Wednesday, 30 June 2010

Wednesday, 30 June 2010

Wednesday, 30 June 2010

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Job Creation—Challenges in Economy

1. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What challenges are there in the economy to creating permanent and sustainable jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Firstly, the economy has to grow in order to create jobs. Treasury projects that there will be a resumption in growth, with the economy growing at around 3 percent for each of the next 4 years and 170,000 net new jobs being created. The composition of the new jobs also matters. There is little point in having the job creation that occurred under the previous Government, based as it was on a temporary property boom, or a backroom bureaucracy that the economy does not need and cannot afford. That gave many New Zealanders false hopes, which have been dashed. That is why we are working on creating better-quality jobs in an economy focused on saving and exporting.

Amy Adams: What has been the economy’s recent record in creating sustainable jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In recent years, jobs in the export-related industries have shrunk, while most new jobs have been in Government-related sectors. For instance, since 2004 half of all new jobs have been in public administration, health, and education. Although these are important sectors, they have grown by more than 20 percent, which is over four times the growth rate of other sectors. Over the same period, employment in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and manufacturing fell. We simply have more workers in the mostly public sector industries, and not enough employment has been generated in the more productive parts of the economy that support the public sector.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he concede that inflation is forecast by Treasury in the Budget documents to reach 5.9 percent next year, while wages grow by only 2.6 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury is forecasting inflation somewhere at that level, which is just slightly higher than it was in 2008 when that member was in Government. At that time, there were no compensating tax cuts; this time, there are.

Amy Adams: What is the Government doing to create more long-term jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is intent on creating sustainable jobs, as opposed to what happened in the last 4 or 5 years. We have initiated a multibillion-dollar investment programme in productive infrastructure, increased funding for science and research to flow into wealth creation, and taken a range of measure in the Budget to re-orientate the economy towards saving and exporting, and away from Government spending and property speculation. It is pleasing to see that over 20,000 new jobs were created in the March quarter, and pleasing to see that there are forecasts of 170,000 new jobs being created over the next 4 years.

Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister is so confident that New Zealanders will be better off, why did he not include the full 5.9 percent inflation increase in the online tax calculator and let Kiwis decide for themselves?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have explained to the member a number of times, trying to incorporate that calculation simply is not logical. What the tax calculator does is to show that with the increase in GST and the reduction in income tax rates, almost all New Zealand earners are better off.

Amy Adams: Is the Minister aware of any policy options that would prevent the economy from creating permanent jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have heard some suggestions. They include increasing Government spending whenever anyone asks for a bit more of it, and crowding out job creation in New Zealand’s productive sectors. I have also seen suggestions that we should borrow a lot more money from overseas, recklessly running up more debt, and that we should increase the number of Wellington-based bureaucrats. None of those things would result in sustainable jobs. They are all suggestions of the Labour Opposition.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member. Both sides of the House are too noisy. I cannot hear Dr Norman.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with Lloyd’s of London in its report from earlier this year, in which it stated: “We are heading towards a global oil supply crunch and price spike”; and what steps is he taking to prepare the New Zealand economy for such a price spike?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Members of the public and businesses who are the users of fossil fuels are always taking into account changes in prices. Prices have been going up a bit lately, so I suspect that a number of them have been taking measures to reduce their consumption.

Tax System Changes—Effect on New Zealanders

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Prime Minister and asks: does he—[Interruption]—because that member never answers—

Mr SPEAKER: I guess when people interject, they are likely to get reactions, but the member should not use his open microphone to make that kind of comment.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When Bill English said: “Why not me?”—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. That is enough of that. [Interruption] That is enough of that. The honourable Leader of the Opposition will ask his question.

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that after his tax switch New Zealanders will “be no worse off, and for the vast bulk they will be better off”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. The Government is increasing GST, but at the same time, it is cutting income taxes and compensating people who receive income support. It is very clear that the vast bulk of New Zealanders will be better off as a result.

Hon Phil Goff: How will the mum and dad, each on the average wage, who are paying $30 a week more for early childhood education for their child because of Budget-imposed costs be better off when that $30 by itself is much more than the tax cuts they will get between them?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition raised the example of someone on the average wage, because someone on the average wage in the period of time that we have been in Government—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specific to the person on the average wage with a child in early childhood education.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that the member makes a fair point. The question related to someone with a child in early childhood education and the claim of him or her paying $30 a week more. The Prime Minister’s answer should focus on that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: When the Hon David Cunliffe has quite finished, we will hear the member’s point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I ask you to look at the Hansard later this evening, or perhaps even listen to the tape of this afternoon’s proceedings. You will see that that intervention came literally 20 seconds, if not less, into the Prime Minister’s answer, in which he said: “I am glad that the member raised the issue of the average wage, because”, and at that point, we had a point of order. The member could not have possibly anticipated where the Prime Minister was going to take it, and your suggestion that the Prime Minister’s answer was inappropriate was, I suggest, inappropriate.

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker may not be as stupid as he looks. I invite the Prime Minister to answer the question.

Hon JOHN KEY: Let me say that you neither are stupid nor you look stupid. But, anyway, let me go back. I am glad the Leader of the Opposition mentioned in his question people who are on the average wage and have a child, because under a National Government I am pleased to report that they are $48 a week better off with tax cuts than they were before. The couple he is talking about are Bill and Mary Smith, who live in Auckland. Their child goes to an early childhood facility that is less than 80 percent teacher-led and will face no increase. Bill and Mary rang me last night to thank me for the $48 a week.

Hon Phil Goff: How will the thousands of frail elderly people whom he has stripped of their home care worth about $30 to $40 a week be better off as a result of this Budget?

Hon JOHN KEY: I suspect they will respond the same way they did when I spoke to Grey Power and Probus Club members in Tauranga about a week and a half ago. There was an overwhelming response to the fact that I was able to tell them that a married couple on New Zealand superannuation in the time we have been in office has seen their fortnightly income go up by $142. Those pensioners were grateful that they have a National Government that is striving for growth, which is seeing a situation where after-tax wages are rising and, therefore, their pensions rise.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We let the Prime Minister make his full speech, with rhetoric, but I put it to you that I asked how the thousands of frail elderly superannuitants who have been deprived of their home care this year will be better off as a result of the tax switch, which takes away their home care and gives them much less in return.

Mr SPEAKER: I think on this occasion I have to say that the Prime Minister did answer the question. I accept that it was maybe not the way the member wanted. The Prime Minister could have challenged the statement in his question about taking home care away from the frail elderly, so it is difficult for me to insist on a particular answer for that kind of question.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister say in the media this morning that wage increases would outstrip price increases, when I show to the House his Budget document from this year, which shows that increases in prices this year will be double increases in wages, and for the next 2 years the price increases will be one-third higher than the wage increases? They will not be better off, at least for the next 3 years, and the Prime Minister knows it.

Hon JOHN KEY: I utterly reject that statement from the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon Phil Goff: My facts have been challenged. I seek leave of the House to table the document that shows exactly what I set out to the House. It is the Budget document, page 63.

Mr SPEAKER: We will not be doing that.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has not answered the question yet—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. This time Government benchers will be quiet. The Leader of the Opposition may recollect that he interrupted the Prime Minister’s answer with his point of order. I assumed therefore he had heard enough of the answer. Normally, the convention is to wait to the end of an answer to seek leave to table something. I think it is a bit rough for me to then ask the Prime Minister to come back and answer the question when he has been interrupted by way of a point of order by the questioner.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This could be new territory for the way points of order are interpreted. So, when the point of order interrupts an answer, does that conclude the answer? A Minister under pressure could arrange for a point of order from his or her own side in order to truncate the answer. I think that could be a very troubling development if it becomes the new standard. Or, perhaps, someone could say something deliberately offensive in order to generate a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I invited the member to be a little bit sensible about it. The member asked the Prime Minister a question, did not like the answer he was getting, and interrupted with a point of order. That meant he did not like the answer, and chose to interrupt with a point of order. He cannot then go back and say that he now wants to hear more from the Prime Minister, when he did not like the answer he was being given. Supplementary questions are the way to pursue that.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is an important point. I think everyone in the House and everyone listening to question time now appreciates the support you give to Opposition MPs in making question time relevant, but it seems to me we have to also be careful that points of order should be points of order. We are noticing that points of order are being used, and every time a point is being made by the Opposition MPs they are putting in a political point. In effect, they are reinforcing a political message rather than making a simple point of order. I suggest to you, for the good order of the House, that it is a bit tough if you allow a questioner to constantly raise points of order regarding questions to, say, the Prime Minister when each time that member makes a point of order, he or she makes a political point with that point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I say very briefly that members over time have been studying experts in that area, and when we get to about half the level that that member used to—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. I invite the Hon Trevor Mallard to reflect on how that helps the order of the House. All I can say is that the Hon Rodney Hide has raised a reasonable point that points of order should not be used to try to score political points. Where I perceive that that is happening, members may note that I do not give them a lot of time—as the Hon Darren Hughes observed a moment ago. Where points of order are made for good cause, I take much more notice of them. The Hon Rodney Hide might note that when the honourable Leader of the Opposition sought leave to make a political point there, I closed it down pretty quickly by saying that we would not be doing that and I put it down pretty fast. It is in members’ own hands. If they misuse points of order, they cannot expect a lot of assistance from the Speaker.

Hon Phil Goff: How does the Prime Minister justify his claim this morning that wage increases will outstrip price increases, when his own Budget document explains that wage increases this year will be 2.6 percent and inflation will be 5.9 percent, and that wage increases next year and the year after will be less than the CPI inflation?

Hon JOHN KEY: The member is demonstrating to the House that he does not understand economics. The Governor of the Reserve Bank has made it quite clear that he will be looking through the inflation implications of the GST increase, and those GST increases—

Grant Robertson: But you’re wrong.

Hon JOHN KEY: I tell that member that the Governor of the Reserve Bank is not wrong; that is what he does. From that point on, New Zealanders will be a lot better off because of the personal tax cuts they get. I stand by the statement I made that New Zealanders will have a $4.3 billion personal tax cut or thereabouts that is funded off a $2 billion GST increase,

Hon Phil Goff: How will 500,000 home renters be better off when the Property Investors Federation has made it clear that the extra costs imposed on them in the Budget will be passed on directly to tenants, and tenants on average will be paying $34 a week extra in rent?

Hon JOHN KEY: They will be better off because as Treasury quite correctly points out in the Budget documents that the member has just been quoting, so I assume he has read them, it expects rents to rise by 1.4 percent over the next 3 to 5 years. That is an awful lot better than the 2.6 percent they went up by under the previous Labour Government. I must say that when I looked at the New Zealand Herald this morning, I thought the subeditors had taken a little bit of licence. They wrote on the front: “John Key says we’ll all be better off, but extra costs are here ahead of extra cash”, and I thought to myself thank goodness it is not Prime Minister Phil Goff, otherwise they would have written: “We will all be worse off with more extra costs and no extra cash.”

Hon Phil Goff: How will home owners be better off this year when, for example, a young family in my electorate with a $300,000 mortgage will by the end of this financial year be paying $60 to $100 a week extra in interest rates on that mortgage, which will far exceed anything they will get in tax cuts?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am glad the member raised that, because when he was in office the cash rate—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific and precise. It asked how a family like this will be better off when their interest rates, this year, will exceed the amounts they get in tax cuts. There was nothing about a Labour Government.

Hon JOHN KEY: I think it will get a bit ridiculous if, firstly, the Leader of the Opposition is going to make open-ended statements that cannot be proven to be correct, and, secondly, if he gets to his feet and tries to interrupt me. The point I was about to make is a very clear point that specifically goes to the fact that interest rates were higher under a Labour Government—

Mr SPEAKER: We will hear the Prime Minister answer the question, and it is preferable for answers not to attack the questioner’s party or the questioner, first off. But let us hear the Prime Minister’s answer.

Hon JOHN KEY: Under a National Government official cash rates have been at virtually all-time lows. They are currently now at 2.75 percent, which means that the mortgage rate is currently 6 percent. Under a Labour Government the mortgage rate was 10.9 percent. One of the reasons that interests rate will not go up as fast under this Government as they did under the previous Government is that the way we get interests rates up is to have a Government that wastes a whole lot of money and puts pressure on the system. That is what Labour did for 9 years.

Hon Phil Goff: Which statement are we to believe: the statement that the Prime Minister made that Bill and Mary Smith rang him this morning, or his statement to Gerry Brownlee a moment ago when he said in answer to the question: “I just made it up.”?

Hon David Cunliffe: It was Bill and Mary English.

Hon JOHN KEY: Yeah! He can believe both.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Prime Minister to repeat that answer. Which was it: was it true—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It seems members did not hear the answer. If the Prime Minister could assist.

Hon JOHN KEY: I did not hear the Christian name of the wife, so I am not sure whether it was “Mary”, but it was definitely “Bill”.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Minister’s Statement

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change Issues. Did he tell—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member. I say to the front-benchers of the Opposition, as it is the Labour Party this time, that the previous question is finished with. The interjections will stop. It is simply unreasonable for interjections to carry on like that when I have called a new question.

3. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Did he tell Mr McPartlin in Blenheim last night that “if you’re not happy with us or believe climate change is a load of nonsense then at next year’s election vote for a party that doesn’t want an ETS”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I did receive a question at a large public meeting in Blenheim last night on the emissions trading scheme from a gentleman who asserted that the climate change science was a load of nonsense. I advised him that that was not the Government’s view, that there was sufficient scientific evidence to justify actions to curb our emissions, and that National had campaigned in 2008 on proceeding with a moderated emissions trading scheme this year. I also noted that he was entitled to support political parties that view the science as a load of rubbish.

John Boscawen: When he advised Mr McPartlin and other farmers, pensioners, small-business owners, and householders to vote ACT if they wanted to see the emission trading scheme dumped, did he have in mind the number of votes that ACT would need to achieve this?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I actually found that the number at the meeting last night who thought that the climate change science was a load of nonsense was a minority. I think that is reflected in the fact that the only party in Parliament that says the science is a load of rubbish is the ACT Party. I note that its support in the polls is not particularly high.

Nicky Wagner: Is the Minister aware of any inaccurate claims made at public meetings on the science and the emissions trading scheme that need correcting?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I am. I have noted claims by Mr John Boscawen that the European emissions trading scheme impacts only on industry and has no impact on the price paid for power by businesses or households in Europe. That is not correct. Just like our scheme, although the obligation is on those emitters, the costs are transferred down to small businesses and householders. In fact, the international reports show that the cost impact of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme will be not more than half the costs of the scheme imposed in Europe.

John Boscawen: What does the Minister say to pensioners Kevin and Gabrielle Holden, who told 3 News last night that they are down to one bar on their heater, who will have to pay even more for their electricity from tomorrow because of the emissions trading scheme, and who will near freeze to death so that he can pay hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign-owned forestry companies like Fuji Xerox, Oji Paper, and Itochu, which did not even plant the trees?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The interesting thing in Blenheim, as was noted by its effective local member of Parliament—

Hon Darren Hughes: Who’s that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Colin King. He noted that the Marlborough area will receive $80 million for ordinary New Zealanders who have planted trees, as compared with the $9 million it will cost Marlburians in electricity and petrol price increases. I found at the meeting that there was real surprise that Marlborough was one of the regions with the largest area of forests that will earn credits under the emissions trading scheme.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a document that shows that climate change deniers John Boscawen and Alan Gibbs gave $300,000 to the ACT Party. It is from the Electoral Commission and is dated 29 April 2009.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of the document?

Dr Russel Norman: The Electoral Commission.

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.

Accident Compensation Corporation—Culture Change

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he think the huge culture change within ACC has gone too far?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): I am very conscious of the need to get the balance of accident compensation right between containing costs and levy increases and ensuring that people receive their proper entitlements. Costs were clearly out of control under the previous Government, and a culture change was needed. I am closely monitoring the accident compensation review data, and would be concerned if there were an increase in the number of Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) decisions being overturned. There is no such trend. A similar proportion of claim decisions are being upheld now as were upheld under the previous Government, indicating that ACC has got the balance right.

Hon Annette King: As part of that culture change, does he recall ACC saying: “We take our relationship with counsellors and clinicians seriously,”; if so, why has he not ensured that ACC takes seriously the warning from clinicians at Ashburn Clinic—health professionals who provide New Zealand’s foremost treatment programme for victims of sexual crimes, who have had no referrals from ACC since October, and who have had to lay off 10 crucial staff?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Clinical decisions, whether in terms of surgery or in terms of sensitive mental health issues, are properly made by clinicians. I would be concerned if decisions that had been made by ACC’s clinicians were being repeatedly overturned in the independent review process. That would suggest that ACC had got the balance wrong. In regard to the specific issue of sexual abuse, I have initiated an independent review, which is being done by Dr Barbara Disley, and I am looking forward to receiving her report.

Hon Annette King: Does he recall ACC saying that it would like to explain the changes that have been made for victims of sexual crimes so that clinicians can see “what we are doing to improve service performance”; if so, how does he intend to explain the loss of the long-term residential service at Ashburn Clinic, which had helped victims rebuild their lives—a loss because of a $900,000 shortfall, while he boasts of a $2 billion surplus?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The key decisions on whether clients go to Ashburn Clinic or receive care in other establishments should be made by clinicians, not Ministers. If Ashburn Clinic or any members opposite believe that people are inappropriately being turned down for treatment, the proper process for them to follow is to seek a review of the case. If the member has evidence of that, I would be more than happy to see it.

David Bennett: By how much did ACC’s claims and administration costs go up over the preceding 4 years, requiring a change in culture?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: ACC administration costs between 2004 and 2008 went up by an average of $50 million extra per year—that is, from $302 million in 2004 to $494 million in 2008. In the National Government’s first year we reduced those administration costs by $35 million. Claim costs between 2004 and 2008 went up by nearly $300 million extra every year—a rate of increase that was 5 times the rate of inflation. That was clearly unsustainable. As in so many parts of the Public Service, Labour let costs get out of control.

Hon David Parker: Can the Minister not see that the change of culture and the push towards privatisation that he has lauded are exactly what led his appointed chair of ACC, John Judge, to say that doctors, in addition to facing disciplinary action, should pay financial penalties for medical errors?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, the member deliberately misquotes Mr Judge. He deliberately misquotes him, as is so often the case.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. To deliberately misquote is to mislead the House. That allegation is not allowed to be made by a member of Parliament by way of answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point the member makes. Perhaps the member could change his language so that he is not making that accusation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member misquotes the chair of ACC, who has had an incredibly challenging job, given that the previous Government in just 3 years, according to the audited accounts, let the liabilities of the accident compensation scheme blow out by $10 billion. Mr Judge has had an awfully challenging job to try to get them under control.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister concerned that the chair of ACC is so obviously out of touch with the underlying principles of our accident compensation system that he is clearly pushing towards a litigious, Americanised private insurance model?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is way off beam. This Government is totally committed to an efficient, 24/7, no-fault scheme. But I make no apologies for this Government and Mr Judge looking at sensible ways that we can engage with the private sector to better manage claims in order to rehabilitate patients more quickly. I congratulate Mr Judge on reversing the decline in rehabilitation rates that occurred under the previous Government.

Hon David Parker: Why is the Minister so at ease with the undermining of the current accident compensation model by moves to privatisation and financial penalties for doctors—which is what John Judge did say, I tell the Minister—when it is abundantly clear that the Americanised insurance model that he and Mr Judge are pushing New Zealand towards leads to more conservative and expensive medical treatment as well as money being wasted on lawyers and insurance company margins?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Under any model to incorporate the private sector that this Government looks at, exactly the same entitlements will be involved and exactly the same independent review processes will be involved. We make absolutely no apologies for wanting to use the private sector so that we can rehabilitate people and get them back to work where they can make a positive contribution, rather than continuing the culture of the previous Government, which seemed happy to have thousands and thousands of New Zealanders sitting on accident compensation, not being rehabilitated, and not able to work.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter from the medical director of Ashburn Clinic, which states: “Our primary concern is the care of the patients who are being denied treatment under the current ACC guidelines.”

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.

Pay Equity—Closing Gender Gap

5. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Women’s Affairs: Does she stand by her statement to the House on 18 June 2009 that the Government “will leave no stone unturned” in trying to close the gender pay gap?

Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women’s Affairs): Yes. The full statement was: “thanks to the support of the Prime Minister”—the Hon John Key—“and my senior Cabinet colleagues.”, who supported the Ministry of Women’s Affairs in receiving a Budget increase of $2 million over 4 years to do the work.

Catherine Delahunty: Can she confirm that on average women were paid 12 percent less than men when her Government took office, and that this is still the case?

Hon PANSY WONG: I have good news for the member. It was the case that the pay gap between men and women had been at 12 percent since 2001, under the watch of the previous Labour Government. After 18 months of the National-led Government, the pay gap is now 11 percent. I have more good news for the member. The 2010 OECD Gender Brief puts New Zealand’s gender wage gap at the second-lowest among OECD countries, when comparing average earnings for full-time workers.

Catherine Delahunty: What new steps has she taken to close the gender pay gap since June 2009, other than commissioning research?

Hon PANSY WONG: I was going to give a very full answer, but I know that Mr Speaker does not like Ministers to give long answers. All I can say is that 18 months down the track, the pay gap has closed by 1 percent. We obviously have done something right.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member for interrupting her further supplementary questions, but that answer did not address the question: “What … steps has she taken …?”. There was no reference to the question, at all. She said that she could give a long answer—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no; we have heard sufficient. I think the member makes a fair point of order. The question asked about what moves or what steps—I could not hear the exact word—the Minister has taken to help to close the pay gap. Although I accept the Minister’s point that the Speaker does not want to hear an answer that goes on endlessly, one measure might have been helpful, if the Minister had such information.

Hon PANSY WONG: I will try my best. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs has five projects on the go. The first one is to address flexible work practices. We already have the research result, and are sharing it with the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I might elaborate on that. We found out that one of the very good firms of chartered accountants, BDO Taranaki, provides an excellent example of how flexibility has contributed to dramatic bottom line results, as well as to lower staff turnover—

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about what new steps she has taken, other than commissioning research. She is just describing research.

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet, and there will not be any comments. Forgive me, but I thought I had heard the Minister talking about a policy about flexibility of pay arrangements, which the research appeared to show was having an impact. I thought that was exactly the kind of information that the member was seeking.

Catherine Delahunty: The Minister was referring to flexible working hours, not gender pay equity. My question was specific to gender pay equity actions that she has taken—

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled that the Minister has answered the question. After I accepted that she did not answer it initially, I believe that she has now indicated a policy measure of the Government’s that, in her view, is changing things. The member may—[Interruption] I say to the front benches on both sides of the Chamber that that is enough.

Catherine Delahunty: How does research into an existing problem help to solve that problem, if no new policies are introduced as a result of the findings?

Hon PANSY WONG: I am quite happy to go on with my answer. Plenty of leadership is being exercised by the National-led Government in terms of, for example, flexible work practices, which contribute to closing the pay gap. Women may have to take time off work to look after the family, and if they do not return to work on the same pay as previously, that contributes to the pay gap. We are working with the Institute of Chartered Accountants on robust case studies about how other companies can copy a model that would enable women not just to achieve pay equality but also to aspire to break the glass ceiling, in terms of women in senior management and leadership roles. I am just so fortunate and privileged—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon PANSY WONG: —to be working with these fantastic women in New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: That is enough. [Interruption] Some members on the Labour front bench of this Chamber will be leaving soon, if they do stop being so discourteous. Catherine Delahunty asked a question, and the House has a right to hear the answer. The rabble going on just now was totally unacceptable. I was watching, and I saw that many discussions were going on and members were totally ignoring what was going on in the House. That is totally discourteous. Members may not like the Minister’s answer, but it was the Minister’s answer, rightly or wrongly. The public can judge the quality of it; it is not for members to treat it with discourtesy.

Catherine Delahunty: Did she ask the Minister of Finance to carry out a gender impact analysis of the Budget, to determine whether anything in it would make the gender pay gap worse?

Hon PANSY WONG: First of all, intelligent men and women in New Zealand understand that economic growth is the ultimate answer whereby we can all have a good living wage and a good quality of life.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister will resume her seat. I invite Catherine Delahunty to repeat her question, and I ask the Minister to listen to it. I ask the Minister now to treat the House with courtesy, to listen to the question, and to please answer it.

Catherine Delahunty: Did she ask the Minister of Finance to carry out a gender impact analysis of the Budget, to determine whether anything in it would make the gender pay gap worse?

Hon PANSY WONG: No, I did not explicitly ask for that, but I do not believe that anything in the Budget has made it worse, because I have just demonstrated that the pay gap has closed from 12 percent to 11 percent. So the Government must have done something right.

Catherine Delahunty: What exactly, in the Minister’s opinion, is the role of the Minister of Women’s Affairs in trying to close the gender pay gap, if it does not include introducing new policy or discussing the impact of Government policies such as the Budget on the gender pay gap with her colleagues?

Hon PANSY WONG: The Minister of Women’s Affairs is providing the leadership. The National-led Government has aspirational goals for women in terms of leadership, equal pay, employment, and eliminating domestic violence in New Zealand.

Carol Beaumont: How can the Minister claim that flexible working practice is an initiative of her Government, when National voted against it?

Hon PANSY WONG: We did not do that. I have just demonstrated—

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has made a factually incorrect statement, and I think she—

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that that is not a point of order. It is up to the Minister to answer questions, and she has to stand or fall on the accuracy of her statements. That is not to be questioned by way of a point of order.

Hon PANSY WONG: No, we voted against flexible working hours, but we are talking about flexible working practice. Just as Mr Speaker invited me to listen to an earlier question, I invite those members to listen carefully to the answers. In the project that we are doing with the Institute of Chartered Accountants, we are talking about whole flexible working practices.

Budget 2010—Effect on New Zealand Households

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: How can the vast majority of Kiwi households be better off after the Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I encourage the member to go to the website www.taxguide.govt.nz to see how the tax changes on 1 October will do that. The GST income tax switch initially sees an average family with two children about $25 a week better off, a typical average wage worker about $15 a week better off, and a superannuitant couple about $11 a week better off. Even when other general forecast inflation is taken into account, the benefits of the tax package get bigger over time. This is because after-tax incomes are forecast to grow more quickly than price increases in the 4 years to 2014.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given that some of those price rises he is talking about include power price rises, what steps is he taking as shareholding Minister to signal to power companies that raising prices to generate higher dividends is unacceptable?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will be aware, the Prime Minister has made some pretty direct comments about that matter over the last couple of days. I might say that the record on power prices under that former Minister’s supervision was pretty awful. They went up something like 60 or 70 percent during the time of the previous Labour Government.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What action will he take if power companies raise prices excessively, or will he simply continue to sit on the sidelines and watch?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I did not actually hear the question. Could I have it repeated?

Mr SPEAKER: I will ask the member to repeat his question, but I ask the Minister to not interject while he is being asked questions. I ask the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to repeat his question.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What action will he take if power companies raise prices excessively, or will he simply continue to sit on the sidelines and watch?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the Prime Minister pointed out, only some power companies would be affected by the emissions trading scheme. Consumers are now more than ever able to swap from one power company to another. The member may also be keeping track of the moves the Minister of Energy and Resources has made, through the Electricity Industry Bill, to restructure the industry so it becomes more competitive.

Aaron Gilmore: How do the benefits of Budget 2010 tax changes increase for New Zealanders over time?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The benefit of Budget 2010 for an average two-child family increases to about $28 a week by 1 October 2011—1 year past the tax cuts. It then rises to about $41 a week by 1 October 2014. For a typical wage earner, it rises from $15 a week to about $23 a week by 2014. Once the 170,000 new jobs forecast in the Budget are taken into account, household disposable incomes from all sources and after tax increase by over 25 percent by 2014.

Hon David Cunliffe: If he is so concerned about energy companies keeping prices down, why did he pressure those companies last year to deliver bigger dividends to the Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be aware that power company performance needed to improve pretty significantly. Under his Government power companies put prices up something like 60 or 70 percent—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: 72 percent.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —72 percent. They paid low dividends, and they just ran fat on costs. We are making them perform better by holding price increases to a minimum, and paying significant dividends to the Government. They are doing a better job now than they did under Labour.

