Thursday, 28 June 2012

Thursday, 28 June 2012

Thursday, 28 June 2012

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Next week the House is in a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 17 July, the Government will progress the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill and the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill. The Business Committee has determined that the House will take extended hours on Wednesday, 18 July, for the second readings of the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill and the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill, the Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill, the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill, and the Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I wonder whether the acting Leader of the House can tell us whether bill No. 5 on the Order Paper, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill, is likely to be progressed in the next sitting?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I do not know but I will find out.

Tabling of Documents

Family/Whānau Violence Prevention—Family Violence Whānau Ora Fund Grant

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): On behalf of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, I seek leave to table a document from the family and community services group, which is a service of the Ministry of Social Development, showing that a grant of $80,000 was made from the Family Violence Whānau Ora Fund to Te Roopu Whakaruruhau o ngā Wāhine Māori in Palmerston North.

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.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

KiwiRail—Turnaround Plan and Financial Restructuring

1. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: When did he become aware of the decision to write down the value of KiwiRail by $6.7 billion?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: KiwiRail’s chair first expressed a desire to the Government that it revalue KiwiRail’s balance sheet to reflect a more commercial value, in late 2010. KiwiRail then spent several months working through the various legal, accounting, and tax implications of such a step. In October last year KiwiRail announced its intention to proceed with—at that stage—an estimated $6 billion write-down, and announced that at its annual public meeting. Cabinet took the decision to approve the final write-down this month on the basis it would put the company on a more commercial footing under its long-term $4.5 billion turn-round plan. Under the plan, the Government is committed to ensuring that KiwiRail can fund its business on a commercial basis.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that time frame of pre-warning, why did he not include any quantification on the write-down in the value of KiwiRail assets in Budget 2012?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The proposed KiwiRail write-down was included as a specific risk in Budget 2012, but it was unquantified. The reason it was not included in the actual Budget numbers at that time is that it had yet to be considered by Cabinet. So there was uncertainty as to whether it would proceed in the current financial year or whether there was too much uncertainty around the amount. There is still some uncertainty around the final amount, but the numbers quoted in yesterday’s press releases are the best estimates at this time.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why did he announce the decision in Budget 2012, with such specificity, to allocate $250 million from the sale of Mighty River Power towards KiwiRail, without the same form of transparency and specificity when quantifying the amount of the planned write-down?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, it is because the $250 million capital expenditure has been planned and budgeted for KiwiRail for some time. The actual amount of the valuation and when it could occur were actually not decided until the opportunity was there for Cabinet to consider it.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can he confirm that in the 2011 financial year Treasury contracted NG Consulting Ltd, a company that specialises in initial public offerings and valuations, to provide advice relating to the Government’s ownership interest in the KiwiRail group?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I cannot confirm that for him today, but I can confirm for him that the Government has no intention, nor does it believe it would be possible, to sell KiwiRail. It was picked up by the previous Government at a rather large price. It was revalued upwards—the different components—by the previous Government. This Government is focused very much on a difficult turn-round plan, which is very challenging for the company, and would be very surprised if somebody wanted to buy it currently.

Andrew Williams: Will he confirm that no financial consultants have been engaged to advise the Government on the sale of KiwiRail, or the land in the ownership of the New Zealand Railways Corporation, to foreign interests?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I obviously cannot confirm everything the Minister may have received, but I can confirm to the member there are absolutely no plans to sell KiwiRail. There are absolutely no plans to sell what was being described as the longest and skinniest farm, which is KiwiRail’s land under its tracks. I think members opposite would do well to consider that the Government, on behalf of taxpayers, is doing a very, very challenging job to rescue what was an appalling situation inherited in regard to the rail company.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that answer, will he give the House a guarantee today that KiwiRail, or part thereof, will not be at any time sold by his Government?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is posing something that is eminently not possible. The reality is—I tell you what, we would not be able to sell it at the price that Labour bought it. Labour spent over $1 billion—

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

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —in 2008. If somebody—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! A point of order has been called.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: With respect, there was no political loading. It was a simple question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order is being heard.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It was a simple question that built on the Minister’s previous two answers. It simply asked him whether he would guarantee to the House that KiwiRail or part thereof would not be sold off at any time. It is a simple question, whatever else—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is absolutely right. His question was quite a simple question like that. I thought the Minister had answered it at the start, and that he said it would be impossible to sell it. But since he then went on to add unnecessary criticism of the questioner’s party, maybe the Minister now should answer the question rather than just leave it to assumptions.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I will try to answer the question for the member as follows. The Government is focused on very much trying to recover some of the sunk cost in KiwiRail, and—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! The question was a very simple question. It just asked whether the Minister is prepared to guarantee that the Government would not sell any shares or part—I cannot remember the exact wording now—of that asset. I can understand the Minister’s desire to say why it might be impossible, but the answer is dead simple. The answer is either the Government is prepared to, or it is not prepared to. The question did not ask whether it was possible. It asked whether the Government would sell, or whether the Minister would give a guarantee that the Government would not try to sell any of it.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was trying to provide some context as to why it would not be possible to do so, but if the Speaker would prefer, I will not provide that context. It is just that normally Ministers do get the opportunity to provide context to the answers to their question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Normally, the Speaker is perfectly happy to see Ministers do the context after they have answered the question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: After the questioner’s statement—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The issue is simple. The answer does not actually need a lot of context. The Government is either prepared to sell or not. I am always happy to allow context after the question has been answered.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: My point is that it would not be possible to recover anything like the sunk cost of KiwiRail, so the Government is very much focused on trying to turn the business around to recover some value for stakeholders. The matter just simply does not come up. I would not guarantee it, because the reality is—[Interruption] No, the reality is that you cannot guarantee anything in this world. I can tell the member that it is a long, long time before we will get back, under any circumstances, the money that Labour wasted in KiwiRail.

Mineral Resources—Aeromagnetic Survey Within World Heritage Area

2. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Why is he conducting an aerial survey for minerals within a world heritage area?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources): Although I will not personally be conducting the aeromagnetic survey, I am advised that the data will be used for geological mapping, forestry, agriculture and horticulture, engineering and construction investigations, digital elevation modelling, and geological hazard assessment. The Alpine Fault, of course, the member may note, runs right through the area, and in light of the Canterbury earthquakes it is hoped the information will give us a better understanding of the tectonics in that area. I note again for the member the Government’s previous comments that there would be no tender for permits for schedule 4 or World Heritage areas.

Catherine Delahunty: Is he saying that no information about mineral potential is being collected by his Government in the South Westland World Heritage area?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: A whole range of information is being collected. I am explaining to the member why the aeromagnetic survey is actually going on in that area. I have said to the member, and will repeat for her benefit, that there will be no tender for permits for schedule 4 or World Heritage areas.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a simple question. Is he saying that no information about mineral potential is being collected? He did not answer that bit.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point. The question actually asked whether information on mineral potential would be collected. It did not repeat the primary question. It did not ask why the survey is being doing. It actually asked that specific question, and it is not unreasonable for the member to be expecting an answer to it.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I thought I did at the outset say that some of that information will be collected, alongside all the other information, but again I noted for the member the Government’s previous comments that there will be no tender for permits for schedule 4 or World Heritage areas.

Catherine Delahunty: If he is looking but not planning to touch our World Heritage areas, why is he spending taxpayer money on the minerals part of the survey within one?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: At the risk of repeating the answer to the primary question for the member, I am advised that the data is used for geological mapping, forestry, agriculture and horticulture, engineering and construction investigations, digital elevation modelling, and geological hazard assessment. I presume that is why we are spending the money.

Catherine Delahunty: Will he give a 100 percent guarantee that our World Heritage areas will not be mined?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I answered that question in the affirmative in both the primary answer and the first supplementary answer.

Catherine Delahunty: If he can guarantee that no mining will take place in World Heritage areas, will the Government place the entirety of our World Heritage areas under the legal protection of schedule 4?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister is responsible for that issue, I call the Hon Steven Joyce.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is a question the member has to put down to the Minister of Conservation.

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that it is uncommon to table legislation, but, in fact, the Minister of Energy and Resources has concurrent powers with the Minister of Conservation.

Hon David Parker: My understanding is that this is done by way of an amendment to the Crown Minerals Act, which has a schedule to it, and which is the responsibility of the Minister of Energy and Resources.

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker is in a dilemma here because although the Speaker can ask Ministers to answer questions, I cannot debate with Ministers what issues they are responsible for. Only the Minister can have that knowledge. I call the Hon Steven Joyce. If there is anything further he could add, I would appreciate it.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: To clarify it for the members, I do not see that the matter actually comes up, because the Government has made the commitment not to mine in those areas.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that we are discussing the Minister’s responsibility for placing it under schedule 4, which is the responsibility, under the Crown Minerals Act, of the Minister of Energy and Resources.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought I heard—forgive me, I—

Chris Hipkins: Let us have the question again.

Mr SPEAKER: I will let the member repeat her question, to avoid any doubt on the question. I apologise for taking the House’s time for this. I blame myself for this situation.

Catherine Delahunty: If he can guarantee that no mining will take place in World Heritage areas, will the Government place the entirety of our World Heritage areas under the legal protection of schedule 4?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In light of the Government’s commitments, I do not think that will be necessary.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Will he consult with the Minister of Conservation in regard to any proposals to mine on any conservation land, or does he agree with her description of her role as being responsible only for looking for things, not for doing things?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government takes a collective approach on these matters, and of course I would consult with the Minister of Conservation if there was such a matter to discuss.

Catherine Delahunty: So is he telling New Zealanders that we have to rely on his word rather than on legal protection to make sure that the minerals survey he is conducting in a World Heritage area will not be used for mining?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes.

Better Public Services Targets—Effect on Economy

3. MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Finance: How will the Better Public Services results targets announced this week contribute to a stronger economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Government has set ambitious targets across 10 result areas for the Public Service to achieve over the next 5 years. Getting better results in difficult areas like reducing crime, reducing long-term welfare dependency, and reducing educational underachievement improves the lives of individuals, saves taxpayers money, and benefits the economy. The public sector makes up about a quarter of the economy, so any improvement in public sector productivity naturally flows through to the wider economy. That is why it is one of the Government’s four main priorities alongside responsibly managing the Government’s finances, building a more competitive economy, and rebuilding Christchurch.

Maggie Barry: What benefits will achieving Better Public Services targets have in terms of raising the skill level of the New Zealand workforce?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Lifting educational achievement lifts the skills available in the New Zealand workforce. This helps our economy become more productive and competitive as it continues to recover from the recession that started under the previous Labour Government. For example, today the tertiary education Minister discussed with the adult literacy and numeracy forum new initiatives to target foundation-level education at those who have not previously achieved in education and need to lift their skills and employment prospects. We are also looking to make levels 1 and 2 foundation funding more fees-free, meaning learners will not have to take out a student loan. Already under this Government the number of adults accessing literacy and numeracy support has tripled. All these things help us meet our target of 55 percent of New Zealanders aged 25 to 34 having a level 4 or higher qualification.

Maggie Barry: What benefits will achieving Better Public Services targets have for New Zealand businesses?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is determined to drive down costs for businesses dealing with government by 25 percent by 2017. We will achieve this by developing a one-stop online shop to deliver faster online services, better integration of services, and designing services around business needs. Our target is deliberately ambitious to achieve a significant improvement in the quality and cost of business interactions with government. Improving the quality of these transactions and making them easier and faster to complete will have a significant impact for the businesses involved and for the New Zealand economy.

Hon David Parker: Why, after 4 years of his Government, has he got no target—never mind an ambitious target—for either export growth, current account deficit reduction, or net international liabilities by which his Government can be held to account, given that even today we have Philip Borkin, an economist at Goldman Sachs Group, saying that the decline in exports and rising imports are the driving force behind our deteriorating current account deficit and rising international indebtedness?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The first one in all those things would be to do better than the previous Labour Government, and we have already achieved that. The second one is that actually the Government does have indicators. For example, we have a very ambitious target for increasing export growth, being led by the Minister of Trade and the Minister for Economic Development—

Hon Members: What’s the target?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, it is amusing. I think the Opposition has to decide what its attack is: we either have too many plans or not enough plans. It is over to those members, but they really do have to make up their minds.

Maggie Barry: Has the Minister seen any reports on the Government’s Better Public Services targets?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I have seen a report that achieving things like less welfare dependency, lower crime rates, and improving education is all “meaningless stuff”. On this side of the House we do not think it is adequate to simply spend billions and tell the country that we care. We want to get real results for the community, for individuals, and for the economy. Frankly, I am not surprised by the Opposition’s reaction, because focusing on getting better results is a relatively new experience for the New Zealand Government, as the last lot was focused on how they managed to spend the most money.

