investment flows. I think that is well understood up and down the country. This agreement provides some considerable assurance against that long-term threat. It ensures that New Zealand businesses remain at the cutting and competitive edge, benefiting from tariff reductions and a greater certainty of access. In the face of global pressures towards economic protectionism, this agreement is a welcome sign that the ASEAN nations and New Zealand’s CER partner, Australia, are committed to staying open for business.

In the area of goods exports, the outcome secured by the agreement is an excellent one. Over time New Zealand will benefit from the elimination of 99 percent of tariffs on exports to the four key markets in ASEAN—Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Viet Nam. On day one of the entry into force of this agreement, 70 percent of New Zealand’s current exports to these key ASEAN markets will be duty-free. In a sense, a very large part of the job will happen immediately once the agreement enters into force. We do not have to wait the full 10-year period or 12-year period for this to start having substantial benefits for New Zealand goods and services, and for the people whose employment is sustained by those companies. That figure on day one—70 percent—will rise to nearly 85 percent by 2016, which is not too far away. On full implementation, under current levels of trade this will equate to an annual duty saving of approximately $50 million. Whether or not that is a gross underestimate—which I suspect it is—depends on the future growth of New Zealand exports to the ASEAN region.

The ASEAN free-trade agreement does more than simply address tariff lines for merchandise trade. As we all know, services are becoming an increasingly important part of our export economy. Our growth rate and services is actually somewhat better than the average OECD growth rate. It is not just the old story about agriculture—important though agriculture will be to our future. For New Zealand exporters of services, the ASEAN free-trade agreement represents some real gains. For example, the ASEAN countries have gone further for New Zealand than they have currently undertaken in respect of their World Trade Organization services commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). This includes taking on commitments made in New Zealand’s priority service sectors, which include education services and engineering.

The free-trade agreement also helps New Zealanders investing in the region. They benefit from new and additional protections, including the potential for recourse to binding investor-State arbitration procedures. New Zealand business people will also benefit from new provisions and disciplines that facilitate their movement across and within the region. The agreement includes robust and transparent dispute settlement procedures in order to resolve any trade-related disputes that may arise. It is a commonplace but correct observation that as countries increase their trade, inevitably the number of disputes will rise. In addition to this aspect of the agreement, New Zealand has also concluded legally binding agreements on trade and labour, and trade and environment with the Philippines. These build on existing instruments in other areas of the ASEAN grouping—Thailand, Brunei, and Singapore—and we have ongoing processes to try to advance these objectives in respect of Indonesia and Malaysia. So it is an iterative process. These agreements enhance communication and cooperation on these issues, and aid the objectives of raising working standards and improving environmental protection.

This agreement has a direct bearing on New Zealand’s future in the Asia-Pacific region. The ASEAN free-trade agreement represents an important building block in the wider east Asia region, and underscores New Zealand’s strategic commitment to greater regional integration. It is also strongly in our interests to do what we can to ensure that any moves in the Asia-Pacific region towards closer regional economic integration remain open and outward looking. By concluding this agreement, New Zealand remains very well positioned to retain and play a proactive role in further regional initiatives such as the potential closer economic partnership with east Asia. This is a potential free-trade area that would encompass the 10 members of ASEAN, New Zealand, and Australia—that is, the same countries we are talking about today—plus India, South Korea, China, and Japan. The bill amends New Zealand law to comply with the ASEAN free-trade agreement, thereby enabling New Zealand to bring the agreement into force. This requires certain amendments to the Tariff Act 1988 and some other consequential changes to legislation.

The Government would like to commend this bill to the House and to see the bill enacted by 4 June 2009 to meet the target date of 1 July 2009 for entry into force. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): The Labour Opposition, in the usual pattern of bipartisanship on developing market access to new economies for our businesses, very much supports the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. This bill will bring into effect a free-trade agreement with Australia and the countries of ASEAN. It was my privilege in May of last year to conclude those negotiations, and I congratulate Tim Groser on having the privilege of being able to sign it.

I think we had an incredibly good year for trade last year. We concluded the free-trade agreement with China, the first free-trade agreement that China has had with any developed country, and then we developed, worked through, and concluded the negotiations with ASEAN. China is our fourth-largest trading partner, but ASEAN, collectively, is our third-largest. It is a critically important market. ASEAN has 575 million people as part of it. It has become more and more important, over time, as a destination for our merchandise goods, our services, and our investments.

I think Tim Groser mentioned that over the last 3 years this market has grown, on average, by 24 percent a year. That rate of growth is higher than that of China. It is a market that is expanding, and it is a market that is at the core of the most economically progressive part of the world—the fastest growing and the fastest developing area of the world. We send something like $4.6 billion of exports into that market—those are the figures to June 2008—and therefore it is critical for our exporters to gain the advantages of a free-trade agreement and, ultimately, free-market access for 99 percent of our current exporters into that market by 2020. That is a huge step forward.

It was not a straightforward process to negotiate. The negotiation took 3 years. In Singapore last year I attended the 15th round of those trade negotiations. That indicates that it was a tough agreement to achieve. There were big obstacles to overcome, but we got there. That is a real achievement, and there is a sense of satisfaction for all of us as New Zealanders.

As Tim Groser knows, we have to acknowledge our professionals in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for doing the nuts and bolts work—the critical hard work of a negotiation. I want to make reference to two of our very best trade negotiators—Martin Harvey, who started the process, and Vangelis Vitalis, who completed the round. I have huge respect for both of those people, and I pay tribute to them and to their teams for their skill, their hard work, their commitment, and their sheer perseverance. We went to Singapore uncertain that we would complete the round. We knew that it was vital to do so. There was a series of problems that we had to overcome, but I will not go into the details of those in this House. They worked at the official levels, and they did a superb job. I worked at the political level. I tried to reach an agreement, which, in the end, has to be a political agreement. In the end we got there, and I think that that is an enormously important achievement for New Zealand.

The agreement was actually the first time that the ASEAN countries had negotiated a comprehensive agreement as part of a single undertaking. That means that the agreement simultaneously covered goods, services, and investment, as well as other areas that one would expect in a modern free-trade agreement, such as intellectual property. New Zealand exporters are currently paying around $50 million a year in tariffs in order to trade with those economies. At a simple level, that means that the saving for New Zealand businesses will be $50 million a year when we finally implement this agreement. But, actually, it is much more important than that, because a free-trade agreement does a lot more to provide the foundation to expand exports into that market. Not only does it eliminate the tariffs on all of our key exporters by 2020 but also it means that our businesses have protected access into those markets and they have competitive advantage over the other countries that are also working to sell their goods and services into those markets.

But we took another factor into consideration, which was the regionalisation process in the Asian area. There was real concern at one point that with free-trade agreements being negotiated within the region that were not necessarily outward looking, we could have found ourselves locked out of a very vital market. It was critical for New Zealand to engage in that regionalisation process. It was also critical to become part of a free-trade agreement with the ASEAN countries, part of the closer economic partnership for east Asia through the East Asia Summit, and also to look at what we could negotiate in terms of a regional free-trade agreement through APEC.

Those goals are important, but they are not immediately achievable. This agreement was achievable, and we have got into the markets through that free-trade agreement. That will prove vital for us at a time when trade this year is likely to diminish for the first time since World War II. Pascal Lamy said trade internationally will diminish by 9 to 10 percent this year. At a time of recession there is a mood, regrettably, of protectionism. Protectionism is very good if it works just one way; that is, if a country protects its borders against imports coming in but the other countries it trades with welcome its exports with open arms. Clearly, that does not happen. The problem with protectionism is that it does not protect jobs; it destroys jobs, because protectionism invites retaliatory action. For us as a trading nation it is critically important that we protect our jobs in the export area by ensuring that we have access to our markets. It is also a fact in favour of free-trade agreements that when a country increases its trade by about 10 percent, the latest figures from the OECD suggest that that will increase its per capita income by around 4 percent. So trade is a way in which we build up our wealth and our employment opportunities for New Zealanders.

I think this agreement is critically important, but by itself it is not sufficient. The free-trade agreement that we are separately negotiating with Malaysia will be very important. That is a big market for us. My sense is that good progress was, and is, being made in that area. In Korea, which is not part of ASEAN but part of North Asia, we are seeing good progress, and we will see a free-trade agreement delivered in that area. I hope also that we will be able to make progress when the American administration has settled its trade policy with the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement. That encompasses the P4 countries—New Zealand, Chile, Brunei, and Singapore—with the United States, Australia, Peru, and Viet Nam coming in as well. That is critically important because the United States is our second-biggest trading market. It is also critically important because if we succeed in that then we will get a forward momentum that will see other countries in the Asia-Pacific region wanting to become part of that free-market agreement.

I will conclude on the other area that I know that Tim Groser is very familiar with and will be working hard on, and that is the area of concluding the Doha round. Free-trade agreements are good, but the thing that bilateral free-trade agreements do not achieve is dealing with the problems of export incentives, agricultural subsidies, and overall tariff levels. We need to conclude the Doha round of World Trade Organization talks in order to achieve those objectives. At a time when there is recession, the Europeans have brought back export incentives. Under the Doha round they would be eliminated by 2013. There is a huge difference between the applied rate of tariffs in the world at the moment and the bound rates. Doha will bring down the bound rates and stop countries lifting their tariff levels. This agreement is good, but it is part of a wider whole.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): I will begin by setting a little context to this somewhat anodyne discussion. First of all, I see this agreement as being fundamentally important, because it will help to consolidate and underpin our world market democracies. The legislation that has been introduced by my colleague Tim Groser this afternoon, the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill, is an example of history on the move. If we think about developments in the last 20 or 30 years, we rapidly come to understand that there are about 137 countries on the planet that, more or less, practise free elections, and 82 of those countries have executive power controlled by a Parliament like ours. What does that mean in the market place? It means that, between 1980 and 2008, world GDP multiplied by three times. Trade in industrial products, however, grew 25 times. If we think about production across the planet, we see that in that same period—from 1980 to 2008—there has been an increase in production valued at €40 trillion. Industrial production has grown by 4 percent per year, which is a rate never previously achieved in the history of our world. If we look at what has been going on since about 1985, we can see that exports between countries on the planet amount to roughly 13 percent of global GDP, a percentage never achieved since 1913.

As this trade is going on we are also seeing power relationships changing, in relative terms. Newspapers continue to report about American stagnation, and many of us know that Europe is in decline. Counter to that, Asia is climbing. Asia had an annual growth rate across all of Asia of 6 percent in 2008, but from 1980 to 2008 Asian GDP multiplied by four times, China’s GDP multiplied by three times, India’s GDP multiplied by three times, and Europe’s GDP multiplied by only two. So Asia’s share of world trade has climbed from 16 to 28 percent over the period from 1980 to 2008. Over that same time frame America managed to keep only a 21 percent market share, and Europe declined from 28 to 20 percent.

So we see a global environment where America and Europe are losing ground. Those economies are experiencing declining productivity. They are encountering fading competitiveness, and dynamism is on the wane. Their populations are ageing. In 1992 European nations adopted a common currency, but they are still at a point where Europeans even today do not have an integrated market economy. In 2008 per capita GDP in Europe was 25 percent below that of the USA. Industry is leaving Europe. Where is it going? It is going to Asia. The Pacific Ocean—in our part of the world—is fast becoming the world’s most important body of water. In 1990 trans-Pacific trade outstripped trans-Atlantic trade by 50 percent. If we think about the countries around the rim of the Pacific, we see that nine of the world’s 12 greatest ports are located on the Asian seaboard of the Pacific.

It is against that background that I see this agreement as being incredibly important. It will link us to an ASEAN market, across those 10 member States, of 566 million people. It will link us into an economy of US$1,400 billion of global trade. As my colleague Phil Goff pointed out, ASEAN is New Zealand’s third-largest market for merchandised goods, and it is our third-largest trading partner. So why is this agreement important? Well, aside from plugging us into this dynamic part of the world, the free-trade agreement will facilitate trade in goods and services by reducing and eliminating barriers, by providing greater certainty to New Zealand manufacturers, by providing transparency, and by reducing associated transaction costs for New Zealand businesses wishing to operate in ASEAN markets. It also provides additional protection for New Zealand investors investing in that part of the world.

The free-trade agreement is not about just economics. As well as the immediate commercial benefits that most companies in our electorates will be concerned with, the free-trade agreement also represents a really important building block in the development of our relationships with South-east Asia. We have been seriously working on that—certainly since I was posted in Singapore back in the late 1970s. We really have to make a broad strategic commitment for greater regional integration amongst our Asian neighbours. They are the communities and the economies that are growing. This free-trade agreement is part of a broader process of regional integration being developed through a range of groupings in the Asia-Pacific region, such as the East Asia Summit and other ASEAN-related processes in the APEC forum, of which many New Zealanders are well aware.

I think the conclusion of this free-trade agreement, when it comes back to this House from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, will help to ensure that New Zealand remains an integral part of this unfolding regionalism and that this process remains open and focused in an outward direction.

A number of advantages will accrue to companies in New Zealand once this agreement comes into force on 1 July this year. Tariff elimination will generate the most immediate gains. In 2010 we can expect over $429 million worth of current exports to Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. These exports will include, in some markets, butter, milk powder, cheese, wool, kiwifruit, apples—including apples from my home town of Greytown—and some manufactured products like those that come from the metal craft industry in Dannevirke. Those products, covering 28 percent of the total current exports from New Zealand to Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Viet Nam, will enter those markets duty-free. When that happens, 70 percent of New Zealand’s total current exports will enter those markets duty-free in 2010.

Between 2011 and 2015 we will save another $60 million on current exports to Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, covering things like beef, wine—which is, again, produced in my electorate—apples, onions, aluminium, and iron and steel products. Then, in 2016, we will gain more benefits from the export of $137 million worth of products to Viet Nam, like milk powder, paper, and those sorts of products.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North): There seems to be a remarkable outbreak of peace across the Chamber on the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. But I am aware the speaker following me will be from the Green Party, and I want to make some remarks to which I hope he or she will respond.

I should start as the Minister of Trade, Tim Groser, did and acknowledge the history of this agreement. I acknowledge its beginnings in Singapore with the work of the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith, and the work of Jim Sutton in ASEAN and in many other parts of the world—most notably China. I also acknowledge the work of the Hon Phil Goff in various parts of the world, and his role, which he mentioned, in getting the political closure on this agreement last year. As a member of Cabinet at that time, I remember well the sense of excitement as we moved closer to that agreement because of its importance to us. I will not reiterate all the figures that have been given by other speakers, but if this is our third-largest export market and our combined average growth rate over the past 3 years from New Zealand to those markets has been 24 percent in the absence of a free-trade agreement, then that is a remarkable achievement.

It is an achievement that, one assumes, will be improved on what it would otherwise be without the presence of that free-trade agreement. I want to acknowledge, as indeed the previous speaker has, the extent to which trade has changed over recent years. This is not quite the same analysis as that of the chairman of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, but a different one since he has already given his. I do not dispute anything he said, but I add some observations around the role of agreements on trade and the environment to the contributions in the House. Such agreements, even 12 years ago, were considered completely impossible, simply a challenge, and something that would bog down the agreement in tradable goods. Indeed, moving to services was itself quite big, but it is now an ordinary feature of our free-trade agreements.

The other thing that has happened in recent years and continues to develop is that, on the New Zealand side, the internal processes we use are just becoming better and better. We ought to acknowledge the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, of Business New Zealand, and of the various groups that interact in that process. I refer to, for example, the trade union movement and many others that interact in the course of negotiations. The awareness within the New Zealand economy as to how these negotiations are going, or not going, gets better and better; the awareness that negotiators have on the particular effects of this or that clause on a particular company, such as Fisher and Paykel Appliances, are becoming more and more obvious; and the very vulnerable sectors—and there are some; textiles, clothing, and footwear come to mind, but there are others—are taken into account in a fairly free way. Then, of course, an agreement must be struck. An agreement is never struck so that there is only one winner, because that would not be an agreement. The other side would not come to the party; there has to be give and take. I am acknowledging that I think we have a more and more elaborate and open consultative process.

It is interesting that that consultative process does not involve the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and maybe it should. It does involve Cabinet. Cabinet is given updates as these various negotiations come along, and it seems to me a reasonable proposition that it ought to be the case that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—or another select committee, as is relevant—is also briefed. Maybe, with some agreements, the Primary Production Committee should also be briefed. One reason why a select committee would not be briefed is that it does not have any natural expertise. But, you see, neither does Cabinet, except perhaps for the trade Minister of the day, the foreign affairs Minister of the day, the primary production Minister of the day, or the Prime Minister of the day. But, generally speaking, Cabinet is not comprised of experts, and neither is the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I put the idea on the table that it would help us as a group of parliamentarians if one or two of our select committees were briefed as a matter of routine to the level of detail that was deemed appropriate, so that people could be questioned about processes, progress, and outcomes.

The other comment I make concerns the Green Party. I do not believe the Green Party is anti-trade, but it certainly has misgivings about trade that are not shared by other parties. I think that if the Green Party was represented on select committees and was privy to information that National or Labour had whenever they have been in office—and both parties have been—then that may not only assist the Green Party’s understanding of the process but also enhance the process itself, because the Green Party is thoroughly capable of coming up with suggestions or propositions. I would like Green Party members to respond to that if they want to.

I make another comment to the Government. I am not convinced that this remarkable agreement involving a series of trading partners collectively bigger than China will be as well supported by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise as the agreement with China has been. I do not know that that is the case; I hope I am wrong. I note that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—which, of course, I generally perceive to be a very good outfit—needs the support from this Government to ensure that our exporters have the opportunity to take advantage of this agreement as it comes into force. That was the case in China. There are stories all over the place about New Zealand businesses making progress—some slow, some fast—in various parts of China, and the role of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise in that progress. I think the role of beachheads in various parts of the ASEAN community needs to be explored. Generally speaking, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise might need to be bulked up in response to our free-trade agreements having essentially been bulked up. It used to be a big deal when we got ourselves a free-trade agreement with Singapore, which has a population of just over 4 million people. That pales in significance when we consider what progress we have made with our third and fourth-largest partners, and what progress we might make when the Obama administration has had an opportunity to consider its trade policy with our second-largest export partner. If the New Zealand export community is to ensure that it maximises its effects in these easier-to-access markets, then it will need a degree of support from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. With those remarks, I congratulate the Government on introducing this legislation. I hope for its rapid and seamless passage.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Let me begin, if I may, by paying tribute to Minister Tim Groser for his personal skill, and that of his predecessors Phil Goff and others, in endeavouring to advance New Zealand’s national interest in the trade negotiations. I also express my considerable appreciation to the previous speaker, Pete Hodgson, for his very thoughtful and constructive comments that, I should say, were inclusive in the sense of seeking to strike up constructive debate on this quite complex matter. I appreciate his concerns about Green Party policy on the question of trade. He is correct when he observes that the Green Party is not anti-trade per se; in fact, we simply harbour considerable concerns about certain aspects of certain free-trade agreements. We believe that some of these agreements do not meet the required standards to attract our support. Let me respond constructively and advance the debate by offering our views on this matter. I looked to the stated purposes of the free-trade agreement as they are set out in the national interest analysis, I looked to the report of the relevant committee, which identifies the stated reasons for the free-trade agreement, and I listened to the Minister this afternoon. In a sense the Minister summarised the report—because I do not have much time. He stated: “We are a small, export-driven, and trade-dependent economy.” Increased market access is critical to stimulate our economic growth. That, in essence, is the rationale for all free-trade agreements, whether it is the free-trade agreement with China, the ASEAN-Australia agreement, or others.

The first fundamental critique we have to offer is what we take to be the obsessive concern about economic growth and commercial opportunity, which we do not hold as having the same absolute, untrammelled, uncritically questioned value that the Government does. We do not dispute the need for a sustainable economy; we do question the need for economic growth if it risks being unsustainable. That is the fundamental premise to be debating. It is not drawn out properly in the national interest analysis.

Let me be more specific. To respond to Mr Hodgson, I say that the Green Party is composed of rational individuals who will be prepared to switch policy if our concerns are properly refuted or decently answered. Let me offer four questions for the Government—and, for that matter, Labour—to answer convincingly. The first is the following. Why does the national interest analysis not include in the “disadvantages” section an estimate of the increased volume of trade in tonnage, not currency, and the increased greenhouse gas emissions that will ensue as a result of that increased tonnage?

This is the second question. Many of our domestic manufacturers are in a precarious economic position currently, finding it difficult to compete with the lower wage structure of their Asian competitors. We in the Green Party are concerned that the further phasing out of protections envisaged in this agreement could well lead to more factory closures in New Zealand. On 3 March the Minister of Trade, Tim Groser, welcomed the recent free-trade initiatives as “good news for the New Zealand economy”. He dismissed concerns that free-trade agreements, including the China agreement and, for that matter, the ASEAN one, would do businesses in New Zealand out of work. He stated that those concerns had “zilch” to do with free-trade agreements and international trade. So the second question to the Minister asks him to please define “zilch” and explain why there is no causal relationship between free-trade agreements and business closures in New Zealand.

