Thursday, 29 April 2010
Volume 662
Sitting date: 29 April 2010
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes next week the Government intends to make progress on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, complete the third reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, and deal with a range of other first and second readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday is set down to be a members’ day.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I signal to the Leader of the House that the Opposition is very much looking forward to the third reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, and thanks him for his good communication on the passage of that bill during the course of recent weeks. I wonder whether any of the Government bills for first reading will include the Minister of Local Government’s bill that has been signalled in the media, and whether we can expect that any bills that amend the Local Government Act will go through a full and proper select committee process, unlike some other bills that have taken on issues of representative democracy at local government level. If the Leader of the House would let us know about that, it would be useful.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The first point is that the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill will be read a third time next Thursday, so I can confirm that it will be after question time next Thursday. As to the other matters, I tell members that they will of course be dependent entirely upon how the Order Paper is formed over the next short while.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Social Development and Employment, Minister—Statements
1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by all her statements?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Actually—yes I do, actually.
Hon Annette King: Oh, so last year!
Hon Members: Oh, so retro!
Mr SPEAKER: I guess that is about one all, I would say.
Hon Annette King: Does she stand by her many statements that people who bring information to Opposition members of Parliament can expect her to provide information to “put a bit of balance around the story”?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I certainly did that in one incident, and, yes, I stand by what I said at that time.
Hon Annette King: Will she be asking her ministry to seek information on the woman who has come to the Opposition because she has been pursued and harassed by Work and Income to register as a job seeker, even though she is 78 years of age and the correspondence is being sent out by the senior services office of Work and Income?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: To be fair, the Ministry of Social Development administers $20 billion, looks after 1.1 million people a year, and takes about 215,750 phone calls. It would be fair to say the ministry occasionally gets it wrong.
Hon Annette King: In light of information provided to the Opposition, what is the reason investigators from the Ministry of Social Development are sending letters to people unknown to them, asking them to provide information about their neighbours, and is Mr Peter Reedy from Hamilton, who has received such a letter, correct when he says: “It is an un-Kiwi thing to do. We do not live in Nazi Germany.”, and that he has no intention of spying on his neighbour?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Certainly, but we do live in a country where we want fairness in our benefit system, and we will be following up those who present with fraud and are fraudulently taking taxpayers’ money. We will be doing something about it, and that was not predominantly done under the previous Government.
Hon Annette King: Is she aware that there are many such cases being brought to MPs arising from her language and her zealous approach to beneficiaries, and that people, particularly those who have English as a second language, are scared to speak out, in fear of retaliation from her?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: In the first year of my being Minister there was a 95 percent increase in correspondence to the office compared with what had been received in the previous 10 years. That represents people welcoming themselves to write, and that is people who are interested in what we are doing. [Interruption] I could give the member the percentage of positives to negatives, if she likes, because people are loving this National Government.
Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. I hope it was an interesting answer, because I could not hear one word of it.
Hekia Parata: Can the Minister explain what has happened with welfare dependency over the last decade?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I can. I will take just one number in particular, and look at the sickness benefit, for example, which grew by 51.6 percent. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister, but a moment ago I made it clear that I could not hear the Minister’s previous answer. I need to be able to hear answers. I ask members, and on this occasion the Opposition front-benchers, to please be a little more reasonable with their interjections.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I fear that they are trying to drown me out when they do not like to hear the actual figures. The sickness benefit, which grew by 51.6 percent—
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very simple point of order. You know, and I think the Minister knows, that she is not allowed to comment on your ruling. She just did.
Mr SPEAKER: That is correct. I ask the Hon Paula Bennett to please answer the question.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: The sickness benefit grew by 51.6 percent. To put some real numbers under that, in the year 2000 we saw 33,560 people on it, and in 2008 we saw 50,896 on it. Under the previous Government, for 9 years we saw those core benefits growing, when supposedly that Government should have been doing something to bring the numbers down.
Hon Annette King: Does she believe that her “name and blame” approach that she has been taking to people on benefits will be reinforced by her inclusion of Peter Saunders, a so-called expert, on her Welfare Working Group—a man who has stated that there is a link between low average intelligence and a low-class position, and that low-income people are innately more stupid and more often end up on welfare—and does she believe that paying overseas extremists like Peter Saunders is good use of public money?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I make no bones about it that for years we have seen nothing done about long-term welfare dependency. It is complex, and it is hard, and there is no one answer for one person. We need many answers. We are stepping up. I back the Welfare Working Group to look at a range of initiatives and a range of decisions, and let us see where it ends up before we start rushing to those sorts of conclusions.
Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table two letters to a woman who is 78 years of age, telling her that she has to front up for work or training.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Question No. 2 to Minister
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is about the wording of questions for oral answer when they are submitted to the Clerk’s Office for approval each day. Both sides of the House try to word their questions in ways that result in a pretty simple question being put to Ministers for them to answer, and try to make them free of political language. I draw your attention to the assertion made in question No. 2, which asks the Minister of Finance to talk about how something will “build on the success of Budget 2009”. Clearly, of course, the Government considers Budget 2009 to have been a success, and I am sure that the Minister will have examples of why he thinks that. The Opposition, of course, would consider it to be a failure—
Mr SPEAKER: The member was doing very well up to this point—
Hon DARREN HUGHES: I am not trying to be political; I have a suggestion.
Mr SPEAKER: I think I can assist the honourable member. The point of order that the Hon Darren Hughes has raised is a perfectly valid point of order. Standing Order 371(1)(b) makes it clear that questions should not contain opinions, because, of course, opinions cannot be validated. I apologise to the House that question No. 2 has sneaked through with that opinion in it. I suggest to the House that the question that is read out omit the words “the success of” and be simply “build on Budget 2009”. In that way, the opinion is omitted from the question.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I stress that I have ruled on the matter.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am a little concerned that that may, in fact, mean that the way in which questions are validated now changes, as well. The assumption is that evidence was presented to the Clerk’s Office that used the term “the success of Budget 2009”. I am aware that one can obtain significant editorial comment from around the country that would back that up. If that is a prevailing view, and if it is supported by evidence presented to the Clerk’s Office, it is perfectly reasonable that it is put in a question.
Hon Darren Hughes: Speaking to the point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need further assistance on the matter, at all. A question like that is out of order. It contains an opinion, and opinions used in a question in that way cannot be authenticated. That does not alter the substance of the question; the substance of the question is absolutely unaltered by omitting those words that contain opinion. That is what I suggest be done. If members do not want to omit the words that contain opinion, I will have to rule the question out.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What, then, do you make of question No. 5, which also offers an opinion in the body of the question?
Hon Darren Hughes: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: I am not going to take further debate on this. I have ruled on the matter, and that is the end of the matter.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will then have effectively ruled question No. 5 out of order.
Charles Chauvel: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: I do not need further assistance. Question No. 5 contains a quote, and I presume that the quote was validated. It does not take a lot of intelligence to see the difference between the word “success” in question No. 2—[Interruption]—I am ruling on this matter—and a quote in question No. 5. I invite Chris Tremain to ask the question without the opinion—
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are we still on the same matter? I have—
Mr SPEAKER: No, that matter is not being considered further by the Speaker. Unless the member is raising a separate point of order, he is trifling with the Chair.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will take that risk. Mr Speaker, you have now ruled that something that is a matter of opinion is out of order in a question. Simply because an opinion has quotation marks round it does not change the fact that it is an opinion. The Minister for Climate Change Issues is being asked in question No. 5 to confirm something. Asking a Minister to confirm something in this fashion is no different from asking the Minister of Finance whether he can confirm that Budget 2009 was a success. You can be as pedantic as you like—
Mr SPEAKER: It is rather unusual for the Leader of the House to be disciplined by the Speaker, so I will not do that, but I warn him that there is a clear difference. The opinion in question No. 5 is a quoted opinion. The opinion inserted into question No. 2 is the questioner’s opinion, and questioners cannot put opinions in questions.
Question No. 1 to Minister
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a separate point of order relating to question No. 1, and I delayed raising it because I thought my colleague would raise it. It is the question of whether it was appropriate for Paula Bennett to interject “She might like it.”, referring to the 78-year-old woman who was being asked to do work or training, while my colleague was seeking leave to table those documents.
Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me. I did not hear the interjection. I think it is not a major matter that needs to take my attention.
Question No. 2 to Minister
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suggest that you reflect on the words you used in respect of Mr Brownlee when you said that “It does not take a lot of intelligence to [spot] the difference …”. I thought that comment was a little gratuitous, and could cause disorder in the House. I thought that Mr Brownlee was understandably taken aback at that comment on your part, and that it was perhaps less than wise.
Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member’s point. When my ruling is being questioned, members risk that kind of comment. I had ruled.
Question No. 5 to Minister
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I seek leave of the House to table a paper from the Minister for Climate Change Issues to Cabinet dated 14 September 2009 containing the words referred to in quote marks in question No. 5.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Budget 2010—Main Focus
2. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Minister of Finance: What will be the main focus of the Budget next month and how will this build on Budget 2009?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The fact is that Budget 2009 was a success [Interruption] It successfully steered New Zealand through the worst effects of the global financial crisis and the worst effects of the recession, and it started to get on top of the legacy of 9 years of mismanagement by the previous Government, which was setting this country on a track to ever-rising public debt.
Chris Tremain: How will Budget 2010 help hard-working New Zealand families to get ahead and to build on the success of Budget 2009?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Hard-working New Zealand families will be waiting until the Budget to see how the tax package works out for them in the short term. But in the long term, we need to tilt this economy in favour of investment, work, and exporting, and away from consuming too much and borrowing too much. We certainly need to put the country on a track that is different from the track promoted by Labour, which has indicated that it is not concerned about debt levels any more, and wishes to borrow as much as it thinks it can get away with. That would, of course, leave a large legacy of debt for New Zealand families to pay off.
Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister believe that a Budget that does nothing, achieves nothing, and helps no one can be a success; if so, can he explain how increasing GST will create jobs and help reduce the pressure on ordinary Kiwis’ family budgets?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Budget will certainly get control of debt. In a country that owes $170 billion to foreign lenders, it is reckless on the part of Labour to say that debt is not an issue. As we speak, Greece is in the process—
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are two parts to the point of order: first, the Minister has responded to a question about his Budget and his view on the Budget; second, by talking about Labour Party policy in the second part of the question, he misrepresents it.
Mr SPEAKER: The problem is—[Interruption] I am dealing with this point of order. The problem is that the question asked for an opinion: “Does the Minister believe …” something, I reflect. The Minister was explaining why he believed that, and I think we have to allow the Minister to do that.
Hon David Cunliffe: Why is the Minister making the main focus of his Budget a tax package that will increase GST to redistribute to those people on the highest incomes, when, surely, his first goal should be creating jobs and taking pressure off Kiwis to make ends meet?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is focusing on a tax package because tax is one of the strongest levers to pull to influence the shape of the economy. Over the last 10 years too much of the growth in this economy came from property speculation, Government spending, and unsustainable jobs, and we will change that because Kiwis deserve sustainable jobs and more investment in exporting, as this country earns more than it spends. That is a concept foreign to the Labour Party.
Chris Tremain: What were the most significant economic problems inherited by the Government, which are still hampering the economy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: We inherited a legacy of an economy with anaemic growth but fast-rising debt. In the 3 years to 2008 the economy grew by less than 1 percent per year, and the export sector had been in recession for almost 5 years. The Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update showed a sharp rise in deficits and rising debt, which turned into soaring debt, and were all the results of Labour policy before National took office.
Chris Tremain: What alternative approaches has the Minister seen for dealing with New Zealand’s economic challenges?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand is going down a similar path that other countries are beginning to follow, some with bigger challenges than us. Having borne the brunt of the recession, we need to get our public finances in order. Our policy in that sense is consistent with the best economic advice from around the world. However, the Labour Party seems to be heading in a different direction with its policy, which is to put taxes up, spend more, and borrow a whole lot of money.
Stuart Nash: Will his Budget be judged a success if it focuses on a GST increase that will erode the value of the life-savings of thousands of, mainly, retired New Zealanders who rely on savings for their livelihood, and, at the same time, makes all of the basics more expensive?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, it will be judged a success, particularly because it will flush out the Labour Party’s position on GST. It says it is against the tax if it is put up, but if it is put up, Labour says it will not roll it back.
Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims Clinical Pathway
3. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all his recent statements on ACC’s new clinical pathway for victims of sexual abuse?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): I do stand by my recent statements, but I did make one numerical error yesterday when I said that 70 percent or 260 claims in February had not been processed at the end of March. The 70 percent figure was correct, but I misread the figure 260; the correct number was 206.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order flows from the answer the Minister has just given to the House. If he was aware that he made an error in answering a question, surely he should have come to the House before this point, at the first opportunity, to correct the answer. This is not the first opportunity to correct an answer he has given previously.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I became aware of the error only when I asked officials to go through all the answers that I had given and to check them. It could have been possible for me to take a point of order. I thought it was easier during the course of the question to put the record straight.
Mr SPEAKER: It seems a perfectly reasonable course of action.
Hon Darren Hughes: Except that the Standing Orders require Ministers to correct their answers immediately; as soon as they become aware of an error. The first available opportunity would have been at 2 o’clock today. We have based our questions on an exchange with this particular Minister about a difference of opinion in respect of the material he has been using. I think it is unfair on the questioner, who is trying to prepare supplementary questions to the Minster, to have to wait until a convenient time for him, not for the House, to correct the answer.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the member is being a bit unreasonable. The question is high on the Order Paper. The Minister did not take up the time of the House; he can answer this question today. The question actually asks: does he stand by all his recent statements? A question like that is an excellent opportunity to make that minor adjustment—a misread figure—to the answer given yesterday. I think we can be a bit reasonable.
Lynne Pillay: Why does he continue to insist that there is no need for a review of these repugnant new guidelines, when yesterday he said that the figure of six in terms of people who were accepted for counselling throughout New Zealand in February 2010 could be even double that, and when any child could tell him that 12 people is still a shocking reduction from 300 people a month?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member referred to the guidelines as repugnant. I remind that member that they were launched by the Hon Steve Maharey.
Hon Trevor Mallard: No, they weren’t
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have tabled the picture. They were launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in March 2008, so the premise of the member’s question is incorrect.
Dr Jackie Blue: What advice has the Minister received on the average time frames for processing sensitive claims before and after the changes were made in 2009?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The average time for claims to be processed prior to the changes was 63 working days. This has reduced to 47 working days, but that is still too long. A key issue for the review is that of how this can be further improved. The objective I would like to see met is that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) turn round the applications within 7 days of all the information being received from providers.
Lynne Pillay: Why does the Minister insist on chanting ACC’s rejection rate under Labour as some sort of argument for not facing facts today, when rejection rates skyrocketed to 60 percent last year under his watch, even before imposing his new clinical pathway?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The point in making reference to the fact that the decline rate for sensitive claims grew from 4 percent to over 50 percent during Labour’s time—
Lynne Pillay: Now it’s 90 percent.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is right. What I am saying is that over 2,400 sensitive claims were declined in 2008 and not one Labour member raised the matter when Labour was in Government. I suspect that we should call that a double standard.
Dr Jackie Blue: Did the Minister offer to consult Labour members on the membership and the terms of reference for the clinical review of ACC’s sensitive claims management; if so, what was the result?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I did so in writing, but Labour rejected that offer. This illustrates that Labour has been far more interested in making politics of this issue than in actually providing the best standard of care for those with sexual abuse claims. I am surprised that members opposite are criticising the person chairing that review when Dr Disley was a mental health commissioner under the previous Government.
Lynne Pillay: What advice did he provide to Simon Power before his statement today at the rape prevention symposium that “The Government has already taken some steps to provide survivors with greater support.”, when he knows that that statement is clearly not true?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I commend the work that Simon Power, Paula Bennett, and Tariana Turia are doing and the announcements they made today about the most effective way in which New Zealand can deal with sexual abuse and assault, and that is by preventing it from occurring in the first place. That is why I think that everybody in this House should welcome the announcement from Simon Power.