Aaron Gilmore: How were New Zealanders materially worse off as a result of price increases before the 2008 election?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Electricity prices soared by 72 percent in the 9 years up to 2008. The previous Labour Government’s emissions trading scheme was poised to push up inflation by twice as much as this Government’s current scheme. It is a bit rich to hear from the Opposition about the impact on the Consumers Price Index of the emissions trading scheme, when it was going to push it up twice as far. In fact, in the year to September 2008—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of order is not a new one. I see that you were listening carefully to the way that the Minister answered the supplementary question scripted by one of his own team, which specifically asked about matters pertaining to a period before he was Minister of Finance. I submit to you that by focusing his whole answer on matters that were outside his current jurisdiction and then mischaracterising Labour’s position he is well outside Standing Orders.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: We should not get into debating points on these points of order, but I fear that the member across the Chamber has done exactly that. The reality is that Mr English as the Minister of Finance in the Government was instrumental in halving the emissions trading scheme costs—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now getting into genuine debating material. I think the question was highly marginal. It asked the Minister about a period prior to the commencement of the Minister’s responsibilities, and that is why I was listening very carefully to the answer. The answer was fine to the point where it started to make assertions about the impact of the previous Government’s policy. That is where it started to depart from Standing Orders. We have heard enough of that answer. I ask members to be mindful of that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a press release from the Hon David Parker that announced the doubling of increases in power and petrol prices from the emissions trading scheme that was advocated by the members opposite.

Mr SPEAKER: A press statement?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: A press release.

Mr SPEAKER: We will not be tabling press releases.

Crime, Victims—Increased Support

7. SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Justice: What reports has he received in response to the range of initiatives for victims of crime that he launched yesterday?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): I have seen a number of positive reports on the initiatives that the Government launched yesterday. The police have said that the new on-the-spot safety orders will save lives. Survivors’ advocate Louise Nicholas stated: “New assistance for victims for sexual violence will help improve victims’ path through the criminal justice system.” Families of homicide victims have also welcomed yesterday’s announcements, stating that the new entitlements will help to ease the financial burden placed on victims’ families. I am proud of the support that this Government has given and will continue to give to victims.

Simon Bridges: What other reports has he seen?

Hon SIMON POWER: I have seen one report from the Opposition law and order spokesperson that described the Government’s new victims’ compensation scheme as magical. There is nothing magical about this Government delivering on its promise to set up a victims’ compensation scheme within a year. What is magical, or perhaps mythical, is the last Government’s promise to set up a victims’ compensation scheme. It was promised in 1994, 1996, 2005, and 2008; incidentally, it was never delivered.

Lynne Pillay: Has the Minister seen reports from the thousands of sexual abuse survivors and victims and experts in the field who are questioning whether justice is blind and uninterested when it comes to counselling for victims and survivors of sexual abuse?

Hon SIMON POWER: I see a range of reports from a range of groups who have a range of views on all of these matters.

Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a specific question. I asked whether the Minister had seen reports. He talked about a range of reports.

Mr SPEAKER: I have listened to Lynne Pillay’s supplementary questions over this last week and my advice to the member is to think carefully about the supplementary questions she asks. I have allowed questions to go through that are outside the Standing Orders. If the member wants a Minister to give a precise answer, she has to make her questions more precise. In asking the Minister whether he has seen reports, goodness knows what kind of answer she is expecting from him. I cannot help her to get a particular answer when she asks that kind of question.

Education, National Standards—Feedback from Parents

8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: When she said yesterday that “This is a bedding-in year for the Standards and feedback from parents is vital”, did she include the feedback from the more than 37,000 New Zealanders who have signed a petition expressing deep concern with the Government’s national standards policy?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Yes. I am always happy to receive feedback from parents about national standards. I note, however, that the union that organised that petition has a long history of opposition to the standards and of spreading misinformation. But I say to the member that I will take those 37,000 unionists and I will raise him the 1,050,000 New Zealanders who voted for a National Government to introduce national standards in reading, writing, and maths.

Hon Trevor Mallard: When she said that from the beginning of 2011 some additional funding would be available to support students at primary and intermediate schools who are not meeting national standards, did she mean that additional funding will go to all students who are not meeting national standards via their schools, or only to the schools that are not meeting the national standards overall?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have not said anything about that extra $36 million going specifically to schools as yet. The most important thing about the national standards is what the next steps are, and we are working on that now.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to quote from a letter from the Minister and then table it. The letter states—

Mr SPEAKER: No—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister that states: “From the beginning of 2011 some additional funding will be available to support primary and intermediate students who are not meeting the national standards.”

Mr SPEAKER: The member is seeking leave to table a document. He is describing the document from the Minister. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can she, therefore, confirm that extra funding will be available next year for all students who are below or well below national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I can confirm that in the Budget $36 million is available from the beginning of next year, over the next 4 years, to address the national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I deliberately made it a very specific, very detailed question. I asked whether the Minister can confirm that it will be available—

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point. His question was commendably to the point. But I think it is fair to say that the Minister answered it in a way that makes it fully clear that those decisions have not been made yet. That is the clear impression I got from the Minister’s answer.

Allan Peachey: What feedback has the Minister received from practitioners on how parents view national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Principals and teachers throughout the country are getting on with the job of providing good-quality information to parents about their child’s progress. One email from a practitioner stated: “We have now completed our first written reports to parents using the national standards. Feedback has been positive, along with our face-to-face parent interviews. I also believe that for the first time in my years as principal, we are now seeing much more focused reports to parents being made about progress, because the standards require a sound judgment in reading, writing, and maths.”

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why is the Minister prepared to tell a parent that money will be available for students, but she is not prepared to tell this House that?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That is ridiculous. The Budget quite clearly shows that $36 million is available to address the national standards. I have been at public meetings around the country saying that $36 million is available from the beginning of next year to address the national standards. It is no secret. The details of how that money will be spent have not yet been published.

Hon Trevor Mallard: When she stated: “This is a bedding-in year for the Standards …”, was she accepting the statement of the over 37,000 New Zealanders who asked her to trial the standards, and the statement from her key adviser on the standards, John Hattie, that if she cannot convince the vast majority of teachers that her national standards will lead to improved literacy and numeracy, they will be abandoned?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Effect of Change in Investments

9. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What reports has he received on changes in investments that are good for New Zealand and will help reduce emissions?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): There has been a marked shift in two areas. First, there has been a sharp increase in renewable energy investment. Eighty percent of the new consents lodged—by capacity—are for renewable power, whereas prior to 2008 most new investment was for thermal power stations. That is significant because the largest percentage increase in emissions by sector has been in the electricity sector, where our emissions are up 120 percent on 1990 levels. The second shift is in forestry. The last decade saw the worst period of deforestation since records began in the 1930s. We are seeing a sharp increase in forestry investment because of the emissions trading scheme, with significant increases in forest area over the next 4 years projected by the annual forest intention survey of the University of Canterbury School of Forestry.

Chris Auchinvole: What advice has the Minister received on how much the emissions trading scheme will reduce emissions by, and will it enable New Zealand to meet its Kyoto obligations?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am advised the emissions trading scheme will reduce New Zealand’s emissions by 19 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, and, based on current projections, will enable New Zealand to meet its Kyoto targets. The saviour for New Zealand is the large expansion of forestry in the 1990s, which is offsetting our approximate 25 percent increase in gross emissions. The longer-term concern is that as those forests reach maturity, we will be quite exposed. That is why it is so important that we take steps now to constrain emissions growth and encourage new forest plantation.

Chris Auchinvole: What changes did National make to the emissions trading scheme, and how does it impact proportionately on the costs borne by businesses and households?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The most significant change we made was reducing by half the cost for both householders and businesses. Without our amendments, the price impact on fuel and power prices would have been more than double. That is why I find the cries of concern from the Opposition about the cost impacts of the emissions trading scheme lack credibility. Some people have claimed that our amendments shift the relative burden between households and industry. That is not correct. The costs of both are halved. There is no greater allocation to industry than would have occurred under Labour’s scheme, albeit we did as we promised and ensured that small and medium sized businesses are not discriminated against by the support for trade-exposed industries.

Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation and Treatment Centres—Closures

10. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Health: How many reports of drug and alcohol rehabilitation or treatment centres closing down or considering closing down has he received since becoming the Minister of Health?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: The Minister has received some official reports of drug and alcohol centres coming under financial pressure. He has received no official reports regarding the actual closure of drug and alcohol rehabilitation or treatment centres. I can advise the member that funding for those services comes under the mental health funding, and that the mental health funding is being increased by around $174 million over the next 4 years.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Has the Minister of Corrections ever advocated to him to retain or increase the funding for the St Marks Adult Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre in Blenheim and the Care NZ clinic in Ōtāhuhu, which are threatening to close down?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am not able to advise the member of what discussions there have been between the Minister of Corrections and the Minister of Health, but I can tell that member that I am advised by the relevant district health board that the contract for two extra treatment beds at St Marks Adult Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre is not being renewed. That contract was agreed pro rata at $56,000 per annum, or $90,000 for 15 months. However, the Ministry of Health has since November 2009 funded one special detox bed for methamphetamine users, at a cost of $42,000 per annum. In relation to Care NZ, I am advised that the Ōtāhuhu clinic has been running an alcohol and drug treatment service for many years, receiving around $250,000 per annum, surprisingly enough funded by the Hutt District Health Board. I am further advised that the Hutt District Health Board has given funding to the three Auckland district health boards that have advised Care NZ that the contract due for renewal in 2010 will not be renewed. The intention is for the three district health boards to provide services differently, although I understand that the Counties Manukau District Health Board is approaching Care NZ to provide some services locally, but at a different level.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he agree with the Minister of Corrections that drug and alcohol problems amongst offenders are best dealt with in the community rather than in prisons; if so, why has he discontinued funding for programmes such as those of St Marks Adult Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre in Blenheim and the Care NZ clinic in Ōtāhuhu, both of which have been providing successful community rehabilitation services for offenders?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I think I have explained the situation quite clearly regarding Care NZ and the St Marks clinic, and there is no question but that Ministers have a united position on this matter.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he agree with the statement from the Minister of Corrections in the House yesterday that other Ministry of Health - funded services will pick up the slack from the St Marks closure; if so, how does he expect the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board will manage, when its mental health budget decreased by nearly $650,000 between last year and 2010-11?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would have to check the Hansard to see what was said, but it is quite clear that Ministers have a united position on this matter, and the overriding fact is that an extra $174 million over 4 years is going into mental health. There is plenty of money available for services, but district health boards have to make reprioritisations within that.

Rahui Katene: Is it appropriate for district health boards to compete by taking the funding from existing successful services and utilising the funding to help to prop up their own budgets, as is the case with the Waikato District Health Board; and what can the Minister do about that?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is up to district health boards to find the best value for the funding that they receive. Contracts are not renewed or are ended for a variety of reasons.

Bowel Cancer Screening—Pilot Programme

11. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made with respect to a bowel cancer screening pilot for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Health: In the recent Budget, the Government announced a bowel cancer screening pilot costing $24 million over the next 4 years. Bowel cancer is the second-highest cause of cancer death in New Zealand. In 2007 almost 3,000 people were diagnosed with bowel cancer and 1,252 people died from the disease. A nationwide bowel cancer screening programme could over time reduce the death rate by up to 36 percent, saving up to 270 lives per year.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What will the pilot do, and what is the progress to date?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This pilot will give us a clear idea of the sector’s ability to do the required colonoscopies in the future, and the costs and benefits of rolling out a full national bowel cancer screening programme. Requests for proposal are about to be issued, and the programme should be up and running in 2011. It will cover a minimum of 60,000 people aged 50 to 74, and I note that the previous Labour Government, despite having 9 years and plenty of money to institute this programme, never got around to doing this.

Housing—Access to Appropriate and Affordable Housing

12. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: Does he believe that all New Zealanders should have access to appropriate and affordable housing?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): Yes. As I have stated repeatedly in the House, this Government is committed to assisting those New Zealanders most in need.

Moana Mackey: Why is he axing the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s shared-equity scheme from tomorrow, given that before the election he promised to continue it at least until his still-unfunded Gateway Housing scheme was available?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The shared-equity scheme was a Labour scheme. It was a 2-year pilot that promised 550 homes to new homeowners; over the 2 years it delivered 30 homes. We considered that the pilot did not work.

Moana Mackey: Does he think the low uptake of the shared-equity scheme might have something to do with the fact that, according to the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s Senior Communications Adviser, Michelle Williams, the corporation was told after the change of Government to stop promoting the scheme?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Yes, it would be fair to say that this Government decided we would not spend millions of dollars on advertising that could be spent on homes.

Moana Mackey: Are tax cuts still National’s No. 1 policy for addressing housing unaffordability; if so, can he confirm that this year’s tax cuts are meant to compensate for an increase in GST, cost of living increases across the board, rent increases, and, now, housing unaffordability, and how far does he think someone on the minimum wage can stretch $3 a week?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Certainly, delivering more people more money in their back pockets after a day’s work is part of the policy of addressing housing unaffordability, because it gives them more money to pay off their mortgage or pay their rent, and to make a whole bunch of choices. It is better than a shared-equity scheme that was supposed to deliver 550 houses, but ended up delivering 30 houses.

Rahui Katene: What priority has the Minister given to assisting Danielle Koveskali of Tītahi Bay into appropriate housing, and what action will he take to address the fact that she has had to wait for more than a year for the Housing New Zealand Corporation to address the mouldy State house she lives in, even though Danielle, who has renal failure and is on dialysis, has been told by her doctors that she must be moved for the good of her tenuous health?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I understand that the Koveskali family is on a high-priority list to be relocated to another 4-bedroom property. However, the family has declined properties that have been offered to them in the past as they considered that the properties did not meet their needs. That is fair enough and that is their decision, but the Housing New Zealand Corporation can offer them properties in the area only as they become available, and we will certainly be doing so.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. On 1 July this year victims of crime in New Zealand will be better off as a result of the work that this John Key - led Government has done. But I want to turn to another large news item in recent days. The recent leadership coup in the Australian Labor Party has led me to reflect on the possibility of change in the leadership of the New Zealand Labour Party. There are a couple of lessons to be learnt from the Australian experience. The first is that the polls cannot be ignored. The latest TV3 poll showed not only that the current Leader of the Opposition is polling one-tenth of the support that New Zealand has for our Prime Minister, John Key, but also, more important, that Mr Goff is within 0.2 percent of his main rival, the former leader of the Labour Party, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, who now resides in New York. This is the same former leader who apparently still advises members of the Labour Party caucus by text from New York. I ask whether it is the same advice that Brian Edwards gave to Chris Carter to “keep his head down until after the 2011 election, when he will almost certainly be answerable to a different and more reasonable leader of the Labour Party.”

As we saw with the change in leadership from Geoffrey Palmer to Mike Moore in 1990 and the attempt to roll Helen Clark in 1996, Labour has a history of changing leaders in an attempt to lessen the damage at the last moment. After all, when David Lange talked of poll-driven fruit cakes, he was talking about his own Labour colleagues.

Mr Goff is not immune to poll-driven advice. He appears to have adopted a new, purposeful stride as he gets around New Zealand, and he now sports a fixed, toothy smile whenever he is yelling into the nation’s living rooms on television at 6 o’clock each night. But if his polling does not improve by the end of the year, then we will see a leadership spill to stem the bleeding. It is the kind of ambitious and aspirational race we have come to expect from the Labour Party.

But the second lesson from the recent Australian experience, and this is the key point, is that the people to watch are not the leadership aspirants, because there are not too many of those left over there, but the power brokers. The power brokers are the people to watch in Labour Party politics. It was a great relief to be enjoying this trans-Tasman analogy, because I have to say I was struggling to come up with any leadership aspirants in the Labour Party caucus, but the potential game changes I look to amongst members opposite—and he has his head down; he is a bit bashful but he knows what I am going to say—are people like Trevor Mallard. He is a power broker in the Labour Party, and in recent days he has made some dangerously thoughtful contributions in the House regarding State-owned enterprises, and on his blog about commerce matters.

I also look to people like Charles Chauvel, who in the wake of the credit card scandal will be grateful he was not elevated to the executive, as he thought he should be when he put his press release out claiming he had been, under the last Government. I look to Grant Robertson, the leader of the 2008 intake. I say to him: “Take it from me, Mr Robertson, it will get you nowhere.” The leader of the 2008 intake recently revealed this: “It’s funny when you’re with Phil and out in public with Phil, people do warm to him … but the way in which the media portrayal of him is happening … I don’t think it’s giving him a lift in the polls.” That was very insightful advice from Mr Robertson.

But it is the quiet ones we have to watch. Ross Robertson and George Hawkins are still fighting the good fight. The only way the Labour Party will get the seats back from them is to prise them out of their cold dead hands, because those two are not letting go, come hell or high water. Of course the real players, as I said, are the dangerous ones. Ashraf Choudhary—one never knows! There is a big bloc there. But then there are those who have a foot in each camp on the generational debate, like Moana Mackey, or Darren Hughes who has one foot with Annette King and Phil Goff and the other just edging out to see who is next. So the final lesson in all of this for Mr Phil Goff, from the Australian experience, is “Keep an eye on the redhead”.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): Tomorrow New Zealand will be introducing the emissions trading scheme. We will be world leaders in climate change, despite the Prime Minister’s promise not to be. I say that, because no lesser person than the Minister for Climate Change Issues, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, told this Parliament on 24 September last year, and again on 24 November, that we would be the first country in the world, outside of Europe, to have an emissions trading scheme and that it would be “the most comprehensive in the world”. Those are not my words; those are the words of the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

The ACT Party has led a campaign to try to build political awareness and political support for the postponement of the emissions trading scheme. I stood in this Parliament and spoke in the general debate on 24 March this year, and I was optimistic. At that time France had just abandoned its own proposed carbon tax. Over the last 3 months Rodney Hide and I have held over 40 public meetings on this subject. We were optimistic, and we were particularly optimistic when Australia announced that it would be deferring its emissions trading scheme until at least 2013. Now, on 30 June—the eve of 1 July—it is obvious that our scheme will proceed.

What is the cost to New Zealanders of New Zealand taking this leadership position? What is the cost, to use Dr Nick Smith’s words, of having the “most comprehensive” emissions trading scheme in the world? Well, the price of electricity will rise, the price of petrol will rise, the price of heating will rise, and the price of pretty much everything else will rise. The very food that we eat will increase in price. In particular, our exporters and our businesses will be exposed.

The Government says that the cost to New Zealanders will be $3 a week, but we know that that is a gross underestimation. The cost will be at least $5 a week. Some people can comfortably afford $5 extra, but for hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged New Zealanders on low incomes, that additional $5 a week will be substantial. The increased costs of electricity and petrol alone are a consequence of the emissions trading scheme.

That figure of $5 extra is very easily justifiable; one simply has to look at the very numbers that Dr Nick Smith has tabled in the House. He has quoted the example of the average household using 8,000 units of electricity at an additional price of 1c a unit. That same household, he says, drives 28,000 kilometres at a cost of 3c a litre. I say that it is simple mathematics to deduce that the cost of the emissions trading scheme to the average household of electricity and petrol alone is $165 a year, or $3.17 a week. But the Minister for Climate Change Issues, the Prime Minister, and the whole of the National caucus seem to misunderstand that they are grossly underestimating that cost. One needs only to look at the very website of the Ministry for the Environment to find that the ministry actually acknowledges that the cost of the emissions trading scheme is more than $3.17 a week. That appears on the website of the Ministry for the Environment. If the National Government, its Ministers, and its backbenchers think that New Zealanders are fools, then they will have to pay a very big price for that at the next election. The emissions trading scheme will cost more than $3.17 a week, and that is very obvious simply by looking at the website of the Ministry for the Environment.

Whether it is $3 a week extra or $5 a week extra, we know that dairy farmers will pay about $75 a week, and that sheep and beef farmers will pay $35 a week. That is another fact that the Government chose to try to hide or deny in the early stages of the campaign the ACT Party has run over the last 3 months. National members tried to treat farmers as fools. The Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, turned up at Mystery Creek on 5 May and said to DairyNZ that the emissions trading scheme would “cost 2.5 cents per kilogram of milksolids. Not a cost you will welcome, but it’s hardly a cost that will drive you off the land.” Well, Mr Carter treated dairy farmers as fools, because the cost will not be 2.5c in 2015, as Mr Carter tried to assert, it will be three times that amount. Dairy farmers and other farmers up and down the country feel as if they have been treated with contempt by this National Government, just as I am sure do many hundreds of thousands of householders. Thank you.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): Simon Power’s speech today focused on leadership, but there is irony in that because not so long ago Mr Power was one of those National members who had his leadership strategy drawn up for him. I tell members opposite that I happen to have a copy of that, and I would be happy to share it with anybody who wants to read it. Mr Power has been preparing himself for that moment, and perhaps members opposite would like to see how he will go about it. It was funny that Mr Power talked about changes in Labour Party leadership; most of us recall that there have been five leaders of the National Party in fewer than 10 years. National changed them about every 2 years until it finally found the smiling Mr Key.

But I do not want to talk about leadership. I want to talk about the real issues that face New Zealanders. I want to talk about the family who were sitting around the kitchen table last night, looking at their weekly budget. They know that tomorrow, on 1 July, a large chunk of their income will be stripped from them by a raft of National Government - imposed cost increases and policy changes. I call them “Instalment No. 1 of Dr Key’s medicine for New Zealand”. That medicine is about to be administered with a very large spoon, and it will have a very, very nasty taste for most New Zealanders. Of course, people are being softened up for that medicine. They are being told, repeatedly, not to worry, because it is going to be good for them. They are being told that no one will be worse off, that it will not hurt, and that they will be better off after they take their medicine. But Kiwis are not silly, and the soft words of reassurance from the Prime Minister, who constantly refers to his State house beginnings but lives a life far beyond the dreams of most New Zealanders, will be exposed for what they are over the next few months. His words will be exposed as puffery and blatherskite.

Nothing shows that more than the letter Mr Key sent to senior citizens last week. Thousands of letters were sent to superannuitants and veterans around New Zealand, costing tens of thousands of dollars. I do not see anything wrong in informing people about policy—there is nothing wrong with it; Governments do that. But I object to the use of taxpayers’ money and not telling taxpayers the whole story. On the one hand, Mr Key’s letter tells them that policy changes are going to give them more money, but on the other hand it fails to tell them about the costs that will be imposed on them. There is something wrong in telling older New Zealanders that there will be an increase in superannuation and the veterans pension on 1 October and that they will be fairly compensated for the GST rise. That is a clear and blatant fabrication, because the letter does not tell older New Zealanders about instalment No. 1 on 1 July, and instalment No. 2 on 1 October. Older New Zealanders and low and middle income New Zealanders are facing a raft of increases.

The family sitting at their kitchen table know that after tomorrow power prices will go up by as much as 12 percent. If we ever want to see a Prime Minister who is out of touch with his people, we only need to hear John Key tell people to shop around if they do not like the power company that provides them power. I asked Mr Key from across the House today: “Have you ever tried to shop around for a better deal from a power company?”, and he kept his head down and did not reply. He does not know what is involved in trying to find a better deal from a power company. He is out of touch with what is happening to real New Zealanders. Families know that their rent will go up. Property investors have said that someone has to pay for the changes in the Budget, and they predict rent increases of up to $30 a week. Those are the real issues we should be hearing about from the Government.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of the letter from the Hon John Key to superannuitants that Annette King has just referred to, which fails to tell people the cost of the emissions trading scheme and fails to tell people the cost of power price increases.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): What a great pleasure it is to take part in the debate today. I was going to refer in my speech solely to the unbelievable progress that this National Government has made in the field of law and order, because the list of achievements is impressive and exciting, but I feel that I cannot let the leadership issue go past without exposing something I have stumbled across in regard to not just who the next leader of the Labour Party will be but also the timing for that change of leadership, which I have found secretly encoded in that leadership candidate’s own writings. Members need to listen carefully because I refer to a poem written by the Hon David Cunliffe. In my view there is no doubt—and I do not think there is any doubt in his mind, either—that he is the next leader of the Labour Party. I do not want to refer to the “I am Harvard” poem, although it was an interesting one, where he said:

For some year or two

I suckled you

With potent milk

Of truth and learning.

It gets a bit sickly towards the end. I think that the better poem that David Cunliffe wrote was a poem called “Seasons”. I ask members to listen to this poem very carefully. I know that Darren Hughes, the power broker behind the leadership coup, knows what is in this poem and how to translate the words. I will go through the poem and take it carefully. The poem is called “Seasons”.

Spring comes suddenly in New England.

Almost without warning

Branches that just a few weeks before were dead, dry twigs—

I think he is talking about some of his colleagues.

—are crowned with the lushest green foliage.

I think there is a clue there: it is to do with a Green coalition he is looking to get together. But, hang on, it gets better.

But spring is brief

As a delicate balance between irresistible forces

Wrestling for control.

It gives way, explosively, to summer.

Here in lies the clue and members will get it—[Interruption]—no, it gets better; it gets really good.

Summer is sweet and delicate as a butterfly’s touch or a skylark’s dance

Summer is a glory, which no one who has not lived through—

That is really interesting. I am going to read it again.

Summer is a glory, which no one who has not lived through a northern winter—

It is not really good, is it? It is not really good.

—can ever understand.

The Minister of Education says she is lost. Mr Cunliffe might have lost on the national standards, but this is what he wrote. It gets really good. It says:

So what of summer?

Is it just a pointless part of an endless repeating cycle of seasons

Forgotten again amid the golden leaves of autumn

As the icy blasts of the first snows?

No. No. Each summer changes history.

There can be no better example that the Hon David Cunliffe’s plan for the leadership bid is exposed in the poem. He wrote it knowing what it meant. His own followers read the poem at night, tucked up underneath their duvets with their torches on, knowing that summer is not far away. We are in winter; we have only spring to go. Then spring gets rid of the dead twigs, the dead branches, and it is all on. So let me repeat it again:

Each summer changes history.

It adds new wood to the trees

New generations to the world

And weaves itself into the fabric of our lives.

Look, this is absolutely, unbelievably clear with regard to the Hon David Cunliffe’s plans for a leadership coup. I think it is quite clear—and Simon Power gave a very good exposé on it—that no one else is in the running. Yes, George Hawkins and Ross Robertson may be power brokers for one of the factions; I think they are power brokers for the South Auckland faction. Yes, Ashraf Choudhary and—what is the name of the former Families Commission man?

Nicky Wagner: Rajen Prasad.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: —Rajen Prasad may be power brokers for the ethnic communities of the Labour Party. But, if we go through the list, we see that there is only one candidate for leadership. Trevor Mallard is not a leader. He will not be the leader nor, now, will Shane Jones or Chris Carter after what has happened. So, David Cunliffe has it. He has it, clearly. Anyone who wants to read his poem will know that summer is when it will happen.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): All that I would say to Mr Williamson is that he has forgotten the ABC of politics; he should be addressing cost of living issues—[Interruption]—cost of living issues, and then cost of living issues.

I will talk about a subset of those cost of living issues being one of the imposts upon New Zealanders coming up on 1 July, which is the increase in accident compensation levies that we are all facing in this country. These increases were over-egged by the Government last year as a consequence of its members’ claims of a crisis in the accident compensation scheme. They were telling everyone in New Zealand that the scheme was fundamentally broken, that some significant changes were needed in order to justify their plans to both cut cover and privatise parts of the scheme. But under the cover of that, they could not really go through with it without hyping the financial problems that they said the accident compensation scheme had. They talked about billions of dollars of extra liability, much of which was caused by the financial crisis decreasing the rates of return on investments. As a consequence of the claimed problems in accident compensation, they had to go through with it and they had to put up everyone’s accident compensation levies.

Tomorrow accident compensation levies go up for New Zealanders. Everyone who owns a car will see their registration fee go up by $30 per annum. That is $30 more for the accident compensation levy on one’s car. The levy that one pays as an earner will go up for every $100 of earnings. That has been $1.70 up until now, but that is going up to $2 per every $100 of earnings—an increase of closer to 20 percent than 10 percent. These are very significant increases ahead of the rate of inflation. I ask whether they were needed. No, they were not needed. We heard from Dr Smith last week at a select committee that the Accident Compensation Corporation, miraculously, is projected to have a surplus of $2 billion this year—not next year; $2 billion surplus this year. That is a $2 billion surplus this year. That is much better than the Minister had everyone believing at the end of last year when he set these levies. As a consequence, they have pushed the levies higher than they needed to push them.

So for everyone in New Zealand who owns a car, whether a business or a private person, his or her registration fee for each and every car will go up by $30. If he or she owns a motorbike it is even worse. If it is a motorbike, the increase for the owner is between $70 and $170 a year. Those increases would not have needed to be so high if the Minister had not so exaggerated his claims as to problems in accident compensation. In order to justify those outrageous claims of insolvency and the other claims he made, let us not forget that he said that the scheme was insolvent. On his measure of insolvency, it has never been solvent since the day it started. He asserted that until it had a fully funded book, until it had enough assets on its book to pay the whole-of-life cost of all claims on the books, it was insolvent. He is now claiming that they have made enormous progress in the last year, that it is now financially stable—those are both statements he made—and that it is on track to make a $2 billion surplus this year. Not next year; this year.

