Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Niue—Delegation, Legislative Assembly

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the Legislative Assembly of Niue is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Hon John Banks—Donations to Member’s Political Campaigns and Compliance with Cabinet Manual

1. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement: “I’m not going to go and relitigate every comment I’ve made prior to this point because I don’t think that would actually be helpful”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

David Shearer: What details of the report of the police investigation into John Banks led him to comment “I think he did exactly what he’d always said, which was comply with the law.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is my reading of the police report.

David Shearer: Why did he say John Banks “complied with the law”, when the police investigation found Mr Banks received a sealed envelope containing a $15,000 cheque for his campaign at a meeting with Skycity’s chief executive, a donation that was subsequently recorded as anonymous?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The fact that the police have decided not to press charges shows you that they do not believe there is a case.

David Shearer: Is his conclusion from the police report that where they said they did not have enough evidence to prosecute, that is the same as complying with the law?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, if there was a case to be answered, a prosecution would be taken. I know the Labour Party members would know about that, because they face lots of potential prosecutions.

David Shearer: Is he satisfied that John Banks was upfront and honest at all times with the media and the public in what he knew about the donations he received?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have responsibility for that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister clearly has responsibility for his Minister and that Minister’s interactions with the media in this building. For him to say that he does not, must be misleading the House—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member was on reasonable grounds until that point, and then he became totally out of order. The Prime Minister has responsibility only for whether or not he has confidence in his Ministers, and the question did not ask him whether he had confidence in the Minister. The Prime Minister does not have responsibility for the matters that the question asked about.

David Shearer: Did he know before the police investigation that John Banks personally solicited and received a donation from Skycity as part of his mayoralty campaign that he subsequently recorded as anonymous?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

David Shearer: Has John Banks’ behaviour during his mayoralty campaign met the standard of ethical behaviour that he expects from his Ministers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As the member should know, the Cabinet Manual makes it quite clear that when it comes to ethics it is at the time the person holds their warrant.

David Shearer: Given that the Cabinet Manual says that “Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards.”, does he believe Mr Banks is seen by the public as holding the highest ethical standards?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The test is whether he enjoys my confidence, and he does.

Economic Programme—Fiscal Challenges and Support for New Zealand Families

2. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Finance: How has the Government balanced the need for responsible fiscal management with its continued support for New Zealand families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Despite difficult economic times in the last 3½ years, the Government has been committed to taking the rough edges off the effects of recession for New Zealanders. We have done that by maintaining large programmes such as Working for Families, interest-free student loans, New Zealand superannuation, and early childhood education subsidies. At the same time, we have worked hard with the Public Service to improve public services, because Government spending increases through the early 2000s were unsustainable. We have been able to do this at the same time as setting a path back to surplus in 2014-15.

Todd McClay: What progress has the Government made since 2008 in getting on top of debt and putting its finances in order?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have made steady and consistent progress rather than dramatic progress. However, the first forecast the Government received in December 2008 showed sharp, rising public debt and never-ending Government deficits leading to net Government debt hitting around 60 percent of GDP by 2026. The steps we have taken since then mean that by 2026 net debt is now forecast to reach zero, and the Government remains on track for a small Budget surplus in 2014-15.

Hon David Parker: Is it responsible fiscal management to spend $120 million on consultancy advice and marketing for his sale of State-owned assets programme; if so, how are those asset sales going at the moment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The asset sales programme remains on track. Some issues—[Interruption] There is nothing new or unexpected in the reports from the Waitangi Tribunal.

Todd McClay: Despite tight fiscal constraints, how much does the Government currently invest in programmes supporting New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We believe it has been important to provide New Zealand households and families with security about their income through difficult times. We are spending $2.6 billion a year on Working for Families payments, which have recently increased by 5 percent on 1 April. We will spend $1.4 billion this year on early childhood education subsidies—60 percent more than in 2008. We have spent $156.6 million on paid parental leave. This has increased from $135 million in 2008. In fact, paid parental leave has increased by $67 per week since 2008. The annual cost is forecast to rise to almost $200 million a year by 2016.

Todd McClay: What reports has he seen that would require the Government to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars more over 4 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen an officials’ report that a proposal to, roughly, double the paid parental leave scheme would cost taxpayers an extra $439 million over its first 4 years. As I have said, the Government is currently spending about $150 million a year, and this will rise to $200 million a year by 2016. The Government simply does not have a spare $439 million. It would have to borrow that from overseas lenders. We believe the current extensive support for families has been supportive of their family incomes through the last 3 or 4 years.

Living Standards, Inequality—Prime Minister’s Statements

3. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Ka whakatau a ia i te kōrero i whakaputaina māna, arā, “I do not accept the view that we are a deeply unequal country. I do not think the evidence suggests that, and people drawing that conclusion are wrong”?

[Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf, “I do not accept the view that we are a deeply unequal country. I do not think the evidence suggests that, and people drawing that conclusion are wrong”?]

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Metiria Turei: Is it the Prime Minister’s view that the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services is wrong to say inequality is worsening, when its Vulnerability Report has found that Māori and Pacific unemployment rates are now three times that of Pākehā and rising?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, it could be wrong. The most comprehensive study of inequality in New Zealand is Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2010—that is the most recent data—which actually shows that the gap is narrowing. The reason for that—and one of the problems with the Council of Christian Social Services report—is that if somebody wants to do a proper analysis, you have to look at household incomes, not only individual incomes; you have to adjust for household income and family size; and you have to look at all sorts of transfer payments made by the Government, like Working for Families, New Zealand superannuation, and other benefits. From the best of my knowledge, that particular scheme did not do that.

Metiria Turei: Given that the authors of that report attributed the slight reduction to a blip in investment income for the very richest New Zealanders, why is New Zealand not deeply unequal, when the wealth of those on the rich list grew by 18 percent, but the median income for Māori and Pacific people and sole parents with children actually dropped over that same period?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I think I would take the numbers on the rich list with a grain of salt, with the greatest respect. Secondly, the reason why I take the particular report as being the most comprehensive is because it is. It is the only report that actually looks at household size and household income, and adjusts for all of the payments made by the Government. I think if one looks at the overall situation in New Zealand, we are pretty equal compared with many other countries. We are on a par with Australia and Canada, and we are lot more equal than countries like the United States and Mexico. Three-quarters of all New Zealanders pay no more than 17.5 percent in tax. If you earn under $50,000 a year and have two children, in New Zealand you pay zero tax. That strikes me as being pretty fair.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister expect that workers at our leading listed companies will agree that New Zealand is not deeply unequal, when their chief executive officers earned, on average, 22.5 times more than those workers’ salaries, and granted themselves pay rises of $50,000 last year while their employees received an average rise of just $500?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot speak for those particular workers. I mean, I am just not in a position to do that. But what I can say is that the Government delivers a tax system and a redistribution system that on the surface of things, at least to me, looks pretty fair. That is why we go out there and support Working for Families when it has a cost in the order of about $2.8 billion. That is why we provide benefit support to over 300,000 New Zealanders. That is why we put in billions of dollars when it comes to the accommodation supplement. That is why we do a number of things in this country to try to support those who are not in a position to support themselves as well, or need an extra helping hand. On balance, I reckon that looks reasonably fair.

Metiria Turei: What conclusion does the Prime Minister draw about inequality, when according to the KidsCan foundation one in 11 children in the lowest four deciles is hungry at school, 208 schools are currently using the KidsCan food programme, and there are nearly 200 schools waiting for KidsCan to be able to feed their kids, too?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, let me say that KidsCan is a good programme. Secondly, it is a good example of where the private sector can play a role, because you have got a number of companies that have been stepping up and assisting that programme. Thirdly, if you go and have a look at the children in New Zealand who are in the lowest-income households, a lot of those are in welfare-based households—not exclusively, but a lot of them are in welfare-based households. That is why the Government has a programme for investing in people, to try to assist them off welfare and into work. We know that in New Zealand if you work 20 hours a week or more, then you will be substantially better off than you would be even if you were on the DPB. That is how strong the incentive payments are when it comes to Working for Families, with the likes of the in-work tax credit. So, in my view, if we really want to help people in New Zealand, we actually help them into work.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he consider an increase in food-based hardship grants from 280,000 to roughly more than half a million to be an indicator of an increase in hardship?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot verify the numbers from the member. She could be right; she could be wrong. I do not know. Secondly—

Grant Robertson: Just answer.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: OK, we will get there. There is no rush. I have got plenty of time. I know we are all off to Samoa, but, you know, we have plenty of time to get our way through this. Secondly, the issue around people who are getting hardship payments probably indicates an increase in unemployment. That is the reality of a recession, but it is also, again, why the Government puts so much support into trying to help people, whether it is a 9-day fortnight or a variety of other mechanisms that the Labour Party opposed.

Metiria Turei: How can his plan for job growth, which he referred to earlier, be the answer, when the Department of Labour warned him in December last year that almost all the job growth that he is talking about will benefit professional men, and the unemployed, low-skilled workers, and women will miss out almost completely?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I reject that analysis from the member. If one goes and has a look at the number of people who were on the unemployment benefit 18 months ago, it was 69,000; today it is around about 50,000. If one goes and has a look at the number of young people who were on an unemployment benefit 18 months ago, it was 23,500; today it is 13,500. If one wants to really create employment for New Zealanders, the way to do that is to have an environment that supports the creation of jobs. Everything that happens on this side of the House does that, and everything that happens on this side of the House is opposed by Labour and the Greens. That is because Labour and the Greens are against anything that would create jobs for New Zealanders.

Metiria Turei: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear Metiria Turei.

Metiria Turei: Given that two out of every five children—two out of every five children—who live in poverty are in working families, would he agree, as a first step, to support Dr David Clark’s bill to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour for New Zealand’s poorest working families?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, and the reason for that is that we run the risk that people will lose their jobs. Sure, some people might get paid $15 an hour, but many other people, on the advice we have, would end up on the dole queue. I simply say this: in the last 4 years we have heard from Labour and the Greens that the minimum wage should be $15 an hour, but when they were in Government they were not saying that, were they?

Metiria Turei: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear Metiria Turei.