Health Services—Minister’s Statements
4. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements on health services?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that under this Government more front-line health services are being delivered than ever before. In particular, in the last year nearly 13,000 more patients received elective surgery, which was four times the average increase under Labour. A major contributor to that outstanding result has been Waikato District Health Board, which delivered operations for 1,825 more elective patients than in the previous year, an increase of over 17 percent.
Tim Macindoe: What reports has he received in relation to delivering even more front-line services at the Waikato District Health Board?
Hon TONY RYALL: I can confirm that the Government has approved the design of the new $125 million Waikato Clinical Centre and additions to the campus redevelopment. Included in these new approvals is a further increase in new operating theatres in the Waikato. These will be part of a new midland region elective surgical centre, which is part of the Government’s commitment to establish new, dedicated elective surgery theatres across the country. The Government believes our doctors and nurses can deliver even more elective surgery by having dedicated elective surgery theatres, so that patients are not disappointed when their operations are cancelled because of emergency surgery requirements.
Hon Damien O’Connor: Will the Minister give in this House today an assurance that beds used for older people in need of continuing care at Murchison Hospital and Health Centre, which was opened only in 2007, will not be closed?
Hon TONY RYALL: I am meeting with the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board tomorrow. I can tell that member that there is quite a lot of interest in Murchison in improving the services for people in that community and being able to provide more care closer to home, which is the commitment of this Government.
Tim Macindoe: What other reports has he seen on advancing the delivery of care close to home?
Hon TONY RYALL: A large number of pregnant women in the Thames area are choosing to have their babies out of town, because of the poor physical standard of the birthing facilities at Thames. A survey by the district health board has found that more than 90 percent of local women would give birth in Thames if a new primary birthing facility was available in the Coromandel. I can confirm that the district health board has signed a contract with a local builder for a new Thames primary birthing unit. This purpose-built facility will have two birthing rooms, a birthing pool, three bedrooms for longer post-natal stays, and a breastfeeding room, and each bedroom and birthing room will have its own en suite bathroom.
Hon Annette King: If he has put an extra $536 million into district health boards, as he constantly claims, why were people who need eye operations at Nelson Hospital told today that they will now have to wait until they get worse and lose vision, or go privately for care; and is he concerned about the comments from Nelson ophthalmologist Derek Sherwood, who said “It’s difficult for us as clinicians because we’re used to providing a reasonably good service …”?
Hon TONY RYALL: I say to those people in Nelson that they are getting a much better service than they did when that member was the Minister of Health. I can tell people that in the last year Nelson Marlborough District Health Board provided 26 percent more ophthalmology surgery than it did previously, and that it is providing a good number of assessments. The current issues relate to some staffing problems. As we know, when that member opposite was the Minister of Health, her Government doubled the budget for health and got a lot less in return for it.
Emissions Trading Scheme—Advice to Cabinet
5. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Can he confirm that Cabinet was advised on 14 September last year that “the overall credibility […] and effectiveness of the NZ ETS” may be at risk by “harmonising with an overseas scheme that has not yet been finalised”?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Yes. There is always a risk in working with other countries that their political situation and policy may change. The fact that Australia has slowed its response actually reinforces the merits of this Government’s amendments, which have slowed and moderated our emissions trading scheme. New Zealand would now be very exposed had we stuck—
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply asked the Minister to confirm whether Cabinet had been advised as to certain matters. The question was very confined. It simply asked the Minister to give that confirmation—not to give a long speech justifying the policy.
Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a valid point in that answers should not contain more than is necessary to answer the question asked. But I think the Minister was giving helpful information, and it was not unreasonable. He did answer the question; he confirmed “Yes”.
Charles Chauvel: Was Treasury advice communicated to Cabinet by him on 14 September 2009 that “the level and quality of analysis” provided by him to Cabinet on harmonisation with the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme was “not commensurate with the significance” of the proposal?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, it was. I point out to the member that whenever countries seek to work together on an issue like climate change, there is political uncertainty as to the developments that may occur. It was Government policy in Australia, and still is—
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is the same point of order that I raised earlier. I simply asked the Minister to confirm whether Treasury had given the advice that I quoted. I asked the Minister to give that confirmation, which he did. There is no need to elaborate.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is utterly absurd for the Opposition to raise points of order on one part of the day to say that inappropriate answers are being given, then to raise points of order to say that it is being given too much information. I think it is quite reasonable that Dr Smith elucidates on the way in which the material was presented to Cabinet—quite reasonable.
Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the members’ points. Strictly, I have to acknowledge that Charles Chauvel is correct about the requirements of the Standing Orders in relation to information not necessary to answer the question being included in the answer. But I think one has to be reasonable. Dr Smith answered the question. He confirmed what the member asked, and he added some further information, which was not too unreasonable. But the member raises a perfectly fair point.
Charles Chauvel: Can the Minister confirm that Treasury advised Cabinet on 14 September 2009 that there is no clear analytical basis for the proposal to align some key design elements of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme with those in the currently proposed Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That was only one portion of the advice from Treasury. I think it is important to point out that all the advice we have now is that with Australia not proceeding with its emissions trading scheme, New Zealand would be very much more exposed now if we had stuck with Labour policy. What has occurred internationally reinforces that this Government got it right.
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 377—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: The member is raising a point of order and he must be heard in silence.
Charles Chauvel: Standing Order 377(2) states: “The reply to any question must be concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question asked, and not contain—(a) statements of facts … unless they are strictly necessary to answer the question,”.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member asked what the advice was and quoted just a very small part of the advice. It is perfectly proper for the Minister to say that, yes, that advice was received but that there was other advice as well, and that the Government in its decisions had to take into account the full range of advice, rather than misrepresenting the situation by presenting only a portion of that advice.
Charles Chauvel: I have two very brief points in reply, Mr Speaker. First, I take exception to the Minister’s suggestion that I have been misrepresenting the position. I tabled successfully by leave earlier in question time the full advice from which I am citing, so there can be no question that it has been taken out of context for the House—
Mr SPEAKER: The member is now starting to litigate matters. In fact, to deal with the last point he was raising, everyone knows that even if a document has been tabled, it is possible to take excerpts from it out of context and make them seem somewhat different from what they would seem were they presented in context. I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith has raised a reasonable point. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 164/4, which states: “If some information can be given in addition to the bare facts asked for in a question, information which would supplement the reason for the answer, giving such information would comply with the spirit of question time.” So although I acknowledge that, strictly speaking, the member quoted the relevant Standing Order—Standing Order 377—and he is absolutely correct, likewise Dr Nick Smith is being quite reasonable as long as the additional information is not overtly political. If the member was adding further information and using it to attack the Opposition, I would be far more concerned. As long as it does not go on for too long, I think that a little putting in context, especially if the Minister feels that the quote used in the question may be taken out of context, is not unreasonable. I think Ministers have to be able to put their answer in context.
Charles Chauvel: Can the Minister confirm that Treasury advised Cabinet on 14 September 2009 that there had been no discussion of the overall suitability or benefits of applying the allocation methods in the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme to New Zealand’s unique emissions profile and industrial structures?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There was advice of that sort, but I say to the member that the changes we have made to the emissions trading scheme, which have halved the cost for the consumers and halved the cost for business, as well as the intensity approach that we have taken, have, according to the advice that I have had from a substantive number of New Zealand businesses, provided them with the confidence to be able to invest.
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to be difficult about this, and I am not questioning your earlier ruling, but Speakers’ ruling 165/4 is very—
Mr SPEAKER: 164/4.
Charles Chauvel: It is 165/4.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I quoted 164/4.
Charles Chauvel: Well, I am referring to 165/4: “Ministers, when replying, should address the question, (1) and refrain from making comments that are not relevant to the question …”. The question was very confined and was whether Cabinet had been advised by Treasury that the overall suitability or benefits of applying the allocation methods in the proposed emissions trading scheme in Australia were inapt to New Zealand. What the Minister is going on about has nothing to do with that particular question.
Mr SPEAKER: I again accept that, on a strict interpretation of the Speakers’ ruling, there is merit to the member’s point of order. I am not saying the member is wrong with his point of order, at all, but I think he is being a little unreasonable. The Minister is acknowledging there was advice. I think the Minister has agreed with the member’s question, but he is also putting it in context by explaining a little why the Government chose not to follow that advice exactly. He should not go on for too long with that, but it is not unreasonable to put it in context.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In that regard, you might want to point the member to Speakers’ ruling 164/6.
Mr SPEAKER: I will have a look at it.
Hekia Parata: Has the Minister seen the statement made yesterday by the Forest Owners Association president, Peter Berg, urging the Government to hold its course on the emissions trading scheme; if so, what is his response to it?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have. I note that the association has commended the Government for its resolve. It points out that any change in policy would undermine confidence in the forest sector and reduce interest in new planting. It is critical for New Zealand’s long-term climate change policy that we reverse the trend of deforestation under the previous Government and get additional areas planted. Our balanced policy is achieving just that.
Welfare Working Group—Protection for Vulnerable Citizens
6. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How will the objectives of the Welfare Working Group protect the needs of New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The terms of reference have been carefully developed to tackle the really hard issues of long-term dependency. I think that helps our most vulnerable—our children.
Catherine Delahunty: Is it an objective of the Welfare Working Group to promote the idea that there is a link between “low average intelligence and low class position”; if not, why has she appointed Peter Saunders, who espouses this view, as an adviser to the group?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: He is one of many advisers, both international and domestic, who have a whole range of views and will be talking to the Welfare Working Group. I have not heard that view previously; it is only one of many.
Carmel Sepuloni: Does she believe that the availability of the domestic purposes benefit makes single parenthood attractive and a lifestyle choice, as Peter Saunders, one of her social welfare working-group advisers, has claimed; and was it the reason why she availed herself of the benefit system in New Zealand?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Personal insults aside, I say that Peter Saunders is one of many advisers. He has something to offer the group as far as international knowledge is concerned. Members can read his book Welfare to Work, which he wrote in Australia. I do not agree with everything he said; I do not agree with everything that a number of the advisers to the group said. But we are open to listening to those views from the Welfare Working Group.
Catherine Delahunty: Is it an objective of the Welfare Working Group to promote a “competitive market for sickness, invalid, and unemployment insurance.”; if not, why has she appointed to the group Catherine Isaac, who endorsed this policy as former president of the ACT Party?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are a range of views on the Welfare Working Group, and a range of advisers is coming in and talking to the group. We are actually holding a conference that will have a number of other people involved, including Susan St John, who was invited to be on the Welfare Working Group but has decided that she would instead like to be involved in the same way that she was with the Tax Working Group. Disability groups would like to be involved. There is a range of views, none of which we are actually jumping on to sides with.
Catherine Delahunty: Is it an objective of the Welfare Working Group to use the welfare system to benefit private interests; if not, why has she appointed Adrian Roberts, who is a contractor to Work and Income, to the group?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: He brings to the table another view and other areas of interest. A range of views is coming from different directions. [Interruption] Well, there actually is a range of views. Some are with Māori organisations that have been working with those who are welfare-dependent for long periods of time, and have been making significant differences in getting them off welfare. We also have some others. So there are a number of different initiatives, and I think they are equally worth listening to.
Catherine Delahunty: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Before I ask Catherine Delahunty to ask a further supplementary question, I ask members to please keep the interjections down to a reasonable level. I cannot hear the Minister’s answers, and it is important that I do hear them. I call Catherine Delahunty.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: They’re just kind of angry today.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Catherine Delahunty: Does she consider people with disabilities to be among our most vulnerable citizens; if so, why has she not appointed anyone with an actual disability to the group, as opposed to just representing the care sector?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: One of the academics on the group has a strong interest in disability issues, and she is presenting that interest. Those from the sector will have an opportunity to advise the group as well.
Catherine Delahunty: Given these appointments, did she really have New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens in mind when she chose the members and advisers of the Welfare Working Group?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Every bit of evidence tells us that children who grow up in a household that is not dependent on welfare do better, and I and this Government have them in mind when we look at what we can do for them in the longer term.
Catherine Delahunty: How can vulnerable New Zealanders possibly be best served by a group whose advisers and members think that those New Zealanders are inherently less intelligent, lower-class lifestyle beneficiaries whose painful personal situations are an opportunity for private profit?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member is taking a quote from one adviser—one of many views that are coming to the welfare group, some of which I do not agree with. As I say, I agree with some points of view that are put forward, and I do not agree with others. But those very members of society who are dependent on welfare have been ignored for 10 years. They have had money thrown at them, yet we have seen welfare numbers increasing. Those vulnerable members of society whom the member mentions are actually worse off now than they were 10 years ago. We will address the complex issues, and I make no apologies for that.
Drugs, Illegal—Police Operations
7. SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Police: Has she received any reports on operations by the police to stamp out the illicit drugs trade in New Zealand?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Yes. I congratulate the police on Operation Lime, which culminated this week in the arrest of over 250 alleged offenders who are facing more than 700 charges. This Government has passed a raft of new policies aimed at tackling criminal gangs and the drugs trade, and we have made sure we have enough police to carry out the organised crime operations of this nature. We are sending a very clear message to those who manufacture and sell drugs in our community that this Government and the police are determined to shut down their activities, and we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.
Simon Bridges: What steps are being taken to ensure that any profits obtained by illegal activity are not retained by offenders?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am very pleased to inform the House that the police will be starting proceedings under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, which was passed by this Parliament last year. As a result, it is likely that any assets or profits associated with illegal activity will be confiscated. Since the Act was passed, the police have identified more than $36 million worth of assets believed to have been obtained through criminal activity. They include cash, houses, vehicles, and other property.
Michael Woodhouse: Has the Minister been advised of the outcome of investigations into organised criminal activity in the Dunedin area?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. Last week the police raided the premises of the Mongrel Mob gang in Middleton Road, following a 6-month-long investigation. As part of Operation Rocket the police made 19 arrests, and seized the gang’s premises under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act. Seven of those arrested were patched gang members, and two were presidents from separate chapters.
Schools—Base Funding for New Wharekura
8. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: Did he agree to the decision to give seven new wharekura base funding of $50,000, compared to the $130,000 base funding that a composite school with fewer than 250 students would normally be entitled to?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education: No. The Associate Minister of Education agreed to the decision, and I read from the document tabled yesterday entitled Education Report: Change of Class Applications: “Base funding of $50,000, plus $2,000 per student, compared to $130,000 base funding that a composite school with fewer than 250 students would be entitled to.”
Kelvin Davis: Why would he accept a lower level of operational funding for these Māori language schools than the funding received by comparable English medium-sized schools?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Because it is not.
Hon Trevor Mallard: How can he justify supporting the signing off of a kura in Northland on the basis of its getting $206,000, when other kura of exactly the same size are this year getting $451,582?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I think that it is important to realise that these seven wharekura that have now been approved have waited for over 10 years under the previous Labour Government for their approval to be given. In less than 18 months this Government, with the help of the Māori Party, has approved all seven applications, put in place some interim funding, and involved the wharekura themselves in the development of a new policy that is based on their needs and their students, rather than on the ticking of some formula boxes.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a very clear point of order. We have had a reply first of all from the Minister saying that the schools are not being funded less. She was asked to comment on the specific figures for that school compared with wharekura of the same size. She did not justify that. It was a simple question: how does she justify the change in figures?
Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member’s point of order, and I have to acknowledge that it is not an unreasonable point of order, because the member in answering went on to talk about the length of time schools have been waiting to be approved, and what have you, which did not actually bear any relationship to the specific question asked. Maybe the Minister, on the basis of the primary question, does not have information on that particular case, but I think she should at least either answer the question or tell the House that she does not have that particular information. But it seemed to me that the Minister avoided the question totally.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In the latter part of my answer I explained that the arrangement is an interim funding arrangement for all those small wharekura, while they are involved fully in consultation about developing a funding policy for those wharekura.
Mr SPEAKER: Let me just clarify, because I allowed the Minister to do that. She is telling me that she answered the question. Does that mean she was confirming Mr Mallard’s question?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This is an interim funding solution for seven wharekura that have been waiting more than 10 years for a decision. This is an interim funding solution.