So I ask why these exaggerated increases in the accident compensation scheme levies are being foisted upon the public. It is to make the accident compensation scheme unpopular. That is really what the Government wants. It wants people to think that the scheme is so fundamentally expensive and broken that it can justify its plans to change it. It wants people to not be concerned about accident compensation being privatised. It wants people to put up with the decreases in the scope of cover that are coming through. Some of these things are patently unjust, like how virtually no people are getting counselling approved for sexual abuse. The rate of approval is down by more than 80 percent. That is patently unfair. There are increased rates of people being turned down for operations on their shoulder, and other things. There are more costs being put on people for hearing aids. Everywhere in the accident compensation scheme the Government is getting meaner. In addition to that, it is putting up everyone’s levies. So one is paying more but getting less. That has been because the Minister exaggerated the woes of the scheme.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I rise to take a call in this debate because I am so pleased at the advances that we have made in the justice sector and with the law and order issues that have prevailed in New Zealand for a long time. It is great to have been able to put together some ideas when in Opposition, to win an election in 2008 under the leadership of John Key, and then to put some initiatives before the select committees and the House. They are initiatives such as short-term protection orders, the offender levy system, the increase in measures against gangs, new initiatives to tackle P, new powers to confiscate the proceeds of crime, tackling violent youth crime and giving young offenders a fresh start, strengthening some bail laws that really needed to be dealt to after some changes made by the previous Government in October 2008, putting an extra 600 police officers on the front line by the end of 2011, and—probably most critical for victims—taking DNA samples from people when they are arrested for imprisonable offences.

It is great to see, for instance, through the victim compensation scheme that victims will be able to access more from the taxpayer to assist them in recovery from crimes against them and their families. There is enhanced homicide support for families to attend court hearings and to do good by those who have been stolen from at the hands of violent offenders. There are enhanced court services for the victims of sexual violence—for instance, a payment of $250 to address the immediate costs in providing evidence in sex crimes, like the replacement of clothing, access to some immediate counselling, access to some immediate help in respect of the victims’ recovery, and having child-minding facilities paid for by the taxpayer so they are able to attend court. Returning to families of homicide victims, there is $124 a day for family members towards the costs of attending court—child-minding, accommodation, meals, and those sorts of things—so that they can take part in the proceedings. There is a funeral grant of up to $4,500 for families of homicide victims.

Those things are all very important to make sure we refocus our criminal justice system on the victims of crime instead of concentrating overly on offenders and listening to those people who are screaming hard on behalf of them. For instance, the Sensible Sentencing Trust wants to go down a harder and harder line without being precise enough to cater to the real concerns of victims’ families.

What did we hear under the previous administration? I have a couple of examples. Several promises were made, for instance, on changes to the domestic violence law. Prior to the 2005 election Labour promised to “Evaluate amendments to the … Act to ensure its effectiveness, for example through considering whether greater flexibility is necessary in the types and coverage of protection orders. Greater flexibility might allow for interim protection orders to be granted, and for coverage of orders to be varied where that is in the interests of dependent children.” When we got to the end of 2007, a month after National’s announcement of on-the-spot protection orders, the then Minister of Justice, Annette King, released a discussion document proposing changes to the Act, including the addition of protection orders very similar to National’s. In June 2008, 7 months later, Annette King announced that changes would be introduced by July. Nothing happened. In September Annette King said: “We undertook a major review of the Domestic Violence Act, we consulted widely, the legislation has recently gone through Cabinet, and it will be in this House in due course.” “Due course” meant that 2 days after Parliament was adjourned for the election fight in 2008 that bill was dropped into the House.

Do members want to look at another one? It is on victims’ compensation. On 4 July 1994 Helen Clark said: “Labour also intends to consult widely on an appropriate victims’ compensation scheme.” In Labour’s 1996 election campaign she promised to investigate the establishment of a separate criminal injuries compensation scheme. In 2005 she promised more, but nothing ever happened.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): We have heard a thoroughly underwhelming contribution to the general debate from Government members. Simon Power and Maurice Williamson diverted attention from the real issues facing New Zealanders. The discussion about leadership is a distraction, and members on that side of the House should look at themselves, because when the shine and the gloss come off their smiling Prime Minister, the lens will be turned on them. They should be concerned about what is next for leadership within the National Party. That is the real question. Leadership is not really something that Labour members should be thinking about; it is something that National members should be thinking about when the shine and the gloss come off the smiling Mr Key.

I challenge some member—in fact, I challenge any member—from the Māori Party to speak in this general debate, and tell their constituents how tax cuts and GST hikes will be good for Māori whānau. Since the National-led Government introduced Budget 2010, not one Māori constituent has come into my office, or approached me when I have been out and about, to praise the tax cuts. Someone from the Māori Party should be here to say why their members voted for it. Those members should be concerned. Constituents tell me that the tax cuts will not have any benefit for them, whatsoever. They ask why the Māori Party voted for it and they are concerned about the Budget in itself. Seventy-three percent of Māori households in my electorate earn $40,000 or less. They will get nothing, or very little, from the tax cuts. The median income in Hauraki-Waikato is $22,000. Those same constituents are concerned that the Māori Party voted for a GST increase of 15 percent, which will see increases to power bills, kai bills, rates, kids’ clothing costs, and mortgage or rent payments. Whānau are feeling the pinch, and no amount of talking up Community Max, Job Ops, or the Community Response Fund will get away from the fact that it is harder to get a job because fewer are available. Instead, the Government is promoting short-term training schemes rather than growing the economy to provide real jobs and real wages.

Last week I was at the opening of Thames Community Link, a centre led by the community for the community, and partnered by Government agencies. Community Link is a great model that was started under Labour in order to find local solutions to training and employment challenges. I commend that community in Thames, and others like it, for working together to get people back to work. But do members know what? The feedback from community participants in that particular initiative was that times were tough. Families are feeling the pressure, jobs are just not there, and they see stress on families and children. If Budget 2010 was designed with the great majority of fair-minded, hard-working, keen New Zealanders in mind, then the proof of the pudding would be a productive and growing economy that created jobs, jobs, and jobs. Sadly, that is not the case. Although the Community Max scheme that I visited in Thames demonstrated positive gains for the community and individuals involved, out of a team of about six young people at least one individual was looking for employment overseas, three people did not know what they were doing, because there were no jobs available in Thames, and the other two would perhaps go elsewhere to look for a job if there was one available. Community Max is a short-term fix to a long-term challenge. Our young people want to work, but, sadly, jobs are not available and the Government is not doing anything about it.

I am concerned because it is winter right now. I am concerned for families and children, especially when kids get sick. Let us look at a community in Fairfield, where a grandmother looking after her grandchild cannot get an appointment to see a local doctor. She pays only $10 for herself and the visit is free for her child. She gets told that the waiting list is long, and that she should go to the accident and emergency centre. That is all very well if one has $69 to go there, but if one does not, and if one has no private transport so is reliant on public transport, then one has to go to the hospital. That puts pressure on acute services, because someone has not been able to see a local doctor. Under this Government, we will continue to see prices increase for general practitioner fees, and that is simply not good enough in winter.

I am also concerned for kaumātua in winter. They tell me that they are concerned about power price hikes. They have to make the decision about leaving the heater on or turning it off. Most of them are turning the heater off or—worse—getting gas heaters that increase condensation and make an unhealthy environment at home. They will feel the pinch of increased power prices at home. Things need to change.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I am delighted to tell my Waikato colleague Nanaia Mahuta that unemployment is falling and confidence is returning to our region and, in fact, right around the country. But I will return to the theme that has been outlined by the member for Whanganui and other speakers on this side of the House, and say that one of the many achievements of the National-led Government since it came into office has been a raft of significant law and order initiatives that will have, and indeed are having, a hugely beneficial impact in creating safer communities throughout New Zealand.

Dr Rajen Prasad: What’s the drop in crime in Manukau?

TIM MACINDOE: It is long past the time, I tell Dr Prasad, that we put our focus on the interests and rights of victims—something that that member’s previous Government sadly failed to do.

For far too long the trauma of being a victim of crime has often been compounded by the insensitivity of the judicial system, which has focused on the prisoner in the dock. The judicial system often re-traumatised victims by subjecting them to distressing public airings of their experiences, and the horror of facing their attackers in court and answering defence counsel’s questions that try to attribute some blame or responsibility to the victims for what has occurred.

Just recently in Hamilton I had the great privilege of meeting Louise Nicholas, and of hearing first-hand just how traumatising were her well-publicised experiences of a few years ago. It is pertinent to note—as the Minister of Justice told us at question time—that Louise has welcomed the recent announcements of the Minister about initiatives to support victims. I am sure that every member of this House would wish to protect any future victim from the terrible ordeal that Louise endured.

It is also pleasing to note the positive reaction of our police to the new on-the-spot safety orders. The police are confident that these measures will save lives, and that has to be welcome news in every community from Kaitāia to Stewart Island. Yes, there will be some challenges to collect the new offender levies from some criminals. When the measures were being discussed in the House some time ago, I recall that members opposite at times scoffed at the suggestion, but there are ways and means of doing this too. I know that my constituents in Hamilton are delighted to know that the victims’ compensation scheme will collect an estimated $13.6 million over the first 4 years that it will be in existence.

Chris Auchinvole: How much?

TIM MACINDOE: It will collect an estimated $13.6 million. The fine people of West Coast - Tasman will be as delighted as the people of Hamilton West are.

Dr Rajen Prasad: How much to run the scheme?

TIM MACINDOE: Instead of scoffing at the proposal, I say to Dr Prasad and other members opposite, I challenge those members to tell the House whether they are opposed to the enhanced homicide support service that the new fund will support. I ask Dr Prasad whether he opposes it and whether, in the unlikely event of his being returned to Government, Labour will cancel the provision of grants of $250 for victims of sexual violence towards the expenses they incur as a result of that experience.

Hon Darren Hughes: Nick Smith already has.

TIM MACINDOE: Will Labour revoke, I ask Mr Hughes, the High Court attendance grant of $124 per person per day, which we have introduced for up to five adult members of a homicide victim’s family? Will Labour revoke the funeral grant of up to $4,500 to families of homicide victims? Of course it will not. It is pretty clear from the way Mr Hughes is interjecting that he does not like the question, but I know jolly well he would not ever move to get rid of that—at least; I certainly hope he would not.

In 2008 I campaigned in Hamilton West as strongly as I could on the urgent need for our country to tackle the horrific problem of P in our society. Methamphetamine is an abomination. Those who succumb to it are on the road to ruin. Anything and everything we can do to protect the young and the vulnerable from encountering those who manufacture or distribute P, or from encountering those who entice new victims to try it, must be done. I am thrilled and proud that our Government has taken significant steps to clamp down on the criminal gangs, the drug manufacturers and pushers—all power to its arm.

I am proud that we are putting an extra 600 front-line police officers on our streets by the end of next year. I am proud that we are providing access for victims to compensation that may have been awarded to those who harmed them. But I am also proud that we are getting serious about the rehabilitation of prisoners, especially those who require the drug and alcohol treatment measures that we are expanding, and the raft of extra options that we have given to the Youth Court to deal with some of our youngest offenders, as was mentioned by the member for Whanganui. These are all great measures for New Zealand and they are particularly welcomed in Hamilton. I close by congratulating my friend Rev. Maku Pōtae on his appointment as the national director of the Prison Chaplaincy Service of Aotearoa New Zealand.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Tomorrow hard-working Kiwis will take another hit in their family incomes, thanks to this uncaring Government. Price hikes in a raft of areas will hit them hard in the pocket, and that comes on top of a year of lay-offs, pay freezes, and increases to the cost of living. Families are already doing it tough, and if Government members are not hearing from those families, then we are on this side of the House certainly are. Rents have increased by 9.5 percent and are set to get worse. Rates have gone up by 6.4 percent. The price of groceries went up by 10.3 percent. Telecom has put up its rates, so the family phone costs more. Interest rates have gone up, so mortgages will be affected, and interest rates are forecast to rise further this year.

It is not as if the jobs are bounding back. Just last week, 350 workers in the meat industry lost their jobs. That is a lot of jobs in a local economy. Did we hear a peep out of the Government about it? Not one word. The rates of Youth, Māori, and Pasifika unemployment are at sky-high levels.

Many workers effectively had pay cuts when the accident compensation wage earners levy rose in April. Tomorrow the cost of accident compensation in terms of registration for the family car will go up, and that is more stress on the family budget. Drivers of vans, utility vehicles, and light trucks will face an increase in levies of as much as 46 percent. People in small businesses rely on those vehicles in order to earn a living, and, of course, those who need the car to get to work will find it tougher.

I have to say that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is a mess. The Minister for ACC boasts of a culture change, but culture change can happen only with the cooperation of staff, and look what has been happening with ACC staff. They walked off the job last week. They have been through 91 redundancies, and we were told at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last week that it is not over yet—there is a lot more to come. Do members know why the staff went on strike? It is because ACC refuses to even write their rates of pay into their agreement. How backward is that! It sounds like the 1990s.

New Zealanders are paying more and getting less in accident compensation. Every day now Labour MPs hear from people who have been denied cover for spurious reasons. The Government has completely abandoned the victims of sexual crime who seek counselling to recover. It has reduced cover for part-time workers, seasonal workers, young workers, and those with a threshold of up to 6 percent hearing loss. The Government has privatised the management of 600 long-term claims, and in a memo leaked last week, it was revealed that it is planning to privatise some more claims. Unfortunately, Kiwis had better get ready for a whole lot more because of the secret privatisation agenda of the Government. The Government will not even release the interim stocktake report. We are waiting with great interest to see what it recommends, but I think that we can guess.

Kiwis will not be able to rely on the health system, because the Government is cutting four front-line services every week. It has cut them every week since the 2008 election. Doctors’ fees are on the rise, and services are being slashed, particularly for older people.

Tomorrow petrol prices will go up. That is another blow to the family income, and it comes on top of the accident compensation levy increases. Power prices are going up, and many householders have already received a letter from their electricity company saying that it is all the Government’s fault. I have to say that I liked getting that letter, even though the power prices are going up.

Workers who rely on the minimum wage are expected to make do with a miserly 25c pay increase until next year—and they cannot rely on tax cuts for any relief. Their tax cut in October is a miserable $4.13 a week, and that has already been more than eaten up by the price rises that this Government is rolling out. Meanwhile, the Australian minimum wage has gone up. It is now 45 percent higher than the New Zealand minimum wage. The truth is, I think, that the Government has given up on catching up with Australia. We are drifting further and further behind.

There is just one last thing: it is now 12 months since pay and employment equity was cut. The Minister of Women’s Affairs said that she would leave no stone unturned in her efforts to close the gender pay gap. Well, I have seen nothing except, perhaps, the rocks in her head.

NICKY WAGNER (National): Today I want to talk about what this excellent National Government is doing to cut crime in my city of Christchurch. As a central city MP, I find that crime is what worries my constituents the most. Before the last election 400 people came to the Christchurch Town Hall and called for action on crime and for a safer city. That is exactly what this National Government is delivering. Christchurch people were concerned about criminal gangs and the P trade. We have clamped down on that and have created new powers to confiscate the proceeds of crime. Families were worried about violent youth crime. We are tackling that through our Fresh Start programme for young offenders. People were horrified by the number of violent offences in the city, many of which were committed by prisoners on bail. We have strengthened bail laws to make it harder for violent criminals to get bail. At the same time, we have denied parole and increased the sentences of repeat serious violent offenders and those who have committed the worst murders.

To help convict more criminals and solve cold cases, we have enabled the police to take DNA from people arrested for imprisonable offences. We have introduced Tasers. We have increased sentences for crimes against children, we have increased drug and alcohol treatment for prisoners, and we have provided victims access to prisoners’ compensation. We have done all this, and more, in the last 18 months. Labour had 9 long years to improve law and order, and it did not do a thing.

In central Christchurch we have homed in on the two key issues of intercity violent crime and antisocial road-user behaviour. Under Labour, both of these issues had been allowed to get out of hand. This Government is cleaning up that mess and we have seen a real step change in behaviour. The police launched Operation Crusade, which is all about having more police active on the streets, and deploying them in crime hot spots around the city. The Christchurch City Council is working hand in hand with the police and complements their work by employing Safe City Officers. Camera surveillance has been beefed up, and changes have been made to the way licensed premises operate. The result is a steady improvement in behaviour in public places and a safer city. It was new legislation from the Hon Steven Joyce and the Hon Judith Collins that has provided a breakthrough on the boy-racer problems in Christchurch. That legislation focuses on the things that matter to dangerous and illegal drivers—their driving licences and their cars. The issuing of demerit points and the confiscation and, as a last resort, the crushing of cars have hammered home the message that Christchurch people will not tolerate dangerous, illegal, and antisocial driving behaviour on their streets. The anti-cruising bylaws being introduced this week will nail it down even further.

There will always be victims of crime. This Government is determined to provide a more supportive framework for victims who through no fault of their own end up in difficult, traumatic, and often tragic circumstances. Labour had promised a victim compensation scheme for 14 years; National has done it in fewer than 14 months. The $50 levy to be introduced this Thursday is a victim compensation scheme with multiple benefits. It means that victims are firmly at the centre of the justice system. It sheets home to offenders the consequences of their behaviour and the responsibility to their victims. Finally, it provides a fund to support victims and their families. Of course, nothing can alleviate the hurt and pain of victims, but a supportive framework that addresses the financial and emotional costs that fall upon them will make a difference. Christchurch and New Zealand are better places because of this National Government. We are dealing to the criminals, and we are supporting the victims of crime.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Right now, the Paranagua Express, carrying tonnes of radioactive uranium ore, is sitting there, berthed at the Port of Auckland. It is proof of our support for the international nuclear cycle, and it is mocking our nuclear-free status. This ship, and the others that will be transhipping through our ports almost weekly, undermine our proud nuclear-free history and the blood, sweat, and tears of the thousands of Kiwis who in the 1980s fought to entrench our nuclear-free status on the world stage. Radioactive uranium ore is more than Australian dirt, as Nick Smith alleges. It is a radioactive material that puts our people at risk, harms Australians, damages the environment, and is possibly involved in the most egregious industry of all—the nuclear weapons industry. We need an urgent moratorium on these shipments. But what does the Government say to Kiwis? It says “Let them eat yellowcake.”

Earlier this year the Environmental Risk Management Authority decided to routinely trans-ship uranium ore from Australia, stored in 44 gallon drums, through the ports of Auckland, Tauranga, Napier, and Nelson, en route to various nations. The ore is a radioactive powder that gets turned into either fuel rods or enriched uranium. The risks locally are probably smaller than, say, from a fuel-oiled tanker, or from the plutonium shipments in the Tasman Sea that I alerted the House to last week. But the risks are there, and the risks are genuine. Accidents do happen, especially at sea. Fires can rage for days, and cargo can move around on board, splitting open containers. Our ports and our port workers are not equipped to deal with radioactive spills.

Regardless of local risks, New Zealand should not be part of or support the nuclear chain, or allow into the country the raw materials needed for nuclear generation, because of the huge impact that uranium mining has on the Australian environment, its communities, and its workers. Doctors say that 30 to 50 percent of men who have worked in the uranium mines in Australia have developed lung cancer and have died. If they wear respirators it makes no difference, because the radon gas still gets through even if the powder does not. Much of the darker side of uranium mining in Australia is left unsaid, as employees in the larger businesses are forced to sign non-disclosure clauses before they start work. There are many stories of spills that employees are too intimidated to put on the record.

Uranium mining is environmentally destructive. For every tonne of uranium produced, hundreds of tonnes of radioactive and toxic waste or tailings are left behind. South Australia’s Olympic Dam, for example, consumes 33 million litres of water every day, and is one of the largest users in that dry country. The Queensland branch of the Electrical Trades Union has recently banned its members from working in the uranium mines or in the nuclear industry. Until it can be proved that none of the uranium in our ports is contributing to nuclear weapons, we need a moratorium.

The Australian Government says that its uranium is used for only peaceful purposes. However, this has been challenged repeatedly. Australia cannot, and will not, guarantee that its uranium will not be turned into nuclear weapons or depleted uranium; nor does the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office keep track of Australian uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency suffers from a want of funds and is prevented from making spot inspections. Australia has sold to non-proliferation treaty members, such as Taiwan. Even when Australia does sell to non-proliferation member States, there is no way of tracking the onselling to non-members. As I tabled in this House last week, a report from energyscience.org.au illustrates that Australian uranium enables countries to advance nuclear weapons by freeing up scarce domestic reserves. Australia sells its uranium to nuclear weapon States, and purposefully closes its eyes to the uses of its uranium; New Zealand should not be a link. Although the weapons-grade link is murky and secretive, and we cannot ascertain whether, or how many grams or kilos of, Australian uranium has been turned into weapons, I can guarantee that every single gram will be disposed of as waste and pose a hazard for millions of years.

In the 1980s New Zealand stood up and spoke truth to power. We said no to nuclear weapons and no to nuclear-powered ships in our ports. Yet at the same time we continued to allow uranium to trans-ship through our ports—a fact we found out only recently—seemingly without any officials or elected representatives being aware of that. This trade is being conducted behind closed doors, like so many of the nuclear energy and weapons programmes internationally. Why were the public not consulted? We need an investigation into these issues. I hope to bring before this House draft legislation to amend the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 to prohibit New Zealand’s role in the nuclear cycle, and I urge members to support it.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): This afternoon’s general debate has certainly been revealing, in terms of the way that it has considered the different leadership aspirants in the House. I allude to the comments made by a number of National’s front-bench MPs today, particularly those by Maurice Williamson and Simon Power, who canvassed the leadership aspirants in the House. Of particular note were Maurice Williamson’s comments. He rose and quoted the poetic oratory of “David William Shakespeare Cunliffe”, the bard of New Zealand politics. He quoted from his poem about the summer of New Zealand politics, and foretold the summer that is to come and the change in the political environment, particularly in the Labour Party. In addition to what Mr Williamson said, it was interesting to listen to Simon Power, who revealed the power brokers behind the Labour Party push for a change in leadership, particularly Ross Robertson and George Hawkins from South Auckland, and who revealed the things that they would do. I think the most revealing remark from Mr Power was his very last comment: “Keep an eye on the redhead.”

I have some new, revealing information to share with the House today—

Chris Auchinvole: Chris Hipkins?

CHRIS TREMAIN: No, not Chris Hipkins. I understand it is about the Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff, and Labour’s senior whip, Darren Hughes. We have been able to reveal the results of the TV3 preferred Prime Minister poll that came out recently, which I am holding. We have seen Mr Phil Goff falling in his leadership numbers over time, and then slightly coming up. The interesting point was that Helen Clark’s numbers had also been falling since she left New Zealand, but then they rose as colleagues from across the House texted her to seek information from her. The very revealing point from this new information that has come to hand is that we have seen Darren Hughes entering on to the political landscape in TV3’s preferred Prime Minister poll. The other very interesting information is on Phil Goff’s net approval ratings. We have seen Phil Goff’s net approval ratings falling, unfortunately, over the last 6 to 8 months.

But it is even more revealing to see young Darren Hughes getting on to the political landscape. We see the rise of Mr Hughes’ ratings through this particular poll. But more recently, as he has risen to No. 8 in the pecking order on the Opposition side of the House, he has been in the news over buying his own beers and keeping his head down with regard to political expenses, and he had a huge lift when we had Hug a Ginga Day here in the House—a huge lift. More recently, there was obviously the crimplene suit affair, which gave him a profile that none of us were expecting for him. That certainly saw him rise in the polls. But most recently he has had a huge increase in the polls from the Australasian ginga effect, with Julia Gillard’s appointment as Prime Minister in Australia. That has had an effect on Darren Hughes over on the other side.

Hon Trevor Mallard: The ginga!

CHRIS TREMAIN: The ginga effect. Members can see his net approval ratings for preferred Prime Minister going through the roof. So it is absolutely—

Hon Trevor Mallard: What about “Chippie”?

CHRIS TREMAIN: No, unfortunately “Chippie” has not come on to the radar yet. The polls show that it is only Mr Hughes, who is leading by more than a nose at this time. So this is great news for Mr Hughes, and it is great to see him appearing on that political poll, especially given that he is my colleague across the House. It is absolutely fantastic.

Grant Robertson: How does that member rate in those polls?

CHRIS TREMAIN: I am not even on the radar, and am not planning on being there, at all.

While Mr Hughes is rising in the polls and the Opposition members are debating leadership aspirants and wallowing in all the issues that they face, this Government is getting on with the job. We are delivering. In terms of law and order, we have driven through a great law and order policy in the last couple of weeks. Back in the seat of Napier, Judith Collins came and we opened a new police station in Tamatea. Three new police officers will be operating from that station—once again we are delivering on the promises we made at the election. In the suburb of Maraenui, which is in my electorate as well, we have rolled out new police officers into that suburb. They are new community police officers, whom Judith Collins has rolled out. It is absolutely fantastic to see those police officers in the community, in the schools, and helping to lift law and order and safety in that community. That is really important in the lower socio-economic part of my community. On top of that, later this year, we will see a new, or refurbished, Nūhaka police station. There will be another police officer there, just down the road from Anne Tolley’s electorate on the East Coast. That is great news. All up, this Government is doing extremely well. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Education Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 November 2010, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, and 190(1)(b) and (c). The purpose of this motion is to bring forward the report back of the bill to ensure its enactment before the end of the year so that the necessary arrangements are in place, in particular, for the introduction of trades academies next year.

This bill introduces legislation that will enable the establishment of secondary-tertiary programmes for students enrolled in school. It will reduce the compliance burden on limited attendance centres, protect the sustainability of the New Zealand export education sector, improve the law affecting private schools, and make minor changes to school enrolment scheme priorities.

The first area of broad policy change is secondary-tertiary programmes. The bill will make the interface between secondary and tertiary education more integrated to fulfil this Government’s commitment to the Youth Guarantee. It will do this by allowing secondary students to participate full-time in a secondary-tertiary programme while still enrolled at school. The legislation details the process for the Minister of Education to approve the organisations that will provide a secondary-tertiary programme, and the process for the Secretary for Education to agree to the details of the secondary-tertiary programme, as well as the reporting and monitoring arrangements with these providers.

The first examples of secondary-tertiary programmes will be trades academies. Trades academies will motivate more students to stay engaged in learning and training by providing them with a greater number of options for study. Trades academies will also provide students with clear pathways by giving them a head start on training for industry-related qualifications and smooth access to employment. To introduce initiatives spanning the secondary-tertiary interface, new legislative arrangements are required to allow more appropriate sharing of the responsibilities for students when they are undertaking a joint secondary-tertiary programme. The changes in this bill will ensure protection of the education, welfare, and safety of students.

A second area of policy change will reduce the compliance burden for limited attendance centres. Limited attendance centres provide short-term care for young children on a casual basis, like recreational facilities or shopping centres. Providers emphasise care rather than education. Many limited attendance centres find the current early childhood education regulations onerous and have ceased providing the service or are operating a centre outside of the licensing requirements. Although limited attendance centres will no longer be subject to early childhood education regulatory requirements, they will continue to be subject to arrangements with the operators of the facility, local government, and other legislative requirements to ensure the safety and welfare of the children in their care. The nature of a limited attendance centre means that parents or caregivers are able to be easily contacted to resume responsibility for their child at short notice.

At the moment there are few restrictions in education legislation relating to international students who change course or provider. Current refund provisions for international students enrolled at private training establishments penalise those providers who invest in overseas recruitment but have their students enticed away, once they arrive in New Zealand, by providers who do not invest in marketing overseas but offer much cheaper courses. A number of undesirable consequences are associated with international students changing providers shortly after they arrive in New Zealand. Overseas agents lose their commission, which reduces their enthusiasm for referring students to New Zealand in the first place. New Zealand’s reputation and the sustainability of the sector are damaged and there are immigration risks from non - bona fide students.

This bill removes the incentive for international students to change provider, by increasing the maximum amount that private training establishments can retain when providing a refund to international students who withdraw from a course of 3 months or more. The bill will enable the relevant Minister to set, through a notice in the New Zealand Education Gazette, refund provisions for international students enrolled at private training establishments for such courses. This notice will set the period during which international students can withdraw from these courses and receive a refund of their course fees, and it will set the maximum proportion of the course fees that the private training establishment may retain.

This bill also updates and clarifies the law affecting private schools in response to the Law Commission report Private Schools and the Law. The bill will update and clarify the registration criteria to provide clear standards for prospective private schools. This will ensure minimum standards for private schools’ premises, equipment, and standards of tuition, and it will ensure that all private schools are correctly registered. No regulation currently exists with regard to who can manage a private school. This bill ensures the safety and welfare of students by restricting those persons whose previous conduct or character makes their managing a private school inappropriate. The bill introduces a graduated range of sanctions to apply to private schools that breach the law or their registration conditions, and this allows for an appropriate response to minor breaches.