Metiria Turei: Why does the Prime Minister continually refuse to address the growing gap between rich and poor, when even the World Economic Forum has said in its global risk report this year that although reducing debt is important, severe income inequality is a greater global threat?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: All I can tell the member is that if she wants to go and look at the Household incomes in New Zealand: trends in indicators of inequality and hardship, this is the most comprehensive report. I know that the member does not like it, because it actually does the job properly and looks by household, by members, and by redistribution. The Greens want to look in isolation, which is what the Greens always do. When they go and look at the tax package, they leave out the bits where people pay it, and count the bits where they get something. But that is the voodoo economics that comes out of the Green Party. It is no different from when the member put out a press release a few weeks ago criticising the Government for the OECD report on income inequality—Divided We Stand—then forgot to mention that, by the way, the report was commenting on what happened in 2008, when the Green Party was propping up those losers over there.

Christchurch, Recovery—Central Business District Recovery Plan

4. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What recent announcements has the Government made around the rebuild of the Christchurch city centre?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) on behalf of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Last night the Prime Minister and the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery launched the central city recovery plan. This new and innovative central city design is the exciting next step in the rebuild and recovery of New Zealand’s second-largest city. The plan details the locations of 17 anchor projects, and provides a clear and vibrant vision for the future of central Christchurch.

Jacqui Dean: What will be some of the first priorities amongst the anchor projects?

Hon AMY ADAMS: This morning the Prime Minister and the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery attended a tree planting at the future site of Papa o Ōtākaro, the Avon River precinct, which is to be one of the key anchor projects as it runs through the new central city, and will also be one of our first priorities. Other key projects include the novel urban frame that will surround the central city, and the convention centre, which will act as a catalyst to commercial regeneration.

Jacqui Dean: How is the Government encouraging investment in the Christchurch city centre?

Hon AMY ADAMS: A new facilitation service has been launched called Invest Christchurch, which is to encourage investment in the new Christchurch central business district. This new service will be part of the Christchurch Central Development Unit, and will work with local, national, and international investors, businesses, and developers to facilitate private sector - led initiatives throughout the new central business district. The private sector is key to the redevelopment of a vibrant central city, so we want to do what we can to make it easier for them to play a part in the rebuild of our city.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: What is the difference between the council’s budget for the rebuild of the city’s civic assets and the projects announced by the Government yesterday, and how much of that shortfall has the Government committed to fund?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Yesterday’s announcement was about providing the location of the anchor projects. Each of those projects will now have to go through specific design projects and business case assessment so that we can come to the final figures for them. That work is ahead of us, and we are both committed to doing it in conjunction with the council.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very clear and deliberate question. The Minister’s answer would suggest that they had not done any costings, which I am sure is not true.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Speaker can only assess whether or not the Minister has answered the question. When she answered the question, she said that the costings had not been done, because the design work had not yet been done. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I cannot second guess a Minister’s answer in that regard.

State-owned Assets, Sales—Treaty of Waitangi Obligations

5. Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Yes.

Hon Parekura Horomia: When the Minister said that if privatisation of State assets occurs, it must be managed in a manner that is consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, was that position consistent with the interim recommendation of the Waitangi Tribunal?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Yes.

Hon Parekura Horomia: What advice did he give to the Minister of Finance in so far as the transfer of 49 percent shareholding interests in State assets is not a contravention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: As Minister I did not give any advice to the Minister of Finance on that particular point.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: What assurance did he seek from the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that the transfer of 49 percent shareholding interests in State assets is not a contravention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Simply that we had been working with iwi leaders and iwi groups on this whole issue. At the end of the day, it is their viewpoint that we put forward.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific, and asked what assurance did he seek from the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations.

Mr SPEAKER: The member may repeat her question in full.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: What assurance did he seek from the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that the transfer of 49 percent shareholding interests in State assets is not a contravention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: As I implied in my earlier answer, I arranged the meetings, and the iwi leaders made that submission themselves to the Prime Minister.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to say that that still does not answer the very direct question about what assurances the Minister had sought from two other Ministers.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty we face is that the Minister in his answer is talking about arranging meetings, whereas the questioners have asked what assurances he sought from the relevant Ministers, the Minister of Finance and the Minister responsible for Treaty settlements, as to whether or not the partial sale of State assets—these particular ones involved—would be a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Minister has not really made any attempt to answer that, at all. I mean, he either sought some assurances in this area, or he did not. I am not saying how the Minister should answer, but to say something about the question would be helpful.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I attended one of those meetings—there have been several. My understanding is that assurances were given to the iwi leaders, after I had arranged for them to meet with the Prime Minister, rather than my seeking the particular assurance.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister clarify what assurances were given to iwi leaders with regard to the transfer of 49 percent shareholding interests in State assets to assure him that it was not a contravention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: My understanding is that discussions are ongoing, and have been going on for some time. I guess that is probably a question you should direct to the Minister responsible for those issues.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of point of order, Mr Speaker. If you need one.

Mr SPEAKER: Does one of those members wish to raise a point of order or not, because I am about to go on to the next—[Interruption] Well, actually, I will hear from the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker, I think the fact that it took me a second to jump up was an indication that I thought you were going to intervene to indicate to the Minister that he should answer the question as opposed to making passing reference to meetings and not being specific as to the assurances that he had taken on board as he was asked by Nanaia Mahuta to do.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The reason why I paused myself was I was actually thinking about the Minister’s answer, because what the Minister said, if I recollect correctly, was that certain assurances had been given to iwi leaders. He implied that he was not actually responsible for any assurances given by those other Ministers to those iwi leaders. As I thought about his answer, I believed that, actually, he had answered the question in so far as he was indicating that he was simply not responsible for what the Ministers had actually said to those iwi leaders. The wording of the question I think enabled the Minister to answer in the way he did.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The supplementary question from Nanaia Mahuta related to the previous answer that the Minister had given, where he said that he had been in a meeting where assurances had been given. So I think it was a legitimate supplementary question to follow on from that and ask about what assurances—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is quite right. It was a legitimate supplementary question. What I am saying is that I think the Minister’s answer was also legitimate in that he sidestepped the assurances given because he is not responsible for them. I think I cannot ask the Minister to answer for something he is not responsible for. But the question was certainly legitimate.

Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister in his reply said that he had referred it to the Minister responsible. The Minister of Māori Affairs has a responsibility of duty of care to Māori people in this nation. He is responsible for that.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister of Māori Affairs cannot be responsible for everything to do with Māori people. I mean, when other Ministers are involved—obviously, the Minister has answered in terms of what he did in respect of certain meetings and certain assurances being sought, but the Minister has not answered in terms of what actual assurances were given, on the basis, I am assuming, that he believes he is not responsible for those. I think I am correct in that assumption. That is why I cannot take the matter any further.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The full extent of the question, however, relates to his assurance: what assurances did those Ministers give to give him assurance that the transfer of 49 percent of State-owned assets would not contravene Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which is his responsibility?

Mr SPEAKER: Was that a further supplementary question?

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: That was the supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: That was not, as I heard it, the previous supplementary question, and that is why I have ruled on the matter in the way I have. If assurances were given by another Minister to any iwi leaders, the Minister of Māori Affairs is not responsible for those assurances, and that is why, I believe, he has answered in the way he has. I am not in a position to require him to answer in any way differently from that. I mean, the member could reword the question, perhaps, because the member still has further supplementary questions.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your memory is normally really good. This might be the exception that proves the rule. I think you received an assurance from Nanaia Mahuta as to what was in her question, and you said you had a different recollection. Mr Speaker, I think her recollection, as she was reading from the same piece of paper, could well be accurate.

Mr SPEAKER: I think I will hear from Michael Woodhouse.

Michael Woodhouse: In defence of your memory, I have a very clear recollection that the Minister of Māori Affairs answered in respect of the initial question about what assurances had been sought that he had facilitated a number of meetings, and, in fact, mentioned the Prime Minister. He did not say he was at all of them, and, therefore, he could not speak to the specific assurances given by the Treaty Minister and the Minister of Finance to a third party, to iwi, which was the subsequent question. Therefore, his answer was perfectly in order.

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter now. The member does have further supplementary questions to pursue the matter if she should wish to.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister assure the House that, based on the assurances given by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Treaty settlements, the transfer of 49 percent of shareholding in State-owned assets is not a contravention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm that he was at a meeting where he heard iwi being given certain assurances to the extent that, his having heard those assurances, he advised the Prime Minister that the process should be put on hold until the Waitangi Tribunal reports at the end of September?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Other iwi did not ask that, and the meetings I talked about were well before the tribunal came into the picture.

Primary Health Care—Zero Fees for Under-Sixes

6. MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Health: Has any progress been made on the Zero Fees for Under Sixes scheme taking coverage over and above the 70 percent of children covered in 2008 achieved by the previous Government?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, great progress. This Government, despite very tight financial times and other countries cutting their health budgets, has put an additional $17 million into the free under-sixes daytime general practitioner services. Now the percentage of children aged under 6 who are enrolled at a practice offering free general practitioner visits during the day is 93 percent. What is more, if you look at the poorest families, we have lifted the proportion of high-needs children aged less than 6 years old who are receiving free general practitioner visits during the day to 98 percent. This is all about lifting everybody, especially those most in need.

Maggie Barry: What progress is the Government making with free after-hours visits for under-6-year-olds?

Hon TONY RYALL: Over 90 percent of children under 6 have access to free after-hours doctors’ visits. One of the benefits of this new programme from the Government is that it has encouraged more general practitioners to join the zero fees scheme and offer free doctors’ visits during the day. For example, in Wellington, Capital and Coast District Health Board now has 100 percent of its practices offering free visits during the day, and all children in the region have access to free after-hours general practitioner visits. The West Coast District Health Board has also achieved this fantastic result. This is yet another preventive health investment the Government is making at the top of the cliff as part of its increase of around $2 billion of extra funding in public health services—a very, very significant increase internationally.

Hon Maryan Street: What progress has been made to roll out free after-hours care for under-sixes in the southern region, given that even as late as 2 weeks ago there were only three practices listed to provide those services in the whole region, and one of Dunedin’s main after-hours providers had not signed up because it was not satisfied it could cope with the demand?

Hon TONY RYALL: There are free after-hours general practitioner services available in Dunedin. There are negotiations under way, particularly for the more rural areas.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is this policy of “lifting everybody, especially those in need” free general practitioner visits the very same policy that New Zealand First introduced, having been opposed by the National Party, which described it as improvident, squanderous, and wasteful?

Hon TONY RYALL: That is so long ago. What I would say is that, yes, that policy was introduced under the National - New Zealand First coalition Government, a Government that I remember, and I certainly enjoyed working with that member when we sold a minority stake, I recall, in Auckland International Airport.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did you notice that add-on, which usually—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I can hear immediately that this is not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You must be clairvoyant then.