Hon David Parker: What is the export target that he referred to in answer to my last supplementary question?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: To achieve exports at 40 percent of GDP by 2025.

Economy, Sustainable—Pure Advantage Report

4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all his recent statements as Minister for Economic Development in relation to the Pure Advantage report New Zealand’s Position in the Green Race; if so, why?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Yes, especially my statements that it is important that New Zealand take advantage of all its opportunities for economic growth within sensible environmental and safety protections.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why, then, did he say that he fundamentally disagrees with New Zealand getting a slice of the $6 trillion world market export opportunity in the move to a clean economy, and why does he believe this would be “far too value-destroying” for the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Because the Pure Advantage people promote shifting a whole lot of resources, particularly Government resources, into subsidising those industries as a way of actually achieving that level of growth, and although we of course support and encourage our high-tech and cleantech industries—and some of them are doing a fantastic job—there is a limit to how much you can support them without being value-destroying for other parts of the economy. Also, saying that certain industries should not be invested in when they represent between them roughly 80 percent of our exports would be value-destroying.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why will he not heed the actual call by Pure Advantage, as clarified by chairman Rob Morrison, to level the playing field so big pollution has to play by the same rules as innovative Kiwi cleantech start-ups?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not quite sure what the member is alluding to, but I presume he means that industry should pay higher costs around, for example, emissions than they currently do. Of course, that would mean that they would be paying costs that their competitors in other countries do not face, which would be value-destroying. The challenge for New Zealand as a country trying to grow its exports is to make sure that it does not hobble its exporters with tests and costs that other countries’ exporters do not have to face.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why did he describe the Pure Advantage group of business leaders as self-interested and accuse them of bias in asking for “very big subsidies into industries and firms that would … not be economic …”, when its recent report does not call for specific subsidies; and if he cannot substantiate those claims, will he now withdraw and apologise to Pure Advantage chairman Mr Rob Morrison and trustees such as Mr Phillip Mills, Mr Jeremy Moon, Mr Mark Solomon, and Sir Stephen Tindall?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sure that Rob will be quite capable of the robust debate, as I am sure he has been in the past, and I have had good discussions with him about it as well. The point I was making is that in the report it talks a lot and in very positive terms of countries that make very, very big subsidies to industry, such as Spain and the Nordic countries—and also, for example, America with the Tesla Motors company—and suggests that would be a model for New Zealand to follow. Obviously I disagree.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the 13th of this month National backbenchers declined leave for me to table the Pure Advantage—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear what the issue of order is. Is the member seeking leave to table a document? I do not want to hear some speech; I want to hear exactly the reason why the member is raising a point of order.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table the Pure Advantage report, New Zealand’s Position in the—

Mr SPEAKER: All members have this document available to them, as I understand it.

Hon David Cunliffe: It is not readily available to members in the House, and the Minister has again—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a published document that has been published in recent times. I do not think we need to table stuff that is published and readily available.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table the uncorrected transcript of Mr Joyce’s comments to the Commerce Committee during the estimates examination in public session of Vote Economic Development, in which he made several of those critical comments.

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

Hon Tim Groser: Is the Minister aware that the Pure Advantage report suggested that a very good model to follow would be the Birmingham City Council green growth strategy, which produced 270 jobs at a cost of nearly $2 million a job, and does he think that is a sensible model to follow for New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I am aware of that and a number of other models cited in the report. I think that illustrates the problem with the approach. The debate has actually moved on and in the New Zealand economy we are focused very much on greening our successful export industries and developing new industries, and not just trying to pick winners, as Mr Cunliffe seems to be advocating.

Parenting Support—Grandparents Raising Grandchildren

5. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What parenting support has the Government recently made available to grandparents who are raising grandchildren?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Grandparents raising their grandchildren do a truly remarkable job. To support them in their parenting role we asked Parents Centres to tailor a version of their Toolbox parenting programme. The resource includes 9 hours of practical parenting advice on DVD, with a manual that carers can work their own way through at home. [Interruption] Well, I know that the other side did not do much with them, so I am trying to catch up. Parents Centres in partnership with the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust will be sending the material out to over 5,000 grandparents.

Chris Auchinvole: How else has the Government supported grandparents who are raising their grandchildren?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The majority of grandparents raising grandchildren do so without the involvement of Child, Youth and Family. For these families, this Government has taken a number of small but significant steps to provide further support. We have raised the main payment that grandparents can receive to match the rate of those made to Child, Youth and Family carers—matching the unsupported child benefit and the orphans benefit to the foster care allowance—and we have provided 500 respite care places a year for grandchildren in week-long holiday health camps.

Jacinda Ardern: Given that many grandparents are raising grandchildren on their pension alone, will she consider treating them as full foster carers, as is Labour’s policy, which would provide them with greater support than classifying them as carers of unsupported children; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Most of those grandparents are not raising them on superannuation alone. They are eligible, as I stated, for the unsupported child benefit or the orphans benefit.

Hon Annette King: No. That’s not the question.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, the member did actually say that they were raising grandchildren on just their superannuation, whereas actually they are generally eligible for the unsupported child benefit, which this Government has actually matched to the foster-carer rate.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to clarify that I did not—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the question very clearly, and the member started her question with “Given that many grandparents are raising children on their benefit alone”. I know my hearing is not good, but I heard that, and the Minister heard that. If the member wanted to ask a question about the payment made to normal foster parents, or whatever, going to those grandparents, she should have asked that question.

Jacinda Ardern: I did.

Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me, the Minister and I both heard the same question, and I clearly heard the member start her question that way.

Chris Auchinvole: Can the Minister update the House on the other parenting initiatives developed as part of the 2011 Budget?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Budget 2011 supported investment in a number of parenting initiatives in conjunction with Parents Centres. Funding has been provided to deliver and enhance the Toolbox programme specifically to Child, Youth and Family caregivers, whānau, Pasifika, grandparents, and kin carers, progressively delivering the Toolbox to 3,700 extra parents and caregivers for free for them over the next 3 years; also to research and evaluation, and to increase the number of volunteers and facilitators to deliver and coordinate the programme.

Prison, Wiri—Public-private Partnership

6. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she stand by her statement about the proposal to operate Wiri prison privately that “The contract will have strong performance incentives, ensuring we receive a superior service compared to publicly run prisons, or we pay a lower price”?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Acting Minister of Corrections): Yes. I am advised that officials from the Department of Corrections are currently negotiating with Secure Future to finalise contract terms. Fundamental to the contract will be the need for Secure Future to achieve lower recidivism rates than the average for publicly run prisons. It will also face financial penalties if it fails to meet short-term rehabilitation and reintegration measures, including prisoner health and employment targets, and custodial standards.

Charles Chauvel: Has she done any cost-benefit analysis as to what the future costs of a lower price would be, in the event that the prison does not perform on those grounds and actually sees increased reconviction and recidivism rates, as has been the case in Serco-operated sites overseas?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: The penalty payments for failure to meet those targets are one aspect of the calculation that has been done. I do not have any more-specific figures in front of me.

Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Talofa lava. How are the public to have confidence in private prison service providers, given that Mt Eden Corrections Facility operator Serco wrongfully released two potentially dangerous criminals into the community in the year to February 2012?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: I believe that the public can have confidence in the ability of private providers. It is interesting to note that in the last financial year there were two prison escapes; in this financial year there have been 10, of which only two have been from private providers and the balance have been from public prisons. It is also interesting to note that in the last year of the Labour Government there were 23 escapes from publicly run prisons.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have called Charles Chauvel. [Interruption] I apologise to the member. I ask both sides, please—it is mainly National and Labour that are making all the noise—to come to order so we can hear Charles Chauvel’s supplementary question.

Charles Chauvel: Why is the Wiri Prison business case on which the contract is now being negotiated based on a requirement for 2,065 new prison beds by 2020 for a forecast prison population of 10,306, when the latest 2020 prison population forecast is for only 8,165—that is, 2,141 fewer beds than the business case calls for?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: I do not have that level of detail in respect of that supplementary question.

Charles Chauvel: Since the Wiri Prison will add 900 beds to a system that is already thousands of beds in surplus, does the Government still plan to lock New Zealand into a 30-year, $900 million contract to build and operate a private prison, with the inevitable result that thousands more beds in the public system will have to be closed?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: It is important to the Government to have prisons where they are needed. There is a lack of prison capacity in the northern part of the North Island. In fact, there are 1,000 prisoners from the Auckland region who are housed in prisons outside of the Auckland region. There seems little point in maintaining prisons that are in dire need of closure because of their age and level of decrepitude, in places like New Plymouth and Mount Crawford, when the need for capacity is in Auckland.

Charles Chauvel: What basis other than an ideological belief in the superiority of the private sector does the Government have for choosing Serco to run the Wiri Prison, given that it has already failed to meet 40 percent of its existing targets and is virtually certain to face fines payable to the Crown of $400,000 in respect of failures in running its existing site?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: One of the benefits of having private providers of custodial facilities is the ability to have penalty payments for not meeting those targets that are not available within the public system. The fact is that the taxpayers of New Zealand and those people within the prison system are the customers of private providers, and this Government is holding them to account very well.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table the detailed stage two business case from the Department of Corrections for the procurement of a new men’s prison at Wiri through a public-private partnership.

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.

Young Offenders—Review of Youth Offending Strategy and Vetting of Placements

7. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has he made on addressing issues around youth justice?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): This morning I announced plans to write an action plan addressing youth crime as a replacement for the 2002 Youth Offending Strategy. It will take into account changes in offending patterns and trends and the successes of the Fresh Start policies, and address the overrepresentation of Māori youth within our youth justice system.

Jacqui Dean: What specific areas of change will this work address?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: It will address a change in trends in respect of youth justice offending, it will look at new ways in which the youth justice sector has addressed those trends, and it will focus on the strategy of a 5 percent reduction in appearances before the Youth Court, amounting to about 600 fewer young people appearing before our Youth Court, year on year, from 2017.

Metiria Turei: What is the Minister doing to identify and contact young people who may have experienced abuse as a result of a gap in policy that meant that police checks for family group conference placements for youth justice were not done?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: In respect of the delegations I have as Associate Minister for Social Development, that does not fall within my specific delegation, because these matters come under Child, Youth and Family, and the Minister for Social Development retains that priority and that responsibility.

Metiria Turei: What commitment will the Minister take in his ministerial responsibilities for youth justice to ensure that full police checks are undertaken for all current placements as a result of youth justice orders or family group conferences, or current placements where those police checks have not been done?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: I can give an assurance that those police-vetting checks are done for all placements for young people being placed as a result of family group conferences and court orders now.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was not about where it was being currently done but all current places where it was not done.

Mr SPEAKER: Because there is the potential for confusion, the member may repeat her question.

Metiria Turei: Will he commit to ensuring, in his ministerial responsibility for youth justice, to undertake full police checks for all current family group conference placements under youth justice where those police checks were not done?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Yes.

Housing New Zealand Corporation—“Smarter. Faster. Fairer.”

8. Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing: What recent reports has he received on Housing New Zealand’s “Smarter. Faster. Fairer.” housing service?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: The Minister receives regular reports about the progress, implementation, and evaluation of the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s new service delivery model. These reports include updates on the corporation’s customer service centre, which show that there has been a vast improvement in the level of service that customers are receiving recently. It is important to remember that the corporation is modernising the way it does business, and making it quicker and easier for its customers to engage with the corporation.

Hon Annette King: Is the Government delivering a “Smarter. Faster. Fairer.” housing service in Christchurch, where the Housing New Zealand Corporation has 701 vacant houses pending development at a time when the Minister of Māori Affairs is encouraging homeless people to occupy abandoned houses in the red zone?

Hon NATHAN GUY: It is worthwhile mentioning to the member that since September 2010 more than 27,000 urgent repairs have been carried out by the Housing New Zealand Corporation on over 5,000 of the corporation’s properties in the Canterbury region.

Hon Annette King: Who is right: the Minister of Māori Affairs, Pita Sharples, who says that he is shocked at the hardship and the housing crisis in Christchurch; or Gerry Brownlee and himself, who have declared that there is no housing crisis in the city?