This is the third question. The services and investment provisions in the agreement are also of concern. Under this agreement firms based in the ASEAN countries must be allowed to provide the full range of financial services here, even those instruments that are currently under such scrutiny and criticism around the world. The agreement locks in light-handed regulation of the finance sector and capital markets, which is at the root of the global economic crisis. So the third question asks whether the Minister agrees with that observation—and if not, why not?

Finally, we in the Green Party are concerned at the agreement’s application to Burma, in view of the call for economic sanctions of the Burmese pro-democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. At a time when the United States and the European Union have responded to that call with sanctions, New Zealand firms under this agreement are being encouraged to invest in Burma, and these investments are being given further protection. So the fourth question asks what the Minister has to say to Suu Kyi. Will she be satisfied with his claim that this is good for the New Zealand economy—is that enough? Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): The figures at the core of this ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill are staggering. We are talking about a free-trade area with approximately 566 million people, a combined gross domestic product of US$1.9 trillion, and global trade of US$1.7 trillion. It is not easily ignored. This region represents one of the most economically dynamic markets in the world. Even in the Aotearoa-ASEAN relationship, trade and exports have grown an impressive 24 percent per year over the last 3 years. This is certainly a massive undertaking.

The agreement, signed on 27 February this year, did not just formalise a commitment between Australia and New Zealand; the agreement also involves Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Amongst the key guiding principles of the agreement is the objective to move towards deeper economic integration through the progressive elimination of all forms of barriers to trade in goods, services, and investment. It is designed to inspire and promote the facilitation of trade and investment, as well as measures of economic cooperation. It is also intended to be comprehensive in scope, covering trade in goods, services, and investments.

This all sounds good in principle, and even more promising for practice, but here is the thing: the economic benefits of international trade agreements need to be balanced with consideration of our own local, regional, and national social progress and environmental enhancement. The Māori Party’s mantra is that we support fair-trade agreements, as opposed to free-trade agreements. What do we mean by “fair” instead of “free”? The Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand works with the following definition: “Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers—especially in the South.” This is a big difference from what we would expect of conventional international trade. This bill provides for the application of preferential tariff rates for goods manufactured or produced by parties to the agreement, and for the ability to set different tariff rates of duty for the parties. It provides for the application of transitional safeguard measures to be applied on imports originating from agreement party countries, and it will enable the New Zealand Customs Service to designate certification bodies authorised to issue New Zealand certificates of origin for goods exported to party countries.

At its very core, the agreement includes investment, intellectual property rights, competition policy, financial services, and telecommunications. There is nothing wrong with that, but, alongside the conventional concepts of free trade, we in the Māori Party also want to see demonstrable evidence of fair trade as a just and environmentally sustainable alternative. We want to see attention paid to labour and environmental justice issues, and to human rights. The fair-trade movement would enable items to be produced with only a minimal impact on the environment, with the cost of environmental sustainability being a key consideration in the equation. Importantly, although there are clearly advantages to exporters if a fair-trade framework was applied, it also enables an opportunity for both producers and consumers to challenge unfair trading practices. At its heart, it is about balancing the profits and benefits of international trade with the strengths of grassroots development and economic justice. Yet, in this ASEAN free-trade agreement, just as in the China - New Zealand free-trade agreement, the treaties on labour and the environment are not sufficiently robust to guarantee minimum standards or commitments to establish minimum standards on labour issues or environmental standards.

In terms of labour law, New Zealand manufacturers and businesses, in further removing tariffs on imports into New Zealand, are further exposed to competition that they may be unable to match, given the differences in wages between New Zealand and ASEAN countries. Of course, it is not just at home that we need to be thinking of the impacts of this new ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. We need to also be considering the likelihood of low pay, unsafe working environments, poor living conditions, and exclusion from the decisions that affect the lives of the populations living in the 10 member countries of ASEAN. How will this free-trade agreement make any difference to their poverty and suffering? What opportunity have they had to participate in the decisions around this agreement? How does it assist these countries’ producers to escape the cycle of poverty? When we think of the second issue—the environment—it is arguable that New Zealand’s current environmental laws are sufficient to protect the natural estate. As we know, Māori have raised concerns with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and genetic experimentation, the Conservation Act 1987, the Crown Minerals Act 1991, and fisheries legislation. We are hardly in a position to stand strong about our environmental laws.

Another of the measures introduced in the bill is the undertaking that there is nothing in this agreement that prevents the New Zealand Government from taking any measure it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Māori, given its Treaty of Waitangi obligations. This is interesting wording, and it is clearly not sufficient to ensure the Government will act in accordance with such obligations. If recent events are anything to go by, we have every reason for caution. Just yesterday, in the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee, we were told that the scheme was unfair on Māori, who will reclaim 600 hectares of pre-1990 forests in Treaty settlements. Under the terms of the emissions trading scheme, landowners are liable if they deforest more than 200 hectares of pre-1990 forest land. The Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group told the committee that the bulk of Māori forestry is pre-1990, and, of course, the Auckland super-city situation is even more conclusive evidence that Treaty of Waitangi obligations are easily and quickly discarded when the rule of the majority interest prevails.

Finally, I believe that the timing of this bill, coming into Parliament this week, is particularly significant. This weekend New Zealand starts a Fair Trade Fortnight, symbolised by the “Go Bananas for Fairtrade” campaign. As a country, New Zealand imports the highest per capita number of bananas in the world, but the majority of banana plantation workers are unable to earn enough to live on and to support their families, with some earning less than $3 a day. So it is the humble banana that I have been thinking of when considering the local cost of production in contrast with the corporates that dominate the global banana trade. Will ASEAN offer a better deal for producers? Will there be security of long-term contracts? Will we see an investment in local community development? How will working conditions improve as a result of the agreement? Will any changes be made to achieve fair and stable prices for produce? Will there be knowledge acquisition of a scale necessary to compete in the global economy? With all of these questions on our mind, we are unable to vote in support of this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Before I call Dr Paul Hutchison, I would just like to offer an apology to Rahui Katene. I had mixed her name up previously. I thought to myself that I must not do it on this occasion, and that is exactly what I did. I am sorry; I promise to get it right on every occasion in the future.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this landmark and historic ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. I too want to acknowledge some of those responsible for the bill’s genesis, and in particular the trade Minister, the Hon Tim Groser, who has worked hard and long in this area for New Zealand. It is great to have him as the National Government trade Minister. Also, like various others, I acknowledge the fact that this bill has had a long genesis over a great deal of time. It has been mentioned by Pete Hodgson that the Hon Lockwood Smith, back in the days of the New Zealand - Singapore free-trade agreement, had a lot to do with the beginnings of this bill, and in the 1990s, of course, it was the Rt Hon Sir William Birch, followed by the Hon Jim Sutton, and more recently by the Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff.

There is no doubt that this is an extremely important bill. It does give huge opportunities for New Zealand exports, including of course our vital primary exports. But it does not mean only export opportunities, and I think it is important to point that out to Dr Kennedy Graham. It also means closer ties culturally and politically in a very wide region that is becoming increasingly important to New Zealand. I noted that the Hon Phil Goff mentioned the importance of a bipartisan approach to such vital foreign affairs and trade legislation as this, and of course we absolutely agree with that sentiment.

It is worthwhile to think back a little to the importance and the origin of ASEAN, the Association of South-east Asian Nations, which was founded in 1967 and is central to New Zealand’s relations with Asia itself. There is no doubt that this area is a major regional, political, and economic grouping, with a population of over 500 million people. New Zealand became a dialogue partner, in the technical term, of ASEAN in 1974 and joined the ASEAN regional forum in 1994, and in 2005 it acceded to the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia. Again I think this is one area where it is appropriate to point out to Dr Kennedy Graham that all these issues are not about an unbridled obsession with economic growth. They are far wider and deeper than that. I think the Greens should put that in perspective. In 1995 ASEAN and the Closer Economic Relations trade and economic Ministers agreed to establish a dialogue to facilitate trade and investment linkages between the two regions, and in 1996 ASEAN and the Closer Economic Relations Ministers signed a memorandum of understanding to promote cooperation on standards and conformance.

Participation in ASEAN provides an opportunity for New Zealand to contribute to evolving regional views on security, and on political and economic developments. As we think about the Pacific in these days, in these troubled times with Fiji, and where there were difficulties with Timor-Leste, Tonga, and of course Bougainville, we realise it is very important to be able to have solid relationships in this wider area so that the dialogue that we have is one of constructiveness and reasonable familiarity, so that hopefully these issues can be solved in a useful way. Participation also provides an opportunity for New Zealand to underline its credentials as a committed and responsible member of the Asia-Pacific community, and again this is a rebuttal to the Green member Dr Kennedy Graham’s suggestion that there is an obsession with economic growth. Economic growth is absolutely important; it has huge benefits. How else would we manage to achieve a good health service, a good social welfare service, and all the facilities that New Zealanders believe are very important to them, if we do not get sustained economic growth? But the point is that ASEAN membership certainly reinforces our bilateral relationships with ASEAN and individual member countries, and it also provides the ability to exchange views with other dialogue partners that are major influences in the Asian region and beyond, right throughout the world.

This trade agreement is significant as it represents closer relationships with key countries in South-east Asia. It is important that we establish trade partners that have huge potential for an increase in trade, and other members have pointed out just how large the potential is. It is also important that New Zealand can assist developing countries through closer economic relationships. The Hon Steve Chadwick and I were part of a team of New Zealand parliamentarians who went to a climate change and population conference in Viet Nam recently. Again, this was very useful in terms of our debate on the revision of the emissions trading system, and it was very useful for the links that we made with Viet Nam. It is important to realise that Viet Nam itself is a country where we have had extraordinary growth in trade in recent times. For example, Viet Nam is a rapidly growing export market. In 2007 exports were $362 million, roughly double those in 2005. If we can keep on doubling those exports, we will certainly be doing extremely well.

There is no doubt that the other effect that this bill creates is more certainty in trade relations with other countries, which makes doing business more profitable—and there is everything right with that; there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. As I have tried to point out, the remarks of the Greens about an obsession with economic growth are clearly not true. This bill is involved with a whole spectrum of activities that are very important to New Zealand: cultural, diplomatic, and political activities. It is also important to remember that the economic downturn that we are currently suffering will increase protectionist actions in other nations, and this agreement will counter that by opening opportunities in other potentially lucrative markets. It opens the doors to investment and the provision of services in areas where New Zealand is currently unable to meet demand, and the agreement with the Philippines on trade, labour, and the environment provides certainty that the human rights and environmental standards that we value are maintained by our close trading partner.

There is no doubt that this bill is a significant step towards closer relations and it opens the door for further development in the future. This means that New Zealand is in the centre of these developments. The free-trade agreement has strong support from the New Zealand business community, and also from many of the newer immigrants from this very wide region who have come into our country over the last few decades.

STUART NASH (Labour): I rise to speak in support of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill for a number of reasons. First and foremost, this bill implements a major agreement achieved by the last Labour Government. If I were wearing a hat I would doff it in respect to the Hon Phil Goff and the Rt Hon Helen Clark for the years of work they have done to arrive at such an important trade agreement. I also congratulate Minister Groser on being in the right position, with the right skills, to collect a pass 5 metres from the try line and to dive over the line under the posts.

Labour and National tend to act in a bipartisan and cooperative way when it comes to international trade deals, which is wonderful for the country. The passing of this bill will be the conversion of a Labour vision of greater international engagement for New Zealand’s companies—a great victory for New Zealand businesses. Let us just hope that the new Minister for Economic Development does not cut the staff and budget of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. I hope that Minister Brownlee will please provide the businessmen and businesswomen of New Zealand with the certainty they now need in order to take advantage of this Labour bill.

Of course, I also support this bill because it opens up enormous opportunities for New Zealand businesses that are either currently engaged in export activity or thinking about entering export markets. As mentioned by other speakers, the ASEAN market has over half a billion people and accounts for approximately $1.4 billion in global trade. It is a market that is slowly embracing consumerism, with the growth of an aspirational middle class that is demanding the type of niche consumables and primary products that New Zealand excels at producing. Unfortunately, the growth of this middle class has slowed considerably with the current economic crisis, but this combined market had grown at a rate of 24 percent per year before the economic crisis hit. Hence, it has still been a very important trading bloc over the past 3 years. A free-trade agreement will not only maintain but significantly help the sustainable growth of this important market, as New Zealand exporters currently pay around $50 million in tariffs annually in trade with these nations.

Export growth is the only way forward for New Zealand. Organisations like Federated Farmers have applauded the Hon Phil Goff for his work on this free-trade agreement. That organisation has said of the agreement: “Despite all the doom and gloom in the other sectors, it strategically sets New Zealand up for the long haul and farmers appreciate that,”. The Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce chief executive has commented: “I would like to congratulate Phil Goff and his officials for their hard work and successful outcome.”, and Alasdair Thompson from the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association has said: “Overseas Trade Minister Phil Goff is to be congratulated for his work in expediting the ASEAN/CER FTA for New Zealand,”. I think that all in this House would agree that the Hon Phil Goff was a very hard-working Minister of Trade, and the previous quotes, this bill, and the Chinese free-trade agreement are testament to the fact that all New Zealanders, and especially those engaged in any form of international trade, are eternally grateful for the work of the Hon Phil Goff.

Paul Quinn: You’re praising the wrong guy—he won’t be there much longer.

STUART NASH: He will be Prime Minister; the member is dead right.

We all agree that increasing the number of free-trade agreements is very much in the best interests of New Zealand going forward. I think that even our Minister over there would agree on that—oh, he is not a Minister and probably never will be. I am confused; I could not see a Minister.

Moana Mackey: He can’t even ask a patsy question; that’s about as bad as it gets.

STUART NASH: Shh!

In these times of uncertainty, opening up global trade routes is even more important as we are currently seeing the return of traditional methods of protectionism through tariffs, quotas, and discriminatory rules. Pascal Lamy, the director of the World Trade Organization—which was once headed up by former Labour Prime Minister Mike Moore—has said that “Trade is already a casualty of this recession,”. There has been a huge drop in trade flows, which, of course, creates unemployment. Some examples are of concern; I will give the House an example. The Indian trade Minister stated that “If there are protectionist measures India will be compelled to also take commensurate measures against those countries which will be good for no one.” As most of us will know, we are in the early stages of investigating a free-trade agreement with India, so these developments are of concern. Mr Lamy has said that he recognises the intense political pressures faced by Governments in this time of recession and looming unemployment. However, the European Union’s trade commissioner, Baroness Ashton, has noted that legislators will need education on the benefits of free trade and the completion of the Doha round of world trade talks.

In New Zealand, however, we must be very careful in promoting trade as the sole saviour of the New Zealand economy. Although the lower dollar is certainly helpful in increasing export returns, and makes us more competitive at a time of falling commodity prices, we are kidding ourselves if we believe that this recession is merely a global dip that will improve in the very near future. US households, which account for nearly a quarter of global consumption—amazing, is it not—have very much tightened their belts, battened down the hatches, and closed their wallets. McKinsey and Company, a global management consultancy, has suggested that American households will need to be frugal for at least 10 to 20 years.

Reduced US consumption has serious global trade implications. For example, Japan’s volume of customs-based exports fell by 45.6 percent in the year to March. This year the volume of world trade will probably fall for the first time since 1982, and the worth of net private sector capital flows to emerging markets is likely to fall to US$165 billion—that sounds like a lot, but it is falling from a high of US$929 billion in 2007. The International Monetary Fund expects global output to shrink by 1.3 percent this year—its first fall in 60 years. As Rod Oram has commented, globalisation is suffering its biggest reversal in the modern era. That is why free-trade agreements like this one are so important. But it is also why it is very, very important that New Zealand businesses have support in place to help them take advantage of any opportunity that presents itself.

We should consider that 96 percent of New Zealand businesses have 19 or fewer employees, and they therefore, by and large, do not have the internal competencies to develop and grow from scratch the markets they have, nor do they have the resources to employ full-time international marketing or market development managers. But these companies are the backbone of the New Zealand economy, and if we are to develop a vision of our country achieving sustainable economic growth through export competencies and expertise, then these companies need help to get a foot in the door in developing the skills required to compete successfully on the global stage, especially in countries like the ASEAN ones. I am talking about Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet Nam, where the language is different, the legal system is different, the business culture is different, and channels to market are different. Members get the picture: doing business in Saigon is not the same as doing business in Levin.

As my colleague the Hon Peter Hodgson has already alluded to, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is this country’s international marketing and market development agency, and I hope like hell that Minister Groser has spoken to Mr Brownlee and Mr English—we will not worry about Mr Key, because apparently no one speaks to him—and asked these Ministers to please not cut—

Paul Quinn: Oh, is that supposed to be funny?

STUART NASH: Oh, someone is awake! I hope Minister Groser has asked these Ministers to please not cut staffing levels and resources from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, as they have from the Inland Revenue Department, the Ministry of Justice, the Tertiary Education Commission, etc., etc., because in order to really take advantage of the opportunities presented to the New Zealand economy and New Zealand companies, he needs on the ground more staff with experience who can help businesses optimise opportunities in this time of recession, so that when things really take off we will be flying. I ask whether Mr Groser has done that. I ask Mr Brownlee whether he can promise that there will be no staffing cuts to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. I ask Mr English to tell us that he will not take money from our international development agency.

Overall, this is a great bill, but I just reiterate that we should hope that New Zealanders are in the right space to really take advantage of its opportunities. Thank you very much.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): Speaking on the first reading of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill, I say that it is almost surprising that such a small bill of only nine or so pages, with seven or so of detail, can actually be so beneficial, so empowering, and so helpful in building a platform for future New Zealand growth, and in joining up parts of the fastest-growing region in the world at the moment. It is very helpful and satisfying that most of the House is in favour of this bill. In fact, the previous speaker said, I think, that it was a very, very good bill, or something along those lines.

I acknowledge the assistance that the House is giving this bill as it goes through the process. I also acknowledge that with its effective date of 1 July, the House and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee have to move very fast in their examination of this bill and the hearing of submissions. If the bill goes through its first reading—and I presume it will—I wish that select committee very well. I am sure the committee is aware how important the bill is to New Zealand, and that the bill will have the endorsement of most of the House when we vote, following the speeches of one of two more speakers, to refer this bill to the select committee.

I also join most of the other speakers in congratulating, first of all, Mr Tim Groser, on getting this bill to this House, and acknowledging the hard work he does as Minister of Trade, as have all previous Ministers of Trade. It was very satisfying to hear an earlier speaker, the Hon Mr Hodgson, talk about peace breaking out. Actually, peace always breaks out—mostly—across the House around bills such as this one, which are for the benefit of “New Zealand Incorporated”. Most of us, to a greater or lesser degree, are in favour of free, open trade. We have heard earlier speakers speaking about fair trade to the tune of the idea that this week is “Go Bananas” week, or something. Someone may allege that some members have gone bananas already, but that is probably for a debate on Wednesday afternoon.

I also acknowledge the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith, the Rt Hon Sir Bill Birch, the Hon Jim Sutton, and, of course, the now Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Phil Goff. It is a credit to all those gentlemen, and all those who have worked with them, that they have constantly put New Zealand up on the page to punch above its weight on free trade around the world. Mr Nash has probably sent the speech he gave earlier up to Mr Goff already, as he makes his bid for the Auckland Central nomination, as I understand he is doing. His speech was very praising of Mr Goff, but, to be fair, Mr Goff did a pretty good job over the last few years when he was the Minister of Trade. I also acknowledge today that Minister Groser announced today a strengthening of agreements, ties, and discussions with Italy, as part of his ongoing work in free trade. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the need to strengthen trade around the world with his comments about the importance of the Doha round, and his knowledge of these matters is, of course, very impressive.

There was one thing that Mr Goff mentioned that, although I had not heard it before, I agree with, at least, intuitively. He said a 10 percent increase in trade between nations can result in a 4 percent increase in incomes. I was not sure whether he meant gross or net incomes, but that point does not matter too much. I would be interested to know where those numbers came from. I do not dispute them in any way. Is there any empirical evidence or hard and fast numbers to help encourage this House, and, hopefully, the rest of the globe—especially some of those countries that are dragging the chain—into opening up their borders somewhat?

I will give members a couple of quick quotes relating to the economic growth of less developed countries, compared with those with lower and higher trade restrictions. Admittedly, some of these numbers are a bit out of date. They cover 1980 to 1999. In that period, Singapore, for example, which has very low trade restrictions, had an annual growth per capita between 1980 and 1990 of 4.2 percent. That is interesting because Singapore, of course, is part of the ASEAN group. Of other nations, Hong Kong had 5.7 percent annualised growth per capita. Malaysia, which is also part of this agreement, had 2.6 percent annualised growth per capita. Other countries include Ireland, with 2.9 percent, Taiwan with 6.5 percent, and Thailand, which is also part of the ASEAN agreement that is before us, with annualised growth of 5.8 percent. Would it not be nice to have that growth in this country? South Korea had 8.6 percent, and Indonesia, which, again, is part of this agreement, had 3.7 percent. It is worth contrasting those figures—because it backs up the Hon Phil Goff’s earlier point—with those of countries that had high trade restrictions over exactly the same period. For example, Iran had negative 1.2 percent growth over that same period. Brazil had 0.5 percent growth, India had 3.2 percent—although India has come a long way in the last 20 years, of course—and other countries such as Rwanda had negative 2.3 percent growth. The point is that the numbers speak for themselves on the GDP growth and the well-being of those countries. There is the evidence.