Mr SPEAKER: I am. The member need only reflect back on the question he asked. He invited the Minister to comment in his question. He invited the Minister to comment on New Zealand First’s previous policies. If members invite Ministers to comment, they will.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Which part of my question to the Minister is inaccurate and not true, or was something that invited that response?

Mr SPEAKER: I invite him to go back and read his question again. He asked the Minister whether a certain policy that had come in had been introduced by the New Zealand First Party when it was in Government. He invited, therefore, the Minister to comment on matters to do with the New Zealand First Party. When members do that, if they wish to—I had better be careful of the language I use—if they invite Ministers to comment on matters to do with their own parties, they should not seek the Speaker’s help if the Ministers comment in a manner that the members did not expect.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What happened to the Standing Order where Ministers are required in their answers to be terse and to the point?

Mr SPEAKER: It is very simple. The member runs risks. Let me, therefore, put it more bluntly if the member is not seeing it. If members, during question time, wish to grandstand, they are inviting Ministers to comment on the issues they are raising. Question time is about asking Ministers for matters they are responsible for. I do not believe this Minister was responsible for the matter the member raised; therefore, the member was a little surprised at the answer he got. But it is a lesson in asking questions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He is the Minister in charge of the extension of the free general practitioner visits policy. This is a simple matter of a reminder to the Minister of some historical fact, which is relevant to the issue. It is not grandstanding—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately, if he wishes to stay in the House. The House does not carry on in this way. Such points of order are totally unnecessary, and the member should reflect on it next time he asks questions.

Schools, Charter—Progress

7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Education: What progress has been made on the charter schools policy?

Hon JOHN BANKS (Associate Minister of Education): Since its announcement last December as part of the ACT-National confidence and supply agreement, this policy has made excellent progress. We have established a first-class working group of dedicated and knowledgable New Zealanders. Its members have travelled the country, consulting with members of the community. They have found overwhelming support for the policy. The charter schools policy promises to be a major advance for the one in five New Zealand students leaving school out of work, out of hope, and out of luck. Indeed, more progress has been made on this policy in the last 8 months than was made in the entire education portfolio from, say, 1999 to 2008.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following on from the points you made in respect of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, how was that response in order, given the primary question? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Given the primary question asked, the Minister answered in some detail, and then compared progress that has been made, which I accept was unnecessary but, believe me, if I start ruling that sort of thing out, I will be ruling an awful lot of questions out, too. [Interruption] Order! The members will get control of themselves. I did not rule the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ question out of order. I left it for the Minister to handle, as the Minister saw fit, and the members know I tend to do that. I do not rule questions out of order, even though I could rule many out of order, but I do not. The Minister answered the primary question asked, in some detail, and then, I accept, put a bit of unnecessary stuff at the end, but the bit that he put at the end was not actually that terrible.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Will the curriculum in charter schools include a unit on reading and comprehension, so that individuals who sign documents and declare them to be true and accurate understand their obligation for that to be the case?

Hon JOHN BANKS: The curriculum could include teaching kids to be very wary of Labour MPs who sell tickets to kids—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The House will come to order, or some people will be leaving it. I accept these issues are tense, but the question did ask, on the face of it, an issue about the curriculum to do with English. There should be some attempt to answer in respect of the English curriculum, before anything is added about any other part of the curriculum.

Hon JOHN BANKS: Let me answer the English curriculum question. The curriculum could include teaching kids how to spell words like “vexatious” and “exonerated”. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear the honourable—[Interruption] Order! The House will settle down.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Will the curriculum in charter schools include a unit on improving memory; if so, will that unit use, as an example, the individual who personally solicited a donation from a casino, personally received that donation, and claimed to forget it when declaring donations?

Hon JOHN BANKS: Well, in respect of memory and declaring donations and costs, they might be taught that when they see a Labour Party election pledge card worth $446,000 it was probably paid for by the taxpayers—by ripping off the taxpayers. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now if it takes someone to go, to bring some order to the House, someone will go.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Will the curriculum in charter schools include a unit on ethics; if so, will it make it clear—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear the question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Will the curriculum in charter schools include a unit on ethics; if so, will it make it clear that it is unethical to lie to the media and, through them, to the people of New Zealand?

Hon JOHN BANKS: It could include a provision for the teaching of ethics, and the charter school kids might be taught that one should not sign a painting if one did not paint it, because that is forgery—that is forgery.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have called Alfred Ngaro to ask question No. 8. [Interruption] Order! I ask both front benches please to come to order.

Child Poverty, Abuse, and Neglect—White Paper for Vulnerable Children

8. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made on the release of the White Paper for Vulnerable Children?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): We have announced that we will soon be releasing a summary document of the nearly 10,000 green paper submissions on 14 August. The white paper itself is on track and will lay out a way forward for better protecting our vulnerable children, and will now be released on 12 October.

Alfred Ngaro: What will be released as part of the green paper submissions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The public submissions are an incredibly rich resource. A team of people have read, analysed, and collated every submission. The summary document is over 180 pages in length. In addition to this, there will be a full summary released from around 600 Government and non-government agencies.

Alfred Ngaro: Meitaki maata, Mr Speaker. What issues are being considered as part of the white paper’s development?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are currently considering a range of issues as part of the white paper’s development. We are looking at the research and use of predictive analytics, particularly for the protection of our most vulnerable children in our most vulnerable families. The white paper will reflect the issues raised and commented on in the green paper submissions.

KiwiRail—Rolling Stock Replacement and Network Maintenance

9. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement in his press release of 24 May 2012 that “KiwiRail has successfully undertaken a significant investment programme over the previous two years, including: New locomotives and wagons, and refurbishment of the current locomotive fleet”?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: Yes.

Clare Curran: Did KiwiRail’s decision to procure the DL locomotives and the 500 wagons from China North Rail meet his standard of “successful”, given the extraordinary list of systemic design and manufacturing failures revealed in internal KiwiRail documents yesterday; if not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes, it did. Can I say that KiwiRail carried out market evaluations before committing to the Chinese manufacturer. This included looking very carefully at building in New Zealand as an option.

Clare Curran: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific. It said: “Did his decision meet his standard of ‘successful’?”.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought I heard the Minister say “yes” in answering it.

Clare Curran: Given that the 20 locomotives purchased by Malaysian railways in 2005 from the same Chinese factory were mothballed and unable to be used by 2008 due to severe technical problems, is continuing to order locomotives from this company not simply throwing good money after bad, and what will he do to ensure that his turn-round plan does not continue to be compromised?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No. I share, of course, the member’s frustration with the situation that is here. The reality is that the manufacturer from China has taken full responsibility for the issues that are present. There is minimal disruption to the operations of KiwiRail, and all cost is borne by the manufacturer; none by KiwiRail.

Clare Curran: What does he have to say to the Kiwi workers at Hillside and other New Zealand firms who no longer have jobs or who face losing their jobs in order for KiwiRail to have this supply of faulty locomotives and wagons, given that his predecessor said on a Close Up TV programme in 2010 that both workshops would be extremely busy with a wagon replacement programme—should they head for Australia?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Of course I sympathise when anyone loses their job, but the fact of the matter is that this Government over the last 3 years has invested $750 million into KiwiRail. We are letting the board and some 4,000 workers at KiwiRail get on with the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan to ensure that there are many more jobs at KiwiRail in coming years.

Brendan Horan: Is he aware that significant sections of the rail network are rotting and that the staff who would otherwise be tasked with repairing them are being made redundant?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That is why we were spending 750 million additional dollars over the last 3 years. But if the member has specific issues that he wishes to bring to KiwiRail’s and the ministry’s attention, I suggest he do that in writing and we will take him seriously.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table an internal KiwiRail document dated July 2012 titled DL Gen 1 Update listing the litany of failures of the locomotives.

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.

Brendan Horan: I seek leave to table a photograph of a section of railway track clearly depicting a row of rotting rail sleepers with external grass growth.

Mr SPEAKER: Would it be possible just to indicate the source of the photograph?

Brendan Horan: Yes—KiwiRail staff.

Hon Members: Where is it?

Mr SPEAKER: Members are wanting to know whereabouts the photograph was taken.

Brendan Horan: In a very busy section of rail-track—

Hon Members: Where?

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Brendan Horan: —in the member’s own area of Tauranga.

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

Brendan Horan: I also seek leave to table a photograph of a clearly rotting rail sleeper breaking on the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before members describe what is in a document they should say the source of the document.

Brendan Horan: Again, from KiwiRail staff.

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

Brendan Horan: From KiwiRail staff, I seek to table a photograph of a railway sleeper clearly rotten at the core.

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

KiwiRail—Turnaround Plan and Potential for Sale

10. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf that there are no plans to sell KiwiRail?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes. In fact, the Government is investing heavily in KiwiRail to help the business become sustainable. Overall, the Government and KiwiRail are investing around $4.5 billion over the next 9 years to put the business on a sound footing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister of Finance aware that KiwiRail is considering offers to purchase Tranz Scenic; if so, is the privatisation of long-term passenger services part of the Government’s turn-round plan for KiwiRail?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have not seen any particular proposal there, but KiwiRail and its predecessors in the past have looked for other parties who can help them, particularly with their passenger business. For instance, they have done significant transactions with local government, to the extent that metro rail is now owned by regional councils. It used to be owned by whoever the predecessor of KiwiRail was.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister of Finance aware of the outsourcing of jobs, including to Australian company John Holland, that is also part of the Government’s plan to prepare KiwiRail for sale?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not aware of the detail of any outsourcing of jobs that KiwiRail might have done. What I can say is that between the Government and KiwiRail we are putting $4.5 billion behind this company to try to do what has proven to be very difficult over the years, and that is create a sustainable rail system in New Zealand. Of course, KiwiRail has to play its part in the bargain. If it is going to use $4.5 billion of taxpayers’ money, it needs to clean up its own act and be the world’s most efficient small rail company. We expect them to be decisive and aggressive about that.

Interpretation Services—Language Line

11. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Ethnic Affairs: What reports has she received about the Office of Ethnic Affairs working with the Red Cross?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for Ethnic Affairs): I am pleased to advise the House that the Office of Ethnic Affairs’ Language Line service is now available through the Red Cross. Language Line offers interpreters in more than 40 languages to more than 80 agencies, including Government departments, hospitals, and city councils. The Office of Ethnic Affairs has been working with the Red Cross in Christchurch since the earthquake in February last year, and recently trained a number of workers and volunteers so that they can access Language Line when they talk to or visit people who do not speak English. This is a positive, practical contribution to helping people access services and information.