Hon NATHAN GUY: As I mentioned in the previous question, we have a real focus on ensuring that we are repairing those 5,000 properties, some of which have been affected by the Canterbury earthquake. There are a lot of jobs involved in terms of supporting that housing stock so that we can get those houses up and running. As I mentioned, 23,000 urgent repairs have taken place since September 2010.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was quite a simple question, and I got the same answer that I had to the question I had asked previously. Maybe he did not hear me. Would you like me to repeat it?

Mr SPEAKER: In the circumstances, since there seemed to be so little attempt to answer the question, the member may repeat it.

Hon Annette King: Who is right: the Minister of Māori Affairs, Pita Sharples, who says he is shocked at the hardship and the housing crisis in Christchurch; or Gerry Brownlee and himself, who have declared there is no housing crisis in the city?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I would prefer to take advice from those two members than I would from anyone across the House. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not think much is going to be achieved by pursuing that one any further. The member may ask a further supplementary question.

Hon Annette King: Is he concerned that the Chief Executive of the Housing New Zealand Corporation said yesterday she has no idea how much her 0800 “dial and wait” housing phone line is costing the Government, or how much the 56,000 calls that were abandoned last month cost; if not, why not?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I was interested in those comments. Indeed, we do have a process on the service centre. It is improving. The member might be interested to know that I rang the call centre at 1.29 p.m. today, and I waited for 9 seconds only.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 9, Barbara Stewart. [Interruption] Order! I apologise to the member. [Interruption] Order! I say to the senior colleague on my left that there is no need for that. The House has had its fun. Please, I want to hear Barbara Stewart’s question No. 9.

Health Services—After-hours Medical Care for Under-sixes

9. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made towards implementing free after-hours medical care for under-sixes?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Excellent progress. Free after-hours care for under-sixes has been operating in Greater Auckland since September last year and operating in the Waikato since 2 June—this month.

Barbara Stewart: Can he explain why details of the funding for the free after-hours care for under-sixes, set to begin on 1 July, are not yet publicly available?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes, they are publicly available. I have made comments on a number of occasions that the $7 million being put aside for this is being funded by drugs coming off patent.

Barbara Stewart: Why have very few rural practices been involved in discussions with their district health boards and primary health organisations about the extension of the under-sixes policy to after-hours care, according to a report published in the latest New Zealand Doctor?

Hon TONY RYALL: That report is wrong. I know that there are significant numbers of rural networks that have been involved in discussions, including Northland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Taranaki, MidCentral, Wairarapa, Nelson-Marlborough, West Coast, and South Canterbury.

Barbara Stewart: What does he say to Dr O’Keefe, executive director of General Practice New Zealand, who says that the ministry’s guidelines for the implementation of this policy do not address matters such as clawbacks or the difference between types of care?

Hon TONY RYALL: I would say that she has missed the point completely. The fact is that this is about providing better access for children aged 5 and under to after-hours general practitioner care. It is a commitment that the Government made before the last election, and it is a very good preventive measure that many people in the health service are welcoming.

Hon Maryan Street: Will free after-hours medical care for under-sixes be available throughout New Zealand; if so, how does he intend the service to be provided in rural areas where there is only one general practitioner available?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is the Government’s intention that it should be available across New Zealand. We have to remember, though, that this is not a compulsory scheme. We have had to negotiate this with individual after-hours centres and general practitioner networks. For those who do not want to participate, we cannot force them to. But I think excellent progress is being made.

Television, Public Service Channels—Closure of TVNZ 7

10. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister of Broadcasting: Does he stand by the statement of the previous Minister of Broadcasting, Hon Jonathan Coleman, on 30 May 2012 in relation to the decision to scrap TVNZ7 “there was no plan for how TVNZ7 would be funded in the future”?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting): Yes.

Clare Curran: In light of that answer, who is correct: him, when he said in answer to question No. 12 on Tuesday: “I do understand that various proposals were put by various entities, including TVNZ, for various options for TVNZ 7 … and such things as levies to fund TVNZ 7”, or Jonathan Coleman, who said there were not any proposals?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: The primary question quotes that there was no plan, and I do stand by that decision. When I was answering the question the other day I said there were various proposals put up and various entities were included. But I do note that there was no proposal put up as part of the broadcasting policy for the Labour Party in 2011. There was no mention of it. So there was no business case nor plan for TVNZ 7.

Clare Curran: Can he confirm once and for all for the House that Cabinet did consider options for further funding for TVNZ 7 based on the paper prepared by his ministry on 23 February 2011, but Cabinet disregarded the recommendations in those papers and decided no further funding would be made available for TVNZ 7?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I do not know whether Cabinet disregarded those or not. Cabinet made a decision not to continue funding for TVNZ 7, which was time-limited funding announced by the Labour Government’s broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey in 2006, when Labour announced both the opening and closing dates for TVNZ 7.

Clare Curran: In light of the closure of TVNZ 7 on Saturday, where does the Minister suggest New Zealand audiences will be able to access regular free-to-air, commercial-free local programming about politics, media, arts, science, and literature, or an hour of commercial-free news, or do he and his Government not consider that this is important for New Zealand audiences?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I am sure that the New Zealand public will get entertainment and political dialogue from Parliament TV as they observe and watch it when Parliament is sitting.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table a document released through the Official Information Act from the Minister of Broadcasting, dated 23 February 2011, titled Future of TVNZ 7: Revised Cabinet Paper, subtitled “Options for Future of TVNZ Channel 7”.

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.

Marine Protected Areas—Commercial Activities and Conservation Concerns

11. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: What are the conservation impacts of having oil exploration permits in marine mammal sanctuaries and an exploration licence to prospect for rock phosphate in a benthic protection area?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: I am advised that the conservation impacts of any exploration in marine mammal sanctuaries would likely be localised and minimal due to the limited activities undertaken at this stage. Addressing the second part of the question, I am advised that the conservation impacts of exploration licences to prospect for rock phosphate are also likely to be minimal, as there is very limited disturbance to the seabed, apparently, while surveying and sampling, due to the small number of samples taken.

Gareth Hughes: Is it not true that trawling, set-net fishing, seabed mining, and oil and gas exploration and production activities are allowed to occur in parts of the West Coast North Island marine mammal sanctuary?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am sure that member is able to give quite a lot of detail on what is in that management plan, because that management plan was agreed and put in place under the Labour-Green Government in 2007.

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a clear, simple question: “Is it not true that those activities …”. All that the Minister referred to was me and the Green Party.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister was not disagreeing. He was pointing out that the member is likely to be well aware of what was in it, and he was probably right. I do not think the House could object to that.

Gareth Hughes: Given that marine mammal sanctuaries are set up to protect our most endangered mammals, will the Minister recommend that our marine mammal sanctuaries be added to the schedule 4 regime so that they cannot be mined?

Hon TONY RYALL: I know that this Minister of Conservation has a very strong commitment to conservation in New Zealand. I think her record demonstrates that. But I am certainly not aware that the Minister has considered their inclusion in schedule 4. I am sure that it must have been considered in 2007 when Labour and the Greens put the marine mammal sanctuaries and their requirements in place.

Gareth Hughes: Given that benthic protection areas, which prohibit bottom trawling and dredging, were established for conservation purposes, will she advise the Minister of Energy and Resources to decline mining permits to dredge for phosphate in these areas?

Hon TONY RYALL: Although benthic protection areas come under the fisheries legislation, and exploration and mining permits are administered by the economic development department under the Crown Minerals Act, and that is a responsibility of the Minister for Energy and Resources, I am sure that both Ministers discuss various issues on a regular basis. I am unaware whether her ministry had previously discussed that matter with the Ministry of Economic Development when Labour and the Greens put in place the zones that currently applied in 2007.

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to have another point of order, but the Minister spoke about what might have happened in the past, and spoke about the Green Party once again, but did not answer the question, which was whether she will advise the energy Minister to do that.

Hon John Banks: Some of us listen carefully to the questions and listen carefully to the answers, and I refer you to Standing Order 383(1). It says: “An answer that seeks to address the question … must be given …”—an answer that seeks to address the question must be given. That answer given sought to answer the question. The point I want to make is that during this question time we have had members standing up and asking—seeking, really—to ask the question again on seven occasions—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard from my good learned colleague. The way that Standing Order is being interpreted has changed in recent times, while the member was not a member of the House. The way that this Speaker interprets that Standing Order is that an answer must be given to the question asked, if it can be given consistently with the public interest. If Ministers do not want to be held to account, the answer is very easy: do not be a Minister. You know, question time is for members of this House to hold the executive to account. Members have a right to ask questions. Where members lace their questions with comment or unnecessary assertions, you have heard the Speaker make it very clear to them that they cannot seek the Speaker’s help if the Minister picks on those unnecessary bits of lacing that are added to the question and focuses on those. But where a straight question is asked, in a parliamentary democracy the House deserves an answer, unless the Minister deems it not to be consistent with the public interest to give an answer. And that accountability of the executive is a fundamental function of this House.

The question is about whether or not on this occasion the Minister did answer the question. Members have to be a little bit reasonable with the kinds of questions they are asking. Where members are asking hypothetical questions, it is very difficult for Ministers to give absolute answers. There is a tradition in the House where members try to press Ministers for yes/no answers, and there is a tradition that Ministers are not always expected to answer those. But in so far as it is possible, where members are seeking information I will try to make sure they get that information, if it is reasonable to expect the Ministers to have that information, and sometimes, given the primary question, it is not reasonable. But on this occasion, to avoid any confusion I will allow the member to repeat his question, but members need to think about their questions. I mean, some questions are clearly simply highly political, and it has to be reasonable that Ministers can give a political answer to them. This is a fine judgment, but on this occasion I will allow the member to repeat his question.

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Peter Dunne first.

Hon Peter Dunne: Speaking further on the point raised by my colleague to my left, I think the point that he was drawing attention to was not so much to challenge your judgment in terms of what constitutes an answer, but the fact that answers being given by Ministers are constantly being challenged by other members who feel that they are not getting the adequacy of answer that they think they are entitled to. The question then becomes who challenges the Minister in terms of the validity of the answer given: the questioner, or you as the arbiter, as the Speaker? I think there is a sense emerging that there is a constant challenging occurring of answers that people do not like. This is not to in any way move away from the point you have just made, but it does raise the question of whether the Speaker is the arbiter, or the House is the arbiter.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not wish to take more time of the House on this matter. I draw the members’ attention to the questions on today’s Order Paper. On some question sheets we get a lot of questions such as “Do Ministers stand by their statements?” and all that sort of thing. The Speaker cannot assist members when they seek opinions like that. The first two questions on today’s Order Paper asked straight questions: “When did he become aware of the decision …”, and the second one was “Why is he conducting an aerial survey …”. When Ministers see questions like that, they should make sure they answer them. We got into some difficulty today because—

Hon Steven Joyce: No, those were supplementaries.

Mr SPEAKER: But supplementary questions based on clear primary answers like that, and the supplementary questions asked were clear supplementary questions. Again, the remedy is in Ministers’ hands. We have seen many Ministers answering questions very clearly, and it has been very helpful to the House. Questions like that crop up on the Order Paper, and those first two questions I am aware caused some points of order to be raised today, but they were straight, fair questions. That is where the House deserves an answer. We have heard some questions being asked today, though, where I have sat questioners down because they had laced their questions with superfluous information instead of asking a straight question. But question time is where Ministers are held to account. It is important that this House can do that. The public expects it. I try to make sure that where a question is just a political statement, it is no use seeking the Speaker’s assistance. I am not going to rule out the ability of members who have asked questions to raise a point of order to seek the Speaker’s assistance, because I think that puts just too much onus on the Speaker altogether. But I do ask members to be reasonable. Some members are, in my view, going over the top. They need to think more about the question they are asking before they seek the Speaker’s intervention. I thank members for their contribution to this issue, but it is an important issue for the House, and I have got to say that I think Ministers have been answering questions very well. I think question time has been going very well, and I do not want to see it in any way derailed. That is why I ask all members to treat it with the seriousness that question time deserves. But I will allow Gareth Hughes to repeat his question.

Gareth Hughes: Given that benthic protection areas, which prohibit bottom trawling and dredging, were established for conservation purposes, will she advise the energy Minister to decline mining permits to dredge for phosphate on the seabed?

Hon TONY RYALL: As acting Minister, I am not in a position to be able to answer that question. I do know that this Minister of Conservation works tirelessly in the interests of conservation in New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister very much.

Gareth Hughes: What will she do to make sure New Zealand’s marine mammal sanctuaries actually provide sanctuary, and New Zealand’s benthic protection areas actually provide protection from seabed mining, oil exploration, and indiscriminate fishing?