That is one of the reasons why New Zealand is so keen to pursue a free-trade agenda—to help our country enjoy the fruits of living on this globe in 2009. It is a globalised globe, if you like, but globalisation is before us. We can confront it, or we can take it on board. I acknowledge that the previous Government did take it on board, and I acknowledge the importance of the free-trade agreement with China, as well as the ongoing work that Mr Groser is doing. New Zealand is an exporting nation, and our interests continue to be in relentlessly and constantly opening up trade, reducing tariffs, and also, very importantly, building trust with those nations in our regional vicinity. As we all know, among the 10 countries represented in this bill, plus Australia and New Zealand, there have been some historical disputes. But there is nothing like ongoing and growing trade between nations for, not totally avoiding conflict, but really helping to build trust, relationships, and understanding between them. Some of those nations have some quite fundamental differences, be they religious or in the way their Governments operate. I did not hear that point being picked up by one or two earlier speakers.

We have to be constantly vigilant. There are suggestions of protectionism coming back and barriers going up. Unfortunately, currently New Zealand and the world are in a recession. For many, that is an excuse to put domestic trade barriers up. Climate change is an interesting part of this issue, because many who are very involved in the climate change debate are suggesting that trade barriers are put upon countries that are not part of some international agreement on climate change. Interestingly—and that will be a tension—Mr Groser will have some challenges on that issue. When we look at the nations that are involved in ASEAN, I do not think we see that any of them have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and that could be an interesting tension as we go through this process.

I would just like to read members a quote, because it shows what protective tariffs are: “Free trade consists simply in letting people buy and sell as they want to buy and sell. … Protective tariffs are as much applications of force as are blockading squadrons, and their object is the same—to prevent trade. The difference between the two is that blockading squadrons are a means whereby nations seek to prevent their enemies from trading; protective tariffs are a means whereby nations attempt to prevent their own people from trading.” Surprisingly enough, that is from a Mr Henry George in 1886. How relevant that still is now.

As I noted earlier, there are many challenges in front of us—knee-jerk reactions to short-term supposed solutions to the recession we are in, or to climate change, or even to short-term pork-barrel domestic politics. It is a credit to this Parliament and to the parties involved that we are almost united in pursuing this agenda, as I noted at the start of my speech. Thank you very much.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to join in the outbreak of peace, as my colleague described it earlier, around the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. I think it is a good bill, and it is great to see it come to the House as a culmination of a lot of hard work from a lot of people. We have already heard some of the earlier speakers talk about the officials who worked on this bill. In particular, we heard about Martin Harvey and Vangelis Vitalis from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who led teams of people who worked extraordinarily hard for extraordinarily long hours over a long period of time to bring this agreement to fruition. I note that those kinds of officials are the very backroom officials whom this Government seems so determined to cut back and cut out. These backroom officials have not just been capped; they are the very people who have actually had their jobs cut. From day to day in this House we see the important work that is done by public servants right across New Zealand. Those public servants are not being given the respect that the National Government claimed it would give them when it came into office. Free-trade agreements such as this one rely on the hard work of public servants who are seen as backroom. They are not seen as front-line public servants, and they are being put into a different category by this Government. That is very disappointing, because what we see today is the fruit of their labours, and how important their work is for the economic and social well-being of all New Zealanders. That is work done by so-called backroom public servants. They should be valued for that work, not put down, and not have their jobs cuts, as this Government would do.

I also want to thank the Ministers who have been involved in these negotiations over a long period, starting right back with the Singapore agreement with Lockwood Smith, and also with the Hon Phil Goff, Jim Sutton, and also Tim Groser, who brought this bill to the House. All those Ministers are people who have shown a lot of commitment to the free-trade agenda. I wonder whether Mr Groser, and Mr Foss, who has recently resumed his seat and said very complimentary things about the Hon Phil Goff, might wish to share those complimentary things with John Key. It was only last month in this House that John Key said: “… Mr Groser is a very hard-working Minister of Trade, unlike the previous Minister of Trade.” That statement is really unbecoming of Mr Key and, given what we have heard today from other Ministers and members across the House, it seems very out of context, because Mr Goff’s role in this legislation—and indeed this trade agreement—was significant.

I can quote from Don Nicolson of Federated Farmers, who said: “Federated Farmers applauds the Hon Phil Goff for his earlier work and the National Government for bringing this FTA home.” We also heard from Stephen Jacobi, from the New Zealand International Business Forum, who said: “Trade Minister Phil Goff and his officials have done a superb job to conclude a particularly complex negotiation.” Charles Finney, of the Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce, said: “I would like to congratulate Phil Goff and his officials for their hard work and successful outcome.”

So it seems that we have widespread agreement that Phil Goff worked hard on this bill as Minister of Trade. We heard it from Craig Foss today, and we have heard it from Tim Groser, but unfortunately Mr Key did not seem to want to share in that last month in this House. I hope his colleagues will return to talk to him and to say that Mr Goff was, in fact, a very hard-working Minister of Trade. That should be acknowledged by Mr Key—as it has been by his colleagues.

I would also like to say that this bill represents excellent negotiation between the Governments of the ASEAN region and New Zealand, although I think we all acknowledge that multilateral trade negotiations are the priority for New Zealand and the rest of the world because it is only through multilateral trade negotiations that we will achieve the objectives of removing agricultural subsidies and create a fair rules-based system for trade, so the Doha round must be, and has been, our priority for a long time.

We also do a lot, in the absence of a full multilateral agreement, around bilateral agreements, and they are important as well. We have discussed in this House the enormous economic benefit that will come from the China free-trade agreement, for instance, and the earlier free-trade agreements that New Zealand has negotiated. But these regional agreements fill a very important gap in that trade agenda in the absence of a finalised multilateral agreement; and with the bilateral agreements we have, we need these regional agreements because they start building an infrastructure around trade that all of us can benefit from, and should, in the end, help to fulfil the multilateral agreements. The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, involving Chile, Brunei, Singapore, and New Zealand, is the classic example of that. That is a regional agreement that is seen around the world as a model of the kind of agreement that should be negotiated—that actually brings together strong, rules-based agreements with networks of countries. We hope, obviously, to see the United States added into that agreement over time.

So this agreement, which brings together the ASEAN nations with Australia and New Zealand, is just that kind of regional agreement, and all those involved in negotiating it deserve to be supported. As Mr Goff said earlier in the debate today, the immediate benefit for New Zealand exporters will be that the $50 million in tariffs that New Zealand exporters face in the ASEAN free-trade region will be gone. So there we go—immediately, there is a $50 million benefit for New Zealand exporters.

But also these kinds of regional agreements are the basis on which to build further and deeper trade links, and it is incredibly important that New Zealand exporters now grasp the opportunity put forward by this agreement to be there in the fastest-growing regional market in the world. It is incredibly important that we recognise that it is not just about the tariffs that will disappear overnight—$50 million—but it is also about the base to expand our new export market.

The free-trade agreement will eliminate the tariffs on all key items of trade interest to New Zealand in the markets, so that is where the $50 million comes from. We also have to acknowledge that the bill also involves and facilitates free trade in services in the region. The services market is an important and growing market for New Zealanders overseas; we are well regarded for the kinds of things we can provide in terms of areas like engineering and environmental science—areas where New Zealand has service expertise that is liked all over the world, respected all over the world, and will now be able to be used throughout the region as part of this agreement.

The bill in its technical sense amends the Tariff Act 1988 and the Customs and Excise Act 1996. In the Tariff Act it will enable the application of preferential tariff rates that will enable transitional safeguard measures to be applied in appropriate circumstances on imports originating from party countries. That is the bit that will lower the tariffs. Amendments to the bill relating to the Customs and Excise Act will create a system of certification bodies that are authorised to issue the necessary certificates of origin for goods to be exported to party countries. They are the technical matters that are actually dealt with in the legislation here but, as a number of speakers have said, the important thing is the money that will be earned by exporters and the jobs that will be created for New Zealanders by this agreement. It is anodyne legislation, but it is incredibly important in terms of New Zealand’s economy and the jobs for New Zealand people.

I want to talk about two things that other speakers have not dwelt on greatly today. One of those is the side agreements that go along with this particular free-trade agreement. In this case it is the trade and labour agreements and the trade and environment agreements with the Philippines. It is good to see National supporting and encouraging these; it has not always been so. These side agreements began to come into play around the time of the Singapore agreement and they are useful additions because they start to address some of the concerns that Dr Kennedy Graham raised earlier in the debate about how we move the focus beyond some kind of strict economic development role. These agreements help to fill out the relationship that New Zealand has with the countries concerned, and I know, having done some analysis in another job around New Zealand’s side agreements with Chile, that they certainly deepened an understanding about environmental cooperation. They have enabled New Zealand and Chile to share a great deal in terms of ideas about how to protect and enhance our environment, how we can use tourism and ecotourism in ways that support the environment and support out economy and our jobs.

So these side agreements are extremely important and they add to the ones we already have with Brunei, Singapore, Thailand, and China. I personally would like to see those agreements continue to evolve and expand. They go alongside the trade agreement at the moment but they are negotiated just as hard, and I am sure all the officials I mentioned before would acknowledge that a lot of work goes into developing these arrangements.

I must now call on National to go through and fulfil those agreements—to fulfil their meaning so they are not just left off to the side but form an important part of our relationship with ASEAN countries, by improving labour standards in those countries, and by improving environmental standards in those countries. But New Zealand can also learn as well, and the experience of Chile tells us that we have learnt a lot from our environmental cooperation with Chile.

The last matter I want to mention is around process, and my colleague Pete Hodgson has already addressed a lot of these issues. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in considering this treaty before it came to the House discussed the fact that the process around how New Zealanders engaged with free-trade agreements is something we could look at more. These kinds of agreements are not really fully understood out there in the community, their implications are not always fully understood, and the benefits are not always fully understood. I think we need a process that opens up these agreements so people can understand them more, there can be input from a wide range of sources, and all New Zealanders can ensure that they understand the benefits that this kind of legislation and this treaty bring us. Thank you.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): As has been alluded to by previous speakers in this debate, the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill represents a very significant development in our country’s international trade arrangements. I commend the Minister and his officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the considerable and important work that they have undertaken in their negotiations and in the preparation of this bill.

In the current economic climate it is especially important for a small country that depends very heavily on export earnings to do all it can to facilitate trade by reducing and eliminating barriers, and by reducing costs for our producers and businesses as they seek to operate in significant markets, such as those that constitute the ASEAN group of countries. ASEAN represents a market of more than 586 million people and accounts for more than US$1.4 billion in global trade. In recent times New Zealand has secured a significant increase—some 121 percent since 2000—in its exports to ASEAN countries.

This is a welcome development, as a result of which the ASEAN group of countries now constitutes our third-largest trading partner and the third-largest export market for merchandise goods.

An important outcome of the agreement is that by 2020 there will be no tariffs on 99 percent of New Zealand’s current exports to the vital markets of Indonesia, Malaysia, Viet Nam, and the Philippines—four major economies in Asia. During the same period ASEAN exports to New Zealand will also increase, through the gradual elimination of tariffs. However, the agreement provides protection for some important industries, especially in the manufacturing sector, by scheduling longer phase-out periods for tariffs that are associated with sectors that may be sensitive to the potentially negative effects of adjustments in industries such as manufactured products, clothing, footwear, carpets, and certain textiles. I am sure that members will join me in welcoming that flexibility and long-term thinking.

It was encouraging to hear the Leader of the Opposition, at the beginning of this debate, lending his support to this agreement. I acknowledge both his personal contribution as the previous Minister of Trade and the bipartisan approach that has been taken to New Zealand’s trade negotiations in recent times. It is difficult and demanding work, and having that consensus on the home front and in this Parliament is hugely important to those who work so hard on our behalf to secure the best deal that is achievable. Trade creates jobs, builds vital market access for our products, and secures the export earnings that all New Zealanders depend upon for economic growth and our nation’s collective wealth.

As my colleague the member for Wairarapa noted, Asia’s share of global trade has increased markedly in recent years, and it is essential for New Zealand to ensure that we are well positioned to take advantage of that development. So it is particularly exciting and impressive to observe that this agreement marks the first time that ASEAN has negotiated a comprehensive free-trade agreement as part of a single undertaking—that is, an agreement that spans goods, services, investment, and other aspects of modern free-trade agreements, such as intellectual property and competition policy. Thus it really does represent a new high-water mark in New Zealand’s integration with the combined ASEAN market.

I listened carefully to Dr Kennedy Graham’s address, which commenced with tributes to the Hon Tim Groser and the Hon Phil Goff for their personal contributions to this agreement. It was good to hear him confirm that the Green Party is not opposed to free trade per se, and his recognition that trade is critical to the stimulation of economic growth. He posed four questions in relation to the agreement, which will, no doubt, be answered during the subsequent readings of this bill, and I trust those answers will be sufficient to secure the Green Party’s support for this agreement.

I acknowledge Dr Kennedy Graham’s final point, which focused on the continuing house arrest of the Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi. There has been longstanding concern in this country about the suppression of human rights in what is now known as Myanmar, and it is a concern that is keenly felt on all sides of this House. However, in negotiating a comprehensive free-trade agreement with a range of countries, of which Myanmar is one of the smallest, it does not follow that we are turning a blind eye to that country’s disturbing record on human rights or condoning the incarceration of a widely respected and rightful leader. To the contrary, it is to be hoped that increasing trading relations will secure increasing diplomatic influence, especially for Australia and New Zealand as we strive to encourage the Myanmar military Government to release Aung San Suu Kyi and demonstrate respect for democracy and the rule of law.

But we cannot ignore the fact that we now have significant trade agreements with a number of countries whose policies and customs we cannot admire or share, and if we were to set such a high moral benchmark to all decisions about trading partners that it led us to reject trade with countries that have unsatisfactory Governments, we would absolutely kneecap our own productive sectors and economy. That would do little to bring about political change in those countries, but it would certainly bring about disastrous changes in ours. Nevertheless, I acknowledge Dr Graham’s concern and strongly share his desire to see the long and abhorrent discrimination against the Nobel Peace Prize - winner brought to an end.

It was a pity to hear Stuart Nash trying to score a cheap point with his rugby analogy about the respective contributions to this agreement of Phil Goff, Helen Clark, and Tim Groser. In the interests of fairness it would do Mr Nash well to remember that Mr Groser came to this House nearly 4 years ago, after a long and distinguished career as a trade negotiator for this country. There can be few New Zealanders who can stand more proudly on the world stage of trade agreements than the Hon Tim Groser. I have no doubt that Phil Goff and Helen Clark would certainly acknowledge his sterling work on our behalf while they were Ministers in the last Government, and I imagine that they would urge Mr Nash to reflect on the comments that he made in what has been, in the main, an otherwise constructive and intelligent debate over a measure of vital national significance.

Like Grant Robertson, I conclude my remarks with some observations about two of the key outcomes of this agreement—that is, the memoranda of agreement on labour cooperation and environmental cooperation with the Philippines. The agreement on labour cooperation provides a basis for both countries to promote sound labour policies and practices through an approach based on cooperation, consultation, and dialogue that takes into account the unique circumstances, needs, and future aspirations of New Zealand and the Philippines—and I agree with Mr Robertson that these are significant. This agreement, it needs to be noted, is a treaty and is legally binding, and it has been included in the context of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area. Under it there are a number of key undertakings, of which I will mention just a few. New Zealand and the Philippines reaffirm their obligations as members of the ILO and their commitment to the principles of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. They agree to work to ensure that their labour laws, regulations, policies, and practices are in harmony with international labour commitments, and they support the commitments made by the parties to the memorandum of agreement with a view to improving the working conditions and the quality of work life in their respective countries.

Meanwhile, the memorandum of agreement on environmental cooperation with the Philippines seeks to promote sound environment policies and processes by establishing a set of shared commitments, a framework for cooperation, and a mechanism for consultation, which, taken together, allow the parties to address any environmental issues through cooperation, consultation, and dialogue. Again, I hope that these are measures that will encourage the Green Party to throw its support behind what could become a unanimously supported agreement. Again, the memorandum of agreement on environmental cooperation with the Philippines is legally binding and has been concluded in the context of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area.

I conclude by simply mentioning those aspects, because they demonstrate the potential of free-trade agreements and international treaties to secure improvements and cooperation across a wide range of geopolitical matters. Again, I pay a warm tribute to all the negotiators, Ministers, and officials for the comprehensive nature of their concerns and achievements. They have done the job well. They have done our country proud. I am delighted to support the measure.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 107

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 14

Green Party 9; Māori Party 5.

Bill read a first time.

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): I move, That the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee consider the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill, and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 25 May 2009.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Education Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee for consideration. I also intend to move that the committee report finally to the House on or before 28 August 2009, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

The bill proposes two broad areas of policy change. First, the bill introduces changes to current police vetting arrangements. Second, the bill introduces information matching between the New Zealand Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education. In addition to these two areas the bill will introduce a number of other measures to improve efficiency in the schooling system and to improve education law.

The first area of broad policy change is police vetting. The bill will improve student safety, reduce compliance costs, and streamline administration for schools. It will do this by removing the New Zealand Teachers Council as the conduit for the police vetting of all non-teaching staff at schools and early childhood education services. Instead of schools and early childhood education services paying a $10 fee for each police vetting, they will be able to apply directly to the New Zealand Police, which currently provides the service free of charge. Needless police vetting will be minimised by requiring only those contractors who have or are likely to have unsupervised access to children to be police vetted.

The changes proposed in this bill will minimise the risk that non-teaching staff and contractors may have unsupervised access to children before being police vetted. Currently, the law requires the police vetting of all non-permanent, non-teaching staff within 2 weeks of appointment, and also of contractors and their staff within 2 weeks of starting work if they work regularly in the early childhood education service or school. The proposed changes will require the police vet to be obtained before the person commences work and has unsupervised access to children.

The second area of broad policy change is information matching. The bill will provide a better system for ensuring that only authorised teachers are employed by schools. At the moment there is no means of identifying individuals who are teaching in schools without a current practising certificate or with limited authority to teach, and who are thus illegally employed. The bill provides for information matching between the Ministry of Education’s payroll database and the New Zealand Teachers Council’s register of teachers in order to identify those who are teaching in schools without registration. This measure is well overdue, having been promised by the previous Government since October 2007. The information-matching programme will pick up whether teachers meet current teaching standards, thus ensuring that our students receive a quality education. In addition, police vetting will be required with any practising certificate renewal, which means that any individuals with historical convictions who should not be teaching will be identified.

A number of amendments in this bill will improve efficiency. School board of trustee elections must currently be held in term one of an election year. Term one is the busiest time of the school year. The bill will allow for the timing of board elections to be changed so that they can be held later in the school year. Currently, the Education Act 1989 envisages only an individual being appointed as a limited statutory manager or a commissioner for a school. This does not fully utilise the specialist skills and expertise of education sector organisations that could be appointed to these roles. An amendment in the bill will change this by allowing entities such as boards of trustees to be appointed as either a limited statutory manager or a commissioner. In the case of a board of trustees, this change will enable underperforming schools to work directly with a successful neighbouring school.

The New Zealand Qualifications Authority cannot currently credit special schools to offer the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. An amendment in the bill will enable special schools to apply to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority for accreditation in their own right so that they can meet the needs of students who want to achieve a recognised qualification. Currently, a single individual establishment board is created for every new school established under the Education Act 1989. The ability to have a combined board, or alternative board constitution, is available only after the individual establishment board has been transitioned into a single board elected for the school. Amendments in this bill will allow establishment boards to establish more than one new school, and will give the Minister of Education greater discretion to approve alternative constitutions for school boards. Members will know that the Education Review Office has discretion over its frequency of review of State schools, but this discretion does not apply to private schools. This bill will provide that discretion.

The bill will improve education law in three areas. First, it will streamline functions relating to the independent disciplinary bodies overseen by the New Zealand Teachers Council. Second, it will enhance the efficient administration of student loans and allowances. It will also expand existing offence provisions relating to student allowances and loans. Finally, it will introduce a small number of technical and minor remedial amendments to clarify certain definitions and correct drafting errors.

This bill makes a range of amendments that reduce bureaucracy and at the same time keep children’s education and safety at the forefront of our education system. I commend the Education Amendment Bill to the House.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatū): The Education Amendment Bill is essentially the bill that I introduced on 23 September 2008, with some notable exceptions. As the Minister of Education has just outlined, it introduces information sharing between the Ministry of Education’s payroll database and information held by the Teachers Council. This matching up ensures that none of the teachers teaching in our schools are not registered or do not have a practising certificate or authorisation. It seemed astonishing to me when I became the Minister of Education that such a process could happen, and, indeed, this provision was an important part of the Education Amendment Bill (No 3), which we introduced last September. It is very important that schools do not employ teachers who are not qualified or certificated; it is very important from both a professional point of view and a pupil safety point of view. The legislation also ensures that, by matching this data, teachers who are in the correct registration category are able to receive their entitled allowances. That is a very positive aspect of the bill.