Melissa Lee: What other agencies is the Office of Ethnic Affairs working with to improve access to information and services for non - English speaking people?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The office is working with the New Zealand Home Health Association to promote Language Line to its members, which are home help providers. Forward Care Home Health has signed up to use Language Line, as a result of this work. Clear, accurate information is essential when assessing people’s needs. I am very pleased that the Office of Ethnic Affairs is helping agencies to improve the services they provide for non - English-speaking people.

Roading, Auckland—Alternatives to Pūhoi to Wellsford Route

12. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Transport: What alternatives did the Government investigate before committing itself to the Road of National Significance between Puhoi and Wellsford, which is now projected to cost $1.76 billion up from $1.69 billion two years ago?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Transport): on behalf of the Minister of Transport: Prior to 2008, 14 studies had been undertaken to look at improvements between Auckland and Wellsford, including providing a completely new route or upgrading along the existing route. The Pūhoi to Wellsford option, which involves a new route running parallel to the existing State Highway 1, was confirmed as the preferred option by assessing the strategic options against criteria such as economic development, safety, regional integration, access and mobility, network resilience, sustainability, and cost efficiency.

Julie Anne Genter: Given that up to 50 people could die on the Pūhoi to Wellsford route before the new motorway is completed, why is the Government not prioritising saving lives, with urgent safety upgrades to the existing highway?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think the short answer is that we are getting on with this just as soon as we can. In fact, progress is being made on this highway. The Pūhoi to Warkworth section of the project is about to progress with a planning alliance preparing the necessary documentation to obtain designation and consents. This is envisaged to be submitted to the Environmental Protection Authority mid-2013. And the Warkworth to Wellsford section of the project is undergoing further investigation due to the challenging terrain and geotechnical conditions.

Julie Anne Genter: Why has the Government not adopted the Operation Lifesaver proposal endorsed by the Auckland Regional Council in favour of the new motorway, which would save dozens of lives and could be quickly implemented at a quarter of the cost of the new motorway?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am not personally aware of Operation Lifesaver, but if the member would write to me, I am sure we would look at it.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table the Operation Lifesaver report that was presented to the Auckland Regional Council and identifies that up to 50 lives could be lost in the 10 years that we wait for the new motorway to be built.

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

Julie Anne Genter: Given that the New Zealand Transport Agency has already been able to scale back the Ōtaki to Levin expressway and deliver safety benefits at one quarter of the cost, will he now consider saving dozens of lives this decade by improving State Highway 1 north of Pūhoi now, rather than pushing ahead with the uneconomic new motorway?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I have already intimated we are progressing, I think, reasonably well on this road of national significance, and the member, I think, mentions the benefits. Of course, there are economic benefits, but there are also much wider benefits in terms of connecting communities to communities, and with education, health, and so on. I think the people of the north deserve and want this road of national significance.

Julie Anne Genter: I also seek leave to table the State Highway 1 to 16 Auckland to Wellsford strategic study that was undertaken in 2008 and delivered to Transit New Zealand. It was released under the Official Information Act, and it shows that the new motorways’ costs outweigh the benefits.

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

Urgent Debates Declined

State-owned Assets, Sales—Waitangi Tribunal Interim Report

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendation that the Crown ought not to commence the sale of shares in any of the mixed-ownership model companies until the Waitangi Tribunal has had the opportunity to complete its report for the first stage of its inquiry, and the Crown has had its opportunity to give this report, and any recommendations it contains, in-depth and considered examination. The Waitangi Tribunal has issued an interim report recommending that the sale of shares ought not to commence until it has had the opportunity to complete its report on stage one of its inquiry. The Government has taken no action. The absence of action on the part of the Government is not a particular case of recent occurrence. The time for such a debate is when the Government has examined the tribunal’s recommendations and announced its response. The application is therefore declined.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to invite you to look carefully at the application, and in particular at the case that was drawn to your attention as part of that, and that is Hansard, Volume 638, at page 8541, “Urgent Debates: Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct—Report”. That particular case was one that is absolutely parallel to this. It was the receipt of a report to the Government from a commission, and of course the Waitangi Tribunal has the same status, for these purposes, as a commission. It was something that required a response, but had not yet had a response from the Government. The Speaker on that occasion allowed an urgent debate, and, in fact, on a number of occasions in the past Speakers have allowed urgent debates in those circumstances.

I do not want to push it really hard now, but I would like to invite you to review not your precedents, but previous precedents in this area, as to whether or not a matter that has occurred outside—either in a court, or in a commission of inquiry, or in a tribunal—that requires Government attention, has to have a Government decision before we have an urgent debate here. In the past it has been my understanding that having the House express its views before the Government made a decision on an urgent and important matter was seen to be valuable.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the points the member has made. His point of order is well considered. I have, in fact, because of the particular nature of the letter submitted to me that raised this issue, actually already had a look at the matters the member has just raised. I think the crux of it boils down to the fact that the Waitangi Tribunal is an independent statutory body. It may have the powers of a commission of inquiry, but it is not a commission of inquiry of the type to which the member referred in his application, which was a commission set up by Ministers to examine matters of Government administration—and in this particular case the member referred to police conduct. Clearly, the Government is answerable for the findings of such commissions of inquiry that have been set up by the Government.

But with regard to the Waitangi Tribunal, the Government is responsible only for its own response to the tribunal’s recommendations. There is a statutory difference between a commission of inquiry set up by the Government and the Waitangi Tribunal. But in ruling that way I am not belittling the very reasonable point the member raised, because it was a point certainly worth examining, and I can assure the member that I had a good look at that because of that very issue.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would that mean, then, that when the Government takes a decision as to how it responds to the Waitangi Tribunal’s decision, we could make an application, which you would then determine on its merits as to whether that decision in response to the Waitangi Tribunal deserved the urgent consideration of the House?

Mr SPEAKER: Obviously, when the Government makes such a decision, that is a decision of the Government, and if an application were to be made, I would have to consider it on its merits, in terms of what was announced, the urgency of the matter, and all that kind of thing. But I think the member, again, raises a perfectly fair point, because that would be an action of the Government.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, we are not relitigating with the hope of getting the urgent debate, but relitigating or trying to make points for the future. The Standing Orders do not say that these debates result from decisions of the Government—the urgent matter does not have to be a decision of the Government. I think sometimes you have been coming back to that in your rulings, when that is not a requirement. As in the point I made earlier, some of us hope that Parliament might be able to, in the future, influence decisions of the Government that are required to be made.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member, and the member is quite right again. They are matters that involve the administrative responsibility of the Government. I accept that point and it is well made. However, with this particular issue, and the Waitangi Tribunal, the points I have covered remain, in that it is statutorily different from a commission of inquiry set up by the Government. The Waitangi Tribunal is an independent body, and that is what makes it rather different. However, I am aware of what the member is pointing out—that often the benefit of a debate in the House would be rather greater, on some occasions, prior to a response occurring. I can hear where the member is going, and that is why I do not want to pre-empt any possibilities, because any application must be considered on its own merits—and I do not want to pre-empt any possibilities. But I have noted the point the member made, and I can understand why it was made.

Bills

Biosecurity Law Reform Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 19 July.

Part 2 Amendments relating to ballast water (continued)

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. I am pleased to continue my contribution at this Committee stage on Part 2 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. Just to recap: Part 2 deals with amendments relating to ballast water, in particular with managing the risk of marine pest organisms being introduced to New Zealand in ships’ ballast water. The discharge of ballast water is one of the main ways marine pests can be introduced to New Zealand. Each year almost 3 million metric tonnes of ballast water sourced from outside our exclusive economic zone are discharged into New Zealand ports. If unmanaged, this water is more likely to contain eggs and larvae of harmful marine organisms, which may be able to be established here. So it is vitally important that we beef up our defences in the marine area.

Labour supports the provisions in Part 2 of this bill, in particular the alignment with the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments. The definitions in the bill align with that international convention. That brings our line of defence in line with best international practice and international control regimes. We also commend the provisions relating to the imposition of a ballast water management levy that can be imposed by Order in Council, because that will help fund the administration, inspection, and enforcement of our biosecurity workers controlling and keeping an eye on ballast water discharge. Likewise, we support the offence provisions. It is important that we do actually create very strong deterrents to ships’ owners and masters in terms of discharge, so that if they do discharge, there will be stiff penalties. We support those offence provisions. They are very strong. We also commend the wide powers that the director-general will have to investigate cases where there has been a discharge of ballast water.

As I have mentioned, we want to protect our pā; we want to make sure that our biosecurity laws do protect our industries and our livelihoods. If we look at the marine environment, we mention names like Undaria and didymo. We know what harm they have caused to our waterways and potentially to our marine industries. Just in terms of Māori, we are significant stakeholders in our fisheries industries and our marine-farm aquaculture industries, so any introductions of unwanted, harmful, and invasive organisms that could potentially impact on the property rights and the industries could have a huge economic impact on those industries and on our country. So it is vitally important that we do protect the pā, as I said, and that we do manage the risk of these marine pest organisms.

We commend the measures that are contained in this Part 2 that relate to the discharge of ballast water. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. I have got a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Primary Industries, in relation to the way in which Part 2 around ballast water relates to New Zealand’s activity in the exclusive economic zone and, in particular, in terms of—

Shane Ardern: There’s a big area of that around Wellington.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, it is. Mr Ardern is right to say that it is a big area. That is a good, clear way of describing it, Mr Ardern: big. That is correct. The exclusive economic zone is a very, very large area, and it is currently the subject of a piece of legislation that is before the House, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill.

My question for the Minister is around the relationship of this Biosecurity Law Reform Bill to that other piece of legislation, the exclusive economic zone bill, because there are a number of areas, reading through the bill—particularly new Part 19A in clause 76, which has been included here—that I think have some issues sitting alongside that exclusive economic zone bill. It actually starts with the title of new Part 19A, “Protection of marine environment from ballast water”. One of the issues with the exclusive economic zone bill is the absence of language around protection and preservation of the marine environment in that bill.