Hon TONY RYALL: As the member knows, the Minister has been considering these issues. Her motivation is to make sure that New Zealanders can have confidence, I am sure, in the marine mammal sanctuaries that were put in place in 2007 by the Labour-Green Government.

Parking Enforcement—Wheel Clamping Code of Conduct

12. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: What progress has been made to address the growing concern around wheel clamping on private land?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Consumer Affairs): I am glad the member asks. In April and May, I met with all the key players in the parking enforcement industry about wheel clamping and the development of a code of conduct. The goal was to continue to protect the rights of private land owners, while giving more clarity to consumers about what they can expect from the wheel-clamping operators. I am pleased to report that a voluntary code of conduct has been signed by the vast bulk of the clamping industry, which will come into force on 1 October.

Mark Mitchell: What are some of the key provisions in the code of conduct?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The code provides for clear, visible signs about parking rules and possible wheel clamping, outlines situations where clamping will and will not occur, and ensures fees are accurately displayed and are fair and reasonable. The code caps the maximum fee at $200. There are clear expectations in the code for industry employees—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! [Interruption] Would someone tap him on the shoulder for me, please! Order! I apologise to the Minister, but the noise is simply unreasonable. The question is a fair question, and I want to be able to hear the answer. [Interruption] Order! I invite the Minister to start his answer again.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I appreciate that there is high public interest in this issue. I will start my answer again! No, to conclude, there are clear expectations in the code for industry employees, including that they are professional in their work, and that they hold a certificate of approval by the Ministry of Justice or an endorsement issued by the New Zealand Transport Agency.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you advise me in respect of the following matter? I am advised that Tau Henare has tweeted the following—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! [Interruption] Order! Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. The member will resume his seat immediately. I cannot for the life of me see what the issue of order is. The member started immediately launching into what another member of the House may or may not have done. That is not an issue of order at all. The member needs to make very clear to me—before he risks criticising another member of this House—what the issue of order is.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question is issues of contempt in respect of the Speaker. I am advised, as I have noted to you, that a tweet—in fact, I have seen it—criticising you has been lodged by that member some minutes ago.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Matters like this should be raised by way of notice of motion. The Speaker has been around here a fair while. He has got a reasonably thick hide and does not get too troubled by criticisms. I am not that precious.

Urgent Debates Declined

Māui’s Dolphin—Preservation

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Gareth Hughes seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s measures to protect Māui’s dolphins announced today. This is a matter that involves ministerial responsibility. However, for there to be a case of recent occurrence there must be a new situation of importance or a new development in an existing situation of sufficient importance itself to warrant the business of the House being set aside. The test is a high one. The authentication for the member’s application reveals that the further measures announced today are being put in place while the threat management plan is being reviewed. The business of the House should not be set aside just because a ministerial announcement has been made, even though it may be important. There needs to be something exceptional, particularly where a review is already under way. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the setting aside of the House’s business for an urgent debate today can be justified. The application is, therefore, declined.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I also draw your attention to, I think, Speaker’s ruling 191/2. I understand that this afternoon the Gazette notice is being sent from the Minister’s office. What this means is that there will not be another opportunity for this House to debate this important issue, given that a Governor-General never in our country’s history—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have given the member fair licence in this House today. The member is now disputing the Speaker’s ruling. Those matters were all taken into account by the Speaker in arriving at my decision.

Bills

Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Justice): I move, That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. As has been said previously, this bill is straightforward. It maintains the status quo under the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 for a further year, preventing that Act from, effectively, expiring on 1 July 2012. It ensures that compensation payable to prisoners for claims continues to be subject to the existing restrictions on awards of compensation. The bill also ensures that the victims of prisoners who are awarded compensation continue to have priority to claim against that compensation before it is paid to the prisoner.

The existing restrictions in the current Act require that financial compensation can be awarded to prisoners only in extraordinary circumstances where no other remedy is deemed appropriate, and only after the prisoner has made use of the existing complaints mechanisms that are available to them. If financial compensation must be awarded, the Act requires that deductions are first made to pay any legal aid debt in relation to the claim, any outstanding reparation, and any earlier orders in favour of victims. The Act then allows victims of the prisoners to seek redress for the harms they have suffered through a simplified victims’ claims process. The prisoner can access the compensation only once the victims’ claims process is complete.

Without the bill, sunset clauses in the Act would take effect next week, claims for compensation filed by prisoners would not be subject to the Act’s restrictions, and any compensation awarded would not be subject to the deductions or simplified victims’ claims process. The 1-year extension in the bill maintains the status quo until the policy to redirect prisoners’ compensation to support victims of crimes is progressed. I commend the bill to the House.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): As we have heard, there are two sunset clauses in the legislation that is under consideration by the House in this third reading debate of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. The requirement for this legislation arises because of those sunset clauses. As has been canvassed in the previous debates in the House, the history of this matter is as follows. Between 1998 and 2004 there was operated by the Department of Corrections a behaviour management regime or behaviour modification regime, the BMR. There was High Court litigation, the Taunoa case, about the validity of that regime. It led to the awarding of damages—substantial damages, in fact—to inmates who had been physically assaulted under that regime and whose human rights had been infringed. As a result of a concern that the victims of those inmates, if they wanted to try to seek a share of the compensation that those inmates had been awarded, would have to go through all the ordinary court processes in order to do so, Parliament put in place, as we have heard from the Acting Minister of Justice, an expedited process whereby victims of offending could apply, through a special procedure, to get paid to them some of the compensation that would be paid to the inmates, under the High Court principles that were set out in the Taunoa case.

The original legislation, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, was always time-limited. There was a sunset clause built into it, and clearly that indicates that it was appropriate to see whether or not the regime that I have described was working—and, frankly, on that question, the jury is out. There has not been a proper review of whether or not it is an adequate regime. There should have been a review by now. Everybody knew that there was a sunset clause in operation. Members opposite had been members of the Government for 4 years, and yet no review was commenced.

So the question arose as to what ought to happen in these circumstances. There were three choices: let the Act expire and have the discussion about whether a replacement was needed and, if so, what it should be; agree to extend the Act for a short period of time so that that discussion could still occur; or attempt to pass through all its stages the replacement legislation for the substantive Act, which is on the Order Paper. But there are, I think it is agreed, a number of concerns about that substantive replacement. I think there is a general consensus around the House that there should be a discussion based on evidence and rational principles about what sort of prisoners’ victims compensation claim regime should exist going forward.

I just want to say one or two words about what that replacement regime might look like, if it is the case that there is agreement to create such a regime. Here is the problem, in my view, both with the existing scheme and with what is proposed on the Order Paper to replace it. First of all, it is not sufficiently victim-centric. It looks at the position of inmates who get compensation and then talks about how that sort of compensation can be paid to their victims. If we are taking a properly victim-centric approach in this area, then we ought to look at the position of victims and say that we believe that victims should be able to easily get some sort of monetary compensation from those who have offended against them. It should not matter whether those offenders are inmates, subject to a community sentence, or otherwise. That is the first point that I think ought to be borne in mind in any review of the current legislation.

Secondly, it should not matter whether the offender gets compensation from the Crown through a court order. Any person subject to any sentence who receives some form of unexpected windfall payment ought to have some obligation to make their victim whole by paying them some sort of compensation as a token of apology and redress for the wrong that they have caused. So whether it is a Lotto win or a testamentary bequest under a will, if the person who has offended receives an unexpected payment, there ought to be an expectation that some of that money should go to their victim.

There is another important principle here, though, and that is that everyone’s human rights should be protected, including those who are subject to a sentence, so people should not be punished twice. How do we get around this? Well, one way might be that at any sentencing a judge might be asked to give an indication as to the percentage or quantum of payment that ought to be payable to an offender’s victims in the event that the offender comes into an unexpected payment during the time of their sentence. And to ensure that there is not double punishment, there should be an indication as to what discount ought to be applied to the custodial or community-based sentence that the offender is being subject to, in the event that they later make a payment of monetary compensation to their victim. It seems to me that if we could come to an agreement across the House that some sort of system along these lines could be brought into being, then we would actually have legislation that did start with the interests of victims—where it should start—but that did not seek to double-punish those who have committed offences, because that is in itself offensive to our constitution. That is the sort of discussion that I am hoping we will have across the House.

I know that one of my Green Party colleagues in the earlier stages of this debate expressed scepticism about the likely quality of that debate. Well, I just want to say this in conclusion. The reason that Labour has agreed to this extension is in the hope that we will have that sort of discussion. We are willing to have it without preconditions, provided that it is a principled discussion. But we will say this up front. Any proposal that starts with the idea of wanting to help victims get compensation for suffering wrong without having to leap through a whole lot of legal hoops need not be, in itself, offensive to human rights, and I think that is where we depart from our colleagues in the Green Party. Equally, insisting on a rational debate as to how to achieve this without trampling on human rights, including those of offenders, is not being soft on law and order or being anti-victim. I think if we get rhetoric along those lines from across the House, that will undermine the opportunity that we could have for a sensible discussion about what should be in place going forward on this particular subject.

With those words, I want to conclude my contribution. This Act, I think, given the votes in earlier proceedings in the House, will be extended for 1 year. In that year Parliament has an opportunity to make sure that there is a rational and evidence-based discussion on how we look after those who suffer from offending without compromising human rights across the board. I hope all members of this House will actually take that opportunity up in a bona fide way, and I am signalling that, certainly, Labour members are up for that.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I thank Mr Chauvel for that indication, and I want to reiterate that the purpose of this bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, is to extend the restrictions on the awarding of compensation for 1 year from 1 July. That is just 2 days away. This is very important to ensure that the victims claims process continues to apply to any compensation awarded or to be paid pursuant to an out-of-court final settlement in respect of a prisoner’s claim made on or after 1 July this year.

It is a bill to bridge the gap between the expiry of the current regime and progressing the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill, which is the 2011 bill, through the House. The 2011 bill provides for the existing victims claims process to be made permanent, and redirects any prisoners compensation remaining after that process to fund services and programmes for the victims of crime. Although I appreciate that most parties in this House are supporting this bill’s passage through the House—and I do thank them for that—I am also aware that some members opposite have been critical of the Government’s management of this measure in the previous debates on it, and during the Committee stage, in particular. So I would like to place a couple of facts on the record about their own management of the legislative process.

Part of the reason for this particular measure is the fact that Labour left behind a criminal justice system in disarray. It was lacking accountability, and it certainly lacked a focus on victims. Labour promised a victims compensation scheme in 1994, 1996, 2005, and at the beginning of 2008, but it never delivered it. So it is a bit rich to come into this House now and criticise the fact that we are having to pass this measure.

This Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill must be enacted tomorrow. That is how important it is. The consequences of failing to do so would be significant and clearly contrary to the public interest.

I conclude by simply repeating the observations of the Minister of Justice that this is a very straightforward bill that maintains the status quo for a limited period. I remind the House that the Government has introduced a bill to give effect to our policy of redirecting prisoners compensation to support victims of crime, as the public overwhelmingly expects and demands, rather than paying it to prisoners, and to make that new regime permanent.

Rather than rushing that measure, this interim bill will bridge the gap and ensure that the redirecting prisoner compensation bill that has been introduced may be accorded proper consideration and a full select committee process. All members should welcome that, and I know that interested members of the public who will want to have the opportunity to submit on that bill and to be engaged in the process will also appreciate that consideration.

I welcome the anticipated passage of the 2012 expiry bill this afternoon and its enactment tomorrow, and I look forward to working on the measure that will replace it on a more permanent basis during the months ahead.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Can I begin by correcting the member who has just resumed his seat, Tim Macindoe. He has not been in the House very long so I guess he can be forgiven for not knowing that far from the previous Labour Government leaving the justice system in disarray, the two biggest pieces of legislation—the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act—were both passed in 2002. Shortly after that there was a Victims’ Rights Act, also passed by the Labour Government. That replaced a previous Victims of Offences Act, also passed by a Labour Government in the previous term. So I reject entirely the facile arguments raised by Tim Macindoe that the system was in disarray. In fact, the pieces of legislation that are most important in the justice system today were passed under the last Labour Government, not the pieces of legislation that have gone through in the first 3 years of the National Government, which are basically window dressing and do absolutely nothing.

Secondly, the member had the effrontery to tell the House that this legislation is so important it must be passed by tomorrow. Do you know why it has to be passed by tomorrow? Because with 3½ years’ notice the Government did nothing, knowing full well that the existing legislation, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, expires tomorrow. That is political mismanagement. This Government should have acted in a timely way to get the new legislation into the House.