Kelvin Davis: When he read the part of the Ministry of Education’s briefing on these new wharekura, which says: “We will provide you with advice in later 2010 on a new resourcing methodology for small composite schools. This may include reducing the staffing and operational funding entitlements for very small schools.”, did it occur to him that the very small schools that the ministry intends cutting staffing and funding for will include many wharekura?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: These wharekura have roll expectations of between 40 and 90 students, at the absolute maximum. It is inappropriate to be resourcing them based on a minimum formula that is tied to a roll of 250 students, which these wharekura do not want to achieve. We have agreed with these wharekura to work through with them in this year to develop a new funding model that suits their needs and the needs of their communities. I know that comes as news to the Opposition party, because it likes to work on tick-box and policy formulas. But we are focused on student learning outcomes.
Kelvin Davis: Will he use his position as the Minister responsible for all matters relating to kaupapa Māori education to guarantee no further funding cuts for Māori language schools; if not, why not?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is important to note that these are not funding cuts. These kura received no money, no funds, from the previous Government. This Government, along with the support of the Māori Party, is funding them for their secondary school students to develop into a wharekura. There are no funding cuts. I can assure that member that the schools have been fully consulted and they are delighted. In fact, the Associate Minister has received an email saying that awesome things are happening.
Mr SPEAKER: I did not want to interrupt the Minister, because I believed the treatment of her was sufficiently unfair for me not to add to the difficulties by interrupting. I ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to rise to his feet and withdraw and apologise for his allegation.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.
Kelvin Davis: Has he come across a single kura, or indeed any school, that says it receives more operational funding than it needs; if not, how does he expect these new wharekura to provide quality education with this much lower level of funding?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I refer the member to the actual words in the document that was tabled yesterday. In fact, many of those kura could end up with more than $130,000 base funding, depending on how many students they have. The interim funding solution gives them their staffing entitlement, it gives them their per-pupil funding, and it gives them base funding of $50,000, plus $2,000 per secondary student. I refer the member back to the document, which he should read properly.
Emissions Trading Scheme—New Forestation
9. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: How many hectares have been planted in trees in New Zealand since the emissions trading scheme came into effect in 2008, and what is the estimated present-day value of the credits of those plantings?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I can tell the member that 70,200 hectares of trees were planted in New Zealand in 2008-09, but the bulk of this planting was replanting not new plantings, and they are not eligible for carbon credits. The forests eligible for credits under the emissions trading scheme and the Kyoto Protocol are those planted since 1990, amounting to 566,000 hectares. The value of the 80 million tonnes of carbon credits due to those forests is approximately $2 billion.
John Boscawen: Does he accept that if we postponed the emissions trading scheme, the very most that the Government would have to compensate post-2008 forest owners for would be less than $20 million, which would be a small price to pay for the horrific cost of the emissions trading scheme on the New Zealand economy?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am aware of that pretty extraordinary proposition from the ACT Party. When the post-1990 forest owners have carbon credits worth $2 billion, the party of property rights says that we should give them $20 million. I am not sure whether that really stacks up.
Louise Upston: What reports has the Minister received indicating a shift in forest-planting trends resulting from the Government’s climate change policies?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry reports annually on forest owners’ planting intentions. Despite the trend of significant deforestation from 2004-08, there was a small gain of 500 hectares last year. The survey indicates new plantings—that is, not replantings—of 4,700 hectares this year, 5,700 hectares next year, and 7,700 hectares in 2012. This reversal shows that the Government’s balanced policies on climate change are restoring confidence in the important forestry sector.
John Boscawen: Does he accept that if it chose to, the Government, with ACT’s support, could do exactly what it did yesterday—that is, put this House into extraordinary urgency—and postpone the emissions trading scheme until 2013, thereby aligning our position with that of Australia?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government campaigned on a policy of moderating the emissions trading scheme and proceeding with it in 2010. We will not go back on our word on that. I would also point out that the Australian scheme is not due to come into effect for a least a year. I think we will need to watch the results of the Australian election later this year before it is clear what the Australian climate change policy will be. I note that the Liberal Party’s policy is for A$9 billion of spending on climate change initiatives. My view is that that is a less efficient way for New Zealand to respond to climate change than the more efficient tool of an emissions trading scheme.
John Boscawen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he accepted that the Government could do procedurally what it did yesterday, which was to put this House into extraordinary urgency, and amend the emissions trading scheme. I did not ask what the National Party campaigned on, and I did not ask him how many trees were planted. I asked a procedural question. I asked whether it was possible to put this House into extraordinary urgency in order to pass amendments to the emissions trading scheme.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In answering the question, I wanted to set out why the Government would not do that. I think that when a member asks questions of that sort, it is perfectly proper for Ministers to say: “Actually, we are not going to do that, and here’s why.”
John Boscawen: Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not think the House needs to take further time on this. The member knows, of course, that a Government can seek leave to put the House into extraordinary urgency, and I do not think that there is much to be gained by having the Minister specifically repeat that. The Minister made very clear the Government’s position, and that was probably quite helpful to the House and to those listening. I do not think I should criticise the Minister for the way in which he answered the question, because I think those listening to Parliament gained useful information from that slightly longer—and it was only slightly longer—answer.
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on what you have just said, with the greatest respect. You said that everyone knows the answer and that, therefore, the Minister does not have to answer the question. Then you said that the Minister gave some useful information in his answer. Well, the fact that everyone knows something does not mean that a Minister does not have to answer a question. When an MP asks a question, it is not for you to judge that everyone knows the answer, to say the Minister therefore does not need to answer, and then to say the answer is OK as the Minister gave some useful information. The requirement, I think, is that a Minister answers the question that is asked by a member of Parliament.
Mr SPEAKER: I accept the smack over the knuckles. Again, the member makes a perfectly fair point. I am just being reasonable, though, as Speaker. If I were to rule that the Minister had failed to answer the question, etc., I think I would be being just a wee bit too pedantic on this occasion. Had the Minister included in his answer language that was critical of the ACT Party, then I would have come down on him absolutely. But the information was not unreasonable and it was helpful information, and I cannot insist that Ministers answer a question in a particular way. I can insist that they answer a question, but I feel that was a reasonable answer to the question asked.
Hon Rodney Hide: I have to disagree, Mr Speaker. The question had one limb to it. It asked a question, and your point was that it did not need to be answered because, basically, you knew the answer. There are a whole lot of people who do not know the answer, so why are we are not entitled to get an answer to a straight question?
Mr SPEAKER: I do not think that the House should be wasting further time on this. If the Minister had said: “Yes, but”, then it would have been fine. I think that most people, when listening to his answer, would understand that that was exactly what he was saying. He was acknowledging the point that the questioner was making, and he went on to explain why the Government was not doing that. I have to be careful not to be unreasonable. I have been pretty hard on Ministers in requiring them to answer questions, but I have to be careful not to be too pedantic and unreasonable about it. I apologise to the member if he feels that I have let his colleague down, because, technically, I acknowledge that the member has a fair point. If in my judgment I have let the member down, then I apologise for that. But I have to be a little bit reasonable.
Education Sector—Operational Funding
10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: What decisions has she made on operational funding in the education sector?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): The primary decision I have made on schools’ operational funding was to provide an additional $80.1 million over 4 years into schools’ operations grants in Budget 2009. I have also directed the ministry to stop wasting taxpayers’ money on costly and ineffective projects like Mission-On, so that we can get more money out to the front line.
Sue Moroney: Does she stand by her July 2008 promise regarding early childhood education that: “We will retain all existing subsidies and fee controls”, and will she repeat that promise now?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am not aware of where that quote comes from. I do not have it in front of me. I am not aware of the context in which that quote was given. But I can say that early childhood education funding has grown by almost three times over the last 5 years, and we are having a close look at the cost drivers behind that growth, which is not necessarily producing quality early childhood education.
Sue Moroney: Will she then guarantee that parents of children under the age of 2 will continue to receive the existing childcare subsidy?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member will have to wait for the Budget for that.
Sue Moroney: Can she reassure parents that they will not face cost increases for early childhood education after the Budget, given that the Prime Minister failed to give that commitment yesterday?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I say to the member that she should wait for the Budget.
Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table the document containing the quote from the Minister that I used in my first supplementary question. It was from her policy statement as National’s spokesperson on education.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she fully understand her operational funding decisions that led to her agreement to signing off the approval of seven new wharekura?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes. I fully understand that those seven kura had waited throughout all the years of the previous Government to have their change of class approved. Within 18 months, with the help of the Māori Party and the Associate Minister of Education Dr Pita Sharples, those kura have now had their change of class approved. They have had interim funding in place from the beginning of this year, and they are actively working with the Government to design a new funding regime.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the funding of $2,000 per pupil for those new wharekura include the Māori language programme funding?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The interim resourcing package made available to those wharekura from the beginning of this year includes the staffing entitlement, the per pupil operational funding—and if that covers the programme, then that is funded—a base funding, as I have said, of $50,000 plus $2,000 per student, and the property resourcing.
Colin King: What responses has she received to decisions that she has made on operational funding?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I was delighted to receive a letter from a principal that said: “The funding for schools has never been better, the staff at our local Ministry of Education are fabulous, and as far as I’m concerned, schools are in a great place. That is what we are here for, and we are paid jolly well to do it, too.”
Hon Trevor Mallard: How can the Minister justify signing off on a kura in Northland on the basis of it getting operational funding of $206,000 per year, instead of the $374,000 that it would have received if it was an English medium school?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This has been a pragmatic interim solution, to allow teaching and learning to continue while longer-term policy is developed. The schools concerned have been fully consulted, and they are very happy with the resourcing that they are receiving. As I said earlier, one of the schools has even emailed the Associate Minister of Education to say that awesome things are happening. Those schools had been waiting and waiting for the previous Government to do something, and it did nothing.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister guarantee that her cuts to the wharekura funding formula will not be extended to other area schools?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat my answer from earlier: we cannot cut something that was not there in the first place. Those wharekura received no funding for their secondary school students, because the previous administration would not deal with the very unusual situation that they presented. This Government has provided funding on an interim basis, and is working with the wharekura to develop an ongoing policy around their funding.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very deliberately very short, and very to the point. It referred to the wharekura funding formula, not to the money that went to those schools. That formula has been changed, and that is what the question was about. Can I repeat the question, so that the Minister can understand it?
Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Anne Tolley.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Quite clearly, that member asked about the cuts to the wharekura funding. Those wharekura had had no funding. They were not wharekura at all; they were kura.
Mr SPEAKER: We will not litigate this matter. I hear what the Minister is saying. In fact, if I recollect the member’s question correctly, it asked whether the cuts to the wharekura funding would be extended to other schools. Is the member disputing that?
Hon Trevor Mallard: It was the formula.
Mr SPEAKER: There is confusion over the question. I am not being critical of the Minister’s answer in allowing the member to ask the question again, but we need to get it clarified.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Can she guarantee—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: The member will ask his question.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Can she guarantee that her cuts to the wharekura funding formula will not be extended to other area schools?
Mr SPEAKER: I will not ask the Minister to answer that, because the member has confirmed that he did include that language in his question—the “cuts to the … formula”. The Minister disputed that part of the question, and the Minister is entitled to do that. I had thought that the member might ask whether the formula for these wharekura schools would be extended to other area schools, but he used the word “cuts”, which the Minister disputed. That was a perfectly fair answer to the question.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I know that you have, and I suppose I am disputing your ruling, but this is very important. It is the funding formula that has been cut, and I asked whether that cut to that formula, which was previously the one for area schools, would be extended to other area schools. I think that is a perfectly reasonable question.
Mr SPEAKER: From listening to the Minister’s answers members would have heard her argue that this is a new interim formula, and therefore she argued that because it is a new formula, it cannot be suggested in a question that it is a cut to an existing formula. I think, in fairness to the Minister, that she answered that question perfectly fairly. If the member had had different wording in his question, then I think we would have had to hear a somewhat different answer. But he included the words “cuts to the … formula”, and the Minster has pointed out to the House that it is a new interim formula.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When there is one formula that applies to wharekura, and then another formula is put in that is less than the previous one, most of us would think that that was a cut.
Mr SPEAKER: Now the member is starting to trifle with my ruling, and that will not go any further.
Alcohol Outlets—Legislative Change and Community Consultation
11. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Justice: My question is to the Minister of Justice—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: That is just not helpful. I have called Rahui Katene. She is at the back of the House. The front-bench Ministers should desist from their ongoing interjections about the last question. I say particularly to the Hon Trevor Mallard that that was not a helpful interjection that he made.
RAHUI KATENE: When will the Government put legislation in place to limit the number of alcohol outlets in poor communities and give communities a say as to whether they support having an alcohol outlet?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Allowing more local input into licensing decisions in all communities is one of the recommendations in the Law Commission’s report on alcohol. The Government is currently considering the report, and will respond to it within 120 days.
Rahui Katene: Is he aware that there are at least 15 liquor outlets in just three low-income suburbs in eastern Porirua and that if he walked from the first to the last one it would take only about 20 minutes; and does he see any problems with the fact that there are approximately 66 liquor outlets across the greater Porirua region?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am aware that there is considerable discomfort in the community about the proliferation of liquor licence outlets. This is a matter that has been discussed in the Law Commission’s report. The Government is considering the Law Commission’s report and will respond within 120 days.
Rahui Katene: Does the Minister agree with the Law Commission that high-outlet density can contribute to the degradation of community well-being; if so, will he support a reduction of some 4,356 off-licence liquor stores currently located in communities across Aotearoa?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are a number of things, I am sure, in the 514 pages of the Law Commissions’ report that the Government would agree with. When the Government makes it response to the Law Commission’s report, those matters will be evident.
Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does he agree with the Law Commission’s report that it is not only the number of licensed premises but the type of licence that is impacting on increased availability and massively reduced price; and is he concerned to learn that two supermarket chains are now supplying one-third of all beer and over half of all wine, forcing down prices even further?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government will respond in due course, as has been said, to the recommendations in the Law Commission’s report. The matters that the member highlights are of concern to a number of people in this House.
RightLight Website—Number of Unique Visitors in First 6 Months
12. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How many unique visitors did the RightLight website have in its first 6 months of operation?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): I am pleased to report that the RightLight website, which provides residential, commercial, and industrial consumers with credible and useful information on energy efficiency and lighting, had 76,339 unique visitors in the first 6 months of its operation.
Chris Auchinvole: How does this Government’s approach to energy efficiency contrast with that of the previous Government?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The previous Government was a firm believer in compulsion, which was counterproductive and undermined people’s support for energy-efficiency products. This Government is focused on practical solutions that allow consumers choice but also provide them with information to help them make wise decisions. The RightLight campaign is a good example of that approach and can be contrasted quite neatly against Labour’s blanket ban on incandescent light bulbs.
Questions to Members
Petition on Commuter Train Between Hamilton and Auckland—Consideration
1. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: Has the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee considered the petition presented in my name requesting the establishment of a commuter passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland, signed by 11,500 people?
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): Yes.
Sue Moroney: When will submissions be heard on this petition, which has so much support from Hamilton?
DAVID BENNETT: The committee proceedings are still confidential as the committee has yet to present a report on the petition to this House.
Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill—Consideration
2. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee: Has the Law and Order Committee met to consider the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill?
SANDRA GOUDIE (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee): Yes.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Which Government agency or agencies were appointed as advisers on that bill?
SANDRA GOUDIE: The matter—
Mr SPEAKER: I have to be a little careful here. Did I hear the member ask which Government agencies have been appointed as advisers? I believe that that is a committee decision, and the member cannot ask a supplementary question like that. I will give him one more chance to ask a supplementary question.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am happy for it to stand on the record.
Mr SPEAKER: OK.
Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill—Report-back Date
3. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee: When will the Law and Order Committee report back on the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill?
SANDRA GOUDIE (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee): The bill is due to be reported back to the House on 21 October 2010.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will the Ministry of Justice, which is the Government agency responsible for all matters pertaining to an election, be invited to advise on that bill before the committee reports back to the House?
Mr SPEAKER: Again, I believe that that is a committee matter. Therefore the question is out of order.