In fact the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams, in the second reading debate, spent a significant amount of time telling the House that that kind of language, which comes from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, was not going to be necessary in any legislation around the exclusive economic zone bill. So I am somewhat confused to find here in this new Part 19A a whole new provision entitled “Protection of marine environment from ballast water”. I am confused, because that language is now not going to appear in the exclusive economic zone legislation, and that specific area is mentioned as part of new section 246B(2), which tells us that “Subsection (1) applies to … (i) the territorial sea of New Zealand; or (ii) the internal waters of New Zealand; or (iii) the exclusive economic zone of New Zealand;”.

New Zealand’s ability to make law in the exclusive economic zone actually arises from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The fact that we are signatories too, and have ratified that convention, is the very thing that allows us to make law on that. What we on this side of the House are looking for here is consistency in the way that the law treats the exclusive economic zone. There are a number of pieces of legislation that will affect New Zealand or any economic activity in our exclusive economic zone. One of them is this piece of law, another is the exclusive economic zone bill itself, and, thirdly, there are other pieces of legislation like the Crown Minerals Act, for instance. So I think the Minister in the chair could easily take a call here and let us know what work he has done, or perhaps even the Minister responsible for the exclusive economic zone bill, Amy Adams, could take a call and let us know what work has been done to make these two pieces of legislation consistent.

As we go down the further measures here in clause 76 to new section 246C around offences, I notice in there a set of fines that have been listed for the discharge of ballast water. In this case it could be in the exclusive economic zone. These fines are quite different from the set of fines that are now in the exclusive economic zone bill. In fact, on this side of the House we have concerns about whether or not the fines regime and the penalties regime within the exclusive economic zone bill are sufficient, and whether it is what we need for the protection and preservation of our marine environment. Again, there is a question of consistency here between the exclusive economic zone bill and this bill, in terms of the penalties for offences as listed in new section 246C. So the Minister might like to take a call and advise whether or not we are going to have to come back again to the House to reform the biosecurity legislation one more time, because of the exclusive economic zone bill, which is currently before the House.

I hope that the Government has taken some time to look at it. I am sure Mr Ardern has been studying the exclusive economic zone bill clause by clause, just before bed. When he has got the cocoa, he gets out the exclusive economic zone bill and he says: “Is this consistent with the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill?”.

Shane Ardern: I can see the member has.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely. That is how good my life is, Mr Ardern. That is what we do on this side of the House. We look through the legislation and we ask ourselves whether the Government is being consistent here. When I look at the offence provisions that are in new section 246C, I think that if they sit alongside the penalties regime in the exclusive economic zone bill, we do have some inconsistency.

The other point that I wanted to make was around the question of the director’s powers to investigate a discharge or the escape of ballast water. I note that obviously we have brand new sections here, and I was not on the Primary Production Committee—something I regret, Mr Ardern; the fact that I was not there to go through these matters in depth. But these are quite extensive powers that are being given to the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries. These powers, which are now listed out in new section 246E, are quite extensive, and I would hope that the Minister could inform us as to whether or not these powers are contained in any other part of the director’s responsibilities. It seems to me that obviously it is an important step to take—to have somebody responsible for protecting the marine environment from the discharge of ballast water—and on this side of the House we obviously support the intent of that. But extending the director’s powers in this way is something that we always need to watch, in terms of the power of senior public servants, if they are given power to effectively put people in a position where they are charged with offences that have fines of up $200,000.

They are the two points that I was keen to make, and keen to seek the Minister’s feedback on.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): It is very appropriate to have a biosecurity bill, the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill , back in the House this week. The Minister in the chair, the Minister for Primary Industries , after his outrageous accusations against the horticultural industry last week, will, I am sure, get up to take a call and justify what was an outrageous rant at a group of people who commit billions of dollars in investment—their heart, their soul, their energy—to growing products that we sell offshore. And he gets up at a conference, out of his limo, and has a go at them because they feel threatened by biosecurity!

They are not threatened by Part 2 of the bill here, unless, of course, on their odd day off they go out fishing—which they do, I have to say. This part relates to ballast water, and all I can say is that it is about time. I think in our support of the bill we have to acknowledge that maybe we could have pushed this along. However, this bill itself was generated by Labour in Government; we saw the need for this, for greater alignment of the sectors.

In the area of ballast water, my colleague Rino Tirikatene was very modest and kind to the Government. In fact, the risk is not 3 million cubic tonnes of water; it is 6 million cubic tonnes—metric tonnes, I should say, sorry—of water that comes into this country every year. There are 2,500 visits by ships coming into the country, and they exchange water under a protocol; there has been a general agreement. This bill will move to regulate ships and bring us under the international protocols that attempt to keep marine pests, diseases, and organisms out of New Zealand waters.

We are very proud of our marine environment. We say that we are clean and green, we have beautiful mussels, we have whales in our water, and we have the Māui’s dolphin, an endangered species—all in pristine marine environments. Well, the truth is that we have actually had 148 exotic marine pests come into this country. My guess is that it probably started when Abel Tasman came to this country. Captain Cook probably helped as well. Since that time we have been bringing unwanted pests and organisms into the marine environment of this country. There are a number now that we do not want to bring in, I have to say, and the focus on ballast water is quite appropriate. I hope the Minister has got the same focus on terrestrial pests and diseases. He seems to have ignored some of the risk that has been explained to him, time and time again.

I went to the Ministry Agriculture and Forestry website—or the new superministry website; I am not sure whether they are keeping this up to date—and it clearly outlines the risks to our country from some of the pests. I should name the six of them that it says are the most significant: the Mediterranean fanworm, the European shore crab or green crab , the northern Pacific seastar, the Chinese mitten crab, the Caulerpa, and the Asian clam. I am not familiar with these things other than to guess that they would have a severe impact on our native marine wildlife. We had one bizarre situation where the Pacific oyster—which actually came in on boats, established itself in New Zealand waters, and has been turned into what was a profitable aquaculture industry—unfortunately, has now almost been destroyed, certainly in Northland, by an algal bloom, and perhaps by an unknown pest that could maybe have been brought in through ballast water. So it is appropriate that we move to legislate for stricter controls in this area.

For another example of the things that we are trying to do, perhaps, think of the Rena. Think of what happened out on the reef there. Although the country was focused on oil, on the fuel from the boat, and on our attempt—successful, for the most part—to get all that oil off the boat, there was, of course, ballast water in the hull and in the boat that no doubt escaped from that vessel.

The legislation has penalties in place. It has defence against charges, should some contamination or pollution occur, and one of those defences, of course, is if ballast water has escaped as a consequence of damage to a ship—a reasonable position. But I think it does beg the question of what we can do to minimise the chances of boats running aground. If nothing else comes from that disastrous situation, it is that we should have a better, more highly regulated coastal shipping environment. I was in the House here in 1994—

Hon Annette King: We should have coastal shipping.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We should have coastal shipping.

Hon Annette King: Yes. It was scrapped by the Tories.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Because the National Government, the Tory Government, as my colleague said—

Shane Ardern: What’s wrong with the Interislander?

Hon Annette King: Took $51 million out of it.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: That is right. It absolutely decimated coastal shipping here. We were debating that bill. That member, Shane Ardern, would not know. He was probably on the farm then. He should be still. We were debating that bill until 4 o’clock in the morning, if I remember rightly, in this very Chamber.

Hon Annette King: That was the Plimsoll line.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: That is right. That was on the Plimsoll line. All I can say, in summary, is that the Labour Opposition in the 1990s fought tooth and nail to stop the National Government deregulating coastal shipping, the consequence of which was the Rena running aground, the huge cost to the Bay of Plenty, and the huge cost to the Government. There will be people smiling at that, because that is the same Government that deregulated the building industry, and, of course, the mining industry, and—I will bring it back to the bill. Talking about ballast water and the regulation that we are bringing into place here, the wisdom of good regulation is profound. The stupidity of deregulation, in too many cases, is also quite stark. I hope that this National Government learns.

We are supporting this bill. We have pointed out our concerns, particularly in Part 1 of the bill. We have major concerns in that area, because the Government is not properly resourcing biosecurity. But in terms of Part 2 of the bill, dealing specifically with the area of ballast water—dare I tread outside the tight constraints that the Chairman puts on me—can I say that we support wise implementation of regulations around ballast water in New Zealand, and we hope that the Ministry for Primary Industries and all its Government agencies have enough resources to properly police this. Of the number of boats, be they fishing boats or cargo vessels, coming in, out of the 2,500, I suspect that not all of them are crewed, managed, and captained to the standards that we would expect. We may very well face the incursions, as listed on the Ministry for Primary Industries’ own website, that would have a huge impact on what we hope is a growing aquacultural industry—an industry that has huge potential in the pristine waters of this country.

The Chairman is acknowledging the exit of St Bede’s College—a very good school, I have to say. It is a shame it turned out so many National Party members. There are a couple of good Labour Party members from there to uphold the honour of the school. Can I say that, in summary, we do support the bill. We support the implementation of Part 2, but it is important that the Government gets this right and follows this through with appropriate policing of these regulations.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): The Green Party is supporting Part 2 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. We are opposed to the bill in general because of the provisions that are in there over a number of things, including the Government-industry agreements, but in this particular part to do with ballast water, we think that this is a great improvement. We believe that the fines and penalties could be somewhat more severe, and we take on our colleague Damien O’Connor’s point that the surveillance and the monitoring of this part of the bill on ballast water will be critical.

I noted in Part 1 that there was a bit around ballast water and also bio-fouling. There are some issues sometimes where you cannot really tell the difference, whether the new organism has come from bio-fouling or through the ballast water. In Tasman Bay we had a major scare when the South African brown mussel was found there; when the oil rig that was parked out there in 2008, I think, had actually deposited on the bottom this South African brown mussel. It was so close to New Zealand’s primary aquaculture area that it posed a very, very real threat. We are very, very fortunate that that threat appears to have been bypassed with good controls following that. But that was very concerning. We have oil rigs come into the Marlborough Sounds and actually park in the Marlborough Sounds in transit sometimes as well, and other ships passing through—smaller ones coming through French Pass, even. That area in the top of the south, which has such an important industry, is at real, real risk. So this bill is very important.

An organisation I was involved with in the top of the south before coming into this role, Friends of Nelson Haven and Tasman Bay, has often advocated for improved controls and monitoring, particularly in and around Nelson harbour and through the top of the south, around ballast water. We think that there have been a number of organisms brought in in that way. It is very, very hard to pinpoint which ship and when. I noticed Undaria was mentioned earlier, and that has obviously been a major issue in the Marlborough Sounds. It took the industry a lot of work and a lot of cost to get that into a particular management regime. Unfortunately, it is never going to go away, and the industry has seen that as an opportunity, I suppose, in making a crop out of it.

