Tuesday, 18 May 2010

Tuesday, 18 May 2010

Tuesday, 18 May 2010

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Motions

Department of Corrections—Death of Corrections Officer Jason Palmer

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the recent death of corrections officer Jason Palmer.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is none.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I move, That this House express its deep sympathy and condolences to the wife, family, friends, and colleagues of Spring Hill Corrections Officer Jason Palmer, who died on Sunday as a result of an assault by a prisoner. This assault happened on Saturday as Jason and two colleagues were unlocking the prisoner. The prisoner punched Jason in the face and he fell, hitting the concrete floor. Jason was taken to hospital, but the consequences of the assault were ultimately fatal, and on Sunday Jason’s life support was turned off.

Jason started working at the prison in November last year, having previously served as a marine in the United States. Jason was held in high regard by his fellow officers. He was known as an ambitious officer who was keen to learn. Jason was considered by his colleagues to have a high level of personal integrity and had a reputation for being firm but fair with the prisoners whom he managed. The work that corrections staff do, on behalf of all of us, is critical to public safety. However, the work, by virtue of its nature, can sometimes be dangerous, and Jason’s death is a grim reminder of the risks that corrections staff face every day as they fulfil their duties. Our thoughts now go out to his wife, Tracy, their two young children, Abbey and Riley, and the rest of Jason’s family, as they deal with their devastating loss. Once again, I would like to sincerely express the House’s sorrow and extend our deepest condolences to Jason’s family, friends, and colleagues.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): The Labour Party joins with the Government in conveying condolences to the family of Jason Palmer. Our hearts go out to Mr Palmer’s wife, Tracy; his two children, Riley and Abbey; his mother, Ada; his extended family; and his fellow corrections officers.

Jason Palmer, beloved father, husband, son, corrections officer, and public servant, was, tragically, the first prison officer to be killed in the line of duty. He was a man who committed himself, I am told, firstly, to serving his country of birth, the United States, as a marine for 4 years, and, latterly, his adopted home of New Zealand, where he lived for the last 8 years and worked as a corrections officer for the last 6 months.

Along with his corrections colleagues Jason did a job that few of us in this country could do or would want to do—securing some of the most vile and violent criminals, and, in doing so, protecting our community. There are many unanswered questions in respect of this tragedy. How did it happen? Was it avoidable? What pressures have been put on corrections staff? Were warnings heeded? Who is accountable? Should there be an independent inquiry? But they are questions for another day. For now, our thoughts and prayers are rightly with Jason’s family. For now, we honour the memory of a true public servant. Jason has been described as a dedicated family man. His brother, Justin, has said that Jason would make people laugh even during a very dark time.

I join with others who say that our corrections staff do a superb job. I have had the privilege of visiting all but two prisons in our country. I was at Spring Hill Corrections Facility only a matter of weeks ago. It takes a tonne of guts, in my view, to walk amongst a pod of violent offenders, many of whom are gang members, with only one’s cotton shirt to protect oneself from immediate danger. Our prison officers, like Jason Palmer, deal with the ugly side of human nature day after day, and they still maintain their high standards of professionalism at work and a normal life at home. The fact that they can do that says a lot about them.

At this time I am mindful of some words penned by a Florida-based corrections officer of 21 years of experience, Larry Peoples, entitled “Correctional Officer’s Prayer”. The following words I think would seem very apt at this sad time:

“Lord, when it is time to go inside,

That place of steel and stone,

I pray that you will keep me safe,

So I won’t walk alone.

Help me to do my duty,

Please watch me on my rounds,

Amongst those perilous places,

And slamming steel door sounds.

God, Keep my fellow Officers,

Well and free from harm.

Let them know I’ll be there too,

Whenever there’s alarm.

Above all when I walk my beat,

No matter where I roam,

Let me go back whence I came,

To family and home.

Tragically, Jason Palmer will not return to his family or to his home, but he will always be remembered as a loving father and husband, a dedicated public servant, a professional corrections officer, a work colleague, and a good mate. He will be remembered as a man who, throughout his life, did not shy away from danger or cower to fear, but, instead, stared each down and did his duty, and did his job; an ordinary bloke who did extraordinary things.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): On behalf of the Green Party, I add our heartfelt sympathies and condolences to the family and friends of Jason Palmer. Losing a loved one is devastating, especially when it means losing someone so young, with a family and children who needed him. The tragic circumstance of this death can only make it harder. Our thoughts are with the family now.

We in the Greens offer our gratitude to New Zealand’s hard-working corrections officers for the difficult and important job that they do in an increasingly dangerous environment. We know that they will be suffering deeply from the loss of a colleague. We offer them our condolences and support at this terrible time. We hope that everything possible will be done to stop any further tragedies like this one from happening again. We send a tribute to Jason Palmer and his family. We acknowledge him and his work. On behalf of the Green Party, I thank all corrections officers for the hard and difficult job that they do.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): On behalf of the ACT Party I express our sorrow at the death of officer Jason Palmer and send our sincere condolences to his family, particularly to his wife, Tracy, and his two young children, Riley and Abbey, who have now lost a loving and loved father in the most tragic of circumstances.

As an earlier speaker has said, Mr Palmer died performing his duty, doing a job that few in New Zealand have the courage to do in dealing with some of the most unsavoury and dangerous elements in our society. As earlier speakers have noted, Mr Palmer served two countries. His country of birth was the United States, where he did military service in the Marine Corps for 4 years, but for the last 8 years he has called New Zealand his home with his wife and family. We are honoured to have a man who served two countries so well as one of our citizens.

It is important to remember that even after society has rendered its verdict on a criminal’s guilt, there are still those who have to remain vigilant to ensure that those dangerous criminals stay segregated from society. In a very real way, Jason and every one of our corrections officers are serving the rest of us, just as our soldiers do in Afghanistan. In fact, they are serving us more closely in protecting us from the bad guys here at home. We in the ACT Party thank him for his service and his ultimate sacrifice, and we offer our support and our condolence to his family and his friends. Thank you.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Māori Party to mark the passing of corrections officer Jason Palmer, who was tragically killed last weekend while on duty at Spring Hill prison. As I do so, my thoughts are also with the students from King’s College who are today dealing with the death of a third student since February. We think of those young students, who are reeling from the shock of losing a friend well before his time. I also acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell’s family, who has lost a niece, and my own family, who have a mate at home.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge Jason’s work colleagues, who are still required to go about their duties. Prisons never stop, despite having to come to terms with what has happened and to deal with the great loss they must feel. The importance of their role in helping to keep our communities safe is often overlooked until something like this, some tragedy, happens. We pause for a moment to reflect on the appreciation that we owe to all those who choose to work on behalf of the Government who are sometimes placing themselves in sight of danger. This House has paid its respects on many occasions to those in the armed forces and the police force, and today, sadly, we pay our respects to the Department of Corrections, which joins that tragic roll of honour.

Jason had his life ahead of him. By all accounts, he could have gone far in corrections. He was known as an officer who was keen to learn. He was a professional and carried himself as such. Jason was held in high regard by his fellow officers for his personal integrity. He wanted to be the best that he could be. Sadly, this attack put paid to Jason’s ambitions and robbed corrections of a valued officer. This is a tragic waste of life.

Some real issues emerge out of this tragic incident, related to the protection of corrections staff and to the concerns that always appear at a time like this regarding the appropriate location and supervision of inmates. I am sure those issues will be addressed for the protection of all those who inhabit our prisons and also, importantly, for Jason’s family. Today they grieve for the loss of a cherished son, brother, father, and husband, but today is not the time to debate the whys and what fors; it is a time for tears, regret, and tributes to be heard.

Anyone who listened to National Radio this morning would have heard the aching despair of a mother mourning her son. In an interview, Ada Palmer referred to her daughter-in-law as a princess who represented the courage and generosity of the New Zealand spirit in allowing this son of American soil to be returned home. Our thoughts are of these two women bound inextricably in grief, of their children, and of all families today who are suffering the loss of dearly loved sons. We extend our love and our sincere sympathy at such a difficult time.

Nā reira, koutou ngā mate, haere, haere ki te okioki i roto i te Kaihanga, hei aha? Hei whāriki mā mātou; nā reira, koutou ki a koutou, haere, haere, haere. Kia ora.

[So I say unto you, the dead, depart, go forth, and rest there in the realm of the Creator, and for what purpose? To become a mat for us. So remain there among your own, oh dead. Depart, farewell, journey on. You are acknowledged collectively.]

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): On behalf of United Future, I join with others in paying tribute to the life of corrections officer Jason Palmer, who was so tragically killed at the weekend in the course of his duty. Every day, across this country, mothers and fathers go out to work. They say goodbye to their children as they leave for what they imagine to be an uneventful day before they return home in the evening to share the ups and downs of that day with their family. I imagine a similar scene took place in the Palmer household last Saturday, as it had on many other occasions. They never considered for a moment that that would be the last such occasion. That is the brutality of what happened. That is the shock and disruption that it has caused to that young family, and why our hearts must go out to them in this hour of great loss. Our sympathy and encouragement is with them for the future.

This is not the time to intrude upon that family’s grief by making political statements. This is not the time to try to turn the life of Jason Palmer into a cause for something else. We need to respect this man for what he achieved, and for the dedication and commitment that he showed to this country, to the country of his birth, to his family, and to his career. We need to acknowledge afresh the contribution made by those who serve in all our official services to protect our safety, and the risks that they take day in, day out. If we take a lesson from this, it must be one of eternal vigilance, of the need to ensure that those whom we expect to do those jobs day in, day out can, as I said before, say goodbye to their families in the morning and come home safely at night.

I put on record my tribute to Jason Palmer for what he achieved. I express my condolences and deep personal sympathy to his family—his wife, children, and extended family abroad—and express the hope that they will take some solace from the support shown to them by others around their community and country, and by this House this afternoon.

Motion agreed to.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister—Statements

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements as Prime Minister; if so, why?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; because I do.

Hon Phil Goff: Does he stand by his statement to Tūhoe negotiators that handing over ownership of the Ureweras to the tribe was “complex but workable”, which the negotiators are adamant he said to them in his office in March?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, because I have no recollection of saying that.

Hon Phil Goff: I am not sure whether “no recollection” is no—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Phil Goff: Was the hand-over of ownership of the Ureweras the preferred option for settling the Treaty negotiations that was passed by the Cabinet Treaty negotiations committee that he himself chaired; if not, what was the preferred option?

Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Hon Phil Goff: When—[Interruption] Mr Speaker, when they have finished braying I will ask my question.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition should not say that, but the interjections were a little unnecessary.

Hon Phil Goff: When did Tariana Turia indicate to him that she was, in his words, “totally fine” about his decision on the Tūhoe negotiations?

Hon JOHN KEY: When I had a discussion with Tariana Turia on the Sunday night and gave her the decision that we had taken in relation to Tūhoe, she was respectful in the conversation we had. She made it absolutely clear that she was not happy with the decision, but, unlike the case with the Leader of the Opposition, when one has a conversation with Tariana Turia one does not think that a cardiac arrest is about to follow.

Hon Phil Goff: Does he stand by his statement last month on Radio New Zealand National that “The 20 free hours early education policy won’t be changed.”, and his earlier pledge that National would enhance 20 hours early childhood education and keep existing subsidies?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes and yes, and I cannot wait for it all to be unveiled in the Budget on Thursday.

Hon Jim Anderton: Does the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I say to Government backbenchers on this occasion that the Hon Jim Anderton had hardly uttered a word, and interjections were unreasonable at that point.

Hon Jim Anderton: Does the Prime Minister recall saying in a radio interview yesterday that he did not agree with the proposal from the Cabinet Treaty negotiations committee, which he chairs, to gift the Urewera National Park to the Tūhoe iwi; if so, did he approve the item going on the Cabinet agenda, and then, without any further consultation with Treaty committee members, remove it from the Cabinet agenda and unilaterally decide to cancel that recommendation, again without consultation; if so, how would he describe that process for balanced and informed Cabinet decision-making?

Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to those four questions: yes, no, no, and no. If the member is to do better in seeking the Christchurch mayoralty, he will have to explain things a bit more simply to the people of Christchurch.

Mr SPEAKER: I call Metiria Turei. [Interruption] I apologise to the honourable member. I say to both sides of the House that I understand that the issue will arouse passion, and I am not troubled by that, but I ask for a little respect to the member whom I have called.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement reported today that New Zealanders should not be envious that his tax cuts will deliver much more to the rich than to those who are struggling, and does he not think it is grossly insulting to make an accusation that people who care about a fair society and reducing inequalities are guilty of envy?

Hon JOHN KEY: Absolutely I stand by that statement. I point out a reasonably simple but interesting fact that I think is worthy of being mentioned in this debate: the top 10 percent of income earners pay 44 percent of all personal income tax in New Zealand. Interestingly enough, if Working for Families and other benefits, etc., are taken into account, the 10 percent of taxpayers in New Zealand who are the top earners actually pay 76 percent of all net personal tax.

Hon Phil Goff: Does he stand by his promise, and I quote: “National will not be increasing GST.”?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I do, in relation to the question I was asked at the time.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister understand that the top 10 percent of income earners pay only 4 percent of their income in GST, whereas the lowest 10 percent pay 14 percent of their income in GST, making the increase in GST hit the poorest people the hardest; if so, why does he not look at implementing the measures released yesterday by the Green Party in the Mind the Gap package; they are directly focused on reducing inequality, which is New Zealand’s most significant social and economic problem?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am not sure that I can agree with the numbers that the member put forward, but I can simply say that the advice from Treasury is that the progressivity nature of GST is about the same as that of the personal tax system. In other words, those who earn more pay more. The simple facts of life are that those who earn more income consume a lot more, and therefore nominally pay more GST.

Hon Phil Goff: In light of broken promises to Tūhoe and to the public on things like GST, does he stand by this statement of his: “One sure way of only being a one-term Government is by breaking your word, and I have no intention of breaking my word.”?

Hon JOHN KEY: Actually, I like those words. They sounded better out of my mouth than out of the Leader of the Opposition’s, but they are absolutely right. In relation to the question that he asked me, let me quote a question from Sean Plunket of Radio New Zealand National to Tāmati Kruger: “Had the Prime Minister said anything or had his office indicated anything to you that you had got through that process?”. The answer from Tāmati Kruger was “No.” You see, on this side of the House we know our positions; after 30 minutes of the Leader of the Opposition being on Q+A, I did not have a clue what his position was on anything.

Question No. 2 to Minister

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I seek leave to save the House’s time by tabling the supplementary questions and answers for question No. 2.

Mr SPEAKER: The member can seek leave for all sorts of courses of action, but I am not sure how that one is possible.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have been gifted the questions and the Minister’s answers in advance—

Mr SPEAKER: OK, the member has made it clear. [Interruption] I am on my feet, and I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith that when the Speaker is on his feet there will be no further interjection. The House is being very unruly. A member has sought leave to table certain documents. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. Question No. 2.

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

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Leave was granted in order that the House may save some time. So we can move on to question No. 3.

Mr SPEAKER: Is leave sought to move to question No. 3? [Interruption] Unfortunately, I put to the House the request for leave for the documents to be tabled; I had not heard that the member had included in that course of action that the House should move to question No. 3.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Might it assist the House if I were to put the second part of that leave motion again separately for the House’s consideration?

Mr SPEAKER: The member may do that.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I again seek leave for the House, in order to save time, now that we have tabled the answers the Minister was about to give, to move directly to question No. 3.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. I call question No. 2, Craig Foss. [Interruption] I have called Craig Foss, and I would ask this—

Hon David Cunliffe: Thanks, Gerry; thanks, mate.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Hon David Cunliffe realises his crime there, and will not do it again.

Economy—Rebalancing Progress

2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on how the economy is rebalancing towards savings and away from debt?

Hon David Cunliffe: “Adjustment is necessary; it’s starting to happen.”

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Well, we have been trying to help the member, because we are quite worried about his career prospects. The Reserve Bank last week issued data on household financial assets and liabilities for 2009. It showed that households increased their financial assets, excluding housing, by $17 billion last year—the second-largest increase in the last 20 years. It also saw the debt increase by just $5 billion, the smallest increase since 2000. I tell the Opposition that this is a sharp turn-round from the deterioration that occurred under the previous Labour Government, when people saved less and borrowed more.

Craig Foss: What trends are evident in household savings and borrowing over the past 10 years; and does the Minister think that members opposite may learn something from that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Over the past 10 years, because of the economic mismanagement of that Labour Government, household borrowings in New Zealand went through the roof—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last part of Mr Foss’s supplementary question, I suggest to you, was out of order, when he asked the Minister what members opposite could learn from—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. It is up to the Speaker to determine whether the question was in order, and I say there was nothing wrong with the question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What possible responsibility could the Minister of Finance have for what members opposite think of something?

Mr SPEAKER: He was asked for an opinion, and he gets asked for an opinion every sitting day by members of the Opposition.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Clerk passes to you the intended answer to supplementary question No. 3, you will see a continuation there of the trend that has already occurred, where the Minister responds to a question from his backbench by mischaracterising the policies of the Opposition, for which he has no responsibility. You have previously warned him on that point. But it is intriguing to us to find that in direct violation of your previous ruling, not only is the Minister doing that but in fact his own officials have pre-scripted for him a—

Mr SPEAKER: I think I have heard sufficient from the member. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s answer, and if he breaches the Standing Orders I will pull him up.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Over the previous 10 years household borrowing increased significantly, and household savings dropped. The reason for that was the economic mismanagement of the previous Government. We intend to turn that round. The Reserve Bank figures produced yesterday are evidence that that turn-round is beginning.

Hon David Cunliffe: How can the Minister take credit for an increase in savings, when he is taking more out of New Zealanders’ pockets through increasing GST, increasing tax on property—which will feed through into higher rents—increasing accident compensation levies, and increasing the tax on student loans?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member should wait for the Budget to see just what is coming in and out of New Zealanders’ pockets. But I have to point out to that member that the tax revenue the Government will collect this year is unlikely to be higher than it was last year. In fact, the total amount of tax collected has been dropping, not rising—in case the member has not noticed that.

Craig Foss: How will the Budget that is to be read this week help to rebalance the economy towards savings, investments, and exports, and away from debt, property speculation, and unsustainable increases in Government spending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have explained to the House, the Government intends to do a couple of things in the Budget. One is to change the tax system, in order to undo the damage done by the previous Government; the other is to bring under control the reckless and fast rise in Government spending and debt—a legacy of the previous Government.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why does the Minister still maintain that Thursday’s Budget will make tax fairer, when today’s Dominion Post makes it clear that someone on $70,000 a year will get only 50c of tax back a week, but someone on $500,000 a year will get up to $360 a week back; and has the Dominion Post not got it right in saying this is a Budget gift for the rich?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, the Dominion Post has got it wrong, and I am not surprised at that.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Before the member continues, I ask him to resume his seat, and I say to the Hon Paula Bennett that when a point of order was clearly being heard, for her to make a loud interjection across the House was not good enough for a Minister to do. The Minister should respect the House more than that.

Hon David Cunliffe: Further to your earlier ruling, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member who interjects is not being helpful, at all. I am sure that the Minister had not realised what she was doing. I have pulled her up in a fairly pointed way, and it is very unhelpful for the member to interject further on the matter. I will leave the matter there, though. I want to hear the point of order from the Hon David Cunliffe—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do apologise, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member.

Hon David Cunliffe: Further to your earlier ruling on this question, Mr Speaker, when you said we should wait for the question before seeking a ruling, I point out that supplementary question No. 3 asks: “What alternative economic approach would jeopardise New Zealand’s prospects”, and the Minister is scripted to respond across half a dozen documents, which he says are the confused policy—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat. This is not a matter of order. I have neither heard this be question asked nor heard the Minister’s answer. The member knows that that is not a point of order.

Craig Foss: What alternative economic approach would jeopardise New Zealand’s prospects of getting on top of its debt problem?

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Coincidentally, those are exactly the words that I have just read out. I am very happy if you wish to wait to hear the Minister’s version of the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat immediately, and there will be no noise while I am dealing with this point of order. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the supplementary question asked by Craig Foss. I want to hear the Minister’s answer. The member has not raised an issue of order, at all.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen a range of propositions that are an alternative to what the Government will be proposing in the Budget: to put up personal taxes, to fiddle with the GST system, to borrow more and more money, to increase Government spending rapidly, and to meddle with the Reserve Bank’s tool kit for controlling inflation. As it happens, all of these suggestions have come from the Opposition.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has, with a little paraphrasing, essentially given the answer that he was expected to give. As you have previously ruled, Mr Speaker, he has absolutely no responsibility for the Opposition, let alone the fact that these are not the Opposition’s policies. I ask that for once and for all, faced with absolutely incontrovertible evidence, you clearly rule that the Minister, retrospectively at least, was out of order in his previous answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear what the member is saying by way of his point of order, but the interesting thing is that the Minister, in his answer, did not say those were the policies of the Opposition; he said they were all suggestions that had been made by the Opposition. He has not made the allegation that they are the Labour Party’s policies or anything like that, at all. I think that is a very—[Interruption] I am on my feet. That is a somewhat different issue, and I do not see that that was out of order.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 377(2) requires that the Minister’s answers be limited to statements of fact that are strictly necessary to answer the question, and, as we have traversed on a previous day, Speaker’s ruling 145/7 makes it very clear that the Minister can have no responsibility for the Opposition, at all, whether he speaks of policies, ideas, conceptions, whims, or any other adjective. That is ruled out by Speaker’s ruling 145/7, and, I might add, by about a dozen other Speakers’ rulings that I have raised with you previously. I would not wish to venture that one was trying to find loopholes through which the Minister could evade your ruling, but it would appear that trying to change one word and then regurgitating his misconception of the Opposition’s views is completely outside—

Mr SPEAKER: I think that the House has been sufficiently patient in listening to the point of order. The member has quoted the Standing Order strictly, but if he had listened to half of the questions asked in this House so far today, he would know that most of them did not comply with the Standing Orders. As Speaker, I cannot intervene—

Hon Members: What?

Mr SPEAKER: Some members look as though they are surprised. They need only to go back, look at the Hansard, and check some of the questions that were asked. Those questions did not comply with the Standing Orders, at all. They inserted all sorts of opinion, and I heard one question that went on with about four parts to it. But I do not intervene, because I want the House to be able to flow reasonably freely. The Minister was asked about alternative policies. He identified a range of alternative policy stances, and he then said as a throwaway line that he had heard some of those policies being suggested by the Opposition. If I were to pull up Ministers all the time when they made that kind of answer, then the House would become pretty sterile. This is, after all, a political debating chamber. If members, in asking questions, cannot cope with dealing with that kind of situation, then I think that the remedy is in their hands. I have tried to encourage members to ask very clear, concise questions. If members want to minimise the risk of having Ministers become political in their answers, then they should keep the questions clear and precise.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a fresh point of order. I understand your ruling, which is that a bit of give and take is part of the business of the House, and of course we all make jests both ways across the Chamber. But this is a more serious situation. This is Budget week. This is the middle year of a triennium, where we are expecting a substantive Budget, and the Opposition’s alternative economic policies are as much in debate as the Government’s view is. I would submit to you that a mischaracterisation by the Government of the Opposition’s policy intent in Budget week is a relatively serious matter, and that it should be treated seriously—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, come on! It happens every day.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon David Cunliffe: —under the Standing Orders, as provided for in the Speakers’ rulings and in keeping with your ruling. It is not a matter of whether the Labour Opposition has a sense of humour; those policies simply are not our policies, and it is simply not within the Minister’s rights to describe to the—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now litigating the substance of the issue. I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer. In response to the question, he identified a number of issues that he believed would put at risk the strategy that he had identified previously. I cannot now remember all four or so of the items that he mentioned, but he then said he had heard some of them being suggested by the Opposition. I do not believe that he alleged that they are Opposition policies; he did not say the finance spokesperson had made those statements. I believe that it would be a bit unreasonable if I was to try to prevent Ministers from making that kind of comment.

Accident Compensation—Minister’s Statements

3. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all his recent statements on ACC?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): Yes.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his claim on 6 May in Parliament that the College of Psychiatrists had issued a statement strongly in support of the changes that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) had made to the sensitive claims guidelines; if so, is the College of Psychiatrists not telling the truth in a letter it released on 10 May, stating that the college had not supported the new ACC pathway, and that, indeed, it had declined to release a press release in support of it? Will he now address this little inconsistency in his answer to Parliament?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I said that the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners had issued a statement that “ACC’s practice guidelines for sexual abuse and mental injury will strengthen these results still further. All the clinical evidence suggests the new approach ACC is adopting will be in the interests of the patient.” The advice I received from ACC was that the College of Psychiatrists had made statements to ACC in support of the guidelines and the change.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you do not wish to have Hansard tabled in this House. I based my question on the Minister’s answer on 6 May, in which he named the College of Psychiatrists as having issued a statement.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No.

Hon Annette King: Yes, Mr Speaker. I have the Hansard. The Minister is saying no, but I seek leave to table the Hansard.

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table the statement issued by the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners dated 2 November 2009.

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.

Lynne Pillay: Why, in the face of overwhelming opposition throughout New Zealand to the ACC-imposed clinical pathways introduced under his watch, does he not simply reinstate the previous process? Even visiting American sexual abuse expert Dr Mike Lew says that ACC’s new criteria are a “real tragedy that would cause tremendous suffering,”.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I understand that that statement was made in respect of the requirement that for a person to receive accident compensation support, he or she is required to have a diagnosed mental injury. It is a requirement of the law that Labour put in place in 2001.

Melissa Lee: Are claims that there has been a dramatic decrease in the amount ACC is spending on sensitive claims since the new guidelines came into effect correct?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, such claims are grossly misleading. The amount ACC has spent on sensitive claims for the year to date is $45.7 million, which compares with $46.7 million for the exact same period last year. The amount spent on counselling per month has been consistent over the last 3 years at $900,000. The average amount spent on sensitive claims counselling is $905,000 per month over the last 3 months.

Lynne Pillay: Does he agree that when a young woman is held at knifepoint for 15 hours and repeatedly raped it is outrageous that she should wait weeks before earnings-related accident compensation can be paid, which is what his colleague Chris Tremain told the media in 2006? How does he reconcile Mr Tremain’s outrage then with the fact that rape victims are now waiting months or indefinitely just for counselling to be approved by ACC?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The average time for processing sensitive claims at the moment, I understand, is about 20 days. That is unacceptably long. It is one of the reasons that I have established a clinical review of the management of sensitive claims. I want ACC to work with clinicians and professionals to ensure that the best possible counselling support within the law is provided to those claimants.

Hon Annette King: Why did he tell the House on 6 May when I asked him whether he had heard of a group of survivors of sexual assault called Courageous Women, who are challenging the changes to accident compensation guidelines, that “I’ve heard of the group only through the newspaper” when at that point during question time he had full knowledge of the group, he had had a phone call with its spokesperson Louise Nicholas 3 days earlier, and he had had time to arrange staff members to listen in on that conversation with Ms Nicholas and make records of that conversation? Would he now like to address that little inconsistency in his answer to Parliament?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. What I take to be a serious question has been asked of the Minister; if Opposition members wish to hear an answer they should respect the Minister.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When I had advised the House that I knew of the group, Courageous Women, through the media, I was stating a fact. Louise Nicholas had a conversation with me as a formal advocate for victims of sexual abuse. I did not know that she was formally connected to that group, and, quite frankly, I do not think there is any big deal about how I might have found out that this particular group, called Courageous Women, exists.