Bills
Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I want to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. It is the first stage in the amalgamation of the functions of the three current electoral agencies into one. Currently, responsibility for electoral administration is split between the Chief Electoral Officer, the Electoral Commission, and the Chief Registrar of Electors through the Electoral Enrolment Centre.
This bill establishes a new Electoral Commission and transfers the functions of the current Chief Electoral Officer and Electoral Commission to it. The new Electoral Commission will be fully functional as of 1 October this year, in time to administer the next general election and the referendum on the MMP voting system. A second bill will follow this legislation, transferring the functions of the Chief Registrar of Electors to the new Electoral Commission in 2012.
The select committee initially received eight submissions that supported the bill’s aims of amalgamating the functions of the three electoral agencies. The core concerns identified by submitters centred on the independence of the electoral agency and its relationship with the executive and the House. A majority of the submissions recommended that the new electoral agency be established as an Officer of Parliament rather than an independent Crown entity, as the bill proposes.
On a related theme, a number of submissions proposed that the appointment and removal process for the new electoral commissioners be strengthened in some way. Others suggested that the Speaker should be the responsible Minister, or that the Electoral Commission should be able to provide advice on electoral matters directly to the House. To assist the committee in its consideration of these matters, it sought further advice from Mr David McGee QC, who is the previous Clerk of the House and a current Ombudsman; the chief executive of the Electoral Commission; and the Officers of Parliament Committee.
As a result, the select committee recommended that the new Electoral Commission should still be established as an independent Crown entity with a number of additional safeguards. First, the commissioners are to be appointed or removed by the Governor-General on a recommendation from the House of Representatives rather than by the Minister of Justice per se. Given the important constitutional role of the commissioners, the Minister of Justice had earlier added the requirement for the Minister of Justice to consult other parliamentary parties prior to making an appointment. However, I welcome the recommendation to make this process even more transparent by putting the appointment motion to the House, thereby creating a strong incentive to ensure that the candidates enjoy the confidence of a broad cross-section of parties.
The committee also supports a suggestion made by Mr McGee that the Standing Orders Committee be invited to develop an appointment protocol for these and similar appointments made by the House. Second, the committee recommends adding a new power to enhance the new Electoral Commission’s independence and effectiveness to enable the commission to provide information and advice to the Minister or the House, of its own volition and at any time. This new power will complement other functions already provided for in the bill to enable the Minister or the House to seek the commission’s advice and for the commission to provide a post-election report to the House. A new function of the commission is to make information available in order to assist parties, candidates, and others to help them meet their statutory obligations in respect of electoral matters.
I trust that the amendments to the appointment, removal, and advisory functions will allay many of the concerns of submitters regarding the independence of the Electoral Commission from the executive. However, I remind the House that these safeguards will accompany many other mechanisms that already protect the status of independent Crown entities. These include the Electoral Commission’s statutory duty of independence and the inability of the Minister to direct the Electoral Commission to give effect, or have regard, to Government policy.
Although the Officer of Parliament model, given its independent status, appeared to be an attractive alternative for the new Electoral Commission, the committee ultimately decided that it was not a good fit for the function of the commission. Officers of Parliament such as the Ombudsmen and the Auditor-General provide a check on the arbitrary use of power by the executive, whereas the core role of the proposed Electoral Commission is the provision of electoral services.
It must be remembered that the overall aim of this bill is to improve the administration of elections by providing for a single agency to be established with that responsibility. A further change recommended by the committee, which is also supported by the Government, provides that each of the electoral commissioners has a distinct role—the chairperson, the deputy chairperson, and the Chief Electoral Officer.
The commission considered submissions on a number of other areas, but recommended no other substantive change to the bill. I support the approach taken by the Justice and Electoral Committee in consideration of this bill and the unanimous recommendations, which reflect careful consideration. I also thank all of those who took the time to submit or provide advice on the bill, which is all the stronger for it. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Labour supports this bill, the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I will address the issue that the Minister, John Carter, has just spoken on, which is the issue as to the structure of this new organisation. Listeners will have heard from the Minister that this new entity called the Electoral Commission takes over functions that were previously the functions of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Electoral Commission. Those two offices are merged into this one. The question that the Justice and Electoral Committee had to grapple with, as the Government had to grapple with, is what the proper form of that entity should be.
That is an important question. The administration of elections in a democracy has to be seen to be impartial. We have to maintain confidence in the impartiality of election processes in order to maintain confidence of the people in democracy. There is the old saying that “The only thing worse than democracy is the alternatives”, which is another way of saying that democracy is incredibly important—incredibly important. If we look at the countries that have got the most problems in the world we see that by and large they do not have the benefit of democracy. They do not have the checks and balances that come with democracy. If Governments make a mistake in our system and they get it too far wrong, the people have the right to vote them out. They get a new Government and those problems are fixed—or some of those problems are fixed; there is no such thing as perfection.
The choices that we effectively had for the entity that was being formed were an independent Crown entity, which is a Crown entity but it sits independent of the executive in the way that it administers itself. The other choice of the final two choices was an Officer of Parliament. Officers of Parliament currently include the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the Auditor-General, to name but two. There are also the Ombudsmen.
The submissions that we had in favour of the Officer of Parliament model were very well considered. They were very fulsome. They came from some eminent specialists in this area. Professor Andrew Geddis was one of them. The New Zealand Law Society’s submissions supported that outcome, as well as did various other submitters. They pointed out that if it was an officer of Parliament, the organisation would be accountable to Parliament rather than accountable to the executive. They thought that that was better than an independent Crown entity, which has some responsibilities back to the Minister. There was some strength in that argument. As a committee, we were quite attracted to the argument for a while.
We sought further advice on the issue, but, in the end, we were persuaded in large part by the advice by Dave McGee QC, a long-serving Clerk of this House before he retired from that role and became an Ombudsman. He made a number of points as to why the Officer of Parliament group was inappropriate, and those are detailed in the select committee report. They include some theoretical concerns about the involvement of the Speaker in terms of officers of Parliament and that the Speaker ought not to be put in positions that would be inappropriate. He also pointed out that there are quite a number of administrative functions that this new entity has that are inconsistent with the normal model for officers of Parliament. For those and other reasons that he detailed he was strongly of the view that we would be wrong to create an Officer of Parliament in part because he thought that it would undermine the conventions that have already developed on the use of the Officer of Parliament model and where it is appropriate.
Of course, in New Zealand we do not have a written constitution. The conventions of this Parliament and the conventions of the various institutions of both Government and the courts are important parts of the actual constitution that we have in New Zealand. The convention on the appointment of officers of Parliament is another important convention that we ought to not lightly undermine. Dave McGee’s advice was that to create this entity as an Officer of Parliament would undermine the conventions that have developed.
For those reasons the committee was persuaded that the proper model was the independent Crown entity model. But we did agree on an additional protection that was not found in the original version of the bill that came to the select committee. That concerned how we appoint members of that new Electoral Commission. The provision in the bill as it came to the select committee was that they would be appointed by the Minister. We thought that that was wrong. We thought that the Minister could be, and would be seen to be, potentially conflicted and might prefer the interests of his or her own party over the interests of the independence of the people who are appointed to those roles.
For that reason the committee recommended, and the Government has agreed, that the members of the independent Crown entity ought to be appointed by the Governor-General at the recommendation of the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives is representative of more than just the Government; the Opposition parties are also represented. There will be strong incentives on the House of Representatives to make recommendations that are not biased in favour of the interests of any one party. We think that that is a good balance to have reached.
We had another submission from Mr Geddis that I feel that I should record. He thought that the Electoral Commission should be one person rather than three. He thought that in practice during elections decisions are required quickly of the Electoral Commission and that that was one of the problems we had with the prior model— implementing fast decisions for the benefit of participants in the election, clarifying areas of uncertainty during the electoral process. He thought that that would be best handled by one commissioner rather than three commissioners.
One of the submitters we heard from was Mr Henry. I forget whether he is a former Chief Electoral Officer or a former Electoral Commissioner. I think he is a former Chief Electoral Officer, but someone can correct me if I have got that wrong. In any event, he submitted to us that in reality the day-to-day decisions on what should be done in respect of advertisements, donation rules, and all those sorts of things will be delegated to the executive of this new organisation rather than be at the commission level, and that in the rare event where decisions are required from the commission, rather than falling within the delegation of people working for the commission, it was quite proper that the three commissioners be called together and meet on the issue. He did not think it would so frequent an occurrence as to be impractical or unduly expensive. For those reasons, we stuck with the status quo of three representatives.
I want to refer to one other issue and it is what this bill does not fix up, and that is a glaring omission in our electoral laws to have proper transparency around donations. This was an area where the Government has refused to be part of a consensus. It says there is no consensus, but the only reason there is not a consensus is that the Government will not agree to one. If it were to agree on reasonable rules around transparency, we would have them. But the reality in New Zealand is that we do not have transparency around donations to electoral parties.
At the last election we knew the source of less than 10 percent of the funds used by parties in elections, and that is not good enough. We need transparency around donations in order to maintain public confidence in our electoral processes. If we do not, we can never escape the imputation that there is policy for purchase. We do not know what influence has been bought by donors. Donating to political parties is a perfectly proper and worthy thing to do, but it ought to be transparent. There is no shame in making a donation. There should be no shame in transparency of donations so that we can maintain public confidence in our electoral processes. I think it is a great shame that the Government has not addressed that issue.
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I rise to take a call in this debate on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I thank the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee. This is the 13th bill we have returned to the House this term. The work of the committee, and the collaboration and willingness of its members to get good results for the people of New Zealand, is reflected in the number of bills we have returned. As has been well outlined by the Minister of Justice in his introduction and by the previous speaker, the Hon David Parker, in the consideration on this bill we went through a number of concerns and issues raised by members of the public and by learned submitters. We took all of those submissions seriously and received further advice. We went to a number of other areas to seek advice on the matters that were raised.
The bill amalgamates into one agency the three electoral agencies that currently exist. For the reasons well outlined by the previous speaker, the new Electoral Commission will be an independent Crown entity, in spite of a number of submissions suggesting that that role should be an Officer of Parliament. The bill seeks to overcome current issues around duplication of work, the confusion with overlapping jurisdictions, the increased costs of having to deal with different Government agencies around the same issue of elections, and the removal of complexity for stakeholders—that is, political parties, voters, policy groups, pressure groups, and list and constituency candidates—within the framework as it currently stands.
The submissions were very technical and we appreciate the fact that submitters went to such trouble not only in researching their well-worded submissions but also in the way in which they spoke to them in front of the committee. In any event, we have ended up reporting the bill back to the House with only two significant matters in respect of the way the bill was when it was referred to us. One of those was to confirm the independent Crown entity status of the new commission, and the second was the way in which the commissioners will be appointed on a basis of consensus rather than the Minister of Justice making a flat decision. I believe it is important for the integrity of future elections to have consensus around the House on who the commissioner would be, and also for the various parties not only to be consulted on but also to consent to the decision. I commend the bill to the House and I thank the committee for its work.
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour): Along with my colleagues on the Justice and Electoral Committee I am happy to take a call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill and to acknowledge and confirm the points made by Chester Borrows about the hard-working committee. This bill was no exception and a lot of work was done on it. It was given a lot of scrutiny, much of it around the status of the new Electoral Commission. As a member of the committee I can say that having a commission that is one entity has always been seen as the best way forward. Indeed, many people have lobbied about what a good idea it would be, and I think it has always been the intention. So on this occasion I commend the Government as I think this is very sensible legislation.
I also acknowledge the agencies that have worked so hard and have done so much work around our elections. Although I did not like the result of the last one—and, indeed, most New Zealanders do not now—I acknowledge the work that was done by those agencies. There was the Chief Electoral Officer, we had assistance from David Henry during our consideration, the Electoral Commission, and also the officers of the Chief Registrar of Electors through the Electoral Enrolment Centre. It is a really good chance at this time to acknowledge all the work they do.
Living in a democracy, there are things that cause us some concern. Participation, not by the agencies themselves but by third parties who tend to get involved in election campaigns, is perhaps not something that we in New Zealand feel proud of—and certainly members on the other side of the House should feel really ashamed of that. But we are not here to talk about that negative stuff today; we are here to talk about the good work that those agencies have done throughout numerous elections. Save for a few glitches that happen from time to time, I do not think anyone in this House would question the commitment of those agencies.
Indeed, going forward to having one electoral agency, which will be in place for the next election in 2011, we will then have one commission, and the duplication or the confusion that can arise when we have three agencies will certainly not be such a challenge. Certainly, we on this side of the House are looking forward to the next election—very much so. We are really looking forward to it and we are looking forward to it being run in such a way—[Interruption] There is a little bit of passion from members opposite. Bring it on! We are looking forward to that election being run in such way that we celebrate the democracy we have in New Zealand. [Interruption] Goodness—I think I have woken up members opposite.
As others have said, most of the bill is technical; indeed most of the discussions were very technical. I acknowledge the really, really excellent submissions that the committee received from individuals, and also from the previous executive of the Electoral Commission. The previous Clerk of the House of Representatives, David McGee, played a key role in giving us really, really constructive advice. We heard from Professor Andrew Geddis, who is renowned for his knowledge and has always played a very constructive role in other submissions that the Justice and Electoral Committee received when it was considering electoral law. There was also the New Zealand Law Society and other individuals who put a lot of time and effort into commenting and offering constructive advice on the bill.
One of the key issues, and indeed many submitters submitted on this, was about ensuring protection, so that there was no politics—if I can use that term in respect of the office. That is why many of the submitters submitted that the new Electoral Commission should be an officer of Parliament. I think it would be fair to say that that is something that the committee gave the most consideration to. As I said before, we had very good advice from David McGee and also David Henry—the Davids, as it were—on this. One of the concerns was that the officer of Parliament role was more a scrutinising of the executive whereas the Electoral Commission’s main responsibility is more of a doing role—it is about delivering impartial and transparent elections in accordance with the law in order to maintain public confidence in our electoral processes. So the committee gave really careful consideration to that. We realised that although the request was for an officer of Parliament, the advice we were given was that it was not appropriate in this instance—it was really important not to have that conflict.
That is why some additional protection was recommended by the committee in that the appointment of the commissioners would not be by the Minister, in case that Minister could be conflicted. Whether or not there was a conflict, there could be a perception that there was political interference, and there was certainly a complete meeting of the minds that whether or not that was happening we on the committee would not want that perception to be there. The best way of ensuring that did not happen was seen to be by having the appointment made not by the Minister but by Parliament itself. As Chester Borrows has said, it would not be about consultation, it would be a decision that Parliament as a whole would make. The members of the select committee felt that went a long way to put at rest any concerns that submitters had on that issue.
There was also another protection in terms of the membership of the Electoral Commission. The bill as introduced provided that the three members were appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, as I said before. They will now be appointed by Parliament. The board’s structure for the new Electoral Commission relates to that of the existing commission before the 2008 general election. Before the election, the existing Electoral Commission required its board to meet and consider its response to complaints. We think that is really important. We are looking this time for the commission to be a completely new entity. It is really important that this legislation is enacted now to enable us to get all of the checks, balances, and processes in place to get the commission selected by Parliament, up and running, and effective in time for the next election.
In closing I congratulate the Government; I think there has been consultation on this bill. But more electoral bills will be brought before this House, and I very, very respectfully urge the Government to consider transparency around donations. That and other issues are very important. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party supports the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I do not want to take too much of the House’s time this afternoon to talk about it, but I think it is important to raise some issues that concern us that were not addressed by the Justice and Electoral Committee.
The first was the issue that my colleague from Labour Lynne Pillay has just been talking about, which is what kind of body this commission set up to manage our electoral process—in which citizens make one of the most significant decisions that citizens can make in any country, and one fiercely defended and fought for—should be. How independent should it be from Parliament? What should be its status? We were strongly of the view that the new Electoral Commission should be an Officer of Parliament. I have read through the select committee justification for why that was not the case, and I have been in other meetings where we have discussed this issue. I am not convinced that it is inappropriate for an Officer of Parliament role to be accorded here. There is a requirement that an Officer of Parliament provide a check on the arbitrary use of power by the executive, and the justification for not having an Officer of Parliament system was that the Electoral Commission would not be responsible for scrutinising the executive. But in my view, those two things are different. Being a check on the arbitrary use of power is different from scrutinising the executive.