It does remind me, however—you know, we get a new pest in, and Pacific oyster was mentioned, which is quite a luscious oyster to eat. However, I will note that the then theoretically honourable Doug Kidd talked to some marine farmers in the Marlborough Sounds who said that maybe they could farm it in Kenepuru Sound. He said no, because it was not a natural organism there, but should it by chance happen to appear there, then maybe they could apply to farm it. What happened the next week? It was in Kenepuru Sound, brought over from Manaroa. So ballast water, bio-fouling, or just general bad biosecurity advocated by former Minister of Fisheries Doug Kidd—we have some major problems. But the Green Party sees the benefit of this part of the bill, and we will support this part of the bill. Thank you.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I intend to take only a short call on this part of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, which is around ballast water. I do have a question for the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Primary Industries , which is a serious question, around the issue of cost recovery. We have seen, as the member who has taken just taken his seat, Steffan Browning, has talked about, that some of the penalties and offences that exist in Part 2 of this bill are an improvement, but sometimes that means nothing when we are unable to actually get any of the money out of the individuals involved. You often find that the Government will say “Well, we have got these significant penalties, we are able to recoup some of the cost.” But I would like to know from the Minister where in this piece of legislation—maybe it is in the convention that is referenced here; I do not know—is that ability for New Zealand to enforce cost recovery so that if we do have a biosecurity incursion in our marine environment, it is not the taxpayers of New Zealand who end up paying for that and it is not the people working in the aquaculture and fisheries industries who end up paying for that.

It is the same thing that we have seen, as my colleague Grant Robertson said, in the exclusive economic zone legislation, where we are still trying to discuss with the Government the issue of cost recovery and ensuring that the insurance and bonds that are in place up front do mean that that cost recovery is real. It is all very well saying we are going to go for full cost recovery, but if the company then just closes up shop and the ship or vessel is registered in Liberia or somewhere on the other side of the world, that has—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Gisborne.

MOANA MACKEY: No, Gisborne would have very, very stringent rules and regulations around this. Coastal shipping is a very important part of our economy on the East Coast, and I know that the Gisborne port was very grateful for the focus that Annette King, when she was Minister of Transport , put on coastal shipping.

It comes back to, I think, a more general point about ballast water and the treatment of ballast water by the shipping companies, which is that the decimation of our domestic coastal shipping fleet has led to far fewer safe practices in our territorial waters and our exclusive economic zone. This is really coming to light only now and even the Government is having to acknowledge it—not just practices around the environment, such as the discharge of ballast water, but labour practices and the way that employees are treated on these vessels, which sometimes is not far short of slave labour, as well as the way environmentally they operate in our waters. I know that what is left of our local fishing industry, for example, is very concerned at the unenvironmental practices carried out by some of these foreign fishing vessels. They come in and trap a number of New Zealand birds in their set-net lines, then suddenly the entire fishery is shut down when we know that our local fishing guys really value and respect the environment in which they operate. It is no different when it comes to the discharge of ballast waters. I think that a strong domestic coastal shipping fleet would act far more environmentally responsibly in New Zealand waters than those kinds of rusty tin cans that come from overseas. As we saw in the case of the Rena, the impacts on the environment can be particularly disastrous.

That was all I wanted to say on this part, but my specific question to the Minister is around cost recovery—and, Minister, please do not say that that is not your area and that someone else is in charge of that. That is another thing I find frustrating about a lot of this legislation that is protecting the environment, particularly in the marine area. Suddenly the biosecurity Minister says “No, no, no, once something bad happens it is the Minister of Fisheries.”, or “It is the Minister of Transport if it is an oil spill, because that comes under the Maritime Act.” This is one of the big issues that we have: ensuring that when you have so many pieces of legislation all layered on top of each other, there are not any gaps that mean that it ends up being the taxpayers of New Zealand who pay for any cost recovery, any clean-ups, and the biosecurity impact of an incursion.

We need to ensure it is not those important industries, which are the backbone of our economy, that end up paying, because they have to shut down their practices and lose a lot of their product, especially in the case of aquaculture and fisheries. So it would be interesting to hear from the Minister where the cost recovery provisions are in this part of the bill.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, around the amendments relating to ballast water. As my colleagues have articulated, Labour supports this bill because it helps our biosecurity systems and staff work more effectively to prevent and control pest and disease incursions. What we have seen over recent years is the absolute danger and threat that biosecurity pests pose to the New Zealand economy. Labour understands the need, understands how important biosecurity protections are, and that is why under the previous Labour Government investment in biosecurity more than doubled, from $94 million in 1999 to $187 million in 2008. It involves an incredibly important part of our economy.

One of the important things that this piece of legislation does is that it actually brings the legislation up to date with the technology that is available in terms of both detecting and dealing with incursions when they are found. I think that is one of the important things when we are looking at this. My colleague Moana Mackey just spoke about the need to see the biosecurity legislation as an overarching piece of legislation that is central to our economic well-being, and I also would like to offer the comment that we need to see how this piece of legislation fits with other areas of investment. Our biosecurity is only ever going to be as strong as two components: one is having the people to monitor, and actually having adequate resource in that area; and the second area is ensuring that we invest and continue our investment in the area of science and innovation, in the area of biotech.

A review was carried out in 2001, and it found that 88 percent of our biosecurity expenditure was invested in post-border research. When we look at what marine environments were receiving at this time, it was very low. We were talking about 5 percent of the money that was spent on biosecurity research going to fresh water, and 2 percent to marine environments. But since 2001 there has been an increased emphasis on science in the marine biosecurity area, because it is understood what an important part of the New Zealand economy it is, and it is in part these advancements that this legislation will enable to be used.

Marine biosecurity received very little attention until the 1990s, and it was really the arrival of various algae in our shellfish beds that brought to our attention what a significant economic threat incursions in the marine environment could play, and that is why these Part 2 amendments are so important. We do have increased activity in our coastal shipping. The sea has changed, we do have changes happening there, and we need to ensure that we are protecting our environments.

New threats have emerged and have become apparent since the previous piece of legislation was passed in 1993. This is no more particularly so than in the marine area. The risks offered to marine biosecurity by visiting vessels are significant. The new activity within the 200 miles of the exclusive economic zone opens up some real questions in terms of what organisms may come into play with increased economic activity in our exclusive economic zone. When we have a think about what our future is and where our economic future lies, aquaculture and our ability to utilise our marine environments are going to be so important to so many parts of our economy. That is why we believe that it is so important that we do have these regulations around ballast water, and that we do have a good regulatory environment that protects the biosecurity of this area.

If we have a look at what is actually needed in this area in terms of the science and the technology, there has been an investment there, and it is focused increasingly on increasing our understanding of the pests that are already present in New Zealand. My colleague Damien O’Connor talked about the fact that biosecurity hazards have been brought in to New Zealand waters for a couple of centuries now. This is not something new. We have an existing bank of biosecurity threats. We need to have knowledge of what is already there. We also have to have improved survey and surveillance methods so that we can develop detection of what organisms are present and what ones are going to pose a threat to our marine environments and the economic activities that are happening within those environments. We need to know, when a vessel comes in and there is a release of ballast water, exactly what it is that we need to be testing for, how we are going to test, and how the tests actually fit with international testing environments.

There are various regulatory frameworks that are imposed on our exporters in the shellfish sector in terms of how it is that we test for algal presence within many of our shellfish beds. For example, access to European markets is highly dependent on our still being able to afford a mouse biotoxin assay. We need to actually keep this capability somewhere within the New Zealand science ecosystem. That we look at how this is funded is vitally important if we still want to have access to various markets. So the ability to actually know what it is we are looking for and how it is that we are going to test for it is vitally important.

But as well as knowing what is there and knowing what test to use, we also need to develop new detection tools. We need to be thinking about the next generation of work and we need to understand the origin of these incursions, if we are going to prevent them. Actually having the ability to regulate ballast water is so important, because we need to be able to undertake very careful, very considered risk analysis. This brings me to the point that my colleague Grant Robertson posed to the Minister for Primary Industries. He asked how it is that we marry this legislation, this bill, with the exclusive economic zone legislation that is going through the House. The regulatory impact statement for this piece of legislation talks about its relationship with the exclusive economic zone legislation and how they will fit together, and notes that it is not there. A significant question that has been raised throughout the passage of the exclusive economic zone legislation, as we have seen it go through the House, is around how much risk we really are willing to take in our marine environments. Are we going to take a cautionary approach and invent a whole new way of doing things, or are we going to treat with real seriousness the need to protect our marine environments by adopting already existing standards that are used throughout the world in terms of precautionary approaches to these environments? This is a question that really does need to be asked, because this bill is all about our understanding our biosecurity in not just a terrestrial way; this bill is really about strengthening up our marine protections. We have seen how important the ability to protect our marine environments from biosecurity incursions is.

These are important questions that we are looking to be answered: how it is that it fits with this, how it fits within the wider plan, given that it is so important to our economic future and our economic survival? We need to continue to invest and to innovate in this area of our science, given how important it is, but we need to have the enabling legislation that will allow the utilisation of these technologies. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 27 in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 76 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Related amendments to other enactments

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We now turn ourselves to Part 3, debate on clauses 79 to 83, and the schedule. I advise members that this is a very narrow debate.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I consider that an insult! I am very aware and I always keep my debates tight.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Of course you do!

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank you. I would like to take the opportunity to talk on Part 3, clause 80, “Amendments to the Wild Animal Control Act 1977”. It relates to the definition of “wild animal”. It states that it is omitting “thar, wallaby, or possum”, and substituting “tahr”. These are technical details here, and I will be able to explain exactly what this means, but there will be many hunters out there who are concerned that the Government, through this bill, the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, is making the right call here.

One of the particular issues has been the management of tahr. This is a wild Himalayan animal that was brought into this country, I think, well over 100 years ago. They have been liberated and they live in a limited range in the Southern Alps. They are majestic animals, to say the least. I have had the pleasure of going out and hunting them, or trying to catch up with them—at great distance, I have to say—and we have not shot one, but we have done our best to chase them round the hills. That in itself requires an amount of fitness. The point is that they are an introduced animal. They have established themselves and live right at the highest parts of our alps. They do graze on some of our native species, and I know there are a number of people—conservationists and the Department of Conservation—who are concerned that the numbers will get out of hand.