Hon Annette King: Does he recall these words on 6 May in answer to a question from me: “the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists and the College of General Practitioners have issued statements strongly supportive of the changes that ACC has made.”, and would he now like to apologise to the House for saying he did not say those words in this House?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Each time the member has used the quote she has quoted the words slightly differently. I will be very clear for the member—

Hon Trevor Mallard: But it’s your Hansard.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, previously the member opposite used a different set of words. For the member’s benefit I will be very clear. The College of General Practitioners issued a written statement. I was advised by ACC—and I would be happy to table the report from ACC—that the College of Psychiatrists formally advised ACC that it supported the guidelines.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member offered to table a document. I make clear and put on the record that if that is the case, the Opposition wants to see it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that it is up to the Minister to table a document, unless he was quoting from an official document, which appears not to have been the case.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the Hansard of 6 May, in which the Minister claimed that he had a statement from the College of Psychiatrists in support of his changes. The college has denied that it ever issued such a statement.

Mr SPEAKER: Because of the controversy, I will put that leave to the House. 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.

Te Urewera National Park—Proposal to Vest Ownership in Tūhoe

4. HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: He aha ngā reta, aha atu rānei, mai i a Tūwharetoa, Taranaki, Whanganui, Ngāi Tahu kua whiwhi i a ia e mea ana, ko te awhero a ngā iwi nei kia rite anō te hua o ō rātou whiriwhiringa whakataunga mō te Tiriti pēnā i whakaae te Kāwanatanga ki te tuku i te tino rangatiratanga katoa o Te Urewera ki a Ngāi Tūhoe?

[What correspondence, if any, has he received from Tūwharetoa, Taranaki, Whanganui, and Ngāi Tahu to suggest that these iwi would have expected the same outcome in their Treaty negotiations settlement had the Government agreed to fully vest the park in Tūhoe ownership?]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I have not received correspondence from those iwi, but I meet with iwi on a regular basis, and some iwi have raised informally these issues with me. I expect these issues will be raised more formally by some iwi as Treaty negotiations progress.

Hone Harawira: Is it not true, when the Prime Minister says he is concerned about the return of Te Urewera setting precedents, that such precedents have in fact already been established in Treaty settlements to date, such as the top-up clauses that apply in the Tainui and Ngāi Tahu settlements; and how does the Government intend to address this new policy direction on how to deal with settlements?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government does not have a new policy direction on precedent.

Hone Harawira: Is the Minister aware that the Crown Law Office, Treasury, and the Department of Conservation had already worked through all of the legal issues in respect of the Tūhoe settlement; if so, can he please tell the House what was the additional information about the impact on settlements that caused the abrupt cancellation of the Tūhoe deal at the last minute?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No.

Hon Shane Jones: Why does the Minister think that misleading and mocking Tūhoe is evidence of Crown good-faith claims negotiations?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No Minister has adopted that attitude at all. Negotiations have been conducted over a substantial period and in good faith with Tūhoe. This Government remains very keen to secure a just and a durable settlement with that tribe.

Leaky Homes—Financial Assistance

5. Dr CAM CALDER (National) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding providing financial assistance to owners of leaky homes?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): Yesterday the Government announced its financial assistance package to help people get their leaky homes fixed faster. The package will see the Government contribute 25 percent to homeowners’ agreed repair costs. Upon receipt of work done, local authorities will contribute 25 percent, with the homeowners funding the remaining 50 percent, backed by a Government-guaranteed loan. The package is expected to cost the Government around $1 billion over 5 years. It will help the many thousands of New Zealanders and their families who are stuck living in leaking, damp, and mouldy homes that are rotting around them. We want to see more homeowners get their homes fixed faster so that they can move on with their lives.

Dr Cam Calder: When will the financial assistance package be available for owners of leaky homes?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: There are a lot of complex details that need to be worked through with the parties involved, such as the banks and local authorities, but the Government aims to have the entire financial assistance package up and running fully early next year. In the meantime, affected homeowners can apply to the Department of Building and Housing to make a weathertightness claim. If their claim is accepted, then the clock will stop running on the 10-year limitation of claims at the date on which their application was received. If I may, I will make a plug and say that www.dbh.govt.nz is the website, and 0800 116 926 is the phone number, if anybody is interested in any further information.

Dr Cam Calder: Why has the Government not extended the 10-year liability limit?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The 10-year liability limit is well established in law. It puts a necessary boundary around claims. The issue is that with the more time that passes, the harder it is to identify the cause of damage to a house—what is normal wear and tear and normal depreciation, and what is damage done by the egress of water. This package announced by the Government will be a financial lifeline to the estimated 23,500 eligible households, and it will help them get their homes fixed faster.

Tobacco Excise—Allocation to Prevention, Support, and Treatment Programmes

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: How much of the increased—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Just table it.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I would be grateful—

Mr SPEAKER: The member does not need to take any notice of that kind of interjection when he is asking his question.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: How much of the increased tobacco excise arising from the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill will be allocated to addiction prevention and treatment?

Mr SPEAKER: I have a slightly different wording of the question in front of me, but it is near enough, I think. Let me check with the Clerk for a moment to make sure that the question I have in front of me is the current question.

To make sure that the question is heard properly, I ask the Hon David Cunliffe to re-ask his question.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: How much of the increased tobacco excise arising from the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Act 2010 will be allocated to tobacco addiction prevention and smoking cessation support and treatment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government will continue the practice of past Governments—that is, not to ring-fence the proceeds of the excise tax for any particular use. I note that the Government spent $57 million in this financial year on tobacco control and smoking cessation.

Hon David Cunliffe: In the absence of formal ring-fencing, as the Minister described, will all of the extra revenue be used for health spending; if not, what percentage will go to health spending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the absence of formal ring-fencing, it is a bit hard to say which bit of any tax collected is used for any particular purpose. For instance, we would not necessarily say that we are using some of that member’s PAYE to teach people how to read questions properly. We do not allocate taxation in that way.

Hon David Cunliffe: Following on from the Minister’s line of logic, can he at least guarantee that the revenue from tobacco excise will not be used to fund tax cuts for high-income earners?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Opposition is alleging that all sorts of things are being used to reduce taxes for high-income earners. I can say to the member that the tobacco excise revenue is part of a Budget that has the broad intent of lifting the performance of this economy because we need to undo the damage done by the previous Government.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will the Minister follow Labour’s example and put some of the additional revenue into smoking cessation programmes like Quitline; if so, exactly what proportion will be provided to Quitline, if any?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot think of too much in the way of policy examples from Labour that we would follow, although I notice that Labour is probably following the example of National in Opposition. That means that Labour is in for a pretty rough time.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a statement from the excellent former Minister of Health Annette King, dated 15 June 2000, in which she makes clear that revenue from tobacco excise will be sent towards—

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.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research—Annual Temperature Data

7. Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: Has he seen Hon Barry Brill’s article Crisis in New Zealand climatology raising questions regarding the integrity of NIWA’s “seven-station” series, published on Quadrant Online and picked up by Anthony Watts’ science news site, and what action, if any, has he taken since becoming Minister to ensure that NIWA maintains reputable scientific standards?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): Yes, I have read the article that the member refers to. I have also discussed the climate research done by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) with the chair, the chief executive, and the chief climate scientist of NIWA, Dr Wratt. I have confidence that NIWA maintains reputable scientific standards.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does he have concerns about NIWA when Dr Jim Salinger, who manufactured The NIWA ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series for New Zealand without any supporting documentation, was sacked from NIWA for inappropriate behaviour and now figures prominently in the email loop of the discredited and demonstrably dishonest climate scientists exposed in “climate-gate”; if not, why not?

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was disturbed to hear that question, because the member appeared to be impugning the integrity, on the record, of a member of the public. From my understanding, the matter to which the member referred has been before the courts as an employment matter and bore no relation whatsoever to the data the Minister referred to. So he is impugning, incorrectly, a member of the public.

Mr SPEAKER: It was difficult for me to hear exactly what the member was saying, which happens when the House is noisy. But I picked up that the member’s question included some unnecessary comments about individuals—comments that were not essential to the question he was asking. I ask him to reword his question to avoid allegations that are not essential to the question.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does he have concerns about NIWA when Dr Jim Salinger, who manufactured the “seven-station” temperature series for New Zealand without any supporting documentation, was sacked from NIWA for misconduct and, we now learn, figures prominently in the email loop of the discredited and demonstrably dishonest climate scientists exposed in “climate-gate”; if not, why not?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is fine to the point where there is a description of those whose evidence the question is relying on. I think you would need to rule that at least part of the question is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: It would seem to me that the point the Hon Gerry Brownlee makes is reasonable. I do not believe it is necessary in that question to allege that anyone is dishonest. The question can be asked without that unnecessary description, which is an opinion of certain evidence. We have heard the question, and I rule that part—where he alleged that certain scientists have been dishonest—out of order.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: No.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does the Minister agree with the Hon Barry Brill in his article for Quadrant Online when he concludes that the “seven-station” series is “irretrievably tainted by self-interest, personal bias, and abuse of trust - and is wholly illegitimate”; if not, why does he not agree with that description?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: NIWA are the scientists; Barry Brill is not.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

8. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his recent statements on health?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that one of the major reasons that individual district health boards are looking carefully at their service priorities is that the previous Government set them on a track to delivering towards $200 million of unfunded services. This Government has delivered record levels of funding and front-line services.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What does he say to Henry, an 84-year-old Invercargill man whose issue of home support cuts has already been raised in this House—but nothing was done about it by the Minister—and who was subsequently admitted unconscious to Invercargill hospital as a result of overexertion and not eating properly, an incident that makes a mockery of the Minister’s commitment to ensuring that older people are safe and well, despite his home support cuts?

Hon TONY RYALL: I would have to receive full information from the member on that case; then I would look into it.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When he told a conference in February of this year that Vote Health would not get an increase of the size it got last year, why did he not tell the conference that this year’s health budget will not allow existing health services to even stand still—and that is before any GST increase is taken into account?

Hon TONY RYALL: Of course, one would have to wait until the Budget is tabled on Thursday. But I note that the member opposite has predicted that district health boards will get $330 million.

Michael Woodhouse: What reports has he seen on improving front-line services?

Hon TONY RYALL: Just last week I saw a couple of reports on improving front-line cancer treatment services in New Zealand. I had the privilege of attending the opening of the new brachytherapy bunker at Wellington Hospital and announcing the approval of funding for a replacement linear accelerator machine. Later in the same week I was at Christchurch Hospital to mark the opening of its new linear accelerator. Both of these events are part of the Government’s drive to have every patient commencing radiation cancer treatment within 6 weeks, a goal that we are committed to reducing further to 4 weeks.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When he said that the cancellation of one shift of the current 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week district nursing service in the MidCentral District Health Board region would not see a reduction in nursing cover, what did he mean?

Hon TONY RYALL: What I was talking about was that the relevant district health board is ensuring that arrangements are in place to deal with that issue, and that includes providing services to patients. With the MidCentral District Health Board we are providing more elective surgery, faster cancer treatment, and good emergency department waiting-times.

Business Research and Development—Government Initiatives

9. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: What actions has the Government taken to improve business research and development?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): Last week the Prime Minister announced a $321 million package of spending on research, science, and technology. Of that funding, $234 million is for the business sector; it will boost research-intensive firms and provide new opportunities for smaller firms through a voucher scheme. It will also lead to better linkages between Crown research institutes, universities, and businesses. It will also provide postdoctoral fellowships, bring in international talent, and provide research infrastructure.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What reports has the Minister seen on the Government’s research and development initiatives announced last week?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I have seen many positive reports on the Government’s science package. Business New Zealand praised the initiative, stating that “the potential for high-tech manufacturing and services in New Zealand would be boosted.” NZBio said the initiatives were “positive and practical steps”. And the Royal Society said the announcements were “hugely empowering for scientists”. Even the Green Party said it was “a step in the right direction”.

David Shearer: Given that Australia’s 25 percent increase in research and development spending and its 40 percent tax credit for innovative companies are much greater than the Minister’s announcement, how does he expect we will be able to catch Australia, particularly when his announced funding is half of what Labour already had in place?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Labour’s package meant that New Zealand had to go into a huge deficit, and every week has to borrow $250 million. The National Government’s package is targeted, is focused on research and development firms, and, frankly, will be more effective.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What has the Government done to support small businesses?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The Government has increased the level of support for small businesses. For instance, we have the voucher scheme. But, in addition to that, we already have the existing TechNZ system, which is worth $55 million a year. Many, many small businesses have found it hugely helpful to their growth.

David Shearer: Given that he has cut $96 million from current research, science, and technology spending on other areas, which areas of science and innovation does he consider do not require funding?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: There has been some reprioritisation; the details, of course, will be in the Budget. That is because this Government is focused on economic growth. The tradable sector, under the previous Government, had been flat since 2005. This Government was elected to turn that round.

Question No. 10 to Minister

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North): The Prime Minister has obviously been called recently from the Chamber on urgent public business. Accordingly, I seek leave for this question to be deferred until tomorrow.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the question to be deferred until tomorrow. Is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption] I say to honourable members, I have been unhappy about the unruliness in the House today. I do not like intruding too much but it is becoming very untidy. I would like members to show a little more respect to this place during the last part of question time.

Environment Canterbury—Ministerial Declaration of Conflict of Interest

10. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Prime Minister: During Cabinet or Cabinet committee consideration of the policy and legislation concerning Environment Canterbury did his Minister for the Environment declare any conflict of interest regarding his family; if so, what did he declare?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister is satisfied that Ministers are aware of the guidance in the Cabinet Manual about conflicts of interest and he would expect them to declare an interest in an issue where a conflict actually exists. No Ministers declared a conflict during Cabinet or Cabinet committee consideration of the legislation concerning Environment Canterbury.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why did he allow Dr Smith to stay in the room when the Government’s approach to Environment Canterbury was being discussed, given that his brother was charged by Environment Canterbury on 21 counts arising from a police-accompanied inspection of his premises last June?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I understand it, the facts of the matter are that the Government was making decisions around the performance of Environment Canterbury relating to governance, performance, and water management, and nothing to do with the conduct of the council’s day-to-day regulatory and enforcement responsibilities, so there was no possibility that Dr Smith, or his brother, could derive any kind of personal interest from decisions or actions taken by the Government.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Can he confirm for the House that he, the Prime Minister, diligently upholds paragraph 2.60 of the Cabinet Manual for all Ministers—himself included—where it states: “A conflict of interest may be … non-pecuniary (concerning, for example, a member of the Minister’s family).”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Absolutely, yes.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does the Prime Minister believe that he takes the same degree of care over conflict of interest issues as did earlier National Prime Ministers such as Prime Minister Bolger or Prime Minister Shipley?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister ensures that Ministers are familiar with the Cabinet Manual. As the member will know from his own experience as a Minister, declarations of conflict are a matter for Ministers to raise. These matters are regularly raised with the Cabinet Office, often because Ministers think there could be a conflict. Sometimes they are advised there is not; sometimes they are advised there is.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a relatively simple question, which related to the comparison of the practice of previous National Prime Ministers and whether “the same degree of care”, I think were the words used, was taken by this Prime Minister. That was the core of the question and was not addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: I think any reasonable person listening would allow that the Minister answered in a way that made sense to him as a Minister. Maybe the Minister had not made such direct comparisons, so the Minister responded in a way that said how this Prime Minister sees the Cabinet Manual and the requirements of it, which seemed to me to be a reasonable answer to the question.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why, as reported in a 2001 edition of North and South, is Dr Smith on record as saying that he had to step aside if a project in his area of responsibility involved one of his brothers—citing back then the Ōtira viaduct as an example—but in this Government the same Minister’s rather obvious conflicts of interests go unaddressed?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The way Dr Smith has handled conflicts over a number of years has been very thorough because he has a number of siblings involved in projects on which Government policy may have some impact. In this case—where the member is trying to smear the Minister and the Government’s process, as he usually does—there was no impact of Government decisions on what was a regulatory process.

Freight—KiwiRail Turn-round Plan Investment

11. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What reports has he received on future freight movement in New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): I have received a number of reports on a turn-round plan for freight services for KiwiRail, and, together with the Prime Minister, I was pleased to announce this morning the investment of $250 million, with a commitment in principle to a further half a billion dollars, to support this plan. A stronger, self-sufficient KiwiRail will help to increase New Zealand’s economic productivity and assist us on the path to faster growth. The Government’s investment reflects the fact that the amount of freight that is moved on New Zealand’s transport network will double by 2040. All transport modes will need to become more efficient in order to meet this demand.

David Bennett: Why is the Government committing money to KiwiRail?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: KiwiRail is committed to a turn-round plan that is designed to see the rail freight business become financially sustainable within a decade, by getting it to a point where it can fund its renewal and infrastructure investment costs solely from customer revenue. In fact, the lion’s share of the turn-round plan will come from within the business itself. The Government intends to invest a total of three-quarters of a billion dollars, with final decisions being subject to individual business cases submitted over the next 3 years.

David Bennett: What will be required to make the KiwiRail turn-round plan successful?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Achieving this turn-round will be a challenging process requiring the combined support of, firstly, the Government as shareholders on behalf of taxpayers, and, secondly, every KiwiRail customer, the management and staff, the unions, and the regional councils, in terms of their involvement with metropolitan commuter rail services. KiwiRail will need to focus on the areas where it can increase revenue, improve its price to customers, become more efficient, and carry more freight, particularly bulk and long-distance freight.

Hon Darren Hughes: Why is there such an imbalance in the Government’s policies to address the efficiency of moving freight around the country, with his roads of national significance receiving $11 billion and rail getting only up to $750 million under the package announced today, when the doubling of the freight task that he talks about will be largely in bulk commodities—something for which rail is ideally suited?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is incorrect. The plan actually calls for a total of $4.6 billion to be invested over 10 years, most of which comes from within KiwiRail. That compares favourably, in fact, with the $10.7 billion for roading over 10 years, when one considers that roads currently carry 70 percent of freight. I say, for the benefit of the member, that the major point of difference is that road freight—and this investment in roading—is paid for by road users. The purpose of this plan is to get rail freight to the same point as road freight, where it can pay for its own capital and its own maintenance costs.

Question No. 10 to Minister

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I seek leave to table a press release in which the Minister for the Environment announced Government policy that doubled the fines for people who have minor breaches of consents.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the date of the press release?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not have the date.

Mr SPEAKER: I have made a pretty longstanding ruling of not allowing the seeking of leave to table press releases. I did make an exception to that today, where there was a matter of direct controversy across the House, but I do not want to go back to a situation where press releases are tabled.

Question No. 3 to Minister

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): In reference to an earlier question, I seek leave to table excerpts from a report from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) that dealt with the questions raised by Annette King in respect of—[Interruption] I seek leave to table excerpts of the report from ACC that deal with the issue of a statement by the College of Psychiatrists and General Practitioners that was provided to me in October 2009.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): The Opposition will object for two reasons: first, because they are excerpts and not the whole report; second, because the member asking the questions quoted from Hansard—that member’s Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now getting into debating, and I apologise to the House for letting this situation arise. [Interruption] I am on my feet, and all around the House there will be silence. I do not know what has happened today. After a week off, members lose their discipline. The member has sought leave to table excerpts from an ACC document. Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Question No. 10 to Minister

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is one point of order back from that attempt. We had an assurance earlier that Dr Nick Smith was not involved in regulatory matters. We have just had it from the Minister of Finance that he is involved in regulatory matters—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: —to do with the environment—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. I take a very dim view of that point of order, because the member knows it is nothing to do with the order of the House, at all. An experienced member would know that, and I do not want this trifling with the House to carry on.

Taxation—Capital Gains Tax

12. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the advice from Treasury in 2009 that “capital assets are owned—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to Dr Russel Norman, but the carry-on across the House in front of me will cease. I do not want to hear any more of it.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Does he agree with the advice from Treasury in 2009 that “capital assets are owned disproportionately by higher income families … Taxing capital gains would increase the progressivity of the tax system.”; and does he support a more progressive tax system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I agree with the statement, and the current system is progressive. The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay 74 percent of net income taxation.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with comments by Auckland University Professor Craig Elliffe, where he says that under New Zealand’s present tax system it is wrong that a salary earner pays more than $30,000 tax on a $100,000 salary, while, if a person receives an income of $100,000 from capital gains, he or she pays no tax; how can that be a progressive or fair tax system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, that is not quite correct. A number of people pay taxation on capital gains, and the member may find that he wants to support the Budget, because in the Budget we intend to make some moves to ensure that the effective tax rates on property are increased. As the member has pointed out, property tends to be disproportionately owned by higher-income families, and that is why higher-income groups will find that tax reductions may be offset by changes in the taxation of their property assets.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with pretty much most of the Treasury paper, and many of the tax experts, on this issue, that if we want to target the capital income being earned by the top 10 percent of New Zealand households, then the simplest and best way to target that is a capital gains tax excluding the family home, and that that would actually achieve a much more progressive and fair tax system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As was evident from the Tax Working Group and the Treasury advice, that is an arguable proposition. The Government made the decision not to proceed with a capital gains tax for a number of pretty pragmatic reasons, and in the Budget we will announce what measures we will proceed with.

Dr Russel Norman: With reference to the Budget, will increasing the rate of GST to 15 percent and dropping the tax rate to 33 percent make our tax system more or less progressive?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will just have to wait for the Budget to see. I say that all tax measures should be taken as a whole. Just one or two measures cannot be taken as an indication of whether progressivity has increased or decreased. In the Government’s view, the tax package that will be presented is fair.

Dr Russel Norman: Is John Walley from the Manufacturers and Exporters Association not right when he says that it is difficult to see why a capital gains tax is so politically untenable in New Zealand when it would both make housing more affordable and help create jobs and real wealth? Is Mr Walley not right, and why does the Government not embrace this very sensible measure that is missing from our tax system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, the Government is putting together a package of measures designed to increase the performance of our economy, because that is how we get growing incomes, more jobs, and more investment. That is the focus of the tax package. As I said before, there are plenty of arguable propositions about how to tax capital in New Zealand. We do not have a comprehensive or tidy system for doing it. The Government has made some pragmatic decisions about what we will do, and they will be announced on Thursday.

Bills

Education Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 6 May.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I will certainly take up the residual part of my speaking time on the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. If I remember correctly, when I was interrupted by the dinner hour on the last sitting day this bill was on the Order Paper, I wanted to talk about two things that were in the bill and one that was not. Labour is supporting this bill. We support information matching between the Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Teachers Council, and we do that for a number of reasons.

First, there is the distinct possibility that teachers who have been deregistered have not come to the attention of employing authorities that may be looking to appoint teachers to teaching positions. That information sharing between the register of teachers and the Ministry of Education allows the Teachers Council, in regard to people employed in teaching positions, to identify the person’s employer, and also the person’s registration status, which is an essential item for the protection of the quality of teaching in our schools. In addition to that, there is a more pedestrian purpose to that matching of information—one that is no less valid—which is the ability of the ministry to identify, through that information sharing, the accurate and appropriate salary entitlements and eligibility to any allowances to which teachers might be entitled. So we support that information matching, and see it on both levels—firstly, as a very clear indicator of the quality assurance of staff teaching our children in schools, and, secondly, as I say, as a more pedestrian matter but one that is none the less important to teachers in receipt of salary entitlements.

The second point, which is important and which Labour supports entirely, concerns the changes that the Education and Science Committee has made to the process around police vetting of all those who have access to students in teaching establishments. The select committee saw fit to shorten the time frame for the police vetting process; I think there is a suitable level of urgency to that, as reflected in where the select committee got to. I pay tribute to the chair of the Education and Science Committee, and to those who worked on this bill, for progressing it to this stage with a useful amendment such as that.

The one thing I am disappointed about, however, and I remain disappointed about it, is that the National members on the select committee—and indeed the Minister—saw fit not to accept some proposed amendments from Labour members. The amendments arose out of our Education Amendment Bill (No 3), which was in train prior to the last election. One of those amendments was to make it explicit for principals to ensure that their schools provided guidance and career counselling in schools. That is an example of where in fact it would be entirely possible to join the dots of the compulsory education sector with those of the tertiary education sector, when the Government is looking to make it harder for students to enter tertiary institutions, harder to stay there, and harder to access support mechanisms, like student loans and allowances, in order for them to succeed in tertiary institutions.

One of the cries that go up constantly is that the young people arriving in our tertiary institutions are not sufficiently prepared, and not adequately prepared, to make suitable and appropriate decisions about their tertiary study. How can they make appropriate decisions about their tertiary study, and have more chance of succeeding in a chosen discipline or degree programme, if they are not equipped earlier than that with suitable career-choice advice and career guidance? To make it optional for schools to have guidance counsellors—and that is another whole area in itself—and career counsellors is to deny that these things ought to be joined up. It is in fact to deny a common-sense thing that is provided at low cost through our secondary schools, and that can equip our young people in particular to succeed or to do better in their chosen tertiary course of study. It is a shame that that is not included in this final legislation. It is something that would not have caused any major problem. It would be something that the schools that are already doing it could continue to do. The fact that it is not being made explicit in the bill that principals should ensure guidance and counselling on career choices and career pathways is a point of neglect. It is a shame that that has not been included in this legislation.

The Education Amendment Bill that we are debating for its third reading today makes some significant advances not only in the quality of education but also in the protection of students within the education system. It is a shame. It is short-sighted. It is unnecessarily partisan of the Government not to include the Labour amendments that would have seen career counselling made mandatory, and that would have seen an insistence on that counselling being there in the school curriculum. We will never get the kind of quantum leap we need in this economy if we are not preparing our young people, through the pipeline of the education system, to make appropriate and successful tertiary education and career choices for themselves. Whether or not young people go on to university or a polytechnic, into an apprenticeship or some form of trades training, or into some other appropriate avenue for further education, they should have access at every point in their high school and compulsory education sector training to that kind of advice. It is a matter of regret that that provision is not in this final legislation. Thank you.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak during the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. The education system in the 21st century certainly needs to be dynamic and flexible, and the bill will go some way to ensuring that it will be, through these changes. The bill itself does that in a number of ways. Firstly, it adapts the police-vetting system to require vetting of the non-teaching staff employed at schools who may have unsupervised access to children during school hours. Secondly, the bill introduces information sharing between the Ministry of Education and the Teachers Council, which will finally close off a loophole for unregistered teachers.

With regard to the police vetting of non-teaching staff, the legislation also makes mandatory the police vetting of anyone 17 years or over in a home-schooling situation. In fact, those requirements for police vetting will apply to early childhood education centres, primary schools, intermediate schools, and secondary schools. Additionally, those police vets will be required to be initiated by the management team or board of trustees, depending on the school type, and will be required to be conducted within 4 weeks of this bill becoming law. After that, in any future case, they will be required no later than 2 weeks after non-teaching staff likely to have unsupervised access to children start work.

This Government takes education seriously, and in doing so has set educational achievement as our children’s No. 1 priority and as the No. 1 priority for the country. That being the case, we recognise the importance of a first-class education system and first-class conditions for our children and our teaching staff. In conclusion, I make the point that such a priority really does highlight the importance of a policy such as national standards to improve our children’s education, literacy, and numeracy. It is important that we place that as a touchstone for the quality of our education. Education is a powerful force; it transforms people’s lives for the greater good. On that basis I commend this bill to the House.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): The Labour Party supports the Education Amendment Bill, although I do have grave reservations, not so much about what it actually contains but about what is omitted from it. The bill has four main purposes, and I will go through them.