Tim Macindoe: Your filibustering prevented it. It reflects your filibustering.

Hon PHIL GOFF: And the fact that we are doing it now, the day before the adjournment, is an indication not of filibustering, at all; it is an indication of incompetency in management of the legislative agenda.

This Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill is a simple bill. It would have been unnecessary if the Government had acted in a timely way. That is, the Government has had 3½ years to come up with replacement legislation, knowing that the existing legislation had a sunset clause, and that should have happened. The one advantage of that is that the Minister of Justice gave a commitment earlier in this debate, which I hope she intends to honour, that she would use the year ahead to review the legislation and to determine the most appropriate way of replacing it. I know that there is a piece of legislation that the Government has drafted. It does not do the job that I believe needs to be done if we are to put victims at the centre of the justice process.

At the third reading I think it is important to give the context of the existing legislation. It was passed in 2005 and it was passed when I was Minister of Justice. That was because we had an unprecedented number of claims being made by inmates within the system for compensation for a system that had not upheld their rights. I do not justify the fact that the corrections system, in its behaviour modification regime, got it wrong. We are bound by international law on this, not just recently, but for the last 40 or 50 years.

Mr Ryall is in the House today and he might remember this little speech that he gave at the time. He was the leading speaker for the National Party in Opposition. He said National was opposed to the bill, and believed that the payments should be “blocked, stopped, and wiped out”. He said: “We do not believe that New Zealand should be constrained by the figment of what the United Nations may or may not state in various conventions.” That “figment” was a series of the most important human rights standards passed by the international community to be signed, ratified, and observed by New Zealand for 40 years, and they were observed by all of the countries that we would like to compare ourselves with: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. I suppose I should say while Mr Ryall is in the House that after that rabid statement I am pleased this Government has at least resiled from Mr Ryall’s awful claims, and acknowledges that you need to uphold the international standards that we have committed ourselves to. So I suppose that is progress of some sort.

Notwithstanding the fact that the inmates concerned had committed some of the most serious crimes, and that they had been amongst the most recidivist of offenders, we nevertheless have to have a system where we set rules, and the people we put in charge of the corrections system have to follow and observe those rules. I did not believe, however, that the only way of doing that was to provide huge compensation payments to those inmates. I will tell you why I thought that at the time. First of all, I thought that only in exceptional circumstances, where there was no other proper remedy of the breach of rights, should compensation be granted, and I hold by that statement.

Secondly, I thought that it was really important that if these inmates were to receive compensation, the victims they had created—people who were badly damaged physically, who had had their property destroyed, and who still bore the scars of the offending by this group of people—should not be left out in the cold while the inmates whose rights were also abused came into a huge sum of money. Not one of these offenders would have given reparation to their victims. They left behind people who they had badly damaged without any sense of remorse, without any attempt to make a payment, and no payment ordered by the State because they were on their way to jail. So here were the victims of these inmates, who had been badly abused—much more so than the inmates themselves—and they were getting nothing while the inmates were going to come in for a windfall. I thought that was wrong, and I still think that is wrong. So what we wanted to do, and what we did in this Act, was to restrict the circumstances for payment, and to allow the victims of that offending to make a claim against the inmates if the inmates got compensation.

We put a sunset clause in. Why did we do that? Because although the principle was right—that the victims should be properly compensated for the injustice done to them by the inmates—we were not sure that the mechanism was going to achieve this. I am grateful that the Minister came into the House and said what this Act had actually done. It had enabled five victims of inmates to receive compensation, I think totalling around $45,000. Well, that is good, but it is tiny. It is not a remedy for the wrongs done to victims across the board. My concern at the time, and my concern now, is that I was dealing with a fraction of the victims of offenders.

And there are all sorts of other circumstances that were arising. Some people in jail were writing books about their crimes, and if it was a sufficiently dramatic and dreadful crime, they would come into a whole lot of money from the proceeds of selling their book. Where is the justice in that, while their victims are left without anything? What about the inmate who receives a bequest—you know, they come into a whole lot of money that they have inherited? They are now in a position to set things right for their victims, but there was no requirement for that. There is another set of circumstances—and I was reminded of this by a situation in the paper the other day where a former gang enforcer is now living a relatively respectable life as a businessman on Auckland’s North Shore. He has a whole trail of victims behind him. He has now got the means to set things right. He will never have shown remorse, and he will never have given any compensation to his victims.

What I say the Minister should be doing, in this year that we have got now, is to think laterally, and to look at other systems where victims are better treated than they are in our system. You know, we have court cases, and they are described as—if you will excuse an example, Mr Deputy Speaker Roy—the State against Roy. So you have got the State, which is the prosecutor, and you have got Roy, who is the offender, but nowhere in that case is the name of the victim mentioned. We say that the victim should be at the centre of the process, not an adjunct. They should be there.

You get real justice when you follow a restorative process. What does restorative justice mean? It means an expression of remorse. Maybe that is a bit easy, but it means that the offender is required, to the extent possible, to set to right the wrongs that have been done. I would hope, instead of this half-baked measure that the Government wants to introduce, we would look more widely at a system whereby we respected the victim and we required the offender to put things right, even if it is some years after the offence was committed, because at the time of conviction hardly any serious offender will be able to make payments to the victim. But if they are in the position later on, why should they not, even at that stage, be required to put right their wrongs to the victim? So I ask the Minister to uphold the undertaking that she has given to the House to talk to all sides of the House, to try to come up with something that does actually provide genuine justice for victims. This is an opportunity, and we should take that opportunity.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It would be disingenuous to say that I am happy to rise and speak to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. As we have made clear, the Green Party does not support this bill. We have covered the reasons why pretty comprehensively. In brief, firstly, we do not think that the Government’s inability to manage its Order Paper efficiently is a good enough reason to pass laws. Although we appreciate and support the Minister of Justice’s stated intention of a full debate on the forthcoming redirection bill, that does not mitigate the poor organisation that has led to a shortage of time to accomplish this.

We also do not accept that this bill is either necessary or desirable. It is not necessary, because we do not find the assertion that prisoners would strategically lodge claims in the gap very well substantiated; nor after the Supreme Court decision in the Taunoa case, where the damages were significantly reduced, would it likely create the fiscal burden that the Government is concerned about. Admittedly, we think people being compensated for wrongs done to them is actually not as bad a result as the Government and, indeed, Labour members seem to think. But even if one were to believe that, it is far from clear that the amounts would be crippling.

That brings me broadly to our belief that it is as undesirable as it is unnecessary. As my colleague David Clendon and I have repeatedly argued, this bill creates perverse incentives for prisoners not to bring abuse to the attention of the judiciary, as they would be unable to receive compensation for the wrongs done to them. So that protects the Crown, really, from having to compensate prisoners for gross breaches of rights, and that means that there is not as much of an incentive as there should be for the Crown to look after the human rights of those who are in prison.

I explained earlier this week, during the Committee stage, that the Hon Phil Goff has brought up the idea that there should be a sort of comprehensive approach to getting money for a victims fund, so that no matter where the money is coming from, if the prisoners are receiving money—whether it is through their employment after leaving prison, from an inheritance, or from winning the lottery—victims should have some ability to make a claim on that money. That is a completely different sort of approach to what has been taken in the primary legislation that this bill amends. The approach that was taken in the primary legislation was that there was one breach of rights over here—the prisoner is serving a sentence for a breach of the rights of their victim—and then there was a second breach of rights, which was a very gross breach of rights in the Taunoa case, on the part of the Crown of the prisoner serving a sentence. Those two things are conceptually very different, and it does not make sense, I do not think, to legislate specifically for those cases in which prisoners have had a breach of rights and you take away their compensation and their incentive to seek compensation by saying that, in fact, they cannot actually touch it, and that you are going to take it away from them and use it to remedy this other breach of rights over here.

It is strange to think that prisoners should not have recourse to compensation when their rights have been abused as they are serving their sentences, which is the price that society has determined they will pay for their crimes. They are serving their sentence; they are in prison—that was the price that we decided they should pay. If victims believe that they need further financial compensation, they have the ability to take the course of action of taking a law suit. Of course the Green Party wants to put victims at the heart of our justice system, and we support restorative justice for that reason. It is in the very first lines of our justice policy that it is important to put victims at the heart of our justice system. But it is very strange that Labour members consider that receiving compensation for a gross breach of human rights is a windfall. I do not think they would describe it as a windfall if they had been condemned to years of solitary confinement with no right to go outside and take exercise, fresh air, and sunlight, as was the case with Taunoa.

It is in this last bit of the call that I would like to take the time to respond to the theme coming from Government members during their calls on this bill. For example, Alfred Ngaro—for whom I have considerable respect—suggested that it was disappointing, but unsurprising, that the Greens do not support the bill, and that he did not hear concern about victims from us. We have the deepest concern for victims, whether they be in prison or not, and in this case the prisoners were victims. We are getting pretty used to the Government building straw men to tear down, in regard to our policies and beliefs. The Green Party fully supports the rights of victims. Our disagreement lies in the fact that this bill plays a zero-sum game of trading off people’s rights. That, in our view, is not justice.

I think the fact that only five claims have been made under this legislation and $45,000 paid out in the last 8 or 9 years demonstrates that this does very little to support victims when there are many other courses of action we could take that do not involve trampling on the rights of others. This bill, which extends the sunset clause for the primary legislation, does nothing really to compensate or protect victims or to put them at the heart of the justice system, and it also does nothing to reduce abuse in prisons. It protects the Crown and limits the liability of the Crown. I just do not think that is justice. We do not win justice by subjecting our fellow human beings, no matter what wrongs they have done, to the potential for abuse, or by denying them the right to have that abuse compensated—victimising them doubly. Nobody wins; newly victimised people lose. That is not justice and it is not good policy, and that is why we do not support the extension of the sunset clause. Thank you.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): We are continuing to work for a safer New Zealand. We are doing this through concentration on preventive policing through neighbourhood policing teams and public safety teams. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill extends the application of the provisions of the 2005 Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act to 1 July 2013, by deferring the expiry of the provisions relating to restrictions on the awarding of compensation until that date; 1 July 2013.

The bill underlines the fact that we are putting victims at the heart of the justice system. We are directing prisoner compensation to victims to put them, as I say, at the heart of the justice system. This is just another example of the huge improvements we have made, and continue to make, in the justice system in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I will be able to make only a brief call about this, because I believe, as the last speaker has set out, that this is a very simple bill, and most has already been said, probably more than once. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill simply extends the current regime for a further year while new legislation is developed. On that basis, the bill will be acceptable to New Zealand First and we will support it.

The final legislation when developed must, in the first place, preserve the rights properly held by prisoners, including the right to compensation for accidents and any compensation that may be awarded for serious abuse while in prison, rare though that may be. But, on the other hand, we must also ensure that there is no abuse by prisoners of that process and the entitlement to compensation. This does mean, therefore, New Zealand First believes, that some special rules need to be developed to avoid inappropriate claims by prisoners while they are in prison—after all, that is an extraordinary circumstance, and some different rules should be developed for that purpose—because there is potential for abuse of ACC processes by prisoners and for spurious or unmeritorious claims for compensation for abuse while in prison.

There needs to be an appropriate balance between prisoners’ rights and the potential for abuse by them. That is what the new regime needs to do, and a good and proper investigation needs to be carried out for that purpose during the coming year. The extension of the sunset clause for that period is necessary and appropriate, and, as I have already said, New Zealand First will support it.

But there is another significant issue that needs to be investigated during that time, and that concerns the provision enabling the transfer of compensation awarded to prisoners to victims generally, or, alternatively, to victims specifically. If the awarding of compensation to a prisoner is to be transferred generally to victims, in a fund for that purpose, then that may not be acceptable. However, if the transfer of the compensation is for the particular victim of a particular prisoner, then that would be acceptable.

Compensation of victims, where awarded, is of the highest importance, and I see that there is a clamour amongst the members in the House to ensure that they are on the bandwagon ensuring the rights of victims. New Zealand First is certainly amongst them, because, as I have already said, it is a matter of the highest importance to put victims in the centre of the position with regard to this particular matter.

The devil, of course, is in the detail, as I have already indicated. Therefore there needs to be discussion about that. In the end, there needs to be in particular a genuine and objective review during the next 12 months. We are likely to find that we cannot let this legislation expire, and that we do need to sort out what the proper balance is between prisoners and their rights and the rights of victims on the other hand. In particular, we need to settle that question about whether the transfer of compensation should be generally for the victims of crime or should be restricted only to a particular victim of a particular prisoner. That is a debate that I particularly look forward to having, and that is a discussion that will be vital if we are going to reach any sort of consensus on these issues.