The purpose of electoral law management, which is what this commission does, is to make sure that the rules are undertaken fairly and in accordance with the law. The role of having a check on the arbitrary use of powers by the executive is to make sure that the executive, which is the Government at the time and therefore has the numbers to make any law it chooses at any time it chooses, does not interfere with a fair and democratic process. Why would we not enable a commission, whose job it is to manage that fair electoral process, to act as a check on the arbitrary use of power that could interfere with that process for something as significant as electing our most senior political officials and representatives of the people. We still remain concerned and unconvinced that it is inappropriate for this role to be held as an Officer of Parliament. We are very pleased to see that the independent appointment process is included, so appointments to the Electoral Commission are made separately from the executive, from Government—we think that is a very good step that the select committee has supported.
Finally, though, we are concerned that there is no recommendation to amend the bill to give the Electoral Commission powers to provide advice and guidance on electoral financing rules. Today legislation looking at electoral finance has been tabled. It has been a murky area for many years, with lots and lots of loopholes, some of which were very recently, in 2005, exploited by members of the community and by political interests to try to win an election through the use of excessive amounts of money. We know that those loopholes are actually very difficult to close, so we must take real care around electoral finance legislation. And in taking care in building the rules, we then have to have some certainty for all the political players—political parties and third parties that engage in electioneering and campaigning—on what those rules mean, and clear parameters for what they can and cannot do.
The consequences for political players, if they breach the rules, can be very, very severe, and could impact on the results of an election and the formation of a Government. That is no small thing. So we need to be sure that all the political players have certainty over the rules: what the rules mean, how they should be applied, and whether that party—whether it is a political party or a third party—is acting within those rules. No organisation is responsible for providing clear advice and guidance, because the select committee has not given the Electoral Commission that role. That is a mistake. It will lead to the only alternative, which is that political parties and political players will have to resort to the courts to determine the interpretation of legislation and the application of the rules to their particular case.
If we go down that path, we are talking about court case after court case. We see them every election period; they happen every election period. Some of them could be very, very serious, affecting whether a Government can form. These cases will have to go all the way through the court process to the Supreme Court level before they can be finally resolved, causing ridiculous amounts of political and financial chaos, and chaos in the constitutional system, simply because we have not given the right and the power to make decisions that can guide the use of those rules to the one body that we can give it to. It is a hole in this process that could be filled and should be filled. If it was, it would save considerable difficulty, particularly at a time when we are still working through what the best sets of electoral financing rules that we should have in this country are to make sure we have a transparent and fair level playing field in the election of our Government.
I think this is a serious opportunity that has been missed. There is no other way to fill that gap now that this legislation is to be passed. It will cause real problems in the future, and we will continue to see those problems. We can only hope that the electoral finance laws that will eventually come out of the Justice and Electoral Committee when we manage the other legislation that has been introduced today will provide some high levels of certainty. But, as I say, there can never be absolute certainty in this environment. I think that that is an opportunity missed, and will cause real problems for us in the future, as we work through those rules. Nonetheless, it is better that this is done. The reorganisation is good; we support that reorganisation, and we will support the bill. Thank you.
RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): Issues of electoral integrity are of special interest to every party in this House, so we join with other speakers to acknowledge the important work being done in this Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. It is with real pleasure that we come to this bills in the wave of almost universal support across the House last night to address tobacco use, and we note the widespread support across Parliament today for the legislative process around this bill. It is great to be experiencing the politics of consensus rather than the politics of conflict.
The quality of the administration of by-elections and general elections is a vital component of an effective electoral system. Efficient administration can enhance equitable democratic participation, a goal that we in the Māori Party have a keen interest in promoting. The Māori Party was formed as a channel through which Māori could direct their interest in Government to achieve participation in Parliament. Our existence addresses the first issue, and we hope that electoral administration will work in a way to ensure that all New Zealanders can have confidence in the system with which they place their votes. Yet our experience out in the world is that we have been disappointed in the way in which the system operates as it has not always been efficient or integrated. The structure of the three agencies has not always been well understood by voters. The potential for confusion over which agency has responsibility for what has been evident, and we have been unconvinced that the complexity of the tripartite arrangement has been helpful.
Several administrative problems have arisen in Māori electorates, which, although isolated, we believe should have been avoided. My colleague Hone Harawira told me that in the 2005 election, voting papers ran out in several polling places in Te Tai Tokerau by mid-afternoon on polling day. It appears that a tangihanga had taken place, bringing an influx of mourners into the area, and there was an inadequate supply of ballot papers to cope. In the Tāmaki Makaurau electorate, in that same election, some voting papers were not available for voters on the Māori roll in the South Auckland area until mid-morning. In Manurewa, there had been a lack of Māori electoral rolls for a couple of hours, as well. In other electorates, electorate votes were disallowed because incorrect voting papers were issued. Concerns were also raised about reported instances of voters being confused about whether they were on the Māori roll or general roll. Those are just a few of the complaints that we have received, pertaining to the administration of elections.
Other matters have caused offence, such as the incorrect pronunciation of Māori names by issuing officers in some polling places. It is not just a problem of causing offence; the problem is that if people are called an incorrect name—for example, I often get called “Mrs Ka-teen”, or things like that—they will not recognise their names and will not respond. These are real problems for us. As a political party, the Māori Party has taken these issues, as appropriate, to either the Chief Electoral Officer or the Electoral Commission. Sometimes local representatives have raised their concerns with Electoral Enrolment Centre personnel. In general, we have always been satisfied with the responses received, but there is always a risk that in sharing concerns with one agency, it might have been more appropriate to share with another, or that a strategic response to the issues is limited by the fact that all of the key players are not in the same room together.
When the idea to split the three agencies first came up in the inquiry into the 2005 general election, we were not supportive. We know that many of our members appreciated the way in which the Electoral Enrolment Centre operated locally and was in touch with its community. The view at that time was that to replace its functions with a single Wellington-based operation would be detrimental. We also thought that to move to a single body would be an enormous task that would not be easily achieved without a risk of disruption to elections. It was our view that any changes should be contemplated with great caution. However, as we thought further about the value of creating an amalgamated electoral administrative entity, we have warmed to the idea of reducing the duplication of functions, the confusion, and the costs and complexities for political parties, candidates, and the general public. In light of our earlier concerns, we also support the phasing in of the changes to ensure that we minimise any disruption, particularly to the successful operation of the 2011 general election.
If we could be so bold, we would like to recommend some immediate priorities for the work programme for the new Electoral Commission. We support the thrust of many of the public submissions that said that the Electoral Commission could play a crucial role in informing and educating the public about the pros and cons of the various voting systems, including MMP, first past the post, Single Transferable Vote, etc. Dr Helena Catt was particularly positive about the inclusion of a clear education role for the new entity, and the recognition of a role in encouraging participation. I want to draw particular attention to the submission from the Nelson Bays Community Law Service, not just because it is in Nelson—I am from Nelson, and the best people come from Nelson—but also because it had something really good to say. Its submission articulated its wish for the new commission to be in a better position to prevent the issues that confronted Māori voters in the last election. The Nelson experience reinforced our finding that in some polling booths there were an insufficient number of Māori roll voting papers and there was a lack of Māori roll data. It was the service’s view that both issues would have been extremely easy to rectify, yet a lack of information had the immediate and adverse impact of compromising the right of individual Māori to vote.
Another point the service raised was the suggestion that participation in democracy by our youth would be encouraged if all New Zealanders were automatically entered on the general roll at 18 years of age or older, or, if Māori, entered on the Māori roll with the option to transfer to the general roll. This is a great idea. In fact, it is an idea that can be found in the Māori Party policy manifesto, He Aha Te Mea Nui. Combining these two ideas—the need to promote the value of voting as a concept of a healthy democracy and the issue about raising the youth vote—leads me to suggest that the new Electoral Commission could gain considerable value through looking at the campaign to get people enrolling and voting that took place in the United States. We have a large number of Māori who are not enrolled, particularly young voters. Some estimations of the 2008 campaign put the figure at around 100,000 people who were not enrolled in the vital age group between 18 and 35 years old. This could be an area where the electoral agencies could invest in schools, including kura kaupapa Māori, to promote the message that every vote counts.
Another issue that we would like to put forward to enhance the role of the new Electoral Commission is the one around cultural competency. As I have noted, there were concerns at some booths about the accuracy of the Māori roll and how election-day staff dealt with their needs. There were particular instances where staff failed to search for Māori voters on the Māori roll, and, as a consequence, gave them general roll forms. These were voters who came to the booth without their early vote cards. The default position tended to be that they were immediately assumed to be general roll voters. In some of our electorates there were people, including kuia and koroua, who needed assistance but there was a lack of resources at booths to encourage them to ask for help. Another issue that came through to us about election day was the significant queues. In some cases, where there were long queues of voters standing in the Māori roll line, some of these voters became impatient and left. Our view is that we should be doing everything we can to encourage voters, and time delays do nothing to promote that. It is felt that some training in how to engage with Māori, to ensure successful face-to-face contact, would be invaluable.
All these matters of detail are important, and there are many more. We are pleased to support the second reading of this bill and we look forward to further debate on such a crucial issue.
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): We have heard some erudite and learned speeches this afternoon, but none was better than the speech made by Lynne Pillay. She made some very good points about the fact that we are getting a unified Electoral Commission, and she said that she cannot wait for the next election to try it out. I think that is fine; that is good. All I am saying to members on the other side is to make sure they are not in the mid to high 30s on the list. In fact, Jacinda Ardern, Maryan Street, and Carmel Sepuloni—
Grant Robertson: Don’t say that with Michael Woodhouse sitting in front of you.
SIMON BRIDGES: Grant Robertson is all right; he has a seat. He should be all right. But the other three members should keep out of the high 30s on the list.
One of my favourite movies as a young lawyer was The Castle. I particularly enjoyed the scene where the provincial lawyer came out to visit—I have been a provincial lawyer, and there is nothing wrong with them—and was asked what principle he was relying on. He replied that it was the constitution, it was the Mabo decision, it was the vibe. Being a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee was sometimes a bit like that. We had a sort of vibe there about whether we needed to have an independent Crown entity or an Officer of Parliament. Lynne Pillay was operating on the vibe principle, actually.
It was very clear to us that perhaps what we needed was an Officer of Parliament. But we heard from some eminent legal academics and practitioners, including David McGee QC, and it became very clear to us, quite quickly, that having an independent Crown entity, as the original bill had provided for, was the right model; that is what we have followed. It was important, though, that we worked our way through the vibe, and that we acted in a multiparty way. We brought everyone on board; that is what we did. We now have first-class legislation.
The Hon John Carter gave, if I may say so, a very learned speech. I know he wrote it himself; he has thought a lot about this issue. I commend this bill to the House.
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I am very glad to now know, or to have learnt, where Simon Bridges’ inspiration for becoming a lawyer came from. It was from The Castle. I think that that filled in a few gaps for me, so I thank him for that.
I will start by saying that all of my colleagues have mentioned our appreciation of the level of consultation that has gone into the development of this bill. I guess I would say that long may that consultation continue, because we anticipate that coming before us soon is some electoral legislation that probably, in the grand scheme of things, will be even more significant in the way that it will impact on each and every one of us. More important, it will impact on the general public.
The select committee approached the analysis of this bill with two key objectives in mind, and I think that that probably unified our work. There was the ultimate goal of transparency, in the way that our electoral matters are conducted in New Zealand, and also the idea of public confidence. We approached all our discussions with the idea of judging whether the legislation instilled confidence in the public that transparent, free, and fair elections would be undertaken in New Zealand. I think we probably have reached that point with this particular bill. I shall reserve judgment on any future legislation about the transparency of donations.
The point I will dwell on most, though, is probably that which some other speakers have talked about. I think that submitters, from their perspective, will be most interested in how we decided to choose the entity type we did for overseeing electoral matters in New Zealand. That new body, of course, is the Electoral Commission, which will be an independent Crown entity, so I will dwell on the justification used by the select committee to settle on the Crown entity model because, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, very strong cases were put before us to advocate that the new commission be an Officer of Parliament, instead. It might seem from an outsider’s perspective that that is not a significant point of difference, but there were some differences, and I will go over those.
I also say up front that some of the submitters had some scepticism that perhaps the Ministry of Justice had not provided us with an adequate breakdown of the rationale behind the Crown entity model. I will just allay those concerns by saying at the outset that if from the submitters’ perspective it did not seem as if those justifications were provided, we certainly asked for the justifications. As a committee we certainly held the ministry to task, and it certainly provided us with the information required to make this decision.
A lot of persuasive arguments were made around the idea of the new commission being an Officer of Parliament, but ultimately the evidence produced by David McGee in particular was pretty compelling, and that has been touched on by my colleague the Hon David Parker. From the outset it was explained to the committee that the Finance and Expenditure Committee had already, in the course of its business, determined the two criteria that have traditionally sat around the establishment of an Officer of Parliament. The first is the requirement that an Officer of Parliament provides a check on the arbitrary use of power by the executive. We discussed at great length the point that the Electoral Commission’s primary role would be the responsibility of delivering quite a wide range of electoral services, but by and large its key role would be the responsibility to deliver impartial and transparent elections in accordance with the law. I think that when we contrast that with the role of the other Officers of Parliament, the Ombudsmen, the Controller and Auditor-General, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, we see they have a much more direct scrutiny role of the executive in power at that particular time.
Probably, if we draw on some of the comments we heard from an Officer of Parliament, we can really see that coming to the fore. For instance, the Parliamentary Officer for the Environment just this week came out and presented a view on the Government’s proposals on mining. It was quite a critical review. I think that she called the Government’s proposals vague. I think there was also criticism of the cost-benefit analysis. It was quite a damning report, I would have thought, from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, so we see in that the key scrutiny role that an Officer of Parliament plays. I think that in the Electoral Commission we are probably looking for a much more functional role, a role that is involved in policy development and the like, and something that is probably quite different in terms of our expectations.
If the Electoral Commission were to be established as an Officer of Parliament, it would also mean that the Speaker would then be accountable to Parliament for its operation. We have to take into account the practicalities of that: the role that the Speaker already has, and his or her responsibility with regard to the House. The Speaker has a number of responsibilities. The Speaker already oversees the Office of the Clerk, the Office of the Ombudsmen, the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, and other Officers of Parliament. It would probably be an unreasonable expectation to put such a weighty body under the arm of the Speaker—not to mention, I think, that there are some conflicts in that proposal in and of itself. We took that additional accountability structure, then, into account in our decision making. We also discussed the board structure of the Electoral Commission, and that as well would be a departure from the way in which Officers of Parliament exist now.
I guess, ultimately, that the select committee approached this matter from the perspective of asking what elements already existing for an Officer of Parliament submitters wished us to hold and carry over into the way the Electoral Commission would operate, if we could approach it from a different angle. So we made some changes to the legislation relating to the appointment process for the people who would be on the board of the Electoral Commission, in order to add some greater transparency, which is what I think submitters were seeking from us.
I will come back to just one more point, though—because again this is about a differentiation in the Crown entity model versus that of the Officer of Parliament—and that is our expectation that the new electoral agency will have a role in the development of policies related to electoral administration, or an advisory role in reporting directly to the Minister with regard to the administration of the Electoral Act and related legislation. Again, the example I have already drawn on from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment shows, I think, the distinction between that very strong scrutiny role and the role that we expect, which is much more of a policy development role.
Having said that, I tell the House that we did not want to create a situation where the Electoral Commission was not able to raise with a Minister the concerns or issues that might exist relating to the operation of our electoral law. We recommended inserting a new section that allows the Electoral Commission to provide information and advice to the Minister at any time and on the commission’s own volition—it does not have to be asked to provide that information; it can trigger that process itself—and, for the sake of transparency, the Electoral Commission can also set out a process whereby it can ensure that that information, if it so wishes, is tabled in the House within a set time frame.