First, it introduces information matching between the New Zealand Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education in order to identify individuals without registration teaching in schools. Secondly, it removes the requirement for all contractors to be police vetted, and replaces it with the requirement to police vet only those contractors that have, or are likely to have, unsupervised access to children at schools and in early childhood education services. Thirdly, it proposes that the New Zealand Teachers Council no longer provide a police-vetting service, and that schools and early childhood education services can apply directly to the New Zealand Police. Fourthly, it proposes that the initial maximum 3-month suspension of a teacher’s practising certificate or authority to teach will be amended so that the suspension can be reviewed after 3 months and extended for a further 3 months.

My concerns about this bill are not so much about the four purposes, but about the fact that when I think through those four purposes I ask myself which one of them will bring about a quantum leap, a step change, or any sort of effect on the core purpose of our education system, which is to raise achievement. Not one single purpose in the bill will bring about a quantum leap or step change in raising educational achievement. Perhaps the first purpose, which relates to introducing information matching between the New Zealand Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education to identify individuals without registration teaching in schools, may have some impact on raising achievement, in that it is important that all teachers in schools are registered. When teachers are registered it means that they have been to teachers college and we can expect that they would have a certain competency. But, other than that, this bill does not address that which will have the greatest impact on raising achievement, which is the core purpose of our education system, and that is the calibre of the teachers in our schools.

I have spoken about the calibre of teachers at length in the House time and again. If we have a continuum of those issues and strategies that will have the most impact on raising achievement and those strategies that have the least impact on raising achievement, these four purposes in this bill will be at the lower end of that continuum because none of them addresses the ability of the teacher. The interface between teachers and students is when learning occurs. Even if we were to buy into the Government’s argument that the policy on national standards was the most important policy it had that would have the greatest impact on achievement, we would expect that the next legislation the Government brought through would contain the second-greatest impact on raising achievement. Quite frankly, none of these purposes will have as much impact as that on raising achievement. For example, purpose No. 3, which removes the requirement for all contractors to be police vetted, and replaces it with a requirement to police vet only those contractors who have, or are likely to have, unsupervised access to children at schools and early childhood services, is basically saying that the sparky who goes down to the back prefab to fix a light switch does not have to have a police vet. I have to ask this House what impact the sparky fixing a light switch down in the back prefab, or the resource room down the back of a school, would have on raising achievement. I do not know; it simply has no impact.

We have spent countless hours in the House on this bill; we are on its third reading, and we have been through the Committee stage. We have spent all this time on a bill that will not impact significantly on the core purpose of our education system, which is raising achievement. If we were to look at those issues or policies that would have an impact on raising achievement and improving the ability of teachers, we should be discussing issues such as the quality and calibre of those people whom we select to go into teachers college in the first place. We should make sure that we have minimum criteria for teacher trainees. Not only that, we should also be debating the quality and standard of teacher training.

I have been down to Christchurch, where I have observed the Graduate School of Education. From what I know from my experience as a principal and teacher, its training programmes are absolutely superb and we should be making sure that what the Graduate School of Education is doing is replicated throughout all teachers colleges in New Zealand. I was told when I visited the college that when it set itself up it fully expected that within 5 years it would be redundant because every teachers college and college of education would replicate the programmes it takes its teacher trainees through. Instead of its programmes being replicated and copied, they have basically been marginalised and sidelined. That is a crying shame because the programmes provided by the Graduate School of Education in Christchurch are first-class.

The next thing we need to do is ensure that the professional development teachers have once they have finished teachers college and they are out in schools is also first-class, and that it follows on from the training that goes on at the Graduate School of Education, which uses research-based best practice teaching—

Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the third reading of the bill and I should have thought that the member should be addressing the bill itself.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I believe that the member was addressing the bill. The third reading debate is a reasonably wide-ranging debate, summing things up. The member was not straying widely of the bill, extensively. I invite the member to continue.

KELVIN DAVIS: We should be addressing what will raise achievement at the fastest rate in our New Zealand schools. I have spoken about the four main purposes of this bill and said that they will not raise achievement as fast as that. They will have a minimal impact on achievement.

I remind the House that we need to concentrate and focus on those issues that will raise achievement. We can talk about the police vetting of teachers until the wee hours of the morning, but that will not mean that one child will get the National Certificate of Educational Achievement or pass a national standard. All it means is that we are talking in circles and avoiding the real issues about what will make the biggest difference in New Zealand education. I should have thought that members opposite would want to address the issues related to raising achievement. We know that when children achieve as well as, or as highly as, they can, and their potential is met, they can then move on to university or business, or become entrepreneurs. They can use their skills to further our country. I think this House should be debating those issues that will have the greatest impact on achievement, so that students can go on out into the world and contribute significantly to our country—to the economy, and to everything that will make New Zealand a great country.

The Labour Party is supporting this bill. Nothing in its four main purposes will significantly harm the educational system; they just will not make much of an impact. Whether we police vet contractors or whether we have direct links for principals to apply to the police rather than going through the Teachers Council for police vetting, none of those things will make any difference or have any impact whatsoever on the achievement of children in New Zealand schools. As I said, if we believe what the National Government has said about the national standards policy being the best thing since sliced bread, that it will raise achievement and have that step change for New Zealand education, then we would expect that the next education bill off the block would be the second most important bill to raise achievement. Quite frankly, this bill does not do that. Thank you very much.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am delighted to stand as the final speaker in the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. Education is my top personal priority. For this National Government, lifting achievement in schools and building opportunities for every young New Zealander is vital to growing our nation. There are a couple of ways in which this bill does that. Firstly, it is focusing our funding on the front line, reducing red tape, and lifting achievement. Kelvin Davis, the member who spoke before me, did not think that children’s safety in schools is a priority. I think that if a child is unsafe at school because of a contractor not having had a police vet, it is a major barrier to that child’s learning. I will not stand here and tolerate unsafe school environments.

This bill is about improving efficiency in the schooling system, reducing compliance costs for schools and early childhood education centres, and improving the quality and effectiveness of education legislation. Labour Opposition members have talked at length about what they would have liked to see in the bill. Well, this is a Government bill. This is not the Labour Opposition’s bill. That is why we have talked about what we believe is important: putting the focus on the front line, which is students and their learning, and reducing red tape.

Unfortunately, one Opposition member in particular filibustered for quite some time in the bill’s second reading. He went on and on about the changes that he would have liked to see happen, but two former Ministers of Education in his Government did not make these changes happen. Well, I place priority on children’s safety, whether it is in a school environment or in a home-based early childhood education centre, which this law also extends protection to. That is why, without any unnecessary delay, I am thrilled to support this bill. This Government understands the importance of education and makes it a priority. Thank you.

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

Ayes 113

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 9

Green Party 9.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): Part 1 establishes a new Electoral Commission to undertake electoral administration in New Zealand. The new commission is to be an independent Crown entity. This part also provides for the appointment and removal of the three governing Electoral Commissioners, which will be done by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House.

Part 1 sets out the core functions and powers of the Electoral Commission, which will enable it to independently and effectively administer our electoral system. It also sets out the commission’s statutory duty of independence and its objective to administer the electoral system impartially, effectively, efficiently, and in a way that maintains confidence in the administration of the system. The Electoral Commission will have a statutory duty of independence. It will be able to advise the Minister of Justice or the House at the request of either, or at the commission’s own volition.

The appointment of Electoral Commissioners will be done via the House, thereby creating an additional incentive for the Minister of Justice to seek consensus across the House in support of the appointment motion—in a way that is similar, I guess, to the appointment of members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee. The Justice and Electoral Committee specifically considered what form the new entity should take and, particularly, whether it should be established as an Officer of Parliament. The committee concluded that the electoral agency did not have the defining characteristic of an Officer of Parliament, which is to scrutinise the executive. Instead, it would be responsible for delivering impartial and transparent elections in accordance with the law.

Establishing the electoral agency as an Officer of Parliament could also have a potentially adverse effect on the role of the Speaker, who could end up being given political responsibility for its performance. Officers of Parliament are also limited in their ability to be involved in the policy development process, as they are divorced from the executive branch. The independent Crown entity model proposed under this part of the bill ensures that the new Electoral Commission will be independent and will also have a direct relationship with this House. Submissions on the bill focused on the need for both. We will all be able to hold confidence in the Electoral Commission established under this bill.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I think that point made by the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, is the point I would like to follow on from, because I read in the Justice and Electoral Committee’s report a recommendation that the Standing Orders Committee develop a procedure for appointments to the Electoral Commission and also to other bodies that are not Officers of Parliament, such as the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Abortion Supervisory Committee, which the Minister mentioned.

The select committee had in its report the particular recommendation of an adaptation of the procedures for the appointment of an Officer of Parliament. I thought that that had kind of a nice ring to it, given the debate that had obviously occurred at the select committee over whether the Electoral Commission should be an Officer of Parliament or an independent Crown entity.

I agree that the commission should be an independent Crown entity. I am not of the view that it should be an Officer of Parliament. I think that the select committee dealt with all the arguments that had been put to it quite neatly. I also agree that having the Speaker being accountable to Parliament for the commission’s operations could create some problems. Obviously, that is a very political sphere, and that could lead to an inappropriate line being drawn where we would not want it to be drawn. I also think that the board structure, as the committee identified, is not really in line with individual appointments, as the other Officers of Parliament are, and I think it really does suit that model better.

But I quite like the idea of making a recommendation to the Standing Orders Committee, so I would not mind if the Minister made a response to that particular proposal. I understand that in the meantime the Minister plans to consult all party leaders about appointments, and he is making that point, I think, by using the example of the Abortion Supervisory Committee making appointments only where there is a broad level of support across all parties. I think that is to be commended.

As I understand it further, some of the features will include the appointments being made from application, rather than nomination, to ensure that the selection process is as consistent and transparent as possible. We got this information from the Minister’s office today, so I assume I am reporting this accurately to the Committee. The board positions will be advertised online and in the major dailies. Candidates will be shortlisted and interviewed by an independent panel, appointments will be referred through the Cabinet appointments process, and then the consultation will occur with political parties.

That seems like a good-enough process to be working on at the moment, but I do think that it would be enhanced by having the Standing Orders Committee look at adopting a particular process that would then be adopted by all Governments in the future. I think that transparency would enhance confidence in the process and in the individuals who take up the appointments on the board. I certainly commend that work of the select committee.

The second thing I really want to do during Committee stage of this bill is to refer to the objective of the Electoral Commission in new section 4C in Part 1. The commission is established to “administer the electoral system impartially, efficiently, effectively, and in a way that—(a) facilitates participation in parliamentary democracy; and (b) promotes understanding of the electoral system and associated matters; and (c) maintains confidence in the administration of the electoral system.” I am concerned about the commission’s capacity to meet the second objective—the promotion of the understanding of the electoral system and associated matters—given that other events are occurring at the moment.

Under another bill that the House is addressing at the moment—and I refer to it because it will become a requirement of the Electoral Commission should MMP survive the referendum ballot next year—there is a substantially new role for the Electoral Commission. In fact, the one previous time that a review of the MMP system occurred, it was dealt with by a special select committee chaired by the Speaker. Of course, there was no such role for the Electoral Commission in the establishment of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System, which led to the promotion of MMP as an alternative system here in New Zealand, and all the subsequent legislation that has passed through this House has all gone through parliamentary processes. So in the past we have had Parliament, a royal commission, and a special select committee of Parliament chaired by the Speaker to look at MMP.

So if MMP survives the referendum vote, then a new role for the Electoral Commission will be to conduct a review of MMP with specific issues defined in the legislation for the commission to look at, but not, I think, limited in that regard. I do not think I can overstate the significance of this new role, but I am raising one real concern that I have. It will be vital that the commission is able to ensure that there is very high-quality information out there about the nature of our current electoral system, because there will be very powerful vested interests that are determined to get rid of proportional representation.

I really worry that a brand new organisation, which will be running its very first general election—and I know there will be a merging of those who have current interest and involvement in the work of the commission—will have the general election as its priority. We have a major constitutional issue being decided by way of referendum, and I know that it is not the final decision, but it will obviously be of significance in terms of what happens next.

With no limits on spending on the referendum and unlimited access to television, there is a real risk that democracy will be subverted by totally misleading advertising designed to undermine proportional representation. If members thought it was humorous to see paper bags over the heads of a few people whom we would not, apparently, know as list MPs—which was all they managed to throw together when they suddenly realised that the people of New Zealand were going to vote for change back in the early 1990s—then they can dream on. That is not what it will be like next time. Those people, those opponents, will have unlimited access to television in the middle of an election campaign.

I could write the script myself. I know exactly how they will prepare for it. It is perfectly obvious to anyone who is concerned about retaining a system that produces a fair result. Unless this matter is addressed, the first test for this new commission could potentially represent a travesty of democracy, leaving the commission with no ability to meet that most important objective of promoting understanding of the electoral system and associated matters.

I want some reassurance from the Minister that there will be sufficient resources available to the Electoral Commission so that it can participate in this process in a way that ensures that people get access to quality, unbiased information. I am sure that unbiased information will be outspent 100:1 by those who oppose proportional representation and want to return to the happy days of a single party Government who could ram through, as Sir Geoffrey Palmer described in Unbridled Power, anything it chose to ram through.

Parties of both colours were guilty of doing that—both red and blue—and, unfortunately, there are people who hanker for those days. Most people who were involved in the red days now belong in the blue and yellow corner. Therefore, they probably do not see it quite in the same light. But given where their support base is, I am sure that they will be backing removal of proportional representation, because if they get majority National Governments able to deliver more to their agenda than a Labour Government would, then I am sure that they will be pushing for that change. That is a serious concern that I want to put on the table, and I hope the Minister can address it.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive): I share some of the concerns of the previous speaker, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, but any new Electoral Commission could not possibly be as bad as the last one. I am willing to back the ideas that are in the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill, and I support the establishment of a new Electoral Commission. As my colleague Lianne Dalziel said, the objectives of the Electoral Commission are perfectly sensible and reasonable: to “administer the electoral system impartially, efficiently, effectively,”, to assist democratic participation, to promote “understanding of the electoral system”, and to maintain “confidence in the administration of the electoral system.”

We have to go back to the 2005 election to see the origins of deep concern about the way that elections have been run. There was anonymous, and even deceitful, advertising, full-page colour ads the day before the election, and outrageous attacks—I will not go into the details; that would repeat the defamation—against Progressive candidates like me and also against Green and Labour candidates. The attacks were all in blue—but I will not blame the current people for that—and all subsequently sheeted home to the Exclusive Brethren, of course. I must say that when I looked at my result, I should not really complain, because my majority went up. If we fast forward to the 2008 election, the Government, of which I was a coalition partner, attempted to amend the Electoral Act to prevent a rerun of 2005. We had very good intentions, but, I have to say, with the best will in the world, we did not quite get it right—thus, this attempt to amend that legislation.

My press releases at the time, which were already in the public arena, having been sent out by email, were reported to the police by the commission in the middle of the election campaign. My electronic ministerial newsletter that I sent out as Associate Minister of Health, which I had been sending out for 9 years, was reported to the Electoral Commission, and it reported the newsletter to the police. The police had more common sense and better things to do, and threw both of them out—peremptorily, I might say. But I had to employ a QC to defend myself in the middle of an election campaign. Both of those reports to the police from the Electoral Commission displayed a level of incompetence and ill-informed analysis that was, in my view, simply unacceptable and outrageous. I will not miss that commission or the members of it, and the sooner we get another one in place the better for me personally—from my experience of it.

If this bill, as I expect it will, improves on that hopeless situation—it will be hard not to, in my view—it will be welcomed by most New Zealanders, including me. There will be some time pressures because elections roll around pretty quickly, and by the time this legislation is in place and the commission is in place, we will be involved in a general election, and, as my colleague said, a referendum—not a definitive one, but a necessary one, and one that is important to the future of the electoral system in this country. I think we will have to give some attention to the resources that the commission has at its disposal for that purpose.

But, by and large, the work that the Minister has done, the clear intentions to improve the quality of electoral legislation, and the work of the commission are supported, I am sure, by every member of the House, and I certainly look forward to the implementation of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North): I associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel, and the remarks made by my other colleague the Hon Jim Anderton. I will not repeat any of them, in the interest of time, but instead will make two other points.

The first is a random act of praise to the Minister of Justice. His style is to be commended and should be acknowledged, and I hope it continues. It is important to try to get these things right—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: He’s a good role model for others.

Hon PETE HODGSON: He is a good role model for others, yes.

The second thing is to offer a quick history lesson. It goes back a wee bit further than the history lesson offered by the Hon Jim Anderton, though I must say that I was sent off to the cops on any number of occasions, too—especially in the 2008 and 2005 periods. But I will go back further than that and say that the second leg of the double for this Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill is to fold in the people who put together the rolls. We will have to do that carefully. The last time the rolls were tampered with—I suppose that is the way to put it—was in about 1977, and in 1978 the rolls were a mess. They were administered at that time by the Ministry of Justice. They had been taken off New Zealand Post, or the Post and Telegraph Department, or whatever the name of the outfit was back then. Then, in the subsequent periods of our history, especially the 1984-93 period, we went through the big old “let’s deregulate, let’s sell, let’s corporatise etc.” period, and New Zealand Post had to win the contract back against whomever else came along—I do not even know who it was.

Surely by now those days have gone, and surely by now we have worked out that New Zealand Post has a proven ability to put the rolls together. It seems to be an outfit that will not go anywhere. I hope the Government will not privatise it—not partly, not at all—and I hope it is within the bounds of possibility that the Government will realise that removing the rolls from New Zealand Post, especially with all of its data architecture and all of its experience, would be deleterious. That is not to say that some change in the administration of electoral enrolments is not a good thing. This legislation is, I suppose, an architectural tidy-up. But I implore the Minister, if he has not already—he was only a schoolboy at the time and could not possibly remember—to ask—

Hon Simon Power: What year was that?

Hon PETE HODGSON: 1977.

Hon Simon Power: You were quite right; I was 7.

Hon PETE HODGSON: That is right. But it has happened, in my lifetime certainly, and it was a shambles. I was a campaign manager in Dunedin North for the Hon Stan Roger when he was standing for Parliament, and we did not have rolls that were reliable. They were unreliable. They were both overblown and under-recorded. They were especially overblown. There were a whole lot of people on the roll who did not exist—thousands and thousands of them. That was because a change was made between the 1975 and 1978 elections. It looks like we are going to make another change, between, I think, the 2011 and the 2014 elections. Can we please make sure that history is studied before that change is made.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I have a brief contribution to make on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. Firstly, I was on the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I say we dealt carefully, as the Minister of Justice, Simon Power, acknowledged, with the issue of whether the structure should be an independent Crown entity or an Officer of Parliament. Through that process we had a very good submission from Dave McGee QC, and good submissions from people who were in favour of the Officer of Parliament model being used. In the eyes of the committee those submissions were outweighed by the points that were made by Dave McGee against following the Officer of Parliament model. Amongst his good points, though, was to emphasise to us that the conventions that we have around our institutional arrangements are really important in a country that does not have a written constitution. Even countries that do have written constitutions often still rely upon unwritten conventions as to how they administer important institutions to maintain public confidence in the independence and impartiality of those institutions.

One of the ideas that the select committee put forward, reflecting the submission from Dave McGee QC, was that we should have more rigour around the process by which we appoint people who are not Officers of Parliament, but who are being appointed by Parliament to independent Crown entities. I know that the Minister has come forward with a letter dated 28 April that sets out how he proposes to make the first appointments to this commission. But the underlying point that Dave McGee made was that there should be, perhaps, some changes made to the Standing Orders in order to regularise the way in which we make appointments to not only this body but also other bodies, such as the Abortion Supervisory Committee and the Independent Police Conduct Authority, in order to have greater public confidence that those process will be continued impartially into the future.

The other point I make is a more general one. Yes, it is good that we are aiming for a consensus around these laws, and the criticisms that were made by the then Opposition National Party of our last reform of the electoral financing law had some justification, in terms of how some of it went too far in the absence of a consensus. On that basis the Minister retreated back to the prior status quo representing a consensus in respect of electoral financing, and he has run a process to change it in future. But it has become apparent to me through that process that if we use the status quo as the foundation, in the absence of a consensus on the changes that should be made the Government can always resist changes that it does not think are in its interests. It can say there is no consensus for the changes, because it does not agree with them. I think that rather than the need for a consensus there is a need for give and take, so that we arrive at a consensus whereby we give a bit on our side and other parties of opposing views give a bit on their side.

I think that this point comes at us in respect of the issue, which is unresolved in our law, of third-party campaigning. I know that we have a different view as to what should be the rigours of the control on third-party campaigning compared with the National Party’s view, but I also know that the royal commission said the absence of controls on third-party campaigning makes a nonsense of having controls on political party campaigning, because political parties can go and use another vehicle that is related to them. That vehicle does not even have to be unrelated; the parties can control it, and it can be completely unrestricted in the way that it campaigns. Now it seems to me to make a mockery of the underlying purpose of the election finance rules. If that situation prevails in the electoral financing legislation that comes out of the select committee, it will be an example of the Government withholding a consensus and effectively saying that controlling third-party campaigning is not in National’s interest, so the Government will stick with the status quo. I do not think that is what I mean, or what most New Zealanders would think is meant, by trying to provide fair electoral laws that have a broad consensus around them.

That issue is not specific to this bill. I do value the work that the Minister has done, but I just think that there is a need for a wee bit of give and take on the part of the National Party on that particular issue.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): I will address very quickly just two or three of the matters that have been raised. I assure the member who has just resumed his seat, David Parker, that I welcome any constructive discussion on these issues through the next 4 to 5 months. Give and take operates on both sides of the yin and yang, so I look forward to continuing discussions as we try to work our way through what will not be straightforward as we beaver through these electoral finance laws.

In respect of the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s comments on resourcing and the information campaigns that the Electoral Commission will need to oversee, I am confident that there will be vigilance on that matter, and I am confident that the commission will have the necessary resources and time frames to ensure that vigilance.

In respect of the comments that the Hon Jim Anderton raised on time pressures around getting education campaigns moving, I guess the only advice I can offer the honourable member is that the sooner we get through the Committee stage and the third reading debate, the sooner the commission can get on with the task at hand.

Lastly, a number of members have raised the issue of encouraging the Standing Orders Committee to develop a procedure to apply for the appointment of members of the board of the Electoral Commission and, for that matter, of other similar bodies. The Government has no difficulty at all in that course of action being followed.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Consequential amendments and transitional provisions

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): Part 2 of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill provides for the transition from the old to the new and sets out how the existing Chief Electoral Office and the existing Electoral Commission become the new integrated Electoral Commission. Part 2 enables the new Electoral Commission to be established immediately after the bill comes into force so that it can—as the honourable member Jim Anderton was concerned about—immediately prepare itself to receive the electoral functions required. At the close of 30 September 2010 the bill disestablishes the existing Electoral Commission and revokes the appointments of the current Electoral Commissioners and the current Chief Electoral Officer. Employees of the current electoral agencies will be transferred, if they agree, across to the new Electoral Commission. These employees are also assured, as far as possible, of continued enjoyment of their current terms and conditions—their service will be deemed to be unbroken. Other mechanisms provide for the assets, liabilities, rights, and responsibilities of the current electoral agencies to be transferred over to the new Electoral Commission on 1 October of this year. Part 2 also amends the Electoral Act 1993 and other relevant electoral legislation and regulations to make the technical and consequential amendments necessary to implement the policy of integrating the electoral agencies.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I will not take a lengthy call on Part 2; it is the machinery to bring into effect the new Electoral Commission. But I thought I would not let the opportunity go by to comment on clause 26, “Restriction of compensation for technical redundancy”. It identifies that when somebody moves into the new Electoral Commission from one of the existing agencies—the ministry or the existing commission—he or she has substantially equivalent employment, which means substantially the same position and on terms of conditions that are no less favourable than those applying immediately before, on terms that treat the period of service with the previous employer and any other service recognised by the previous employer as continuous service—sorry, I left out that bit before—including any service-related redundancy and superannuation conditions.

The point I make is that there is a whole stack of people out there in the private sector who get no redundancy when they are made redundant, and this House had a really good opportunity recently to pick up my colleague Darien Fenton’s member’s bill, which would have provided for at least some minimum redundancy to apply. I think what we see reflected here is that the Government is, appropriately, concerned about technical redundancy being picked up in an area where there are widespread redundancy provisions designed to protect people should they be made redundant from their position and not be able to take up substantially the same position on ongoing conditions that recognise all of their previous continuous service and that continuous service lasting. But that is not so for the private sector—in very few instances now do we see it. It is really only those areas where there are well-organised, unionised workplaces that have built redundancy provisions into their conditions of employment.

I will say one other thing, because it is important. I would like the Government to reflect on this: in other parts of the State sector, there is a practice being developed in order to get around those redundancy provisions, which are quite widespread within the public sector. There is a practice of trying to develop short-term fixed-term contracts and then enticing people to resign their existing position when they are being made redundant and putting them into a fixed-term contract. That would not stand up in a court of law. It would obviously be challenged. But a lot of people are feeling quite vulnerable and want to maintain some income—facing, alternatively, redundancy and not knowing whether they will be able to pick up another job. I thought that it was an ideal opportunity to simply mention that this is going on. I hope that the Government will do something about it, next time it has an opportunity. I acknowledge my good friend Darien Fenton for the good work she attempted to do in this area.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill

In Committee

Clause 3 Purpose

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): The purpose of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, according to the purpose clause, is to deny parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders. I think that there is a problem with that language, because it includes manslaughter as well. We have created an interesting juxtaposition in this legislation. The Minister will know that there are people who are found guilty of manslaughter who could not possibly be defined as guilty of the worst murders. I will mention a case that I became familiar with when we had the debate on provocation. I would like the Committee to reflect on the fact that this purpose clause refers to—

Paul Quinn: Lot of reflecting, Lianne.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Well, I think it is worth doing. I am trying to be helpful and ensure that the Committee looks at all of these issues. A couple entered into what was a suicide pact, essentially—an elderly couple, both not very well. Unfortunately, in this suicide pact—the whole situation was unfortunate—the husband was successful in assisting his wife to complete suicide, but he was not successful in his own suicide. He was charged with murder, he pleaded guilty, and he was sentenced under our new law, which does not require life imprisonment as a mandatory sentence. It has to be imposed unless there are good reasons not to, but essentially it is no longer a mandatory sentence. One of the issues that came up in the course of that case was that the result, essentially, was that he was granted home detention. One could not possibly describe him as having been in this category of an offender guilty of the worst murders, when he had pleaded guilty to murder on the basis of not having a trial. He was not very well himself. I think there was recognition from the Crown that it would not prosecute for the life sentence that could have been given in that particular case. If there had not been the alternative to life imprisonment for murder at the time, then that judge would have found it very difficult. I personally think that the husband probably would have pleaded not guilty if there had not been the alternative to life imprisonment.

The trouble is that the language of this says that this is what it is for, but it means that it will capture a whole lot of people who are not in this category. So somebody, for example, who has had a “youthful” time, who has gone down the wrong track and committed two very serious offences when he was quite young, and who then has had a period of redemption—finding himself, making up with those he has offended against, and restoring himself on to a good path later in life—if he was that gentleman, he would face the maximum term of imprisonment because he would be regarded as a persistent repeat offender, even though he had committed only two serious offences at a time when he was young, not really fully grown, and not able to make the right decisions at that time in his life.