The changes that we are making here, in my view, should enable, firstly, the control of the numbers of tahr. I think the Minister might take a call on this and explain it to the hunting fraternity, because I know they are concerned. So we need control. But we have also fostered a very valuable commercial hunting, as well as recreational hunting, activity in the country. There are literally tens of thousands of dollars spent on helicopter time, on guides, on accommodation, and on the very best, I have to say, of hospitality for people who fly around the world to come to New Zealand to go out and hunt Himalayan tahr. That is a valuable part of the tourism sector at an otherwise very quiet time for them.

I just want to ensure that we are making the changes that allow the tahr management plan to be a sensible plan, not to have extermination or elimination of the animals, as some would desire, but to have management of a population that does ensure their viability and does not allow them to get out of control and hammer some of the plants. The Mount Cook lily, for example, I know is a threatened species up in the high country. We appreciate the need to protect those species, but anyone who has seen a tahr out in the wild and seen them run up vertical rock faces and down and around has to admire the nimbleness, the tenacity, and the sheer skill of these animals in surviving. So that is one of the amendments that are made under clause 80 of the bill. I just need to ask the Minister, and I hope he will take a call, to reassure us that changes to definitions in the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 are not going to put the skids under all those tahr hunters.

We have got other changes here under Part 3, and they relate to possums and wallabies. Again, they are species that have been introduced to this country. The possum, of course, is a serious pest, both for the decimation of native flora and fauna and for the fact that they spread bovine tuberculosis, and that, without control, would undermine our ability to export meat and animal products around the world. So both of these—wallabies and possums—need to be controlled. Wallabies have hopped over the Tasman. They are not much good for anything other than the odd hunting activity. They are down in South Canterbury and North Otago. I almost ran into one about midnight one night, heading up the Waitaki Valley. They are a pest, but they are not a nasty animal, I suppose. But, again, they do need to be controlled under appropriate regulations and appropriate legislation under the Wild Animal Control Act, which is going to be amended by the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill.

The Director-General of Conservation generally does oversee these processes to make sure that they do not get out of control in the conservation estate. Other obligations that we have now placed on the Department of Conservation to be a good neighbour, in the development of pest-management strategies, should mean that it does its bit to keep numbers of wallabies and possums down at the lowest possible level. Those animals do not, as I say, benefit farmers. There are some people in the fur industry who would like to see possums managed in a more sustainable way, so that they can get the fur. They have still got a long way to come down to get the figures where New Zealand is not under threat of tuberculosis or seeing its native species decimated out in the wild.

I am not going to take too much longer, but I will just say that we support the changes in the bill. The Minister might like to get up and take a call and explain exactly what will happen by redefining “wild animal”, and making adjustments to the Wildlife Act so that “possum” and “wallaby” are indeed deemed something we do not really want. With that, I will ask the Minister to maybe take up a call and answer my queries. Thank you.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I hope the Minister for Primary Industries is not going to just sit there like a dried arrangement for the entire Committee stage and not answer these very pertinent questions that have been put to him by members of the Opposition on what is undoubtedly one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have in New Zealand—our biosecurity law, which underpins the very basis of our economy. I certainly hope that the Minister in the chair is scribbling away some notes there so that he can get on his pins and answer some of these questions.

I want to pick up the amendments to the Wild Animal Control Act 1977, and come back to a theme that I think has been running throughout this Committee stage debate, which is the danger where you have overlying pieces of legislation, all with different intents, all with different purposes but essentially governing the same thing. Perhaps nowhere is that more stark than in the area of wild animal control, because there is a natural tension between seeing a particular species as a resource in terms of hunting, the recreational and tourism value that adds, and the downstream benefits of that in terms of using the fur, etc., etc., and seeing that same species as a pest under Department of Conservation legislation or under wild animal control legislation. It is not a tension that is particularly easy to manage, as we are finding out at the Local Government and Environment Committee at the moment where we are passing another piece of legislation to overlay all of this, which is the Game Animal Council Bill, which was something that the Government agreed to do to get Peter Dunne’s support for asset sales, and other such things that the Government is trying to push through with its one-vote majority.

So we have this Game Animal Council Bill, which is currently at the Local Government and Environment Committee. We see the submissions and see that tension between the conservationists, who are very concerned that some species will no longer be governed under the Wild Animal Control Act as pests but will now be seen as a resource, that those species like tahr, as my colleague Damien O’Connor mentioned, and some species like wild pigs will not be as properly managed as they should be, because of these conflicting pieces of legislation, and that perhaps pest control strategies are going to be undermined. For example, if you look at wallabies and possums, which are mentioned in clause 80(2), they are not under the Game Animal Council Bill that is currently going through the select committee, but in respect of the pest management strategy that controls a lot of those—in particular, possums and 1080—there are already concerns coming through from people who are in support of the Game Animal Council , saying: “Well, you know, 1080 can also be life-threatening to some of the very species that we now want to use as a resource, then there are natural concerns.” The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was one who said she wanted to see something there that specifically stated that pest management strategies were not going to be undermined because of the secondary impact they might have on a species that is now going from being considered purely as a pest to being considered as a resource and as something that should be managed rather than eradicated.

So when we talk about amendments to the Wild Animal Control Act, we also see the amendment in clause 79 to the Ombudsmen Act 1975, which inserts: “Management agencies under Biosecurity Act 1993, if they are corporate bodies, in their role under pest management plans or pathway management plans”. My concern would be that we do not want to see a lot of farming out away from the Government, away from the Department of Conservation, away from the Director-General of Conservation, who has the responsibility of protecting this valuable conservation land on behalf of all New Zealanders. We do not want to see a lot of that being contracted out, being privatised, and not having the same levels of transparency in terms of the ability of parliamentarians or members of the public to find out what is being spent on those strategies, who is carrying them out, how effective they are being, when they are happening, which is always a big issue in local communities that want to know when a 1080 drop is going to happen and what protections are being put in place for other wildlife that might be affected by it.

When we look at that clause 79 where it is talking about other corporate bodies who may have a role in pest management strategies, I just want to make sure that the very same stringent controls are in place—the very same stringent standards and expectations that are put on Government agencies. Certainly the Department of Conservation comes under fire a lot when people are not happy with its performance in this area, where people feel that perhaps the department has been remiss, has not been transparent enough, has not consulted enough with the local community, or has not taken on board the concerns of key stakeholders, including recreational hunters and iwi. All of those things come on to the Department of Conservation because of its role as a public body, whereas I worry that talking about putting these out to corporate bodies—and maybe the Minister might want to just clarify what that means and allay concerns—means that we are not going to see exactly those same levels of transparency, those same standards, and, in particular, the ability for the public to get this information around how this is being carried out through the Official Information Act, and the ability for MPs to be able to get it through parliamentary select committee hearings, through written questions, and that none of that is going to be blocked because now it is with an outside body, arm’s length from the Government. It can be done well. The Animal Health Board is an example of where possum control has been very, very well managed, but the Animal Health Board comes before the select committee, and it answers to a lot of those questions. So that is one of my first questions.

The next one, again, going back to what I said, is around that layering, around how you manage that tension between what is a pest and what is a resource, and, in particular, in terms of the Biosecurity Act that is protected, because under the Biosecurity Act we need to make sure that that pest element, or whatever species it is that we are talking about, needs to be taken seriously and is not going to be undermined. I would like the Minister to make a personal undertaking that he will not allow legislation such as the Game Animal Council Bill, which is currently at the select committee, to undermine the pest management strategies and the pest control strategies that the Department of Conservation carries out, or undermine its ability to do that, without being constantly questioned because of the impact it might have on other species that are now being seen as manageable and as a resource rather than a pest.

Now I want to raise one more issue, which is in the schedules. I am sure this is just a technical thing, but I am really struck by this constant changing of words to put in the word “plan”. So we have all these laws and regulations that are being amended here, and in every single one—and there are hundreds here—it says to omit “strategy” and substitute the word “plan”. I am wondering whether the National Government has become so sensitive about accusations from the public, from commentators, and from the Opposition that it does not have a plan on anything that its answer is to now just go through all the legislation it can and get rid of any word that is a vague synonym for the word “plan” and put in the word “plan”, so that when the Opposition members say “Where is your plan?”, it can say: “Well, we just changed that word 400 times in the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. So do not tell us we do not have a plan, because we just added another 400 of them here in this one piece of legislation.” So maybe that is what it is for; I do not know. Maybe it is technical in nature, but if you have learnt anything, it is to always be wary of those “minor technical amendments”, because they are always the ones that come back to bite you. I would like to know why it is that the word “strategy” was not reasonable, and why it is that 400 times in this piece of legislation we need to change it to the word “plan”. Please allay my perhaps cynical, but I think somewhat well-founded, concerns that this is in response to claims and accusations—quite rightly—that the Government has no plan.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I am happy to take a call on Part 3 of this bill, the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, to talk about how it is that we are going to manage many of the pests that pose a significant threat to New Zealand’s biosecurity. This is quite a different threat to our biosecurity from that we have been discussing under the previous part of this bill, when we were talking about micro-organisms that can affect our marine biosecurity. This is very much about safeguarding our terrestrial environments. This is very much about protecting our high country. This is very much about dealing with many of the legacy issues we have from 19th century colonisation and many of the non-indigenous species that we now have in our country, and what the impact of the presence of these species are on our environment. That is why we are having to go through some very specific changes to the existing legislation in terms of managing wild animals. My colleagues Damien O’Connor and Moana Mackey have very ably articulated many of the issues that we have with this part of the bill, so I think I will just be taking a very short call on this part of the bill.

We have two very significant questions that we would like the Minister for Primary Industries to answer in the Committee stage of this legislation. How do we balance this view of the resource-versus-the-pest nature of some of these species that we now have in our high country and in other parts of New Zealand? I do not think there are many New Zealanders who have not observed some of the damage to our environment that has been caused by some of these species. I do not think there are many New Zealanders, be they young or old, who do not recognise the damage that a possum can do and what a significant threat to our native forests these creatures are. Some very important questions are there.

We also need some assurances about how this piece of legislation fits with yet another piece of legislation that is currently going through this House. We have posed questions in terms of how it gels with the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill, but also how it is going to fit with the Game Animal Council Bill, which is currently before the Local Government and Environment Committee and on which submissions are being heard. Moana Mackey asked some very pertinent questions there. We have to grapple with some very interesting questions.