So, in the end, let us have that review. Let us make sure that it is genuine and objective, and that before debating the substantive issues we do receive the results of that investigation and past legislation, based on real results and a real, genuine, and objective review. In the meantime, New Zealand First certainly supports this bill to extend the sunset clause of this legislation for another year while that review takes place.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I am very pleased to take a short call in the third reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. It is a very straightforward bill. The Justice and Electoral Committee received just 5 submissions on the bill and recommended it proceed without amendment. It does extend the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 for just one further year, as the House has heard.

This bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, which will come through the House in due course, will therefore bridge the gap between the expiry of the 2005 Act while progressing the Government’s Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill through the House. It really just maintains the status quo, and will ensure that victims of prisoners who are awarded compensation will continue to have priority to claim against that compensation before it is paid to the prisoner.

We are focused on placing victims at the heart of our justice system and directing prisoner compensation to victims, and this supports this focus. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I am glad to be taking a short call at the final stage of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. I understand that there is huge international interest in this particular bill today, because I know that there are at least two people in Toronto, Canada, watching this bill, and I just acknowledge my son and my daughter-in-law who are watching. There you are; I have done that.

This is not a complicated bill. Two sunset clauses are being extended, and that is where we find ourselves. The decent thing to do is to support it, and that is what we are doing on this side of the House. But what has been interesting is just observing the process and reading the earlier speeches that people gave about this particular bill and the various stages of this bill.

The original 2005 Act was designed to address a particular problem that occurred then in a particular case when prisoners were getting compensated, and, as the Hon Phil Goff has said, it was not acceptable. The provisions of that legislation were put in place so that any moneys prisoners were getting were then to be channelled through to victims so that they could get fully compensated, and that was the decent thing to do. This bill simply extends those provisions for now.

It is interesting that some Government members—in the first and second readings of this bill and also during the Committee stage—have taken this very simple bill to inordinate lengths to make a different kind of statement. In the first reading, Tim Macindoe said this, and I think it is still his view: “This bill is part of a large measure, a large arsenal of initiatives, to improve public safety and respect for law and order”. Well, this bill does nothing of the kind. It never did, but, of course, members opposite never miss an opportunity to drive home that the only party that wants to push law and order is the National Party. Yet this legislation was put in place under Labour.

Alfred Ngaro in the first reading also said something very similar: “National is reforming our criminal justice system to put a stronger emphasis on the victims, and, as our colleague has said,” etc., etc. He was again calling up, through this particular bill, National’s focus on victims. In fact, this bill does nothing of that sort. It is two simple provisions; it extends the sunset clauses. But they were not talking about that. Here was an opportunity—never let it pass. But, of course, Cam Calder is the other one. In fact, Mr Calder did it again as he took a very, very short call just a few minutes ago. For him this bill is just another example of the National Government working to improve the justice system. This bill—

Mike Sabin: The best thing you can do to support victims is have less of them.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: —Mr Sabin, does nothing of the sort. All this bill does is fix something the Government should have fixed a long time ago. This bill, truth be told, is really, under these circumstances, 2 days before it is required, fixing a problem that Government members did not fix before. They may not be big enough to accept that, but, indeed, that was the case.

The comments that I have just quoted, and Mr Saban’s comments a moment ago, simply show that members opposite have really not grasped the essential nature of this bill. It is very simple—it is just extending two sunset clauses. Wear it proudly and say: “We should have fixed it before, we didn’t, but now we need to.” It is a bit like the Minister of Police last week wanting to push the button to crush the car, then standing on the car—

Mike Sabin: I thought we were talking about the specifics of the bill.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: —as if she had climbed a mountain and needed to plant a flag, Mr Sabin. That was obscene. That was obscene and unnecessary, but it was just another one of those instances of taking the opportunity to show that here is the Government, tough on law and order. One car has been crushed, and the provisions of the legislation have not been used to any great extent.

I just repeat that this bill has come before the House, in this form, now, simply to fix something the Government should have fixed some time ago. That is worth repeating, and others have said that quite clearly. Mr Charles Chauvel has actually taken it further, because there is another bill before the House, a Government bill, that will say how compensation systems should work for prisoners, etc., and how that compensation should be passed on to victims. I think Mr Chauvel has put a lot of thought into his first reading speech; he has said there is more to it than that. The Government should do a first principles review, and then go back and say: “What are we trying to do here, and why is it that we are talking about only what happens to our prisoners and what compensation our prisoners get?”.

Why are we not talking about windfalls that others get, even if they are not in prison, and why is that not to be channelled through to victims as well? That would be putting victims at the centre, as Government members have been saying. At the moment, that work has not been done, and we certainly encourage that work to be done, because there is an opportunity—there is a bill, and there is 12 months to do it. I hope that well within that time frame the thinking will be done and it will be brought back.

Finally, there is another lesson in there, which is a warning, if you like, to those who devise programmes in our institutions or elsewhere to ensure that those programmes are organised in such a way that they do respect human rights. I know that Tony Ryall, judging by earlier comments he made about human rights, does not respect human rights, but it still is something—

Louise Upston: Oh!

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Well, the Hon Phil Goff actually quoted him. He actually quoted him, and I did not see the Hon Tony Ryall standing up and resiling from those earlier comments. Maybe he will, but the point is that human rights are important, and anybody who has been in that role here or internationally knows that we will need to ensure that those rights are respected. It is not that difficult to do, but sometimes, in the kind of rather single-minded approach that some Government members have taken to law and order, etc., you forget those things as well. It is entirely possible to resile from that and bring them together. With those comments, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. This bill has been well debated in the House, especially in the second reading, actually. Both Charles Chauvel and the Hon Judith Collins gave us an in-depth history on how this bill has got here and where they see it going, so I am not going to re-debate the history in this House, because I think Hansard will have that in quite a lot of detail.

This bill is a transitional bill. The purpose of the bill is to extend the restrictions on the rewarding of compensation for 1 year from 1 July, which is next week, until 30 June 2013. The main provision of this bill is obviously, then, bridging the gap between the expiry of the bill next week until the new bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill 2011, comes through the House. That bill is going to progress through the House, so this time next year we will have new legislation in place, because obviously this has got a sunset clause in it, as well, of just 1 year.

The bill provides for the existing victims’ claims process to be made permanent, and redirects any prisoners’ compensation remaining after the process to fund services and programmes for victims of crime, and I think that is really important. This Government is committed to being more responsive to victims and ensuring that their needs are met, and building a safer New Zealand for our children, our families, and the older people in New Zealand—in fact, all New Zealanders. Through this bill we are aiding the change of reforming our criminal justice system to put a stronger emphasis on victims, because that is what the focus of this Government has been on in our law and order policy. We are committed to providing an effective remedy for victims of crime. I think this truly does help victims. It is putting them first. It is saying that they are a priority, and with this levy I think it has made a difference to victims’ lives. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call, so we will start with the Greens.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It is my pleasure to take a very short call on this bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, tonight. As our opposition was so clearly outlined by my colleague Julie Anne Genter just earlier, in fact my speech will be quite brief, and will act almost as an exclamation mark to hers. We oppose this bill for four fundamental reasons. First, we do not support legislation to correct the mismanagement of the Order Paper. Second, we believe victims should be at the heart of the justice system, including victims who may have committed crimes. I would also like to note here that many of the prisoners in our prisons are people with significant disabilities, including learning disabilities and other types of disabilities, and to characterise them, as this bill does, as criminals who are a danger to society and acted entirely with ill intent, is to mischaracterise the nature of crime. The third point is that we do not believe the Crown should be protected from gross or, actually, any abuses of human rights, as this bill unintentionally will do. And, fourth, the State has a duty of care under international legislation, and the only right a prisoner should lose is the right to liberty. These four fundamental reasons outline our opposition. Kia ora koutou.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. This is the first opportunity I have had to contribute to this debate, so in this third reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill I want to highlight that my colleagues Charles Chauvel and the Hon Lianne Dalziel were members of the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I thank them for the work they did.

I want to highlight points in three areas. The first is about the importance of striking a balance between victims’ and offenders’ rights. What we do know is that the bill is before the House because the Department of Corrections in its recent history implemented an offender management system that was shown to be in breach of inmates’ human rights and New Zealand’s international obligations regarding our treatment of inmates and offenders. We are also debating this issue because a judicial decision concerning the award of compensation to an inmate struck a chord of unease with politicians, decision makers, members of the general public, and, more important, victims of criminal behaviours.

The second theme area that I want to highlight in this third reading is about addressing the concerns of victims and public perception. At the heart of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 was the concern that inmates, some of whom had committed terrible offences, would receive large monetary compensation for abuse of their rights. But the Supreme Court decision in the Taunoa case largely addressed this issue, and I want to highlight that my colleague Charles Chauvel spoke about this earlier. There was also a very real and valid concern that the victims of offences by some of those inmates who were and are carrying lifelong sentences themselves—lifelong scars that no monetary compensation could fix—were struggling to obtain compensation from the inmates who had offended against them.

Thirdly, I want to highlight that there were questions of trust and fairness about that system. The only other point I want to make is about the piecemeal approach to criminal justice legislation that I think this bill highlights.

Today we are addressing two issues. Firstly, we are setting out the circumstances in which the judiciary can award inmates compensation for any breach of their rights while they are incarcerated. And, secondly, we are trying to strike the balance between victims’ and offenders’ rights by setting out a process where if an inmate does receive compensation, the victims of those inmates can claim against any money they may be owed by those inmates. This is a very important issue that we are trying to fix, and Labour is supporting this piece of legislation, but we should highlight that this issue could have been resolved 3½ years ago. That is all I want to say.

My final point is to support the comments made by my Labour colleagues during the first and second readings of this bill on the need to think about the wider implication of offending by people who are not incarcerated in our prisons whose victims are struggling to cope with the outcomes of the offences committed against them and to receive compensation from the offenders. And, secondly, we need to consider the question of whether it is fair and appropriate that other forms of offenders’ monetary or financial benefit should also be considered as an avenue to address compensation issues for the victims. Kia ora.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I am proud to take the final call on this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill in its third reading. We used to have a saying—and I think it still exists—that if you do the crime, then you do the time. This was a real, punitive approach and view around action and consequence. I know that the public is really clear about the fact that when crime is committed, there should be some action and consequence to that. One of the things that this Government is absolutely committed to is around safety, but also around the balance of rights and responsibilities. I heard from Miss Julie Anne Genter, who talked about the fact that there is a trading-off between the balance of rights and responsibilities. This Government is really clear that the balance is often outweighed at the opposite end, where victims have not been put first. So, we are really clear that we want to ensure that the rights of victims are balanced and put first. Often they are in situations of entering into the criminal justice system through no fault of their own. They have to deal with the financial, the emotional, and the physical effects of crime long after it has been committed.

Clearly, this bill’s intention is—and I want to acknowledge the Hon Phil Goff—around awarding compensation. The bill defers the expiry of the provisions relating to the restrictions on the awarding of compensation until 1 July 2013.

As for the victims’ claims process, the Government intends to progress the 2011 bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill, so that it is enacted on 30 June 2013.

Finally, the point I would like to make—and I have heard some of the comments made, especially those from Mr Chauvel—is around ensuring that there is an approach that is partisan around this bill, so that it is fit for purpose, so that it consults in a way that addresses the issues of safety and concern, and, most important, that in situations like this we need to return a level of trust back into our communities, so that those of us who are part of the Government, those who are in the law enforcement agencies, and those who are in the community can trust that the system responds to the needs and to the rights and responsibilities of the victims in our communities. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 103

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 17

Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I move, That the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill.

This bill contains the legislative provisions needed for New Zealand to become a party to the third additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The third protocol establishes a new Geneva Conventions emblem, commonly referred to as the Red Crystal, for use alongside the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. This emblem may be used as a protective symbol to identify medical and religious personnel, hospitals, ambulances, and other medical transports in armed conflicts where the existing Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems may be seen to have religious or political connotations that were never intended.

The new emblem is a red frame in the shape of a square on edge, on a white background. It is intended to be free from any national, religious, cultural, or political connotations. The new emblem has a lengthy history. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement recognised the need for an appropriate emblem in cases where, for various reasons, parties to conflict did not want to use either the Red Cross or the Red Crescent emblem. The lack of a suitable emblem in such situations significantly diminishes the protections that can be afforded to victims of war and to medical personnel, hospitals, and medical transports.