The purpose clause is trying to encapsulate what the Government is trying to achieve, but it fails to identify that there are always exceptions to these rules, and I do not know whether the exceptions are actually identified within the purpose as well. As I understand the bill—and I am not as familiar with this bill as I am with others because I did not sit on the select committee—there are provisions that enable the application of parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders because there is an alternative provision in there for those cases where there is an alternative if the judge determines that it would be a breach.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour): I am speaking to clause 3.

Paul Quinn: Are you going to help her out? She needs helping.

CARMEL SEPULONI: Mr Quinn seems to have a problem with women in this House. He constantly interjects whenever a woman on this side of the House gets to her feet. He is not on the side of a rugby field, so I would prefer if he was quiet when we start our speeches. I thank Mr Quinn.

I stand to discuss the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill with regard to clause 3, “Purpose”. Clause 3(a) states the purpose is to “deny parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders:”, and clause 3(b) states it is to “impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences.” The overarching concern is that initially this bill in its entirety, and this particular clause, was pushed by the ACT Party and supported by National because it was deemed in their view to be some sort of deterrent to crime. From the outset, I say that it is unfortunate that all of the experts who have come through have said that in no way will this bill work as a deterrent to crime.

Our concern with the purpose outlined in this bill is in respect of some of the conditions the bill later sets out of what the different offences will be. We think that guilty pleas should be factored into sentencing, and that is something we have put forward an amendment on. The amendment would allow the court to take into account a guilty plea and reduce a sentence as a result. The proposed legislation does not provide any incentive to plead guilty, and officials have been warned that it will result in a decreased number of guilty pleas. We on this side of the House have that concern because fewer guilty pleas will be expensive for the State as there will be more defended hearings. Cases will be dragged out, which will cause victims more pain.

Along the way we have heard from the other side of the House that these punitive measures are supposed to bring justice to victims, but I cannot see how that will happen if they are dragged through the mud in these cases. Obviously, the offender will not want to have three strikes against his or her name, because there will be harsher penalties at the end. Offenders are less likely to plead guilty; therefore, victims will be dragged along as the case is drawn out. Later on, we will see more appeals being made, and that will result in victims having to relive the crime over and over again. We on this side of the House are very concerned about that.

We are also concerned about a few other things. Accidental and negligent manslaughter should be excluded from this bill. Everyone in this House would agree that manslaughter is an extremely varied offence. It can range from vicious assaults to tragic accidents. Sentences for manslaughter are extremely diverse and can range from preventive detention at the most serious end of the scale to community service in some cases of accidental manslaughter. I think it is important to talk about some of these aspects of the bill in relation to its purpose, which is to “impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences.” In talking about this, we are discussing what that side of the House determines to be a serious offence. We on this side think we need to take into consideration the varied offence that manslaughter is—it can be accidental and it can be negligent. Some would argue that if it is an offender’s third offence, he or she deserves what they get.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): I take this opportunity to address some of the issues raised by the previous speakers as to the purpose of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. Quite clearly, this Government is very serious about repeat violent offenders and making sure we have penalties that fit the fact that these people have continued to commit violent offences where there are victims. Every one of the 40 offences listed is a serious violent offence. Whether of a sexual or of a non-sexual nature, they are all serious. The issue of manslaughter has been raised and whether accidental or negligent manslaughter could be excluded. I say there is a degree of negligence required to establish liability for manslaughter. It is one of the differences between manslaughter and murder, and it is why there is a provision in terms of the sentencing that is in the bill as presented to the Committee now to differentiate manslaughter from murder. There are also opportunities in the charging of offenders in the third stage for any third strike. The police will be referring those matters to the Crown solicitor for a review of the charging so there is not an overcharge. Where there is a true negligence situation, it will make sure that those people are not overly charged and, therefore, given a very long sentence.

I have heard a lot about victims. Ninety-three percent of submitters to the Law and Order Committee supported the bill, and many of those people were victims and victims’ families. On the argument that has been put this afternoon that offenders will not plead guilty, and will plead not guilty instead, I point out that offenders already plead not guilty for a lot of serious offences. On that argument we would be forced to reduce the penalty for sexual violation from the 20 years it is now; I am not proposing that, and I do not believe that anybody in this Parliament really believes that that would lead to more people admitting their guilt.

This has a deterrent effect, although it has been stated previously that the Department of Corrections was quoted as saying there was no deterrent effect. Well, no, the papers referred to the fact that when the Department of Corrections did its calculations on the number of extra beds it would need for prisons, it had not taken into account any deterrent effect, and that is because it has to work off what it knows. What we are talking about here are our worst recidivist violent offenders, and an extra 50 beds in 5 years’ time, or about that number. Those are the sorts of numbers we are talking about. We are not talking about the run-of-the-mill silly criminal. We are talking about very serious violent offenders, who will not learn and will always create victims. That is what is important, and that is what this bill is meant to address.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I have to confess that I come to this debate on the “three strikes” legislation with some reluctance. I find it very difficult to place myself in the shoes of a victim of a violent offence, particularly a victim of a violent offence committed by a repeat offender. I find it very difficult because I do not necessarily know how I would react if I was in that situation. Of course, I think all of the members of the Committee who speak on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill have a lot of sympathy for people who find themselves in that position. Our hearts certainly go out to them. It is understandable that they would look to the criminal justice system for an element of retribution, and for punishment of those who have perpetrated those crimes. That is very understandable, and I can certainly see why victims would regard that as important.

However, if I were asked to rank retribution versus prevention in order of priority, I would place prevention much higher up the list. Although retribution is certainly part of our criminal justice system, the prevention of crime in the first place has to be integral to what we do. One of the fundamental questions that we always need to ask about any legislation before the Committee is what it will do to prevent crime in the first place. One of the most pertinent questions in respect of this legislation is whether it will make an offender less likely to reoffend, and whether it will aid prisoner rehabilitation so that offenders are less likely to reoffend when they are released from prison. A lot of evidence has been presented from overseas and from within New Zealand suggesting that that will not be the case. It suggests, in fact, that these initiatives will not improve the rate of rehabilitation or reduce the rate of reoffending once somebody is released from prison. That has to be fundamental to this debate: what will make our communities safer? Yes, offenders are reoffending. That suggests that part of our criminal justice system—the retribution and punishment system that we have at the moment—is not working to rehabilitate prisoners and prevent reoffending. How can we improve that? I am not sure that doing more of the same, making the sentences longer and holding people in prison for longer, will necessarily contribute to a better outcome in that regard.

I have spent a lot of time discussing these issues in my own electorate of Rimutaka. We have the country’s biggest prison in my electorate, Rimutaka Prison, and I am guided a lot by the work of Prison Fellowship New Zealand, which I think does some fantastic work at Rimutaka Prison, working with really difficult people. The last person to whom I spoke about this bill before coming to the Chamber was involved with the Prison Fellowship. He said to me that he had met some people in prison who he thinks are really bad people, and he would hate to think of them being out there in the community, but he has also met some people, while working in Rimutaka Prison, whom he would be proud to introduce me to. Those comments were made by somebody in the Prison Fellowship environment, who was trying to rehabilitate prisoners so that the rate of reoffending was decreased and offenders were properly reintegrated into the community once they were released. I really take that on board. That person does not think this bill makes good policy, because he sees a number of problems with it. For example, prison discipline could well become a problem if prisoners have all hope of being released from prison removed. If they know that they are in prison for a very, very long time and there is no chance of parole, what will provide them with the incentive to reform, to behave, and to try to better themselves in prison? That is the feedback I get.

I also have a number of prison officers in my electorate whom I interact with on a reasonably frequent basis. They do one of the toughest jobs I could possibly imagine. They deal with some of the most difficult people—actually quite awful people, quite often—and a lot of the prison guards I talk to are concerned about the implications this bill will have for their ability to control the people who are in prison. I have a lot of sympathy with that view, and I can understand the argument they put forward. In fact, I think that what we should be doing is looking to refocus the debate in this area on to how we can stop so many people landing up in prison in the first place. All of the evidence that I have seen so far suggests that putting someone in prison probably makes them more likely to reoffend. Quite often it makes them worse criminals as they come out the other end of it, because they become so disconnected from society.

We also need to think very carefully about what prompts a lot of the offending in the first place. Many of the perpetrators of violent crime are often victims of violent crime before they are perpetrators of it, and I think we need to look very carefully at that.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): It is important to remember throughout this debate that the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is unashamedly about reducing the number of victims and about public safety in general. Since the election four more people have died at the hands of persons who, had this law been in place at the time they committed their crimes, would have been in jail. That is not rhetoric. It is not spin. It is a simple fact. I heard someone insultingly say the other day, when this subject came up in another forum, that we cannot say that about the numbers we talked about in the initial phase because some of those victims might have died of diseases. As the Americans say, “Puh-lease”.

I have been involved in debates recently with a number of people on both sides of the argument—in fact, Mr Lees-Galloway and I had a debate a week ago, and a very civil affair it was too—but the most interesting one was probably a debate in Auckland 2 or 3 weeks ago with Professor Warren Brookbanks, a respected academic at the University of Auckland, and Dr Ekins, who has published quite widely on this subject. Dr Brookbanks was good enough to agree several things in that debate. First, he readily agreed that only in the tiny pool that is New Zealand are most academics opposed to this legislation. Professor Brookbanks acknowledged that in the United States, opinion is about even on whether the “three strikes” laws, in the 26 US states that have them, have been effective.

But he went further. Professor Brookbanks also agreed with me that the two phenomena I pointed out to him were, in fact, evidence of a deterrent effect. One of them was that of the prison population in California who are “strikers”, about 60 percent are first-strikers, about 30 percent are second-strikers, and only about 10 percent are third-strikers. Professor Brookbanks agreed with me that that distribution indicated that although first-strikers were more numerous, a much smaller number wished to go back for another go, and a very much smaller number wished to go back for a third go. Secondly, Professor Brookbanks agreed on the fact that prior to 1994 there was a net inflow of parolees into the state of California. That was the year, of course, that the “three strikes” law was enacted in California. Prior to 1994, parolees came from other states to California, I presume because of the weather, because it was a nice place to live, and because of its lifestyle, etc. Post-1994 there was a net outflow of parolees, particularly among strikes offenders who got out after a second strike and quickly got across the border to Arizona or Washington state, which do not have “three strikes” laws. Professor Brookbanks agreed with me that that was evidence of deterrence.

Another thing that impresses me is my ongoing communication with a lobby group in California, which I have referred to in the House before, called Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes. Note that the name of the organisation has the word “Amend”, not “Abolish”. I sent that organisation the original ACT version of this bill, which was quite different from the version we are debating today. I have the comment on record: “David, compared with what we’ve got here, yours is wonderful.” I spoke to the president of Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes a week or so ago, a lady called Geri Silva, and told her where things were at and what was happening. She again expressed great surprise that, as she put it, we do not have LWOP—life without parole—even for the really bad guys. When we visited Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes 3 years ago, together with Tai Hobson, the widower of Mary Hobson, one of William Bell’s victims, Geri could not believe that, as she put it, “this guy”—Bell—“was on the streets with 102 previous convictions”. So it is quite instructive that a left-wing lobby group seeks only to amend the law, and that it would be delighted with the legislation we will be passing. The organisation does not seek to abolish the law, because it can see that it is working.

Another thing that is interesting, and that has never been canvassed in this Chamber before to my knowledge, is that the Americans have a system called propositions, which we would call binding referenda. In fact, the original “three strikes” law came into being in California through a proposition. But in 2004 there was an attempt to weaken California’s Act to something pretty close to what we have, most notably in narrowing the focus down to what the state calls “serious violent felonies”. As I have said in other speeches, the undoubted injustices in California have arisen from this grey category called “technical felony”, and that is what has led to the cases that are much discussed, of people going to jail for life for stealing golf clubs, etc. A proposition was put on the ballot in 2004 to weaken California’s very wide law down to something very similar to what we have—and it was defeated. It was defeated most heavily in poor, black counties. Rich liberals from San Francisco wanted it weakened, because crime does not affect them. But poor black counties in Los Angeles rejected it by a country mile. I was reminded of that fact—that poor communities are those most affected—when I visited the Māngere Māori wardens a few weeks back, and I did not have to finish what I was saying about crime affecting poor people worst. They knew it. I was a bit nervous about presenting the “three strikes” argument to these people but they were right on board with it. They thought it was a great idea.

So this bill is indeed a victim-focused bill. It will, at the very least, reduce the number of victims through incapacitation; it cannot do otherwise. Aside from tragedies such as what happened to the corrections officer over the weekend—one of those who do that very challenging job on behalf of the rest of us—I cannot see any good reason why the deterrent effect that Professor Brookbanks acknowledges from the data overseas would not be replicated here, and we know that the adverse effects such as going to jail for stealing a pizza or stealing golf clubs simply cannot happen here. I am disappointed that some who are in opposition to this bill—I do not mean the parliamentary Opposition but those in the community—are being frankly dishonest in still saying that under the law we are going to pass, people can go to jail for life for stealing a chocolate bar, when they must know, if they have read the bill, that that is simply untrue.

ACT supports the bill; it was our idea in the first place. We believe very firmly and honestly that it will make a major change. I close by saying that of course we need to look at the causes of crime. I will take a later call, and give someone else a chance to speak. But we do need to look at drug treatment. I heard a very interesting lecture this morning by an American judge about drug courts in California and what they have done. We have to start somewhere and we are starting by making this change of direction in saying to violent offenders that if they cannot learn from being told twice by a judge, and by definition serving a lengthy period of imprisonment, adding first and second strikes together, then they have no place in the community. ACT makes no bones about that and we are unashamed of it. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Before I call the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, I just remind members that we are on clause 3, “Purpose”. I am not getting at anyone in particular, but I think we have progressed slightly to quite a broad debate, and I wish to not have it extend any further, because there are only two paragraphs in the purpose clause. Members should just have a look at them. There will be ample opportunity as we progress through Part 1 etc. to get into the broader parameters of what this bill is about. This is just a wee heads-up. Thank you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I appreciate the advice you have given, Mr Chair. I was not in the House for the first reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, but I want to make a couple of comments, bearing in mind your advice regarding clause 3, the purpose clause. It says, in essence, the purposes of the legislation are to “deny parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders”, and to “impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences.” On the face of it, and given the debate in the community that Mr Garrett has referred to, it would be reasonably hard to argue against some of those sentiments, until one delves into the detail of the proposals.

I say, firstly, there is a problem with regard to these sorts of debates for those of us who oppose these sorts of measures. I have never been a victim—not ever. As such I have to be careful, as a politician, even if it is just in relation to the purpose clause, about pontificating to the people who have been and are the victims of heinous crime. I acknowledge that, and I also acknowledge in this debate that had my partner or my family been dealt to in the way that many in our community have been through tragic circumstances and heinous crime, I suspect I would be less logical, more emotional, and possibly more extreme in my attitude than I am. I accept that, because the closer that crime gets to one’s home the more personal the issue becomes, and, of course, the bigger the impact that it has.

But in this Chamber we are actually charged with trying to piece together, with the best will in the world, good, solid legislation that has a positive effect. Let us put aside the argument that if one is not an extremist and a hard-liner one is soft on crime, or that if one is interested in reform one is soft on crime—that sort of drivel, which we hear often in this Chamber. If we put the political claptrap aside, I would wager and take a political risk in saying that probably every member of Parliament on either side of the Chamber cares about victims and believes that the guilty should be punished, but also believes that the behaviour of offenders should be changed—that they should be rewired. I would wager that we all want to pass effective legislation that actually works.

As we look at the purpose clause the problem for the Labour Opposition is that I am sure that as we go through this debate, sadly, we will have the usual sort of comment made that anyone who is opposed to this legislation is a hand-wringing liberal who is soft on crime. That is probably where it will go; it has degenerated into that right through the debate on this bill. But those of us who are opposed to this purpose clause are opposed to it because we do not believe that this legislation will work. We do not believe that it will have the effect suggested by its promoters. We believe that this purpose clause, along with every other clause in the bill, is more about political posturing, is more about bluntly tugging at the heartstrings of victims, and more about raising the expectations of victims than it is about having the effect that has been suggested. In the years to come, I suspect that we, or maybe others, will be back in this place, looking at what this debate was about and what—[Interruption] Well, there we go; the utterances from that member prove my point. We will be back here to look at this legislation—either to amend it or dispose of it—because it will not have had the practical effects or provided the deterrence that its supporters and promoters say it will.

I bow to Mr Garrett, who is a lawyer. I am sure we could dredge out all sorts of statistics from all sorts of places—and that has been done by members from both sides in this debate—about whether paragraph (a) of the purpose clause, regarding the denial of parole to repeat offenders, will have the practical effect that the promoters want to achieve in terms of deterring crime and, I presume, changing people’s behaviour. It is interesting that Mr Garrett quoted an American judge. We had an American judge come to our caucus: Judge Hyman. I think he went around the country. As a judge in California, he had administered the Californian version of this law. I acknowledge Mr Garrett’s point that someone will not receive a life sentence for stealing a stick of gum—I accept that. But Judge Hyman’s thesis, based on his experience of administering a law where, as in the purpose clause of this bill, there are aspects of denying parole and imposing maximum sentences, was that that did not work. We will back what works, and we will oppose what does not work.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is just part of this Government’s review of law and order issues after years of supervised neglect by the late, unlamented, Labour administration, whose languor, lassitude, and legislative listlessness and flaccidity mired our country in a miasma of torpor and despond. We are addressing the issues. This principled, pragmatic National-led Government is listening to New Zealanders and finding solutions to their concerns.

We have here in front of us the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. This bill has two main purposes. The first is to deny parole to repeat serious, violent offenders, and to offenders who are guilty of committing the worst murders. What could be arguable about that? The second purpose is to impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent crimes. I put it to you that that is an entirely reasonable sanction to place upon violent repeat offenders. This bill is specifically focused on those offenders who show no regard for others. They show no regard for their victims, no regard for their families or their community, and are repeatedly convicted for serious and violent offending. All of those offences have a maximum penalty of at least 7 years in prison. The bill ensures also that victims of repeat offenders and their families do not have to experience the additional stress of attending regular parole hearings or worry that an offender may be released on parole.

So how will this bill work? It creates a three-stage regime that will improve public safety by imprisoning the worst repeat violent and sexual offenders for longer periods and under increasingly strict regimes if they continue to offend. At stage one, offenders who are convicted of a serious violent offence will be sentenced as normal but will be warned both verbally and in writing that they are on the first rung of the regime and of what will happen if they are convicted of another serious violent offence in the future. Now, critics of that have said that offenders do not consider the consequences of their actions when they commit crimes, so longer sentences are not an effective deterrent. However, the road to a third strike is a long one, which involves clear warnings, delivered by a judge, about the consequences of various serious offending, and considerable time in prison, where, it is hoped, they will reflect on their actions.

So at stage two, offenders who are convicted for the second time of a serious violent offence, and who have previously received a warning, will be sentenced as normal, but will be required to serve without parole any sentence of imprisonment imposed by the court. That is eminently reasonable. They will also be warned both verbally and in writing of the consequences of a further conviction for a serious violent offence. So in no way can those offenders be in any doubt of the consequences of their actions.

At stage three an offender who is convicted for a third time of a serious violent offence and has previously received a final warning at stage two must receive the maximum prison sentence for that offence and serve that sentence in full without parole. However, this bill recognises that in some very rare cases the circumstances of the offender and the offence will be such that a sentence served without parole would be manifestly unjust. The bill takes that into account and makes provision for the court, where it is satisfied that a no-parole order would be manifestly unjust, to not make such an order at stage three when imposing the maximum term for a serious violent offence. I commend this bill to the House.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): First, I give the condolences of the Green Party to the family of the prison guard who was so tragically killed recently by a prisoner. I think that hangs over what we are debating here today. We want to reduce violence in our society and violence in our prisons. David Garrett says that the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is about reducing the number of victims. I believe he is sincere that that is the aim of the bill; I just happen to disagree that this bill will reduce the number of victims of crime, including serious violent crime, in our society. I think Chris Hipkins was right when he said, in an earlier speech, that we really should be focusing on prevention, which includes rehabilitation, and not on retribution. So partly here we are discussing a different philosophy of how to deal with people in prison who have committed crimes.

There was an interesting article in Time magazine of 10 May about Norway’s second-largest prison, which opened on 8 April and has a completely different focus from our prisons as they currently are—well, not completely different, but it has a very strong emphasis on rehabilitation. The concept is that being in prison is itself the punishment, and all the effort should be placed on rehabilitation. The prison governor said that in the Norwegian prison system there is a focus on human rights and respect. Later on the article talks about the prison guards having meals with inmates, and all kinds of things that really push people on the road to rehabilitation. It gives some statistics. Twenty percent of Norway’s prisoners end up in jail again 2 years after their release. I do not have the exact New Zealand figures to hand, but they are much, much higher. As a result of that relatively low rate of reoffending, Norway, which has about the same population as New Zealand, has 3,300 prisoners, whereas the current figure in New Zealand is, I do not know, 8,500 to 9,000—about three times as much. I think we can learn from that. To just say we should abolish parole for a certain category of prisoners—and parole is essential for prisoners’ transition from prison to society—is going in completely the opposite direction, and will only raise the rate of reoffending and the rate of violent crime, which this bill is intended to deal with.

Judith Collins, in her speech, said that there are those who will never learn. That comment was directed at a section of the prison population. Sure, some prisoners may be so distorted in their personalities, etc., that they will never learn, but I think the approach is not to define prisoners, due to the nature of the crimes they commit, as beyond rehabilitation. The potential for rehabilitation is partly an independent factor, and we must try every possibility, particularly for the most violent criminals, to get prisoners on the right path when they leave jail. We must not just hold over their heads the “three strikes” policy or elimination of parole, but have an approach that involves some empathy for the prisoners.

One thing that worries me is that if we define a certain category of these prisoners as “evil” or “beyond rehabilitation”, we are almost denying in ourselves empathy, and that is a part of the criminal psyche. The criminal who commits violent robbery, murder, and so on is usually lacking the empathy towards the victim that would enable that crime to be prevented. We have to turn it the other way round and try to get those prisoners, while they are in jail, to have some social concern and to think beyond their own narrow interests.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I think that when we look at the purpose clause, we see, as my colleague Clayton Cosgrove said before, that there would be quite widespread acknowledgment across the Committee that we are concerned about reoffending. We have to be concerned about reoffending in our communities. When people go and spend time in prison, then leave, and recommit crimes, we have to ask ourselves why that is so, and what we can be doing about it. It is clearly defeating the purpose of people going to prison if they are constantly reoffending when they come out, and I think there is a shared concern about that across the Committee. There is a shared concern about what underlies the purpose clause there, which is that the safety of the public should be paramount when it comes to how we operate within the criminal justice system. There is a shared concern about that, right across New Zealand society.

As my colleague Clayton Cosgrove also said, in our jobs as MPs we all meet the victims of crime. Some of us have been the victims of various types of crime but we also meet many victims of crime, and feel the pain they have had and the experiences they have to continue to go through, day after day—well beyond the time the crimes were perpetrated. All of those things lie behind the concerns of everybody in this Chamber, and I am sure they lie behind the purpose clause we are debating at the moment. But in the end, as a Parliament our job is to pass laws that will be effective and will work, and that have evidence to support them in doing that. I do not believe, and Labour members do not believe, that this bill will do that, or that this purpose clause can be supported, despite what might lie behind it as a commonly held concern.

The problem with this bill is that it is unworkable, it is also inequitable, and it will not lead to just sentences in the way, perhaps, that the promoters would like it to. Mr Garrett said we needed to start somewhere, but my problem with this bill is that this is not where we should be starting. We should be starting by working to stop people from committing crimes, and by investing in the early years to ensure that people do not move into a life of crime. We need to be ensuring that we are properly supporting rehabilitation and reintegration into society, and that we are not undermining the organisations that do that work or cutting the funding for the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society, a 132-year-old organisation that does remarkable work on reintegration. We should actually be devoting ourselves to starting where we can have the greatest impact—that is, starting by working with young people who are heading in a direction we do not want them to go down. We should be starting at an even younger stage, with people who have learning difficulties, who cannot stay in school, and who have behavioural problems. We should be supporting parents to be able to bring up those young people. That is where we should be starting.

But the purpose clause—and the drive behind this bill—is a poster; it is a slogan, it is an emblem. It is not real change, not real development; it is something the ACT Party has promoted and National has gone along with, but it is not actually starting in the place where we should start. I am sorry to say that I think the purpose clause there gives false hope to people. It gives false hope that somehow this bill will solve the violent crime that is out there, but there is no evidence to support that. Internationally there is no evidence to support that, and nothing has been presented to us here that does that. The regulatory impact statement for this bill actually challenges, time and time again, the issue of whether public safety will be enhanced, whether there is a deterrent effect. We cannot stand in this Chamber now and give to the victims of crimes and their families the false hope that somehow or other this legislation will wish away all of that violent crime. I believe that that is what is going on here, in terms of the ACT Party and National. They are providing false hope to people. This regime is unlikely to deter would-be offenders; that is the evidence internationally. The regulatory impact statement raises that question.

Mr Garrett talked about California. It is easy to throw around different statistics in this debate, and, yes, there has been a drop in crime in parts of California. But that started before the “three strikes” bill. In the United States, the greatest, the sharpest, drop in crime in the last decades has actually been in New York, a state that does not have a “three strikes” law. So I ask Mr Garrett why we are not looking at that. In California, the counties that aggressively enforce the “three strikes” laws did not see the greatest drop in crime. The greatest drop in crime was seen in the counties that did not enforce the law as strongly. It is easy to throw up these statistics and get them out there, but that is not always the way to get the change we want.

JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5.

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Part 1 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Part 1 of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill deals with the main changes to the principal legislation. It involves not only the ACT Party’s “three strikes” policy, on which it went into the last election, but also the National Party’s policy of no parole for the worst repeat violent offenders. It has been a pleasure working with Mr Garrett and the ACT Party on this bill. The party has been very decent to work with, and I thank it for that.

Changes have been made to this bill through the deliberations of the Law and Order Committee, which has been a long process over the last year. I thank the committee chair, Sandra Goudie, and all the committee members for the attention they gave to the bill.

In particular, some issues have been raised about rehabilitation—that perhaps we should just have more of it. I say that we do: we are doubling the amount of rehabilitation in our prisons. By the end of next year there will be double what there was when we took over as the Government. I do not agree, at all, that repeat violent offenders who create victims are themselves necessarily victims. At some stage in their lives those people must take responsibility for their actions. Will someone be old enough at 30 to take responsibility, or will that person be old enough at 40?

I think many of us feel that it is very important to have a system in place in our criminal justice system where people are given warnings about what will happen. I am very pleased with the assistance that has been given by judges and the judiciary, and by Mr Garrett, in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 123, which we are putting forward today, which is about how we can make sure that the warning system works best not only for offenders but also for victims and for the criminal justice system.

This bill is not about locking up people for stealing a loaf of bread; it is very much focused on our worst repeat violent offenders. When we talk about what we can do for them, let us talk about what we can do for victims, as well. One of the things we can do is keep the very worst people locked in secure environments so that they do not create more victims. I know that it is sometimes very painful for people to have to deal with the raw emotions of victims. I know that judges often find it very difficult to deal with victim impact statements, and I know that many of us who have not been the victims of horrendous violent offences find it very difficult to deal with people who are so raw in their emotions. Frankly, I think we are lucky to not be in that situation. My heart goes out to those people; I know that it is uncomfortable. But do members know what? We just have to accept it. It is their emotion; it is their life, or the life of their family member, that has been taken apart, and they deserve to be treated with dignity. This bill will give back some dignity to them and to their families.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): The Labour Party has put forward a number of amendments to Part 1, which I will briefly deal with. They relate to clause 5, which inserts a manifestly unjust provision for “three strikes” sentencing, and exclude in new section 86A accidental or negligent manslaughter, for reasons that I will go into later in the debate, and which my colleague has referred to. We have a number of other amendments.