I will touch quickly on the membership of the Electoral Commission. A concern was raised in the select committee that inappropriate people, who perhaps demonstrated some bias, might be appointed to this really important body. Some people specifically submitted that former politicians should not be eligible for the board. To emphasise the independence of the board, we recommended replacing section 4D, under clause 4 of the bill, and putting in place a new appointment process for the Electoral Commission that involves an appointment by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. I hope that that process will cover off any concerns that were raised with the select committee over the neutrality of the people being appointed to that body. I think that when we involve members from across the House, we are more inclined to get that kind of outcome, and we demonstrate from time to time the ability to do that.
All in all, finally I reiterate my thanks to all of those who submitted and gave their expertise to the select committee. I just highlight once again the importance of the Government continuing to consult all parties in this House, on an ongoing basis, on the very important electoral reform that will come before us.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Television New Zealand Amendment Bill
First Reading
Debate resumed from 22 April.
MELISSA LEE (National): When the debate on the Television New Zealand Bill was interrupted, I was talking about the driving force behind content and saying that commissioners had to rely on the popularity of certain genres. In recent times, we have had a lot of reality television on our screens. Reality TV is not exactly my favourite type of programme, but there is a place for those programmes. Viewers control the commissioning of that genre, because programme commissioners would not commission things that were not popular. That is the broadcaster’s prerogative. If people decided to turn off the channel, the type of programming would definitely change, and very quickly.
That brings me to the Platinum Television Fund. This money was ring-fenced for the charter commitments of Television New Zealand (TVNZ), and it is now available as contestable funding through New Zealand On Air. The $15.1 million a year for projects to screen on any of New Zealand’s six free-to-air broadcasters with preference for prime-time programming was a welcome move for programme makers. This bill will make sure that the function of TVNZ is to be a successful national television and digital media company that provides a range of content and services on a choice of delivery platform and maintains its commercial performance. Without New Zealand content, I guess that TVNZ would definitely not be New Zealand television.
I take this opportunity to say that we have a wonderful Minister of Broadcasting in Jonathan Coleman. I also take this opportunity to offer my congratulations to my learned colleague Tau Henare. I just found out that he has become a grandfather for the second time. I commend this bill to the House.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I am pleased to speak on the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. As previous speakers have noted, Labour members are opposing this bill. I do not really want to relitigate all the arguments as to why we oppose the bill, although I will briefly do that, because today I want to focus on what, I think, is the philosophy that lies behind this bill on the issue of public broadcasting.
I note that from our point of view this bill is in many ways the beginning of the end of public broadcasting in New Zealand. National has a history of undermining Television New Zealand and, indeed, preparing it for sale.
Hon Maurice Williamson: Here we go.
GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Williamson knows to some degree about that. In the 1990s a significant amount of work was done to prepare Television New Zealand for sale and to push its commercial ethos at the expense of its community role.
Obviously, when Labour came into office in 1999 we set about trying to return more of the ethic of public broadcasting to Television New Zealand. The charter was a key component in that. I would accept, as someone who had a little bit to do with the implementation of the TVNZ charter, that it did not turn out exactly as we had intended. It did not provide the level of local content or the focus on areas where the market was not providing in the way we would have liked. Towards the end of our time in Government, Trevor Mallard was the Minister of Broadcasting. He attempted to make some changes to the way in which the charter was funded.
But that is a very, very long way away from what National has been doing since it came into office. We have seen hundreds of jobs gone from Television New Zealand, and a 12.5 percent cut in the news and current affairs budget. All of that leads me to the belief that the Minister’s statement—
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: But, Robbo, what would you have done? No plan at all.
GRANT ROBERTSON: —he is interjecting now—in the first reading debate indicated where he wants to go. He said that TVNZ has effectively operated as a commercial broadcaster over recent years. He wants to go, as National did in the 1990s, towards implementing overall commercial objectives. He is not interested in community objectives.
If the charter is unworkable, as the Minister has said, then what is the replacement? This bill tells us an awful lot about what the Government does not want to do, but it does not tell us very much about what the Government does want to do when it comes to public broadcasting. In one sense, one could say that that is fair enough. When National campaigned it said did not want the charter. It said it wanted to get rid of it. On one level, that is fair enough, but I want to know what will replace it.
I think it is misguided to get rid of the charter. As I said before, I had a fair bit to do with it. It was there to help give a framework for implementing those public service broadcasting objectives. Now, even if we concede that the charter did not do that job properly, where is its replacement? Even if we concede and say that the funding should not be there, why take the charter away? Why take away the framework even if one does not think the funding should be there? It does not make sense.
Unlike the party opposite, I think that public broadcasting is incredibly significant for New Zealand. We are now living in a time when the ability to access content is seemingly limitless. People can go online and see all manner of different content that we would traditionally have seen on TV. That is fantastic. But this is the very time that we need an independent comprehensive service that reflects our country and our values. That is the role Television New Zealand should be playing in terms of broadcasting, and there is no vision for that from the current Government.
The expanding market we have is driven, for the most part, by purely commercial and profit motives. The private equity firms that are currently behind TV3 have very clear motives—they want to maximise the value for their shareholders. Well, that is fine for them. But that will not deliver us long-term public service broadcasting values. The public need to know that there will be somewhere where that is delivered.
The head of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has described the ABC as Australia’s “town square … a place where Australians can come to speak and be heard, and to listen and learn.” Well, where is New Zealand’s town square when it comes to broadcast television? It should be Television New Zealand. That should be the investment the Government is making. We now know what the Government does not want to do. Well, where is the commitment to public broadcasting? That commitment to public broadcasting, in my opinion, has to be about more than just content. It has to be about more than just programmes.
I have said in the House before that I support New Zealand On Air. I think it is a good model for ensuring that there is New Zealand content. But there needs to be something more than just content. It is said that content is king when it comes to the Internet, and so on, and that is fine. But if we are going to assure ourselves that public service broadcasting values will be implemented in New Zealand, there needs to be a place for that. We need a strong institution that will support those values with a plethora of other opportunities. It is not sufficient for the Minister of Broadcasting, Dr Jonathan Coleman, to say that there is TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7.
We need a strong institution that allows thinking beyond individual projects. We need something that goes beyond market logic and the fact that we can put on programmes that will be attractive to advertisers. We need an institution that provides some leadership in that regard, and that is Television New Zealand—that should be Television New Zealand.
Programme producers in New Zealand do an extremely good job of producing very good, high-quality content. But they too have to constantly look at the bottom line, and some have to constantly look out for their shareholders. We need to make sure not only that is New Zealand On Air ensuring that content is being created but also that there is an institution looking out for where the market does not provide. It may come as a surprise to the members opposite, but in many cases in television, as in other walks of life, the market will not perfectly provide everything that we expect it to provide. It will provide some very good things, and some very good local content—
Hon David Cunliffe: Really?
GRANT ROBERTSON: —I know it is a shock to Mr Cunliffe—but it will not necessarily do it in television, and we need to know that our public broadcaster will be there when the market is not providing. That is what public broadcasters across the world have been able to do, and I think it is what we should do.
This bill is not a bill that the Opposition can support. Although it repeals the Television New Zealand charter, it does not really give us an indication about where the Government wants to take public broadcasting and how it will take it forward in the digital age. In fact, it leads us to believe that the Government does not believe in public broadcasting. We can certainly see that the Minister has made comments in terms of Radio New Zealand that indicate he does not believe in that kind of public broadcasting.
Television New Zealand is an even more difficult case because it has had its problems over recent years in terms of meeting that public broadcasting mandate. But there is no vision here to show me how the Government wants to do that. Abolishing the charter is a step for the Government simply in looking at Television New Zealand as a cash cow, and in the 1990s that was the very explicit, clear agenda. Now, because National went into the 2008 election with its somewhat fake promise not to privatise and not to sell State assets in the first term, it has to take a slower process towards privatising, but that, quite clearly, is the agenda.
This bill will be referred to the Commerce Committee, even though Labour is opposing it, and when it does go the committee I hope that submitters and committee members will ask questions about where the Government is going with public broadcasting. Public broadcasting is an incredibly important part of ensuring that New Zealand’s culture and values continue to be reflected and exposed to the world. That is what Television New Zealand should be a part of doing. It needs a vision to do that in the digital age. This bill does not provide that vision, and we do not support it.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I am mindful of the quote by Baltasar Gracián: “Good things, when short, are twice as good.” So I will be short—probably for a very long time. I think that is what the Television New Zealand charter should have been like. [Interruption] I get taller with every interjection! [Interruption] Is that some empathy there, Mr Deputy Speaker? But I think that is true of the Television New Zealand charter.
When the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill is passed, 16 separate components will be reduced to about four succinct expectations. The present dual expectations to comply with the requirements of the charter and to act consistently with commercial imperatives are, at best, uncomfortable bedfellows and, at worst, completely unworkable. It is arguable that Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and its predecessor organisations worked very well for two generations prior to the implementation of the charter, and I wonder whether the charter has made a single bit of difference to the delivery of New Zealand content—sport, Māori content, news, and so on.
It is also worth reflecting on the actions of TVNZ’s competitors through that period, and the level of Kiwi programmes—news, sport, Māori content, and so on—on private TV, radio, and Internet media. The online media developments are very interesting. TVNZ, without any expectation, has a massive interest in its TVNZ Ondemand, with 1.4 million hits per month. It actually makes a profit without any of those expectations being set in the charter. This bill amends some things to make them more explicit, which I think is very necessary.
I will talk a little about the Platinum Television Fund and the criticisms of funding that was ring-fenced for TVNZ’s funding commitments now being contestable through NZ On Air. That criticism comes from a very outdated view about how programmes are made—vertically integrated companies produce, film, develop, post-edit, and then deliver the programmes—which is simply not the way TV, films, and music are now made. So I am very sure that this fund will result in better, higher-quality programmes on our screens that give better value for money.
I will put in a plug for NZ On Air. I think it does a fantastic job in promoting New Zealand music, drama, and entertainment. It is such a lean organisation; it manages about $150 million with just 13 staff. I am sure the Labour “spokesman on bureaucracy”, Grant Robertson, would be astounded at that sort of achievement. It is an organisation that has been supported by both Labour and National Governments for over 20 years, and I wish it well in the future, in particular on the management of that fund.
This is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That ends the debate on this bill. Before I put the vote, I ask the member to provide me with that quote. I thought it was exceptionally good.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I seek leave to table the quote by Baltasar Gracián.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.
Noes 52
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.
Bills
Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Debate resumed from 27 April.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour): On the day between the beginning of the first reading of this bill and today, it was International Workers Memorial Day. That is a day when we remember all of the workers who have been killed or injured on the job in New Zealand and throughout the world. It was interesting that the Minister of Labour, who introduced the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill—and it is an important bill, because it is an important health and safety requirement that we have breaks on the job—said that it was a sober reminder that New Zealand continues to lose more than one person each week in fatal workplace accidents. She noted that serious accident statistics show that there are around 6,000 injuries or accidents in the workplace every year. She went on to say that there was a lot of room for improvement, and the Government would continue to work with businesses and unions to foster a strong workplace safety culture. I find those statements incredibly ironic when that Minister is putting forward a bill that will take away the rights of workers to have a break on the job for rest, to carry out personal business, or for refreshment.
That Minister was part of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that heard the submissions on Labour’s bill, the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill, which this bill completely undermines and undoes.
Chris Hipkins: How did they vote for that?
DARIEN FENTON: Actually, National voted in favour of it, but here they are, undoing all that good work. She heard one particular story that I would like to relay to the House. James Joseph was an Indian immigrant worker who came to New Zealand 11 years ago and worked in a Wellington ethnic restaurant. It took him some time to figure out that, although he was not getting any rest breaks, lunch breaks, or anything else, other workers were getting breaks, so he started to ask questions. He insisted to his employer that he should have a short break. He was working from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. and from 4.30 p.m. to 11 p.m. or later. He wanted to have a short break every 3 hours, but he was called a troublemaker and was sacked by his employer. After 6 months he got another job, and he raised the work break issue with his new employer. He thought he would be on safer ground, because he had a written employment agreement—something that had not been given to him in his previous job. It even had a rest breaks clause. It said: “The employer can arrange rest and meal breaks so they do not cause disruptions to clients, customers, or production.” To me, that sounds incredibly like this bill, as it says that the power is in the hands of employers to arrange breaks when it suits them. Poor old James went see his employer, as he thought he could talk about meals and rest breaks since he had that clause in his contract. He was told by his employer that it was impossible to have a break because the restaurant was just too busy. So it was just tough; he could not have a break. After arguing with the employer, James was told that he was being insubordinate, and he got the sack again.
It was for workers like James that Labour introduced the rest and meal breaks legislation. It will be workers like James—the vulnerable, the unorganised, and the un-unionised—who will suffer because this Government is determined to take away their rights. The whole point of the law was to ensure that we had minimum requirements for rest, for workers to be able to carry out their personal business or pay attention to their personal needs, and to get refreshments at an appropriate time. The provisions in the current Act are extremely sensible. They provide for two 10-minute tea breaks and a half-hour unpaid lunch break for the average, normal-length day. The problem with what the Minister is proposing is that it will enable employers to decide whether a worker should have a break in the first place, and, if they do, how long that break is and when it should occur. It will also allow employers to require workers to work in an unpaid break. Apart from the fact that they might not get one, if they give them one, it is unpaid. They could put restrictions on what they are required to do.
It is very interesting. There are a whole lot of questions around this particular bill. There are a whole lot of things in it, and it provides so much uncertainty. In all my years dealing with employers, I know that they want certainty about what is required. One question I have that will come up in the select committee is how long a break has to be. The 10-minute requirement and the half-hour requirement are taken away, so an employer could meet the requirements of this legislation by allowing a 1-minute break or a 5-minute break. The employer gets to decide that. Then there is the test of reasonableness. It is a very hard test to meet. Nobody knows what that means. I would have thought that with this Minister having lectured us at length when she was in Opposition about flawed and reckless legislation, we could have expected a whole lot better.
I think that this legislation will make things worse. It provides many excuses for employers not to give breaks at all. It provides them with an excuse to say that they are sorry, but they are too busy, so there will be no breaks today. It creates another health and safety risk. We have one worker a week dying on the job in this country. This bill should not proceed.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I once heard it said that political discourse requires two elements: trust and understanding. That is certainly true here. Labour members do not trust us and we sure as heck do not understand them. The same truism applies between employers and employees. Good employment relations are built on high levels of trust and understanding, and, consequently, poor relationships in the workplace have low levels of trust and understanding. That has been the case for generations.
The previous Government, when it passed the Employment Relations (Breaks, Infant Feeding, and Other Matters) Amendment Act, which brought in the legislation that this bill seeks to amend, said that it was motivated by the fact that there was no specific legal requirement for employees to have rest and meal breaks. Well, that had been the situation for a long, long time, but almost 93 percent of active collective employment agreements provided for rest and meal breaks. It was acknowledged that there were some problems with the organisation of work in certain niches in small ways right across different sectors. But little was known about whether the break provisions that were included in the individual employment agreements, or in workplaces generally, were working or widespread. Rather than actually find out what was going on in those workplaces, the previous Labour Government passed that legislation. I think that it is patently unworkable in many areas. The baby was thrown out with the bathwater.
I will give members an example of a situation that existed at the hospital that I managed for some time. Throughput at hospitals, particularly private hospitals, often means that by the time the weekend comes around there is quite a low number of patients left in the ward. In nightshifts over the weekend, we would have as few as two registered nurses on staff over the night. Because of safety requirements, it literally was not possible for one of those nurses to leave the ward. The nurses had plenty of opportunities to take a break, but, under the strict definitions of the employment agreement we had with them, that did not constitute a break, because they were not able to leave the ward. What did we do? By agreement with the nurses, we paid them a meal allowance and we paid them for the time that they were there at time and a half, and it was a perfectly satisfactory arrangement. But the moment that legislation was passed, it put that arrangement at odds with the law. That employer is probably still at odds with the law, because I know that common sense will be prevailing in that organisation.