The development of the new emblem also recognises the needs of countries where other emblems have been used for many years. One example of this is in Israel where an organisation that is the equivalent of national societies in other countries such as the New Zealand Red Cross Society asserted that it should be able to use the Red Shield of David in its domestic activities. Meanwhile other national societies, such as in Eritrea, wished to use both the Red Cross and the Red Crescent together. Such arrangements were not possible under the previous rules.

The adoption of the third protocol and the recognition of the new Red Crystal emblem mean that those national societies are no longer required to choose between the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. Instead they can use the appropriate emblem consistently with the Geneva Conventions, their own traditions, and the rules of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Any other national society that wishes to can use the Red Crystal in accordance with the provisions of the third protocol. I am advised that following the adoption of the third protocol, both the Magen David Adom of Israel and the Palestine Red Crescent Society were admitted as full members of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies for the first time, and were formally recognised by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

New Zealand signed the third protocol in 2006, and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, as members will know, conducted the international treaty examination of the third protocol in 2007 and reported that it had no matters to bring to the attention of the House. Although not considering ratification of the third protocol to be a matter of urgency for the Government, the committee stated that it supports the ratification.

The ratification will mean that New Zealand will be party to all the treaties that comprise the Geneva Conventions and their protocols, which are the core instruments of international humanitarian law. Although the New Zealand Defence Force will continue to use the Red Cross symbol, it is essential that our armed forces personnel know the significance of the new Red Crystal symbol when used by other forces or civilian facilities, and that they respect the legal protections that apply to it afforded by this legislation. To date the third protocol has been signed by 90 countries, while 60 countries have either ratified or acceded to it, including Australia, Canada, the United States, and many European countries.

The bill itself amends the Geneva Conventions Act 1958 and extends to the Red Crystal the protection provided to the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. The bill also makes a number of minor and technical amendments to existing legislation, and I just thought I would run through those. The bill amends section 2 of the Geneva Conventions Act by including and adjusting definitions relevant to the third protocol. The bill amends section 8 of the Geneva Conventions Act to include the Red Crystal in the list of protected emblems. The bill also updates some of the language in section 8, and provides an exemption from the offence provisions where a trademark was registered prior to this amending bill entering into force.

The bill also increases the penalty for an offence under section 8 of the Geneva Conventions Act, from a fine of up to $1,000 to a fine of up to $10,000. This level of maximum penalty better reflects the seriousness of the misuse of any of the emblems, and brings the level of penalty into line with contemporary law. The bill repeals section 10 of the Act, which provides for the Act’s application to the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. The replacement section provides for the Act’s application to Tokelau alone, as both Niue and the Cook Islands have equivalent stand-alone legislation. The bill also adds a new schedule to the Act, which consists of the text of the third protocol itself. Finally, the bill makes a number of consequential amendments to the flags and emblems legislation.

I am sure that, as many members know, in many theatres of conflict many look towards the ability of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent to provide much-needed support and care at most vulnerable times. Those are symbols that are internationally recognised; we are all aware of that. This legislation allows us to bring into effect the affording of those sorts of protections to the Red Crystal. The bill therefore reaffirms New Zealand’s longstanding position as a supporter of the conventions and the role that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement has in providing this assistance to vulnerable people throughout the world. We commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): What a curious choice of Minister to introduce this bill, the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill, to the House. I want the House to listen to what Tony Ryall said just a couple of years ago in this very House: “We do not”—and I am quoting from Hansard—“believe that New Zealand should be constrained by the figment of what the United Nations may or may not state in various conventions.” That is what this Minister said in this House a couple of years ago, showing utter contempt for international conventions. What a curious thing it is in the House today that this same Tony Ryall gets up and moves the first reading of a bill implementing an international convention. What will the international community think about this House when a Minister who has shown such absolute contempt for international conventions gets up and moves the first reading of this support for a Geneva Convention?

I want Mr Ryall to stand up and apologise to this House for the contempt that he has shown in the past, out of rabid populism, for the observance of international agreements. You know, that Minister said that we should have ignored 40 years of observance by successive New Zealand Governments of conventions like the international convention for the protection of civil and political rights, and now he stands up in the House and says that this is one that we should observe. Well, that is a very bad case of double standards. How ironic, after we have just passed one bill in the House to extend a law that would have observed those conventions that the Minister spoke against 5 or 6 years ago, that he is now, in the successive bill, saying that we should observe this one. Well, enough of that Minister and those double standards.

This is a bill that the Labour Party in Opposition supports. In fact, it was under a Labour Government that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee ratified this protocol back in 2007. That might seem curious to you. That was 5 years ago, and I think this is a lesson to all select committees. This select committee said at the time that this should not be considered a matter of urgency. That is a very, very dangerous thing for a select committee to do, because 5 years later this Government, after dawdling along, has decided—after 90 countries have signed it and 60 have ratified it—that maybe New Zealand should do something about it. Again, you have to worry about a Government that cannot handle its legislative agenda competently in that way.

This is legislation that will not unduly encroach upon the time of this House. It is very straightforward. The third protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which can be ratified following the passage of this legislation, is straightforward, and it is worthy of support.

I do not think there is a member in this House who would not respect the work that the international Red Cross and the international Red Crescent do around the world. That symbol, in each case—the Red Cross and the Red Crescent—is a symbol of an organisation whose impartiality and independence and safety should be respected. The work that those organisations do in situations of conflict and in humanitarian crises is to be deeply respected.

What this bill does is enable us to ratify the third protocol, which establishes a third emblem. There is not only the Red Cross and the Red Crescent but also this third emblem, which has been called the Red Crystal. Why is it necessary to have a third emblem? Well, there are countries like Israel, which is neither Christian nor Muslim, that find it difficult that either of those emblems should be used in a protective way in regard to their country. Equally, Eritrea, I think, was the other country that found it difficult to use the emblem of either the Red Cross, which has Christian connotations, or the Red Crescent, which has Muslim connotations.

Way back in 1992, I think it was, people got together and said: “Well, how do we address these sorts of situations?”, and in 2000 a joint working group proposed the third additional protocol. In 2005, 5 years later, that was adopted by a two-thirds majority at the international convention. Even then, consensus was not achieved—again, largely because of conflict in the Middle East. A number of States representing the Arab League and the Organization for Islamic Conference voted against the adoption of this protocol. That was less about the protocol itself than about a desire by those States that there should be progress in addressing Geneva Convention breaches in the occupied Palestinian territories, and a need for improvement in the humanitarian situation in those areas. I respect both of those concerns; I think both of those concerns are well-founded. But that should not prevent New Zealand from supporting the adoption and the ratification of this protocol, because it addresses a situation that does require a solution.

Under the Geneva Conventions, New Zealand has an obligation also to prohibit the unauthorised use of Geneva Convention emblems. There is a financial sanction for misusing those emblems and, unfortunately, in our legislation we put in place penalties that many years after the event no longer have a significant effect. In this case, the penalty of $1,000 was set in 1987. That is a long time ago. Properly, this legislation adopts a bigger penalty of $10,000, which is in line with penalty levels for similar breaches.

By enacting this bill, New Zealand will be able to ratify the Third Protocol, which entered into force more than 5 years ago on 14 January 2007. We should join with the other 60 countries that have already ratified this protocol. Labour supports the bill accordingly, and the sooner we can get this legislation through the House, the sooner—belatedly—New Zealand can join with other responsible members of the international community in ratifying this agreement. I just hope that the Minister who introduced this legislation has seen the error of his ways and no longer believes that you can ignore “figments” of United Nations international conventions, as he so quaintly, but rather rabidly, put it back in 2005.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): It is something of a disappointment to find an ex - Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade rise in this House and turn a very serious issue into a light political joke, where issues around UN conventions are being confused—absolutely wrongly—with issues around the Red Cross. The Red Cross has got nothing to do with the United Nations, and the previous speaker, Phil Goff, ought to know that. The Red Cross is an international non-governmental organisation based in Geneva. It is the only institution explicitly named under international humanitarian law as a controlling authority. But to link the United Nations and the Red Cross and then to accuse Mr Ryall, as Phil Goff has done, is absolutely wrong and simply a demonstration of cheap politics.

In our region we can think recently of events in Fiji, where parliamentarians were locked in Parliament, and where the senior Red Cross leader in Fiji, a New Zealander, made many, many journeys to provide items of comfort and to negotiate between the hostages being held by the Government in Fiji, the parliamentarians, and the outside community. We can think about the Solomon Islands, where in 2000 the then New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade botched our involvement and caused quite a lot of trouble in that country. We can also think about the activities then of the Red Cross in visiting people damaged by that conflict and very often under fire. Prior to that, we can think about events in Bougainville, where I can remember clearly that for a period the only people able to get in to the Bougainville conflict were people from the Red Cross—and, again, they were New Zealanders.

What I am saying to you is that it is really important to support the role conducted by the Red Cross. The Government back in 2007 could have moved quite quickly if it had wished to between 2007 and 2009 and given effect to this legislation, the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill, so, again, the crocodile tears being expressed by the previous speaker, in my view, are quite misplaced.

I think that this is a valuable piece of legislation. I do not think it needed to be put on a particularly fast track in this part of the world, because it is very clear that the legislation is aimed at accommodating two countries, Israel and Ethiopia, and they are not especially active in our immediate Pacific area. It is useful to pass this legislation. We should pass this legislation. We should pay due respect and homage to the great work that is done by the international Red Cross, and for those reasons I am in full support of this piece of legislation, as is our party. Thank you.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill, but I do wonder why this bill, which was introduced on 24 August 2010, has taken till now to surface. It has been languishing at the bottom of the Order Paper for some time, and yet suddenly here today, on Thursday, 28 June 2012, the Government has seen fit to elevate it to the top of the Order Paper.

I can only imagine that it is because the Government has been so roundly stung by international reaction to its poor performance on the depleted uranium bill last night that it has, in fact, sought to redeem itself somewhat by introducing this bill. I think the posts that have gone around the world about National’s contributions—and every member’s speech has been posted on websites and can be accessed through Twitter internationally—have stung the Government, and it has now seen fit to try to redeem itself and prove that it is really not such a bad international citizen after all. I look forward to members who spoke in last night’s debate on depleted uranium searching out the reference to their own speeches on the websites of interest, because these are about international movements, and these are about international citizenship. That being as it may, I comment only on the moment of this bill coming forward, not on the fact that it has.

It is an important bill. Mr Speaker, I do not know whether you will permit me to stand this iPad here or not. You may consider it to be the use of a visual aid and not appropriate, and I will certainly take it down if you tell me to do that. The three symbols that I am demonstrating here on my iPad are representative now of the people who provide medical and humanitarian support in places of conflict. Those people can be protected by the wearing of these symbols. But the point about this, which I think is a very serious point and one that the Labour Opposition supports, is underlined by the fact that human beings respond to symbols. Human beings respond to symbols. We govern our lives by symbols. We attach emotional importance to symbols. We attach political significance to symbols. And so it is unsurprising that over time the three symbols that are here have been developed in order to accommodate the different expressions, particularly of religious tradition, that we find around the world.

The Red Cross symbol has been in existence since 1864. The Red Cross has achieved a huge amount of credibility in humanitarian efforts around the world in every conflict one can name, since 1864. People marked with the Red Cross—typically medics but also non-arms-bearing humanitarian assistance of one kind or another—wear it for protection, to identify themselves as not being of any party involved in a conflict and therefore needing protection.

The Red Crescent was first used by the Ottoman Empire in 1870, and was formally recognised internationally in 1929. Of course, the symbolism of these two first symbols is clear. One looks like a Christian symbol; one looks like a Muslim symbol. We can see the crescent, for example, used widely on flags of Muslim nations, and that symbolism is redolent with all kinds of meaning and associations. We should never underestimate the power of symbols. So in order to protect people who go into war-torn areas of conflict from being associated with one side or another, particularly as religious-based conflict has developed over time—and religion and culture are frequently inseparable in these conflicts—it has become necessary to use the Red Crystal. It is called the Red Crystal. The Minister of Health in his opening speech gave a very technical description of it, but it is basically a red diamond on a white background. It is a red diamond with a white diamond inside it. It is a different symbol. Thank you for indulging me on that, Mr Speaker. I will take the visual aid away. It is a red diamond, and that allows people to associate something other than religious traditions and cultural commitments with a symbol that needs to be available for the protection of those non-combatants who go into war-torn areas to offer humanitarian assistance.