It also introduces, as did Labour’s bill last year, flexibility around the timing of elections for boards of trustees. Curiously, as I listened to the Minister read out her speech I thought of the words I had used last year. I heard many familiar phrases there. I am not knocking them, because they are important. Term one is, indeed, the busiest time of any school year, and to hold elections for boards of trustees at that time is a great call on both the school and the parent community. That flexibility is very important. Also, in the establishment of new schools, for schools that are linked to each other—for example, a primary school and a junior high school—to be able to share a new establishment board is an effective way to ensure that there is a pool of parents and others in the community who are able to do those important jobs of school establishment. In rural areas it may well be difficult to find people willing to be members of boards of trustees—people who have the time and commitment to do that public service. So for schools to be able to share boards of trustees is also very important.

The legislation also tidies up some of the differences between State and State integrated schools and private schools. I see that one of the areas the Minister has changed—and it is not a change that I agree with—is the number of times private schools undergo a review by the Education Review Office. This provision brings private schools into the same review process for State and State integrated schools. It also allows students at special schools to participate in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), in the same way as last year the Labour-led Government brought in the provision that children in alternative education could access NCEA units for free, which is really important in order to get their participation in education.

But there are some significant differences between this bill and the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) that Labour introduced last year, when I had the privilege of being Minister of Education. The omission of certain things and the changes around police vetting are the reasons why Labour cannot support the Education Amendment Bill.

I will touch just briefly on the police vetting issue. Superficially, it looks like a rational and sensible decision, but actually it puts children at risk. Certainly, not great numbers of children are put at risk, but the New Zealand Educational Institute said itself in a press release it put out earlier this year in support of this legislation—surprisingly enough—that there had been seven cases out of thousands where child abuse by an adult had taken place in an unsupervised situation with children. Frankly, I think that is seven cases too many. If I were the parent of any of those children, I would be appalled that it was considered that seven cases out of thousands were OK. It is not OK for children to be exposed to risk. We heard a lot of nonsense in this House last year about the cost of police vetting. Actually, it costs 10 bucks—that is all. There is a bit of process time—it has to be done in 20 working days—but it actually costs $10. Frankly, if it is too much of a call on a school to pay $10 to vet an adult, even though vetting would have prevented those seven cases of abuse, then I think that is a very bad call. Quite frankly, to have any child at risk of abuse, even if it is only at the rate of seven out of thousands, is too many. We think there should be blanket vetting of adults who are in an unsupervised situation with children at a school or an early childhood centre. It is not a huge imposition. Schools are currently operating under that system, and they are still full of volunteers.

Hon Anne Tolley: It kills playcentres. It kills sports teams.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I hear the Minister muttering away over there. Does she agree that seven cases out of a few thousand are OK? Do I hear a yes to that question? Do I hear a yes? Are seven cases of abuse out of several thousand OK to the Minister? Well, they are not OK to me. That is why I think that parents should have confidence that their children are safe with all adults who are in an unsupervised situation during school hours or during the time when an early childhood centre is open—we are talking about school hours or hours of operation. It is not as if the abuse has not happened. I repeat again: seven cases out of thousands are seven too many.

What else has been removed out of this legislation?

Hon Anne Tolley: They were found.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I hear the Minister twittering away out there. She has a bit to say to me, but this is the woman who never fronts up. This is the woman about whom the New Zealand Principals Federation put out a press release about a month ago calling her the “no-show” Minister. I say to the Minister she should go out to schools and to parents and explain why seven cases of abuse are OK because she does not want schools to pay $10 to have the police vet within 20 working days people who are in schools.

This bill also takes out the requirements of boards of trustees to do a number of really interesting things. A little list of things that were in Labour’s legislation last year are removed by this National bill. The Labour legislation required boards of trustees to ensure “the enrolment at the school of all persons who are entitled to be enrolled at the school and apply to be enrolled at it:”. Other requirements of boards of trustees that the Minister is taking out are “ensuring that education is provided to every student who is enrolled in the school: promoting a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievement for all students: actively managing and monitoring the performance of the principal:”—is this not interesting; these requirements have all been taken out of this legislation—“ensuring that the performance of the school’s other staff is actively managed and monitored: actively managing and reporting on the school’s performance against the aims and objectives set out in the school charter:”. Is this not curious? This is from a Minister and a National Government that talk about national standards in schools. The list that I have just read out is all about ensuring that every school in New Zealand is a quality learning environment. The Labour legislation also stated that the board of trustees should ensure “that the school, including its assets, finances, and property, is managed in a financially responsible manner:”.

Hon Anne Tolley: It’s gone; stop mourning it.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Yes, those requirements have gone. The requirements have gone, but they were actually about ensuring that there were national standards. The requirements were not the nonsense of literacy and numeracy progressions—which were already in our schools. The Minister has not yet in her own mind determined what those progressions mean. The requirements were about ensuring that our schools were safe and well-run places, and that people who were there were accountable. The board of trustees was required to ensure that that happened. That has all been taken out by this legislation.

The other interesting thing that has been taken out was the Labour Government’s proposal in our Education Amendment Bill (No 3) that the Secretary for Education no longer have the right to agree to 15-year-olds coming out of school. Again, much nonsense was said in this House last year when I brought in that legislation. It was criticised for not giving flexibility to education. Twenty-five percent of our students leave school with no qualifications, and a significant number of those are young people who have become disengaged from education. Where in the Education Amendment Bill is there anything about the whole area of transition? The Labour Government came up with Schools Plus. Schools Plus was about a revolution in secondary education. It was about providing alternative pathways to capture the learning interests of students; to stop these 15-year-olds from getting kicked out of school, ending up on the streets, ending up involved in crime, and ending up on a pathway to nowhere.

John Hayes: Your solution was to close the schools.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have just heard somebody from National asking what my solution was. Our solution was Schools Plus—$39 million this year—to ensure that every secondary school in New Zealand had apprenticeships; to ensure a whole variety of different pathways to synchronise between schools and industry, agriculture, and so on. That is about effective education.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to be able to speak on the Education Amendment Bill. I just pass the observation that for the first 5 minutes of the former Labour Minister of Education’s speech I thought it was positive, supportive, and actually what I would have expected. So it was disappointing to hear that he chose to finish his speech not on a positive note but by failing to acknowledge that when he did not get his legislation through the House last year, the electorate had the opportunity to pass judgment. One of the things the electorate wants is greater flexibility in legislation around the schooling system. That is what this amendment bill provides. It also tidies up a couple of areas that need correcting or cleaning up in existing legislation. Nobody could be concerned about that.

As chairperson of the Education and Science Committee I am looking forward to the cooperation of Labour in doing what is best for the children of New Zealand. I mentioned the introduction of greater flexibility. I will refer for a moment to the police vetting provisions. It is my view that large numbers of schools—and particularly principals—will welcome these changes. The intention is to do something that this Government is very, very strong on, which is to reduce compliance costs—in this case, to reduce compliance costs associated with police vetting—and to minimise needless vetting. I think back to the time when I was leading schools. One of the great frustrations was having to pay money to, in effect, a third party, which was the Teacher Registration Board, in order to get a vet that the police would do for me for nothing. It is entirely sensible to remove the middle person, the middle organisation, out of that process, and to let boards of trustees and principals deal directly with the police. It was my experience that far too often the registration board did not get these vets in a manner that was sufficiently timely and reliable for schools. There are a number of schools around this country that took a bit of stick from the Education Review Office over the failure of teachers to be registered or to have their registration renewed, when in actual fact it was a timing issue. The bottleneck was within the teacher registration system. So I, as a former school principal, certainly welcome the greater flexibility that the Education Amendment Bill will bring.

It is important to acknowledge that all non-teaching staff employed in schools and in early childhood centres will continue to be police-vetted. But it is not necessary, in my view, that contractors coming on site on a casual basis, who will have no contact with children at all, go through the bureaucratic business of a vet. I can tell this House—and the members opposite might like to listen—that large numbers of contractors have worked, and, I am sure, continue to work in schools without having been vetted. That is just how it is. So this amendment is a logical, sensible extension of flexibility in the way that schools do their business.

I want to make some comments about the changes that are being proposed around the way that boards of trustees operate. They are very simple changes, not hugely significant, and no extra child will learn as a result of them, but they make the system a little bit more logical and a little bit more flexible, and they provide greater clarity. For example, there is no point at all in a board of trustees of a school whose closure is imminent holding a triennial election. There is no sense to that. In actual fact, if one thinks about it, one realises it is a nonsense. So the greater flexibility that is being built in by this amendment must be welcomed.

Circumstances in some parts of the country would necessitate the need for a combined school board. If one thinks about, for example—

Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s been going to the “Paul Quinn School of Elocution”!

ALLAN PEACHEY: I hear Mr Mallard squawking over there. I believe he was Minister when a number of new schools were initiated in the Botany area of Auckland. How logical and sensible it would have been to develop a coherent community approach to the nature of schooling in that community through something like a single establishment board. Of course, that did not happen. That did not happen because that former Minister had his own agenda, and it was going to be driven through regardless of the interests of the children in that community. This proposed amendment actually hands a bit of power back to the people who know best, and that is the parents of the children who will be going to those schools.

One of the great difficulties behind schooling in New Zealand, and one which I do not believe we handle well, is what we do with a school that is failing. If one looks at the statistics one will see that 29 schools currently have commissioners. That means that their boards of trustees have been deemed as not capable of running the school to the standard required—29 of them. Another 42 have limited statutory managers.

Simon Bridges: How many?

ALLAN PEACHEY: Forty-two of them. That means that there are aspects of those schools’ operations that are not being handled competently by the board or the principal. It might be the financial management or it might be the personnel management. It is a significant number of schools, and the range of options, and the amount of extra options that are available to assist those schools is seriously limited. The opportunity to have, for example, a greater range of intervention alternatives must be welcomed. I would have expected the Labour members opposite to welcome that opportunity, because right at the fundamental base of this bill is what is best for children.

I want to make it very clear that under this Government the days when schools are protected because their principal has mates in the Labour Party, or they are tied to unions—so the failure of their schools is not addressed—are shortly to be over. And all the parents and their children who are stranded in schools that are failing say thank you.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I rise to speak to the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill, which Labour will oppose. I put my comments into context by saying that many parts of the bill are worth supporting. Labour can support some parts of the bill, because much of it was drafted by the previous Labour Government and those bits are certainly worth supporting. They are sensible. They are about putting our children first, and they do live up to the rhetoric that the member who has just resumed his seat tried to portray as being the National Government’s wish.

What is very interesting is the parts of the bill that this Government has changed, because I think that tells us a great deal about the Government’s agenda. The parts the Government has amended, which were originally drafted by the previous Labour Government, reduce safety for children in our schools. Allan Peachey tried to convince us, by using slogans, that this bill is apparently all about safety for children. But if this bill was genuinely about putting the safety of our children first, then the Minister would be insisting on police vetting processes. Yes, I say to Minister Tolley, she would be insisting on police vetting processes. She would not be lowering the standards and saying it is an issue of compliance costs. This Government is reducing the safety of our children to a slogan about compliance costs, and that is wrong. I say that both as a member of Parliament and as a mother of primary school - age children.

The safety of my children and this nation’s children is not a compliance cost; it is what safeguards our future, and it should be foremost in our minds as we debate this bill. I hope it never happens, but if there is a tragedy—if somebody does have unsupervised access to our schoolchildren and a police vetting could have prevented that person from having unsupervised contact—and something goes wrong, I hope that that Minister will stand up and take account. I hope she will say that yes, she did say the safety of our children was not important enough to put first and that we did not need to have police vetting of all the people who have unsupervised contact with our children at school. That Minister will be responsible if such an event does come into play.

We do know that out of 35,000 non-teacher police checks done between 2004 and 2006, apparently only seven people were found to have criminal records that caused concern. This is by way of an explanation from the Minister to say that it does not matter, and that we do not need this vetting because only seven people were found to have criminal convictions that were of concern. I am sorry, I say to the Minister, but I do not want any of those seven people to come near my children. I do not want them to be near other people’s children. I think that the Minister should be sufficiently concerned to take regard of that and should put our children first for a change, rather than calling them compliance costs. Children are not compliance costs; they are vulnerable and deserve the very best standards of care in our schools and in our early childhood education settings.

It is not just the safety of our children that this bill puts at risk; it is also the idea of having standards in our schools. For all of this Government’s spin about national standards and ensuring that schools perform, the very section it has taken out of this bill speaks louder than words—and I will read out the words. This is what has been removed from the responsibilities of a school board under this bill before Parliament.

Hon Anne Tolley: It was never in there.

SUE MORONEY: Yes, it was, I tell the Minister. In the original draft, these provisions were there, and they have been taken out. A school board was to be responsible for ensuring the enrolment at the school of all persons who are entitled to be enrolled at the school. That should be a given in a New Zealand context. Also removed is a school board’s responsibility to ensure that education is provided to each student enrolled at the school, as is the responsibility of a school board to promote a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievement for all students.

Why has that been done? I would like someone from the National Government to get up on his or her feet and explain why it does not require school boards to promote school environments that support the highest standards of achievement for all students.

Hon Anne Tolley: The NAGs do.

SUE MORONEY: Is it because they already do that—is that right? So we do not need to say it in legislation?

Simon Bridges: They do that in Tauranga.

SUE MORONEY: Simon Bridges says the boards do it in Tauranga only, so that is OK. I am sorry, I say to Mr Bridges, but from Labour’s perspective that is not OK. It should be a requirement of all school boards to provide a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievement for all students.

Also removed from this draft of the bill—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Has the member read the bill?

SUE MORONEY: Has the member read what has been removed from the bill? It is very telling indeed. This has also been removed. Apparently, under the National Government a school board’s responsibilities will no longer require it to actively manage and monitor the performance of the principal, ensure that the performance of the school’s other staff is actively managed and monitored, or actively manage and report on the school’s performance against the aims and objectives set out in the school charter. [Interruption] The Minister is chattering away like a 6-year-old who cannot concentrate for long periods of time. If the Minister would stop chattering away like a naughty schoolchild, perhaps she might learn something. Those very important parts of this bill should go back in.

What does the Minister have against ensuring that education is provided to each student enrolled at school? What does the Minister have against promoting a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievements for all students? I really would like to hear the answers to those questions. It is about putting our children first, but that is not what this bill delivers.

Hon Anne Tolley: Ha, ha!

SUE MORONEY: The Minister may laugh. She may think that putting our children in the way of harm is something to be trifled with—something to be laughed at. But it clearly is not. The Minister needs to take a good look at that.

I am very pleased to be on the Education and Science Committee, because I can assure the Minister and her team that the Labour Party representatives on that select committee will be pushing very hard to ensure that our children are put first and are not reduced to something called a compliance cost.

Allan Peachey tried to convince us in his speech just a few minutes ago that some cost was involved in having police vetting done. He was unable to quantify that cost. I would certainly like someone from the National Government to get to his or her feet and quantify the cost we are trying to get away from. I ask to be told which cost is so big, bad, and ugly for our schools and our early childhood education providers that it would have this Government put our children into a potentially risky situation.

Hon Anne Tolley: Oh, rubbish!

SUE MORONEY: The Minister says: “Oh, rubbish!”, but we know that at least seven people were found to have criminal records that caused concern. Those seven people were found through police checks on non-teachers in our schools and our early childhood education centres. We must remember that when we are talking about early childhood education centres, we are talking about probably some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Sometimes they are so young they cannot talk for themselves and tell us what has been happening to them.

It is the job of the Government to ensure that children are safe. It is our job to have high standards in early childhood education, and not—as this Government is wont to do—to keep reducing those standards and keep requiring less and less from the sector. We should have the very highest standards in place. That requires the Government to take a lead role. It requires a strong Government that is prepared to stand up for the rights of our children, and not reduce them to the bumper sticker slogan of being compliance costs. I say to the Minister that they are not compliance costs; they are our children. They require the very highest of standards.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. This bill is entitled the Education Amendment Bill, but from my analysis it could also be called the “Education Inc. Masquerade Bill”. Some highly significant clauses are just not mentioned in the regulatory impact statement and they need to be deconstructed. The community has a right to know what this bill intends, over and above the two innocuous areas of apparent focus. The Green Party does not have a problem with the dates of the elections for boards of trustees being changed, and we see that the general policy statement claims to have two broad areas of focus: information matching between the Teachers Council and the ministry, and the reduction of compliance costs relating to police vetting. If those two issues were actually the key focus of this bill, then the Green Party would most probably be supporting its referral to a select committee at least. However, the general policy statement refers to some so-called minor changes that we think are substantive, and unhelpful to the advancement of public schools, equitable public education, and the community as a whole.

Those “minor” changes, of a supposedly technical nature, are actually a scene-setting for further privatisation of the education system under the guise of greater efficiency. “Efficiency” is one of those words we just have to question. Efficiency in education is a philosophical issue that could take up more than 10 minutes and, given that it is undefined in this bill, I will try to figure out what the Government means by it. The Green Party thinks that this bill is a wolf dressed in sheepskin. This efficiency wolf is a manifestation of the underlying ideological purpose of the Government’s policies on education. It is one of a suite of bills expressing a neo-liberal position and, as such, it is setting the stage for the further privatisation of the public education system. I say “further privatisation”, because only this week the media reported a cost of around $1,500 per family for children attending public schools in terms of their donations and activities. That sounds like a pretty efficient way of externalising the costs of education on to families and of making sure that the poor families remain poor and less educated.

It may not seem to be about privatisation, but when we look at the clauses and at those so-called minor changes, we need to address some issues. I do not have a problem, as I said, with the general purposes of focusing on the matching of teachers and the reduction of compliance costs, but we have to look deeper. When one lives in a town like Gisborne, where the Minister of Education lives and which I have just left, one sees that we have a public education system with a huge inequity already. We already have schools where half the kids go to Mexico—although now they might be sorry that they did—and the other half cannot afford to go to McDonald’s. It is the sort of place where there is a huge gap in terms of what the public system is delivering, and we do not need any further privatisation in those sorts of communities. How does that relate to this bill, and what is this bill specifically trying to do?

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

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: What is this bill specifically trying to do? Having passed over the relatively innocuous clauses on matching and vetting, we come to the issues associated with boards of trustees. The bill proposes that boards can be combined to manage multiple schools under one jurisdiction. This sounds pretty sensible and efficient in some local contexts, but if we read the next clause we get a sense of where this is leading. According to the bill, the Secretary for Education can combine schools under a single board and appoint a corporation sole, or body corporate, to manage that cluster. The sole and body appear to be getting corporate control of several schools, and there are no requirements that they have any educational background or experience. Does this mean that schools can be managed by bodies corporate from Singapore, Australia, China, or anywhere else where we have free-trade or GATT agreements? Maybe that will not happen next week, and maybe it will not happen for a long time, but this bill certainly helps to facilitate that kind of possibility.

If one happens to believe that education is just another business, then, of course, a body corporate is the perfect structure for the management of schools. But as education is not a business but a common good, the business model is highly unsuitable and will lead to further privatisation of the common good. The Green Party supports comments made by Chris Carter and Sue Moroney about the changes to the original Labour bill. I was disappointed to hear that the very useful clauses about the responsibilities of boards of trustees had been omitted. There are very important issues about the rights of all students who are entitled to be enrolled at their local schools. As disability spokesperson for the Greens, I have been told disturbing stories about schools that are in receipt of special-needs grants, but which encourage families with children living with some impairments to attend another school as that school is better set up to address their needs. We need boards of trustees to be highly educated in their responsibilities to these, the most vulnerable of students in their communities, and fully committed to ensuring that schools uphold their rights to appropriate education at their chosen school—in practice, not just in theory. So I am sorry to hear that those useful clauses are absent.

I was a member of a board of trustees of a small rural school, and we needed all the help and guidance we could get, as just being parents of our own children does not make us highly aware of the broader needs of the diversity of children even in one small school. Schools that are failing to provide a safe environment and a quality education do need help. They do not need corporate help and consultants; they need some real engagement from educationists who understand what can be done to foster positive change. Charmaine Pountney, who wrote Learning for Life and achieved a remarkable turn-round at Auckland Girls’ Grammar School, was one such educator, and she has some great ideas for circulating teachers around who need to be refreshed or, sometimes, retired, and for addressing issues of failure in schools. We need to listen to creative and experienced educators and help schools do better by being honest about the failures of boards and, sometimes, of teachers.

But another concern we have about this bill is the clause on Education Review Office issues in relation to private schools. Any dilution of the Education Review Office’s supervision is a concern, but especially in regard to private schools. It is important that the Education Review Office continues to visit private schools every 3 years, because public money is being spent on private institutions and we need to know what is going on. These schools set their own agenda, but they get our money so we want to know they are spending it appropriately. This bill reduces the certainty of the 3-year review, and that is not wise, in our view. Private schools are not the same as public schools. While working for Greenpeace I once gave the same speech to many schools in the Auckland region, in both public and private schools, and the difference in resources and the delivery of the curriculum was enormous. Some may be happy to see public funds going into private schools so they can teach their world view, but accountability is vital. Some of the issues associated with “discipline”, as they love to call it in fundamentalist religious schools, definitely need the regular scrutiny of the Education Review Office.