We also had the issue of sole-charge air traffic controllers, which was raised in a financial review with the Civil Aviation Authority. Even then the member Darien Fenton in her questioning of the chairman referred to the rest and meal breaks issue as being extremely thorny. The Civil Aviation Authority at that time—this time last year—was quite confident that it would be able to resolve the issue. Frankly, it could not. Unfortunately, the type of flexibility that is needed for good employment relationships no longer exists, and that is what this bill seeks to address.
I will touch on one other issue that occurred at Dunedin Airport earlier this year, when the whole airport had to be closed. It was closed because the sole-charge air traffic controller had called in sick. As a consequence, seven other—
Hon Trevor Mallard: Nothing to do with rest breaks.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No, but it does have to do with flexibility in employment agreements. Six other staff members were available, but not a single one of them was allowed under the agreement to go back in and see a couple of planes land because of the overly restrictive covenants that were put in place by the unions in their employment agreement. What happened? Hundreds of passengers were diverted to Invercargill and Christchurch. The airport closed because of a lack of flexibility in the overly rigid arrangements that were put in place by the employment agreement.
I hope that that situation can change. I hope that Dunedin Airport never has to close again because of that. It is not O’Hare Airport or Heathrow; it is not as if these very good workers, one or two of whom I know, are working flat stick for 8 hours. It should be possible to accommodate those once-in-a-blue-moon events. At least in respect of rest and meal breaks, I think this bill is a very good start. I commend it to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.
Noes 52
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1.
Bill read a first time.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Labour: I move, That the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.
Noes 52
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Education Amendment Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed from 20 April.
Part 2 Transitional provision, validations, and consequential amendments (continued)
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): When this bill was last debated I was outlining the position of King’s High School, Dunedin and the building of its performing arts centre, which the Hon Trevor Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper 99 addresses. I was pointing out that the school built a performing arts centre that was 60 percent larger than was required for a school of its size. It had paid a rate that was 168 percent higher than the industry benchmark rate for this type of facility. It paid almost $4.5 million for the centre, compared with the ministry’s current valuation of $1.2 million. The situation the school is in now, of course, is that it took out a loan to complete the building of the centre. I am advised that the financial position of the school is healthy and that it is not in any trouble. I understand that it has investments of about $374,000 in the bank, so there does not seem to be any immediate reason, financially, for us to take this extraordinary action here today.
It is also unclear whether the change that the Hon Trevor Mallard has made in his Supplementary Order Paper would resolve the issue that the Ministry of Education would be in breach of the Public Finance Act 1989 if it provided funding in the clear knowledge that it would be used for a purpose other than which it had been appropriated for. So the point is made that the clause is still vague and creates some ambiguity. I repeat that allowing one school board to use 5-yearly agreement funding for a different purpose is a highly likely way of raising expectations across the sector that similar provisions would apply to all school boards. This is not a good way to make policy. It is policy on the hoof made around particular circumstances, and for that reason the Government does not support the Supplementary Order Paper.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): There is a saying that an old friend of mine used with me on one occasion, and it went something like: “Slow horses, fast women, and lost causes.” I think this matter might be in the last category, but it is important to put on the record the Opposition’s reason for voting in this way. I will directly address the chief Government whip as I do this, and indicate to him that there will be four or five further opportunities this year when the Government introduces bills around the Public Finance Act, validation, and matters that are normally uncontroversial, and that the Opposition would normally support and not insist on a Committee stage for. But we will keep bringing in amendments to this effect in relation to finance bills until the Government sees sense in this area.
There is actually not a lot of debate around the Education Amendment Bill. Most of what the Minister of Education, the Hon Anne Tolley, says is true: the mistakes occurred in my time as Minister; the recommendations to the board occurred in my time, and probably in the time of David Benson-Pope. The matter was considered by Mr Maharey and Mr Chris Carter, and neither of them made the decision that I think is appropriate.
The Minister is right that three other schools are in this category: Kaikorai, Cashmere, and Rangiora. This amendment does not take account of those schools, but I make the point that their issues could be solved by the Minister if she chose to do so. The Minister made some points about the costing and size of the school facility. She said that the facility is 60 percent larger than a school of that size would normally have, and she is absolutely right, but it is a joint school facility for King’s High School and Queen’s High School. It is not a hall for one school; it is a centre for two schools, and the Minister left that out. She went on about the costing of the facility, and it was expensive. I happen to know quite well a house in south Dunedin, which is not very far away from the site of the facility, and there is no doubt that it is hard to put in foundations in that area. Because of modern requirements, about three-quarters of a million dollars’ worth of slab had to be put down for the facility to be built on, and that added to the cost. So we have to take those two factors into account. The Minister spoke about the full cost, but unfortunately she got mixed up between building costs and fitted-out costs. She added the fit-out costs into the building costs and was confused on that point, as well.
Notwithstanding all of that, as a result of the poor advice given to a previous board by a previous principal, we now have a situation whereby a school is paying $4,900 every month—not every year, but every month—to the Westpac bank, when, at the same time, it has a credit sitting in the ministry. If there was a little bit of flexibility on the part of the Government, that credit could be used, and it would not cost the taxpayer one extra cent. That money is set aside and ring-fenced for that school. The money is sitting there, and the school has indicated that the use of that money would be its highest priority. I think that it is a relatively simple issue.
I accept that the school made mistakes in my time. I think that the Ministers who followed me took the ministry’s advice in a way that they should not have. I think it is fair to say that some parts of the ministry are more rigid and think less about the quality of education and the purpose of operational funding than others. My view is that on occasion the property division of the ministry can be fairly narrow in its thinking, rather than having the flexibility to ask what the best thing is for kids, and what best educational outcome can come from the situation. The amount of $4,900 is enough for another staff member, and enough for a couple of nearly full-time teacher aides to work with kids with disabilities. That amount gives the school the ability to buy five computers every month and to do some routine maintenance. Lots of things, from my perspective, can add much more to the quality of education at King’s High School than giving $4,900 every month to Westpac. I reiterate to Government members opposite that I am not asking the Government to appropriate any extra money.
The Minister says that that measure does not meet the Public Finance Act requirements, but I am now briefed by two experts that it does. She says it is a terrible way to validate expenditure when it has not been properly validated in the past. I went to get a pile of legislation from the library on this issue and I pulled out at random the Appropriation (2007/08 Financial Review) Act 2009—and I emphasise 2009—passed under her Government. The Act validated tens of hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditure. The money was not appropriated; it was spent and validated.
It is the essence of our constitution that it is the role and the right of Parliament to validate expenditure or to amend its legislation, and there is no doubt that a specific amendment like this on a particular issue overrides the Public Finance Act for that issue only. No one should pretend that that is something unusual or does not happen often. As I pick up the legislation I see, on page 14, that the Department of Conservation had $44.988 million worth of expenditure validated in this way, and the Inland Revenue Department had $123.897 million worth of expenditure validated in this way. I emphasise that the expenditure in respect of education would not normally result in extra expenditure like those examples did.
In my concluding comments I will say to some of the smaller parties in the Chamber that I appreciate people who come to these things with an open mind. I appreciate Catherine Delahunty, who did things very quickly. But I especially appreciate the work that Sir Roger Douglas has done on this matter. Sir Roger Douglas and I very rarely agree on anything controversial. It is not often these days, to use the old expression, that we go in the lobbies together, but I can say that he can work out pretty quickly that something is silly in respect of a Government organisation. He can work out when money meant to be spent in one particular area is being spent on the wrong thing. I appreciate the ACT Party support for this amendment. It is something that we have worked through. Sir Roger Douglas helped to get the wording right so that it met his bill and did the right thing.
I say to the Māori Party that I am very, very disappointed. Kaikorai Valley College is a mid-decile school, which for Dunedin is relatively low. It sits in the poorest part of Dunedin.
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): In speaking to Part 2 of the Education Amendment Bill I will highlight the transitional provision in relation to police vetting. The Education and Science Committee spent some time, as I understand it, considering the matter of police vetting. There is a provision in Part 1, new section 78CB(2), that states: “The board of a State school, or the management of a school registered under section 35A, that is required … to obtain a Police vet of a person must apply for the vet no later than 2 weeks after the person begins work at the school.” That amendment to the Act came about as a recommendation from the Education and Science Committee. Its members had determined that the previous amount of time was too long and it needed to be shortened so that a police vet would occur within at least 2 weeks of non-teaching staff starting work, and that has been incorporated in the legislation.
Part 2 contains a transitional provision, and I would be interested to know from the Minister of Education what kinds of provisions will be put in place to allow this clause to be implemented. Clause 76, “Transitional provision in relation to Police”, states: “the board of a State school, or the management of a school registered under section 35A, or a service provider of a licensed early childhood service (as the case may be) must, within 4 weeks after the date on which this Act comes into force, apply for a Police vet of any person in respect of whom—(a) a Police vet is required … and (b) no Police vet has been obtained within a period of 3 years immediately before the commencement of this Act,”. In other words, it is a tidying-up clause that requires schools to initiate the process of police vetting within a period of 4 weeks after the date on which this legislation comes into force.
The question I have for the Minister of Education is: what consideration has been given to the communication strategy that is required in order for this to happen? Clearly the Ministry of Education, I presume, will be communicating with every school immediately after the passage of this legislation. This legislation will pass in due course because Labour is supporting it, despite our disappointment at the non-inclusion of some clauses that we were particularly keen on. However, it will pass, and I trust that there will be some communication to the schools and institutions that draws their attention, with some sense of immediacy, to the need to apply for a police vet of any person, particularly where no police vet has been obtained within a period of 3 years immediately before the commencement of the Act. So these are tidying-up provisions to make sure all the police vetting processes are in order.
Although I am sure the Minister can answer the question quite readily, this is still an important consideration, and it is one of those parts of legislation that sometimes do not receive a lot of attention but for the assiduousness of officials, who are obliged to draw this to the attention of schools. Obviously in this instance a vet is not an animal doctor, nor is it even an animal doctor who looks after police dogs, but it is a process of scrutiny and assessment of the fitness of people—teaching and non-teaching staff—who have access to children in our schools and early childhood education centres.
Nothing could be more important than the fitness of both teaching and non-teaching staff to be in contact with children right up to the age of exit from secondary school, in a teaching or non-teaching capacity. So the transitional provision requires some assiduous application of the ministry to advertise this provision to schools in order that they comply. In fact, the Education and Science Committee thought this was so important that it reduced the time from the 8 weeks that was in the legislation in its first iteration to 4 weeks. That requires even speedier compliance than was originally envisaged by the Minister. I presume from the Minister’s nodding a moment ago that she is very much in favour of this shortened time frame. I assume that her instruction will be very clear to officials to ensure that not only are the usual communication channels followed—the gazetting and things of that sort—but also there might even be additional communication to principals and boards of trustees that this requirement needs to be complied with within 4 weeks. That is a reasonably short order, but it is one of the essential components if we are to keep our learning institutions—our early childhood education centres and our primary and secondary schools—safe for the children who attend them.
The shortening of the period contained in this transitional provision is a good move by the Education and Science Committee. Obviously it has perceived the urgency of this provision, and the urgency of the issue behind it. There is nothing more important than the safety of the children in our schools and early childhood education centres, and the process of establishing the fitness of people who come into contact with them—not simply teaching staff but also non-teaching staff—must be paramount. So the process that determines the fitness of those people needs to be enacted, it needs to be complied with, and it needs to be satisfied in every letter and every respect.
The transitional provision in relation to police vetting is an essential part of Part 2. My colleagues may well speak to other parts of Part 2, but it seems to me that it is appropriate to draw the attention of the Committee to the importance of even a simple transitional provision. It is something that every principal of every school and every chair of every board of trustees needs to know about so that they can ensure compliance within the shortened time frame. As I say, Labour supports having a shortened time frame for this compliance period, and supports this transitional provision, not only for its mechanics but, obviously, for its greater import and purpose in protecting the safety of children in our schools.
I support these provisions, together with the provisions of Part 1, which deal not only with the appropriateness of teaching staff but the police vetting of non-teaching and unregistered employees, and the police vetting of contractors and their employees. Thank you.
SUE MORONEY (Labour): As a member of the Education and Science Committee, which considered the Education Amendment Bill, I will rise and speak to Part 2. Because it is now some time since the select committee considered the wording in this legislation, a lot has happened since then, and I wonder whether committee members may have had some different views if we had known then what we know now.
Part 2 requires early childhood education centres to have some additional costs put on them for going through some vetting procedures, and to do those procedures, as my colleague Maryan Street just said, in a truncated period of time compared with what the original legislation said. Of course, at the foremost of the minds of select committee members at the time, when we wanted that time period truncated, was the safety of children, which is as it should have been. We wanted to make sure that there were as few loopholes as possible. But that was before we learnt that there were to be Budget cuts for the early childhood education sector. I think that now, on reflection, as I look at this entire bill, and in particular at Part 2, the costs that are contained in there for the sector were not a major concern for committee members at the time, because we believed then that the Government would not tamper with early childhood education funding. We believed that the funding was in place because the Government had promised that. National had promised it before the election and we had no reason to doubt that, but this week we suddenly learnt that the early childhood education sector is costing too much. Suddenly the Government has decided, just this week, that the early childhood education sector is costing too much and that funding must be cut from the sector.
In Part 2, the sector is required to undertake police vetting procedures that it has not been required to undertake up until this point. The timing of that will be incredibly important because Part 2 concerns the transitional provisions, and because we do not know when this legislation will come into effect—it commences on the day after it receives the Royal assent, so there is no named date in the bill—we do not know whether its enactment will occur before the Budget. It is unlikely to be enacted before that. It could be, but the transitional provisions are likely to be set in place and be requirements for the early childhood education sector following the Budget. We do not know, because the Government will not say, what cuts-to-funding situation the sector will be placed in by then. As a member of the select committee, I find myself in a very difficult position: I am supporting this legislation because that is the right thing to do for the safety of our children, but I am now very, very worried about the sector’s capability to put these measures into place—to go through these police vetting processes, and to make sure that that is done thoroughly and property—because I do not know, and neither does the sector, the level of the funding cuts that it is facing in the Budget coming up on 20 May.
Here we are today, in the Committee stage, debating with a new piece of information. When we were debating in the Committee stage last week I felt less worried about the funding position of the sector than I do this week. I do not know when we will be debating this bill’s third reading, but I wonder what on earth we will be facing then. What situation will the sector be in? Where will its capability be to deliver what we supported in good faith in the select committee and what the submitters told us about in good faith? The submitters wanted these changes to be put in place, as well, but they did not know—and neither did we on the select committee—about the plans that the Government had for cutting funding to the sector. The reason we did not know about those plans is that National had promised that it would not tamper with early childhood education. It said that it would keep the same level of subsidies and it would keep the same fee controls in place. It promised that before the election, but now those promises look shallow. They are ringing completely hollow. Now, all the Government can do is talk about how much it will cost it to support children through early childhood education. Well, for goodness’ sake. When the Government keeps saying that it wants to improve participation and have more children in early childhood education, of course the cost will be larger.
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): I will follow on from what my colleague Sue Moroney has been saying about police vetting, and about the need for support for principals and boards of trustees within schools to go through that process. It is quite a simple process, really, when we think about it, but unfortunately in schools many school leaders have been trained purely as teachers. They used to get very little training in the art and skills of being a principal, let alone training in the sort of legal stuff that principals now have to do. So there is a real gap in the knowledge of many principals between the art of leading the school in terms of the curriculum, and administrative work, much of which is based around legal needs.
The process of a police vet is quite simple; it is a matter of filling in a form and posting it off. But that and all the other requirements that principals have when they employ staff build up for principals, and often they do not do administrative tasks in the timely manner that they should. I support the fact that the time frame to apply for a police vet has been shortened from 8 weeks to 4 weeks. I think it could be done even faster. However, one of the problems of having a limit of 4 weeks in which the police vet is to be applied for is that there is a time period when a person is allowed to work in a school but when we are unsure whether the person has a criminal background. The application has to be filled out within 4 weeks, yet there is another 4 or 5-week lag in receiving the police vet back. It could mean that a teacher has been working in the school for close to a term, or for a quarter of a school year, without the school knowing the status of the teacher’s criminal history—hopefully the teacher would not have a criminal history—so there is that danger.