Finally, the current Education Act, the Education Act 1989, specifies the order in which school boards must prioritise enrolment applications via the ballot process from out-of-zone students. This bill gives some priority to the children of board members, and former pupils who have a historical family connection to the school. Currently, the legislation does not give any priority to applications from those students. This bill will improve education law across a range of areas. I am very pleased in particular that it creates greater options for study for students by opening up that secondary-tertiary interface to help fulfil the Government’s Youth Guarantee. Students will find that interface easier to negotiate, and that will facilitate their continued engagement in education. I commend the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House at its first reading.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): It is the intention of the Labour Opposition to support the referral of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) to a select committee, as long as—I say in brackets—we can get a referral motion that we agree with. Members of the House know that the Education and Science Committee generally works on a pretty much bipartisan basis on technical legislation, although we have our differences every now and again. We have a strong preference for not sitting during the sitting times of the House, and we generally either arrange our business in the adjournment breaks or deal with things expeditiously, as we are doing with Sir Roger Douglas’ bill at the moment. There is an offer to get the bill back by 1 November, and we certainly will support a motion to do that, but we will not support a motion that requires the select committee to sit during the sitting times of the House.

This bill is a mixture of technical and political matters. We disagree with some of the things in here, and we want to try to sort them out at the select committee, but on balance there are some things, including things in the private school area, that are travelling in the right direction, so it would be petty of us not to support sending the bill off. I apologise to a certain extent for focusing on some of the things on which we will seek clarification or will want to oppose.

One of the areas we want to sort out is the limited attendance centres; I think a couple of points are pretty important. One is that where children are being kept within a gymnasium, a shopping mall, or a similar type of arrangement, there should be some line of sight from the public area to where the children are being kept. I think it is a dangerous situation to have children in a room away from their parents and away from where anyone else can see what is going on in the room with someone who is supervising them, especially when that person is not qualified. A lot of centres are set up with a clear line of sight, and have windows or other arrangements where the public who are passing by can see in, or the centres are in a gymnasium, where the children can be seen by the parents who are exercising at the gym. If that is the case, I think it is good.

I have another question in that area that I think needs to be sorted out. I think it is fair to say that I am not quite as anxious about this area as some of the members who were Ministers of Education before me or in between me and the current Minister of Education, but I think it is absolutely vital that anyone who is working in one of these centres has a police check. The changes that the Minister has made appear to remove the requirement for the person who is involved to have had a police clearance. The Minister says that it does not. I have read it and I think that it does. We will have that clarified at the select committee. If it is not the intention—

Hon Anne Tolley: It’s not intended.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am pleased to hear it. We can check that and correct it if it is a problem, and if it is not a problem, we will not need to do so.

Some of my colleagues will talk a little bit about the area of secondary-tertiary programmes. I prefer to have less legislation rather than more, and my view is that in this area, the Government is able to do what it wants to do without legislation. If legislation is blocking it, we are actually better to take it out and give a more general power to approve programmes or to fund particular policies, rather than try to do it area by area, as it appears to be done now. The ability of the Government to spend money in areas in which it has policy should be pretty much untrammelled. We can argue about the policies. In fact, I think in this we might be going back and getting closer to some of the work that the previous Labour Government was doing before the election. Of course, we cannot criticise the Minister for seeing the light, but the real question I have, and I will be interested—

Hon Anne Tolley: It was all clear daylight.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, the trouble is that when one clarifies and clarifies within the law, one keeps making it really hard to do innovative things, and one runs up against it. I will be interested in the contribution at the select committee of the Hon Sir Roger Douglas as to whether he thinks that this provision is necessary, or whether a more general empowering provision would be more appropriate.

Another area that I will comment on is the enrolment provisions. I think that two loopholes are being opened up in this area by this bill. Mr Peachey and I have had discussions about enrolment legislation in the past. I think it is fair to say that we have different points of view. I will not say that he, as a principal, was the worst rorter in the system, but I would say that every now and again he used to push the limits, test the procedures, and sometimes use some of the better ideas, some of the loopholes, and some of the back alleys that some of his colleagues who were principals taught him. That is what happens when legislation has loopholes: it tends to be exploited.

I think this bill establishes a couple of loopholes. One is the right of a child of a member of a board of trustees to be enrolled, notwithstanding where the child lives. I know that this is sometimes a worst-case scenario, but when I think about these things, my default position is to ask how John Morris would deal with this. He is the principal of Auckland Grammar School. It is fair to say that I actually quite like John. I respect some of his views; I disagree with some of them. I think his students are missing the boat a bit through the overemphasis on foreign exams and their relatively poor performance in Scholarship, and I think that they could be doing better. But the point that I go back to is to ask how John would use this legislation. I know what he would do. He would see a good boy in form 2 who he thought could be an important part of his first XV going forward, so he would second the kid’s parent on to the board of trustees for a few weeks. That would let the boy into the school, and then, of course, there would be no requirement for the parent to be on the board of trustees. That can happen. Co-options to boards of trustees can happen. I wonder whether as we go forward we will put some requirement that the person has to have been on the board for a number of years. Maybe that should be a requirement.

I get most interested when I see National tending back to its British Tory ways of inherited rights. Instead of inherited seats in the House of Lords, National is promoting in this bill the right to pass on to one’s children the right to go to a school, and to one’s grandchildren, through one’s children, the right to go to that school. Despite the fact that a family might not have lived in the zone for many generations, if this system is adopted, it could well result in generation after generation of kids having the right to go to a school of their parents’ choice over and above the kids who live in the school’s neighbourhood. Clearly, there is still a zone, but, again, we know what happens to zones when there is a favourable system. I think it is fair to say that the Auckland Grammar School zone, before the tight legislation, was where the headmaster thought it was. That was effectively the way the zone was designed. Zones will shrink in order to create more places for the inherited nobles or the good football players whom people want to import into their schools. I think that area has to be sorted out.

In summary, Labour will support this bill, and if we can sort out the referral motion, we will support it going to the select committee as well.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki): I welcome Mr Mallard’s indication of support for the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). I am looking forward to chairing the Education and Science Committee’s consideration of the legislation. I suspect that there are a number of areas in the bill that will become the subject of some quite considerable robust debate, and I look forward to that. It can only be healthy. I am not sure whether Mr Mallard was praising me in his comments about my standing as a principal, but I will take as a compliment his acknowledgment of my ability to use the system that politicians presented to me in the best interests of the children in the community that I was serving.

I will talk about enrolment schemes and enrolment scheme provisions, because I had the privilege of leading schools through three steps in this process. I will begin with the introduction of Tomorrow’s Schools by the previous Labour Government, of which Mr Mallard was a member—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I wasn’t quite a member of the Government; I was just a backbencher.

ALLAN PEACHEY: He was a backbench member of the Government. I thought he might have been a whip, actually.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I was a whip. Whips are not part of the Government.

ALLAN PEACHEY: Whips do not count. OK, there we go, I say to Mr Tremain, whips do not count.

Basically, it was left to schools that needed an enrolment scheme. A school had an enrolment scheme only if it was overcrowded or in danger of being overcrowded, and that school determined whether the scheme was based on a defined geographical area or on other criteria. Many schools, like the school that I led, always had a clearly defined geographical criteria, because it was important for the board and the community that it was a community school. Towards the latter part of the 1990s the legislation was changed, and schools were required to have a geographical zone. It did not matter all that much at the school I led, because it had one anyway.

We begin to get into difficulty when we start defining geographical areas. Members should remember that it is only in respect of schools that are oversubscribed—in other words, schools whose style of education is keenly sought after by the community—that those schemes are put in place—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Or areas of rapid growth.

ALLAN PEACHEY: What tended to happen, of course, was that property in those areas took on a premium. It then became really important to look at the criteria that a school had for taking youngsters from outside that geographical area. Schools had to make individual choices as to what those criteria would be.

We move to 2001, when the Education Standards Act introduced the criteria, and it is those criteria that this bill proposes to change. Mr Mallard is right: whenever new criteria are introduced, new opportunities for loopholes to be exploited are introduced. It was no different with the 2001 legislation. I could tell this House about a whole pile of ways that people operated, but I will not as I do not have the time. For example, parents in particular—and who can blame any parent for wanting to get their child into a top school—use sibling relationships to get their child into a top school. So working around the system is by no means new. However, I will keep my personal views on what shape this should take for the select committee process. I am expecting the debate in the select committee to be robust and exciting, and for something good to come out of it on the issue of enrolment schemes. At the end of the day, the objective has to be to ensure that the maximum number of youngsters can get to the very best schools that are available.

One of the subtle shifts that I saw over time as a consequence of the 1989 legislation passed by a former Labour Government was that parents were less willing to accept the notion that they could send their kids to a school up the road, the intermediate up the road, or the high school down the street, and they would be happy with that. Those days have long since gone. I believe we face a major challenge in ensuring that good schools are available to the maximum number of youngsters possible.

I will make a couple of quick comments on the secondary-tertiary interface, in terms of technical education. I think it would be fair to say that over the last 20 years New Zealand has not done this very well. I can think back to the early 1990s when there was a huge amount of talk of an interface between secondary schools and the tertiary sector. There was variable performance. One thing that it is very important that people get their heads around is that the nature of an education in technical subjects has changed hugely. The qualities, abilities, knowledge, and skills that youngsters need to succeed in a technical education have changed greatly. I am not sure that our system has changed sufficiently quickly to keep up with that. It is my hope that the provision now to have trade academies and the interface with the tertiary sector will enhance that process. I am bound to say that on a number of occasions in other countries, particularly in the United States, I have seen schools doing quite a stunning job of the provision of technical education. New Zealand has been well behind that, not just in its provision of technical education but also, more important, in the way that it has thought about technical education and what sorts of youngsters should have access to it. I look forward to that change. Again, I believe there will be room for the select committee to debate some of those issues. There are a number of other provisions in the legislation, but other members have more than adequately covered those. For the moment, I shall confine my comments to those points. Thank you.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): First of all, Labour will support the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) to the Education and Science Committee, as long as we get some sort of referral motion correct. I was not in the House when that was talked about. I disagree with the previous speaker, Mr Peachey, on one of the points he made about making sure that as many kids as possible get to the most excellent schools. I think that the aim of the New Zealand education system should be for all schools to be excellent and for all young students to have access to excellent schools right in their own backyard. It should not be just the domain of those who are upwardly mobile to be able to attend an excellent school somewhere away from their own neighbourhood.

In the 20 months that I have been a member of Parliament, this is the third education-related bill to come through the House. The first related to the infamous national standards. Even if we are to believe the hype around the national standards, that they will be the greatest thing to lift achievement in New Zealand, even if we disregard the Auckland Primary Principals Association stance, the Southland principals’ support of the Auckland Primary Principals Association stance, the Tai Tokerau principals’ criticisms of national standards, the Parliamentary Library research paper that the Minister is quick to criticise, and the 37,000 petitioners who criticised the national standards, even if we believe that the national standards are the best thing since sliced bread, we would have expected that the second education bill to come to the House would be the second-most important bill.

Unfortunately, this second piece of legislation talked about principals not having to police vet the contractor who goes out and fixes the light switch at the back prefab. It talked about sharing information between the Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education. That legislation was a big let-down, because it did not address what all legislation in this House should be about when it comes to education—that is, how we raise achievement as quickly as we can, as high as we can.

I was hoping this Education Amendment Bill (No 2) would address that. I was hoping it would address those issues and those strategies that are known and proven by research to raise achievement the most. This is another technical bill. It does not address the most important aspects of education and it does not look to how we will raise achievement. It does not address professional development or making sure the interface between teachers and students is as good as it can be. That is how we will raise achievement.

When the Minister was thinking about what she wanted to do to raise achievement, I guess she decided that she would look at the limited attendance centres and at the places where parents who go to the shopping mall to get their hair cut, or get a manicure, or buy the groceries, or fix the lawnmowers—the places where they can leave the kids while they go off and do those things. There is no way on earth that that section of this bill will address achievement. It just makes things easier for parents to go about their daily business so they can drop the kids off somewhere and go off to buy the groceries, get their hair cut, or whatever.

Louise Upston: It’s called common sense.

KELVIN DAVIS: But it is not about education. I support the fact that parents can do that. It is a good idea, but it does not raise achievement. The Government is focusing on these technical things, yet we are neglecting what it takes to raise achievement in schools. I ask that member how many kids will learn to read, write, and do arithmetic because their parents can drop them off at some day care at a mall.

Louise Upston: Get the focus on education and don’t worry about the creche—

KELVIN DAVIS: That member opposite proves that this Government does not get education. Those members do not understand what it takes to raise achievement. When I look at the secondary-tertiary programme, I must say that I have a concern. Again, I think it is not a bad thing and we do support the legislation going to select committee. But instead of just saying that some kids are failing at secondary school so let us move them off into some other area, we should be looking at what it is that is disengaging those students from secondary school in the first place. Teachers should be resourced in order to work with those kids. Teachers should be provided with the support so that they can be excellent. It is our responsibility as legislators to provide the conditions where those excellent teachers can weave their magic for the kids.

We cannot simply say that a child has got to fourth form and he or she is a hard-to-teach student so maybe that child can be pushed off to some technical studies at the tertiary level. We all know that some kids may be better at technical stuff, but my fear is for those kids who, for whatever reason, will be pushed off and their academic abilities not stretched, simply because they are hard-to-teach kids.

We can take the instance of gifted education. Gifted education is so misunderstood, particularly in this House. There are a number of kids who present themselves as being not particularly academic, when in fact they are gifted. Schools do not have the resources, the capability, or the technology to test true giftedness. Those gifted kids are sitting in classrooms where they are bored and disengaged. The teacher believes that they are not very easy to teach, so maybe they would work better with their hands and they can go off to some technical college.

My son is 11 years of age. He is in year 7 and he is writing at level 5 of the curriculum, which is very high. My son is exceptionally bright, but he is not gifted. There are a lot of parents who think their kids are gifted, when they are actually just bright. The gifted kids in New Zealand are not being recognised. They might be able to sit for days on end and build the Eiffel Tower out of matchsticks, or a Porsche out of lawnmower parts, but when it comes to writing a couple of sentences they may not be able to do that particularly well in writing that is very legible. So the teacher thinks they have learning difficulties and might encourage them to go to the technical colleges and do something with their hands. I am scared that we will have gifted kids who are academically bright and who are educationally very, very capable who will be pushed to the side.

I am also worried that Māori kids who may be difficult to teach will be encouraged to move off to technical colleges and will not fulfil their true academic potential. I am also concerned that students from rural areas will be disadvantaged because even if they do want to be in those tertiary programmes, they will not be available for those students in their areas. Where I live in Kaitāia, there are no opportunities for kids to go off to NorthTec in Whangarei to do part of their studies there.

Labour supports this bill going to select committee. There are a number of parts to it that need further discussion, and I take my colleague Trevor Mallard’s points about the part of the bill where boards of trustees members and former students—old boys and old girls—can send their kids to a school and there is the opportunity for them to jump the queue over other people who live in the school’s zone. I think that these anomalies need to be sorted out. With that, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. It is with some reluctance that the Green Party will be opposing the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). There are a number of innocuous provisions, and in principle we support the secondary-tertiary partnership that this bill enables. Secondary school is a challenging time for many young people, and school in its conventional form is not for everyone. Too many young people become disillusioned with the school system and they leave without qualifications because their interests and learning styles are not taken account of. I have been engaging with secondary school students in a research project about learning models, and many from alternative schools—Māori and Pacific in particular—have identified the need for far more diverse and exciting learning models, but not necessarily workplace training for all. Recognising this, there is still a need to provide for learners who need to undertake workplace training and apprenticeships as secondary-tertiary partnerships do, and we see that as positive. We supported the clauses in the previous Education Amendment Bill, which allowed this initiative to be developed in Manukau. However, we have some concerns about how the partnerships may be developed.

That is not our major concern with the bill. We cannot support it as a whole. These omnibus bills are difficult because the Government tries to sneak in unpalatable changes behind positive ones. We find elements of the secondary-tertiary partnerships problematic.

I will take the parts of the bill we are concerned about one at a time. As well as setting up secondary-tertiary partnerships, this bill would exempt so-called limited attendance early childhood centres from having to comply with early childhood regulations. The excuse for this exemption is that the kids are there only for a short time and the parents are always close by. But we are concerned that this is the thin end of a wedge. We are already seeing the same Government watering down the requirements for staff to be registered teachers at all early childhood education centres. Our contacts in this sector warn us that this further change could put children and babies at risk, and could signal further erosion of the safety and quality of the sector.

Whether it is for 2 hours or 10 hours, standards of care must be met. It may be cheaper for the provider to lower standards and easy for the parents to just drop the kids off somewhere while at the gym or shopping, but the Green Party is more concerned about the standards that all children need at all times. We are unimpressed with the undermining of the early childhood education sector in terms of reducing the need for fully qualified staff, and we do not support any further weakening of the commitment to high-quality childcare in any creche or facility just because it would suit adults. It will not help the educational system, which is what this bill is allegedly set up to do.

The real minefield in this bill is the proposed enrolment provision changes. Anyone would think that the Government was trying to import private school values into the public sector. There is a particularly odious so-called minor amendment to change the enrolment priorities for out-of-zone enrolment for schools so that children of former students and board members are prioritised. We find that amendment distasteful and think it formalises an old boys’ club in a way that is neither necessary nor acceptable.

In a change that is blatantly aimed at improving the profits of private training establishments, the bill makes it harder for international students to withdraw from their courses within 10 days of starting them, by allowing the Minister to limit the refund paid to students who withdraw. The regulatory impact statement of this bill focuses entirely on the security and financial position of the private training establishments. Not once does it consider the experience of students who might arrive in Aotearoa New Zealand and find that the course they enrolled for is not what they expected. It is short-sighted and does nothing to improve the experience for these students or the long-term reputation overseas of our international education centres.

Other parts of the bill are less objectionable, such as those giving effect to the Law Commission’s recommendations about the law regarding private schools. However, many useful recommendations have been watered down in this bill, once again with the interests of private schools paramount, rather than those of students. For example, the Government has chosen not to implement the recommendation that private schools be required to comply with standard procedures for disciplining students—suspending or expelling them—because it would be onerous for private schools to have to amend or write consistent guidelines in this area. That is simply not fair for students, who may find themselves in the position of being suspended or expelled from private schools without clear guidelines or recourse to that decision. Similarly, the Law Commission’s changes have been watered down in respect of sanctions against private schools that fail to comply with lawful registration, again with the interests and convenience of the schools paramount in the Government’s mind.

Although we are broadly supportive of the changes around secondary-tertiary partnerships, we are concerned that, as drafted in this bill, these changes could pave the way for future unacceptable privatisation of parts of our public education system. We opposed the last Education Amendment Bill because it allowed bodies corporate to become statutory managers of schools in some circumstances. We saw this situation as unacceptable because it prepared the ground for public-private partnerships, which could see corporations running schools in the same way that has already happened overseas, with disastrous consequences in some cases. Now those same bodies corporate will be able to form secondary-tertiary partnerships with other private institutions in the tertiary sector. We are concerned about what this might open up in the future, given that they can be the lead provider.

We particularly object to the bill because of the provisions around enrolment. I support the comments that Kelvin Davis made about elitism and the access of local children to local schools. We particularly support the rights of local children to attend local schools, rather than protecting dynasty-based access for the privileged few, because a lot of parents and children do not have the choices to move to where the schools are. A lot of them need the high-quality public education sector that Kelvin Davis was referring to. It is not about providing real choice if we undermine the zoning issue and also the issue of local parents having access to those local schools. As somebody whose father went to Auckland Grammar School, I do not see why I should have access simply because my father went there. He lived in the zone; I did not live in that zone while I was a high school student. Why should I be privileged over the students who live in that zone? I was on a board of trustees at a particular rural school. Why should that mean that my descendants get enrolment privileges? This is all about setting up dynasties, rather than relating to local needs. The public education system is meant to be public, it is meant to be open to all students who live in that area, and it is meant to be of the highest possible quality.

Because of the range of issues that we are concerned about in this very broad bill, the Green Party will be opposing it with great reluctance, because we see the value in some of the provisions. It is unfortunate that we are in the position of yet again having to point out these things because it seems as if nobody else will. We will certainly be raising these issues at the Education and Science Committee, and are hopeful that perhaps some of our concerns will be accepted and the bill amended. We are basically concerned that this bill is not about education; it is about things like parents going to the mall. That is not what the Education and Science Committee is there to debate. The issue of whether parents go to the mall and have a nice, easy way to drop off their kids is not what we are there to do; we are there to improve the achievement levels, the diversity, the viability, and the accessibility of the public education system for all students.

We already have gaps in this society between the rich and poor. The Green Party has spoken many times about the gap, and we do not want a public education system at this time in history to reinforce that gap in any way, shape, or form.

We will watch the bill closely. We will look for good things that we can constructively assist with, but at this point we will oppose it because of the issues I have outlined. I do not speak alone; I speak with the backing of the early childhood sector and I speak with the backing of many people who work for the concept of local schools being available to local children. We will watch this space on the issue of secondary-tertiary partnerships. They could be a really good thing and we see their value, but they need to be in context and we need to see how they will be implemented before we can show support.

At this stage we have made our position clear. We also look for ways to constructively improve this legislation. I wish that more of this law was actually about education. It does not seem to be. Tēnā koe.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT): ACT will support the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). Having said that, I agree a hundred percent with Kelvin Davis when he said that this bill does little and certainly does not deal with the significant problems we have in the education system. Given that it is the third Government bill on education, one would have hoped that it would do a lot more. If we were to give it a mark out of 100, I suppose it would get a two or three in terms of importance—if we stretched it. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that will do anything to improve the quality of education. There is nothing in this bill that will do anything to help the 30 percent of kids who at the present time leave school with a poor education, and who are unable to read or write adequately.

The tragedy is that when we look at schools in poor areas, we see that that percentage is much higher. It is the poor who are getting the rawest deal. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that will solve the problem we have in South Auckland, where 10 of the schools are currently manned by police. I understand that that scheme has been recently moved into the Bay of Plenty area. There is nothing in this bill that will help the children who this year went to secondary school for the first time at a school in South Auckland, a decile 5 or 6 school, who had a test where one of the questions asked: “If you have 36 apples and subtract 27 apples, how many do you have?”, and one in four children got that wrong.

There is something terribly wrong with our education system, and it is about time that this House addressed the real issues that we are faced with and not these issues, which are largely technical in manner. The fact is that unless a family has the money to shift to another zone and buy a house in it, or can pay twice, they have no choice in this country. I think we need to do something about that. This bill does extend choice slightly. It allows for the children of parents who went to particular schools to be enrolled at those schools, but that in itself will create some anomalies, as well. The Education and Science Committee might like to think about that. I think of my own situation where I had a son who went to Auckland Grammar School and a daughter who went to Epsom Girls Grammar School.

My son’s son will now be able to go to Auckland Grammar School, but I take it that my daughter’s son will not qualify. On the other hand, my daughter’s daughter will now be able to go to Epsom Girls Grammar School, but my son’s daughter will not.

Overall, it is time that we got to grips with the education system in New Zealand. The education system absorbs the total amount of money we raise from GST, and I do not think we are getting a particularly good return. In many ways, the problems we have now were 70 years in the making, and I cannot for the life of me see why we persist with a system that has failed for 70 years. I ask why we do not think again. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. The end of the Government’s financial year sits uncomfortably close to te Matariki. It is the dawning of the Māori New Year; a time to reflect on the past and to look to the future.

The essence of this bill on education is that it is as critical to our past and essential to our future as anything else that might arise over the next century. Just over 100 years ago at the Māori Congress in 1908 Hone Heke Ngāpua, the MP from Tai Tokerau argued for the teaching of Māori in native schools and for Māori to be recognised as a subject for university entrance. Eighty years later the Matawaia Declaration called for the establishment of a fully autonomous and independent Māori education authority to secure Māori control over Māori philosophies and educational practices. Just 9 years ago, Tūwharetoa chief Tumu te Heuheu called a Hui Taumata Mātauranga to bring together proposals for a separate tino rangatiratanga Māori education authority, a new Māori Education Act, and a Minister of Māori Education.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, he didn’t. That’s just not true. He rejected it. Pita Sharples put it up and the chief said no. I was there.

HONE HARAWIRA: Central to all of these themes is our desire to give our kids a good start in life. Mr Mallard should open his ears. At no time did I say he approved it; I just said it was to bring together proposals. If Mr Mallard would just keep his mouth shut and his ears open he might hear and he might understand.

We want to give kids a range of options for their future within an environment where schools engage with whānau to develop models of success and innovation. In order to ensure that Māori needs are genuinely met, we want to see more Māori language teachers in all schools, as well. So this bill raised a few hopes, given that it targets early childhood, secondary, and tertiary programmes, private schools, and international students. But the reality is that every year Ngā Haeata Mātauranga - Annual Report on Māori Education says that most schools are still struggling to meet the educational needs of Māori students.

The first proposal in this bill is about early education. That is OK because 76 percent of all Māori kids are in mainstream early education centres. A few weeks back the Education Review Office report Success for Māori Children in Early Childhood Services noted that only a third of services were helping Māori children to achieve. In other words, two-thirds simply did not have effective processes in place to help Māori kids grow or even identify whether what they were doing for Māori kids was any good. So I was disappointed to note that the proposal in this bill was focused more on care arrangements in shopping malls and gyms than on education. We are OK with exempting these short-stop centres from full licensing standards as long as they still meet all the health and safety standards and have proper management in place, but it is hardly the change we are looking for to help Māori children to learn.

The second proposal to provide more opportunities for secondary school students to spend time learning in a tertiary environment or in the workplace is a great idea, and one that many wharekura and secondary schools are already embracing. In fact, it was the feature story in the 2007-08 ngā haeata mātauranga. One of Ngāpuhi’s boys, Sam Henare, was head boy of Aotea College out in Porirua and also involved in Youth Apprenticeships. According to Sam the scheme gave him the real-life experience he needed to pursue an electrical apprenticeship—a combination of school, the employer, and the ElectroTechnology Industry Training Organisation.

The third proposal is about establishing a fit and proper person requirement for managers of private schools—to make sure that they are not crooked, crock, or bankrupt. Again it is hardly a seismic shift in educational thinking. Sure some 1,500 Māori kids are in private schools and them and their mates deserve to have decent people looking after them. But private schools are doing pretty well, actually, particularly given the $35 million doled out to them by the Government in 2009.

The fourth proposal is to refund course fees for international students who leave their courses before they are completed. Good on them, but it does not do anything to enhance Māori education.

The $7 million spent on He Kākano to provide new forms of teaching and learning to lift Māori student achievement is great, but teaching Pākehā teachers that they can get more out of their Māori students if they understand them better through Te Kotahitanga programme is a great idea, as well. But there is a whole heap more we would like to see, too: more commitment to kura kaupapa, such as matching the $35 million for private schools in next year’s Budget; a dedicated and successful Māori language teachers recruitment strategy; the development of curriculum based around local hapū and iwi; more structured and positive engagement with whānau; and strong mentoring programmes to increase Māori participation and success in tertiary education, to name just a few areas.

This morning I chaired the Māori Affairs Committee inquiry into the tobacco industry. Two rangatahi spoke to our committee and I invited them to come and sit alongside us during the presentation from Philip Morris (New Zealand). The young man had a wonderful name, made famous by the Jim Croce song “Bad, Bad Leroy Brown”, and he gave a very strong and stirring presentation about the impact of the tobacco industry on him, his parents’ generation, and his grandparents’ generation. The young woman, Mahinaarangi Torrey, was also an excellent example of what can be achieved when Māori students are encouraged to believe that their Māoriness really is something special. She was well-educated, well-presented, well-spoken—a beautiful speaker in both English and Māori—and a credit to her school, her whānau, her hapū, and her iwi. She is an example of what positive education for Māori can mean.

Although we will be supporting this bill, we would have liked to see more emphasis on excellence than on logistics. I would like to close by telling a little story about a Minister of Education who came to Mangamuka marae some years ago and who stood up to talk about schools and Māori education. Māori principals had been there for some hours before he had arrived and their talk had been really positive; it was a great experience. Then the Minister came. He talked about Māori education and he was getting everybody really, really depressed. I leaned across to a principal and I said: “How come he’s talking like that?”. He leaned over to me and said: “That’s what they call the deficit model.”

So when I got a chance to talk I stood up and I said to him: “Minister, please don’t ever come to my school because we don’t operate our school on the deficit model. We operate on the basis that excellence should be normal and that everything we do should be aimed towards achieving that, not teaching kids that you are dumb because your parents are dumb, you’re probably going to be a thief because some of your cousins might have been thieves.” That kind of thinking is very destructive thinking. I am not a principal but my wife was, so I was able to sit in and listen to the kōrero, and how depressing that guy was when it came to talking about Māori education. I sincerely hope that we never ever get a Minister of Education like that again.