The idea of options for the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) assessment of special schools again sounds really desirable, and may well be, as long as it does not result in a compulsory imposition of assessment models that are inappropriate for children with specific educational needs who do not fit the NCEA assessment models but are still learning and can have a rich educational experience in a respectful environment without credits. I know that this is heresy, but qualifications are not the only reason we go to school.

Perhaps the most fascinating clause of this bill is the one that deals with retrospective validation. It is not clear what mess this was designed to fix up, but it is odd that National is introducing it, given the passionate and vehement attacks it made on Labour for the retrospective validation of illegal matters in regard to electoral finance in the last term. From what I can gather, some schools integrated with each other without Crown approval so they are now getting validation. The Green Party is not convinced by this kind of lawmaking. I refer members back to the early days of retrospective legislation, including my favourite example, the Validation of Invalid Land Sales Act 1894. The principle behind this and other such retrospective validation is that if one does something stupid or, as in the 1894 case, downright illegal, it can be validated with the stroke of a pen. I am all for reasonable restorative justice, but not for validating the invalid, otherwise we make laws that are a cross between George Orwell and Kafka, and no one is better off.

I would also like to know which teachers, teacher unions, and schools have called for some of the underlying changes mentioned in the bill. Looking at the bill in isolation, I think it looks like a tidy-up of anomalies and a rationalising of resources, but the Green Party will not be supporting it, because of the undertones and context that I have referred to, and because it is part of a suite of changes that disturb us on a deep level. We mark the bill “not achieved”, and we will vote against it.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Education Amendment Bill. The members of the Education and Science Committee are certainly enthusiastic about this bill being sent to us, if that is what is intended, and come 10 o’clock tomorrow morning we will get serious about working as a team and working through the legislation presented to us so that we can get it back to the House by 28 August, as the Minister has requested. We will ensure that it is a bill that will fit into the very context of the Education Act 1989 and support it.

I make the point that in any relationship situation, things can get a bit stormy, as they did in the Chamber before dinner time, after the debate had ended on a bill that the House agreed on just about unanimously. It had to do with trade, and there is a lot of agreement around trade. But when it comes to education, it is quite clear that things become very, very political. The Opposition spokesperson on education attempted to ask where the transitioning part of this bill is. I tell the Labour spokesperson on education to take some time, because the National Government has a lot more to come under the umbrella of education as far transitioning is concerned.

But what we are concerned about first and foremost is to make schools more workable, more efficient, and more forward-thinking, so that they focus on those children who do not achieve the level of literacy and numeracy that we know they need to have in order to be self-sufficient by the time they leave school. It is on that basis that this bill has come to the House. The bill deals with some matters that may be considered to be small in comparison with some other matters, but they are all very important. We have to remember that the Education Act 1989 is now 20 years old, and when we look through it we see that a large proportion of it has been repealed and replaced by various amendments.

I want to go back to another point that was raised that appears to me to be the most controversial issue, which is the police vetting. We are not debating whether people should have access to children without having been vetted by the police; we are debating whether those people who do not have unsupervised access to children should be vetted by the police. Effectively, the bill proposes that those who do not have unsupervised access to children do not need police vetting.

That proposal received unanimous support from the education trade. I am quoting from the New Zealand Education Review magazine, which said: “… principals and unions are welcoming National’s decision to allow parents and volunteers who have not passed police checks to have unsupervised access to children in schools and early childhood centres.” Principals and the unions are supporting that. It is interesting to read what the president of the Principals Federation, Ernie Buutveld, had to say. He said that overturning police vetting for volunteers and parents was a “step in the right direction”, and schools would continue to follow policies to ensure student safety. That is an exact quote from Ernie. Further to that, the president of the New Zealand Educational Institute is reported as describing the move by Anne Tolley, the Minister of Education, as common sense. She said the vetting of parents would lead to a drop in parent volunteering. I think myself that this bill has come forward as a result of listening clearly to the sector.

We have heard of about seven cases of people who raised concerns with regard to criminal records over the last 2 years. There were 35,000 people vetted, and seven people were found to have criminal records. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that when I first became a member of the Education and Science Committee, a member’s bill came before us about ensuring that all people who stand for election to a board of trustees should be police vetted. We looked at that and wrestled with it. We sent the officials away to consider it, and they came back. There was something inside us that said we had to do that. But we could not; we could not achieve it. I also take the point, from my reading around this situation, that it has not been possible under the present regime to ensure 100 percent compliance with the requirement for police vetting. I call on members of the select committee to step past the theatre of the House on the first reading of the bill and to see whether we can put children and their achievements at the very centre. We should be focused on them and on their achievements.

One thing that really excited me too was the thought of the flexible model around school governance, which is something that has stirred my interest from early times in politics. I recall that the late Hon Brian Donnelly did a superb paper that dealt with these aspects. He also dealt with the subject of one principal looking after a number of smaller schools, so that there was the strong collegial leadership that was needed. I always found that Brian Donnelly, as the chair of the Education and Science Committee, brought a maturity to that committee, and it has continued under Allan Peachey. We are under good direction and a good chair, and I believe that what this bill has to offer is very, very positive.

It would be a shame to get bogged down in ideology, whereby we felt that we needed to be prescriptive as to the word and the sentence of what a board of trustees must do. My experience with boards of trustees is that professional development is always offered—the ministry is close by—and they have a passion that needs not to be fettered by regulations that will dumb them down.

A point that I would like to take up, just to conclude, concerns student allowances, which have not been touched on. It is not a biggie, but it is something that needs to be focused on. At present it is unlawful to make a false declaration, but this bill makes that an action that makes someone liable to a fine. I think that might be quite appropriate, because it does not send a very good signal if people are able to drive a bus through the regulations of a significant Act—the Education Act 1989.

On that basis, I think everything looks very good. I know that the Government members of the select committee are very, very enthusiastic to get this bill before the committee in order to make sure we can deliver it back to the House on 28 August so that we can start proceeding down the pathway towards helping every child to realise his or her potential. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon HEATHER ROY (Associate Minister of Education): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill. ACT is supporting this bill for no other reason than that there are many amendments here—it is a tidying-up bill, if you like. The amendments make absolute sense, and quite why some of them were not addressed well before now is anybody’s guess.

The main amendments are, firstly, to introduce an information-matching programme to compare teacher information held on the Ministry of Education’s payroll system with information from the Teachers Council’s teacher register. The purpose of this programme is to identify teachers who are teaching without a current practising certificate, and it will also identify schools that are illegally employing these teachers. As I say, it is a very sensible and straightforward amendment that should have been dealt with before now.

The second amendment, which has been referred to by most speakers, is the reduction in compliance costs related to police vetting by removing the Teachers Council as the conduit for police vetting of non-teaching staff and contract staff. As the previous speaker, Colin King, said, we are talking here about parents and volunteers. Quite why we would try to discourage parents from participating in their children’s education as volunteers, I do not know. This amendment removes the requirement to obtain police vetting for contractors who have no unsupervised access to children. It does not change at all the supervised access provisions, but here we are talking about parents and volunteers who will not have direct access to children and certainly will not be alone with them. It does not remove the requirement for the police vetting of teaching staff or non-teaching staff who have unsupervised access to children, but it does remove the Teachers Council as the mechanism for obtaining police checks. This should make police checks quicker and cheaper for schools, and removing compliance costs in this instance is very much a good thing. It is interesting to hear from Colin King that this move is endorsed by both the Principals Federation and the New Zealand Educational Institute. They have called this move common sense, and I have to agree with them.

In my particular area of delegation as Associate Minister of Education, I am pleased to see that some provisions in the bill will make things much better for those undertaking special education and also for independent schools. I come first to special education. Provisions within the bill will allow special schools to be accredited for NCEA (National Certificate of Educational Achievement), which is not currently the case. As I have gone around the country visiting special schools, satellite classrooms, and children with special education needs who are being mainstreamed, I have seen that this issue has been very much a bugbear, particularly in special schools. Several students at these schools are at the academic level where they are able to participate in NCEA, but this is not automatically available to children in special schools. This bill will rectify that anomaly. If there is one thing we should be aiming for for all children in New Zealand, it is the opportunity for them to reach their full potential, whether they are educated at a State school, an independent school, an integrated school, or, indeed, a special school.

The bill also clarifies the terms “special class”, “special clinic”, “special school”, and “special service”. Some might look at this provision and ask why it is necessary, as we are just talking about words. But as we well know, in the public sector definitions become very important when it comes to funding and resourcing, so this, too, is a very welcome amendment to the Education Act.

Also in the special education realm, this bill amends the definition of “State school” to include “special school”, which is currently not the case either. Special schools are usually funded and resourced by the Ministry of Education in exactly the same way that State schools are, and it is a matter of great importance to the children attending a special school—and also to their parents and those working in the area—that they be considered to be under the State school umbrella. It means that they are seen with a degree of normality that is perhaps sometimes denied them.

With regard to independent schools, this bill removes an anomaly in the Act so that private schools are able to be lawfully accredited to offer NCEA. Many will be unaware that this is actually not the case at the moment; this amendment corrects something that should have been corrected long ago.

The bill allows for combined establishment boards that can set up more than one new school, and it allows for more flexibility when independent schools are reviewed. We heard just before that such schools will now come under the same rules, in terms of Education Review Office examination, as every other school in the country, which is absolutely the right thing.

The bill outlines other amendments, which are of a relatively minor nature. Again, while we have the opportunity to tidy up things that should be other than as they are, that opportunity is being taken. I will give a few examples. The bill allows for more flexibility in relation to when triennial elections for school boards of trustees are held. At the moment the law stipulates that elections for school boards have to be held on the second Tuesday in May. Quite what is special about the second Tuesday in May is anybody’s guess. I have had a think about it, but it escapes me.

Hon Darren Hughes: Don’t you know?

Hon HEATHER ROY: Perhaps Mr Hughes can enlighten us in his next speech, or maybe not.

Anyway, the bill allows a lot more flexibility in this regard, and the Minister will have some say in the date when elections will be held.

There are a couple of fishhooks in the bill, in ACT’s view, but we feel they will be able to be tidied up at the Education and Science Committee. One of those fishhooks is the clarification of the definition of a playgroup. The explanatory note of the bill states that “The Bill amends the definition of playgroup to make it clear that at least half the children attending a playgroup session must have a parent or their caregiver present, and that the same caregiver cannot be nominated by more than 1 set of parents belonging to a playgroup.” The ACT Party does not agree with this provision. We think that it is overly inflexible and a little bit bureaucratic, and at the right point in the select committee process we will be suggesting some amendments.

The bill also allows for teachers’ practising certificates to be suspended where there has been an allegation of serious misconduct. I contend that not one single member in this House would argue with that provision, and quite why it was not there before is unclear. The bill allows for the suspension of a teacher’s practising certificate to be extended until an investigation into misconduct is resolved. That, too, makes good sense.

As was also mentioned by the previous speaker, a couple of tertiary education amendments will be made, and, again, they are just good common sense. Under this bill, for “students who knowingly make false or misleading statements in their applications:” there is an expansion of “existing offence provisions relating to student allowances . . .”. That issue will be able to be dealt with, whereas previously it could not be.

That is the ACT Party’s stand on this bill. We think the bill is very sensible and we will be supporting it, but we would like to see just one or two of the amendment provisions tidied up at the select committee. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātau katoa i tēnei pō. Nau mai, hoki mai ki ngā mahi o te pō, otirā, ngā mahi o te Kāwanatanga.

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us all this evening. Welcome, welcome back to the business of the evening, and, indeed, Government matters.]

Earlier today the Minister of Health outlined the strong actions taken by teachers at Rangitoto College in Auckland to protect the health and safety of students recently returned from Mexico. They took actions that demonstrated compliance with what I used to refer to as the NAGs—the National Administration Guidelines—to uphold and protect the health and safety of their students, and, from the Māori Party perspective, the Education Amendment Bill adds to that record by fixing up some of the policy gaps that could make our students rather vulnerable.

One of the key issues initiated by this bill are the amendments surrounding the question of registration of, or authorisation for, teachers to teach. According to the Teachers Council, in 2007 an estimated 3,500 teachers working in New Zealand schools were unregistered—3,500. This means that 3,500 people had not been vetted by the police or did not have in place a current practising certificate to show they were fit to work. Even more disturbing was the admission late last year that there was an unknown number of unqualified people teaching in the country’s primary and secondary schools. The admission, from the former Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Carter, was that unregistered teachers were undermining the profession, and that public concern could arise if it was found that there were significant numbers teaching without a current practising certificate or authorisation. I have to say that I find that a rather shocking admission from the former Minister. When we take our car to the garage, we expect that the mechanic is qualified to know one end of the carburettor from the other—or so one would hope. Similarly, if we suffer from the pain of a toothache, we expect that the dental surgeon will have some skill to know what to do with the decaying tooth. So why should we risk exposing our children to teachers who are not registered or qualified to take on the responsibility of learning and teaching? Surely the education of our future leaders must be something we invest in and take seriously.

We must protect the professional quality of the teaching sector, we must maintain teaching standards, and we must do both in the best interests of the student population. In our Māori Party policy document, “He aha te mea nui?”, a very good policy document, we considered the notion—

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: And National, as well.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Oh, OK. We would like to add a little bit more that the Māori Party brings to the debate, which is a consideration of the notion of moving towards standards of cultural competency. That comes off, I suppose, the back of the developments around Te Kōtahitanga project. So I am just signalling that if there is an acceptance of cultural incompetency, almost signalled by Te Kōtahitanga project, in the teaching profession, then the Māori Party intends to address that in the near future.

We support the moves in this bill to enable the Teachers Council and the Minister of Education to share data about whether teachers have current registrations in place. This was an initiative that the previous Government introduced and that Minister Tolley has now advanced into this legislation. It is a move, we understand, that has the support of the teacher unions and the School Trustees Association, and now, indeed, of the Māori Party. We believe that information matching will ultimately lead to the potential to raise the educational performance of students, and that that should be supported.

We note that a range of fines can be instigated for those boards that fail to employ registered teachers. Boards that employ unregistered teachers will incur a fine of up to $5,000, while the unregistered teachers themselves will incur a $2,000 fine. But surely the greatest penalty will be where the educational prospects of our students are compromised or hindered in any way by people who lack the skills, and indeed the capacity, to support and promote mātauranga, the love of learning.

Although the information-matching proposals are supported, the amendments to place some management around the mechanisms for police vetting are a very positive development in the Education Act. This bill removes the requirement for all contractors to be police vetted, and replaces it with a requirement to vet only those who are likely to have unsupervised access to children at schools and early childhood centres. This change has come about from very strong reaction on the part of those in the education sector, to what they saw as being a rather over-the-top approach. Those in the education sector have told us very clearly that such measures would create immediate problems for school communities by setting artificial barriers beyond which volunteers would be barred from entry into schools.

Sheridan McKinley, of Ngāti Kahungunu and Ngāi Tahu background, has written as a researcher about the perspectives of Māori parents as they consider their aspirations for their children’s schooling. The research report, entitled Māori Parents and Education/Ko ngā Mātua Māori me te Mātauranga, identified a key conclusion: how well Māori children do at school is strongly linked with how well parents and children relate to school staff. I ask members to just think about the possible scenarios that could have occurred with the previous proposals. For example, imagine a kuia decides that she has some spare time to assist with helping her mokopuna to read at school, a young dad on shift work decides he will give up some valuable sleep time, maybe, to help coach the school rugby team at lunchtime, or a koro decides that he would like to support the kōhanga reo by just turning up where and when he can. Imagine the reaction of their whānau when, upon arriving at the school or centre, they are taken off down to the police station for a police check.

As someone who has had a fair bit of experience in the school education sector, I want to make it quite clear that every school benefits from the enormous contributions of volunteers from throughout the community. They run the cake stalls and sausage sizzles. They go on camp and help out at the marae, if their school has a marae. They help out on sports days, provide the transport, supervise the school discos, and so on. They are there in big numbers. As a nation, the volunteers who keep our communities afloat contribute more than $3 billion to the economy. But this is about more than simple dollars. Helping our schools to be reflections of their communities is an important goal in its own right. Strong communities come from everyone feeling that they have a role to play through their participation and ongoing contribution. During times of economic downturn, such a role is even more important in the growth of resilient and thriving communities.

We support the amendments, which minimise needless police-vetting and rapidly downscale the compliance costs that would have landed on school administrations.

Finally, this bill proposes some minor changes to the current processes for teacher complaints and disciplinary measures. In essence, it enables a complaint assessment committee to suspend a teacher’s practising certificate for up to 3 months if that teacher is being investigated on a complaint of serious misconduct by the committee, the employer, or the police. It seems a thoroughly sensible mechanism, which is how other speakers have alluded to it. Indeed, the possibility that a teacher could still be teaching while under investigation for serious misconduct is surely one that should not be entertained.

These measures are sound, sensible, and, most of all, they are effective approaches towards ensuring health and safety issues are regarded as a priority in our schools and early childhood communities. For these reasons, we will be supporting this bill. Kia ora tātou.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): I have been following the developments and initiatives that have unfolded in this Parliament in the last 6 months in respect of education. It is with some concern that I stand to talk about the Education Amendment Bill. Let me make it clear that I support the reducing of the compliance burden on schools and early childhood education services by allowing for vetting applications to be made directly to the New Zealand Police, but I do not support the provisions that weaken requirements for police vetting of contractors. I support the amendments that introduce information matching between the New Zealand Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education to identify individuals teaching in schools without registration. I also support the provisions relating to 3-month suspension of teachers’ practising certificates.

My concerns about the progress that education has made in the last 6 months stem from the seemingly ad hoc nature of the educational initiatives that have come before us. Those initiatives include national standards, fining parents of truants, plain English reporting, changes to National Administration Guideline 5, and now this Education Amendment Bill. As an educator for some time, my concern stems from the lack of a coherent, progressive plan to move the New Zealand education system into the future. From what I have observed, the initiatives developed over the last 6 months barely relate to each other, and they appear to be based on populist notions with little or no grounding in solid educational research.

On the issue of police vetting, I have concerns regarding the safety of students if there are people working in school grounds who have not been vetted. To illustrate my concern, I recall a conversation I once had with a social worker who made a list of 100 men from a particular community whom she wanted to work as role models with at-risk teenagers. Because a social worker selected these people, we would assume that they appeared to be upstanding members of the community. However, as a precaution the social worker asked police to vet those 100 names in case they had criminal records, only to find that 78 of the 100 of those male mentors had faced criminal charges for violence. This simple analogy serves to illustrate that this part of the Education Amendment Bill alone is an example of poorly conceived legislation.

That aside, my greater concern is that there is no link between the relaxing of police vetting and any sort of academic achievement. If we were to examine the research, we would find there are dozens of initiatives and strategies that we should be discussing instead that make real and significant improvements to educational achievement. My concern is that we have spent considerable time and energy debating issues that have no research to back their efficacy.

While we continue down this path of debating bills that have no basis in research, we will simply wander down a path of schools failing students. What everyone fails to realise as we debate this bill is that the secrets to raising educational achievement are actually no longer secrets. There is a pile of new research, much of it New Zealand - based, that spells out very clearly what schools, principals, teachers, parents, and students need to do in order to make students learn. This is the research that we should be debating in this Parliament. It stuns me to think that instead of focusing on what is known to raise achievement, we keep dreaming up unproven issues to fill the time and give the impression that progress has been made in the name of education.

Research suggests that even with the strategies we have discussed, progress probably will be made. That is simply because there are few strategies that actually make students dumber. If the National Government claims that its initiatives will raise achievement, it is probably correct, but it is more likely to be a case of student achievement being raised in spite of these initiatives rather than because of them. What needs to be debated and examined in this House are those initiatives or strategies that have the most—and I repeat, the most—or greatest effect on achievement.

To illustrate my point, there are dozens of initiatives that raise student achievement, and they are ranked from most effective to least effective. All of them can be found in this book I am holding, Visible Learning, written by Professor John Hattie. Let us say there were just 10 strategies that were proven to raise achievement. The question is why we would use the strategies ranked sixth, seventh, eight, ninth, or 10th, when we know that strategies one through to five will be more effective in raising achievement. Professor Hattie, an eminent New Zealand researcher, has done exactly what I have just described. He has written this fascinating book called Visible Learning, which is a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. I have checked through the strategies that Professor Hattie has analysed, and not only does police vetting of contractors not rate in the top half of those strategies, but it is not mentioned in the research at all. It is rated as being even less effective than those few strategies that do make students dumber. My question is why we are talking about police vetting when there are much more effective strategies for making students learn.

I struggle to see the relevance of this part of the bill, which will actually jeopardise the safety of New Zealand schoolchildren, and I seriously believe that it is just a populist diversion. While we here in the House continue to draw the attention of educators towards issues that have no effect on raising educational achievement, we will simply divert them from the educational issues that will make a difference. In the House today at question time I heard about trade academies. I thought to myself: fine, trade academies probably do raise achievement, because, as I said earlier, there are not many strategies—although there are a few—that make students dumber. My belief is that trade schools will only be as effective as the quality of the teaching that goes on inside the trade academies. I have checked Professor Hattie’s research, and trade academies are not mentioned per se. However, under the heading “Types of Schools”, there is a part that describes charter schools, which are described as “publicly funded schools that have been freed from some of the regulations and statutes that apply to other public schools, often of a particular flavour, and they usually involve some form of innovative teaching principles.” I believe I am correct in giving a general description of what the trade academies would do. However, Hattie’s research has ranked charter schools 107th out of 138 initiatives. That means they are way down on the list of effective strategies that make students learn. What will make students in trade academies successful students is the quality of the teaching that goes on there. Despite the low rank on Hattie’s scale, an excellent trade academy with excellent teaching will be more successful than a mainstream school with poor teaching.