Going along the same lines of principals not having the legal background and training to allow them to follow the processes, I will flick back to the first part of the bill that talks about what happens when a police vet is returned. I am talking about section 319FA, inserted by clause 70, which states that principals “(b) must not take any adverse action in relation to a person who is the subject of a Police vet until—(i) the person has validated the information contained in the vet;”. This is really important, but quite often, because of our lack of legal knowledge as principals—
Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is very interesting, but we are on Part 2. I thought that was what the member was talking about, but he is still on Part 1.
Hon Trevor Mallard: There are, of course, the transition provisions that relate to this and they are in clause 76, which is in Part 2.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think the Minister has a point. The member should draw into Part 2, and make his speech relevant.
KELVIN DAVIS: Clause 76, in Part 2, talks about police vetting and I was referring to the process that principals follow, and the need for support for principals in this whole process of police vetting. Quite often they can react hastily to the results of a police vet, without a person having an opportunity to validate the vet. It needs to be drawn to the Committee’s attention that principals need a lot of support with the police vet process. As I said earlier, it is a legal process and we risk personal grievances being taken because principals inadvertently react too soon or too hastily to the results of a police vet.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 99 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert new clause 78A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 57
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1.
Noes 63
New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 112
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1.
Noes 8
Green Party 8.
Part 2 agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I know this is a relatively narrow debate. Clauses 1 and 2 relate to the title and commencement date of the Education Amendment Bill. As we consider these clauses, it is important that we consider the title of the legislation, which is the Education Amendment Act 2009. I wonder about the habit of this Committee in relation to truth in legislation. I know that the ACT Party is very much for truth in legislation, but unfortunately we have a bill whose title clause says it will be the Education Amendment Act 2009. I am not sure whether there is a proposal on the part of the Minister of Education—I have looked on the Table and I have found no amendment from the Minister—to amend the title of the bill to the “Education Amendment Act 2010”.
It is worth focusing a little on what has happened here. I think the process at the Education and Science Committee was very good. I say to Allan Peachey that I thought he chaired the select committee well in its consideration of this bill. He got it through that committee in good time. If his work was appreciated even a little bit—well, if his work was appreciated, then he would be the Minister of Education—then I think the bill would have come back to the House and been passed through its remaining stages, and we would have been able to have an Education Amendment Act 2009, but unfortunately it is now 2010.
The other point I make to the senior Government whip is that this bill could have gone through its Committee stage in about 10 minutes. We moved a number of amendments in order to filibuster it. We hoped that the Minister would consider a particular issue and change her mind on it. We have debated Part 2 across some hours in the hope that the Māori Party would focus on it. But a large amount of parliamentary time has been used on a bill that, I think it is fair to say, everyone who understands it and who has considered it carefully, other than the Green Party, is voting for. The bill would have gone through quite quickly and would still have been entitled the Education Amendment Act 2009, as the title clause indicates.
I do not think there is much argument around the commencement date. The legislation comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. I would be interested, though, in the Minister’s view of the title. Does she propose to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to correct the title of the bill?
Chris Tremain: Probably not.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: She does not? She does not intend to correct it. I have got into a little trouble before for using the word “fib” in the Chamber and associating it with a Minister, but I think—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Do not go there.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, I am not. But I should say that the House as a whole should not—
Hon Darren Hughes: Committee.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, the bill will go back to the House; the Committee will report to the House. We should not be passing a bill that contains an untruth right in the very first or second line. I think that a few things in the bill could have been improved—
Hon Darren Hughes: Has she signed it?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Probably 37 times.
Hon Darren Hughes: She signed every line.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, we have certainly seen one paper that was like that. I say to my colleague that we wondered why there had been a slight accumulation of paper in the Minister’s office. But now we have seen the results of the Official Information Act request. We see that time after time, even on the same page, this Minister feels an obligation to—in very careful, childish script—sign her name. I presume that it is not a stamp. It might be a stamp; Mike Moore had a stamp. Mike Moore had a stamp that might have been appropriate. I am not absolutely certain whether I can share with members the total detail of that stamp, but I think, Mr Chairman, that as an agricultural gentleman you would appreciate that Mr Moore used a word that was associated with the bovine species. When he received paper from either officials or his caucus colleagues that he disagreed with—
Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This member is a longstanding member of the House. He began his speech by saying that the debate on the title was a narrow debate, but now he is going on about bovine species, which has nothing to with the title of the bill. I ask you to bring him to order so that we can get on with this particular debate, please.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I just clarify for members that it is in order to say that the bill contains an inaccuracy. To go into matters of bovine species, or to indicate fibs or anything else of that nature, is quite out of order. I ask the member to continue.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: On that point, I think the Mayor of Invercargill wrote a book—
Chris Hipkins: That’s right, he did.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: He did. He wrote a book. Jellybeans was the second part of its title—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I asked the member to direct his comments towards what is a very tight debate on clauses 1 and 2. I do not think that we need to include the Mayor of Invercargill, fine gentleman though he is.
Hon Darren Hughes: What about the next mayor—will the next mayor write a book?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, she sang a song. I am beginning to wonder, as my colleagues get ready to assist me in this—Mr Hipkins—whether the senior Government whip would have preferred to seek leave to raise the House a little earlier.
I am making a point, and it is a relatively easy point. I would like an assurance that the Minister will take a call on this matter, sort it out, and indicate whether she intends to get the bill cleaned up so that it reflects the truth and is accurate, and so that her lack of diligence in getting this bill through can be corrected in at least a minor way, in order to indicate to the Committee that this legislation is current. If she does not do it, then I am sure that eventually the Clerk’s Office will come along behind her. I am sure that it will sweep up after her, clean up after her, clean the streets, and tidy things up in the way that it normally does for a Minister who makes a mess of things in a bill. It will probably be regarded as a minor technical amendment of the sort that the Clerk’s Office is allowed to correct, maybe with another printing of the bill before the third reading. I think, even if it went through its third reading in its current form, it would be one of those areas where it would be allowable for the Clerk’s Office to change the year, but I am not sure.
Therefore, it is important that we have some assurance from the Minister that the date in the title clause, “This Act is the Education Amendment Act 2009.”, will be corrected in some way. At the moment, it is inaccurate. It cannot possibly be the Education Amendment Act 2009; it can be the Education Amendment Act 2010. It is a relatively easy matter; one would have thought that the Minister could answer it. She could have put a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table. She has indicated that she does not want to take a call on the matter. I would much prefer her to take a call and clarify it. Then we could move on to clause 2, the commencement clause.
I ask the Chairman whether we are debating the two clauses together. We are; that is good. In the next set of calls, I am sure I will be able to get on to that clause. But as she is not taking a call, there continues to be a question. If it is to be the Education Amendment Act 2010, will it be the Education Amendment Act 2010 (No 1)? I understand there is to be another Education Amendment Act 2010. Or is it her intention, when that legislation comes in, to give the subsequent legislation a different name? Will it be called the “Undoing of Zoning Act” or the “Operational Funding for Taking the Top 5 Percent and the Bottom 25 Percent of Kids from School to School Act? Will it be the “Education (Introduction of Vouchers) Amendment Act”? There could be a number of areas.
Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have made the point to that member a number of times. He is a very experienced member of the House. This bill has nothing in it about vouchers or zoning. We are debating the first two clauses: the title and the commencement.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The point is upheld. The member should refer to clauses 1 and 2 of this bill.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am. As I do so, I wonder whether my colleagues are drafting amendments to the bill that make that clear. For example, it could be called the “Education (This Has Nothing to Do with the Introduction of Vouchers) Amendment Bill 2010”.
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to take a call on the Education Amendment Bill 2009, but I am disappointed that the Minister has not risen to her feet to respond to the very legitimate concerns that my colleague Trevor Mallard has raised with regard to the title of the bill. In fact, I look across the Chamber to Mr Allan Peachey, and I am sure that had he been sitting in the chair as the Minister, he would have taken a call and clarified this issue. He would not have let this sloppy process continue: the process of passing an amendment bill dated 2009, despite the fact that we are now nearly through the fourth month of the year, nearly one-third of the way through 2010. I do not think that Allan Peachey would have let the Government get away with that. I think he would have had much higher standards than that. Certainly, that is the feedback I have had from my colleagues who sit on the Education and Science Committee.
I refer in particular to Standing Order 307, “Verbal or formal amendments”, which states: “In preparing the bill for the Royal assent”—which comes under clause 2, the clause stating that this bill will come into force once it has received the Royal assent—“amendments of a verbal or formal nature may be made and clerical or typographical errors may be corrected in any part of the bill by the Clerk.” Would this particular problem that we have raised be a clerical or typographical error, given that it has been brought to the attention of the Committee prior to a vote being taken on clauses 1 and 2? Could the error be regarded as clerical, or simply as a minor or typographical error, if the Committee already knew about it when it voted on it? The issue that my colleague has raised is quite significant.
Is the title appropriate? What would the consequences be if this bill’s title were to be changed to the Education Amendment Bill 2010 only after the Committee had voted on it, knowing that it was voting on something that was not, strictly speaking, correct? Would there be consequences for somebody who then changed that, arguing that the error was clerical or typographical, if in fact, the Committee had known about that problem when it voted on it? There could be some reasonably significant issues with that, so I think it is a shame that the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Education, has not taken the opportunities there. It would be a relatively small amendment. In fact, I could probably talk for the length of time it would take her to handwrite an amendment that we could then vote on; I am happy to keep going in order to give her the time to write an amendment. It will not take her very long—well, it might take her a while, actually. Trevor Mallard has done it, so in fact we can vote on an amendment to change this legislation to the Education Amendment Bill 2010, which would be a very sensible thing to do. We are from the Opposition and we are here to help.
It would be very unwise for this House to go ahead and pass legislation with factual inaccuracies in it right from the very beginning. We are talking about the very first line of the bill. I have to speak for a few more minutes, because Trevor Mallard apparently has to produce six copies of the amendment before we are allowed to vote on it. I will do my best.
I will give it a go by going back to the issue of the Royal assent. The commencement clause states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” Commencement dates are discussed by select committees quite a lot. I have been involved in all sorts of discussions about when it is appropriate for law to come into effect. The Regulations Review Committee has produced an entire report on that very issue, on the dates when legislation should come into effect. The Regulations Review Committee has made recommendations about making sure that the date when the bill can come into effect is clear within the bill. Of course there is a particular clause relating to a king—I cannot remember which one it was—
Hon Darren Hughes: King James?
CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I do not think it is the King James clause. I cannot remember which king it was, but, basically, the provision says that we should not, where possible, write into the commencement clause of a bill that the bill can come into force on ministerial prerogative, or that there should be some discretion in there. Parliament, ultimately—
Hon Darren Hughes: Is it the Annette King clause?
CHRIS HIPKINS: My colleague is asking whether it is the Annette King clause. I am not sure. I do not want to speculate on that too much; that could be career-limiting for me.
Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I bring to your attention Standing Order 107(2), which brings into light “the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition either of the member’s own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate,”. I think we have been through this issue over and over again. It is out of order, I believe. I ask you to stop this member and ask him to desist from doing that.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I was out of the Chamber for about a minute and a half doing some photocopying, but I think we are on only the third call of what is an important issue. I am sorry; I see that Mr Chairman is motioning that we are on the fourth call of an important issue. There really needed to be only one call. If there was an indication that the amendment had been accepted, I am sure we would have had only four or five more calls in order to get through into the next day. I know there is a lot of debate here. I wonder, as we have had no reply from the Minister, what we will do after this—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, no. That is not part of the point of order that I was hearing the member speak on.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, I—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I ask the member to sit down, please. I am going to overrule the point of order that was raised on this occasion.
CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe that I am the first member in this part of the debate to talk about the commencement, the importance of the commencement date, some of the considerations around it, and alternative commencement dates.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I move that the Speaker be recalled in order to rule on the question of whether the change of date is a clerical error that can be corrected by the Clerk’s Office, or whether an amendment is necessary.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well, the member has moved that motion, and I am bound to do that. But the member has not asked the Chair for a ruling on that.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I apologise for being premature.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): So what are you intending to do?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The question on which I would like you to rule is whether the changing of the date is a matter of clerical, or administrative, or—I forget the wording under Standing Order 307.
Chris Hipkins: Clerical or typographical.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes; whether it is clerical or typographical and can be corrected. I am working on the assumption that it is not. But I would like your opinion and then we can see.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am happy to say this is not a matter upon which the Chair would normally rule. A bill normally reflects the date of introduction. It is not unusual for a bill to go through its passage and on to the Committee stage while still retaining a date that may be from a previous year—that is not unusual. Standing Order 307 does have that provision, as Mr Hipkins said, and that is when those anomalies are clarified—when the bill is printed. Does the member still want to recall the Speaker?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. None of us is suggesting that the bill should have been reprinted at this point. I think the question is whether it is automatic as we move to the third reading that we will get a reprint of the bill with the 2010 date in it at that stage, or whether there is the power in the Clerk’s Office to amend the bill on the way to the Royal assent. The Minister has nodded her head at both, and if we had a ruling from someone that that was going to occur, we would have finished here about 25 minutes ago, I think. My question is: is it an automatic process—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Let me respond. It is a normal practice, a standard feature of a bill, that normally it is adjusted when the bill is sent for Royal assent. That is the normal process.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Hon Trevor Mallard signalled to you about a motion of recall. Could you could advise the Committee at what point in this debate on the title and commencement clauses—which could have been finished a long time ago; I have come down to the House and I am surprised we are still on this, as it should be completed by now—the Minister is able to clear up the whole thing by putting forward an amendment that would guillotine the need for Mr Mallard’s motion? It seems to me that she could stand up and take a 10-second call and say that that is her intention, so at what point do we trigger a situation where the Minister is not able to do that and where Mr Mallard’s motion would stand?
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have been at pains to point out that this is a normal procedure. The process we are involved in happens not infrequently. Bills are corrected typographically and in every respect before they receive the Royal assent. That is the normal procedure.
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.
Noes 52
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1.
Motion agreed to.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know that I will be testing you a little bit here—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, it looks like it!
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: —but I have a very quick question I would like you to answer. Were there any other amendments to the bill? I am asking whether the passing of my amendment would require an extra printing of the bill. I would be slightly anxious about incurring any cost to the Crown in that way.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): If there are no amendments to the bill, it will not be reprinted. If any amendments are passed, the bill will be reprinted.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Further to that, can we have an indication about whether the—what is it called—the pre - Royal assent amendment will be done before or after the third reading?
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): My understanding is that if this amendment in your name is passed, the bill will be reprinted before the third reading.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Sorry; that was not the question. It was the other way round—whether the typographical error, if it is an error, can be corrected before the third reading.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am advised that it is after the third reading.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not sure now whether I need to seek the leave of the Committee—I certainly do not want to put the Crown to the expense of reprinting this—to withdraw my amendment.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): The point that I think has been missed is that the bill has been going through the Committee stage for some weeks, and it is a question of whether there were any amendments to Part 1 or Part 2 of this particular bill. I am not sure whether there were any Minister’s amendments or amendments from the Opposition that affected Part 1 or Part 2.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): There were none.
Hon DARREN HUGHES: So the bill is as it stands. So Mr Mallard can withdraw the amendment?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The question I have is this: do I have the right to withdraw it or do I need to seek leave?
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): You need to seek leave.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I seek leave to withdraw my amendment in order to not put the Crown to cost.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. The amendment in that member’s name is withdrawn, and the time has come for me to report progress.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You are in the middle of a closure motion. I think you have to put a vote.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We have completed the vote on the closure motion, but we have not commenced the next vote. I have to put the question on clause 1, then on clause 2.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 112
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1.
Noes 8
Green Party 8.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With the time now being after 5 to 6, are you not required to report progress to the House?
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, once the voting has been commenced it has to be concluded.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 stand part.
Ayes 112
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1.
Noes 8
Green Party 8.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report adopted.
The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.