Louise Upston: Who was it?

HONE HARAWIRA: That Minister’s name was Trevor Mallard. Kia ora tātou.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to follow the speaker from the Māori Party, who spoke so inspirationally about achievement and where excellence should sit. It is a pleasure to speak in the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), and in doing so to be part of an energetic, aspirational Government that is making a difference.

It does not take much to figure out the argument from members opposite. They had 9 years in office and they left a wreck of an education system. When members wax lyrically about what should be done, we start to understand that obviously they were not here during the wretched, dying days of the previous Labour administration. Those members expounded on why there were changes. The point I make to them is that it is the nanny State provisions in the Education Act 1989 that we are trying to unwind. Those members over there mucked around with, and created chaos in, the education system.

We have a hard-working and busy Government at the moment. It is improving the education system and moving it into the 21st century. We heard from the ACT speaker before that there is 30 percent underachievement with regard to literacy and numeracy. This Government is very focused on education. It is very focused on the importance of getting the foundation skills right. This bill goes a step further towards making sure there is a step change in achievement.

Literacy and numeracy are crucial. They are a foundational requirement. For one’s students to have good literacy and numeracy skills, one has to emphasise to one’s students the importance of engagement. That is why we started with the basis of national standards and why we have added to that the Youth Guarantee scheme, which enables 16 and 17-year-olds to go into tertiary education and to continue to learn and to develop those skills. Unfortunately, what we find on the other side of the House is that the Labour Opposition is running nothing more than obstruction to a lot of the incredibly positive projects coming from the Government at the moment.

So what will this bill do? Is the next generation a step change? I want to focus on trades academies. Trades academies are very important. If we have a problem in this country—as alluded to by the very able chair of the Education and Science Committee, Allan Peachey—it is that we have languished when it comes to valuing technical qualities, technical skills, and trades. When we look at countries in the OECD that we would like to compare ourselves with, we see that they are a country mile ahead of us.

A comment that could be levelled at the education system is that over the last decade we have had a bias towards academia. New Zealand has undervalued the trades and skills. I am enthusiastic about the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), because it builds the framework of the trades academies. Trades academies are very important. They are the link between compulsory education and the tertiary interface. One example comes to my mind from the time we were going the around the country and listening to the people 3 years ago. The message that came through quite clearly is that unless students can see the relevance and the purpose of education, they will invariably disengage from it. It is with great enthusiasm that I support the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). The secondary-tertiary interface and trades academies will build up an ability to hook kids into education because they will see the very relevance of being literate and numerate.

I take this opportunity to talk about two fantastic people who assisted us in developing the trades academies model. They are Stewart Thompson and Stuart Middleton. We have already seen the success emanating out of the Manukau Institute of Technology. This really does interface with an institute of technology and up to 20-odd other colleges surrounding the South Auckland area. It is a great model, and one that we wholeheartedly support.

When I hear other members in the House say that this bill does nothing for education, I totally disagree with them. This bill does an enormous amount for education, achievement, and people realising their goals and ambitions. It values the skills, the trades, and the technical ability of people who would otherwise be considered to be less than achievers. This bill is a very positive bill. We will enjoy working with it at the select committee. It is good to see that there is a level of collegiality around it.

Finally, I will address the point raised by the Green member, who mentioned the private training establishments and not thinking about students when it comes to the overseas student category of the private training establishments. It became very obvious to us—on this side of the House anyway—that a level of enticement was being used by certain private training establishments to attract away overseas students from those organisations that had committed themselves and had built up a good reputation in attracting overseas students.

I believe that this legislation is very appropriate and that it will endeavour to address the gulling that goes on in terms of the overseas student situation. The bill will reinforce those people who are prepared to back themselves and build up a good international reputation. It is a pleasure to support the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) during its first reading debate. I support it, and I recommend that the House does likewise.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It is an odd feeling for me to stand in this House and say that I support something that Sir Roger Douglas said. He rated the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) at two or three out of 100.

Louise Upston: Out of five, it was.

GRANT ROBERTSON: No, it was out of a hundred. Louise Upston is trying to rewrite history on the other side of the House. That is what she wants, but Sir Roger Douglas said it was two or three out of 100. As have other speakers from the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the Māori Party, he recognised that this bill lacks ambition. Once upon a time, the National Party said it was ambitious for New Zealand, but this bill does very, very little to be ambitious for New Zealand. It does very little to say: “Education is important. We think it is one of the most important things to unlocking the future potential of New Zealand.” Instead, once again, National comes to this House with a technical bill that does very little.

Louise Upston was complaining earlier on about bureaucracy, but that is the main achievement in this bill. It is creating a bit more bureaucracy with the secondary-tertiary partnership. That is the achievement of this bill. This bill does not give us a vision for the future of education. The education policy of this Government is hopelessly bogged down in national standards. It is hopelessly bogged down in a policy that principals in Auckland saw as flawed, as not given a proper process, and as something that parents were not able to contribute to—

Louise Upston: Talked to a parent lately? Talk to a parent; they think it’s great.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I have talked to plenty of parents, I say to Louise Upston, all around my electorate. They are concerned that the National Government has become so focused on national standards, and so focused on meeting this election promise that it made, that it has lost the plot when it comes to quality education. It has lost the plot when it comes to making sure that schools are creating an environment that young people can thrive in.

I am sorry to say that this Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, has lost the plot on national standards. Today we discovered that the Parliamentary Library put out a good information paper on national standards. But Mrs Tolley did not like it, so it is being pulled. It is being pulled from—

Hon Trevor Mallard: What? What?

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. It has been taken down from the Parliamentary Library website because Mrs Tolley did not like it. That is censorship. That is what that is, and I believe it to be unacceptable behaviour from a Minister. It shows just how bogged down this Government is when it comes to education. It is totally bogged down, and national standards are a flawed policy that it cannot implement properly.

What we are left with from this Government is a largely technical bill. As we have already said, Labour will support it being sent to the Education and Science Committee. We have some misgivings about several areas, and Mr Mallard and Kelvin Davis have outlined those, but we recognise the importance of putting this to the select committee so that we can sort it out.

In principle, the secondary-tertiary interface is fine. It is important that we support people to find their way through those later years of secondary education, when the environment they are in may not be appropriate for them. Obviously, when Labour was in Government, it had the Schools Plus policy. That policy was designed to work on the issues that are being raised in this bill. It was designed to ensure we were managing peoples’ transition through secondary school, into training, and on into work, and ensuring they had the support to do that. It is all very well to have a well-organised situation for those people, but, in the end, if the money is not there, if the funding is not there, and if the real support for those programmes is not there, then it will not work.

Unfortunately, that is what we are seeing from the National Government. We have seen funding cut for literacy and numeracy programmes. Gateway funding has been frozen; it is stagnant, and, as a result, with the cost increases that are being faced there, it is effectively a cut. There will be fewer places available for people who are in that programme. Youth Training funding has been cut by over $3 million this year. We on this side of the House have considerable doubts about whether the Youth Guarantee scheme is really working and whether it is actually getting students into training. The jury is certainly still out on that. The $2.5 million Skill Enhancement programme has been stopped. That was a programme that provided a pathway for Māori and Pasifika students to gain qualifications at level 3. Grants of $2.8 million for at-risk youth have been cut. It is all very well to set up, as this bill does, a process for managing the secondary-tertiary interface, but if there is no funding for those programmes, and if those programmes are not being supported properly, then what is the point? There is no point in that.

I pick up the comment that Kelvin Davis made earlier that we need to continue to focus on the quality of schools. We cannot just assume that if someone is not succeeding at school, we can create a programme and away that person will go. We need to make sure that schools are being supported to deal with students who are difficult or who are struggling, and, yes, from time to time they will need to move into those kinds of programmes. We want to see that schools are being supported to provide that quality environment and ensure that students succeed. Obviously, we can see some of the value of the secondary-tertiary interface. My colleague Mr Mallard suggested that perhaps it is just unnecessary bureaucracy, and he asked whether there really needs to be this arrangement. Could it not be done through policy changes? That is something the select committee will be able to look at. In general, and in principle, we support the notion of supporting people through these kinds of programmes, but we would like to make sure that the National Government understands the importance of having secondary schools delivering quality programmes, of ensuring that the programmes meet the needs of students, and of moving students into those programmes only when that is necessary and perhaps is not being done.

A couple of the other elements that people have raised here concern the question of the limited attendance centres. As Mr Mallard said, that question is one that needs to be clarified when the bill goes to the select committee. We have had an assurance from the Minister today that the concerns Mr Mallard has raised were not intended, and that is good, but we will need to make sure that the wording of the bill picks that up. I share the concerns of Catherine Delahunty on the particular point about the direction the legislation is showing—the direction away from the quality agenda in early childhood education. Mr Harawira was quite critical before of Mr Mallard as an education Minister, but I want to say one thing in this House, and put it on the record: there has not been a Minister of Education in New Zealand for a very long time who has paid as much attention to early childhood education as Trevor Mallard has. He made sure that early childhood education was respected, was professionalised, and had resources put towards it. New Zealand will be far the better in the future for the work of Mr Mallard in early childhood education, unless we go further down the path that Mrs Tolley wants to go down of taking away from the quality agenda. Although that particular provision probably is OK with that clarification, we are seeing more and more in early childhood education that the National Government does not see it as an important part, an important first step, in quality education. Rather, it sees it as some form of child-minding. That is not a direction we should be going in; we should be continuing on the path that Mr Mallard went down with early childhood education.

A number of other speakers have referred to the question of enrolment schemes and the proposed additional criteria there. I have concerns about that. It is a difficult area for a lot of parents. People obviously want their children to go to good-quality schools. We all want that, and we all want them to be able to go to good-quality, local schools. The focus should always be to make sure that excellent schools are available for everybody, but the additional enrolment priorities that have been put into the legislation start to skew the playing field. Adding the children of former students is the fourth priority, and making the children of board employees eligible is the fifth priority. That is starting to push us into some sort of sense of entitlement, which may be based on something incredibly historical if people have not lived in an area for a long time. It also, as Mr Mallard says, opens up the potential for loopholes, in terms of the children of boards of trustees members, if those people are appointed to boards for very short periods of time. I do not think that that clause is designed to undermine enrolment schemes, but it certainly does not help them and it certainly does not go in a direction that I think is positive.

Just briefly in the time remaining to me, I will refer—and I know that my colleague David Shearer will refer more to this—to the changes in relation to international students and private training establishments being able to recoup some more money. I have two concerns there. Again, the first is a directional concern. Steven Joyce came to the Education and Science Committee to talk about Vote Tertiary Education last week. During that appearance, he started to talk about trying to rebalance funding to go more in the direction of private training establishments. I think our priority has to be our public education system. Private training establishments have a role in our tertiary education system, but I think we have to prioritise public institutions. I am concerned again about a general direction—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Why?

GRANT ROBERTSON: Because public institutions are available for everyone, I tell Mr Williamson. That is why, and we have invested in those public institutions, over generations, to make them good. Private tertiary establishments have a role, but they do not need to be prioritised. That is what we are perhaps seeing in the direction of this bill.

Overall, I think this bill has some technical changes that Labour can support, but we have concerns about it. However, it is simply not ambitious for New Zealand, as National would like us to believe that its legislation is. It does not take education anywhere, and it continues Mrs Tolley’s unfortunate path of being bogged down in national standards instead of being focused on quality education for all New Zealanders.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): It is great to be able to speak on any bill that improves education, and the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) is another one that this National-led Government has brought into the House. The point I will make in my opening remarks is that this legislation provides valuable and common-sense changes to back up the massive investment this Government is putting into education.

If anyone was listening to the previous speaker from the Opposition, Grant Robertson, they might think that this Government was cutting spending in education. But I put on the record National’s $12 billion spend; the largest spend in education ever—$12 billion. This Government is investing $12 billion in education because we know how critical it is for our future.

There are a number of changes in the five broad areas that this bill addresses, but I will focus on just two today. I will focus on the changes in the limited attendance centres, and also on the enrolment changes, because that was the subject of a member’s bill that I have had in the ballot for months; I am delighted that it was picked up as part of this Government bill.

Looking first at the early childhood changes, I remind the House that this Government is putting in an extra $107 million this year alone to increase participation rates. But the particular change in this bill looks at—and we need to get this in context—the situation where mum or dad goes to a shopping mall, a swimming pool, or a gym for a short period of time; for example, for less than 2 hours. They want to drop off their children in a supervised area to be looked after, to be cared for. When I go to a gym and I drop off my children, I do not expect that they will be taught how to read theses on whatever the Labour Opposition think they are going to learn in the short period of time that their parents are at the gym.

This bill is about common sense. It is about removing PC nonsense and bureaucracy from the education system, so that the system can focus on lifting achievement rather than on dotting the i’s and ticking off whether a swimming pool’s creche is licensed. That is just outrageous. So that is where the focus is; the focus is on bringing some sense rather than nonsense into the system.

I just remind members that these centres are casual. The child is dropped off for less than 2 hours at a shopping mall, swimming pool, or gym. I know as a parent that that service is really important. It is very valuable, and we want to make sure that families are able to have access to it. Parents are never far away; they are within proximity. If we look at the bill we see that the provision is in there, under clause 18: “none of whom attends for any period exceeding 2 hours … where the children’s parents or caregivers are (i) in close proximity … and (ii) able to resume responsibility for the children at short notice:”. Parents can easily attend if they need to.

We are also talking about early childhood centres at churches. One of the impacts of the 2006 changes is that some of those facilities were forced to close. How was that good for parents? How was that good for choice?

Hon Trevor Mallard: Where? Name one.

LOUISE UPSTON: Mr Mallard talked before, two days in a row, about the mistakes Labour had admitted to making. So I am thrilled that those members are supporting us today in taking this legislation to a select committee.

There were petitions up and down the country; there was absolute outrage when that change was made. We are just reversing it and bringing some common sense into the debate.

I will come to the school enrolment scheme priorities. As I said before, that was the subject of a member’s bill I had in the ballot, which specifically made changes to improve parents’ choice. I will say a couple of things about it. We are talking about giving out-of-zone students a chance at getting into a school they would otherwise not have any hope of getting into. I will talk specifically about the extension that gives priority of enrolment to children of school board members, just like to the children of teachers. That makes sense. There is a connection for the board member, there is a connection for the teacher, so it makes sense for their children to get priority to attend that school. I will also talk about the children of former students. If we consider former students and their children, we see they have a strong connection, a historical connection, to the school and therefore they should get priority for enrolment.

There have been some discussions today about the importance of children going to school in their local areas. Well, sometimes there is a challenge. If there are no single-sex schools in a parent’s area and that parent wants his or her child to go to a single-sex school, there is very little choice for them. There will be some members of this House and some people listening today who do not believe we have gone anywhere near wide enough on that issue. But it is a step for parents. I am on the side of parents and of making sure that they have some choices. That measure gives priority to the children of former students and to the children of current board members as well as to the children of teachers of the school—the existing priority. Those are two important changes.

I close as I started by just reminding the House that education is a top priority for this Government, as it is for me personally. We have invested $12 billion in education, which is the highest investment ever. So I am really pleased that this bill is supported around the House. This bill is about common sense. It is about getting value for what we do. It is about lifting achievement so that New Zealand does better. Thank you.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I am pleased to take a call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), and I am pleased that Labour is supporting it. But, let us face it, this bill is not a revolutionary, visionary, aspirational piece of legislation. This bill tinkers around the edges, tidies things up, and closes some loopholes. It is certainly nothing more than that, and if we look at the five or six things it proposes to do, we see that, in a sense, that is all it does.

I will pick up on a couple of things that Government members have hit on this evening. Obviously parents should be able to send their kids to the best schools they possibly can, but our education system should be about making all schools the best, not having super-schools and trying to police entry into those super-schools. It should be about raising the standard of schools throughout New Zealand.

I have two very big schools in my electorate: Mt Albert Grammar School and Avondale College. They are two of the biggest schools in New Zealand. Avondale College has 2,600 students and Mt Albert Grammar School has 2,300. Certainly, with Mt Albert Grammar School there is a long waiting list to get in, and the school takes only a few out-of-zone students. The point is that the schools are good right throughout that region, and there are very few bad schools. As a result, although some parents choose to put their kids in Mt Albert Grammar School, they have the choice of other schools in the area that will give their children a first-class education.

The other issue I raise is the preoccupation with national standards. Perhaps the only thing people will remember of this Government will be national standards. Let us look at what is happening at the moment in the United States with what we could broadly call national standards. I am talking about George Bush’s No Child Left Behind policy, which purports to do many of the same things that this Government’s national standards purport to do. The US is more or less throwing that policy out. It has been loudly and widely criticised and undermined by academics and practitioners alike who are saying that it is not the way to go forward.

Now the US education system is looking at how much progress children are making from the time they enter school to the time they finish. This was brought up by a head teacher at one of the primary schools in my electorate, who said new entrants come to his school with an English reading age of a 3-year-old. His school has to take those kids, and by the time they leave that school they will have an English reading age and a speaking age that are appropriate to their age.

Jacqui Dean: National standards!

Hon Nathan Guy: National standards—terrific!

DAVID SHEARER: In other words his school has lifted those kids’ abilities by 2 years. That is terrific. I am pleased that members on the other side of the House think it is good.

The only problem is that for years 2, 3, and 4 that school will be seen to be failing under national standards, because the kids will be below where they should be. It has nothing to do with the quality of the school—the quality of the school is excellent. But because of the ridiculous way in which national standards are measured, that school will be seen to be not fulfilling what it is expected of it in terms of years 2, 3, and 4. That was the concern that that principal raised with me.

I will speak on two or three of the key aspects of this legislation. One is the secondary-tertiary interface, and my colleague Grant Robertson has mentioned it as well. I think this measure provides more opportunity for students. As a former teacher I have seen children who did not cope terribly well at school and had difficulty progressing to tertiary education. This bill enables that progression to happen more easily. An amendment brought in last year allowed the Manukau Institute of Technology to provide a secondary-tertiary programme, and this bill amends that provision to make it more universal. I think it was Colin King who mentioned Stuart Middleton, who was running that course and showed it to be a very effective way of progressing kids from secondary school to a technical institute. Actually, Stuart Middleton is a former teacher of mine. That type of role—

Hon Trevor Mallard: He learnt afterwards. He got better as time went by.

DAVID SHEARER: He progressed as time went on, yes. He has gone on to much better things after that particular experience.

I raise the same question that Mr Mallard brought up before. Do we need special legislation for this? Why can we not allow this to occur within the confines of the community involved? I think that is an issue we will bring up at the Education and Science Committee as it looks at the bill.

The second issue in relation to this legislation is that of international students. This bill makes some useful technical changes. It enables a technical institute to bring in fees that will stop the gulling—that is a good term that Mr King used—of students. In other words, it will stop them going from one technical institute to another and costing the first technical institute a great deal of money. It also will close the loophole whereby people are coming into New Zealand to enrol in a technical institute and using that as an excuse to enter New Zealand.

The international student industry is a huge industry for New Zealand. It is a $2 billion industry that has grown incredibly rapidly, and it is now extraordinarily important to our trade and our relationships with other countries, particularly in Asia. Many of those students who come here to study will go back to wherever they came from—China, Korea, and, increasingly, India at the moment—and the connections that they have created here will be fostered through, for example, business. The real issue is that we are now seeing a reliance on overseas students to, effectively, subsidise the very institutions that we want to send our kids to. In fact, many of our own students find it more difficult to get into New Zealand institutions than overseas students do. Effectively, we are using international students as a default way of funding priorities for our educational system. Despite the so-called record amounts of money going into education, we are simply not putting enough money into tertiary education.

Finally, I shall touch on private schools and some of the legislation concerning them. The Law Commission looked at this issue under the previous Labour Government, in 2008, and made a number of recommendations. The commission did not say that we needed wholesale change, but it did say that we definitely needed to lift some of the regulations around who can run a private school and for what purpose. That legislation was brought into force in 1921. It is pretty outdated and it is pretty vague in terms of both the regulations on schools and guidance for schools. Currently there are 97 private schools in New Zealand, and this legislation at least addresses some of the shortcomings identified by the Law Commission.

The great thing about private schools is that they do not have to adhere to national standards. That must be a real incentive for teachers now to go to private schools. They are 80 percent funded by the State. The prominence being given to private schools was reinforced last year when this Government gave $35 million to private schools, then promptly cut the amount of money it put into adult education. We can see what is happening in the education system,

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): There are some excellent provisions in the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). First of all, introducing secondary-tertiary programmes to give greater opportunities for secondary students to spend time learning in a tertiary environment is a fantastic measure, particularly for those young men at school who are turned off education. All they want to do is to get out there and build things or take an engine apart, and to then build a career as a mechanic or a builder. I think this is a fantastic measure.

I completely support the exemption of limited attendance centres from early childhood education licensing standards. Does that not just make sense?

I support entirely the change in refund provisions for international students. If they change their minds after a certain period of time, they can have their fees, or a portion of them, refunded. I support certainly the updating and clarification of the law affecting private schools.

This is good legislation. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first 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 first time.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I move, That the Education and Science Committee consider the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 November 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have laid on the Table of the House an amendment to that motion. I do not know whether I have to formally move it. It has to be placed on the Table of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was unaware that there was an amendment to the motion. I have not completed putting the question. Before I put the motion, we have an amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. Is the member going to move the amendment?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I do not think I have to move it formally. I think it has been moved by placing it on the Table of the House. That is the advice I have received. It has now been brought to the attention of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member needs to move it.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Just to help, my amendment says that after the word “Committee”—and I think it is part-way through what the Minister has moved—the words “and that the committee be instructed to report specifically on whether the provisions in clause 11 could be amended to resolve the outstanding issue relating to the funding of the Performing Arts Centre at King’s High School, Dunedin,” be inserted.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended by adding after “Committee”, “and that the committee be instructed to report specifically on whether the provisions in clause 11 could be amended to resolve the outstanding issue relating to the funding of the Performing Arts Centre at King's High School, Dunedin,”.

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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not absolutely certain that Mr Harawira’s vote was either translated the right way, or that he was properly cognisant of the way that he voted. I think he voted for us, when he meant to vote against us.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is for the member to decide. We will not pursue that matter further.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Science Committee consider the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 November 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

Ayes 69

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

Noes 53

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

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Courts (Remote Participation) Bill

In Committee

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave for the Committee stage of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill to be debated as one question, with multiple calls.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action?

Hon Trevor Mallard: By multiple calls, does the senior Government whip means unlimited calls?

Chris Tremain: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Is everybody clear? No one is opposed to the leave? Leave is granted.

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Firstly, I am a wee bit disappointed that this bill has been brought before the Committee of the whole House today. I think that this is one of those bills that abrogates a civil liberty that we all currently enjoy, so it would have been better for the Government to bring something else up on the Order Paper. This bill had its second reading just yesterday, and I think it would have been a good idea for the Government to take a breath on this and to have a think about the issues that the Opposition has been raising.

I say to Mr Williamson, the Minister in the chair, that this is a serious issue. He and I, and everyone else in New Zealand, currently have the right to attend the trial if we are accused of a crime. This bill makes that right conditional, in that a judge can exercise discretion to conduct a substantive hearing, without the accused being present. Mr Bridges said yesterday that he thought the Opposition was over-egging it, and made reference to some cases where he said that this already happens. I thank Mr Bridges for his efforts. I read the reference to the cases that he forwarded, which came from Adams on Criminal Law. The cases that he referred to were ones where the accused was deliberately absenting himself or herself from the trial, which is quite different. What is being proposed here is where the accused wants to attend the trial, the judge will still have the discretion to disallow that appearance. There is no good public policy reason for that.

I ask the Minister of Justice, as I asked the Minister yesterday, to give us an example of where there is a problem that needs to be cured. This is curing an illusory problem. There is no problem with the current system. All parties in this House agree that using audiovisual links for bail applications or adjournments can be appropriate in some cases where the defendant or the accused does not agree. But where the Opposition parties, including the Greens and Labour, disagree is in respect of a substantive hearing.

I want the Minister to say why he thinks it is justified that an accused will lose the automatic right to face his or her accuser. I ask members to think of how that is relevant. If I am the accused, and the main witness for the prosecution has to stare at me, contemplating perjury, with the consequence of my imprisonment, it might make the prosecution witness a bit more edgy if I, the accused, am standing there in front of him or her. That edginess would reflect in the weight or the truthfulness that the judge or the jury would find in respect of that evidence. The right of the accused to have that effect on witnesses ought not to be taken away from the accused in any situation.

Similarly, other things can go wrong in a court, which the accused has a right to see. Who on the jury is falling asleep? Did the judge fall asleep? Is there a cosy relationship between the lawyer who is acting for the accused, and the prosecution? Is that relationship so cosy that the accused does not feel that his or her interests are being properly represented? What about the case of the accused who wants to personally conduct his or her own case? What about the case where the accused, halfway through a trial, might want to dump his or her lawyer and personally represent himself or herself in the case? What about the case where someone sitting in the gallery starts to wave a sign around that is prejudicial to the interests of the accused? The accused will not be there to see it. There will be one camera, and the accused will never know it has happened. What about the accused who is sitting in a prison somewhere, on the end of an audiovisual link, who has to put up with interference from prison guards? That will happen sometimes too, at least possibly.

All of these things are theoretical possibilities that show that an injustice can come as a consequence of us abrogating the unconditional right that people currently have to attend their own trial. That right is unconditional and at present they have a right to be there, unless they abuse the privilege. If they abuse the privilege and they start interfering in the court process, then of course the judge already has the right to control his or her court. If someone acts in contempt, that person can be stood down, sent to the cells, locked up, or imprisoned.

That is the situation where the defendant or the accused is there and abusing the process. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about giving discretion to the judge to find an accused in a trial of a substantive criminal matter, who could be facing a very long term of imprisonment, not to have the right to be present at his or her own trial. That is what the Law Society objects to, that is what the Human Rights Commission objects to, and that is what the Labour Party objects to.

I hope that Mr Garrett from ACT will be reflecting upon this, because to face one’s accuser is a basic civil liberty. This can be so easily fixed by agreeing to Supplementary Order Paper 149 in my name, and there is a similar Supplementary Order Paper from Kennedy Graham. It states that this discretion to have a trial in the absence of the accused should not ever be used without the consent of the accused—if the accused consents, that is fine—in a substantive criminal matter.

I am even a bit nervous about that being able to be done in appeals. I cannot fix that in this legislation. But certainly on a substantive matter, I cannot see the justification. This is a civil liberty that has been in existence for centuries—the right of an accused to face his or her accuser and the right for a trial to take place in their presence.

There was no evidence at the Justice and Electoral Committee of there being a problem that needed to be fixed. With respect to the officials, this is a mistake that has come out of the Ministry of Justice, which has confused the need for administrative efficiency and cost-effectiveness in respect of interlocutory matters, call-overs, and bail applications, and it has allowed that interest to outweigh what I think should be an unconditional right to attend one’s own hearing.

I am dismayed that the Ministry of Justice found that this did not even breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act states that one of our basic freedoms is the right to attend our trial—not the right to appear at a trial via videoconference, but the right to attend a trial. Somehow the Attorney-General, on advice, has found that that does not breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and it did not require a vetting of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I really am astounded by that.

I ask the Minister in charge of the bill to take a call in response to this issue. I cannot see the justification for this, in respect of substantive matters. These are not matters of politics. In fact, Labour voted in favour of this bill at its first reading. It was not until we got to the select committee and realised it was going to apply to substantive criminal matters that we saw the problem. I would have hoped that this is an area where one would not erode civil liberties lightly. If the Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, and the Opposition are saying that this is wrong, but in 99 percent of the cases where it will be applied it will be right, then let us just leave out the 1 percent of the cases where it might be applied. It is just wrong; it is bad law. I feel that this is a serious incursion into civil liberties. There are better judges and there are poorer judges. There are times when judges come under political pressure, and there are times when judges have had prior experiences of the accused and do not like them. There are times when juries misbehave, and there are times when counsel misbehave.

It is the right of the accused to attend his or her trial. If I were the accused, I would feel a terrible sense of injustice if I were prevented from attending my own trial. I would not feel that I had been properly able to protect my interests against the State. The State has all the power here. It has all the money. It has the resources of the police, the resources of the Crown Law Office, and it can pay for as many witnesses as it wants. The State can make trials expensive, or it can make them long. It does not need the extra power to deprive the accused of their right, unconditionally, to attend their trial. I am not talking about defendants who abscond in the middle of a trial. That is OK; they do not want to be there.