I will make just a couple of points. What I think is interesting about the process around this bill, as we talk about Part 1, is a comment made by the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Corrections, in her summation. I think she said—and I will be corrected if I misquote her—that she does not consider offenders to be victims. To some extent I agree with her on that, but it is very interesting that if we accept—as, for instance, Mr Garrett did when he got into some difficulties in this place in his own office—

Sandra Goudie: Are we talking about Part 1?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, I am talking about Part 1, if the member would listen. That member’s trouble is that she is not chairing the Law and Order Committee now; we have a decent chairman in the chair.

When Mr Garrett got into some difficulties he said a couple of things. He said that things had happened in his life. I think he referred to an oil rig and to a culture in Samoa that, he said, affected his behaviour at the present time. I accept that and I do not argue with it, and I do not say it to make a political point. I think Mr Garrett was actually saying that things happen in people’s lives. For instance, a child who is raped at the age of 5 by his father may indeed turn out to be a sexual predator at age 25. That does not in any way excuse what that sexual predator did, but logically one might say that is the alibi that Mr Garrett used for his behaviour: the environment people grow up in and the things that were done to them do not excuse their behaviour but may have some tangible or intangible intelligent connection that may have promoted their becoming the predator they are today. Maybe there is a connection. I agree with people who say that does not excuse the behaviour. But I argue that there is a connection and, to use Mr Garrett’s point about starting points, we should perhaps be dealing with that starting point, not political pamphlets like this. So although I agree with the Minister when I say that offenders are not necessary victims, because of the nature of their actions, I also think if one looks at their behaviour and the environment in which they grew up and lived in, one might be able to draw some tangible conclusions that might teach us ways to prevent crime from happening in the future.

I will get back to the bill to stop the squawk-box across the aisle. She thinks she is still chairing the Law and Order Committee, but she chaired that committee in such a way that she truncated and shut down any debate about the process surrounding this bill. If she thought that this bill would really work she would have encouraged debate and allowed the Ministry of Justice, the actual authoritative agency that deals with this bill, to make submissions on the amending clauses. The Minister of Justice has become the invisible man on this bill, although in some ways I do not blame him, because he does not believe in it, either.

I will deal with some of the amendments we have put forward. We are putting forward an amendment to new section 86D(2) in clause 5—and I will go slowly for Ms Goudie—by inserting after “maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for each offence” the words “unless the Court is satisfied that, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, it would be manifestly unjust to make the order.” The reason for this amendment is that the legislation states that on a third strike the offender will receive the maximum penalty in prison for that offence, with no parole. When people have criticised the bill for taking away judicial discretion, the ACT Party has repeatedly asserted that the court has the discretion, on a third qualifying offence, to not impose the maximum sentence if it would be manifestly unjust. For example, Mr Hide and Mr Garrett, in a pamphlet on the “three strikes” policy and the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, said the following: “The judge sentencing a Strike Three offender will have no option but to sentence the offender to the ‘max’ unless it would be ‘manifestly unjust’ to do so.” This is not correct. The proposed legislation says that although the court has the discretion not to order the sentence to be served without parole if it is satisfied that it would be manifestly unjust to make the order, imposing the maximum sentence on a third qualifying offence is mandatory. Simply put, Labour’s amendment gives the court the discretion not to impose a maximum term of imprisonment on a third-strike offence if it is satisfied that it would be manifestly unjust to do so. That aligns the proposed legislation with at least the public assertions of the ACT Party.

There are many examples of when it may be deemed unjust to sentence an offender to a maximum sentence for a third offence. The most obvious, of course—as has been discussed in the previous debate—is manslaughter, because of the huge variance in the seriousness of that offence. As the legislation is currently written, an offender would receive a life sentence for manslaughter on a third offence, whether the manslaughter was a vicious assault or a tragic hunting accident. In fact, officials came before us and said that it could well be the case—not theoretically but in practical terms—that a person may commit a heinous first-strike offence and get a lesser sentence than a person who commits a third strike and less heinous, if I can put it that way, offence. I wonder what the “get tough” Minister and Mr Garrett will say to the victims of a first-strike offence when the two are compared and they see that something is wrong if we are talking about equity of victims. What emotions will run through the minds of those victims?

If we are interested in justice and in appropriate levels of justice, then issues around manslaughter and its varying nature should be considered. We could have a case where a person commits aggravated robbery twice to, say, finance a drug habit. I am not making any excuses for that person; it is an extremely bad thing to do. It is outrageous and should be punished. But 40 years on, that person may have cleaned up his or her act—I hope that we all believe in that thing called “hope” and maybe in reintegration—and after 40 years of non-offending that person may go out hunting with a mate, a hunting accident occurs, and somebody is killed. I am sure somebody will laugh at this, but it is a real possibility. It may be remote, but it is a possibility that needs to be covered off in this legislation. We have an amendment on the Table dealing with that.

It is not about political points; there are some major holes in this legislation. I have no doubt that the bill will go through tonight. We will oppose it but members opposite have the votes and they will win. We are proposing a number of amendments because, even though we oppose the bill going through, we believe that there are manifest inadequacies and weaknesses within it. I would like an explanation from the Minister in the chair about my example. Let us say a person had committed aggravated robbery twice in his or her career to finance a drug habit, then 40 years later commits a third-strike offence because he or she goes hunting with a mate—I am not excusing it—something occurs, an accident happens, and the “three strikes” policy kicks in. I argue that that is far different from the other end of the variances of manslaughter; we can probably all think of a number of examples of the vicious nature of manslaughter.

I raise this issue with the Minister in all seriousness, and she may want to take some advice on it. I think it is a pertinent issue if we are truly concerned, as has been said, about protecting victims and ensuring that just outcomes flow from this legislation. I do not believe that they will. As we have done in the past with other law and order bills, we offer the Minister what we believe may well be a logical solution. Mr Garrett is a lawyer and I am not, and I would be very interested if he could proffer an opinion on that example and on the other amendments. Even though Mr Garrett and I have our disagreements from time to time, I hope that we both want to pass legislation that at least provides for just outcomes and does not perpetuate, or create as an unintended consequence, unjust outcomes. I assume that all members of Parliament want to do that. I argue that, if the hypothetical example that I have put before the Committee was put into practice, it would be an unjust outcome. If a person who has cleaned up his or her act, has maybe learnt from a first and second strike—maybe—and then kills someone else in a hunting accident, that person would receive a manifestly unjust outcome under this legislation in its present form.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): As a relatively new member, I am not sure whether it is my place to do this, but I have learnt in my time here that if one is being serious and is not making political points—which Mr Cosgrove denies he is doing—then the proper way to put forward amendments like Mr Cosgrove’s amendment is to consult with other parties well in advance, so that they have the opportunity to discuss proposed amendments—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. To be helpful, it may assist the member to know that there have been many, many precedents in this House, and in this current Parliament, in fact, when whole pieces of legislation have been laid on the Table and no one has seen those—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order.

DAVID GARRETT: Today is caucus day for all parties. If Mr Cosgrove had called me, even this morning, or yesterday, but, more particularly, last week, and said that Labour members had identified the things they did not like about the bill and that could be improved, and asked us how about it, I say I would have taken those amendments to my caucus. We would have discussed them at some length. We would have got some information and advice. But here we are today with those amendments plonked on the Table, with no notice at all, so—sadly—it quite clearly is simply an attempt at point-scoring.

I will go on to the matter of rehabilitation, which was raised by members opposite. I put on record that our party regards—and, in particular, I regard—the desirability of rehabilitation as a no-brainer. I ask how one can possibly argue against rehabilitation on any number of grounds: compassion, for both victims and the criminal; fairness; public safety; and, if we want to get down to it, money. Who would want to have more people in jail at 90 grand a year than we have to have in jail? It is an absolute no-brainer. The problem then becomes how we achieve that. Criminologists are a wee bit like psychologists. They inhabit different schools of thought. There is the “nothing works” school of criminology and the “things work” school of criminology, but even the “things work” school acknowledges that we need to spend a ginormous amount of money to rehabilitate a relatively small number of criminals.

Sadly, one thing that both schools agree on is that rehabilitation is most effective when the person wants to be rehabilitated. Unlike Mr Cosgrove, I have not been to 40 prisons, or whatever he said it was in question time today, but I have been to half a dozen in my time here, and in every single one I have seen literacy and numeracy programmes. I have seen training. In some I have seen industries. I was particularly impressed with a drug therapy group at Arohata Woman’s Prison, and I am corresponding with a couple of prisoners from that group about this very bill. So it is not true to say that there are no attempts at rehabilitation. We could do better; indeed, I think that we should.

I started to mention my experience just this morning of listening to Judge Peggy Hora. I did not ask her, but I think she would classify herself as being on the liberal—with a small “l”—end of the California judiciary. She was at the forefront of the establishment of drug courts in that state, which, putting it very shortly and simply, substitute treatment programmes for prison sentences. As she said in her lecture—it was very good; I did not notice any of the Labour members there—when she first sat on the bench, she gave sentences of X and told drug offenders to go away and sin no more once they got out. Then they came back, so she doubled the sentence and asked what part of “do not do it” they did not understand. Then they came back and she tripled it, and she realised that it was getting nowhere. She did some research and did some study and she decided that drug treatment was the way to go. That makes plenty of sense—plenty of sense.

But one of the problems with rehabilitation efforts in New Zealand prisons at present, as Mr Cosgrove will be well aware, is that there is absolutely no certainty of sentence length. Because of the Sentencing Act 2002, no sentence handed down by a New Zealand judge, aside from a minimal non-parole period for murder, means what it says. Someone who is sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment might be there for 1½ years, for 2½ years, or for 4 years. There is no certainty, and for that reason a lot of prisoners are not eligible for treatment programmes. This bill, in a perverse kind of way, will change that. At second-strike stage, the prisoner and the jail will know exactly how long the prisoner will be there, and, by definition, it will be a fairly lengthy time.

I have done a bit of research on what happens in Singapore. I am afraid that what I have managed to turn up is relatively scanty, but I think that this is a rough description of what they do there. They have a “three strikes” type regime. As I have said before in other speeches, it is not an American baseball idea; it is actually an idea that is used all over the world. The Singapore programme works like this. When the person comes in, he or she is assessed fully on physical health, psychological health, numeracy and literacy, and education levels. The authorities, to the best of their ability, try to fix up what is wrong with that person. They train him or her for, probably not a profession, but a useful trade—let us say it is as a panel beater. When the person is released, there is aftercare, and the person gets a job. There is follow-up in much the same way as there is in our parole system. If the person offends again, he or she comes back for, by definition, a more lengthy sentence and for special treatment.

That is not 25 strokes of the rotan; it is effectively the authorities having another look at that person to see what they missed last time. Let us say, for example, that the authorities had overlooked a psychological problem and they decided that the person would be better off as a mechanic rather than as a panel beater. They train the person for that and he or she is there for 6, 7, 8, or 10 years, so there is plenty of time. That person gets work experience and comes out. But a person who comes back for a third time goes into a concrete cage and stays there. That is it. Society says that it has put all of these resources into such people, it has trained them for not one but two useful occupations, it has told them what the consequences of their continuing to act in this way will be, and that is it. I would be a little surprised if many members on the other side of the Chamber would disagree with that. That is not what we have here yet, but, certainly, speaking for myself, I would be supportive of having that kind of initiative here.

As I said, there is considerable support across the Chamber for rehabilitation. It is motherhood and apple pie—not “mom and apple pie”, as Mr Hipkins corrected me the other day. But the problem is to actually achieve it. That is the problem we face. Sadly, we now have a generation of violent thugs who do not learn and will not learn. William Bell and Graeme Burton are not unique, and we need to do something about those people. We need to try to get some consensus on how we go about stopping the next generation. It will not be easy, and there is no consensus on it at the moment. We have views on how to stop it. Labour has completely different views. There is no consensus. Each side can cite experts, statistics, studies, and individuals to support its argument, but there is absolutely no consensus. While we try to work one out, we need to keep the community safe from repeat violent offenders. That is what this bill is primarily about and, sadly, we need to think about rehabilitation second.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Firstly, I take up Mr Garrett’s point about the amendments that the Labour Party has tabled here today to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. This is the Committee stage; this is where amendments are tabled. It seems as though the Labour Party cannot do any good, any right, in Mr Garrett’s eyes: either we are not proposing alternatives and therefore we are just politicking, or we are proposing alternatives and therefore we are just politicking. I urge Mr Garrett to look at these amendments. These issues have been around throughout this debate. Probably nobody in this Chamber has been following this debate more closely than Mr Garrett. He knows what these amendments are about. He knows about the concerns about unjust sentencing. Those concerns were raised by the Ministry of Justice: they were raised by officials when commenting on the Cabinet paper. Mr Garrett knows what the concerns are about, and I urge him to look at the amendments that Clayton Cosgrove has proposed, and to consider whether this legislation fits with what the ACT Party has been telling people all around New Zealand about this bill.

In respect of the “manifestly unjust” clause, the ACT Party put out a pamphlet that said: “the judge sentencing a Strike Three offender will have no option but to sentence the offender to the maximum sentence. The only exception is if the judge determines it would be ‘manifestly unjust’ to do so.” That is wrong. This bill says the maximum sentence is mandatory—it has to be imposed. That is what this amendment is about. It is about making the concept of “manifestly unjust” mean something in this law. The amendment will address the point that was raised by the Ministry of Justice. So I really urge the parties opposite to look at the amendments that Labour is putting up.

Labour opposes this bill because we do not think it will work and we think it is inequitable. We would rather be focusing on the other end of the system. But we are now in the Committee stage of the debate, and we are prepared to put up amendments that will at least improve the bill and give real meaning, in this case, to the clause about sentences being “manifestly unjust”.

I turn to the amendment in clause 5(1) that inserts new section 86D in the Sentencing Act, to allow the court to reduce the sentence imposed by up to 25 percent in order to take into account the fact of a guilty plea. At the moment the incentive to plead guilty, particularly as we get to the third-strike offence, goes away. Why would somebody decide to plead guilty in that situation? We all know that if there are fewer guilty pleas, it will mean not only that there will be greater costs, obviously, but also that victims will have to go through more trials. We are trying to amend this bill so that we can allow guilty pleas to be taken into account. We have to think about this bill in terms of how it will work, not as a slogan, not as a set of slogans that allow people to go forth into the electorate and, like Ms Goudie, say this legislation will deter repeat offending. I invite the member opposite to read the clause and the amendment. The amendment to new section 86D aims to insert a new subsection that will allow guilty pleas to be taken into account properly.

It is very important to ensure that we make this law the best that it can possibly be. Labour believes this law is wrong. We do not support it in this Chamber, but we do want to ensure that we give meaning to some of the terms that are here, like the term “manifestly unjust”. We also want to make sure that we put incentives in place so that people will plead guilty, so that we can reduce the number of cases where victims have to go through the horror again of what happened to them.

We also have an amendment to new section 86C, also inserted by clause 5(1) of the bill. The amendment is to insert in subsection 4(a), after “serve the sentence without parole”, the words “unless the Court is satisfied that, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, it would be manifestly unjust to make the order”. We are trying to cover off “manifestly unjust” as a meaningful statement in sentencing and in parole. It is vitally important as we go through this bill that we do not allow ourselves to be sucked into the belief that this set of slogans will provide the panacea to these problems. We need real, proper amendments to be made to this legislation in order to give it meaning, and we have not seen that at any point so far from the Government or the ACT Party. We have only seen a continuation of the clichés and the slogans, rather than an attempt to see how the legislation would work. Mr Garrett has said earlier that he wants this legislation to work properly. If he wants this legislation to be meaningful, he needs to adopt these amendments.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I move, That the question be now put.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): This is an interesting debate. Judith Collins said in her initial speech on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill that criminals have to take responsibility for their crimes. I think that is quite true. When we talk about whether criminals are also victims and about problems in their past, we do not mean to say that criminals should not take responsibility for their crimes. But part of the process of stopping reoffending is to make them understand and internalise the horrible thing they have done to some other person, if it is a violent offence, and to society. That requires a whole process of rehabilitation. That is where there is a link between people taking responsibility for their crimes and the fact that they may be in part also victims.

Clayton Cosgrove mentioned the case of someone who might be raped at age 5 and who goes on in later life at age 25 to be a sexual predator. Alternatively, it is often the case in our prisons that there is a very high rate of illiteracy; a lot of prisoners have not, for one reason or another, learnt to read and speak very well, and tend to fall back in society, to not get proper jobs, and to resolve matters with their fists rather than by discussion. Rehabilitation in prison often means linking to some degree the crime that they have committed with their past. We need to get them to understand that, although they might feel that somehow they have some grievance and some justification for doing what they do, they do not really have that justification, and we can overcome their disadvantaged background together as part of the rehabilitation programme. David Garrett mentioned some programmes in relation to drug cases that seemed very good, too, so I am not saying that there is a complete division in this Chamber about how to go forward.

I think another comment he made was true: the prisoner must want to be rehabilitated. There has to be some movement. But if we implement “three strikes”, we are saying to prisoners that they are the enemy, we will not give them any slack, we are not really trying to understand them, and they have no future. If we block off paths in the way that this plays out, then we will not put people on the road to recovery.

In respect of the amendment mentioned by the previous speaker, Grant Robertson, criminals need an incentive to plead guilty, because that process in and of itself becomes a recognition that they have taken some responsibility for their crime and can begin the programme of rehabilitation in prison. If we incentivise the other way—for them to deny their criminality, and to plead not guilty when they are clearly guilty—all we are doing is keeping them in prison for ever, virtually, at a huge cost to society and to everyone to the extent that when they do get out of prison, they are more likely to reoffend and create other victims because they are anti-society and not rehabilitated. That is not a good solution.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to know why National is so keen to shut down debate on this bill, before it has even got under way. Less than half an hour into the debate on this bill, with not one single National member having taken a call on it, National members have been trying to shut it down.

Hon Judith Collins: Excuse me.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Not one single National member, other than the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Corrections, has taken a call on it. They have tried to shut it down. That is outrageous. Why is National so afraid of debating this bill? It could be that the reality does not live up to the rhetoric that they have been putting forward. In fact, it is very easy for National members to screech, as they are doing on the other side of the Chamber at the moment, that Labour members are soft on crime because we do not support the bill. We do not support the bill, because it will not work. We will support measures that work. It is wrong to suggest that we are soft on crime. The track record of the last few years would suggest otherwise.

Some of the rhetoric that has been put forward to justify this bill does not stand up to scrutiny. To claim, for example, that the previous Labour Government did not do anything to keep the worst violent offenders in prison for longer is simply not true. For example, the new sentencing and parole laws that came into force in July 2004 increased the minimum non-parole period for the worst murderers from 10 to 17 years; the time that the worst offenders have to wait between applications for parole has increased to up to 3 years, instead of their having the ability to apply automatically every year; automatic release at two-thirds of the sentence for serious violent offenders has been abolished; and preventive detention is now available to keep the worst sexual and violent offenders in prison for longer. So it is simply wrong to say that we have not done anything to keep those offenders in prison for longer and make the public safer.

The point Labour members are making on this bill is that “three strikes” will not work. It will not work, and there are already other things available that could deal with many of the concerns that have been raised. National knows that, and that could well be why it is not willing to debate this bill and why it is more interested in closing down debate.

I turn to the regulatory impact statement on the bill, because I think it raises a number of legitimate concerns. This is the Government’s own regulatory impact statement, and it found, for example in public safety that “it is not possible to conclude with any certainty to what extent any of the options will improve public safety”, and “there is a possibility that removing the worst repeat violent offenders from the community for longer periods of time will result in less serious violent offending”. However, offenders who commit serious violent offences do not necessarily have previous sentences for serious violent offences. So surely that is where the debate should be at. It should be about how we make the community safer, how we crack down on serious violent offending before it takes place. What are the key causes of serious violent offending, and how can we address those? We are not hearing anything from the Government about what it is doing on that.

Public confidence in the criminal justice system could be undermined by this legislation. The regulatory impact statement argues this; it states that public confidence could be undermined if the policy on worst repeat offenders raises the potential for disproportionate outcomes, which may negatively affect public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is really important the public have confidence that the criminal justice system is netting out a punishment that is fair and proportionate. If it is not, then the public confidence in the system will be eroded, and that has to be to the detriment of everybody.

Most research has found—this is again from the regulatory impact statement—that “imprisonment has little if any specific deterrent effect.” There is a great deal of evidence indicating that offending rates decrease only marginally as a result of penalties being increased. The regulatory impact statement states that. That is not my claim. Here we have the Government putting forward the idea that we will deter repeat offending, I suggest that if offenders are already on their second strike, the knowledge that they will go away to prison for a lot longer will not necessarily act as a deterrent. One would think that the sentences that were available on the first and second strike would have acted as a deterrent. There are obviously other factors at play here that we need to deal with; this bill does nothing to address those.

Looking at the financial cost, we see that both the life without parole and the worst repeat violent offender policies represent a small but gradually increasing transfer of cost within the funding available to the justice sector, from the detention and prevention of offending to the detention of offenders who may, particularly once they are elderly, pose no risk to the public. Surely we should be focusing the resources on the detention and prevention of offending as much as we are—

Sandra Goudie: Boring!

CHRIS HIPKINS: I say to Sandra Goudie that I would much rather prevent the crime in the first place, and prevent the creation of victims in the first place, than have an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff to deal with criminal offenders once they have already committed their crimes. I would rather have fewer victims in the first place, and Sandra Goudie seems to think that that is boring. I think that is an absolute disgrace and highlights National’s position. It is not interested in preventing crime in the first place. It is more interested in punishment and retribution after the fact, which does nothing to make the community safer. Sandra Goudie thinks prevention is boring. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. It says it all about National’s approach.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Although this is a robust debate, this continual screaming across the Chamber is unacceptable. I ask members to tone it down. Interjections should be rare and reasonable. I am happy with those, but yelling across the Chamber is unacceptable.

CHRIS HIPKINS: I remind members that I am actually drawing from the regulatory impact statement on the Government’s own bill. This regulatory impact statement, I think in this particular case, has been prepared by the police. These are the concerns they are highlighting about the bill. I think many of them are very valid concerns they have been raising.

Other concerns that have been raised about the bill are around the increased powers that it gives to the police as opposed to the judiciary. It places a lot more discretion with the police regarding prosecutorial decisions—who gets prosecuted and for what crimes—rather than leaving the discretion with the judiciary, so that could potentially create some perverse outcomes. It could result in bargaining between police and the offender to lower the seriousness of the crime that is being prosecuted, and I think that that would be wrong. That could lead to a worse outcome for the victims and a less safe community, and that is something that should be taken into account. Again, from the police’s regulatory impact statement regarding homicide, this is a point put forward from the analysis of a number of leading studies of “three strikes” laws in the USA: there is evidence that these laws may have resulted in an increased rate of homicide.

David Garrett: Rubbish!

CHRIS HIPKINS: I am not making that claim. That claim is in the regulatory impact statement to the Government’s bill, so that is a Government department or a Government agency putting forward that argument, not me. It argues that studies from the USA have concluded that the “three strikes” policy could have actually increased the rate of homicide. This bill could lead to unintended consequences.

Both options are likely to result in fewer guilty pleas and that is something I am very concerned about; particularly at stage three, or where life imprisonment without parole is to be imposed, more appeals against individuals’ convictions and sentences can also be expected.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There is a convention in the Chamber that if members are going to interject they do not walk up and down the Chamber. They do not move around—they interject from their seat.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for that. The member is correct. When one is walking around within the Chamber, one cannot speak at all and certainly cannot interject and make comments.

CHRIS HIPKINS: The Attorney-General has raised concerns about the consistency of this current bill with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I will not go into those, but will make a few concluding comments with regards to the position of victims. Of course I sympathise with the victims. Of course my heart goes out to them. Of course I would like to see a greater focus on the rights of victims. Of course I believe that there are some people who should be locked up and kept locked away for a very long time. I am interested in what we can do to reform the criminal justice system so that we have fewer people entering the prison system in the first place, and to reduce the rate of violent offending in the first place, rather than having the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. If any members have a constructive suggestion about how that could happen I am willing to engage in that debate wholeheartedly. I would much rather focus the emphasis of debate on how we prevent offending, and on how we reduce the number of victims created in the first place, rather than on how we punish the offenders after the fact. It would be much better. Victims deserve better than a punitive debate following becoming victims—I think they deserve better than that. They deserve for this Parliament to put all of its energy and all of its effort into preventing them from becoming victims in the first place. If we can prevent criminal offending, we should do so. Unfortunately, there is a real absence of any policies or any ideas coming forward about how we can do that.

JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): This will be a very brief call on Part 1 of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, which I suspect I will have to recommence after the dinner break. I will answer a couple of charges raised by Mr Garrett about the amendments that the Labour Party has put up. Mr Garrett alleged that somehow we were not expressing goodwill.

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

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Before the dinner break I was speaking about the amendments that Labour had put forward, mainly to clause 5. I was referring to some comments that Mr Garrett had made where basically, in colloquial language, he accused the Labour Party of not playing fair because we had not dropped down on bended knee, crawled over to him and his ilk, and provided him at an early stage with the amendments we were going to put forward. In mitigation for that accusation, I will make a couple of points. One is that this Parliament over the last 18 months has been littered with whole pieces of legislation—some under the name of the Minister of Justice; one or two, I think, under the name of the Minister in the chair, Ms Collins—that have been dropped on this Parliament with no notice. They were never seen by anybody in Parliament apart from the Minister in charge and Cabinet.

The second point I make is that Mr Garrett is a lawyer and I am not, yet I managed to work out some changes that I think need to be made. Mr Garrett sat on the Law and Order Committee; so did I, and I and my colleagues worked out some changes that had to be made. Mr Garrett heard the submitters submit on these issues—they were learned people—and so did the folks on my side of the table, and we managed to work it out. Part of the role of an Opposition, apart from opposing where it feels it is appropriate, is to propose solutions, ideas, and amendments. I am sure Mr Chair could quote me the Standing Orders that would provide a framework for Mr Garrett to tell him that this is called the Committee stage, and this is where political parties and members of Parliament put forward amendments. I am sure that Mr Hide, being a learned member of this Chamber, would agree that it is not a requirement that people submit themselves on bended knee to the opposing party and present all the ideas.

Mr Garrett is a member of the legal profession. He heard the same people that I did who had problems in respect of the manifestly unjust provisions on the third strike in clause 5, in respect of the suggestions about the exclusions of accidental or negligent manslaughter, and issues about allowing guilty pleas to be a factor in sentencing, as per our proposals for clause 5. Either he did not understand them and dismissed them, or if, as he claimed tonight before the dinner break, he had had notice of them, he would have somehow shown goodwill—and I will take him at his word—and he would have offered to look at them to see whether they should be incorporated in the legislation.

Carmel Sepuloni: It is just being petty if they’re—

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No, I disagree with my colleague. My colleague said that it is being petty; I understand why she would say that. But I say that if Mr Garrett is true to his own word, he has an opportunity now to stand up, to walk over to the Minister, and to have a word in her ear and ask why they do not taihoa on this piece of legislation for a couple of days or maybe until next week so that he can look at the Opposition’s amendments. He will do that if he is true to the goodwill gesture that he proffered out of one side of his mouth before the dinner break. But I will take a bet with any member of Parliament—I will put $100 on it—that Mr Garrett will not do that, because Mr Garrett wants to get the legislative notch on his belt. He is desperate to raise the flag on this one, because this is a cause célèbre.