I ask members in the House whether, if they were to undergo life-saving surgery, they would prefer a surgeon who used an operating technique know to have the No. 1 success rate, or a surgeon who used the 107th most successful strategy. To relate that question to this debate, why are we not discussing issues and strategies that we know, because of the research, will make kids achieve?

As a principal I had to get all employees and contractors vetted at our school. I viewed it as one of those administrative tasks that just had to be done; so, like all good leaders, I delegated it. The systems our administrative office set up meant that the vetting just happened. I know that the majority of principals in New Zealand schools are teaching principals and they teach in small schools. But most still have a school secretary who really should be able to post off the vetting form and hand the confidential letter to the principal when it returns. The effort this takes is insignificant compared with ensuring the safety of our children. The system a school sets up can be as streamlined or as muddled as it wishes.

The other concerns I have regarding this bill are around the sections that have been removed that no longer require the board of trustees to monitor the performance of the principal and the staff, and especially in managing and reporting against the school’s aims and objectives set out in the school charter.

I will finish there, but I want to end on the point that if we genuinely want student achievement to be raised, then in this Parliament we need to be examining and discussing the issues that are proven to make a difference to student achievement. There are piles of research that illustrate what those strategies are. Thank you.

AARON GILMORE (National): I rise to support the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill. The bill deals with three key messy issues in the education sector: reducing compliance issues around police vetting of contractors in, for example, early childhood education centres, and I want to talk about that in a minute; allowing body corporates to be limited statutory managers or commissioners; and repairing a number of issues that exist already with the Teachers Council.

I think we all believe that quality educational outcomes are critical to the future of New Zealand. I spoke about this at length in my maiden speech. Education is one of the fundamental planks of our Government’s plan for the future, and everyone would agree that education is important. This bill is another step in that direction, along with national standards and the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been invested in school infrastructure. The Government is delivering confidence and helping to create aspiration for students and their parents.

I attended a low-decile school in eastern Christchurch, an area that commonly has problems with teacher retention, teacher training, and poor data quality, and that has poor student performance as a result. There are many preschools in my area and they are what I want to talk about. They do not have the same level of resources as preschools on the other side of town. Compliance costs have a considerable impact on the actions of the parents and the students.

I will give a specific example of the benefits of this bill. My family and I have been involved in our local playcentre and kindy for over 30 years. I myself attended this preschool. With no large amount of resources available, the compliance costs of small early childhood education centres are considerable. We recently had to employ a contractor to build a new fence at the front of our local kindergarten. That contractor was required to be vetted by the police. That was ridiculous. We were volunteers who, unlike the previous speaker, had not had any experience of police vetting. We did not have any templates and forms. We had to create the whole process, and to ring the police. We did not know what to do, because no one had ever told us. With the resources wasted on that process, a group of us parents could have built the fence ourselves, as in a working bee.

Stuart Nash: Why didn’t you?

AARON GILMORE: Well, as I was saying, this is one of the issues that the bill is designed to fix. The current legislation is actually unworkable, and this amendment bill will put in place some good steps in the right direction. It will free up resources to be spent on children, and indirectly free up police resources to be used to catch criminals—which is what the police are there for, of course. My own daughter, who is 3, will be a beneficiary of this bill, as well as the children of other families in my community.

The benefits can be rolled out across the entire country. The Ministry of Education estimates that in the order of $350,000 or more annually will be freed up as a result of the changes to the police-vetting procedures. That sum could be used to build a whole new preschool. It could be used to run a whole new preschool for 100 kids a year. We are a Government that wants more for our kids, and wants resources to be used in a way that makes sense. For an area like mine with a rapidly growing population in north-east Christchurch, this legislation is a good step—removing that sort of compliance and using those resources in a better way.

The next move is to improve data matching of teachers. This is a problem across schools, and the bill’s provisions will help identify teachers who, perhaps inadvertently, do not hold a current teacher’s practising certificate. Many non-certificated teachers who will be picked up by data matching will not be aware that there is a gap that needs to be filled. The bill will put in place a regime to help those people re-qualify or, if they do not, get out of the system. The programme will be reviewed on its effectiveness after 6 months against the objective that all teaching staff be registered. This is good. It will allow for a feedback loop to check the system is actually working.

Let us talk a little about the limited statutory manager and commissioner changes that are in this bill. As Anne Tolley spoke about earlier, there currently are 42 limited statutory managers and 29 commissioners. There are three commissioners in my area. My part of Christchurch has seen more than its fair share of commissioners and limited statutory managers. In fact, my former school principal has made a full-time career as a limited statutory manager since retiring 15 years ago. A number of people across the country are equally eminently qualified to do this role but do not meet the current criteria to be a limited statutory manager. The changes in this bill will allow more people to do that job and get problem schools back on track.

The previous speaker spoke about a gentleman called Professor Hattie. Professor Hattie has some good views and many of these have been adopted in some way. He was the developer of asTTle, an important tool in the use of national standards. An important plank of our party policy is implementing national standards for numeracy and literacy. I think that is an important step in the right direction.

I want to talk about some of the other changes that have been mentioned by earlier speakers. One is the change around playgroups. As a parent of two young kids, I say that playgroups are an important facet of the local community. In Parklands, where I live, over 100 kids attend the local playgroup. Many playgroups do not know the rules and guidelines about how to operate or run a playgroup. This bill will allow more clarity on how those playgroups should be operated and what rules and regulations should apply to them. These are positive things.

There are a number of other changes to anomalies. There are 13 major changes. They include allowing more flexibility for special schools and for school boards. Many schools, as a result of the nature of their community, do not have the right resources in terms of legal skills, financial skills, or the like. They cannot get them from their own community, but the school next door does have them. This bill allows some changes. It allows the merging of school boards and allows sharing of resources if the boards choose to do so. That would work quite well in many cases that I have run into in my area.

Other issues that this bill deals with are allowing the combination of new establishment boards, more flexibility when private schools are reviewed, and changing the time period for reviews by the Education Review Office. There are tidy-up issues around retrospective payments to integrated schools where there has been a mess-up.

Another really interesting area is the offence mechanisms for student loans. I was a protester against student loans many years ago when they were introduced, and I must admit that many students put in place systems whereby they, knowingly or not, fill in forms to get the resources they think they are entitled to. Changes in this law will allow that to work in a better way. They will make sure that students are not taking advantage of the system, and that the resources are used in a more clever way. One of the other things this bill is designed to deal with is the suspension of teachers. At the moment, a teacher is suspended for, normally, 3 to 6 months. This bill will allow that suspension to continue, and there are good reasons for that in terms of suspension of the teacher’s practising certificate. There have been some cases in recent times where suspensions have caused some problems.

The bill clarifies a number of issues around special classes, special clinics, special schools, and special services. They are tidy-up provisions and make a lot of sense. They will reduce a bit of administration and work for officials, and for certain schools up and down the country. Another issue that has been pointed out is the definition of “institution” and issues that arise around the requirements of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.

The bill’s changes are good and not controversial. The only thing that Opposition members seem to think is controversial is the issue of contractors working in early childhood education centres. The changes that this bill introduces are good, because they will allow small early childhood centres, like those I have been involved with, to operate more effectively and efficiently; allow the community to spend resources on the things it wants; allow the police to focus on what they should be doing—catching criminals—rather than vetting fence builders; and improve a whole series of other little snags that exist within the current law. Fixing these snags in the system is a worthy cause, and I think we should commend this bill to the House. If members opposite actually thought about some of the changes being proposed, particularly the issues of compliance, they would see that they are a major improvement for, particularly, small centres in the early childhood sector, rather than the secondary school sector. Thank you.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I rise to support the Education Amendment Bill in its first reading, and it is my intention to support it in other readings as it comes before this House. This legislation will do a number of things. It will allow comparisons between information kept by the Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education to identify people who are teaching in our schools and to identify those who are teaching without registration.

Earlier tonight the Minister of Education said that these measures will reduce school compliance costs and improve efficiency in the education sector. The Minister is right. That is exactly what this Government is about. I congratulate the Minister Anne Tolley on giving the bill priority—something, I note, the previous Government was at least consistent in failing to do. This Government wants schools to be able to get on with education to focus on teaching and learning, not bureaucracy. This bill is one more step towards making our schools better. The Minister has been extremely focused on delivering for schools and students in New Zealand. Our new Minister, Anne Tolley, has achieved more in the last 5 months than the previous Government did in 9 years.

The bill makes a number of small changes to enhance the effective governance of the compulsory education system and the effective administration of the compulsory and tertiary education systems. The bill will provide greater clarity around a number of definitions and will correct minor technical and drafting errors in the existing Act. These changes will help organise education efficiently and improve education legislation. The National Government is committed to working through the many inequalities and serious inadequacies that were left to it by the previous Labour Government and to ensuring that children in our schools are safe.

There are around 90,000 registered teachers in New Zealand schools, and with few exceptions they are very good teachers. They have the great responsibility of raising the next generation of New Zealanders. These teachers tell me that they believe that they might not have been supported enough by the previous Government, but that this Government and our Minister have the future of young New Zealanders at the front of education policy. We have brought this bill before the House, and there have been many bills like this one focusing on education.

Many people are employed in and around our schools who are not teachers but who also have unsupervised access to our children. The vast majority of these people are law abiding and suitable to be in charge of students. However, sadly, not all have acted in the best interests of those children. The Teachers Council has estimated that there could be as many as 3,500 unregistered teachers working illegally. Not all of these unregistered teachers are likely to be acting inappropriately. In fact, probably very few of them are. But the checks have not been done, and we do not know enough about their background to be sure of the safety of our children in the charge of those people. That means they have not been police vetted as suitable to lead classrooms.

A quick check of media reports of the past few years—all of the years the party opposite was in Government—identifies potential problems we face in keeping our children safe in schools. In November 2001 the then Teacher Registration Board found that a teacher in Northland who was sacked over an alleged affair with a student had been teaching illegally for more than a year. That teacher lost her job, following complaints from parents and the young boy’s mother of inappropriate behaviour towards this young student. The board said that it had checked its records with a view to striking that woman from the register and found that she had never been registered. The principal of the school concerned said that he had forgotten to check registration when employing that teacher. The board’s director at that time, Harvey McQueen, was quoted as saying that this omission was serious and that the board could not deregister someone who had never been registered. In the case of this woman he said that it was unlikely that she would ever be able to be registered as a teacher again, or in the foreseeable future.

In September of last year media reported that an unregistered alcoholic teacher with numerous drink-driving convictions was allowed to continue to work at a school after authorities learnt of his criminal convictions—an unregistered teacher responsible for educating our young people. That case puts the spotlight on rules that allow people to take charge of classrooms before checks of their suitability are completed, and on privacy laws, as they currently stand, that prevent any negative findings from being quickly conveyed to the schools concerned. At the time this teacher was employed he had a number of previous convictions, which would have affected his suitability for that job, and a compulsory police check prior to employment, through registration, would have meant that this person would not have been in a position where he was responsible for our students. The principal of the school concerned said that had he known of the teacher’s convictions, he would not have employed him. Obviously, the system is not working.

In March of last year a male teacher in Auckland was convicted of indecent assault and sexual charges against girls that he taught. He quit when the allegations emerged in 2005, and then went on to work as a relief teacher in another school and as a voluntary coach in a girls’ college. There are many more reports: a teacher convicted of assaulting his own child by throwing a knife at him; a teacher with fraud convictions; a teacher convicted of repeat drink-driving offences; another of violence against his wife in front of their children; teachers convicted of stealing from their own schools or inappropriate manhandling of students. All of those people lost their registration, or would have lost their registration, as teachers. However, the current checks and balances in the education system meant that, in many case, they could be re-employed as teachers without registration and without appropriate police checks.

As a parent, to me that is unacceptable. It is not acceptable that after many, many years the system is capable of letting down parents and their children. I condemn the delays and time-wasting on the part of the previous Government, which did not try to rectify these issues and was not capable of putting the safety of children forward as a priority, by passing a law when it had a chance, when it was in Government for 9 years. I note tonight that members opposite cannot even bring themselves to decide to support this bill and to support the safety of children.

Yesterday in my electorate in Rotorua I went to Aorangi School, which is right in the middle of the Rotorua township. I was greeted and given a great welcome by 120 young students who had beautiful singing voices. It was great to see young 7, 8, and 9-year-old children standing up and speaking in Māori and welcoming our small party to their school. They are very good students. The principal and teachers are extremely committed to the school. The parents entrust their children to the care of the school, each and every day of the school week. This school has a very good feeling about it. It was positive and one could see that the interests of the child were put first. The teachers there are exceptional; they go far beyond the call of duty for their young students. I believe that the parents of the young kids at Aorangi School would want us to pass this law to ensure the safety of their children. I have absolutely no concern about Aorangi School and how it is being run; it is an exceptional school. But we need to ensure that our laws support those very good, registered teachers in their work in the school. I think the parents of this school—many of whom might have voted for the party opposite once—would want the Labour Party to work out what Opposition is all about, stop opposing everything just for the sake of it, and support this bill to help ensure the safety of these children. I am sure these words will fall on deaf ears and I do not expect the members opposite to think of the parents or the children of these schools, or any other school in my electorate any time soon.

The bill will identify teachers who are teaching without a current practising certificate or authorisation, and, therefore, schools that are illegally employing these teachers. It will focus on any person who will have unsupervised access to children in our schools, and ensure that appropriate checks of that person’s character through police screening is undertaken before the person is employed or active in that school. The bill also provides for information matching between the New Zealand Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education to identify the registration status of people employed in teaching positions. This means that many of the people I spoke of previously for whom it was subsequently deemed not to be appropriate to have unsupervised access to children in our schools might not be employed or will not be re-employed. The bill provides the highest degree of assurance to parents that their children are being nurtured and are safe in our schools.

The bill also looks at police vetting. It creates new procedures and sets criteria for obtaining police vetting of people who will have unsupervised access to students. This bill provides a new definition for unsupervised access to children, and substitutes definitions for “playgroup” and “hospital-based education and care services”. The bill means that the New Zealand Teachers Council ceases to provide a police-vetting service to early childhood education services in schools, allowing those services in schools to apply directly to the police for these checks, a check that must be done and completed before employment commences.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 69

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; United Future 1.

Noes 52

New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Bill read a first time.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education and Science Committee consider the Education Amendment Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 28 August 2009, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee, with a report-back date of on or before 31 March 2010.

The Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill was introduced by the previous Government to replace the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974. The Government considers that this bill warrants referral to the select committee, where it can be the subject of detailed consideration and public scrutiny. The security industry is being regulated by outdated legislation that is now overdue for replacement.

The security industry is an important one. New Zealanders depend upon its members for their safety and security 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Members of the industry patrol and protect private properties, respond to alarm call-outs, and ensure public safety at major sports events and concerts, and in licensed premises. They also operate within workplaces to help businesses to protect themselves from theft and fraud. The industry employs more people than the New Zealand Police, and is often more visible. Just about everyone in this building will have been greeted by one of its members this morning.

Reform of this legislation is also timely, with major events like the Rugby World Cup coming up in 2011. The Rugby World Cup is an opportunity for New Zealand to showcase all that it has to offer while people participate in the sport that we love. We will be depending heavily on the security industry to ensure that visitors and players alike can fully and enthusiastically participate in this event without fear for their safety and security.

Plenty of things have changed since 1974, when the current legislation was enacted, but the underlying objective of occupational regulation remains the same: protecting the safety of the public and the industry, and ensuring that the public can have confidence in the industry, but without burdening business with unnecessary bureaucracy and cost. Members of the security industry operate in a position of trust. The aim of the bill is to ensure that those working in the private security industry are of good character and properly trained.

The bill will require a wider range of people performing security-related activities to be licensed. In particular, the bill seeks to extend regulation for the first time to personnel who are responsible for protecting people, or are keeping order. This means that bodyguards, private security staff guarding people in custody, crowd controllers, and bouncers will have to be licensed. The benefit of requiring security personnel to be licensed is that they will have to undergo a criminal record check, and can also be required to undertake training to ensure they are properly qualified to carry out security work.

Under the 1974 Act, there was no way of ensuring that licensees and certificated employees had completed suitable training. That was because the Act did not require them to undertake any training. This bill will enable regulations to be made requiring training to be completed by applicants for a licence or certificate of approval. One of the problems that this bill seeks to address is the risk associated with untrained personnel becoming involved in a physical confrontation. Just last year the Wellington regional coroner, Ian Smith, called for compulsory training, following the tragic death of Cedric Joyce in Blenheim in 2005 after he was restrained by bouncers outside a pub. Inevitably, some members of the industry will sometimes find themselves involved in a physical confrontation, and it is in both the public’s and the industry’s best interests that security personnel are properly trained to deal with such situations. The bill sets up a mechanism to achieve that, and, ultimately, we will need to look carefully at who needs to be trained and what type of training is appropriate for different classes of security personnel.

The bill will also set up an enforcement body called the complaints investigation and prosecution unit. It will be funded by the industry, and is intended to ensure compliance with the new legislation. It is intended that the unit would carry out investigations, provide information to the licensing authority, and carry out prosecutions. The bill also updates offences, and increases penalties. For example, unlicensed operators are a concern to the industry. The penalty for operating an unlicensed security industry business will go up from $2,000 to $40,000 for an individual and $60,000 for a company.

I am aware that aspects of this bill will require careful scrutiny by the select committee. The Government has decided to proceed with this bill as it is, rather than to withdraw, review, and redraft it, because it is time to make some real progress on reforming the existing regulatory regime, and to give the public a chance to have a say on how the industry should be regulated. It is quite possible that major changes may be appropriate when detailed submissions have been heard and considered. In that respect, there are aspects of the bill that I encourage the select committee to examine closely. In particular, I expect that the select committee and submitters alike will look very closely at whether the reforms are proportionate, whether they take account of the small and flexible membership of many security businesses, and whether the scope of the regulatory regime is appropriate. The provisions in the bill that specifically govern the activities of private investigators are essentially unchanged from the 1974 Act, and will require extra consideration.

Most members of the industry are consummate professionals in whom New Zealanders can place their trust. However, regulation has the ability to encourage all members of the industry to meet the high standards that are expected today. It is my intention that this bill, when finally enacted, will achieve that in an efficient and cost-effective way. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North): I rise to speak in favour of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill, which is still in the name of my Labour colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. The bill will lead to a future where private investigators and private security personnel can know that they are part of a better-regulated occupation. It will be an occupation for which one must have a licence, which itself will have value. Indeed, not having a licence will be costly. It will be an occupation that may develop a code of ethics, which is something the Associate Minister of Justice did not mention. It will be an occupation whereby licensed persons might have a level of training and whereby the bad guys face a renewed array of increased sanctions and penalties.

This bill is clean-up legislation. It modernises earlier legislation that is now 35 years old, and it will allow occupations that are covered to be more valued by society, because people will know that those occupations are closely monitored. That is something that all good private investigators and all good security guards should welcome.

I have done a bit of private investigation myself over the years, though not ever as a business; only ever in the public interest. Indeed, in recent weeks I have, by coincidence, investigated the Minister. It has been one of the most bizarre, rollicking, often troubling, and sometimes hilarious, experiences. As is often the case in private investigations, a lot of information is drawn from publicly available sources, as it was in this case. One Monday only a couple of months ago, the Dominion Post featured a story about the Minister taking himself off to India in a private capacity—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I cannot see what this has to do with the bill. I ask you to bring back the speaker to the substance of the bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are in a first reading debate. I have not yet heard what the member is saying, other than a reference to a Monday. If it proceeds past that, then I will intervene.

Hon PETE HODGSON: It certainly will proceed past the Monday, for indeed the story I intend to tell—and to draw parallels with the legislation with—goes on for weeks. I will make it quite a short story, though. On Monday the Dominion Post featured a story about the Minister taking himself off to India in a private capacity—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He has now proceeded beyond that point. You said you would intervene; I request that you do so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. I want the member to come back to the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. I want the member to confine his comments to the substance of the bill.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I turn the attention of the House to clause 96(b), which gives us some insight into the importance of not giving false information “knowing that it is false or being reckless as to whether it is false.”, which is the sort of thing that might arise with the story that has occurred as a result of my own private investigations into the Minister.