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

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I wish to challenge the Government to explain to the Committee why this legislation is being pursued in the way that it is. We had the second reading debate of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill yesterday, and in that debate members on this side of the Chamber made it very clear that only one element of this bill stood in the way of unanimity in terms of its passage through this House—just one factor—which is in relation to the use of the audiovisual link in substantive proceedings in front of the court, where the accused has the right to be present at the trial.

I made the point in my submission that the bill should have been vetted by the Attorney-General. I relied specifically on that occasion on parts of the Human Rights Commission submission—which I do not now have in front of me, and that is why I am struggling to refer to it. Instead of referring to that submission, I will refer to the New Zealand Law Society submission, because it made the same point as the Human Rights Commission. The point is that this bill should have been the subject of a vet under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the fact that it got through the system without having a question mark raised—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Another slackness from the Attorney-General.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Well, I do not think that the Attorney-General took as much notice of this particular provision as he should have. That is a problem, because the legislation clearly breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The New Zealand Law Society submission makes that clear, as does the submission of the Human Rights Commission. I think that the submission of the Human Rights Commission should have been relatively compelling, in terms of the obligations of a Government—or an Attorney-General, in this case—to put on the Table of this House a report noting the inconsistency. And there is inconsistency. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act states absolutely explicitly that there is an obligation, in terms of being present in court, to have an individual present at his or her trial. That is a right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. There is an absolute obligation for the Government to take heed of that. I do not believe for a minute that we should let go of something that forms the basis of the rule of law we believe is so fundamental to our democracy here in New Zealand, and that we should allow this bill to continue in the way that it is proceeding.

I was incredibly disappointed that the Government had put this bill on the Order Paper for its Committee stage today. Why would the Government do that? We raised all of these issues in the second reading yesterday. I was absolutely shocked to find that this bill was down for its Committee stage today, because I felt that the Minister of Justice was prepared at least to listen. But, no, there has been no listening, at all. In fact, suddenly, there is a desire to push this bill through. What is the urgency? I ask why we cannot take the time to report this bill back and essentially deal with what is a very fundamental issue.

The Government has completely ignored the submission of the Human Rights Commission—my copy has come back; miraculously, it is now in front of me—but the point that the commission makes, and which I think is the most important thing, is that the bill does not comply with certain rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is “incompatible with the international human rights instruments, particularly the right to a fair and public hearing, the right to be tried ‘in his presence’, and the right of the accused to defend himself in person;”.

But the most important point—and I think that this is the point at which the Minister was starting to listen—is that the rights that are destroyed by this bill are those that attach to the victim; the victim has the right to confront an accused. If the accused is able to avoid his or her responsibility in fronting up to the court—as the Human Rights Commission states, both at the first instance and then at the trial itself—there is no question in my mind that the victim is having his or her rights reduced by the Government’s decision to allow that to be done without consent. It is simply unacceptable to members on this side of the Chamber for the Government to be switching the onus and saying, essentially, that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act can be overruled in this way.

Two Supplementary Order Papers have been tabled to address this issue, as I understand it. One is in the name of the Hon David Parker, and the other is in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham. David Parker’s Supplementary Order Paper 149 has the advantage of simplicity. It adds a new clause 9(2), which states simply: “Despite subsection (1), AVL must not be used in any criminal substantive matter for the appearance of the defendant unless the defendant consents to the use.” That resolves all of the problems, and it actually addresses the issues that the Government was raising with this bill, anyway.

Members on this side of the Chamber are entirely onside as far as this bill goes, in respect of procedural matters. Nobody objects to people not being ferried to and from the prison in order to attend to an interlocutory matter. It is not important that they are actually there in the court, and if they want to see the matter dealt with, then they can simply use the audiovisual link. But I am concerned, and we on this side of the Chamber are deeply concerned, that there could be a fundamental breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The use of an audiovisual link should be purely on the basis that the defendant would consent to that use in the particular circumstances of the occasion. We can all think of occasions when it might be appropriate, but if we take that right of choice away from the defendant, we will also take that right away from the victim of the defendant. I do not think that the Government has actually given enough attention to the Human Rights Commission submission, which I thought had some very important points to make.

Another point that the Human Rights Commission made in its submission was that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides rights in relation to criminal proceedings. They are the right to be brought before a court following arrest, the right to a fair trial, the right to be present at trial, and the right to examine witnesses on an equal basis with the prosecution. The commission’s submission states that the Crown Law Office, in providing its advice to the Attorney-General, unfortunately managed to conflate practices in which the evidence of witnesses can be given by audiovisual link and the evidence of an accused, who is entitled to be present, is given by right in person. The Human Rights Commission, then, has a serious challenge to the quality of the advice that was provided by the Crown Law Office, and I think that that concern needs to be addressed by the Government. The Government has to stand and respond to the very specific concern about the nature of the advice that was given on this matter.

I know that the Attorney-General will have to be concerned about the level of challenge that the Human Rights Commission is giving to this analysis. The analysis itself appears to be based on a case that was determined in 1990—the United States Supreme Court in Maryland v Craig—which addressed the giving of evidence remotely by audiovisual link by a witness only, not by the accused. Unfortunately, I do not think that the Attorney-General has actually appreciated the extent of the difference between the two. Giving evidence as a witness by audiovisual link has challenges, but in many instances it is the appropriate step to take, and with children it is virtually automatic. But I think that nobody has really taken into account the fact that the rules that have been established in case law in respect of the use of an audiovisual link in relation to witnesses are quite different from those in relation to the use of an audiovisual link by an accused. A number of people have raised serious issues on this matter.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence): I have been listening carefully to the previous speaker, Lianne Dalziel, whom I know is concerned about issues to do with rights. I know of the training and experience she has had. I feel that there needs to be a balancing point put here, and I know that other members who are highly experienced in criminal proceedings will seek to take a call in this debate on the part of the Government, as well.

For the benefit of the House, the record, and those members of the public who are listening, I say that it is worth noting the terms of the provisions of clause 9 and then the protections set out in clause 6, in particular. The first point to note is that clause 9 states: “AVL must not be used in any criminal substantive matter … unless a judicial officer determines … (a) in accordance with the criteria in sections 5 and 6;”—which, in practical terms, will be section 6—“and (b) taking into account whether the parties to the proceedings consent to the use.” Labour Opposition member Lianne Dalziel would say that the situation of the parties is absolute. They have an absolute determinative power as to whether there should be a hearing via an audiovisual link. I suggest that it ought not to be an absolute right at all; it is something to be balanced in the circumstances of the case.

One should also look at the criteria set out in clause 6: “(a) the ability of the defendant—(i) to comprehend the proceedings; and (ii) to participate effectively in the conduct of his or her defence; and (iii) to consult or instruct counsel privately; and (iv) to access relevant evidence; and (v) to examine witnesses for the prosecution;” and other matters therein. Those are the high-level protections that judicial officers have to consider.

However, I will come back specifically to the way that clause 9 is constructed, because it relates to the fundamental point. The operative direction to the judicial officer is that an audiovisual link must not be used in any criminal substantive matter, and then there is an exception to the direction with two criteria. As legal scholars would well know, that effectively sets an incredibly high threshold for this situation. The judicial officer would have to be totally satisfied that, in essence, the proceeding involving the defendant would not be prejudiced on this issue. Naturally enough, this issue would be dealt with by a hearing where counsel for both the defendant and the prosecution would make submissions as to whether this step is appropriate.

I agree that it is a significant change. I agree that it is one to be approached with caution. I suggest, however, to the Opposition that the structure of the legislation is such that the very things the Opposition members have raised have been taken into account. I am sure that is why the Attorney-General, whom Ms Dalziel well knows is highly experienced in criminal law matters and who understands citizens’ rights deeply, would have taken the provisions into account. I point out that the Attorney-General’s judgment, based on his experience, determines whether the relevant notice under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act should be issued. It is not an issue for what a civil servant thinks is appropriate. It is not an issue for what an agency thinks is appropriate. It is the Attorney-General’s judgment that is at stake.

I will conclude on this point: this Government has made sure that we have a highly experienced lawyer as our Attorney-General. He is deeply experienced in litigation. In contrast, the previous Labour Government chose for a number of years to have a non-lawyer as the Attorney-General. I think that tells us a great deal about Labour’s deep respect for the institution of Parliament and the institution of the Attorney-General. Labour was prepared to run roughshod over that issue, and Labour members should be embarrassed about it. They have stopped interjecting, except for someone who knows absolutely nothing about the law. I say that Labour Opposition members would do themselves a favour if they carefully analysed the legislation to see whether the balance of rights and protections is properly taken into account.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I listened with considerable interest to what the Minister has just said by way of explanation. I have to say, with respect, that he has not persuaded me in any way at all. I think in my year and a half in the forty-ninth Parliament this is the most serious attack on constitutional rights that I have experienced. This Parliament has adopted 114 Acts reflecting Government legislation.

Paul Quinn: Very busy.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: I concede it has been busy. I pay tribute to the hard work that goes into that. I think it is important, while we are on this semi-jocular note, that we do not denigrate the dignity of this discussion by introducing ad hominem, endless, interminable arguments about whether the previous Attorney-General was or was not a lawyer. That is a red herring, and this issue is far too important to try to politicise it.

The 114 Acts that have been adopted have basically reflected two main themes of this Government: firstly, to be tough on crime, and, secondly, to cut Government spending. The public voted in its wisdom in 2008 and that reflects the themes and priorities of this Government. This legislation stands alone in iniquity in its attack on constitutional rights. Clause 9 of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill attacks the basic constitutional right of New Zealanders to be present at their trial. We can look at the historical sweep of constitutional guarantees that underpin this nation’s democracy, inherited from England and honed by our own distinctive New Zealand experience. We go back to the Bill of Rights 1688 and the political rights that were enshrined, which are now in New Zealand law: representation before taxation, the election of the Sovereign assembly, which is this, and freedom of speech. We signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 6 recognises a person before the law; article 7 relates to equality of the person before the law; article 8 relates to effective remedy against violation of constitutional rights; article 10 relates to fair trial, particularly in criminal trials; and, article 11 relates to the presumption of innocence. They have been translated into New Zealand domestic law, in the Crimes Act 1961. Section 354 of that Act gives the right to a defence, either by the person or through counsel, and section 376(1) gives the right to be present at a trial. That latter provision, the right to be present at a trial, which has already been identified tonight and last night, has been translated into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 at section 25(e). It is a question of the interpretation of the right to be present.

The Minister last night chose to define effective participation as the right to be present—effective through audiovisual links. With respect, we fundamentally disagree with that. The right is an unsullied right to be physically present. There is no question in jurisprudential history that that is the correct interpretation in common law tradition. Clause 9(1) strips away that right, and places it in the hands of the judiciary. It takes out that inherent, absolute right.

I understand the meaning of the word “absolute”, and we have researched it. It is the difference between an absolute right and the absolute execution of a right. There is an absolute right, and we touched on this point with Simon Bridges last night. In the second reading last night Simon Bridges spoke about the air of unreality that the Opposition parties were bringing to bear on this issue. He said he thought there were trials held where defendants had been in absentia. I challenge Mr Bridges, the Minister, and every member of this Parliament, including every Government member, to identify the criminal trials in New Zealand over the last 50 years that have been conducted in absentia. Let us find them. Let us identify the criminal trials in New Zealand over the last half century where the accused has been in absentia.

If anybody is being unrealistic or has an air of unreality here, it is the Government. It is as if the Government has been bitten by the tsetse fly and we have a form of sleeping sickness here, whereby the Government is urging the New Zealand citizenry to sleepwalk its way into the surrender of a basic constitutional right to be present at one’s own trial.

The second point Mr Bridges made last night was that the right was not absolute, and the Minister has reiterated that. If that is the case, what is the point of clause 9(1)? Last night the chairman of the committee explicitly conceded that there was a surrender of a right, and I ask what the surrender of the right is.

Hon David Parker: And the Minister did tonight.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: And the Minister reiterated it. We are surrendering something here, so let us define what it is we are surrendering. We are surrendering the right to be physically present at a criminal trial if one is the accused.

Just a moment ago the Minister told New Zealanders not to worry, and that an incredibly high threshold is being brought into the judiciary and the registrar in making a determination. Yes, that is a negative presumption. I understand; I can read clause 9(1). I know about negative presumptions. Instead of positive presumptions, if we introduce a negative presumption we have ceded the absolute right. If we have an absolute guarantee, it is 100 percent. The Minister is proposing that we cede that 100 percent guarantee and we introduce a 99 percent competence level, so that the judiciary will do what it is meant to, with a 1 percent chance that something will go wrong. I will not accept that 1 percent chance, and I recommend that the Minister does not, either.

Let us reflect on this. What is it that is driving this Government on this particular point? Does the Government recognise the magnitude of what it is doing, therefore it is trying to run it through? Or is it just oblivious to the magnitude of what we are doing here tonight? I ask what is driving this Government. Is it a motivation on saving? We are told the substantive motivation is cost savings and efficiency—a commercial price on a jurisprudential principle.

Hon David Parker: It’s just stubbornness.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: I think there is a danger that it is turning into stubbornness. Let us diminish the level of tension a little, because we might be making a very egregious mistake tonight if we proceed precipitously. Let us think about deferring this matter for a moment. I ask what is driving the Government on procedure that prompts it to bring in the Committee stage the day after the second reading, with no notice. It was not on the Order Paper when I was at the Business Committee on Tuesday; it came in overnight, and I ask why.

I think that we need to reflect very carefully. We in the Green Party, and I dare say other Opposition parties, had indicated a readiness to support positively the introduction of audiovisual links into the courts system—no problem—but not at the expense of this constitutional right.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I want to come back to the point we have been debating about whether being present at one’s trial is a fundamental, absolute right. I come back to it because, as I have said, it is not an absolute, fundamental right. Everyone in this Chamber, and, indeed, in New Zealand, would accept that the norm in nearly all cases, if not all cases, is that an accused will be at his or her trial. I say to this Committee and to Kennedy Graham what I said last night: common law has evolved scenarios in a strain of cases where that right has been taken from the accused. I said to my friend Mr Graham that that came from the House of Lords. If we look around the common law world for a court that more jealously fights for the rights of humanity, we would be hard-pressed to go past the House of Lords, now called the Supreme Court. In 2002, it was made clear that there may be such cases.

Hon David Parker: Only for misconduct.

SIMON BRIDGES: That is right and I will come back to that. It is a scenario that they have gone with, and High Court judges in this country have also gone with it in recent years. I found the case last night of R v McFall. I am aware of another case involving Justice Heath in the Hamilton High Court, as well. In those rare cases the accused had absconded and did not turn up for trial, so the judge said that the trial would proceed anyway. Mr Parker is right; it is because of misconduct. My point to this Committee is that I can envisage situations where we would have audiovisual links for the same reason. I accept that they would be very extreme cases. Kennedy Graham said last night that he did not accept that, but I said that there may well be cases, although not often, of an accused coming to court who is not insane to a criminal standard but who may have—let us put this euphemistically—serious issues where he or she wants to harm himself or herself or others. Perhaps the accused cannot be shut up at any time during the trial, and, for whatever reason, is hurling profanities at the judge. That happens more often than we would like to think in courts in this country.

Hon David Parker: And they can be removed now.

SIMON BRIDGES: They can be, but I ask whether it is better to do the trial without them, which the common law could foresee, or to have the trial using audiovisual link. In that rare, extreme case—and I accept that it would be rare and extreme—an audiovisual link would be justified. Of the various manifestations, ways, and wherefores where we might use audiovisual links for an accused, that is just one situation where we might use it.

I say again to the Committee that common law has envisaged situations where an accused does not have an absolute right to be at trial. This bill leaves the door open, but—and let us be very clear—it does not leave it very wide open, at all. We have many safeguards in this bill. As I said last night, there are three clauses that a judge will have to work through to allow the use of audiovisual link, and clause 6 is exceptionally strict. When we work through clause 6(a), we see that it would be a very brave judge who works through that clause to rule in audiovisual link for an accused, and to not envisage an appeal up the chain of courts because of that. It may never happen, but it may do. We are doing the right thing.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I will deal with the points that have been made by the previous speaker, Simon Bridges, and by the Minister in the chair, the Hon Wayne Mapp. Firstly, in dealing with the points Simon Bridges made, I tell the Committee that I listened carefully to his speech; he has been a trial lawyer. He is one of the few people in the Chamber who can speak on this issue on the basis of some practical experience. But here is the problem with the provision that he explained, and that the Minister referred to earlier: it provides a discretion to a judicial officer to say to somebody who is accused of a crime: “Don’t show up to your trial. We’re going to do without you and you can appear on the screen.”

The legislation then goes on to fail to confine that discretion in any meaningful way; it is simply left up to the judicial officer, who, for the moment under the provisions that we are dealing with, is a qualified judge, a tenured judge. But who knows what this Parliament might do if that discretion goes through this door? Who knows what further weakening might occur to the protections? We might end up with community magistrates, justices of the peace, or other part-time or temporary judicial officers exercising this power. If we do that, if we allow that power to go forward in this bill without defining very carefully the sorts of circumstances in which a judge might justifiably try people in their absence, and potentially sentence people to imprisonment in their absence, then I think we are making a major mistake. We are making a major mistake by trifling with people’s civil liberties.

It is true, as Simon Bridges said, that in some cases the common law finds practical ways to ensure that the proceedings of a court are respected and not disrupted. If there is a disturbed defendant, he or she can be removed from the court, but one never knows until the person is there in front of the presiding officer how he or she will behave. It would be a gross violation of people’s civil liberties to say that because they misconducted themselves once, we will deny them the right to appear in a court ever again. We might say that we think it is likely they might behave in that fashion once more, so because we do not want to have that sort of behaviour in our court, we will just try them by video. That is the door that is being opened by the drafting of this legislation. The Minister in the chair is looking at me and shaking his head, but he knows as well as I do that unless the discretion that is provided by the legislation is better fettered, and unless we go through the bill and state the precise circumstances by which Parliament would be willing to countenance what is effectively trial in absentia—trial by video—then we are opening the door in that way.

My submission is that that is a very unwise thing to do. There is not a sufficient safeguard just to say that because it is a judicial discretion, it is OK. Scholars of legal history know that some of our judicial officers in the past have misconducted themselves. There is such a thing as judicial tyranny if judicial discretion is not defined. That is why we had the Bill of Rights in 1688. That is why there was a reaction to cases like the prerogative in saltpetre and the ship-money case. Those were judicial decisions. The King’s judges—the judges appointed by the executive—abused their power. That is why originally it was decided that we actually needed constitutional protections.

I echo what Lianne Dalziel said—that this is a breach of a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provision. There is no vet from the Attorney-General, and although I have some sympathy with what Kennedy Graham said—about the need not to get into some sort of degeneration via interminable ad hominem arguments about whether the Attorney-General this time is better qualified than the previous one—here is the point: it is the Attorney-General’s job to vet these bills. This bill clearly breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it clearly breaches, in turn, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The worst thing about that is that we can make up all the legislation we like, but if it is in breach of those fundamental standards, we know what will happen. We are a party to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. If somebody is treated in the way that is envisaged by this bill and there is unfair treatment, the person may go to the United Nations Human Rights Committee and complain. There will be a finding that New Zealand is in breach, and we will be told that we have to fix the law to make sure that it is consistent with our human rights obligations.

This entire exercise, supposedly a money-saving one, is just an enormous waste of Parliament’s time. It is an enormous waste of time and money, because we will be back here doing all this again if we are foolish enough to legislate in this way.

I just say in closing that I hope the ACT Party will not vote for this abomination. ACT likes to call itself the liberal party. Sir Roger Douglas is in the Chamber; I hope he will uphold that party’s traditions, uphold what he says is his respect for civil liberties, and join the other parties in the Chamber—as I understand: the Māori Party, the Green Party, the Labour Party, and others—to vote this abomination down.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I am primarily concerned about the impact of this legislation on Māori, and I am sure the issues have been raised to some extent already. We know that in this country there is a bias against Māori in the legal system. We can see that in the research: the research shows that that is the case. It is at all levels, even in the Youth Court. A Youth Court judge has said that young Māori men who appeared before the court tended to receive a harsher penalty than Pākehā who appeared in the court for the same crime. That fact was recognised by the judge, and we see that in the research on this issue.

So knowing that Māori will suffer from real discrimination by the police and through the court system, despite efforts to reduce it, we need to consider what the impact of this legislation will be on that level of discrimination. Will it increase it or will it reduce it? It seems pretty clear to me and to others in the Chamber that the level of discrimination and prejudice against Māori in the legal system will be increased if they are not entitled to attend their own criminal trials.

We know that Māori are more likely to be stopped by the police, searched by the police, arrested by the police, and convicted of a crime. Research shows that the police tend to lay more charges against Māori to ensure that at least one of the charges will stick. Māori are more likely to be convicted in the courts and more likely to be imprisoned for the offence they have been convicted of. This is a serious injustice against a section of our community, and that cannot be justified.

This injustice is borne by that community, and it is borne by the whānau. They have to bear the excessive and unjustifiable levels of imprisonment and the financial deprivation. The whānau and the children of that whānau have to bear that financial deprivation. There are ongoing social and health issues. Prisoners who get out of prison and try to change their lives face difficulties when trying to gain useful employment or housing, for example. All those things are affected by imprisonment and by the unjustifiable discrimination of the legal system in that imprisonment.

This proposed law will exacerbate that discrimination and the costs that are borne by the whānau. It means that the accused will not have an absolute right to attend his or her criminal trial. Let us be aware that the enforcement of criminal law is the strongest action the State can take against its citizens. It has to be exercised with the greatest possible care and the highest regard for justice. The highest level of protection of natural justice is of critical importance if citizens are to have faith in the legal system.

By further separating the individual from the trial process the chances of discrimination against the individual are increased. It is much easier to separate oneself from the reality of a person’s life and from the process if that person is not present and cannot look one in the eye. If a person is not present in court, then one cannot hear, see, smell, and feel the content of the evidence the person gives to the court. It is much easier to ignore the humanness of a person if he or she is not present with us. We know that that is the case. That is why we are all here, for example. We do not operate in this Parliament by audiovisual technology, because we know it makes a difference to be present, and being present for the purpose of removing discrimination is even more important.

So for Māori, who we know suffer that discrimination, it will be worse. The cost of that, again, will be borne by the community and the whānau. The cost to the taxpayer will be increased through increased imprisonment, because we will see more Māori being convicted and imprisoned as a result of this law change. I can absolutely guarantee that. The cost to whānau will be increased as more and more of our people are unjustifiably taken out of our communities because the system itself is biased against them and it structurally increases its bias. Those costs are borne by the families and the children.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The Minister in the chair, the Minister of Defence, said in his contribution that it should not be an absolute right for an accused to appear at his or her own trial. He said it should be a matter of discretion. He also acknowledged that this was an important change from the status quo. I am not misrepresenting the Minister on either of those propositions, which he stated from the chair. He is right; it is a change of principle.

I want to address the issue of why then we do not have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet should be given where there is a derogation of the civil liberties that are mentioned in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That Act says that we should have the right to be present at the conduct of a trial so that we can face our accuser.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Plain English.

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is plain English. I heard the Minister in the chair then have a flick at the previous Attorney-General, whom the National Party criticised for giving a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet that was in favour of the Electoral Finance Act. The previous Attorney-General actually went to the trouble of doing a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet for that Act and justified his logic as to why it should have one. In this case we do not have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet because the Attorney-General has not seen fit to address the issue of this derogation of my civil liberty and the civil liberty of everyone else in New Zealand to have the unconditional right to be at the trial if he or she is accused of a crime. It is an outrage. I agree with the speaker for the Greens, Kennedy Graham, that this is the most significant attack on civil liberties we have seen in this Parliament. It is an outrage that the Government is just pushing on remorselessly.

We bear some responsibility here. At the first reading all of the parties other than the Māori Party voted for this bill because we were not cognisant of the fact that this would apply at substantive trials, but that became clear at the Justice and Electoral Committee. The Human Rights Commission raised it with us and the New Zealand Law Society raised it with us, so the select committee looked at it in more depth. We found that there was no mischief here to be overcome, because at the moment there is no problem with letting the accused appear at his or her trial. What the Government really wants to do here is speed up preliminary matters, bail hearings, and adjournments, and not have the unnecessary expense of the defendant—the accused—always turning up. We agree with that, but the National Party should take a breath. It is wrong to proceed remorselessly with taking away this civil liberty. It is wrong.

The Minister also said that the judges would not do this; that there would be prejudice. That is a facile, superficial analysis of it. The judge will not know what the judge does not know at the time the application is made. How can one know at the start of a trial what is going to happen during the trial? We do not know what we do not know. We cannot know what we do not know. Injustices that could happen later in time cannot be known to the judge at the time that the application is made—for example, a juror falling asleep, an inappropriate relationship between the prosecuting counsel and the defence counsel, inappropriate signs from someone in the gallery, the judge falling asleep, the incompetence of a lawyer, the inability of the accused to get a decent view of the screen because he is being blocked in the prison by a corrections officer, and the inability of the accused sitting in a prison cell to say, in respect of a particular piece of evidence, “That’s a lie, cross-examine them on that.” How can that be done from a prison cell? This is so obviously unjust.

I ask the National Party to take a breath. I ask the ACT Party to vote in respect of a procedural motion that we report progress now. They should take a breath, report progress now, and let everyone reflect on this for a week before we push the button. If the Government still wants to use its muscle with the support of the ACT Party and vote it through then it can do so in a week, but what is wrong with waiting for a week on this? What is wrong with waiting for a week on this in order to reflect on whether a mistake has been made? I think that this has crept up on the Government. I saw the advice that the departmental officials gave to the select committee, which I am sure will be similar to the advice given to the Minister. I have to say that it was “once over lightly” in respect of the constitutional principles. As Kennedy Graham has said, it was approaching this issue from a point of view of administrative efficiency rather than constitutional principle, and that is where this has gone wrong. I do not blame the Government for that. These things do go wrong, as evidenced by the fact that all of the parties except for the Māori Party voted for this at first reading. But now that we are alert to this issue, it is time to take a breath and slow down.

In a short period of time I am going to move a motion that we report progress. I encourage the Government to think about reporting progress now, before this goes to the vote. We can avoid making a mistake here by taking a breath and just reflecting on this. I am sure that the Solicitor-General was not the person who was responsible for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet; it would have been someone lower in that organisation. I am also sure that the Attorney-General, who gets advice from the Solicitor-General on New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vets like this, came to the select committee a week ago and said to us that he would look at it again because he saw our concerns. In fairness to the Attorney-General, because this has come up on the Order Paper so fast, he has not yet had the opportunity to do that and to get back to the select committee where this was raised as part of the estimates process a week ago. I would like to give the Attorney-General the opportunity to do that, because I know that he takes his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet responsibilities seriously. I would be most disappointed if the Government does not agree to report progress before this matter goes to a vote tonight.

The control of that lies not just with the Government but also with Sir Roger Douglas. I know that the ACT Party thinks that it has done a deal and that it has an obligation to support this legislation, but I suggest to Sir Roger Douglas that in this situation it would be appropriate to report progress now and just let the bill come up on the Order Paper again. This is not a matter on which the Government will rise or fall. This is not a matter that goes to Budget or that needs to change this week rather than in 2 weeks’ time. I suggest that that is the appropriate thing for this Parliament to do, in the face of the criticisms from the Human Rights Commission, the Law Society, and all of the parties except National. I know that even the ACT Party is nervous about this and it just feels that it has an obligation, having made a commitment to vote for it. I suggest that it is time to take a breath.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour): I agree with absolutely everything that David Parker said, and also with my friend and colleague Lianne Dalziel, who spoke before. She did not refer to the Human Rights Commission submission until later in the piece, because she had a lot of other things to say before that. I will be honest: it is a great submission. During the dinner break I took it away to read again and, unwittingly, I deprived Lianne Dalziel of her reference notes. But I acknowledge the Human Rights Commission and, again, the Law Society for their common-sense approach towards this bill. David Parker and other members have talked about the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill, and certainly no one in this Chamber has any opposition to the smooth running of courts, access to justice, or efficiency. Justice being served fairly surely has to be the first principle.

Dr Rajen Prasad: Not seen to be done.

LYNNE PILLAY: I completely agree with the member. That has to be the first principle.

We have seen in this Committee many, many doubts raised. The solution is not as hard as that. There are some very good Supplementary Order Papers and amendments on the Table. I know that the ACT Party may feel bound by some sort of relationship with the National Party—God knows what has happened to achieve that—to support this bill in its entirety without looking at some very sensible amendments. I say to the Committee that if this bill goes through as it is, there is no trial period and it will be brought into effect in its entirety.