If he is not prepared to go over to the Government and tell it to hang on, as he said he would look at these ideas and consider what is appropriate and common-sense, then that tells us that Mr Garrett wants this bill to go through in any form, come hell or high water. Even if he sees some unjust problems with it and some solutions that we have provided, he is not interested in them. That means that the last series of accusations from him—about us not coming over cap in hand, giving him the amendments, and bowing down before him as the “O, Great One”, the man who allegedly stands so much on the side of victims when no one else in this Chamber apparently does—are just words. He has an opportunity. He could stand up in this place tonight or his leader could—his leader is the senior man on deck tonight—and say that they will look at these amendments.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to reply to some of the statements made in this debate. First, I think I will refer just to a matter that the member Chris Hipkins raised in relation to a regulatory impact statement that he said the police had made. I tell him that, no, it was the Ministry of Justice. It related to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill as first introduced to the House. In addition to that, this bill has been significantly changed since it was first introduced. It is a far more reasonable and fair bill. It is much more tightly worded.

There have been some personal attacks on members in this Chamber, and I will not bother to deal with those. However, I will talk about rehabilitation. I think there have been some comments made about how we should be doing more rehabilitation. That is exactly right. It is why we are doubling the amount of rehabilitation available in our prisons. For any members of the House who would like to come and see some of the rehabilitation being done for prisoners, I am very happy to be able to help facilitate that through my office with the Department of Corrections, because the Department of Corrections would love to be able to show off the rehabilitation that it does. Mr Garrett has certainly taken up that offer. Some other members have—

Chris Hipkins: I visit them all the time.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Mr Hipkins tells me that he visits all the time. I ask him whether he has seen some of the rehabilitation work—there is some excellent work being done.

Hon Steve Chadwick: It started years ago.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course Mrs Chadwick says that it started years ago. Yes, it did, and it continues. That is why we are doubling rehabilitation, I say to Mrs Chadwick. We are happy to say that—

Hon Steve Chadwick: Good, but it started—

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am glad she is saying that she is happy. Mr Cosgrove has dealt with some issues that he has put on a typescript amendment paper. I have had a look at those amendments, but, no, we will not be supporting them, for very good reason. It is nothing to do with him not coming cap in hand, because, frankly, we would rather that he did not come cap in hand. We are very happy to have him come and talk to us, but not cap in hand, because the sight would be too bad and I do not think my stomach would be able to cope with it.

The proposed amendment to clause 5 to amend new subsection 86D(2) would actually reduce the certainty of the penalty. That moves away from the fact that a stage three sentence is meant to be a very serious penalty in all cases because the offender is continuing to commit very serious offences that victimise people. It would reduce any deterrent force of the bill. If it is going to deter people from this sort of offending, it needs to be very certain.

The proposed amendment to clause 5 to amend new section 86A says that we should exclude accidental or negligent manslaughters. Well, actually, there is a degree of negligence required to establish liability for manslaughter, as it is now. Mr Cosgrove has pointed out that he is not a lawyer, and this is one of the issues that somebody could mistake. So I am sure he has just made a mistake there.

The amendment to clause 5 amends new section 86D by introducing a discount of 25 percent for a guilty plea at stage three. Well, this would reduce a 20-year sentence for sexual violation to one of 15 years. We are talking about a third-striker on an extremely serious offence. Despite everything that the Opposition has talked about tonight, these people generally commit hundreds of crimes along the way to get to that and have had loads and loads of opportunities to reform. Mr Cosgrove would rather they got off lightly on their third offence if they want a 25 percent plea discount.

Another of his amendments to clause 5 seeks to insert the words “resulting in a custodial sentence” after the words “(a) is a serious violent offence” to amend the definitions of “stage-1 offence”, “stage-2 offence”, and “stage-3 offence” in new section 86A, instead of just a conviction. That goes back towards the bill as introduced. To change the conviction threshold was necessary, otherwise we would probably never have anybody locked up under this from the third strike, and Mr Cosgrove knows that. We are not prepared to buy into that.

Then we have his amendment to clause 5 to amend new subsection 86C(4)(a) to authorise judges not to order a prison sentence at stage two to be served without eligibility for parole. I think that is basically the status quo now. We have campaigned very firmly on being able to remove parole for the worst repeat violent offenders. Parole is not a right, it is a privilege. It is about time that people recognise that. Clearly the Opposition does not. It is very important to understand that when someone is on parole, he or she has to be looked after by the Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections will be the ones who have to try to look after parolees. For some of the violent recidivist offenders, frankly, it is just too unsafe for the community. I am not prepared to be the Minister who goes out and says that I cared more about trying to look after the prisoner than I cared about the victim. That is not the sort of Minister I am prepared to be.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I have not spoken on this part at all, so I am looking forward to several calls and to contributing to this debate in a constructive way.

I went and listened to two presentations given by two different people who have recently come from California to New Zealand. One was the judge from the court that has to administer the “three strikes” law, and the other was Rev. Ron Givens. One thing that I thought was quite fascinating was the definition of the legislation, as it is defined, as “three strikes”. It was a point that I had not heard before. Of course, that expression comes from America’s favourite game, but it does not mean what it means when one is playing baseball. When playing baseball, “three strikes” means that someone is out but can come back in the next round, and that person could hit the home run that wins the game. But that is not what this bill is all about. It is not about people redeeming and rehabilitating themselves, and contributing to society in a meaningful way. My real, fundamental problem with this legislation is that it is a one-size-fits-all approach that uses populist slogans that do not mean anything.

I have heard people talk about the experience in California in respect of the crime rate. In fact, there are many other justifications for changes in crime rates. It was already going down before the “three strikes” law came into effect. One of the points they made was that the increase in violence against prison guards was exponential. When people do not have any chance of ever seeing the light of day again, it becomes a more dangerous occupation. The other one, which I had not thought of, was violence to police if someone is sitting on two strikes, with that third strike pending, and he or she is about to be arrested. One example we were given was of an individual who was facing the third strike. In California, the “three strikes” system is even more repressive than this particular regime because it applies to offences that are not that serious and it applies forever. If someone had a bad youth and went off the rails, then later on in life committed that third strike, he or she could face consequences that are way beyond what anyone else would face for that particular offence in any other set of circumstances.

The other thing that I thought was fascinating, and I have not been able to track this down yet, but I will definitely have it available for my third reading contribution to this debate, is that, apparently, a chief executive officer of one of the private prisons was quoted in Business Week as saying that mandated sentencing—because that is what “three strikes” is; it takes away discretion from judges and tells judges that they can only do things a certain way—provided exciting growth opportunities in the private prison industry. I thought that was fascinating because National introduced the private prison industry to New Zealand. When we add the two together, we start to see that this makes sense from a profit-making provision. It plays on people’s fears of being victimised.

One of the examples given to us was of a 16-year-old who had stolen two cheques from his mother by forging her name, which is cheque fraud. He had stolen two cheques, so that is two counts, and he was convicted on the two counts, which were both felonies. Last year, when he was 20 years old, he went into a convenience store and stole a candy bar. He turned to the shop owner—

David Garrett: What was his name?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Every time I get up to speak, I am constantly asked to give names. I do not know the name of this person; it is an example of a case that was given to us in a presentation. The individual involved made a suggestion that that member contact him, because he would love to have the debate directly with that member.

David Garrett: I offered to debate him while he was here.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No, I do not think we are talking about the same person. Last year, when he was 20 years old, he went into a convenience store and stole a candy bar. He turned to the shop owner and said: “I’m going to kill you if you tell anyone I did this.” Of course he was arrested. His sentence was 25 years to life. He had stolen those two cheques from his mother, then he stole a candy bar.

He also made this point, which I thought was very fascinating in light of the issues we deal with with constituents who have lost money in major scams and major white-collar crime. What is missing from the list of crimes? Bribery, fraud, pandering—all of the white-collar crimes are left out of this. This will fill our jails with young Māori men. That is the bottom line.

In America, when an analysis was done, it was discovered that 36 percent of those in prison had an underlying mental illness—36 percent. That did not include those who had drug and alcohol issues that required treatment. When we think about what that might mean, we start to think about the warehousing in our criminal justice system of prisoners with mental illness who require treatment, instead of a more caring and understanding society.

Every time we have this debate, we are accused of being either soft or hard on crime. I do not think that that is the debate we should have. There are some people who are so dangerous they should be locked up for ever. I have no problems with that, and I do not think anyone has any problems with that. All of the speakers who have come to this country to tell us not to go down this track have said that, as well. There are some people who are criminal, evil, and unable to be rehabilitated. There is no hope for them. They should be catered for in a humane way and they should never be allowed to rejoin society. We all accept that, but this says that on three separate occasions at any time in one’s life, no matter the circumstances, this is how the law will be applied in one’s case. It does not matter that a judge might have some discretion that would normally apply. We will take the judge’s discretion away and we will mandate a sentence, regardless of the circumstances. That is the fundamental problem with this particular legislation. It does not deal with the real problem.

The real problem can be dealt with by addressing those who commit serious crimes who cannot be rehabilitated. The effort has to go in at the front end as well, so that we can do the early intervention work to make the difference. We on this side of the House have offered to work collaboratively with the Government on early intervention policy, and we have not had a positive response. I would have thought that any Government would want to work with an Opposition in order to achieve those things to make the difference in the long term. We do not have to worry about beating on the law and order drum if we are serious about doing something that will make a difference in the long term. Unless we are prepared to look at early intervention, early childhood education, Child, Youth and Family, and all of those different areas—

Carmel Sepuloni: ACC sexual abuse counselling.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: We need to look at all of those things, and at what some of those underlying causes are. This does not excuse the behaviour, but if we do not understand what drives the behaviour, how on earth will we do anything as a Parliament to stand up to the things that will make a difference in terms of reducing the numbers of victims of crimes? I think that would be preferable.

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 64

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

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 5 be agreed to:

to insert in new section 86A in provision (19) in the definition of serious violent offence “excluding accidental or negligent manslaughters” after “(manslaughter)”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Noes 64

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 5 be agreed to:

to insert in new section 86A in the definitions of stage-1 offence, stage-2 offence, and stage-3 offence “resulting in a custodial sentence” after “(a) is a serious violent offence”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Noes 64

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 5 be agreed to:

to insert in new section 86C(4)(a) “unless the Court is satisfied that, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, it would be manifestly unjust to make the order” after “serve the sentence without parole”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Noes 64

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 5 be agreed to:

to add to new section 86D(2) “unless the Court is satisfied that, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, it would be manifestly unjust to make the order”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Noes 64

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 5 be agreed to:

to add to section 86D the following new subsection:

“(2A)Despite subsection (2), this section allows the court to reduce the sentence imposed by up to 25 percent to take into account the fact of a guilty plea.”

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Noes 64

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 123 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5.

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5.

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Parole Act 2002

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): I am very glad to see that Grant Robertson is with us. I thought there were a couple of good contributions from the other side of the Chamber: one was from Mr Robertson, and one was from Mr Hipkins. Mr Hipkins made a fairly passionate contribution, saying several times that the bill would not work. But Mr Robertson was honest enough to admit that crime has, in fact, dropped dramatically in California since 1994. He also observed, quite correctly, that the greatest decline in the US has been in New York. He also observed, correctly, that New York is not just—

Chris Hipkins: It doesn’t have “three strikes”.

DAVID GARRETT: The member should stifle himself for a second. Mr Robertson also observed that New York is not a “three strikes” state but what he did not say—and perhaps he does not know; I will assume that may be the case—is that New York has adopted what is known as zero-tolerance policing, also known as Broken Windows, and it has also taken a twofold approach: what is called the front end, zero-tolerance policing, and sentence enhancement. “Three strikes” is an example of a sentence-enhancing Act. New York state also has sentence enhancement but it is different from “three strikes”. [Interruption] I tell Mr Robertson to do the research and he will find that that is correct. It is a fairly complicated system but in simple terms the first time—[Interruption] I am sure Mr Robertson can do it. The first time the person is given a sentence. The second time, if I have it correct, the tariff, as it is called in the trade, is doubled. The third time it is tripled. I am pretty sure that is how it works, roughly. It is no surprise really that New York has seen the greatest drop in crime across the US, because it attacked the problem from both ends. What that has resulted in is New York City turning, in 15 years, from one of the most dangerous cities in the US, as measured by homicides and attacks, to one of the safest.

It is also no coincidence that of the three states in the United States that have had the greatest reductions in crime, New York is the top one, closely followed by California, closely followed by Georgia. Georgia and California are the two of the 26 US states that have “three strikes” laws that use them the most. I will try to put this case to Mr Hipkins, and I hope he will give it a fair hearing.

I am not afraid to say that I do not know for sure that this bill will have the dramatic effect that I believe the legislation has had in California, because I am not God and I do not have a crystal ball. But let us look at it like this. Mr Robertson has been gracious enough to admit that there has in fact been a massive drop in crime in that state. That is interesting because the Rev. Givens—Ms Dalziel was trying to recall his name—is on record as saying: “We have seen no reduction in any category of crime whatsoever.” If the Rev. Givens was correctly quoted on TV3, I am sorry, but there is only one conclusion and that is that he is lying. As Mr Robertson says, it is a simple fact that the reduction has occurred. So how has this occurred? Why has there been this great reduction, if it is not—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I refer you to a ruling that the Speaker made this afternoon in respect of a Minister who made a similar accusation, but in less colourful language, against an individual when he used the words, I think, “manufacturing” something. The Speaker ruled that out of order, and I think it took two occasions to get the Minister to reword his reply. You have before you now an accusation against an individual, outside this place, who is accused of lying. I invite you to consider the Speaker’s ruling, because he ruled this afternoon.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): My understanding would be—and the member raises an interesting point—that what is permissible in a question that a Minister has to answer, or respond to, is entirely different from what can occur in debate. That would be my interpretation. The member is correct in that the Speaker did say that today, but this would not be the first time, certainly in the Committee of the whole House, that the kind of accusation that has just been levelled has been made. I am trying to recall any time in the past that a member has been pulled up, in that context. It is a debating point, and it is a rather robust one. The member ought to be quite conscious of what he is saying and he will be held to account for it, outside this Chamber. That is the rule around that issue. Thank you—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have finished that point of order. Does the member have another one?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Yes, I do. I would argue—and we will move on, I am sure—that if you reflect on what Speaker Smith said this afternoon, he was not confining his ruling to question time; he was making a more general ruling about a member of Parliament who makes an accusation. The one this afternoon was relatively mild compared with what we have heard just now. He was very clear that he felt that was grossly unparliamentary and he required the member to readjust his tone in what he was saying. I could be corrected, but I do not recall the Speaker’s remarks being confined to a Minister in question time. I do not think he even alluded to that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will finish it with this point: the Speaker at the time was referring to questions, and to supplementary questions that were being asked. This is a debating chamber and members who speak in here can be held to account by the media and the public for what they actually say. There is a difference, in the state of the arena, for what is occurring now, compared with question time. The member ought to be conscious of his responsibility.

DAVID GARRETT: Mr Robertson has rightly acknowledged that the reduction has occurred, so why did that happen? There has been a variety of explanations for the precipitate drop in crime. One of the most common, of course, is unemployment. Before I move off the point, Ms Dalziel, I think it was, said that crime was already dropping prior to 1994. That is not correct, and, again, it is simply a matter of fact that if one looks at the statistics in California, one sees that violent crime peaked in 1993. That fact will become relevant in a second. The most common explanation for the drop is unemployment and economic conditions. That is clearly not so, and I will say why. Obviously there have been fluctuations in California’s economy since 1994, as there have been all over the world. But the track has been consistently down all the time since 1994. The most recent data on unemployment in that state, for the last quarter of 2009, shows that unemployment was 16 percent, which is more than twice as high as it has ever reached in New Zealand. Violent crime is still tracking down. So much for that argument!

One of the more colourful arguments has been the free availability of abortions after 1973. When one thinks about it, at first it has some kind of logic. The logic is something like this: the poor people who are more likely to be criminal and produce criminals could, after 1973, have abortions.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: That was written in one book; it was just a suggestion.

DAVID GARRETT: No, it is argued a lot by the left. When one first hears it one thinks that it makes some kind of weird sense. But then it has a major hole in it. As any member opposite with any knowledge of criminology would be aware, the prime crime-committing years are late teens to late 20s. So if that theory were correct, we should have seen a massive plummet in crime about 20 years after 1973. Instead, as I have said, crime peaked in the state of California in 1993. So not only was there no decline; the exact opposite of what that theory predicts happened.

We will switch away from law because it is unfair to Mr Cosgrove, who does not have a law degree, and we will talk the language of psychology. What psychologists say is that one changes something in an experiment—they call that the independent variable—and then the thing one measures is the dependent variable. In that way one finds out whether the independent variable, whether it be electric shocks or rewards of food, changes behaviour. The only independent variable that I am aware of—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will give a further call to Mr Garrett, but I remind him that we are on Part 2 and he should focus on that.

DAVID GARRETT: I have almost finished, Mr Chair.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: We are very happy for this. We want it on the record.

DAVID GARRETT: That is fine. The only independent variable that I am aware of that altered not just in California but right across the US in the early 1990s was a U-turn and a focus on zero-tolerance policing and/or sentence enhancement. So until someone comes up with a better theory than unemployment or ready availability of abortions—or perhaps the phases of the sun—or suggests something better, then logic suggests to me that this is probably the cause. I stand proved to be wrong. No one really knows, and will not know for 6 to 10 years. As Mr Cosgrove said, I have been rather surprised to hear predictions that the first third-striker will be up in 5 to 7 years. So it will take at least that long for us to know. But logic tells me that in the absence of a better explanation, the change of direction in California and other states is the reason.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I have a couple of points before I go on to Part 2 of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. I too have read the theory about abortion that comes from a book called Freakonomics. That shows where the ACT Party gets the basis of its policy and its ideas, does it not? I think the name of the book is very apt when it comes to that party.

The second point I make is there is enough evidence round the world to show that crime goes down as unemployment decreases. I will tell members why.

David Garrett: Didn’t go down here. We had full employment in 2006.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Mr Garrett should take his own advice and pull his head in. He was good enough to tell one of my colleagues to do that. He should breathe through his nose, as a member once said.

A contributing factor to crime decreasing is employment. I think that might be logical. If a person has a job and earns money, he or she is less likely to jump through somebody’s window and steal a stereo, or mug somebody for money or to get food, or do another crime. There might be a sort of tangible logic to that. I did not read that in Freakonomics.

I will tell members what is logical—and I refer to Part 2, because I would hate to transgress your authority, Mr Chairperson. If we look at this bill, we see that the most damning indictment on it comes from the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections, the Hon Judith Collins, who sits in the chair.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: It’s a bill.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, the member is right, it is a bill; I thank Mr Finlayson. On 16 December 2009, in a Cabinet paper from the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections entitled Changes to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, the Ministry of Justice noted the following: “… the deterrence effect of the three stage regime is uncertain. The proposals will add substantial direct costs to the justice system without creating any significantly improved outcomes in terms of reducing the drivers of crime, improving social outcomes or”—if you do not care about any of that—“reducing reoffending and victimisation.” That is what it says. That quote comes directly from a Cabinet paper via the Minister of Police and of Corrections.

The Ministry of Justice was not allowed to participate in the amended bill. While Mr Garrett quoted Freakonomics and other mystical naysayers around the place for his logic, I quoted the Minister’s own Cabinet paper. It is the most damning indictment on the bill itself because they are her officials, it is her Cabinet paper, and she took this bill over from the Ministry of Justice and the Minister of Justice.

Hon Steve Chadwick: He wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, he may not have touched it with a bargepole; that says more about him. The Ministry of Justice has been prevented from participating in the amended bill, but let us be clear that this is a justice bill. I asked senior police officers in the Law and Order Committee what would happen if we did a review of this bill in some years’ time, because presumably they, the police, as lead advisers on the bill, would be the people to do it. They said no, they were not equipped to do that. They said the Ministry of Justice were the ones who would have to do it. That is what they said.

We can bandy statistics around any way we like. We can quote from that book and other psychedelic texts, or we can quote from the Cabinet paper that was submitted under the Minister’s name. I will read it again for the record: “… the deterrence effect of the three stage regime is uncertain. The proposals will add substantial direct costs to the justice system without creating any significantly improved outcomes in terms of reducing the drivers of crime, improving social outcomes or reducing reoffending and victimisation.” I would have thought that reducing reoffending and victimisation is what we are about here—that is what I would have thought. If the Minister’s own corrections department says that it is doubtful and it has assumed that this legislation does not have a deterrent value at all, then I say we have a problem here.

The arguments that were put forward by this side in respect of Part 1 of the bill are the same in respect of Part 2. We do not believe it will deter crime. We do not believe that this bill will work. The Minister, in her own flippant way, did not give an analysis of the amendments in Part 1. She said National members were not supporting our amendments because they did not want the Opposition coming to them with any ideas. Mr Garrett said he wanted an advance copy to read in between chapters of Freakonomics, and the Minister said they did not want the Opposition to come with any amendments or any ideas, at all. They are not prepared to listen.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Some statements made by the member resuming his seat, Clayton Cosgrove, are, frankly, less than correct. He referred to a Cabinet paper submitted in my name as Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections, and he referred to the consultation process for this bill and the amendments. Of course, what he was commenting on were not comments from my department, as he referred to it, but from the Ministry of Justice. Of course, in the commentary we have comment on the consultation with Te Puni Kōkiri—he could have quoted that—as well as the Ministry of Justice’s comment, Treasury’s comment, and finance notifications.

Unfortunately, Mr Cosgrove has been yet again caught out, being not quite correct in what he says. The last time I looked, the Hon Simon Power was the Minister of Justice, not me. I am the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections. I am sorry to have to say that Mr Cosgrove needs to reread the paper.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The justice ministry, the key agency, doesn’t agree with it. What would they know?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The other point he talked about was the deterrence factor in relation to the Department of Corrections. Mr Cosgrove does not like to hear it, and he likes to shout out and bellow, but I think he should just listen. He talked about how an effect of no deterrence was assumed in the work by the Department of Corrections on this legislation. Actually, the department assumed no deterrence only in relation to its calculations on the numbers of bunks or beds that would be needed for prisons.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That’s spin.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Mr Cosgrove does not like the truth, and he likes to call it spin, but, no, it is correct. Mr Cosgrove should know better, because he used to be a Cabinet Minister.

Hon Rodney Hide: No!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It was not that long ago that he had Cabinet papers. Mr Hide says “No!”, but I say, yes, he was. I remember that he was, in fact, a Cabinet Minister.

It is very hard for him. He has obviously forgotten the whole process around Cabinet papers. He has quite clearly forgotten the fact that when it says “consultation” that means, under this Government, that we actually consult. Not only do we consult, but we actually put down the details of the consultation. Even when I do not agree with some of the comments made by some other ministries, I am still happy to have those comments—even though I do not agree with them—in the paper. That is what a robust Cabinet Minister does. Obviously, when that member was a Cabinet Minister, he did not want to have any consultation that did not agree with what he wanted.

Hon Rodney Hide: He just did what Helen said. He was Helen’s boyfriend.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: He was very close to Miss Clark, as Mr Hide states—very close.

If Mr Cosgrove really wants to debate those issues, he has had a lot of time in the select committee to do so. This bill has spent a year in the select committee. Mrs Goudie has given it a very good process there. In fact, the only person I hear complaining about Mrs Goudie’s chairing of the committee is Mr Cosgrove. Mr Cosgrove clearly missed most of the committee meetings; otherwise he might have known that the New Zealand Police is not the Ministry of Justice. They are different under this Government. One is the Police and one is the Ministry of Justice.

Even though we did not accept everything the Ministry of Justice stated, we still put its comments in, because that is what one does in Cabinet. I know that Mr Cosgrove’s memory is not too good, but, really, perhaps he could just stick to the facts and stop trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes in this Chamber—or perhaps he just has a bad memory.

Part 2 deals with parole. Frankly, parole is a privilege, not a right, and it is about time recidivist violent offenders understood that. When recidivist violent offenders who will not be rehabilitated are out on parole, unfortunately the public is more at risk, not because of the good work of the Department of Corrections, but because of those offenders and their choices. I know that Labour members do not like talking about victims or to victims, because they pull on their emotional strings, but it is about time they got in touch with the real people in this country, as they like to think that they already are.

I commend this part to the Committee. I think it is very realistic. It puts very simply what needs to happen with some of the changes in parole. I understand that some people who have spent a lifetime defending the rights of criminals may find it unpalatable, but, quite frankly, it is about time someone cared for victims. I congratulate the ACT Party on bringing this bill to the House. I think it is a fantastic bill, and I am very proud to be the Minister in charge of it.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I am astounded by that contribution, for two reasons. The first is that the Minister, perhaps, cannot read. This bill is actually in her name, but in relation to the report from the select committee, she said that I had not quoted the Ministry of Justice. Well, I will quote the minority report: “the Ministry of Justice has noted:”. That is in the report in the bill, and the quotation is in the name of the Ministry of Justice. So the Minister is ignoring the ministry she barred from the select committee process, the ministry whose core functionality is to administer this legislation—because the bill is not a corrections bill nor a police bill; it is a justice bill.

We have noted in the minority report that the key Crown agency—and this is why the Minister of Justice did not want a bar of the bill—has stated that the bill will not work. It is not the business of the police, or of the Department of Corrections; the justice ministry is the key Crown agency that has to administer justice bills. I will even give the Minister the page with the quotation. It is page 14 in the commentary, and she will see that the quotation is attributed to the Ministry of Justice.

So why is she standing up but not giving us a contribution of substance or going through the analysis? She has not even bothered to go through the analysis in this Committee stage on Part 2, yet she has got up and lambasted me, and she has tried to twist words to say that I quoted her, the police, or the Department of Corrections. No, no, I quoted from the Cabinet paper that went through her and was signed off, and is now quoted as being from the Ministry of Justice in the commentary on the bill.

The ministry may not be her ministry, but this is her bill and she is responsible for it. But the key agency has not been allowed to participate in it. I would like the Minister to tell me what key agency, when changes were made at the eleventh hour to this bill, was not allowed—in fact, was specifically barred—from appearing at the select committee. Members of the select committee asked for Ministry of Justice staff to appear as advisers, even just to sit in the room and maybe contribute to the last stage of the bill. But, oh no, they were completely blocked, under instruction. There are other bills, some of which I cannot talk about, where that has occurred, as well. I cannot talk about them yet.

But why would anyone bar the key administrative agency—the police will not administer this legislation, and corrections will not administer it; it will be administered by the Ministry of Justice—from submitting, and from advising members, without fear or favour? Well, the answer is on page 14 of this bar 2 bill. The Ministry of Justice was not wanted. I understand Simon Power’s dilemma. He wanted to back out of this, and he did not want his own ministry being put up and having to tell the truth—to say that it would not have a bar of this bill and that it would not work. I repeat the words that are quoted from the ministry, which state that the bill will have a nominal effect in “reducing reoffending or victimisation.”

The Minister got up and did what I predicted earlier today. Instead of having a logical debate—no, no—she said that members on this side of the Chamber defend criminals. I say to her that she is a lawyer; I am not. If we say we are opposed to this legislation because it has no logic and because it will not work, the best that the Minister can do is throw around an insult that says if Labour members are opposed to this bill, it means that we always defend criminals. I had a text from somebody tonight that made the same accusation—an ill-informed accusation.