The Minister took himself off to India in a private capacity, in part to line up some student aviation pilots from India to train at the Southern Institute of Technology—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This member is completely ignoring your ruling and basically flying in the face of the instruction you have just given. Are you going to allow it to continue?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am interested to hear what the member has to say. He is referring to a private investigation. This bill is about private investigation. I will intervene if I find the discussion to be outside the scope of the bill.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Furthermore, the Dominion Post pointed out that the Minister was at that time a substantial shareholder in a company that wanted to start a joint venture with the same Southern Institute of Technology for the purpose of that training. What was not in the public arena that morning but became available to the public that afternoon was that he had not told the Prime Minister about it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to come back to the substance of the bill. The substance of the bill is about private security personnel and private investigators. That is what the substance of the bill is about, and I ask the member to confine his comments to those points. That is my ruling.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I draw the attention of the House to clause 39(1)(a), which states that a person who is licensed under this legislation might be “a private investigator employee:”, and to clause 39(1)(b), which states that such a person might be “a security technician employee:”—and so it goes through to clause 39(1)(g). The point of those provisions is to ensure that a person is one thing and not another. Unfortunately, the Minister, on his trip to India, went as a private individual, but when he got there he said he was a Minister. He went as a private individual—

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am going to rule. I ask the member—this is the third time I have asked—to concentrate on what the bill is about. It is about private investigations and private security matters. I ask the member to confine his comments to them. That is the third time I have asked. The member will please confine his comments to the substance of this bill.

Hon PETE HODGSON: On each occasion I refer back to the substance of the bill and explain, by way of an example involving the Minister, why legislation of this nature is of consequence.

Let me do it again: it is not appropriate, according to clause 77(e), to be involved in certain activities that might be regarded as misconduct. It is not appropriate under this legislation, looking at clause 77(h), to make a “false statement”. My private investigations found that the Minister said he went to India as a private individual, but under close examination it turned out that he had used a ministerial passport. So we know that the Minister was acting contrary to the Cabinet Manual, because he went without declaring he had a personal interest—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is all very cute and clever, but, once again, your ruling is being completely ignored. Is there no sanction against this sort of behaviour, or does it just go on?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for the point of order. The points that the member is making are in the public arena. They have been mentioned and debated in this Chamber before. The member, however, must relate them back to the substance of the bill. This bill is the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. That topic is the nature of the bill. That is what we are debating in the first reading. The member must refer back to that topic. That is the substance of this bill.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I refer to clause 77(h), which states that it is grounds for possible deregistration to give a false statement.

I will give an example of what a false statement is. The Minister, when he arrived at question time—duly “bollocked” by his Prime Minister, who, by the way, said parenthetically that the Minister was “stupid”—said he was going to divest himself of all his Indian-linked business interests immediately. He said that on Monday. On Tuesday he said to a member of the press gallery that he had already divested himself of all of his personal interests that were India-linked, yet a wee piece of private investigation showed this to be a false statement. Indeed, by Thursday not only had he not divested himself of one of the companies—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has had 6 minutes of his 10-minute speech. Although he could mention, and he has mentioned, points that are in the public arena, I will say for the last time that he must draw back to the substance of this debate. The subject is quite clear. That is what we need to be debating, and the member has 4 minutes remaining. If he does not confine his comments to the nature of the bill, I will be terminating the member’s speech.

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am a bit reluctant to intervene in all of this as I have been in the House for only 5 or 6 minutes. In that time you have been required to rule on the content of a very senior member’s contribution to the House on at least six occasions. The matter, in my view, is no longer one of interpretation of the member’s comments. The matter surely now becomes one of the fact that the member is refusing to listen to, or follow direction from, the Speaker. That is a far more serious issue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comments. I have given a very clear indication to the member what my expectations are. If he does not confine his comments to the bill, then I will terminate his speech.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It must be in order for Mr Hodgson to speak about whether his own activities as a private investigator would be caught by this legislation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon Pete Hodgson, if he wishes to continue. He has 4 minutes remaining. I warn the member for the last time to confine his comments to the substance of this bill; otherwise, I will terminate his speech.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Let me refer the House—

Sandra Goudie: Now he’s a member of Parliament and also claiming to be a private investigator.

Hon PETE HODGSON:—and the “orange roughy”, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to clause—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A member is known by his or her name. To refer to that member by a slang name is not appropriate. I ask the member to apologise.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I happily apologise.

Let me refer the House to clause 106 (1)(l). That is a regulation-making law allowing for a code of ethics to be promulgated under this legislation. That regulation-making power enables a process by which this occupation, or that occupation, can develop a code of ethics that then becomes binding on that particular occupation. It is not an unusual regulation-making clause. In fact, codes of conduct or codes of ethics are not unusual codes themselves. Many professions have them—indeed, Ministers of the Crown have them. The code of ethics by which Ministers of the Crown find themselves bound is not a legal document so much as it is one that is agreed by a process and adopted by convention. It is called the Cabinet Manual.

The Minister who introduced this legislation has broken the Cabinet Manual. That is not my assertion; it is the assertion of his boss—the Prime Minister of the land. It is of interest to me that the Minister would put forward legislation that has a regulation-making power within it to enable a code of conduct to be progressed, but that he is not able to follow the code of conduct in recent months himself—not arguably, but provably. So the Minister should give some explanation as to why he thinks a code of conduct is terribly important for private investigators but is something that he does not feel so obliged to pay attention to when it applies to him.

That is the point of my contribution. We have a series of regulation-making powers and a series of changes around licensing. We have a series of assertions about misconduct, including the importance of false statements, the importance of misleading conduct, and the importance of not giving false information knowing that it is false, or being reckless as to whether it is false. The Minister who delivered this legislation to the House has managed to break about half a dozen clauses in the legislation that he wants us to swallow. Well, I do swallow it. I think it is good legislation; I want to see it passed. I want to see it passed within a period of time that is far shorter than the 11 months that he has set for the select committee to look at it. But I do wonder at the idea of putting up a Minister who has himself broken both the spirit and the word of what is proposed in this legislation in his own life in recent weeks. I wonder whether that reflects the fact that the Minister has been told—no doubt by other people in his caucus—that he has to take his cue from the select committee process, and give it 11 months to consider the bill, because he does not have any more pulling power than that, understandably.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I am delighted to speak on the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. It has been said that although this bill may have been long overdue, the previous Minister, Clayton Cosgrove, actually missed the mark.

The first major flaw in this bill, as has been said, was the way in which the review of the industry, prior to the drafting of this bill, was conducted. Justice officials were constrained to only the parameters of the existing Act, and were not allowed to go outside those parameters apart from training. So they did not actually look at some of the other areas—one of which was the use of cameras and video equipment by private investigators. This is something that private investigators have been calling for, for a long time, and it is quite significant when one is investigating cases in regard to the accident compensation scheme. They are challenged by lawyers representing a person under question, and they are being asked questions relating, for example, to the colour of the jersey the person was wearing at the time he or she was seen to be perpetrating an act of physical activity while collecting accident compensation for a back injury. Investigators are not allowed to use cameras or video equipment, so they have to take substantive detailed notes. So there were some challenges around why that was not also revisited at the time of the review of this particular Act.

The next area of deficiency on the part of the previous Government was its inability to broaden the review to also cover increased powers of detention. It is to be hoped that the select committee will start to look at some of these additional areas that were not covered by the previous Government. It fell short of doing a proper analysis and review in regard to private investigators, security personnel, and the like.

We have to look at outlining a security officer’s powers of arrest and detention. A private citizen has that capability, so why not strengthen a security officer’s powers of arrest and detention as well? That should have been covered in the review. This debate is about what we allow private investigators and security officers to do, and the amount of responsibility they have in line with the requirement to be licensed. That includes those people under them, and I will talk a bit more about that in future.

Members may well ask why these people need increased powers of detention. The answer to that is pretty simple actually—they are picking up the slack where police are delayed in attending violent incidents. More and more people are now using private security, and that is their right, and, as this bill clearly indicates, the sector will be licensed. The bill quite clearly indicates that the sector will be licensed. Clause 16 sets out that the following people will have to hold a licence: private investigators, security technicians, security consultants, confidential document destruction agents, property guards, personal guards, and crowd controllers. Those are just some of the categories. There will also be certificates for other personnel who might not hold such a responsible role within any of those categories.

If we look at the case of security guards, we have only to look at Manukau City, which at one point employed security guards across the city on a 24-hour, 7-days-a-week basis. That was to strengthen security measures in the area. The council needed front-line police with statutory powers, rather than security guards who did not have those powers. In other Western countries such as Britain and Australia there are legislative provisions to extend powers of arrest and detention to adequately trained security officers. So the select committee might like to look at some of those aspects and see whether we would be justified in broadening out some aspects of this bill.

There are some other issues to do with crimes perpetrated at night versus crimes perpetrated in the day, between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. If the offence is perpetrated by day the maximum punishment must not be less than 3 years’ imprisonment if a security officer is to apprehend an offender. I am sure that a lot of these issues will be brought forward at the select committee.

One of the other flaws identified in the legislation was that the new bill makes provision for a 3-month trial period during which an employee need not undergo training. That may need to be looked at again in order to test the efficacy of that requirement. There may be some temptation to avoid expenditure on the provision of professional security officers and to rely on in-house security staff who do not have further additional training.

If we consider why it is necessary to license these people, we should look at the whole matter of police testing of the backgrounds, etc., of people in charge who are in jobs of responsibility. For a start, we can look at the case of a security guard in Dunedin who was jailed for 9 months after pleading guilty to the theft of $19,500 from an employer. It was later found that he had a history of previous offending between 1992 and 1995. Licensing of those personnel is seriously important. I think the matter of licensing is one really good strength of the bill, but it has to ensure that police checks can be done on all the people in those positions of responsibility. If there is an exemption, I ask whether the ability for police checks to be carried out will still be covered. Another security guard was sentenced to 180 hours of community work, 6 months’ supervision, and fined $400 for theft of items from a film set. That guard was also convicted of cultivating cannabis at the same time. Those things might all have been revealed if the proper assessment and analysis of that person’s background was actually undertaken.

The select committee needs to look at this bill in regard to strengthening the requirements in terms of those personnel, which include private investigators, security technicians, crowd controllers, personal guards, and security guards. They are all in charge of very important aspects of the industry, particularly security guards. If we look at what was allowed in terms of employment occurring outside the licensing regime, employers are seriously limited in their ability to check the background of an employee. There have been incidents where some security guards have escaped the police and criminal checks that are so necessary. There were revelations that the Immigration Service hired bank and customs guards without work permits and with questionable security authorisations. They had been working for several weeks in banks and at customs clearing areas for cruise ship passengers on Auckland’s waterfront. Those guards had very questionable backgrounds, so I cannot understate the importance of making sure that the particular flaws I have outlined in this bill are covered. I ask whether the certificates identified in this bill will give the ability for employers to do the full background checks necessary, so that security guards who hold positions of responsibility and have access to personal property and information act responsibly and do not put at risk those assets or the information they have access to.

I think it is important that the code of conduct has been mentioned. It is important that this bill progress through its stages, that real consideration be given to it, and that some of those areas that have been omitted are taken into consideration. I am sure they will be covered by submissions. I know, having spoken to a private investigator recently, that the use of cameras and videos is particularly important, that such use needs to be seriously considered, and that the bill needs to be broadened to allow that to occur. I also know that increased powers of detention should be seriously looked at, having been so successful when adopted overseas. Categories for licensing and for certificates for those who do not yet have a licence but need to carry a certificate must be robust enough that adequate background analysis checks can be done. I am glad to support my most excellent colleague Richard Worth as he commends this bill to the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I too fully support the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. I think it has considerable merit, and I am very pleased to see that it will be going to a select committee. Usually, under this Government, I get up in the House complaining that bills are not going to a select committee at all, or that they are going for a very short time and are being rushed back through the House, as has happened on the Commerce Committee. Of course, that is something our very efficient committee can deliver on in terms of our workload, but I am somewhat confused at why this bill has been given 11 months.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, come on! Not you!

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Well, I was confused until I heard Sandra Goudie’s speech, because the Minister, Richard Worth, did not actually indicate in his speech why it was going to the select committee for 11 months, except for a very subtle reference to the fact that it might require a substantial rewrite. I think that is how he put it—a substantial rewrite. He did say that he did not want to withdraw it and start all over again. What a lazy Minister! He is not withdrawing it and starting all over again. He is not doing his job. Instead, he is getting the chair of the select committee to stand up in the House and say what the Government is planning to do. That is very interesting. I think that the public have the right to see the bill the Government will in fact consider, not the one that was already introduced into the House.

Sandra Goudie: It’s not my select committee.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am sorry that I have the member mistaken for the chair of the select committee. She is desperate for me to acknowledge the fact that she is not good enough to be the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee. That is fine by me.

John Hayes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the context of your earlier discussion, I ask you to bring the member back to the point of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a wide-ranging debate. We are on a first reading speech. There is nothing untoward in what the member has said.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am referring to the fact that this bill is being sent to a select committee for 11 months. The reason that—

Sandra Goudie: Which one?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The Justice and Electoral Committee, as I understand it.

Sandra Goudie: Well, it’s nothing to do with my select committee.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I know; I have already apologised to the member. I have already said that she is not up to being the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee. We all know that, and I am terribly sorry that I mistook her for somebody of intelligence.

I want people to understand that she has actually told the House what the Government is preparing to do, and I think we have to focus on that, because this is the bill that will go out for public consumption. This is the bill that was subject to the regulatory impact statement. It is not the bill that will be reported back to the House according to both the Minister, who has indicated a substantial rewrite, and the somewhat less elegant member, who probably referred to gutting the bill—because two things are missing from this bill according to Sandra Goudie.

The first thing missing from the bill is the right to film and photograph people without their permission. There are all sorts of rights-to-privacy issues there, but she does not care about that. The other thing that is missing from the bill, according to Sandra Goudie, is the right for security guards and private investigators to arrest and detain. She wants them to have that right. Who does that now? The police do that. That is a police function. So the National Government is not only determining that we will have private prisons but also that we will have private police under the police State that it is sneaking in through the back door.

I say that the Minister has no right to rely on the existing wording of a bill just to get this devious plot brought before a select committee without proper consultation and proper reference to the public about the changes that might be implemented. I do not think it is appropriate that members of the Government know full well what the Government is planning to do. As soon as this bill gets to the select committee the private police option is in there.

John Hayes: So?

Hon Darren Hughes: He said: “So?”.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Of course he did. Members opposite have been briefed by their Government about what is planned. Government members are using the very good bill introduced by my very good colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. They are putting it forward as a kind of Trojan Horse. But in behind the Trojan Horse is a design for a complete rewrite of the bill after 11 months at a select committee. What we will find is a private police State implemented by the National Government behind the closed doors of a select committee that is not open for public consideration.

I refer the House to the regulatory impact statement in the bill as it stands. Of course, it makes the point that under the current Act people are already required to be licensed if they are running businesses as private investigators, etc. The point that is being made is that the weaknesses of the existing legislation were spelt out in the regulatory impact statement. The policy objectives were all set out in the regulatory impact statement. The options for reform were considered, then the particular requirements set out in this legislation were determined to be the appropriate way forward.

It is true that people in the industry itself want the right to arrest and detain, and they want the right to take photographs or audio recordings without the subject’s written consent. Of course they do! It is in their commercial interests to argue for that. But there are considerations that need to be put before both the House and the people of New Zealand before these things are debated at a select committee. I think that the Government should say exactly what it will do in this legislation. If the Government intends to bring in photographing, audio recording, and video recording provisions, and if it intends to bring in, essentially, a private police force option—which is the arrest and detention provision—then I challenge it to bring the Supplementary Order Paper to Parliament and refer it to the select committee, because to have the select committee make such substantial changes without the input of the New Zealand public would be a travesty.

Even I do not think that the National Government would stoop so low as to bring in a private police State without that sort of consultation. It is absolutely outrageous that the Government has put up this 11-month visit to a select committee in order to be able to do this in the closed environment of a select committee rather than in the open environment of this Parliament where we get a chance to debate the real issues.

It is very important that we do move on this legislation. When we consider the degree of responsibility on the people in this sector and some of the issues that other speakers have already raised in the House, we see that this is actually an incredibly underpaid, overworked, and difficult area of work in which to operate. These people need proper training, proper wages, and proper conditions of employment. They need to have the professionalism that is associated with the changes proposed in this legislation.

We do not want to hold up the legislation. We are amazed, though, to find that there are further plans for this legislation once it hits the select committee. It is unfortunate that the changes are not being dealt with in an upfront way. The Minister himself may be a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, where his bill will go for consideration. I hope we can get from him an absolute assurance that he will bring any substantial rewrite of the bill to the House by way of a Supplementary Order Paper to be referred to the select committee for the calling of submissions. Otherwise, an enormous travesty of justice could be done.

I do not believe that the Minister, in his heart, would want that to occur, because it is such a substantial change. Once private companies with commercial interests have the right to arrest and detain ordinary New Zealand citizens, we are talking about a private police State. There is no other way to describe it. I am deeply, deeply concerned about the references that have been made in this House to those amendments coming through the select committee process. That was ruled out by the previous Government, and I am happy to stand by that decision. I support the bill as it stands and I commend it to the House.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Greens will support the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. It is good that it tightens up controls not only on private investigators but also on a range of other security people—for example, security guards, bouncers, crowd controllers, and bodyguards. The bill also allows for regular registration of such people, proper training, a code of ethics—which has been mentioned previously—a complaints investigation and prosecution unit, and the imposition of higher fines.

However, as clause 101 states, security people do not have any more rights than any other citizen in this country, and under this legislation they are not allowed to imply that they do. I think that is quite correct. Security people are not allowed to wear clothing “likely to cause any member of the public to believe” that they are police. Yet I think we all know that bouncers and security guards do wear uniforms that suggest to ordinary people that they are a bit like the police or have some sort of semi-police power. They often imply by their demeanour that they have the power to restrain, arrest, or remove people physically, and this is where it gets difficult. I agree with the previous speaker, Lianne Dalziel, that there is a concern that if this bill is changed it may be changed, based on the comments made by Sandra Goudie, in the direction of giving these security people aspects of police functions.

The problem that is developing and that is leading us in this direction is that there has been almost a delegation of police functions to people who are not the police. A month ago there was a case at an Auckland City Council meeting where a person who goes along to those meetings quite regularly and who speaks out vigorously, sometimes not always in turn, but who is a committed citizen, was dragged out of the meeting and out of the building by a security guard. I sent a written question to the Minister to find out how many police are present at council meetings. The meeting of the Auckland City Council was a major one, but basically it appeared from the reply that the police had delegated those policing functions to private security guards, unlike here in Parliament where we have real police officers.

We also see this problem at large events where there are crowd controllers. Often at large events not too many police are on hand, so security guards are relied on to keep order, even though they do not have any powers of physical restraint—they rely on people thinking that they do have powers of physical restraint. There is also increasingly the problem of the police deputising civilians to look after prisoners when they are being transferred to a form of secure police custody. I think that all of this is leading in the direction that Sandra Goudie talked about. She called for increased powers of detention for these people, but, actually, they do not have any powers of detention let alone increased powers. So that is a matter of concern.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I think young Sandra let the cat out of the bag.

KEITH LOCKE: Yes, I think that is right.

There is another category in this bill that relates to private investigators and how much they intrude on people’s privacy. Sometimes private investigators like to violate the spirit, and sometimes the letter, of the Privacy Act. It is good that there is a carry-over from the old Act into this legislation, in what is now clause 66, whereby private investigators are not allowed to take photographs or make video or audio recordings of people without their written consent. There are big penalties under this new bill for doing so without consent. Evidence from such illegal photos or recordings is not allowed to be used in legal proceedings, and that is all to the good.

The extent of intrusion by private investigators into private lives can be a bit sickening. In October 2006 the Sunday Star-Times reported South Auckland private investigator Lew Proctor saying he had been investigating the private lives of Helen Clark, her husband, and other Labour MPs. The ban on photos is good. However, there is a bit of a contradiction in the law, in that as far as I can tell it is not illegal to put tracking devices on people—on their car, or whatever.

The prohibition on photos and videos is more honoured in the breach than in the observance by some private investigators. For example, in 2006 the Save Happy Valley Coalition, which protested Solid Energy’s proposed West Coast coalmine in order to protect the pristine natural environment, discovered a digital video camera hidden in the forest to spy on its protests. It was probably put there by a private investigation firm called Thompson and Clark Investigations, which we know was hired by the State-owned enterprise Solid Energy to spy on protesters. Thompson and Clark Investigations even put an infiltrator called Ryan into the protest group. That person became disenchanted with doing the spying and blew the whistle to the Sunday Star-Times. The Sunday Star-Times also reported at the time that another infiltrator, who was called Somali, was put into the Wellington Animal Rights Network. According to the Sunday Star-Times it was likely that Somali was also put into the network by Thompson and Clark Investigations.

It seems logical to me that if private investigators are not allowed to take photos of people, then morally it would be utterly wrong to infiltrate a group to pretend to be a protester in order to betray and undermine the collegiality and trust of groups that are acting for a very good cause, for the most part. In fact, Helen Clark said that Thompson and Clark Investigations, in paying Ryan to spy on the Save Happy Valley Coalition on behalf of the State-owned enterprise Solid Energy, was acting in what she called an unacceptable way. The Minister for State Owned Enterprises at the time, Trevor Mallard, said that this had to stop and that State-owned enterprises were required to act in a socially responsible manner.