What does that mean? In many instances there will be lots of efficiencies. But concerns have been raised from this side of the Chamber and from the Green Party about those situations where the accused does not consent to remote participation. What is the downside of that? Let us look at it firstly from the defendant’s perspective. We all know from sitting in select committees how difficult it sometimes is for people to participate. I can see many members—the member from the Māori Party is almost nodding his head—

Hone Harawira: I’m going to sleep here, Lynne. Give it up.

LYNNE PILLAY: I am sorry that I cannot keep the Māori Party member awake, but it is his job to stay awake in the Chamber. He could go walkabout to wake up; it is his job to stay awake in the Chamber and to listen to this debate.

When it is about a fair trial from the defendant’s perspective, it is about their being able to face their accuser. All we ask for is the ability for remote participation to happen by agreement. In many, many, many instances remote participation will be appropriate. But, as my colleagues have said, in a trial situation somebody may feel completely intimidated—we have seen it in select committee, let us face it—by the sound, which may not be as good as it should be, or by the flickering video coverage. It throws people off from what they are saying; they are distracted. What do they do? What does it look like? It looks like they are a bit shifty. All of those things can have major implications in these situations. Do members agree?

Dr Rajen Prasad: Absolutely.

LYNNE PILLAY: Rajen Prasad agrees with me.

We have seen so many situations that have given the Government an opportunity to fix this bill so that every member in this Committee can support it. The Human Rights Commission advised that there should be a trial period. What is wrong with that? We have seen many situations where the Government has imposed new legislation that has been absolutely disastrous—nothing short of a disaster. If that is the case, I ask why in this situation, if the Government is so confident that this legislation will work, it does not have a trial period. Why not? Why not look at the sensible amendments from David Parker and from Kennedy Graham of the Green Party that say that these are substantive issues, and we should have agreement between the parties? In many instances that agreement will be achieved. Let us do it as a first step. If it works, once it has been tested, things can move on. But this Government is determined not to have a Bill of Rights Act vetting, and not to listen to the people, the Human Rights Commission, or the common sense from the Law Society, which says that there are some problems with this legislation.

It is just like how there are problems with national standards, just like how there are problems with the accident compensation scheme, and just like how there are problems with the Government’s law and order “three strikes” policy. All of those problems could be avoided if Government members would put aside their big egos—I am talking about Wayne Mapp—and listen to the people. How hard is that? Let us listen to what the people say. The people say that we need to test this legislation. We need to make sure that justice in New Zealand—or “New Zillun”, as the Minister, Wayne Mapp, would say—is delivered in the way it should be, in the way that we are proud of in our country. I heard David Parker. What a common-sense suggestion from David Parker.

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just want to give Lynne Pillay some time to recover from her coughing fit. That is why I am taking this point of order.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. If the member does not mind, I would like to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, the member has the call. Just give her a moment to compose herself.

LYNNE PILLAY: Mr Assistant Chair, I would very much like Hone Harawira to take this call. I am really choked up about this.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): When the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill came up for its first reading debate, as soon as I read it I knew exactly what it would mean. I did not understand all of the talk about substantive this and substantive that, but I knew that it would be this kind of bill, and that scared the hell out of me. It scared me, because I have been a defendant in many, many cases—many, many cases—and I knew that I would have ended up in jail after quite a few of those cases if they had been done by video link.

The reason is that people find it easier to send somebody to jail if they do not have to face them. It is just like the way that kids find it easier to shoot somebody in a video game, but if we put a gun in their hands, they freak out. But when they can do it by video game, they will do it. You see, kids use video to rape people, to maim people, and to kill people because video takes away one’s connection with what is being done. It takes away one’s connection with the decision that one has to make. That scared the heck out of me. That is the reason why we spoke against the bill at the very first reading. We knew exactly what it would mean.

I will use as another example—it has nothing to do with courts—my comments last year about the white m- - - - - f- - - - - s. Apparently, hundreds of people felt really, really comfortable about writing to the newspapers, writing to the Race Relations Commissioner, and slagging me off on television, on the radio, and everywhere else. But do members know what? I flew all around the country, I went all over the place in those couple of months, and not one person—not one—came up to me face to face to say: “I did not like what you did.” Do members know why? It is because people found it easier to push the button another way. They find it easier to vent their anger against something if they do not have to connect with it.

People find it easier to dispense with people if they can do it by video. There is no justice, none whatsoever, in a defendant being stuck down in a jail during his or her court proceedings. There is no connection between that person and what is going on in the courtroom.

Somebody mentioned that the defendant cannot nudge his or her lawyer and say: “Hey, hang on—that’s a bloody lie.” It is different for me, of course; I have never ever had a lawyer. I defended myself in all of those cases. How would it happen in those circumstances? I am not a lawyer, but I have always defended myself. But if I were being held in—

Hon Member: A bush lawyer.

HONE HARAWIRA: I am a bloody good bush lawyer; I have only ever lost one case. That is better than every lawyer I know. I tell all the lawyers here not to go patting themselves on the back that they do a good job, because, basically, they do not.

I defend myself because I have been to court so many times and have seen lawyers stand up, after doing a really poor job and after their clients have gone to jail, and the first thing they have said was: “May it please your Honour …”. I sat there as a young fella, as a 19-year-old, watching that going on in courts when I was working for Ngā Tamatoa, being a friend in court. I thought to myself: “Hell, I ain’t ever going to let nobody get me sent to jail and then get up and say: ‘May it please your Honour …’ ”, so I taught myself to defend myself in court.

I ask what would happen to me if I was defending myself. Would they hold me in custody as they have in the past? Would I get a chance to actually argue my case? Where would I do that from, if I was down in the separation wing at Mount Eden Prison? How would that happen?

This is scary stuff, I tell the Minister of Justice, all the National members, and ACT, as well. This is not just about efficiency; this is a scary step down a slippery slope that we will not quickly come back from. We may never come back from this, and that is why I am so scared about it. I can fight things, but this is scary. Once we disconnect ourselves from defendants, we disconnect society from justice. We walk away from the right that the defendant has to be there.

This bill is all about the rights of the State and the rights of victims, and that is fine. They all have rights. But so have defendants, because they are not actually guilty until they have been convicted. But in this case, defendants do not even get the chance to defend themselves, because they are locked away in front of a little television screen. Yes, it can be said that that might be at the whim of a judge, but why should a judge bother to go through the hassle of having somebody called up from Rimutaka Prison to go all the way up to Auckland for a call-over date—which may end up being turned into a court case because the police may say at the last minute that they are ready to go—when the judge can do it just by video?

As soon as judges know they can do it by video, everything will become video. Once we get there, we get into that push-button kind of justice, where kids can kill somebody because it is done by video, and where people who are too scared to face those they supposedly have to dispense justice upon are quite happy to shut them off and wipe them out because they are locked away in a little TV box. That person becomes like an ad that we do not want to watch any more—we can just turn it off.

The quality of justice will be determined by the quality of the screen, and when the screen starts to get all fuzzy, we can stop looking at the screen. When the sound gets a bit hazy and we are a bit tired, will we ask for the sound to be turned up? If we are on the jury, will we ask for the video to be stopped until such time as it is fixed? Hell, no! The judge will say that we can hear it, and that we do not need to see the person, because we know the person is there.

Before we know it, even the defendant will not have to be clearly on the video; the court will be able to say that the defendant is actually in his or her cell, but the TV is focused on where the defendant would be if he or she were not in the cell. That is not justice.

This legislation is not about justice, and it should not be just about money. In relation to efficiency and all the rest of it, I say that justice is not about models of industrial efficiency; justice is about rights. This bill is scary legislation.

If ACT is not ready to vote against this bill, then I will support David Parker’s recommendation that we report progress and have this bill stood down for a week so that everybody—particularly National members—can have the chance to have a really good think about it, take a deep breath, and realise that it is scary. I know that even Dr Mapp, who is currently the Minister in the chair, does not want to go ahead with it. Somebody mentioned the Attorney-General. I happen to know that the Attorney-General does not support this legislation. If the Attorney-General does not support it, then why, I ask, is it going ahead?

For one final time, I say that this is scary legislation. We spoke against it at the first reading; we will be speaking against it at every reading. I sincerely hope that we all come to our senses on this and vote it down. Kia ora tātou.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kia ora koutou. This debate on the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill is troubling on many levels, clearly. What we are talking about here is the fundamental right of the accused to face his or her accusers. That is a right that has been enshrined for centuries, and now it appears that on a matter of convenience, efficiency, and cost savings, that right has been placed under threat.

It is concerning to see almost a trend emerging. Earlier in this sitting we were debating the issue of prisoners’ and victims’ compensation, and within the context of that debate I proposed that there was an absolute responsibility on the State to protect the human rights of an inmate in prison. But that was challenged. A question was raised that perhaps the human rights of an inmate could be diminished or compromised in some way that was still legitimate. The arguments about justice, about rightness, and about absolute rights —or not—have been engaged in at quite an articulate level. I will not endeavour to respond or to reiterate them.

The Minister of Justice, when he spoke a little earlier, referred to clauses 6 and 7 creating a very high bar of criteria to assure that only in the most exceptional circumstances would a prisoner not be there to face his or her accuser. I refer to clause 6, which talks about the defendant being able “(a)(ii) to participate effectively in … his or her defence;”—participate effectively. I suggest that it is almost an oxymoron to suggest that a person could participate effectively in a trial at the end of a camera, on a screen.

I have been very intrigued to sit here observing the Minister in the chair, the Hon Wayne Mapp, during the course of this debate, and to see the extent to which non-verbal communication is such an important part of this ongoing discussion. With all respect to the Minister, I hope he will excuse my treating him as an item under observation. At the moment he is smiling and nodding. At different times in the discussion he has nodded quite thoughtfully, accepting points made. At some points he has arched his eyebrows, very clearly signalling that something of interest, something surprising, has been said. At other points he has shaken his head quite firmly, indicating that he has not agreed with a point being made. Those are visual clues that can inform a debate, enrich a debate, and give a person a genuine means of effectively participating in a debate. If we remove those non-verbal cues and clues, then a person is clearly at a major disadvantage in engaging in a discussion or an event that could have very serious and long-term consequences for that person’s well-being.

I am not a lawyer. I have taught resource management law; I have no familiarity with criminal law. But I do have some experience with videoconferencing. In my previous incarnation as a sustainable business adviser, I used to advocate videoconferencing, particularly for large organisations that routinely sent their employees—be they lawyers, architects, or consultants—around the country. Videoconferencing is a very effective means of communicating, even at a quite high level, on serious and complex issues. One can achieve that communication by videoconference. However, the requirement for underwriting that is that there must first be a relationship established. I deny that anyone can have a meaningful, purposeful, and satisfactory engagement by videoconference with someone with whom he or she has not formed an initial relationship. That is a key underpinning to the effectiveness of videoconferencing. So I argue that by simply putting a prisoner in front of a camera, and having a courtroom looking at a screen, a relationship cannot be established. The non-verbal cues are not available to that person. It is undoubtedly an absolute compromise and a denial of the notion of effective participation.

I will say in passing that the Greens absolutely support David Parker’s proposal to suspend this debate to allow for a moment in which to think, to breathe, and to look for better options. But there is a very easy remedy to the debate this evening. We have on the Table Supplementary Order Paper 150 from my colleague Dr Kennedy Graham. It states quite simply, in new clause 9(1): “AVL must not be used in any criminal substantive matter for the appearance of a defendant, unless the defendant so elects.” The amendment puts the right back where it belongs; it gives the defendant the right to choose.

Mr Bridges made the point earlier that the right of appearance in a court could be taken away through misbehaviour. In fact, that right would not be taken away or denied through misbehaviour; that right would be surrendered. I have a right as a member of Parliament to stand and speak in this Chamber. It is not an absolute right, but it is a very, very powerful right. If I were to stand here and hurl abuse at the chair or at a colleague, or if I were to begin throwing glasses of water about—I assure members I do not propose to do that—the right to appear in this Chamber would not be taken away from me; rather, I would be surrendering that right through my misbehaviour and my abuse of this place. It is exactly the same situation as the few instances that Mr Bridges was able to muster.

We have not yet heard a substantial reply to the challenge put by my colleague Dr Kennedy Graham. Let us have a list of the criminal cases in this country in the last 50 years that were conducted without the defendant being present.

The question has been posed—and I will finish by posing it—about the need for haste. What is the need for haste? What is the need for urgency in this matter? The House is not in urgency. This is a relatively straightforward piece of legislation, or it could be. It has been around for a wee while. A few weeks would not make any significant difference to the outcome—whether the bill is passed in its present form or in an amended form. We would most certainly support a motion to suspend the debate, and on that point I thank members for their attention. Kia ora.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I do not intend to take up too much time. A lot of the points have been brought to the surface very well in this debate. I reiterate our support for David Parker’s call for the Committee to report progress, because there clearly is a need for further consideration to be given to this. I do not think that our colleagues on the Government benches dispute the fundamental importance of this issue. So I think the Committee should report progress.

I want to reinforce a point Charles Chauvel made. He was wont to raise the matter that however distant the spectre might be, it is a spectre of tyranny. The point about protecting against tyranny is that we introduce watertight absolute guarantees against it. Just as one is not half pregnant, one is not half tyrannical. We either have a democracy or we have slid into tyranny; we are on a slippery slope—the 1 percent we were talking about before.

I see that the body language of the Minister in the chair, Wayne Mapp, is riveting. If I were being beamed in on an audiovisual link I would not be able to see it. I would not be able to benefit from Mr Mapp’s colourful body language. I take the points he is making with his body language, and I will adjust my comments accordingly. But I could not do that if I were being beamed in on an audiovisual link. I think the point is made.

Let me pick up on what Charles Chauvel said about tyranny. If I may, I will quote from, basically, the authority on this subject in New Zealand, which is A and P Butler’s The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: a Commentary. I quote from page 850. It states: “The right to be present at trial is protected by section 376(1) of the Crimes Act 1961, which states ‘Every accused person shall be entitled to be present in court during the whole of his trial, unless he misconducts himself by so interrupting the proceedings as to render their continuance in his presence impracticable.’ ”—which is the point that my colleague David Clendon was making when refuting the point by Simon Bridges. One surrenders one’s right to be there through one’s conduct; that is not a rationale for withdrawing a person’s right, I say to Mr Bridges.

Let me continue reading: “It is a hallmark”, the authors say “of repressive regimes that a person can be convicted without the ability to participate in the deliberations of, and appear before, the tribunal empowered to convict. The right to be present in order to be effective must mean that the State cannot so organise the court system as to engineer the accused’s non-participation.” That is what we are doing with this bill. We are organising ourselves in such a way as to surrender that right through the court system. I appeal to the Minister. Where is the Minister of Justice? He wafted through here 10 minutes ago like the ghost of Hamlet’s father. He came amidst us. He continued walking, and he went out of the other door. He has come in once or twice—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member cannot refer to the absence of another member.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: I refer to the presence of the Minister in the chair, whose body language continues to inform me, with the benefit of being physically present in this Chamber. I finish.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I was looking for the motivation for this change in such traditional rights, which we have defended over many generations, and it seems to be all about money. We will save a bit of money. We will save the trouble of transporting defendants from their cells to the courts and save a bit of money here and there. Really, we cannot sell justice like that.

As I think Charles Chauvel pointed out, we might save a few dollars by having the video links from prisons through to courts, but we will lose a lot more because this law will not last. There will be all sorts of challenges to it, including, as Charles Chauvel said, appeals to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. There is an international backdrop to justice now, and it can be appealed to. As has been pointed out by my colleague Kennedy Graham and by Charles Chauvel, the right to be present at one’s own trial is a fundamental right in both the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, etc.

There is also a phrase: justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. It would be ironic if justice were seen to be done by those who happened to be in court at the time—the judge, the lawyers, perhaps some media and some people in the gallery, who would see justice supposedly being done—but the person who it most affected, the person who might be imprisoned and sent away for life, were not in court to see justice being done. That would be such a huge injustice. Among those who were convicted in this way it would lead to a feeling that they had been wronged. They would be very bitter, and they would be a problem—in some sense, rightly a problem—in the prison system because for a long time they would be carrying the feeling that they had been wronged. In the community there would be a lot more cases like the Thomas case, where people thought: “This person was wrongly convicted, and one of the reasons they were wrongly convicted is that they were not present in the court and did not get a fair go.”

Those who would suffer the most, as my colleagues Metiria Turei and Hone Harawira have said, would be the people who are most marginalised in society. It would be the people who do not have nice suits and well-appointed relations to, in a sense, give them some protection. It would be the people who do not have much money, the people who have had problems in their past. So the bill would lead to only greater differences in the application of justice, as my colleague Metiria Turei said.

I have been on a jury in a fairly long trial. One of the things that struck me while I was on that jury and was part of deliberations was the body language—what was said directly, the way people looked, and the way their eyes flickered. All of those things, when defendants are giving evidence, are very influential on the jury; I could see it. In this case, there were two people with two versions of the truth, arguing quite passionately for their side of the case. I could tell from the jury I was on that a lot of the judgment of the body language, and the subtleties of how they presented their case, would not have been picked up on any video. Also, their ability to see each other and the way each of them reacted was quite important in that case—or at least for the defendant and the main witness against the defendant.

I think it is important not to proceed with this bill. I support a delay, and I support the amendments put forward by David Parker and Kennedy Graham. Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to follow on from my colleague Hone Harawira’s comments earlier about the success he had in court. I can say that I have defended someone in a High Court trial once in my entire life, and we lost. I have a 100 percent failure rate in terms of my career in the legal profession.

Hone Harawira: Don’t want that recorded in Hansard.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I have it recorded in Hansard because I am just taking off my hat to that member. He has obviously been very successful in defending the most colourful client, I would imagine, that any lawyer could hope to have on any occasion.

However, I want to be serious about this issue because we are dealing with a very important matter here. I repeat that I did not believe for one minute that we would be dealing with the Committee stage so soon after the second reading of the bill. The reason I did not think we would be doing the Committee stage so soon is the serious issues that all Opposition parties have raised about the elements of this legislation that are of concern to us. I am in the middle of reading a book called The Rule of Law written by Lord Bingham.

Charles Chauvel: Still reading it.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am still reading it because I left it in Wellington. I have only just picked it up again. I know that several colleagues are now lining up to read it, and Charles Chauvel will be the first one to have the book after I have completed it. I would have brought the book to the House tonight if I had known that this bill was going to come up on the agenda again today. The reason I would have brought it is that it is a very simple description, in book form, of an incredibly complex set of precedents, history, and the law that has come together to protect some fundamental human rights in the rule of law. We all use that phrase “the rule of law”. It flicks off the tongue quite easily, but it is not so easy to define. This book defines the phrase exceptionally well, and talks about those protections that are put in place to make sure that people are not subject to the arbitrary whims of either a judicial discretion or indeed a lawmaker or decision maker of any form. It is a very important principle that we must uphold in this country. I think that what has been forgotten in this debate is that a fundamental part of the rule of law is the right of the victim to confront the accused, and also the right of the defendant to be present in the court.

That right to be present is written out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The right to be present at trial is provided for in section 25(e) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is stated in the law. I still cannot understand, for the life of me, how anyone can say that there was nothing to report to this House in terms of section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The absence of an accused from the courtroom is an issue that will have to be confronted. As the Human Rights Commission addressed in its submission, it is likely to colour any jury’s perception of the accused and the trial, regardless of any direction to the contrary from the presiding judge. This raises serious issues in relation to the right not to be compelled to confess guilt or to testify under section 25(d) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

A number of other comments have been made. I think my colleague Keith Locke made a very good point about the nature of video presentations and how they can colour the proceedings, and they can. I think this is a very important point. I recall very clearly talking to somebody from Grey Power about what it was like to make a submission to the select committee by way of an audiovisual link. That person said to me that it was not possible to tell from the exchange over the audiovisual link whether the submission was having any impact on the members of Parliament who were hearing it. That person felt that the hearing was respectful—there were not people shuffling around or anything like that—but was unable to read the body language down the audiovisual link. All that person could do was take from the language that was being spoken what was being said, but that did not necessarily indicate what was meant. I think the difference between what one says and what one means can be captured only by a face-to-face assessment of the demeanour.

There is an expression in Māori—and I know that I will pronounce it badly so I apologise for that—kanohi ki te kanohi, which means face to face. It is a critical part of Māori culture. If that is the case, then that makes the statements that Hone Harawira made even more important to the debate that we are having tonight. It suggests that we know that Māori are disadvantaged within our legal system now. I have made this statement before, and I will keep on saying it until somebody realises that it is right. A Māori is much more likely to be stopped in the street if a crime has been committed; or if a Māori is seen in a fight, he or she is much more likely to be stopped by the police. A Māori is much more likely to be arrested if he or she is stopped. A Māori is much more likely to be charged if arrested, and is much more likely to face more serious offences if charged. A Māori is much more likely to be found guilty, and is much more likely to be sentenced to prison if found guilty.

The entire justice system is predisposed against our tangata whenua. Taking away kanohi ki te kanohi, as a matter of judicial discretion, is offensive on such an important level that I believe that this Government must stop the process of this bill proceeding tonight. It must consult not only Māori but also other parties in this Parliament that have raised, I think, very legitimate concerns about the nature of the breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and, I suspect also, our obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty does refer to our equal rights under the law. I do not believe that this bill supports equal rights under the law, at all. In fact, it will further disadvantage those who would rely on that approach being adopted. I believe that Parliament needs to think very carefully about what the New Zealand Law Society said: “While it is desirable that AVL systems should be used to the fullest extent possible, they should be used only where appropriate. The Society disagrees with the suggestion that because AVL systems are installed, they should be used. AVL systems are useful but only to the extent that they improve judicial decision making and outcomes. A focus on achieving efficiencies should not override the need to ensure that proceedings are conducted in a fair and just way in which the rights of all parties are protected.”

That is the reason why our party cannot support the continued passage of this legislation. I believe that if everyone could take a deep breath, pull this off the Order Paper tonight, and take the time to reflect on how we could make a minor amendment to clause 9—that is all we have to do—then we would have unanimity in the House for the procedural matters where this audiovisual link system would work extremely well and would make the savings that the Government is looking to make under these particular circumstances. I believe that that would satisfy the rule of law, and I believe it would satisfy every party in this Parliament. I believe it would satisfy the objectives that the Government set out with legislation designed to save money, but we do not have to save money at the expense of giving up one of the rights that we hold dear under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): That was an interesting speech given by Lianne Dalziel. She has done some book-dropping, and I will do a bit of name-dropping. I have met Lord Bingham of Cornhill twice; once at Oxford and, prior to that, in his chambers, and a finer judge would be very difficult to meet. He was, and I am sure still is, the best of the best. For him it was all about listening, which was good for me because that meant I did a lot of talking. He—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Have you read the book?

SIMON BRIDGES: I have seen it but I have not read it. I am about to come to that. Like another great jurist, Lord Cooke of Thorndon—not so far from here—our greatest jurist, Lord Bingham had a very thick, if you like, conception of the rule of law. I intuit, as Lianne Dalziel would, that he attributed to the rule of law substantive concepts of what law should be about—that it should include rights to a certain kind of trial and the like.

I make the point—I will link this to the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill, Mr Chair, you will be glad to know—that there is another very distinguished school on the rule of law that includes Joseph Raz, a very well-known jurist from Oxford. It says that the rule of the law is not so much those substantive concepts but a process, and very much about—we can put it in one phrase—the rule according to law, not men. In my view, this bill, which presumably will become law, complies with the rule of law. We will all know in this House through a set of prescriptions in clauses 5, 6, and 9 exactly what a substantive hearing is and the criteria by which judges are to judge whether an audiovisual link is to be used for the accused. So I come back to it being rule by law, not by men. I think it would meet most definitions of the rule of law, if not the thicker conception that the likes of Lord Bingham and Lord Cooke would have, where they bring in principles—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: He had a set of principles.

SIMON BRIDGES: —I accept that—but they are principles that are contestable. Not all people can always sign up to them. Where law is multifaceted and where it is complex, there are often areas where exceptions are needed, areas where thick rules cannot be subscribed to.

I want to pick up on something that Keith Locke raised. It is a misconception that has run throughout this debate from a number of speakers, which is this issue of body language. I know that Kennedy Graham was doing so in jest when he referred to the Minister in the chair and his various mannerisms. But in jury trials in this country for decades—I will venture, as I have not been around quite that long—there has been a standard direction in the judges’ Bench Book, which they guard jealously, that makes it quite clear that jurors should take body language into account. The direction says that by examining the witness and paying close attention to his or her body language, eyes, and so on, one might get a good steer on what a witness is about. However, the most recent research on this point, and the best research, makes it quite clear that body language, mannerisms, and language are inherently unreliable. I said in the first reading debate of this bill that the twitchy witness might well be the most honest witness, and the witness who is stone-cold sober, looking straight ahead—perhaps, a professional witness; often a police witness—may nevertheless be the one who is shielding things. In that regard, our Bench Book and the way we do things in New Zealand may need to be updated to take into account the science on body language. I accept we are losing something when audiovisual links are used, and that will be taken into account under the legislation that we are passing in this House, but we are not losing as much as people might think by losing body language. Body language can be notoriously difficult to interpret, and can lead people down the garden path.

We have been talking a lot about wins and losses. Hone Harawira has won most of his cases where he has been the defendant personally, and Lianne Dalziel lost her one defended case as counsel. I do not often get to do this so when I do I make the most of it: I have been counsel in over 100 jury trials in the District Court and High Court in this country, and I won over half of them. So there you have it.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I was not intending to take a call on the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. I actually came down to the House to take a call on the next bill that is on the Order Paper. However, when I sat down and listened to one or two of the speeches and then picked up a copy of the bill and read it, I was absolutely shocked and appalled by the legislation that the Committee of the whole House is currently debating. I could not sit here in good conscience and not say something about it.

It seems to me pretty fundamental that when somebody is accused of something and is facing a court trial, the accused should be allowed to be present. There should not be the ability to prevent the accused from being present. If the accused chooses to opt out, and says that he or she is happy to do it by audiovisual link, OK, I am comfortable with that. But the accused should not be forced into the position where the only way that the accused can participate in his or her own trial is by way of an audiovisual link.

I guess we should not be surprised, given the Government’s history when it comes to democracy and to individual human rights. We have seen the Government do away with local government in Auckland, without as much as a second thought for the principles of democracy. We saw the Government do away with a whole democratically elected council in Christchurch, without as much as a thought for democracy, and it was done under urgency. Paul Quinn has a bill before the House at the moment. He wants to remove the right, or, should I say, the duty, of prisoners to vote. That basically sums up the Government’s attitude to democracy and human rights. This bill, in its present form, is yet another attack on people’s human rights. As Lianne Dalziel pointed out, it is absolutely inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I am absolutely shocked and appalled.

Generally speaking, I support the idea that an audiovisual link could be used much more widely, not necessarily just in the criminal justice system but across the whole of Government. Actually there are huge savings to be made. But we are not talking about a teleconference to approve some minutes or to organise the staff social function. We are talking about something that can have a fundamental, life-altering impact on somebody. It could be any one of the members of this House in a court case. It could be any of our families. It could be any one of our neighbours, our friends, or our constituents. Anybody can be the subject of court proceedings. This measure could apply to anybody, and it could have a fundamental impact on that person’s life. If we pass this bill, we are saying that we do not think that person should be entitled to be present for those proceedings if the person chooses that that is what he or she wants. I think that is absolutely outrageous.

I agree that in some instances audiovisual proceedings are appropriate. We have talked about some of the more minor procedural matters that can be dealt with through an audiovisual link; I have no problem with that. But it comes down to a fundamental point of principle. Why should the accused not be there and not be able to see what is going on? The accused should be able to hear in person what other people within that proceeding may be saying about him or her. The accused should be able to hear what the lawyers are saying and be able to read the body language of the people in the courtroom.

I do not care what Simon Bridges says; I think that body language is important. We have teleconferences for select committee meetings, where submitters come through on an audiovisual link. I find that the teleconferences in a select committee meeting are far less valuable than being able to sit at the other side of a table and actually hear what somebody has to say, to read his or her body language, and to be able to engage in some real, meaningful discussion with that person. I appreciate that for some select committee proceedings we have to accept that that is the reality—that teleconferences are the only practical way to do it. But again, it is a whole different scale. What we are talking about here is much more fundamental than that. We are talking about people potentially going to jail. We are talking about a whole lot of things that can have a huge impact, not just on a person’s life but also on the lives of the people in that person’s family and on everyone around that person. As I said, that person could be any one of us.