I will show enough goodwill, as I did this afternoon, to say that I expect there is not one person in this Chamber, in any part of the Committee, who would defend criminal activity. I expect that every member in this Chamber, of whatever political colour, would stand beside victims. We may disagree on how to help them, and we may disagree on how we deal with prisoners, but I expect that everybody, even Mr Garrett, would say that everybody in this Committee stands on the side of victims.

So the sort of smirky, Shirley Temple - type smarmy insult that is thrown around by that Minister, which says that if we are against something, and if we have an argument of substance because we believe that the bill will not work, then somehow we are defending criminals, is the best this Minister can do. She has not even got up and gone through the part clause by clause. At least Simon Power or Chris Finlayson would do that. Chris Finlayson has come to the Chamber with regard to other Ministers’ bills to patch them up, and has had the decency to go through them, give us the analysis and his arguments, and acknowledge points, but not this Minister. The best she can do is to get up—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: I did, too.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —thanks, mate—and say that the Labour Party defends criminals or the Green Party defends criminals. Well, if it has come down to that—and we always thought it would—I think that in a few years we will look back in Hansard, and some people in this Chamber will be ashamed of the comments they made in this debate.

This is the Minister, of course, who never comments on anything when it goes wrong, but is always happy to comment, with her departments, when things go right. It is always an “operational matter” when it goes wrong. She would not comment to the media on vehicle crime tonight—the resolution rates being so low—because it was an operational matter. She will not comment on other matters of critical substance, but if things go OK, oh yes, then Judith Collins is front and centre in taking the credit.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): That was an amazing contribution from Clayton Cosgrove, the member who has just resumed his seat. He quoted as his authority for his rather ridiculous statements page 14 of the bill. I have to say that page 14 is written by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove; it is his own statement in his minority report for the bill. He says that that is the authority for his ridiculous statements, which I have just proven quite wrong. There is a thing known by some sort of phrase, but we will not use it because it is probably unparliamentary. But to quote oneself as an authority for a statement—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There is a very clear ruling about misrepresentations. The quote from the bill is not from me; it is from a Cabinet paper contained within a minority report. Those are not my words; they are quoted from a Cabinet paper. That member is misrepresenting the position, and she knows it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am not sure that that is a point of order. The Minister will continue. The member still has further calls where he can rebut; this is a debate.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think it is very important that when one is quoting a Cabinet paper to quote it in context and state exactly what it is. When one says that there is a Ministry of Justice statement, that is fine; there is a Ministry of Justice statement. But the member should not come to the Chamber and say, therefore, that it is my department saying it. It is not; it is the Ministry of Justice. He should be absolutely straightforward with the Committee and not get down to that sort of nonsense. [Interruption] Those members opposite obviously do not like to hear that, because they are bellowing away.

Another thing the member dealt with was an issue of—[Interruption] No, he did not want to talk about parole. He was saying that, no, Labour members were not soft on crime, which is good to hear because they have just had 9 years to prove it, but we have not noticed that much of a drop in crime after 9 years of Labour Government. I did notice, though, that they left us with not enough prison cells for prisoners. They knew what the forecast was, but they did not bother to house the extra prisoners. Labour members did not put the extra funding into parole so that parole provisions could be dealt with properly. Instead they left the Department of Corrections in an utter mess, mostly around their lack of funding. One of the first things we had to do—

Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I thought the Minister was responding to Part 2 of the bill before the Committee, rather than to the previous 9 years.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That’s fair enough. You made the ruling, actually, Mr Assistant Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I did. The Minister is not the first person to transgress that tonight, but she may be transgressing it a little more broadly than some other people have. I think it is a timely reminder. I was actually just starting to look up the bill to see what Part 2 said.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Part 2 is all about parole, so I think that it is very important to talk about the fact that we need to have proper resourcing for parole, because otherwise, as under the previous Minister, Phil Goff, all sorts of people are stuck on parole and into community service but without the resourcing. If someone does that, unfortunately we will have more problems with parole. But I am very confident that the parole provisions in this bill are sensible. They are very clear, and it is very important to understand that when we are dealing with violent, recidivist offenders, they need to know that there are boundaries and that parole is not a right under this administration; it is a privilege.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): Parole has always been a privilege, and it has a very important function: it enables the reintegration into society of those who are to be reintegrated, in a supervised and managed way. There are always pressures, and I thought it would be worthwhile quoting the pressures there are in the Californian system, as that seems to be what we are modelling our new laws on.

In California 70 percent of people released on parole will return within 3 years to the prison system, and 90 percent of those will have breached their parole, even if the breach was technical, and that breach will take them back to prison. It has nothing to do with whether the particular breach would have attracted a prison sentence; it concerns just a breach of parole. An example that has been given is of somebody who was told not to drink while on parole. An officer turned up at home to find the person drinking, so that person went back to prison. Drinking was not an offence in any other respect, but not to drink was a condition of the parole.

In California there is one parole officer for every 1,000 people on parole. And that is the system we want to emulate! In California the Department of Finance spends 17.4 percent of its budget on corrections and rehabilitation. Do members know what the education budget is? It is 0.8 percent. I do not know why we think this is just such an amazing idea. I think we have to listen to what we are being told about how it will work in practice.

The one issue that nobody has responded to yet is how we have chosen this particular range of offences. I am really, really happy that Mr Madoff was sentenced to 150 years’—

Grant Robertson: Bernie!

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: —that Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years’ imprisonment. His crime was motivated by greed. It was deliberate. He did not get drunk and accidentally remove a whole lot of money out of people’s back pockets. How does the fact that he did not do it with a gun, a knife, or the threat of physical injury mean that he is better than somebody who was addicted to drugs or somebody who ended up in a situation where he acted on the spur of the moment and did not think things through? A lot of the crimes we are talking about in the violence space are not premeditated. Often they are crimes that occur because of the circumstances in which people find themselves. Bernie Madoff did not find himself in a situation where he could rip millions and millions of dollars off innocent friends—they are no longer his friends—but the reality is that we say that his crimes are different from those described in this bill.

Let us look at the range of crimes. What about sexual harassment? We know about sexual harassment. It is incredibly damaging, particularly for young vulnerable women who meet older men who are in a position of power. For example, someone may come to Parliament as a student as part of a student group and they may be told by their tutor not to complain about the MP who sexually harassed them, because if they do the group will end up in a situation where the visits to Wellington will have to be cancelled, and that is not wanted. So the student should just “suck it up” and put it to one side, and the group will try to avoid that particular MP. Would Mr Garrett like me to name him?

The point I make is that we are being selective about the range of offences. We have to think very, very seriously about white-collar crime in the context of where deterrence works. I do not know why members of the Government do not get this point. If we want to operate a system that deters serious crime, then we should put the deterrent where it will work. We should put it where people are very clear about the choice they are making in terms of the crime they are committing and its relationship to the risk of getting caught and the consequences of getting caught, should they be convicted of the offence. That is what white-collar crime is all about. If we really wanted to do something about deterrence, we would have an appropriate range of offences, and mechanisms for enforcing deterrence activities, in place.

I will pick up on the point that was made about the quote from the report back of the Law and Order Committee. I am quoting from the minority report, but the specific quote that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove referred to was an extract from the Cabinet paper, so there is no issue in respect of what the Minister said in her most recent contribution. When the Department of Corrections was reporting on prison bed forecasts it said: “… there is an implicit assumption that the Bill will have no deterrent impact.”

If the Minister’s own department thinks that there is an “implicit assumption”, I cannot understand why the Minister would argue that her own department is not taking that particular point of view. Is the Minister denying that it was a genuine quote? Well, perhaps we could have the entire quote, because I cannot see anything other than the very clear statement that there is an implicit assumption that the bill will have no deterrent impact. I guess that relates to the fact that it is not budgeting for an increase in bed numbers, and I assume the Minister will address that issue when she next addresses the Committee.

The other thing I want to come back to is this whole question of the discretion that sits with the judges. In this particular case, because it is the provision that deals with parole, it is the question of the ability of the Parole Board to look at individual cases. Of course, the discretion is taken away from judges.

What I have not heard the Minister respond to, and I think these are probably the two most serious issues—and they were raised by Rev. Ron Givens when he was here—is the danger to prison officers and the danger to police officers. It is clear that the fact that more people are desperate to escape the third-strike conviction has resulted in more police officers being killed. It has. The Minister can shake her head, but perhaps she would like to respond to that issue, because it is shown in the evidence that has been given to us.

The other issue is the question of prison officers. If somebody is never going to get out of prison, what on earth does that do to their mental well-being? The point made to us was that a significant percentage of people already have mental illness when they go into prison, but for those who know there is no hope, no ability for redemption, and no capacity to rejoin the community, no matter what changes they make to their lives, what on earth is the incentive to sit down and address those underlying issues? It seems to me that that is something the Minister has not taken into account, and it is putting more and more corrections officers at risk, which is a tragedy that we could avoid. It is the same with police officers. In every single jurisdiction where legislation like this has been introduced, people are desperately trying to avoid being arrested for that third strike.

We also have the situation where people are essentially ground down into a state of mental illness that prevents them from participating in anything within the prison context. Essentially they become even more violent and create a greater risk for those who are supposedly looking after people in a humane containment environment within our prison system. I think that is probably the most serious matter that the Minister has not addressed at all in any part of the debate. The risks are serious, they ought to be taken seriously by her, and she ought to respond to those issues as they have been raised.

I think that the issues concerning the general sentencing capacity are politicising justice by taking discretion away from the judges. It is politicising a system of parole that is about reintegration. How are people supposed to be reintegrated if parole is removed from the second-strike situation, as we have had described in relation to the bill? I would really like the Minister to respond to those issues. They are serious and a lot of people are asking questions about them.

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): This is a very important debate and the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is a very serious bill about parole. Some of the points that the Opposition raised I can agree with; we have a problem in New Zealand and we need to think about the causes of crime and the sorts of lives that young people are leading that destine them to a tragic life of crime. We will not deal with that problem by just ever-tougher sentencing. I think we all acknowledge that. But I think members also acknowledge that when people do commit a violent crime they need to be punished for that crime. Again, I think there is agreement across the House about that.

We also know that there has been ongoing and grave concern among the public—and it is easy to understand why—about some very nasty criminals who commit a heinous crime against people, are released, commit another heinous crime against a totally innocent person, are put away, come out, then commit another heinous crime. The victims and their families are asking why those people keep being let loose on law-abiding New Zealanders. On this side of the House—in the ACT Party and the National Party—we actually agree with them, and we say: “Quite.”

We also want to send a message to criminal offenders that repeat criminal offending will not be tolerated. That is the whole point of warning first offenders that they are on their first strike. Telling them that they are on their first strike sends a powerful message, because what are they going to do? They will go away to serve their time, they will be eligible for parole, and they will be thinking about it. Are they going to come out, commit a crime again, and get a second strike? Well, if they are vaguely rational, I do not think they will want a second strike, because when they get a second strike there will be no parole. And if they get a second strike, they are in danger of getting a third strike. Members should understand that this is not about the young guy who absentmindedly steals a candy bar; this is about people who commit violent crimes against other people. And it is not the first time; it is the second time and the third time.

What this side of the House is saying is let us send a message. Offenders will be told that they are on their first strike and they will be given a warning. Does it not make sense that young people then will think not to offend again, because the punishment will escalate? There are sad people—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: You believe this?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Well, Lianne Dalziel does not believe this, but I can understand that, because I have got to know Lianne Dalziel and her attitude to justice. And while I admire her attitude to justice in many respects, I have to say that Lianne Dalziel is out to lunch—that is all I can say. Listening to her contribution shocked me. I wonder where she has been living, to understand the criminal—

Hon Paula Bennett: Christchurch!

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Christchurch! The second thing is that if people commit a second offence, they will get a second strike and no parole, because, as the Minister of Corrections pointed out, parole is not a right. It is not a right. People who commit a third offence should be locked up and should be put away, because they are a menace to society. Lianne Dalziel knows that some of the people who are locked up now are not going to come out, and we seem to be coping.

The No. 1 responsibility of Parliament, and of any Government, is to keep the people safe, and that is why this side of the House is supporting this legislation. I am sorry that someone of the stature of Lianne Dalziel has come to this House to oppose this bill, and has quoted spurious arguments from California and odd statements about “implicit assumptions”. What does an implicit assumption prove? It simply proves that it is an implicit assumption. It is nothing to do with the facts and nothing to do with logic.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I move, That the question be now put.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I wanted to take this call soon after the Minister of Corrections resumed her seat, because Rodney Hide talked at the beginning of his speech about the things that have been shared in this Committee, and I had talked about that in an earlier contribution in this debate. We all share the horrendous stories of victims of crime, and many of us have worked with victims. Even in my short time as an MP, I have done that. We also share concerns about reoffending. I can share that with Rodney Hide.

But then I heard the Minister stand up and criticise members on this side of the Chamber as being people who had spent a lifetime defending criminals. It is very difficult to have respect for the Minister and for this legislation when she puts out statements like that. Mr Hide did not do that at the beginning of his statement, and I give him credit for that. He talked about what was shared across this Chamber. But the Minister’s comment was disgraceful. She should be ashamed to sit there and make that kind of comment.

Her smug performance this evening does nothing for the victims of crime. Her performance and the performance of the National Government this evening have done nothing to reassure New Zealanders that this bill is about public safety and not political slogans. We have heard nothing of substance from National members. I give credit to Mr Garrett in this debate. He has provided substantive contributions on why he believes in this bill. We have not heard that from the National members.

I believe that part of the reason is that National members do not support this bill. I know that members of the National Government do not support this bill. Many of them do not support it because they know that the advice from people like the officials from the Ministry of Justice, who are the main policy advisers on these matters, goes against this bill. Ms Collins got up earlier and attempted to try to obfuscate about that, and to say that the advice was not from the Department of Corrections or from the police.

The comments that were read out in this Chamber were from the Government’s chief advisers on justice issues, and they stated that the proposed policy changes were unlikely to be consistent with the Government’s publicly announced policy in relation to the drivers of crime. The Ministry of Justice view was: “… the deterrence effect of the three stage regime is uncertain. The proposals will add … costs … without creating any significantly improved outcomes in terms of reducing the drivers of crimes, improving social outcomes or reducing reoffending and victimisation.” In other words, the Ministry of Justice was saying that the bill will not work.

In Part 2 we are looking at the parole aspects of the legislation. We have heard from the Minister a number of times that parole is not a right; it is a privilege. That is what the Parole Act states today. Nothing is changing. That is what the Parole Act states today.

The Minister has made comments about where Labour was on this matter. Labour Governments toughened parole rules. The Minister does not want to acknowledge that, because it suits her political sloganeering to say that we were not tough on parole, but we were. Parole is not a right; it is a privilege. That does not change. If we want to improve the way that parole operates, let us strengthen the Parole Board, and let us look at the mandate of the Parole Board. These changes are not about suddenly changing parole from being a privilege to being a right. That is pure and simple spin.

My main concern about parole and the taking away of parole is about the safety of our prison officers, safety in prisons, and the safety of our police. Without the hope of parole, we risk further attacks on prison officers and on police. I have spoken to a number of people who have visited people in prisons. I have spent time visiting people in prisons, as well. There is one thing that prisoners need in order to be able to behave well, and that is hope. They have to have some hope. Prisoners have very little else. If they do not have hope, their behaviour will deteriorate, and we will see more attacks in our prisons.

If we are really serious about this issue, we need to look at the drivers of crime. We need to make sure that people are not getting into this position. Instead of that, what we have seen from this Government is simple sloganeering and cheap shots from the Minister tonight, rather than—[Interruption] They were cheap shots, I say to the Minister. I ask whether it is not a cheap shot to say that Labour members have spent a lifetime defending criminals. That is what the Minister said. That is a cheap shot. We deserve better in this Chamber. The laws that are coming forward as sloganeering—

Sandra Goudie: Labour’s soft on crime.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Labour has a proud record of addressing the causes of crime and of strengthening laws on crime, I say to Mrs Goudie, but this bill is about simple sloganeering. It will not work.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): I have a few things to say to Grant Robertson, who has just resumed his seat. It is a long way from central Wellington to the streets of South Auckland. I am sorry for that member that he lives in a world where he does not understand that the people who suffer most from violent crime are the poorest members of this country. They are the people who do not get a choice about where they live.

The member can stand there and say that this legislation is just about electioneering and campaigning, but, no, it is not, actually. It is about the day-to-day life of people like Rita Croskery, people who have to go in year after year to the Parole Board to try to stop people like the killers of her son from getting out of jail free. That is what parole means for a lot of the victims of crime. That is what it means.

When Mr Robertson says that someone who has committed a serious violent offence should get parole because they need something to live for, well, I say that the member should go and say that to Mrs Croskery. Go and tell that to the victims of crime, I say to Mr Robertson. They need something to live for, too.

One of the things that Labour has said is that if a prisoner is paroled, he or she will not commit a crime. Well, that is not true at all. In fact, we see a lot of people who misuse parole in order to get what they want, which may be more violent crime against innocent people.

Grant Robertson: So is the Minister going to abolish parole entirely?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Mr Robertson wants us to abolish parole entirely. I will not do that. I do not think that is right. Besides, the Minister of Justice would be in charge of that. We will not do that.

Grant Robertson: I thought it didn’t work.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: For some people, I say to Mr Robertson, parole does not work; for a lot of people, it does. That is the point of this bill. It is not about people who steal a muesli bar, a chocolate bar, or a loaf of bread; this bill is about people who kill, who maim, who shoot people, and who rape people—why should they get three chances to destroy someone’s life? It is simply not good enough, I say to Mr Robertson.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): I will start this contribution by acknowledging Mr Cosgrove, who said earlier that he believes that no one in this Chamber would not be on the side of victims. I put on the record that I believe that. I do not believe that Mr Robertson or Mr Hipkins, or Mr Cosgrove for that matter, are unsympathetic to victims. So that is the spirit in which I am standing, and I thank Mr Robertson for his gracious acknowledgment of the sincerity of my belief that lies behind the bill.

I will talk briefly about deterrence, which, with the greatest respect, I do not think the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Collins, explained as well as she might have. Members on the other side of the Chamber have used the statements in the commentary that state that no deterrence has been calculated or predicted. I am sure members on the other side of the Chamber know—perhaps Mr Robertson does not know, because he did not sit on the Law and Order Committee—that the predictions of bed numbers arose when the Department of Corrections put through a computer model of offender statistics for the last 30 years.

In that model, the department inserted the “three strikes” legislation as it is now. It ran the hundreds of thousands of offender statistics through the model as if there had been a “three strikes” bill, then extrapolated that forward, assuming that those statistics would continue for the next 50 years. That is where those bed numbers come from: 140 over 10 years, 288 over 20 years, and 725 over 50 years. I will not make any points in this contribution about distortion of numbers, because that is not what I stood to say.

The fact that no deterrent is assumed is because we simply cannot do so. What would be the point in putting into the model an assumed deterrent effect of 10 percent, 20 percent, or 30 percent? It would simply be a guess, and it would be dishonest. It would be absolutely, utterly dishonest. That really would be spin. The only thing we can do, which is what we have done, is to look at statistics from 30 years ago, run them through the model with “three strikes” legislation, and see what numbers are spat out.

But I want to talk about parole, which is what this part is about. There has been lots of talk about parole, and the point made by members on the other side of the Chamber has been made well. The Sentencing Act does indeed make it clear, in one subsection, at least, that parole is a privilege and not a right. I remind the Committee that two of the most heinous crimes in this country were committed by parolees. I refer to William Bell and Graeme Burton. I think it is worth reminding the Committee of the circumstances that occurred with both of them.

William Bell had 102 previous convictions. He was paroled for badly beating a service station attendant. The service station attendant went and hid in the toilet. He had given Bell the money, but because Bell is a psychopath, he wanted to see blood. The guy barricaded himself in the toilet. Bell busted in the door and beat the you know what out of him, severely injuring him. That was the crime for which William Bell was paroled in 2001.

When he showed up at the probation service office in Māngere, he was assigned to an inexperienced young female probation officer. He walked into the office. She handed over to him his special conditions. He laughed, rolled the conditions into a ball, threw them at her head, and left. Within months, he had killed three people at the Mount Wellington - Panmure Returned Services Association, and damn near killed a fourth. He had no intention of letting Susan Couch survive. She is maimed beyond belief. I will not discuss her medical condition in the Chamber, but I know about it. Bell walked in there undisguised. He had been working there for 3 months, so everyone knew him. The only reason someone goes undisguised to a place where they have been working and will be identified is if they do not plan to leave anyone alive. So William Bell is one parolee.

Graeme Burton is also a psychopath. In Wellington in 1992 he walked into a nightclub and decided to attack some poor inoffensive chap—a fairly slight guy, I believe. Burton did not like the look of him, or had been given the wrong kind of look, and stabbed him with such violence that the knife came out his back. Burton, being a huge man, lifted the guy off the ground. That was Burton’s crime, and he went to jail for it.

What Burton did was even more sinister than Bell: he got hold, effectively, of the answer book. He had had interviews with psychologists. He is an intelligent man. I have met him—through a steel grill. He got hold of the answer book so that he could fake empathy. He knew what to say when he was asked how he felt about a picture, about a certain situation, or about his emotions. He knew what to say and he fooled the Parole Board. He got out and killed Karl Kuchenbecker, and damn near killed two other people as well. So there are two failures of parole.

We make no bones about the fact that the “three strikes” system has steps. I remind the Committee again: step one implements no change from what is already in place. Someone convicted of aggravated robbery the day after this bill is passed will be treated no differently from today, except that they will get a formal warning on their file. They will be eligible for parole under the Sentencing Act 2002. It is fair to say that they probably will not get it first time, but they will get out under parole, and they certainly will not serve their full sentence.

At step two there is no parole. We make no bones about that. It is a jump from the first step to the second step. We take away that privilege. Members on the other side of the Chamber have agreed that parole is a privilege. That privilege is removed at the second step.

People have said that it is a disproportionate sentence, and they are right. It is deliberate. That is the point they miss. It is deliberately disproportionate because it is the second time. If people offend again, they get the maximum, and that is disproportionate. A third-time offender committing aggravated robbery gets a certain sentence. A second-time offender committing aggravated robbery gets another sentence. A first-time offender committing aggravated robbery gets another sentence. It is deliberate. That is the point. It is disproportionate because offenders keep on offending, do not learn, and do not change their ways. As Mr Hide has said, eventually, at that point, they have to be locked up to protect society.

But it is not forever. The 25-year-to-life sentence that we unashamedly promoted has gone, and instead we have the maximum sentence prescribed by Parliament in 1961, when it passed the Crimes Act 1961 and set the penalties. It was a bit simpler in those days. Parliament did not have a whole pile of Acts. It is all in the Crimes Act. Parliament said the maximum penalty for aggravated robbery should be 14 years. I challenge Mr Hipkins to find someone who has received anything like a 14 year sentence in the past 20 years. He will look in vain. The Crimes Act says that the penalty for rape is 20 years. I challenge members to find a rapist who has received anything like a 20 year sentence in the last 20 years. Members will look in vain.

So this is an unashamedly disproportionate form of sanction. At the first step, an offender receives one sentence; the next step is much worse; and the third step is much worse than that. That is the point.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I have listened quite carefully to the debate—and in particular to the support for this bill tonight—as I have in earlier debates, and have endeavoured to understand why anyone could think that this bill is a good idea and will achieve its stated purpose to make our communities and our people safer. I see nothing in this bill. It is completely contrary to any evidence anywhere in the world to suggest that a regime like that proposed in this bill will make our people—our communities and our public—safer.

We have heard a lot about statistics and numbers, particularly from Mr Garrett earlier. It seems that he is making the classic mistake in interpreting research of confusing correlation with causation. The fact that two things happen at more or less the same time does not suggest that one is causing the other.

David Garrett: No, I said I’m not sure, because I’m not a socialist and I’m not God; I’m not sure.

DAVID CLENDON: Dear me! I do wish that Mr Garrett would find a new insult, because that one is getting positively boring. We have heard a great deal about numbers, and clearly from that side of the Chamber there is a preference for arguments that can be reduced to a cost-benefit analysis. Those members give us numbers and statistics, putting aside for a minute that social values are very much more difficult to establish than dollar values.

Even in terms of dollars, we can look at the Californian example, which is so oft quoted. Again, I had the pleasure of hearing the Rev. Givens when he spoke in Wellington a week or so ago, and he quoted some really interesting numbers. He referred to the Californian prisons as the most expensive rest homes in the world. They have very old prisoners, prisoners well into their fifties and older. The average cost of keeping a prisoner in Californian jails is, if I remember correctly, a little in excess of $35,000. California is now discovering that keeping prisoners into their fifties and beyond is costing the state, on average, closer to $140,000. No social benefit is gained from doing that in relation to those extraordinarily prolonged sentences for people who have admittedly committed serious crimes or, in some cases, not particularly serious crimes. Those prisoners are imposing an incredible cost on their communities, on that Government, and on that state.

We have already seen in recent times that this Government has passed legislation to allow private prisons to allow the use of court cells, on the understanding that apparently we are obliged to do that. We have seen double bunking in jails, and the making of containers into cells, because we cannot cram any more people into our jails, yet we are imposing this extra cost on ourselves by putting provisions in this bill. The denial of parole will put people away for longer periods, with no social benefit but with significant social cost.

I think the most insidious thing about this bill is that it is saying that we in this Chamber tonight—the majority who might seek to pass this bill—know better than judges what sentence they ought to pass in future for crimes not yet committed, and whether parole should be allowed and, if so, at what point. The notion of mandated sentencing essentially means that we do not trust the judges who are appointed to our courts. It suggests that we can make better decisions about the sentences and the parole conditions given for individual cases on a very one-size-fits-all generic basis. That is not only wrong; it is lazy. It is unethical, it is immoral, and it ought not to be done here.

I think that one of the most powerful impacts of the Rev. Givens’ presentation, which some of us took the time to see, was not only in the numbers and the words—we had heard those, we had read those—but also in some of the images he showed. The direct outcomes of a regime like that is to put more people in jail for longer, in what are already overcrowded prisons. He showed images of hundreds of men inhabiting what was once a gymnasium, with bunks stacked three high and with scarcely enough room in the aisles to walk through. I saw those images and immediately wondered how they were smuggled out of prison, because surely that could not have been allowed. In fact, those images were put out by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and show a best-case scenario. Those were the best images the department could muster from that appallingly inhumane regime, which it is now proposed that we should impose on ourselves and on our prisons.

There is no deterrent effect from longer sentences; we know that. Research internationally tells us that. The deterrent is the likelihood of being caught. We should put more money into policing and into preventing crime, because there it will do some good. Longer sentences are not a deterrent; we know that. We know that is as true in New Zealand as it is in California.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to say at the very beginning of my contribution that I was absolutely shocked and appalled to hear the Minister of Corrections, Judith Collins, rise in this Chamber and suggest that the only violent criminals were in South Auckland, and that somebody who lived in central Wellington, Christchurch, or somewhere else—

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. If the member is going to make silly statements like that, he should at least quote me correctly. I live in South Auckland.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I ask the members to sit down. These are debating points. It is a robust debate. I ask the member to continue, and I will ask the Minister to refrain from those comments. They are debating points; that was not a point of order.