I noticed that in a couple of speeches Ethiopia has been mentioned. I think in the Minister’s opening speech he referred to Eritrea, and if I remember correctly, he referred to both symbols, in fact, being used in Eritrea. Certainly that would be true of Ethiopia, which used to have Eritrea within its border, because 64 percent of the people of Ethiopia are, in fact, Ethiopian Orthodox Christians. They are not Coptics; they are Ethiopian Orthodox Christians. They have for a—

Hon Simon Bridges: Coptic.

Hon MARYAN STREET: No, not Coptic. No, no, Coptics are quite different—quite different. There are five Orthodox—I will not go into this—Churches around the world and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is one of the five. On the other side of the population—64 percent are Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, as I said—there is a very large contingent, some 34 percent of the Ethiopian population, who are Muslim, who came to Ethiopia for refuge at the time of Muhammad when they were being persecuted. Muhammad told them to go to Ethiopia and seek refuge because they would be well treated there. That has been the history of Ethiopia—that Christian and Muslim have coexisted peacefully in Ethiopia. The Eritrean division was something quite different. The use of the two symbols has been important, certainly, in Eritrea, but is relevant in regard to the population make-up in Ethiopia.

This is an important convention to pass. The fact that it has taken a long time to get here in the end is simply a point to note. This brings New Zealand into line with 60 other countries internationally and goes towards the safety that the international community can afford to those non-combatants, those medical personnel, who go in to assist people, whatever side they may be on and in whatever part of a conflict they may be, and gives them the kind of humanitarian assistance that all of us, at the core of our being, would wish them to be able to give without coming to harm. I support this bill. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 8 to Minister

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Immigration): I seek leave to correct an answer to oral question No. 8 today.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon NATHAN GUY: In an answer to a supplementary question, I gave a figure of 23,000 urgent repairs that had been carried out on over 5,000 Housing New Zealand Corporation properties in Canterbury since September 2010. The correct answer is, indeed, that 27,000 urgent repairs have been carried out.

Bills

Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I just want to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party on this legislation, the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. We are supporting its referral to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. There are some issues that I just want to briefly explore, but the overall purpose of providing a third emblem to enable the work of these agencies, which provide a huge amount of humanitarian work to communities under great siege, is an important thing. If it means better and safer access for those agencies to those communities that need them around the globe, and for the people in those communities to those agencies, then that is a good thing.

There are a couple of issues that I would raise. One is that John Hayes talked earlier about the Pacific and said that this was not such a big issue here in the Pacific. Well, actually, it is. We understand that the international Red Cross has been kicked out of West Papua by the Indonesian Government and that the New Zealand Government has made no comment or statement at all in opposition to that kind of action. It is quite right that the international Red Cross is in a number of other countries in the Pacific where that is necessary. It is needed in West Papua, as well. People are dying there through the colonisation and the siege that they are under from the Indonesian Government, and yet the New Zealand Government is simply sitting by and allowing that to happen without comment. That is not acceptable—not acceptable at all.

I would also note that one of the issues that was raised—and this was touched on briefly by Phil Goff as well—was the issue that the Arab States did not support this convention at the UN, and we heard some of the background to that. There are legitimate concerns from those who work in humanitarian areas, on humanitarian issues, in Palestine that an additional emblem like this may give the Israeli armed forces and the Israeli State a means by which they can continue the oppression of the Palestinian people in some form. We do not know the details of that. We need to understand that better before we can have real comfort in progressing this legislation. I would expect that those issues will be explored at the select committee.

The overall intention of this legislation is good. There is no doubt, though, that there are areas—like the issue of West Papua, like the issue with Israel and Palestine—that are unsettled. There is no doubt that we have a responsibility as a Parliament, if we are to progress this legislation, to ensure that we do feel comfortable and are satisfied that those issues are properly resolved. We look forward to hearing from submitters at the select committee about that. No doubt our MP Kennedy Graham, who is responsible for global affairs, will be very acutely aware of the international sensitivities that arise out of this legislation and its progression. Thank you.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Can I say first of all that New Zealanders are not standing by and allowing anything to happen in West Papua. I have a great belief in our system, and that whether it is a Labour Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade or a National Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade they sit down with their counterparts, talk about things that are going on around the world, and do our bit. Secondly, can I say to Maryan Street that Robin Hood would have been proud of how long the arrow of her bow really was in terms of her criticism about the honourable Minister Tony Ryall.

Having said that little bit about Maryan Street’s speech, the rest of her speech was absolutely enthralling as a history lesson in terms of the Red Crescent, the Red Cross, and the new emblem that might help. But putting it in the context of my South Auckland way of thinking, the Red Cross symbol was used in the 1860s, and the Muslim nations thought that it reminded them of the crusades. That is basically how we got the Red Crescent. When the Israelis wanted to use some sort of symbol to denote the humanitarian work that was going on in the field, they were not too happy about having either the Red Crescent or the Red Cross, and so they had the Star of David. Following that, the Muslim people did not really want to vote in favour of having the Star of David recognised as the premium symbol of humanitarian aid in the field, so the Red Crystal appeared.

I actually think that—putting all politics aside—one of the real cool stories of the world is how symbolism has developed and how symbols can bring people together rather than set them apart, even those two symbols and what they represent. Now we have a third symbol to add to those great organisations and the great work of the international Red Cross and the Red Crescent. New Zealand has a longstanding position as a supporter of international humanitarian law and the role of the international Red Cross and the Red Crescent, so I was gobsmacked when the Hon Phil Goff started his speech about what we were discussing with such a sanctimonious tone that it was unbelievable.

I do commend this bill to the House, and as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee I look forward to our progressing this bill in a timely manner. Thank you.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. In looking up some background details to the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, it is always most impressive to see what the movement worldwide does do. We are all very familiar with the fact that every time there is an actual disaster or some sort of military conflict that so often the Red Cross and the Red Crescent play an important role in those situations. Looking up the facts of the organisations involved, I noted they are present in some 188 countries around the world, which is a very, very impressive figure. Most countries in the world do have the Red Cross and the Red Crescent present, and they include 97 million volunteers, members, and staff worldwide. So, again, they have a huge support base around the world providing humanitarian assistance. The principles of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent are something that we should be very mindful of. The Red Cross was founded, as we all know, in 1863—as a previous speaker said, in Switzerland—and it was founded to protect—

Hon Simon Bridges: Not even Winston was born then, Andrew.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: No, no, it was a little bit before New Zealand First was founded, but on very similar principles—principles like New Zealand First has. They are to protect human life and health; to ensure respect for all human beings; and to prevent and alleviate human suffering without any discrimination based on nationality, race, sex, religious beliefs, class, or political opinions.

We are very happy to support this bill. We are somewhat concerned that it has taken since 2005, when New Zealand signed up to it originally—that some 7 years later the bill is finally in this House. That is a little bit disappointing. But quite clearly where you have a situation where you have Christian-based symbols and Muslim-based symbols, those cannot always apply in all situations around the world. Therefore the Red Crystal does serve the purpose of being another symbol that can be used in circumstances where it is appropriate.

We all know what the Red Cross has done for New Zealand as well, in terms of what it has done with the Canterbury earthquakes and natural disasters here in New Zealand. Whenever the Red Cross puts up its hand and says it needs the support of New Zealanders in an emergency, New Zealanders always respond, and they respond with huge generosity. The Red Cross and the Red Crescent are regarded as being very, very well operated organisations—NGOs—around the world, which have intervened in some of the most significant natural disasters that this world has seen, and in some of the most major military conflicts that we have seen over the last century or so.

In that respect, it should be noted that the Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations received the Nobel Peace Prize on three occasions: in 1917, during the First World War; in 1944, during the Second World War; and again in 1963. One could rightly argue that there has been a bit of a gap, and perhaps now that we are moving into this current millennium, they are overdue for another Nobel Peace Prize, because they certainly have earned it over the last 150-odd years.

New Zealand First is very happy to support this bill, and we will certainly commend it to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to take a short call on this bill, the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. We were speaking in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee earlier today about immigration and New Zealand, and so forth, and some of the key themes that were coming out, of course, were humanitarianism, the duty of care, and the dignity of every person. I think that is a really good context to lead into this amendment bill.

The bill itself is very simple. It is bringing in a third symbol for use under the Geneva Conventions. Along with the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, we now have the Red Diamond, or the Red Crystal. These are symbols, as was rightly noted by a member earlier, that people understand and attach great meaning to. I think the bill is a great opportunity for the work of humanitarianism to continue. I always feel that a word of caution is needed in terms of having too many symbols, and it could be interesting to see what occurs in the future and whether we move towards a single one, once again. In the spirit of importance, but also levity, I noticed in my own research on this that Sudan had actually once suggested we have the red rhinoceros as a symbol, which I thought was interesting.

Hon Simon Bridges: How does that sound?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, it is very alliterative. But I do want to acknowledge the work of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, and those who will work under the Red Diamond. They do have an important role in protecting humanity and working for humanity’s best interests. It is a pleasure that this bill is coming before this House, and in accepting it we acknowledge the great work of the many men and women, now and in the past, who serve under the Red Cross, under the Red Crescent, and under the Red Crystal. Thank you.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I am happy to take a short call on the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill, and to just simply say, as my colleague the Hon Phil Goff has said, that Labour supports this bill, and why would we not? This bill simply introduces another symbol that will be recognised worldwide alongside the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, and the Star of David. Hopefully, it will provide some confidence in those parts of the world where we need to provide protection and support in times of war to people who need that protection.

I would just like to comment also that the Red Cross is a symbol that is very, very familiar in this part of the region. I do not know how familiar the Red Crescent is, and I do not know how familiar this particular symbol will be in the Pacific region. I would be interested during the select committee process to receive evidence from organisations like Israeli organisations, Turkish - New Zealand organisations, and groups like the Palestinian and the Pakistani organisations here in New Zealand. They will have experience and better information that will help New Zealanders understand just how important it is that New Zealand plays a strong leadership role throughout this region. We took such a role when we introduced a nuclear-free zone throughout this region. And I think we have also got to play a greater role in the international arena, because you cannot get away from globalisation. It is the way things are today.

I am aware that the Minister of Health said in his opening statement that this bill was not a matter of urgency. That really begs the question as to why—because once upon a time this bill was No. 48 on the Order Paper—we are suddenly debating it today when I suspect that there are more important issues that we should be debating. We have got our own symbols, like the “not for sale” symbol, in terms of what this Government has recently done, or the baby with the big eyes symbol, which is the parental leave symbol we are promoting.

Hon Simon Bridges: I was going to say don’t talk about Chris Hipkins like that.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: No, it is not Chris Hipkins. It probably is Mr Simon Bridges.

But I have to say, given we are supporting this bill, that New Zealanders listening in to this particular debate will be wondering why on earth this Parliament, under this Government, is spending time debating something that should be a given. We should be supporting it. Why on earth are we not debating what this National Government is going to do about the 160,000 people who are unemployed? What is this National Government going to do about stemming the flow of New Zealanders who are leaving our shores to try to find a better life and a better standard of living in Australia? [Interruption] Yes, I can see you doing that. Look, I am standing between this House and dinner. My mum taught me that once you smell pork you have got to keep it short. So I simply say that we support this convention and say to that Government that it should know better. It should be debating more important things that are affecting people’s lives right at this very moment.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I would like to add my support to the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. As a former senior lecturer in international relations, I am just too familiar with topics like war and conflicts. When the Cold War came to its end in the 1990s, people were saying that we were going to see peace and, therefore, no more conflicts. As a matter of fact we have seen more conflicts since the end of the Cold War.

This bill is a good bill because it contains legislative provisions for New Zealand to become a party to the third additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which are the primary source of international humanitarian and armed conflict law. New Zealand has always been a strong supporter of international humanitarian law, and respects the noble humanitarian work of the 97 million volunteers, members, and staff of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in helping and protecting innocent people around the world who have been caught up in devastating wars or natural disasters.

The road to adding this additional emblem began in 1992. Since then, many lives may have been lost because some countries do not recognise the Red Cross or Red Crescent symbols. This bill will no doubt help to save many lives, and not just those of New Zealanders, in armed conflicts around the world. It will help to continue the valuable work of New Zealand’s armed forces, aid agencies, and the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National): The House has made good progress this week, and, consistent with an agreement of the whips, I seek leave for the House to adjourn until the next sitting day.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

The House adjourned at 4.55 p.m.