Let me tell members, if it was me, I would want to be in the courtroom to hear what is going on and to see what is going on. I would not want to be forced to attend that proceeding through a video link, where all I could see was whatever whoever was controlling the camera at the other end decided was fit for me to see. I do not think that is right, and I do not think that most New Zealanders would think that is right. If any New Zealander was in that position, and had to make the call whether he or she wanted to be sitting staring at a TV screen or be in the courtroom where he or she could see what is actually going on, I think most New Zealanders would say that they would like to be present in the courtroom.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Chair. It is a privilege to be here tonight. In my short 5 months as an MP in this Chamber, I do not think I have found a bill that is more important than this Courts (Remote Participation) Bill tonight. I was not going to take a call but, like Mr Hipkins, I could not not speak, in all good conscience. Of the 114 bills that Mr Graham has said that Parliament has passed in this term, I think that this is the most fundamental; it goes to the heart of our constitution in New Zealand.

Like Mr Harawira and a few other members of this Committee, I have been a defendant in court cases. Because of my environmental activism I have faced minor criminal charges in a court. Although the cases were not the substantial cases we are talking about tonight, where people can go to jail for an awfully long time, I thought that I would share some of my experiences with this Committee so that members get a flavour of what it is like to be a defendant in a court. Court is a confusing, noisy, crowded place, full of tough-looking people, and full of procedure, pomp, and protocol. It is so foreign to people like—

Chris Tremain: What about the member? You’re not that tough-looking. So you’re just a pussycat?

GARETH HUGHES: No, I am not a pussycat, but I am talking about what court is and about its environment. As a defendant, the person is going to a foreign place about which he or she does not have any experience. The defendant has lawyers—of whom we have enough representation in this Chamber—who understand what is going on, but a defendant is confused and does not know what is going on. The defendant has only the direction of his or her lawyer. Tonight we are talking about taking an already confusing place, and a place that is already foreign to many people, and making it more confusing, more foreign, and harder to understand. It will be near impossible for people who do not have any experience with courts to defend themselves, and to follow what is going on through a tiny screen, potentially, in their cell.

Potentially, there will be technical problems. This bill will give an awful amount of power to the videographer, so what will happen? It will be the defendants who will suffer. Videographers will have so much power. They will choose what will be filmed and what will not be filmed. By the power of omission they can vastly influence a defendant’s right to a fair trial, and they can influence what the defendant will experience. The defendant could be being abused or be acting under duress in his or her cell, but the jurors and other people in the courtroom would not know.

Jurors will suffer. They will have no access to those all-too-human qualities. Mr Bridges can claim that body language is not important, but as human beings we know that it is. It is an essential part of who we are. As Metiria Turei said earlier, it is an important part of our humanity to be able to look our accusers in the eye. Jurors will find it essential to be able to talk, to see, and to view the defendant and the accused.

As members have discussed tonight, it is so much easier to find a person guilty, or to send him or her to jail for a long time, if that person is not even in the same room. Studies in human nature have shown that that is consistent and is what will happen. We will see more people being convicted and facing longer times in jail because of the decisions made in this Chamber tonight. This legislation will affect the poorest and most vulnerable Kiwis—Māori, the young, and the poor. Those who least understand the legal justice system at the moment will be taken further away from it. It will be those who cannot afford a lawyer—or two lawyers; one lawyer to sit beside the defendant in the cell, advise him or her, and explain what is going on, and the other lawyer, who is in the courtroom—who will suffer and, ultimately, justice will suffer. This bill is taking away our centuries-old right, and taking away a cornerstone of our transparent, fair justice system. It is a right and a fundamental civil liberty to be present at one’s trial. This bill takes away the accused’s choice.

The Green Party supports videoconferencing. As Greens, we encourage its use because of the considerable environmental benefit, but an accused person needs a choice. I celebrate the justice system, which is investing $2 million in audiovisual link technology, but I say that defendants need a choice.

Why are we debating this bill tonight? Ultimately, the reason is cost savings. We are trying to make things cheaper for the justice system, but that is cheapening justice. What we will get is justice on the cheap.

We have heard speaker after speaker from a host of parties in the Committee condemn this bill in the strongest language, not because of political reasons but because it has a fundamental injustice. I urge the Government to take a breath, take a cup of tea, and put the legislation on hold for a week. If the Government does not, then I urge the ACT Party to stand up and vote against this bill. This is a travesty and an injustice. Kia ora.

PAUL QUINN (National): It is a pleasure to stand up in the Committee stage to speak on the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. I remind the previous speaker, Gareth Hughes that the total bill has not been condemned, as he suggested. In fact, the only area of contention is clause 9 and some of the associations with regard to that. Principally, the contentious clause is clause 9.

However, I thought that in this call I might focus on some of the other clauses, because I was becoming a little afraid that the Chairman might rule that the speeches were being repetitive and would, therefore, close down the debate. I know that a number of other clauses need to be discussed.

One aspect that I will particularly focus on, in this call anyway, is the efficiency that the audiovisual system might bring to procedural matters, particularly in respect of interlocutory procedures and setting court dates, and those sorts of things. The use of modern technology will be a most efficient thing. Figuratively speaking, one will be there in person but via a video link. I think we have been getting hung up a little bit about the 18th century definition of “in person”. Time and technology have moved on.

Getting back to this particular aspect, the Green member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, Dr Kennedy Graham, has made, and continues to make, a valuable contribution to the discussions on not only this bill but also other bills. He agrees that the only clause of contention is clause 9, but the rest of this bill we all unanimously support. In fact, the leader of the Labour Party team on the select committee, the Hon David Parker, who also always makes useful contributions, agreed that the only contentious part of this bill is clause 9.

In respect of civil proceedings the bill will progress efficiency, particularly where the people involved are overseas or are at other ends of the country. I think we should focus on those good aspects of the bill, and I look forward to the ongoing discussion.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): I have listened closely to this debate, both during the second reading of the bill and during the Committee of the whole House. I have been in my office listening to the contributions of a wide range of speakers from a number of parties on this issue, and I have been persuaded by the Committee of the whole House that we need to make amendment to the issue that has been the subject of considerable debate this evening, this afternoon, and during the second reading. To that end, I have tabled, and the Chair will put the question at the appropriate moment, the following amendment to clause 9: to add as subclause (2) after line 26 on page 6 the following subclause: “(2) Despite subsection (1), AVL must not be used for the appearance of the defendant in a trial that determines his or her guilt or innocence unless the defendant consents to the use.”

The quality of the contributions from all parties on this issue this evening has caused me to think carefully about this very delicate issue. As somebody who regards himself as having a view from time to time on what justice should look like, I am persuaded that indeed when it comes to a substantive matter in respect of a trial, we are not discounting the use of an audiovisual link being applied, but if the defendant does not consent to its use at that substantive level, then he or she should have the ability to require a physical presence at the time that the matter is heard.

I want to reassure our parliamentary colleagues of the plan from this point if the bill proceeds from the Committee of the whole House and through the third reading. I thank representatives from each of the political parties who have indicated that with the tabling of this amendment, they will now see fit to change their view and support the legislation. I acknowledge Labour’s Lianne Dalziel, Kennedy Graham, Hone Harawira, and David Garrett from the ACT Party, for taking part in some discussions, as they say in other jurisdictions, behind the Speaker’s Chair. This is a worthwhile step. I will say that the initial trial period in which the audiovisual link will be rolled out in Auckland will concentrate on procedural matters alone. It will be interesting to see how it develops. I am not ruling out coming back and having a further debate about whether it is appropriate to expand the use of an audiovisual link at some later time. I think that is appropriate, once we see how the system beds in.

But this is one of those moments in the Committee of the whole House when the quality of debate has been high. It is a rare moment, I have to say—after 10½ years, although it feels longer. I am persuaded that the amendment should proceed and I hope now that members who have felt strongly about this issue are reassured that the matter is addressed and they will see fit to support the bill from this point.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I rise firstly to thank the Minister and reassure him that what, in our view, had been arguably the most worrying day in the forty-ninth Parliament has transformed into the most reassuring example of parliamentary democracy in action. There has been reasoned debate, impassioned debate, and a very constructive response from the Minister, and we appreciate that very much. In light of his proposal, to which we give our assent, I hereby withdraw my Supplementary Order Paper 150 amending clause 9.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I will take a very brief call to thank the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, for listening to the debate and for responding in the way that he has. I think it has been a very good debate over the last couple of days, and the result reflects that. I indicate for the record that we will be withdrawing Supplementary Order Paper 149 in the name of David Parker in order to support the Government’s amendment to this bill. As I think I said in my comments in my second reading speech yesterday, that one small amendment to clause 9 would mean unanimity in the House, and I think we have achieved that. I think that the Minister should be congratulated.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour): Along with my colleague, I congratulate the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, and say that this is a good start for some progressive moves on the Government’s part. As Simon Bridges pointed out, I was very choked when I gave my speech. Simon Power probably noticed in his office, too.—

Hon Simon Power: Sorry, I didn’t.

LYNNE PILLAY: He did not. I was very choked during my speech. It is very good to see some progress.

Simon Bridges: It was emotional.

LYNNE PILLAY: It was emotional. It is very good to see some progress. Thank you.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I will take this opportunity to acknowledge that this is an occasion when the House can collaborate. I am sure that those members of the public who have taken the time to listen to this debate can take some heart from the fact that a debating chamber that has extreme partisan views across the spectrum on issues in this country is able to work together, and that a Government can be persuaded that concessions can be made. We look forward to further discussions in the ways previously outlined by the member Lynne Pillay, and debating other issues in due course in the term of this Parliament.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. On behalf of the Māori Party I thank the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, for agreeing to amend clause 9 in the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. It was, for me and for the whole of the Māori Party, a very scary moment before that amendment was introduced. I also wish to thank the Greens and Labour for putting forward those Supplementary Order Papers, which gave us the opportunity to debate this matter in such a manner that the Minister gratefully reconsidered the position and agreed to an amendment. Mihi atu ki a tātou, kia ora tātou katoa.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Simon Power to clause 9 be agreed to:

to add the following subclause as subclause (2):

(2) Despite subsection (1), AVL must not be used for the appearance of the defendant in a trial that determines his or her guilt or innocence unless the defendant consents to that use.

Amendment agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 22 June.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I am happy to make a contribution to the debate on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. My parents, uncles, and aunts belong to a generation who in the late 1960s and early 1970s were able to purchase their first three or four-bedroom homes in working-class suburbs such as Grey Lynn and Ponsonby and, later, Ōtara, Ōtāhuhu, Māngere, and Papatoetoe. The cost was roughly $9,000 to $15,000 per house. They were able to do that while they worked in the factories that lined the streets of Penrose, Mount Wellington, and Ellerslie, and in the freezing works in Ōtāhuhu.

There was support from Housing New Zealand loans, which, at that time, charged interest of 3 percent per annum for a 30-year mortgage, which is similar to USA mortgages today—not the 8 percent that banks charge today for 3 to 5 years. Today homeownership is almost an impossible goal for many families, and I suspect that some members here, such as the Hon George Hawkins, Ross Robertson, and others in similar communities, will feel the struggle that families are encountering.

That same three-bedroom house in Māngere is today valued at about $300,000 to $400,000. A family would need to be earning about $124,000 a year to make weekly mortgage payments of about $500 or $600 per week in order to maintain such a mortgage. In a working-class community such as Māngere, where the median income is about $20,600 per year and where 81 percent of the population earn less than $40,000 a year, owning their own home is perhaps one of the biggest challenges that those working families now face. Many of those families will be for ever bound to the hip of a landlord. Statistics show that renters number about 1 million, and that number is rising.

Having a house is a basic human right. It is a basic human right to have a roof over one’s head and to have shelter for one’s family. But economic circumstances, low-wage rates, high unemployment—particularly under this Government—the increasing cost of living, an increase in GST, and a lack of educational opportunities due to funding cuts mean that many families in these working-class communities do not have control over their economic circumstances and therefore have no control over securing this basic human right for themselves and their families.

It does not help that the National Government has decided to axe the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s shared equity scheme, a move that my colleague and Opposition spokesperson on housing, Moana Mackey, has called short-sighted. It seems that the Government will stop funding the shared equity scheme from 1 July—tomorrow. Shared equity is an important part of the housing affordability mix in many other countries. Minister Heatley promised before the 2008 election that he would continue with shared equity, at least until his long-awaited Gateway Housing initiative was available, but Budget 2010 contained no funding for this so-far mythical scheme.

The bill on the Table amends the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and other legislation to adopt into law the significant changes in the structure and dynamics of the residential rental market that have taken place since the Act came into force. The fact is that the number of people living in rental housing has increased, and there has been a corresponding decline in homeownership rates. The aim of this particular legislation is to encourage the development of a rental market that provides stable, quality housing to those who rent their homes, to enable landlords to manage their properties more effectively, and to clarify and appropriately balance the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords.

I acknowledge the fact that this work began under my colleague Maryan Street, a former Minister of Housing. Labour welcomes the much-needed updating of our residential tenancy laws, but we believe that this bill is also a missed opportunity for the Government to fairly protect the interests of the more than 1 million tenants in New Zealand. People who are long-term renters want stability and certainty in their lives, and they want the ability to put down some roots. This is important for our communities, especially for families so that children do not have to be moved from school to school. Having long-term, reliable tenants is also important for property owners who want their investment looked after.

Although Labour supports much of this bill, which was introduced under the previous Labour Government, we have concerns about some of the changes made to it by this National Government. These concerns were raised by submitters during the select committee process, and they are reflected in Labour’s minority report.

The first concern I raise is the termination of a tenancy for the provision of short-term accommodation for major events. Labour is disappointed that the National Government voted down an amendment that would have prevented tenants from being evicted from their homes so that landlords can rent the properties out during major events. Moana Mackey’s amendment would have prevented the eviction of a tenant from any rental property, including a boarding house, for the purpose of making a quick buck by providing short-term accommodation during major events such as the Rugby World Cup.

Earlier this year boarding-house tenants were evicted en masse so that their rooms could be used during the Wellington Sevens. This put enormous pressure on social services and emergency accommodation providers, who struggled to cope with the displaced and vulnerable people. There is already concern in Auckland that the same thing will happen next year during the Rugby World Cup, especially with hotels charging such high prices. My colleague Moana Mackey spoke to the Minister months ago and alerted him to this issue. He chose to do nothing about it himself, and then voted against Labour’s attempt to rectify the problem.

Another area of concern is cleansing orders. The Government removed the requirement for landlords to disclose to tenants the fact that a cleansing order has been issued for a property. The Government said that there is already a legal requirement for cleansing orders—for example, on a house used to manufacture methamphetamine—to be listed on the land information memorandum report, and that the report can be accessed by the potential tenant. It said that the Tenancy Tribunal considers the letting of contaminated houses to be a breach of the principal Act.

However, the reality of this change is that it places the onus on the tenant. The tenant is the one who will have to access the land information memorandum report for a property he or she may wish to lease, on the off-chance that it may have been contaminated by the manufacture of P. That is unrealistic, especially given the cost of obtaining a land information memorandum report, which can be several hundred dollars. Also, questions still exist about the consistency of council practices when it comes to cleansing orders and their attachment to land information memorandum reports.

Given these concerns, we feel that the protection of tenants should be paramount and the clause should be reinstated. Unfortunately, this Government voted it down. Labour wanted to limit the requirement to disclose cleansing orders to those imposed in the last 5 years. The original bill did not impose a time limit.

Something that is of concern to me is the requirement for key money. Labour’s proposal to prohibit the collection of key money would have removed a significant upfront financial barrier to some tenants who are trying to find private sector accommodation. It would have reduced the need for benefit advances to cover letting fees, and it would have eased the pressure on social housing from those who cannot afford the upfront costs of a bond, advance rent, and the letting fee.

Currently, the cost of renting a three-bedroom home in Māngere would be about $350 a week—if one was lucky. Landlords want 4 weeks’ rent as a bond, plus the first week’s rent in advance, plus a letting fee of $350. To move in, a family would need to front up with about $2,100. These are families who earn less than $40,000 a year, and they spend all they earn just to pay the bills. Families will end up using loan sharks in desperation to find appropriate accommodation. For that reason I believe, along with my colleagues, that this bill was another missed opportunity for the Government to right this wrong.

I say in conclusion that although Labour members support the clarification of the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants, and the general updating of tenancy laws, we say that the Government has missed an opportunity to adequately protect the 1 million families who rent.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Speaking as a member who is a tenant and a renter, I am happy to take this call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, which modernises the Residential Tenancies Act. This bill is better than the status quo, and that is why the Greens will be voting in support of it tonight. However, we lament the missed opportunities to increase the rights for the more than 1 million tenants in New Zealand, including those in non-traditional housing environments. Tonight I will raise the issue of those who live in cold, damp, and unhealthy homes.

We support many of the minor changes in this bill to clarify existing law and to broaden it out to reflect the significant changes that have occurred since the legislation was first introduced in this House in 1986. Since 1986 the proportion of New Zealanders who rent their homes has gone up. More young people are flatting away from home, and a larger number of older people with children and families are choosing to rent.

Tonight, while we discuss the law around tenancies, I would like to discuss where people are living. By First World standards the standard of our housing stock is appalling. According to a recent study commissioned by the Business Council for Sustainable Development, New Zealand has around 1 million inadequately insulated homes. Too many of our homes are cold and damp. It is no wonder that we have disproportionately higher rates of asthma and other respiratory diseases. While we are talking books tonight, I would like to “book-drop” Philippa Howden-Chapman’s new book, Do Damp and Mould Matter? Health Impacts of Leaky Homes, which documents the extreme health impacts of our poor housing.

On top of health issues, our inefficient housing leads to excessive power consumption, higher than necessary heating bills for many households, and a huge amount of householders who are living in energy poverty, which plays a part in New Zealand’s increasing greenhouse gas emissions. We have around 450,000 rental properties that house a third of our population, and generally those are the coldest and least efficient of our nation’s housing stock. Lower socioeconomic groups and young people are disproportionately affected by substandard rental properties. Many young people have no choice but to pay exorbitant rents in exchange for housing that is cold, damp, inefficient, and expensive to heat.

The Green Party has achieved a lot with this Government and the previous Labour Government, and the current scheme aims to retrofit 188,000 Kiwis’ homes with ceiling and underfloor insulation, and to provide them with access to clean-heating devices over 4 years. However, when we look at the rental market, we see that the uptake has been only about 10 percent of this scheme for rental properties. At this rate, it will take decades to bring all of our rental properties up to an acceptably healthy level. So tonight, while we think about tenancy law, let us also think holistically about where our people are tenants.

In looking at this bill, the Green Party believes that it is important to strike the right balance between the rights of landlords and the rights of tenants. In my second reading speech, I looked at a few of the issues that the Greens had with this bill, such as the termination issue in respect of boarding-house tenants. The security of tenure issue for boarding-house residents, which we had concerns about at earlier stages, was improved somewhat in the Social Services Committee, but not to the extent that we would have liked. Another issue was the charging of letting fees. The Green Party would have supported a prohibition on the charging of letting fees to tenants.

We lament the unfortunate oversight of the bill’s not addressing the termination of a residential tenancy following the death of a tenant. When we look at legal representation issues, we see that this continues the currently unfair provision that permits corporate landlords to otherwise be represented by an experienced tenancy manager, while tenants, who often know little about tenancy law and may well have English as a second language, are forced to represent themselves. Boarding-house residents have been waiting a long time for legislation that will extend their rights and current protections. However, there is another sector in New Zealand that is currently unprotected. We could have been extending protection to those who reside in non-traditional housing forms such as caravan parks and backpacker lodges

Everyone in New Zealand deserves a fair go, but this bill failed to address the fact of life that in New Zealand in 2010 many thousands of Kiwis are not formal tenants, they do not live in boarding houses, and they suffer for want of normal tenancy rights. It is a good example of where the updating of this old 1980s Act was good and necessary, but this bill has not gone far enough to reflect the real facts on the ground.

Lastly, it was a pity that the amendment put up by the Labour member Moana Mackey in respect of major events did not pass. This is a major concern, given that one of the world’s biggest sporting events is coming to our shores next year—the Rugby World Cup. We will see people in boarding houses and flats kicked out of their homes so that landlords can make a quick buck.

In summary, the main criticisms of this bill at its first reading were in relation to issues that it did not adequately address. Following the Social Services Committee’s consideration of the bill, some positive and some negative changes were made, but from our point of view and on balance the Green Party still supports voting for this bill. Kia ora.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker.

David Garrett: This will be good.

HONE HARAWIRA: No, this will not be good; this is just a short call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. The Māori Party supports legislation that encourages a stable market for people renting houses, that will help landlords manage their properties better, and that will help balance the rights of both tenants and landlords. But I would like to raise a few points here, like the difference in rental tenancy levels for Māori, at 67 percent, and for non-Māori, at 44 percent, and the fact that of all New Zealanders who own their own homes, only 7 percent are Māori. A report entitled Māori Housing Experiences: Emerging Trends and Issues by Charles Waldegrave, Peter King, Tangihaere Walker, and Eljon Fitzgerald tells us to no one’s great surprise that Māori face greater challenges in getting rental accommodation, including supply, quality, pricing, and variation in landlord practices. They also pointed out that Māori often accept sub-standard housing and even rogue landlords if it means they can stay closer to whānau. So, knowing all these things—high rental levels, low ownership rates, challenges in getting decent accommodation, and rogue landlords—to be true, this bill is important for Māori.

We take on board some of the comments raised by, in particular, my colleague from Labour Su’a William Sio, about issues of people being evicted for events. We also note concerns raised by the Coalition to End Homelessness, who said that although they liked the idea that the bill promotes the improvement in the standard of boarding houses, unless support was available to help upgrade some of those boarding houses, many of them would simply close, thus bringing about an unintended housing crisis. That raised concerns about the fact that this bill should perhaps have been extended to cover caravan parks, given that these days they are often used for long-term accommodation, as well. We also thought that the termination of boarding-house tenancies because of just 1-week’s arrears was a bit tough given that it is usually 3 weeks everywhere else, but overall we were comfortable enough with the general thrust of the bill to give it our support. Kia ora tātou.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): It gives me pleasure to rise and speak on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill this evening. The bill changes legislation that has been in force since 1986. Since that time, we find that one-third of New Zealand households now live in rental accommodation. Indeed, private rental housing is having a bigger impact on New Zealand’s social and economic outcomes than it did in 1986, when the Residential Tenancies Act came into force.

I have an appreciation of both sides of this debate. Last weekend I was a tenant, but with my family I have moved into homeownership. I am reliably informed that my wife is at home at the moment unpacking boxes—at least, if the programme Desperate Housewives is no longer on she will be unpacking them. I appreciate the need—

Stuart Nash: You’re in trouble, mate. I would stay in Wellington for the week.

Dr Rajen Prasad: Too much information!

TODD McCLAY: Hansard will note that members opposite are interjecting. I know that those members tune in to Desperate Housewives in their offices most nights of the week.

I therefore have an appreciation of the challenges that tenants face, and the uncertainty there can be if one has an unscrupulous landlord. But at the same time, I believe that those who own properties view them, in many cases, not as a business but as their own homes, and they, too, have rights as well as obligations.

The reforms that this bill brings to the House tonight are long overdue. I believe that the Social Services Committee worked very well on this bill. We sought to balance the rights and obligations of the tenant with the rights and obligations of the landlord. I thank the very hard-working Minister of Housing, Phil Heatley, for the work that he has done in this term of Parliament in bringing this bill to the stage that it is. I also recognise that the previous Government introduced this legislation to the House, and that it is to be completed in this term of Parliament.

To my colleagues on this side of the House and to members opposite, I say that I believe that the Social Services Committee members worked very well together. We shared concern in most areas that have been raised in the debate so far, and certainly the concerns that many submitters had, particularly tenants and their advocates. I think where we differed sometimes was only in the approach by which we would fix some of these issues and concerns. Generally, the committee worked very well together, and we had a lot of very good submissions that I think all members learnt from.

The bill does a number of things; I will touch on them just briefly and then go into one area in a little more detail. This bill extends the coverage of the Residential Tenancies Act quite substantially. It clarifies a number of issues that submitters were concerned with, particularly the responsibility of outgoings, such as rates and water, and exactly who should be responsible for those and in what conditions their responsibilities should be met. It also provides for new processes for terminating or renewing tenancy agreements. That is very important because—as, I think, a previous speaker opposite said—when somebody lives in a home, whether or not they own it, they want a certain amount of security. The bill goes a long way to providing that security for tenants. It encourages landlords and tenants to comply more fully with their obligations. It provides for the majority of tenancy disputes to be resolved more quickly, fairly, and cost-effectively. I think that is important for tenants but also for landlords. The bill improves the enforceability of Tenancy Tribunal orders. It enables steps to be taken in the case of unclaimed or uncollected bonds and for them to be refunded. It also deals with the issue of abandoned goods.

The select committee received a number of submissions both from landlords and from tenants on this issue. The law as it stands states that if a tenant leaves a property and leaves behind goods, depending upon the value of those goods, the landlord has an obligation to store them at his or her own cost, in some cases for an extended period of time. We realised in the committee that we needed to be very careful, as goods are not abandoned in all cases, yet the current law does not distinguish between those that are left to be collected and those that are merely abandoned when a tenant leaves under whatever circumstance. So what the committee did, and certainly what this bill does, is to continue the obligation upon landlords to act responsibly, but to reduce some of the burden upon them and the extent of the periods of time when they might need to store those goods. That means that the storage of those goods would not always be at their cost. I think that that is a more balanced approach that means that landlords will need to act more responsibly, but not at their full cost.

I mention one submitter, Richard Evans of Rotorua Rentals. He submitted and appeared before the committee. Mr Evans travelled to Wellington to provide information to us. Rotorua Rentals manages 800 properties in Rotorua. It is an extremely professional company. The experience that Mr Evans brought to the committee was extremely useful, I believe.

That just leaves me to thank the committee staff for their work, the officials, the experts from the Ministry of Housing, and all submitters on this bill. They made it easier for the whole select committee to get to the position where the legislation before us now will do a great deal of good, will provide greater protection to tenants, but, most important, will provide a greater certainty to landlords and homeowners. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I will take a short call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. In doing so, I add my voice to that of Mr McClay, who acknowledged the work of the officials. I agree with Mr McClay that the Social Services Committee worked very well indeed, and I include the work of Katrina Shanks, who chairs that committee in an excellent fashion, as well.

I add my congratulations to one other member, and that is Moana Mackey. I really believe that Moana Mackey, my colleague, is the leading light in this House when it comes to housing matters. She really is the leading light in this House in the demonstration of her understanding of housing, and her understanding of the needs of tenants. She has consistently advocated for tenants, and for the 30 percent of New Zealanders who live in rented accommodation. She has particularly brought to the House the voices of those who earn modest sums of money, and who earn less than $50,000. I congratulate her on her work throughout all stages of this bill, and say that her advocacy, her clarity of thought, and her consistency were something to behold. If I were the Minister of Housing, I would be very worried. I would watch very carefully how this member develops in terms of her advocacy for housing. The other point I make is simply to acknowledge that this side of the House, the Labour Party, supports the bill; its birth came from this side of the House.

The bill modernises and brings into the 21st century the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and makes a number of very important and valuable contributions. However, there really is a missed opportunity here that I will comment on. I do not think that the bill achieves its third aim, which is to clarify and appropriately balance tenant and landlord rights. When I spoke in the first reading, I said that I would be looking, throughout the various stages of the bill, to see how the competing needs and interests of landlord and investor were married up with the needs of tenants and their ability to pay. Throughout the process I have participated in, I have been trying to see whether that balance is right. At times, it has been very elusive. We have not been able to see where the balance is in some of the matters. Indeed, those matters are very well reflected in the amendments that members on this side of the House put forward. I think those amendments were very important, and it is a shame that the Government was not driven to see their merits.

When it comes to cleansing orders, what was the harm in giving to tenants a very easy way of understanding whether a particular house had a cleansing order? Why was it necessary for this bill to place the onus on the tenant to go and get a land information memorandum in order to find that out? That balance is missing. The provisions regarding key money are imbalanced as well. Why did members on the other side not propose an amendment that charged the purchaser of a house to pay the land agent’s fees? For tenants there is a very different set of requirements. That is not balanced either. When it comes to the increasing of the limits before a tenant can be represented at the Tenancy Tribunal, there is a lack of balance, and we do not see why that is.

We can go through and identify a number of those imbalances, but I put before this House one particular matter that has not been debated to any extent, and that comes from—

Hone Harawira: You’d better hurry.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: —I have a minute—those who are living in boarding houses. From now on there is an authority for boarding-house tenants to be evicted at 24 hours’ notice. Many of them are mental health patients, and I hope that regulations will be developed to ask the landlords of boarding houses to make services available to ensure that those who have mental health needs have those needs met, or that they are pointed in the right direction to receive the services they require. That might simply mean having available the information about where to refer those people to, before somebody is evicted from a boarding house. Many of those people are mental health patients with particular needs.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.