CHRIS HIPKINS: I am not surprised the Minister is embarrassed by the comments that she made. It was a comment about South Auckland that Melissa Lee would have been proud of. Perhaps the Government should just build another motorway so that all the criminals can drive past South Auckland. It was an absolutely disgraceful indictment on the Government. It was a further disgraceful indictment on this Government that Judith Collins—the Minister of Corrections, in fact—said that anybody who opposes the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is condoning the actions of violent criminals. I was offended by that comment.

I am opposed to this bill, but I think the actions of violent criminals are abhorrent. I would like to thank David Garrett for at least having the decency to acknowledge that people who oppose this bill are not condoning the actions of violent criminals, and do take the victims into consideration. I find it offensive that the Minister would not do the same. David Garrett had the decency to at least acknowledge that much, even though we may not agree on this particular bill.

Miss Collins’ own Police Association, the people whom she works with, argued against the removal of parole. The Police Association, in its submission on this bill, argued against it, and talked about judicial discretion providing a safety valve for the myriad of possible circumstances surrounding any given case and argued that it is preferable to mandatory sentencing. So the Police Association argued that there is a very real cost to removing all hope of early release, such that inmates often become very difficult to manage in the prison system.

It would be appalling for the Minister of Police or the Minister of Corrections, whichever Government that Minister comes from, to have to come into this House, as the Minister of Corrections did this afternoon, to offer condolences to the family of a prison officer or a police officer who has been very tragically killed because of this bill. Evidence presented from overseas suggests that is more likely under this bill. For the Minister to say that by putting up these arguments, and by opposing this bill, somehow we condone the actions of violent criminals and violent offenders is simply offensive; it is appalling.

I will talk about some of the other concerns that were raised in the very valid submissions put forward during the Law and Order Committee process. I did not have the opportunity to sit on the select committee, but I had the opportunity to read through some of those submissions. The Dunedin Community Law Centre pointed out, very well, I think, that the Parole Board now declines 72 percent of parole applications, and that is a significant increase from 52 percent, which was the rate before the last legislation came into effect. I think it is really important that we consider the 2004 legislation, because things have changed. When David Garrett talks about what has happened in the last 20 years, well there has been a significant change in the last 5 years that we have not yet seen the full effect of.

I think we need to consider the changes made in 2004, and the impact they are having on the parole that is granted and on the sentences that are imposed in the first place, including the amount of mandatory non-parole imposed. Between 1997 and 2006 the average non-parole period imposed for life sentences increased by more than 25 percent. I think that is really important, and was a point raised by the Dunedin Community Law Centre. It also argued that women would be less likely to report violent crime, in particular violent crime involving their partner, if they knew that their partner, former partner, father of their children, or other relative could be locked up for life. We have to consider the implications this law would have on the reporting of crime in the first place, and the willingness of victims to come forward and to make statements to provide evidence that can be used in prosecutions.

A retired District Court judge, William John Mitchell, argued that ruling out parole, even after genuine efforts towards reform, reduces the incentive to make such efforts. Surely we should be looking at how we can create more incentives for prisoners to genuinely reform themselves. We have evidence here, presented by a judge, that this bill will not do that.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 64

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

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 123 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to clause 13 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5.

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5.

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule

A party vote was called for on the question, That the schedule agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5.

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill will apparently be called the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2008. That is what the title clause of the bill says. But that title implies that there has been a reform, that something positive and good has happened to sentencing and parole. I think a better title for this bill would be the “Removal of Discretion that Resides with Our Judges and with the Parole Board in Favour of Those who Want to Sloganeer Their Way into a Particular Position with the Public Bill”.

This bill is based on a fiction. It is based on a lie. It does not represent any truth in sentencing or in parole. It does not act as a deterrent. It does not make our communities safer. I say to every single person in this House who has stood up and has said that they are on the side on the victims of crime that we on this side of the House would like to see fewer victims of crime. We would like to put our energy and our effort into removing some of those drivers of crime, which I know that some elements of the Government are interested in addressing. We started off down that pathway, and I am glad that some members of the Government are willing to pick it up and run with it.

Maybe that explains why this Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is in the name of the Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections, instead of being in the name of the Minister of Justice, which is where this bill rightly resides. The Ministry of Justice develops policy for Governments based on the policy decisions that they make. It translates the policy ideas into legislation.

This bill started off life, I think, as the orphan child of one David Garrett as a member’s bill. I ask whether I am right about that. It was picked up by the Government as a Government measure as part of the arrangement that National has with the ACT Party. I think that that is a shame. We are hearing all of the language that is associated with the “three strikes” law in the United States of America when we know that the “three strikes” law in America has not made those states any safer than any of the other states of America. In fact, we know that the two groups of people who are less safe when this kind of law is passed are prison officers and police officers. They are much more at risk when there is nothing left to lose, and that is exactly what we will be saying to those who will remain in prison for the rest of their lives. The numbers will increase over time, and those individuals will be putting at risk police officers and prison officers.

The title clause states “Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2008”, but it is not sentencing and parole reform; it is removing discretion. It is mandatory sentences. This legislation should be called the “Mandatory Sentences Law Reform and No Parole in Particular Cases Bill”. People should think very seriously about the impact that this legislation will have on those two groups—the prison officers and the police officers. When one has nothing left to lose, then the person who is standing in the way of one confronting that reality will be very much at risk. There have been many examples in the United States of police officers who have been shot going to arrest somebody for what would be a third strike.

The other thing is the nature of the charges that will be brought against the individuals. This is another name we could give this bill: “How to Lock Up More of Our Māori Population Bill”. That name for the bill would have more truth in titling than anything that we have had before us today. We know that Māori are much more likely to be stopped in the street. We know that Māori are much more likely to be arrested if stopped. We know that Māori are much more likely to be charged if arrested. We know that Māori are much more likely to be charged with more serious offences if they are charged. They are much more likely to be convicted if they face a court hearing. They are much more likely to go to jail if they are Māori. That to me is an indictment on our entire system, and this bill will add to it.

Anyone who has had a misspent youth facing a charge will know that they are not all in the category that has been described to us. Of course we have very strong feelings about murder, rape, sexual violation, and those things, but there are other charges as well that are not as serious. They cover a magnitude—a full range of offenders are covered under the same charges.

David Garrett: What is a minor one?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am not saying that any of them are minor; I am just saying that there are circumstances where somebody gets a conviction for manslaughter because he was involved in a suicide pact with his wife. In that particular case, the man pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, murder. He had entered into a suicide pact with his wife. She was successful in completing her suicide with his assistance, but he was not successful in killing himself. He was resuscitated and charged with murder. He pleaded guilty and got home detention. Under this legislation, if he had also had a misspent youth, he would have been locked up for the rest of his natural life.

All I am saying is that there is no capacity in this legislation for any sense of forgiveness. There is no chance of redemption or for anybody to turn their lives round. How many senior gang members do people in this Chamber know who are now respected members of the community? We know that former gang members came to the ministerial Drivers of Crime meeting because they are now giving back to their communities. This bill says that they should never have been allowed out of jail and that they should have—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I just remind the member that we are on clauses 1 and 2. It would pay to mention the title and commencement. You have mentioned them a couple of times, but I would like you to come back to the title and commencement, clauses 1 and 2.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The title of this bill is misleading. It talks about reform. What I have just described to this Committee is not reform, but a huge backwards step. It says that nobody can change. It is unfortunate that this Committee is debating something that is called the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill when it should be called the “Misrepresentation of Three Strikes (a Failed Policy in the United States) Bill”. It should be called the “Let’s Make Our Communities Less Safe Bill”. It is about locking up more Māori and about making sure we give no chance to anyone to redeem themselves, no matter what crime they have committed. Some of those people now contribute to our society in an extremely positive way.

I would rather be debating something that was genuinely about reforming sentencing and parole so that we could have a safer society and so that those who were capable of redemption were able to redeem themselves and front up to the victims of their crimes. We keep forgetting that this is supposedly about the victims of crime, but how is this bill looking at the victims of crime when they are not even mentioned in the title of the bill?

Unfortunately, a lot of offenders leave prison saying that they have paid their debt to society. What about their debt to the victims of their crimes? What about their debt to their victims’ families and to the community, which has been upset by the crime that was committed in its midst? I think that if this bill was genuinely about sentencing and parole reform, as the title clause describes, it would be doing something quite different from what is presented here. This is about “three strikes”, about emulating the United States, and about not caring whether we end up spending 20 times the amount on our corrections system than we spend on our education system. If we go down the track the United States has, that is exactly the direction we will be going in. I think it is a tragedy that we are debating something called the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill when there is nothing reforming about it, at all.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): Referring to the title and the commencement of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, one could argue that, given the debate and the points that have been made tonight, this bill would be better called the “Sentencing and Parole (Hoax on Victims) Bill”.

I read an article that Deborah Coddington wrote. Deborah Coddington is a former member, as we know, of the ACT Party. She may have been a founding member—I do not know. But she made an interesting point. She said that even this bill was not an ACT Party bill; it was not a bill of the original—

Chris Hipkins: The original liberals.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —Mr Hipkins is right, those are the words she used—liberal ACT Party, before Rodney Hide got his claws into it. The comments she made were interesting. She talked about the liberal reforms that the ACT Party was built on, not only in this area but in other areas of policy.

This bill could be described as a hoax on victims, because it does two things: it tugs at the heartstrings of victims, and it raises victims’ expectations substantially. I would wager that this bill, when passed, will for a time be eminently popular, because “three strikes” is a great slogan and everyone can remember it. It will be popular for a time. Victims will have a high expectation of what it can deliver for them. And that is fair enough. I do not blame victims, or members of our community who, sadly, may be future victims, or members of our community who truly believe that this bill will be the answer to all the ills in our criminal justice system. The bill will be popular, and I know what will be said about it at the next election, because given that we will not see the ultimate effects of it for 5 to 7 years, it will be very difficult to argue one way or the other on the election stump as to its merits or lack of them. That is part of a hoax that the ACT Party and National have put in place; it is a nice little strategic political triangulation. It is a bit like the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill, which comes into force in July of next year, not too many months before, I suspect, the next general election. The only time we will be able to really scrutinise and see the practical effects of this bill will be well after the next election cycle. That, I would argue, is very, very deliberate.

This bill will be a notch on the belt for Mr Garrett—a legislative notch on the belt. And Mr Hide will be able to tick the box for the Sensible Sentencing Trust and say that ACT has done the deal and delivered. The deal with the Sensible Sentencing Trust has been clinched.

Hon Rodney Hide: We’re keeping our promise.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: He says that, yes, the deal has been clinched. We all know what the deal was, too. But the time will come when members of Parliament have to revisit this legislation. And the crime figures will continue to go up. It is interesting that, under the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, we have, I think, the worst murder rate for 20 years. But that was all going to be absolved; everything was going to change when National got into power.

There will be people listening tonight who will disagree vehemently with me and with the Labour Party position. They will say we are wrong, and some will even say we are soft because we oppose the bill. I do not have any angst against those folks out there, at all, because they have a genuine belief that this legislation will deliver for them.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: They’ve been conned.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, they have.

Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You brought to the attention of the Hon Lianne Dalziel the matter of relevancy. I have let this speech go on for some time now without bringing the speaker to order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I hear what the member said. I mentioned to Mr Cosgrove’s colleague earlier that we are on clauses 1 and 2, the title and the commencement. The member has a minute to go, and I would like to hear the title and the commencement mentioned in the remaining minute.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You might recall that I mentioned my suggested amendment to the title in the first sentence I made.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order. I am inviting the member to continue. He has the call.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I intend to continue, and I will repeat for your edification, because maybe the sound system is not working—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is a challenge to my ruling. I have ruled and I am inviting the member to continue. We do not need any further discussion on it.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I repeat the first sentence I made in my speech, which was that an appropriate title for this bill would be the “Sentencing and Parole (Hoax on Victims) Bill”. That is what I said in my first sentence of my speech.

Chris Tremain: Don’t be a smart-arse—the way you spoke to the Chair.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We do not need to get into this sort of nonsense. I am inviting the member to continue. [Interruption] I am on my feet. In the spirit of the hour, I ask the member to continue. We are talking about clauses 1 and 2. I hear what the member said. Please continue.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I will not respond to the member opposite. He may choose to use unparliamentary language, but I will not. As I have said—

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Get on with it.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Oh, we will get on to it, I say to the member. We will be back debating this legislation in some years, whether or not that member is in the House, and we will revisit the Hansard of that member, who I do not think has made a contribution in the whole debate. I invite him to get up and make a contribution. I think he has a legal background. He may be able to make a substantial contribution on the bill, rather than standing over there and doing an imitation of the member who is based in an electorate near Trevor Mallard’s—what is his name?

Chris Hipkins: Paul Quinn.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Mr Lotu-Iiga is doing an imitation of Paul Quinn squawking from the sidelines. This is very, very important legislation. Whether or not we disagree with it, it is substantial and it will have a huge impact—Labour would argue a negative impact. I say to that member that if he would like to make a contribution, he should get on his feet and make one, because we would enjoy listening to it. But I do not think that will happen, as he sips his glass of water.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: You don’t want to talk about the bill.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I will talk about the bill, all right. There is a very, very high expectation of this legislation among victims.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: That’s the problem.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: That is the problem, yes, because those victims expect this bill to deliver for them. They expect that it will have a deterrent effect. They expect that, as they have been told, criminals, before they commit a crime, will think: “Hang on, I am on a first strike or a second strike.” or “I have been warned by the judge.”, and they will walk out of the house without doing what they had gone there to do, whether that be murder, rape, or any heinous crime. I do not have faith in the criminal element to make those sorts of mental calculations as they are about to commit a crime. They will not stop and think about what the judge warned them would happen if they committed this kind of crime again.

I think there are dangers for victims. It may well be the case that the ultimate tactic of the criminal element is not to maim but to kill, because if they kill there will be one fewer witness who can testify against them. There are dangers, as my colleague Lianne Dalziel has said, for our police force and for our corrections officers. If an offender would be incarcerated for the rest of his days, he has nothing to lose. Look at Graeme Burton—as I speak to the title of the bill—and at the activities that he has engaged in because he is not getting out of prison any time soon. He will not be getting out at all. I suspect that he has determined that, given that, anything goes. The human carnage that he has left, and the threat that he poses to prison officers and to others who come into contact with him, are an awful prospect going forward. He should never be allowed out. But his case shows what can happen.

A more appropriate name for the bill is the “Sentencing and Parole (Hoax on Victims) Bill”. I repeat that the Law and Order Committee was told by officials that it is eminently possible—we asked them repeatedly—that a person who commits a first-strike offence, a grievous offence, may get a shorter sentence than a third-striker who commits a less grievous offence. We asked the officials that specific question—whether that was possible under this legislation. We have professional officials, and they answered that, yes, it was possible.

I am glad to see that the Minister of Justice is in the Chamber. I am sure that after his long absence from the fight, his absence from the debate—I do not mean physical, of course; I mean his verbal absence—his absence from the process, Simon Power, being the reformer that he says he is, will want to take a call in support of his Minister of Police, who wrenched this bill from his grasp. He tried to hang on to the bill for so long. The Cabinet paper was pot-riveted to his part of the Cabinet desk; he had held on to it for so long that he was superglued to it. He did not want to get away from it. He wanted to take it through all stages, but he was rolled by the Minister of Police, who said that, no, she would do it. I suspect that that is the alibi, anyway. I say to the Minister of Justice, given that he is here, that it will be his agency, the core Crown agency that deals with justice bills, that has to administer this legislation. He might like to take a call and tell us why his Ministry of Justice was barred from the second part of the process as the amendments were put through the select committee. He might want to tell us why his Ministry of Justice continues to be gagged on a number of pieces of legislation and processes here. He might want to tell us that, given that the Police told us that it will not be the key agency that deals with the bill, and neither is the Department of Corrections.

Amy Adams: What has this got to do with the title?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The bill is, in respect of the title, a hoax on victims. It could also be called “The Bill I Wanted to Put Through as Justice Minister but I Was Rolled by the Police Minister Bill”. It could also be called the “Ton of Guts Bill”. A ton of guts was shown by various Ministers in fronting this legislation, like the “Great Reformer”, the Minister of Justice. He said that he would get tough and sort it out. He showed a ton of guts in fronting up to this bill: there he was, all through the debate, silent.

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 64

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

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5.

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 123 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to clause 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5.

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5.

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill without amendment and the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill

First Reading

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce): I move, That the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for consideration.

This bill proposes reform, and it proposes amending the Commerce Act, the Fair Trading Act, and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act to enable greater cooperation between the Commerce Commission and its fellow overseas competition and consumer regulators. This bill is part of the single economic market outcomes framework, which was jointly announced by Prime Ministers Rudd and Key in August last year. As Mr Key said in his Prime Minister’s statement to the House at the beginning of this year, this Government wants to give the single economic market a new impetus this year. The Australian Government passed legislation in 2007 to enhance the ability of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—the ACCC—to provide assistance to overseas regulators.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: The bill was introduced when?

Hon SIMON POWER: I am getting there. Just to satisfy my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel, the next sentence in my speech states: “This bill was introduced by the previous Minister of Commerce immediately prior to the election in 2008.”

Hon Lianne Dalziel: What took you so long?

Hon SIMON POWER: It took me three paragraphs.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: No, we are just getting to the first reading.

Hon SIMON POWER: We do not want to be too bipartisan about these things!

Chris Hipkins: But 18 months?

Hon SIMON POWER: I have been busy.

The bill provides for the Commerce Commission to use its statutory powers to assist the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and other overseas competition or consumer regulators, with an investigation. The bill will promote more effective and efficient enforcement of competition and consumer protection laws in a global economy. Business today increasingly operates in multiple jurisdictions, and parallel investigations or proceedings in relation to a particular company are becoming increasingly common and complex. For example, recent international cartel cases that the Commerce Commission has pursued, or is pursuing, include cartels relating to cardboard, wood chemicals, gas-insulated switchgear, and air cargo. The first two have a trans-Tasman element to them, and the latter two are concerned with wider global coordinated activity. Effective enforcement in the global economy means that the Commerce Commission not only needs to be vigilant but also needs to be able to provide assistance to, and obtain information from, other overseas regulators.

This bill complements the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill, which is currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee. That bill seeks to implement the agreement on trans-Tasman court proceedings and regulatory enforcement, which, again, was signed by the previous Minister of Justice in July 2008. The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill aligns the process for resolving trans-Tasman civil disputes, and therefore dovetails with the purpose of this bill, which aims to facilitate mutual assistance from the investigative stages through to enforcement proceedings in competition and consumer law cases.

This bill requires a cooperation arrangement between Governments to be in place before any compulsorily acquired information or assistance can be provided to an overseas regulator. A cooperation arrangement will enhance the commission’s ability to obtain assistance from overseas regulators in two ways. First, it will help the Commerce Commission to obtain information gathered by overseas regulators during their own investigations that is relevant to a competition or fair trading investigation in New Zealand. In return, the Commerce Commission can reciprocate by responding to similar requests from overseas regulators. Second, the bill will allow the Commerce Commission to ask overseas regulators to gather information in their jurisdictions on the commission’s behalf.

Since the bill was tabled some time ago, feedback has been received that questions whether the Government to Government cooperation arrangement should be the only means for overseas regulators to access investigative assistance from the Commerce Commission. For example, one alternative could be to provide for Ministerial approval of a regulator-to-regulator arrangement, subject to specific safeguards being met. I would like to invite the select committee and submitters to consider this specific matter. It is important to note that the bill provides safeguards for New Zealand interests, including requirements to consider such matters as the nature of relevant overseas competition or consumer protection laws, any relevant privacy issues, and the framework in the overseas jurisdiction for dealing with what will generally be sensitive information. Those safeguards will ensure that compulsorily acquired information and investigative assistance are provided and used only for an authorised purpose.

One of the key expectations underlying a cooperation agreement is that of reciprocity, to ensure that the arrangement will result in benefits to New Zealand. To promote transparency, the bill also sets out publication requirements for cooperation arrangements. I am interested in hearing from the public through the select committee process as to whether the bill should contain explicit provisions to deal with national-interest considerations, particularly in relation to foreign policy.

The bill also sets out requirements that the Commerce Commission must take into account before providing investigative assistance or compulsorily acquired information to an overseas regulator. Those matters reflect the intention to ensure that the requested assistance or sharing of information relates to a proper and authorised purpose. The bill requires the Commerce Commission to obtain written undertakings from the overseas regulator that such information will not be used against the person who provided the information in criminal proceedings in the overseas jurisdiction. The bill also requires the commission to notify parties to whom compulsorily acquired information relates as soon as practicable after it has provided such information to the overseas regulator. However, such notice will not be required if the Commerce Commission considers it would compromise the commission’s or the overseas regulator’s investigation, or if it would be impractical.

Access to material that is privileged, such as draft witness statements and other court documents, often has the potential to have a significant impact on investigations or proceedings. The bill provides for the protection of privileged documents that the commission may provide to an overseas regulator, and vice versa.

The bill also makes changes to the regulation-making powers in the Commerce Act in order to require refunds for clearance and authorisation application fees, and for fee exemptions to be made for small to medium sized enterprises. I further invite the select committee to consider whether alternatives to fee exemptions would be more appropriate, such as providing for a tiered system of fees.

Ultimately, this bill is about ensuring that the Commerce Commission has the appropriate range of tools to effectively detect, investigate, and enforce New Zealand competition and consumer protection laws in global markets, whilst ensuring there are safeguards in place to protect the New Zealand public interest. It is in the interest of consumers and businesses alike that regulators cooperate with one another and coordinate their efforts where possible, particularly as we strive for a single economic market. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I am pleased to follow the Minister of Commerce, Simon Power, and to indicate that Labour will support the referral of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill to the Commerce Committee, where I am sure we will enjoy the opportunity to take up the challenges that the Minister has recommended to us tonight. It is interesting because, of course, I think it was back in 2006 that I signed a memorandum of understanding with Peter Costello, the then Treasurer of Australia, that was the background to the introduction of this particular measure.

The bill was introduced into the House just prior to the 2008 general election. Although I have expressed some disappointment that it has taken a while for the bill to get to its first reading prior to referral to the select committee, I will acknowledge the Minister for perhaps adding some value, in the time that he has had—

Hon Member: Greaser!

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: —no, no—to look at this bill. That added value comprises the two specific issues that the Minister has asked the select committee to look at. When I was a Minister, I always enjoyed inviting a select committee to look at an issue on which I did not have a particularly strong view one way or the other, and I appreciate it when that invitation is reciprocated.

One of the two issues, I understand, relates to whether it ought to be a requirement to have a full cooperation arrangement, Government to Government, as the basis for the sharing of information and investigative assistance with the overseas regulator. The issue is whether it is necessary for such an arrangement to be in place, or whether something that does not require a Government to Government arrangement—a lesser form of arrangement—might be looked at. I will be really interested, as we go through this process, to perhaps hear a little more about why that might be a better approach. I certainly do not have a closed mind to it, and it is certainly something that we look forward to considering.

The other issue that I think I heard the Minister refer to was an alternative to exempting a class or classes of persons from the requirement to pay any fee prescribed for an application. That provision is under Part 2, “Fees”, where clause 13 of the bill amends section 108 of the Commerce Act 1986 by inserting paragraph (cd). That is interesting, because when I was working on this issue I was still the Minister for Small Business, and at every opportunity I could take I was looking for ways to make compliance costs more manageable for the small to medium sized enterprise sector, while also recognising that sometimes compliance costs could be disproportionate when dealing with a smaller entity that simply did not have the economies of scale of some of the larger entities. So the idea of having an exemption by regulation written into the legislation seemed to be a fair way of allowing for that to occur, but also of allowing for adjustments to be made over time. The concept of having a tiered approach may perhaps be a better way of doing that. Again, I do not have a closed mind to that; I do not have a strong view one way or the other. It was probably not a defining feature of the legislation as introduced to the House, but it is certainly something that we will look at in the select committee.

The Minister said that the Australian Government passed legislation in 2007 to enhance the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s ability to provide assistance to overseas regulators, so Australia is ahead of the game. I know that the Minister has taken the opportunity to reinforce the fact that the single economic market is totally the current Government’s idea, but I tell the House that we were working on the single economic market agenda prior to the 2008 general election. I worked very closely with Michael Cullen on it, which is why I as the then Minister of Commerce signed a memorandum of understanding with the Australian Treasurer as part of the discussions about the single economic market agenda. It necessarily involved me in my role as the then Minister of Commerce on this side of the Tasman.

As I think the Minister has already pointed out, the idea of the bill is to provide for the Commerce Commission to use its statutory powers to assist an overseas competition or consumer regulator with an investigation. It also sets out how the commission can share compulsorily acquired information in order to assist overseas competition and consumer regulators. It is obvious why we want to go down that track. The harm that anti-competitive and unfair trading practices can inflict not just on an economy but also on individuals is significant. I think that when we recognise that businesses today increasingly operate in multiple jurisdictions, and that parallel investigations or proceedings in relation to a particular company are becoming increasingly common and complex, it makes very good sense to open up the regulators. As long as there is trust regarding the quality of the treatment of the information that is provided, I think that can only strengthen the work that we want to do internationally in the areas of anti-competitive and unfair trading practices.

I note, in the merger context, that over the 2 years immediately preceding the introduction of this bill, of the 43 clearance decisions made by the Commerce Commission, 29 of them involved proposals where at least one of the parties was an overseas company. In the fair trading area, many cases have also had an international dimension. One example that I was given at the time included suppliers that were based abroad making false and misleading claims for goods or services offered over the Internet. We have seen real growth in that industry, and enhancing the capacity of our regulator to engage in a collaborative way with international regulators in terms of some of these international suppliers would strengthen the protection available to New Zealand consumers and consumers in other countries, as well.

I have noted that the New Zealand Commerce Commission has a pretty good track record in terms of hunting down some of the cartel behaviour that has, unfortunately, flourished. Particularly at times when finance is tight, we see a greater incidence of cartel behaviour. If we recognise that New Zealand cannot do it on its own when it is dealing with cartels that operate internationally, then it is very important to see those tools strengthened for our regulator and for international regulators, as well.

I support the Minister’s comments. He essentially said he was confident that the provisions in the bill would provide a mechanism to enable genuine in-depth cooperation between the Commerce Commission and equivalent overseas regulators. It does this whilst ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the New Zealand public interest. I think that is a strong message to give to Parliament in relation to this important legislation, and I can see how excited everyone in the House is to finally see it being debated for the first time. I look forward to receiving the bill at the select committee and to hearing submissions on it, particularly on the points that the Minister has raised. We will support the bill.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): I also rise to support this bill, along with the Minister and the chairperson of the Commerce Committee. The proposals in the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill are part of the single economic market outcomes framework, which was announced to great acclaim last year by the Prime Ministers of both New Zealand and Australia. As has already been stated by the previous speaker, it enables greater cooperation between not only the Commerce Commission in New Zealand and its Australian counterpart but also other regulators in foreign jurisdictions.

I will not traverse the points made by Lianne Dalziel, but I do welcome the points raised by the Minister in terms of the areas that we need to scrutinise and investigate. It really is about giving the single economic market between New Zealand and Australia a new impetus. Our ambition, certainly for this Government, is that New Zealand companies can do business as easily in Australia as they can at home, and vice versa. The easier we make it for these companies to operate in both countries by removing unnecessary barriers, the greater the opportunities for businesses to make big productivity gains and take up new opportunities that will underpin our long-term growth. Of course, what is important with our relationship with Australia is not just the types of relationships we have over time in terms of the Anzacs and sporting relationships but also that for many of our businesses Australia is the first stop. For many of our businesses that look to expand into overseas markets, Australia is the first port of call.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.