Private investigators often think it is OK to cross the line between collecting information on people in the public space, which is OK, and acting in a covert manner, such as infiltrating organisations to gain more of what Trevor Morley, the President of the New Zealand Institute of Private Investigators, calls “competitor intelligence”. Hopefully, a code of conduct will finally be established, as provided by regulation under clause 106, to prevent unethical behaviour by private investigators. The Greens will be watching this process closely, and we are very happy to work with the Government on refining this code. One of the most important things will be to stop private investigators infiltrating protest groups, or private companies arranging for the infiltration of competing companies. Hopefully, the ethical provisions of the new code of conduct will prevent all this. We must hold the line, because particularly with the advances in surveillance technology, whereby one can spy on people from a long distance and use electronic devices to hear what they say, and with the development of computer hacking and all sorts of techniques in that regard, we must have strong regulation, a strong code of ethics, to govern the private investigation industry.

It is good that a long period is provided for this bill to be considered, although there is a bit of a contrast between the 11 months projected for this bill and the less than 1 month projected for a bill discussed earlier this afternoon—the bill implementing the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area. I think there should perhaps be a longer period for the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill to be considered than is the case for that bill. The Green Party is supportive of this bill, but we will be pushing for a strong code of conduct. Thank you.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. Before I go on to the substance of my contribution, I am somewhat bemused and amused by the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s comments on police States and private police. I will venture to give her a slight history lesson about the establishment of the police by Sir Robert Peel in England in the 19th century. It was made very plain that the police were intended—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I am sure this is definitely associated with the bill.

DAVID GARRETT: It will be in a second.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Hold on. Help is on its way.

DAVID GARRETT: Yes, just watch this space. Sir Robert Peel established the police and made it very plain that they had no greater rights than the ordinary citizen; they were simply there to act as a voluntary organisation charged with assisting to maintain the rights of the ordinary citizen. We inherited that tradition of fearless policing on behalf of the ordinary citizen in this country.

But what happened when Labour was in Government? Members will recall an incident whereby one Tim Selwyn was charged with, convicted of, and served time for sedition for putting an axe through the window of the previous member for Mt Albert. Can anyone believe that if Mr Selwyn had put an axe through the window of Mr Locke’s office or Mr Hide’s office, or Mr Power’s office for that matter, he would have been charged with sedition? I do not think so. What happened there? What happened when the police looked at the case about a certain painting? My understanding is that it went not only to the Wellington police, who said there was a prima facie case of fraud—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: What’s this got to with the bill?

DAVID GARRETT: You raised the issue of—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to come back to the substance of the bill that we are debating and to confine his comments to it.

DAVID GARRETT: I was taught at law school that the starting point with any bill is to look first at the ill that is being caused. What is the mischief that is to be solved? I will give the House an excellent example of the mischief that this bill is designed to solve. Mr Cosgrove must take credit for it, frankly. It attempts to prevent, and in fact will prevent, the activities of outfits like Rent-a-Bro, which is a branch of the Mongrel Mob. They act as “security guards”. They employed one Mark Stephens, once known as the “Parnell Panther”. He is a very unpleasant individual whom I have personally had the misfortune of meeting.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Have you met him?

DAVID GARRETT: Yes, I have. He is an extremely unpleasant and intimidating individual. He was employed by Rent-a-Bro to collect debts. Because the industry is unregulated, he was able to go around to some Chinese people’s places to collect a debt. Mr Mark Stephens, for those members who are unaware, and who are familiar with imperial measurements, is about 6 feet 4 inches in height and about half that in width. He turned up at a couple of Chinese people’s places, wearing his Mongrel Mob patch, and announced that he was a member of the Mongrel Mob and he was there to collect a debt.

Mr Mark Stephens, the “Parnell Panther”, is a member of the Notorious chapter of the Mongrel Mob. The Notorious chapter of the Mongrel Mob has been extolled by Mr Cosgrove’s friend Mr Kim Workman as a great example of the kind of gang that moves beyond crime and into legitimate business. Rent-a-Bro was supposedly that kind of legitimate business. But Mr Stephens turned up and because he is a bit thick he said he was actually with the Mongrel Mob, and not with Rent-a-Bro. The victim of his intimidation was terrified, and not surprisingly. He was a Chinese person and very small. Mr Stephens stayed for an hour. This person then complained to the police. I will leave the House to judge the good sense of the judge who, when Stephens came before him, said he accepted that Stephens had gone there in good faith. He had gone there in good faith, but it was his referring to the Mongrel Mob that was the problem. The judge then went on to say, correctly and clearly, that the only reason Stephens referred to the Mongrel Mob would have been to intimidate or to overcome resistance to paying. So that is the kind of evil this bill is designed to cure, and I commend the Labour members opposite for starting the process to cure that kind of thing.

The Minister has mentioned already the death of Cedric Joyce in 2006, which was another example of the kind of security that older members of the House will remember—and they will remember the Hells Angels providing it, at Altamont, back in the 1960s. This bill is intended to take us away from all that and, as other members have said, to establish a basic level of skill and understanding, to ensure that training and governance are effectively given, and to develop training standards and requirements in the industry that will remove reliance on people like Mr Mark Stephens of the Notorious chapter of the Mongrel Mob—the reformed gang member Mr Workman is so proud of. Those people will be taken out of it; they will not be able to get jobs any more, and that has to be good.

The bill will keep criminals such as Mr Stephens out of the industry, remove their sense of authority to act in the way they do, and stop them from intimidating people—because that is what they are about, of course. I notice that the members opposite have gone a bit quiet. That is what those people do. They are not successfully—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You tried that on the Back Benches TV show—intimidating people, didn’t you?

DAVID GARRETT: Oh, yes, he has started up again. They are not successfully rehabilitating criminals, at all; once a gang member, always a gang member, and Mr Stephens is a great example of it. Again, this is an example—a rare example—of the ACT Party supporting public expenditure. We recognise that fees created by, or to be charged pursuant to, this legislation are necessary, in order for the proposed authority to act in the best interests of the public, and to legitimise an industry that, as the Minister said when he introduced the bill, has operated under legislation that is now some 35 years old.

We have some small reservations that the planned authority does not become overly bureaucratic, and does not stifle an industry from developing and operating efficiently, but we have no hesitation in supporting this bill to go to a select committee. Like National, we look forward to refining the bill and hearing submissions. I am sure they will be wide ranging. Perhaps even the Notorious chapter of the Mongrel Mob will make submissions on why it should be allowed to register Rent-a-bro under the new legislation. The ACT Party will support this bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. I hope I take a different line from Mr Garrett’s revelations in respect of gang leaders as we talk about this particular bill, in the hope, of course, that we start talking about positive ways to address these sorts of issues. The constant haranguing of those people will probably not do us too much favour in trying to rehabilitate some of the issues they currently face. Be that as it may, as we turn to this bill I say that when many Māori consider the notion of “PIs”—private investigators—some of the younger generation, like me, think about Magnum, P.I., that programme that used to be on TV. You might remember him, Mr Deputy Speaker. He lived in Hawaii, a very “unlucky person”—

Hon Darren Hughes: Oh, John Key!

TE URUROA FLAVELL: —who worked when he wanted to, just like Mr Hughes. He had access to beautiful women—that is questionable—an overflowing beer cabinet, which is also questionable, and he had a Ferrari. I am not too sure about that one for Mr Hughes.

That is, I suppose, the notion that some of us have about private investigators, whereas the relationship of Māori to security guards is well-established on the other side of things. In fact, I understand that a well-known artist—namely, Michael Parekōwhai—has even created some sort of art feature that has 15 brown fibreglass figures posing as security guards somewhere in Aotearoa. I am led to believe that the theme throughout the work is of a stereotypical Māori male, standing guard outside bars, clubs, and social events. It is a figure we can all probably quickly identify; it is a study in being staunch.

This bill puts together two categories in dealing with the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act of 1974. It is putting in place measures to ensure that both private investigators and security guards are appropriately qualified to undertake their work, and that their conduct is consistent with the public interest. The important distinguishing point about this bill, however, is that it is not just restricted to private investigators and security guards. In reviewing the licensing requirements for the security industry, the bill now brings within its fold a much wider group: private investigators, security technicians—that is, those who fix burglar alarms or security cameras—security consultants, the agents who offer confidential document destruction, property guards, personal guards, and crowd controllers, whom we might more commonly call bouncers.

Although the scope of people targeted has broadened, there is more flexibility about the requirement for licensing renewal and certification. Indeed, it is a huge—a massive—jump from the expectation of being subject to an annual review to now having that review every 5 years.

The other major aspect of the bill, outside the licensing changes, relates to the policy goal that the conduct of those in the security sector is consistent with the public interest. For a classic example of this, we need think only of the events that shook Aotearoa in October 2007. We might remember that Peter Williams QC was one of the first off the blocks to call for private investigators to look into the facts of the police raids that took place in Ruātoki that year, under the auspices of the Terrorism Suppression Act. In speaking out, Mr Williams challenged the State. He issued a statement well-known in Māori circles: waiho mā te ture anō te ture e patu—let it be for the law to beat itself up. His urgent recommendation was that all New Zealanders should be concerned at the breach of rights that unfolded in the nation of Tūhoe. He suggested that there should be some private investigators to get all sorts of statements, and to bring action to the High Court for exemplary damages and compensation for all of those who were badly treated. So we saw with the events of October 2007, perhaps, a new environment where private investigators might well be considered a useful investment for Māori to call on for support and expert advice.

The Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill makes an important start, as I say, in regulating the private security sector. It brings into being a conversation about professionalism, integrity, and respect—values that are at the very essence of any aspect of the security industry. The Māori Party believes, however, that further amendments are needed to ensure appropriate standards of conduct are set and maintained. As a core requisite of standards of conduct, we recommend that anti-racism training for private security personnel needs to be included in the code of conduct when it is developed and implemented. This bill introduces more objective criteria in determining who will get licensed. The licensing authority will retain discretion to assess suitability of applicants, but the prevailing emphasis is on consistent values and standards by which we come to regard this profession.

Within these criteria, we hope that cultural competency will be elevated to be a significant component of the registration of competent and licensed private investigators and security guards. We will be looking forward to more detail coming out at the select committee phase around the licensing process—namely, who gets approved. Although certain categories of people under both the current Act and the provisions of the bill are disqualified from applying, there needs to be a more robust mechanism than conviction of certain offences to determine whether someone is suitable to be a licence holder or to be certified.

We will be strongly recommending that those who have had experience in this sector, those who are currently practising within it, those who have left the industry, or those who have been at the receiving end of the management and operations of personnel should be involved. For example, if there are people who have had unsatisfactory experiences with security guards, or perhaps bear resentment towards the activities of a private investigator, it is vital that we hear their views alongside the views of those who may be more positively inclined. A key principle for the Māori Party in coming to this bill is that we want to be absolutely certain that the power of security staff is appropriately balanced to ensure the rights and safety of the public. Clarity around these standards is critical to ensure the credibility of the security industry while also adhering to due protection of the public.

At the heart of the issue is the role of power and control. Although security workers and other personnel across the sector do not have the same power as a police officer to remove a person’s liberty, they do hold aspects of power in their roles, and need to be duly responsible with that power. Feedback that we have picked up from the sector shows a desire to see a code of conduct actually developed and used to establish and maintain industry standards. This has never been done as yet, even though I am led to believe there is provision to do so in the 1974 Act. A code of conduct would provide a mechanism by which to monitor and review the standards of practice through adherence to a code of conduct of licence and certificate holders. This will be especially important given that the licensing period is now 5 years, and also to be able to better regulate the conduct of those who are already licence and certificate holders.

There are many issues and experiences that come with this bill that will benefit from more intense scrutiny at the select committee. In light of the need for more information and, indeed, more analysis, the Māori Party is happy to support this bill at its first reading. Kia ora tātou.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): It is very good to rise and speak in favour of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. I start by talking about private investigators; I accept from the outset that this detailed, comprehensive bill is not only about them. Indeed, it regulates many others, including security technicians, security consultants, and the like. A private investigator’s role is a tough one. They are often involved in fairly tedious watching work—for instance, watching people potentially breaking the rules of Work and Income, the accident compensation scheme, or the like. However, that is sprinkled with moments of excitement and, some would say, danger.

As a young commercial litigation lawyer, it was my pleasure to, on occasion, instruct private investigators to find individuals who had gone missing, or to do work in relation to crash scenes and piece together what had happened. Like the Hon Pete Hodgson, who said that he had been an amateur super-sleuth in the past, I remember doing the work myself many a time when a case would not justify the hiring of a private investigator: looking to find an individual and then dropping documents on him or her in various places. There is a point to these stories, by the way: it is to prove the importance of regulation in this area.

I also recall instructing private investigators in the leafy suburbs of the Hon Rodney Hide’s electorate to find an individual and serve him with documents. The difficulties with that task were immense given the individual’s electronic gates. What investigators would do in this situation, and what this particular individual did, was to stick a rubbish bin in front of the gates so that the individual had to get out, and therefore could be served. In fact, the individual drove at the private investigator, and I have to say that it did not have a particularly good ending. As I say, it can be a tough and quite responsible job, and it calls for regulation.

Hon Darren Hughes: What else did you instruct?

SIMON BRIDGES: Well, it is funny you should say—I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I did not mean to bring you into the debate.

I recall older colleagues providing many a war story in relation to private investigators working in the times before modern divorce, when adultery had to be proven. This required quite a bit of work by private investigators—indeed, it was a staple of their work. Evidence needed to be collected and this would involve the private investigator sitting outside Cobb and Co. or the like, watching what happened, going back to the address and sitting outside, watching the couple go inside, watching the lights go on, watching the couple go round to the bedroom with—again—the lights going on, and then often having to go outside under the window. I am told that there would be evidence in court of what the private investigator heard in listening to the said adulterous act. So, as I say—and I make a serious point—regulation of this often tedious but sometimes dangerous and exciting job is required.

This bill does more than just regulate private investigators; it regulates a whole host of individuals employed in the security industry. It is an important bill—and I accept that it was originally brought in by Labour and the Hon Clayton Cosgrove—because we have not seen a revisiting of the 1974 Private Investigators and Security Guards Act since its enactment. It is not before time that we come back to this legislation. National is in favour of regulation where it is appropriate: not regulation for regulation’s sake, but regulation that has a real purpose.

This bill does four broad things. Firstly, it weeds out the inappropriate regulation from the industry. As I say, when these people are doing sensitive, often delicate, and sometimes dangerous work regulation is very important, and a comprehensive licensing regime is brought in through this bill. Secondly, it trains the industry adequately. Again, when we are dealing with often sensitive matters, training in this area is particularly important. Thirdly, it incorporates a code of ethics—that is important. Finally, it provides for offences and penalties and lifts those penalties substantially to provide a deterrent effect. We can understand why that is important given that this area has not been revisited since 1974—quite some time ago, and, indeed, before those divorce laws that I talked about earlier were changed. The licensing is important. Members will be glad to know that I am not going to take the House through any of the details at this point, but I will say that the legislation extends the old 1974 Act in quite comprehensive ways. That is all to the good.

Next we move to training. I note that this was an area where there simply was no provision under the old 1974 Act. I am sure the House will agree that this was a major shortcoming in the legislation. When we think about the various players in the industry who are regulated here, including bouncers—called something like “crowd controllers” in this bill—we find that they are often in high conflict and, as I say, sometimes dangerous situations where they encounter either potential or real violence that can be literally life-threatening. I argue that it is beyond doubt that they need training to de-escalate and turn things around, and that is what this bill provides for. As I say, the bill provides for a code of ethics. That is important so that private investigators do not do things that they should not do. I heard the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s speech and her fears that this bill might somehow bring in private policing through the back door. That is not right, at all. When one looks at this code of ethics, one sees that it is very important that private investigators appreciate that they are not private policemen; they do not have the powers that police officers have. They do not have the court’s permission for surveillance or for searching premises. The National Party takes privacy rights and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act very seriously, indeed. That is why one of the four primary purposes of the bill—that is, to bring in a code of ethics—is particularly important. I mentioned the offences and the penalties, and said there was a need for modernisation of the 1974 legislation and for higher, more deterrent-based penalties.

In summary, this is a good bill. It is a worthy bill. Private investigators and others who will be regulated by this bill are often involved in tedious—some would say boring—jobs, but ones that are sprinkled with danger and with aspects that need regulation, licensing, training, and the like. So I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): As prior speakers on behalf of the Labour Party have already indicated, the Labour Party is supporting the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill in its current form. Coming towards the end of the first reading debate on this bill, it is opportune that we have the chance to respond to some of the misguided comments that have been made, particularly by Mr Garrett on behalf of the ACT Party.

Mr Garrett stood up and gave a 10-minute speech saying that this bill was being supported by the ACT Party because the bill addressed the problem of the “Parnell Panther”, acting through Rent-a-Bro as a debt collector, standing over people to collect debts. He said it was absolutely abhorrent for Rent-a-Bro, or the “Parnell Panther” through that organisation, to be standing over people to collect debts. I agree that that ought not to happen; it is probably regulated against already by the criminal code. But I tell Mr Garrett that this bill does not affect debt collection. This bill does not do anything to control debt collection. It controls the acts of private investigation, crowd control, and some other things that are specified in the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act. But this bill does nothing to control debt collection. So those were hollow words from Mr Garrett, and I am somewhat disappointed that he did not read the bill before he made those comments. He is a lawyer, and I would have thought that his failure to read the bill was pretty readily apparent from the fact that there is no reference to debt collection in the explanatory note of the bill or in the legislation. It is pretty clear that he got that wrong.

I also respond to the member for Tauranga’s response to Lianne Dalziel’s concerns about increased powers for security personnel and about the privatisation of some of those functions, which could occur if powers that are currently held only by the police are extended to security personnel. That member may not have been in the House when his colleague Sandra Goudie gave her contribution, which caused Lianne Dalziel’s concern. I share Lianne Dalziel’s concern, as a consequence of what Sandra Goudie said to the House. She said the reason it is proposed that there will be a very long period for the select committee to consider the bill is so that the committee can consider whether there should be some quite major extensions to the powers of security guards and private investigators, including consideration of whether they need to be given powers to take photographs and to conduct other surveillance techniques that are currently illegal for them, and powers of arrest.

Such extensions of power would be very, very serious intrusions into civil liberties that I hold dear and that Lianne Dalziel holds dear. I would be most upset if a bill that presumably has a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting from the Attorney-General in its current form was to have those powers put in it at the select committee—powers that are not in the bill that is going out to people for them to look at and submit upon at the select committee. If there was to be a dramatic change to the powers of security guards and private investigators, then it would be quite inappropriate for that to be done through this bill unless, as Lianne Dalziel said, a Supplementary Order Paper was presented through this Parliament to the select committee, and there could then be separate submissions made upon it. I would be very sure that if that were the case—if there were to be major extensions to the powers conferred upon private investigators—we in the Labour Party would then oppose that. It is not justified; there is no need for it.

There are plenty of instances in recent years to show why we should be concerned about granting those sorts of powers to private investigators, which would reduce the civil liberties that we all enjoy in New Zealand. We ought to protect ourselves, and protect ourselves assiduously, against any unwise and unnecessary watering down of civil liberties. I think one of the examples that we heard from the Māori Party actually went in exactly the opposite way to that which the Māori Party intended. The Māori Party complained that the State inappropriately used powers under the prevention of terrorism legislation in the Ureweras in respect of Tūhoe. [Interruption] The member may well be right that the State did use powers wrongly in that area if it had intended to use them under the prevention of terrorism legislation. But in the end, of course, the Crown did not bring charges under the prevention of terrorism legislation. How can that be seen as a justification for giving more powers to private investigators? I cannot follow the logic there. If we complain that the State already has too many powers, or might use the powers that it has too much, then how do we cure that problem by giving more powers of intervention, further undermining civil liberties, to someone else? I do not follow the logic of that, I am afraid.

In terms of recent examples of situations where we can see civil liberties may have been inappropriately intruded upon—the freedom of individuals to go about their lives free of inappropriate intrusion by private investigators—we need to think no further back than only about 3 years ago. About 3 years ago I was a Minister in the previous Government. The Exclusive Brethren, who we know had some pretty shonky dealings at the election of 2005, did not just fund about $1 million of expenditure, or up to $1 million of expenditure, on the part of the National Party. I think that is to the shame of the National Party, but that is not the point that I am focusing on now. The point is that after the election, the Exclusive Brethren were funding private investigators. What were they funding those private investigators to do? They were funding private investigators to pursue their politically motivated witch-hunt, and those private investigators were investigating members of Parliament, and, effectively, harassing them. Whom were they investigating? They were investigating the Prime Minister, Peter Davis, Dr Michael Cullen, me, and David Benson-Pope. I remember these issues well, because they affected me and my family.

I will not agree that there is any need to give the right to private investigators to do those sorts of things any more than they can currently do them in law now. There is no need for them to have increased powers of surveillance. There is no need for them to have powers of arrest. There is no need to give them any more rights to intrude upon my privacy or the privacy of members opposite. [Interruption] I know this bill was drafted by the Labour Party, and it does not extend the powers of private investigators. We have a member of the National Party, Amy Adams, who says the bill does not do that. The member needs to talk to her colleague Sandra Goudie. [Interruption] Well, thank you. I am glad that someone has spoken to the member’s colleague Sandra Goudie.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.