Under the current systems, under the current legislation we have, pests are not always managed in the best way, and the regulatory impact statement for this bill sets this out very clearly. We have some pest management that is not happening where it should be, thus putting at risk more of our environment and many of our flora and fauna species, which are put at risk by the fact that we are not managing significant pest incursions in these areas. Then we have some pest management that is happening when it is not needed. On the one hand we have whole gaps, and then we do have other areas where we actually have pest management that is happening when it is not necessarily needed. This is all about finding this balance, and my colleague Damien O’Connor touched very pertinently on an issue there about the need to get this balance right in relation to some of the commercial hunting enterprises that we have—how we protect these very precious environments but not completely kill off this industry, and manage the tahr in these areas in the high country.

Importantly, what this bill is doing overall—and we are seeing it in every part of this legislation—is addressing the fact that some pest management is not as effective as it could be. This bill, again, is about making available to us the new technologies and the changes that have happened in the world since 1993. When we look at the age of some of the legislation that comes before this House, legislation that was passed in 1993 does not seem particularly old, but in this area of biosecurity this actually is a very aged piece of legislation, because this is a very fast-moving area where we do have a lot of technological advance. We must have the ability for the Department of Conservation and for everyone who is involved in biosecurity in this country to be able to use the best technology that is available to them.

What we are also seeing under this part is the very clear definition of these wild animals that are going to pose a threat to our environment. Thank you.

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

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to make a contribution to Part 3 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. I would like to just focus in on clause 79, which is an amendment to the Ombudsmen Act. In particular, the clause states that “Management agencies under Biosecurity Act 1993, if they are corporate bodies, in their role under pest management plans or pathway management plans” will be included within the ambit of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act. I just refer back to new section 96 in clause 37 of the bill, which I believe defines management agencies. It states that management agencies are specified in a plan—be they the pest-management plans or the pathway plans—as “(a) a department: (b) a council: (c) a territorial authority: (d) a body corporate.” I would just like to invite the Minister for Primary Industries, in addition to responding to the requests for a contribution or a clarification on the points raised by my colleagues, to tell us whether a body corporate that is a management agency would be a private company, and tell us what level of Crown control or Crown involvement there will be over such a body corporate.

I think it is commendable that the body corporate actually does fall within the gaze of the Ombudsman, that august officer of this Parliament. But I would just seek clarification on that body corporate point, in terms of whether that extends the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to, for instance, a private company, or an industry body—whether that is an incorporated society or any other body type corporate. So I think that is worthy of a clarification from the Minister. But, other than that, it is commendable that the Ombudsman does have jurisdiction to inquire into the operations of the management agencies that will be involved in these pest-management plans, because there will be a great deal of public funding going into the programmes that they will be running under their activities.

In terms of the other provisions in Part 3, it is good to see that possums and wallabies are included as unwanted organisms. They indeed are pests. I know that in relation to my own experience we have got whānau land down there in the Rowallan basin—right down there, which is actually South Island Landless Natives Act land, which is—

Hon David Parker: 1916.

RINO TIRIKATENE: 1916—that is correct. So those lands were set aside for us landless natives in the South Island. We have not really been able to do much in terms of working those lands because they are so remote. They are basically at the bottom end of the country, where none of us were, in very far, remote corners. But on the issue of the Rowallan basin, the Rowallan Alton Incorporation entered into a joint venture close to 12 to 13 years ago with a Chinese organisation that wanted to eradicate the possums, but also actually start a trade with China in possums. They called it Kiwi Bear. It had a lot of promise. Unfortunately the venture did not actually eventuate, but it would be good to see some other activities coming to light. I know there are possum industry participants who are making use of their pelts. But it would be good to look at, in addition to eradication, what economic development opportunities there are around the eradication of those unwanted pests. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 27 in the name of the Hon David Carter to Part 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 98

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 23

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Look, if members want to call a party vote they must call it. So the motion is agreed to. Part 3 as amended will stand part.

Schedule

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 27 in the name of the Hon David Carter to the schedule be agreed to.

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

Ayes 98

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 23

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

Clause 1 agreed to.

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

Ayes 98

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 23

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

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

In Committee

Debate resumed from 29 May.

Part 2 Fees (continued)

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Indeed it is an honour that I get to speak on this bill, the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. This is a very significant piece of legislation. I have to say to the members of the Commerce Commission who have heard me criticise them over the dairy industry legislation that perhaps I should apologise and say that without them, without a robust Commerce Commission in this country, we would be a lot worse off. I encourage the Minister for Primary Industries in whatever he does following through with this bill to give the commission the resources and to give it the proper legislation to ensure that we have open, true competition in this country, but in a way that actually enhances our ability to develop our economy and all the opportunities in it.

I will not take too long, because I know that I have colleagues who are just busting to get up and speak about this piece of legislation, and they will probably speak with a lot more wisdom and knowledge. But I do understand the need to have robust laws. At times in this country we have been called the Wild West of the Western World. We have had lax laws that have not prevented rorts, and have not secured and protected consumers or other people involved in this. This bill, of course, deals with fees and cooperation, and we like to see that operate on an international basis, as this bill will do. So I will now hand over to the next speaker, and say that we welcome the passage of this bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): It is fair to say that Part 2 of this bill, the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill, is not very long. The major part of this debate, I will concede to the chair, has already occurred, in respect of Part 1. But, adding to the erudite comments of my colleague Damien O’Connor, I am interested to inquire of the Minister for Primary Industries what it means in Part 2 where we amend the regulations, in respect of fee setting, to prescribe a class or classes of persons who are exempt from the requirement to pay any fee for an application under section 58, or for a notice under section 66(1) or 67(1). I see in the commentary from the Commerce Committee—and I did not have the advantage of sitting on this select committee—that consideration was given to “removing the regulation-making power to prescribe a class or classes of persons who would be exempt from the requirement to pay any fee.” But despite that consideration being given to removing the regulation-making power, it was kept. The reason seems to be that the provision was targeted to the small to medium sized enterprises sector, and the committee decided it was important to retain it.

So my question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Craig Foss, is about the relationship between Part 1 and this part, this regulation—the amendments to section 108, which is amended by inserting the two paragraphs referred to in clause 13 of the bill before us. What is the relationship between those changes and Part 1 of the bill, which has already been discussed at some length in this House? Do these fees all relate to instances where, now, the Commerce Commission is able to cooperate with commerce commissions in international jurisdictions, whereas previously they could not cooperate?

I think that those who were here for earlier parts of the debate would recall that the first part of the bill relates to empowering the Commerce Commission to cooperate with international inquiries that might be going on as to price fixing, or cooperative agreements, or whether there are competition concerns arising in particular industries. Until now the Commerce Commission has lacked the jurisdiction to do that, because it is a body of statutory jurisdiction and therefore can only do what the statue allows it to do. Until the bill amends that, the commission has not had the power to cooperate in those international inquiries, but through this bill it obtains that power. My question is whether these Part 2 changes in respect of fees are dealing only with fees that arise as a consequence of the new international cooperation that the Commerce Commission will be able to participate in. I do not know the answer to that, and that is why I am asking the Minister to clarify that point.

In terms of the period within which it is envisaged that any fee could be refunded, I am not clear as to whether there is any limit on the prescribed period, because the bill says “requiring the Commission to refund, within a prescribed time,”. Does that “prescribed time” get set out in regulations, or is there some limit to that set out in the principal Act, the Commerce Act 1986? I am not clear from my reading of this, and it is, of course, some time since this was considered by the Commerce Committee.

I note that the membership of the select committee included a number of former members of this House who are no longer with us: John Boscawen, Hilary Calvert, and the Hon Sir Roger Douglas. You know, none of these people are now with us, and, indeed, the only ACT member of Parliament left with us is the Hon John Banks.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who? The walking dead?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, that is the man. His experience with international cooperation and fees includes dealing with multinationals, soliciting donations, receiving them in an envelope given to him, but then denying that he had any knowledge that there was a donation, and filing expense returns with the Electoral Commission saying that he received no donations except for anonymous ones.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I want to take just a brief call. I am surprised that the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Commerce, after that erudite dissertation from David Parker, who is, after all, a member of the legal profession, did not choose to address the questions Mr Parker put to him in respect of fees. Could I take the opportunity, perhaps, to get an indication from the Minister, given that the Commerce (International Co-operation, and Fees) Amendment Bill is a serious bill, as to whether he will, presumably before a closure motion is upon us, actually answer those questions.

Hon Craig Foss: In the next part.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The Minister says “In the next part.” Well, I think it might be appropriate, Minister, that these questions are addressed in their relevant part, because it aids, obviously, the debate if the questions are answered in an appropriate way. We can move on if they are not. Then we may have further questions, because this bill also does support other legislation in terms of preserving the integrity and credibility of business, both domestically and internationally.

We know, of course, as we address Part 2 in respect of fees, that this bill was originally introduced—and then the baton was passed—by the then Labour Cabinet Minister and Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel, to be followed by Simon Power, and that it is somewhat unfinished business that this Minister has taken on. It would be fair to say that there is, like with most of these bills, bipartisan support in respect of the bill—and I note that the chair of the Commerce Committee is nodding—and it was dealt with in a good-natured way. But I say this: I think the Minister should address those technical questions. I would hope that he is not going to wait till the end—till speakers have had their go—and then sort of rattle through a whole lot of answers without giving subsequent speakers the opportunity to then perhaps pick away in a positive way but also ask other substantially technical questions in respect of this.

We know that Part 2 sets out the fees framework for this regime, and there are some issues, as Mr Parker outlined, in terms of, you know, business to business arrangements, which I think the Minister should allude to at the very least and give us some assurances, because this bill is about, of course, aligning us with Australia. Australia passed similar legislation in 2007, which, of course, does raise the question that I put to the Minister some nights ago about other legislation—which, Mr Chair, obviously, if I went down that track you would call me to order—as to why a series of commerce bills that are critical to the credibility and integrity of our business community have sat around. We know that Simon Power had a pretty good ability to punch legislation through, and he did so quite prolifically, actually, in many of his portfolios, but it has sort of ground to a halt with this Minister.

Again, as I said to him last week, I think, in respect of other legislation, I would be grateful for an indication from the Minister as to where he believes the priorities lie in respect of this sort of legislation. You know, Australia has had it since 2007. We kicked the ball off on exit from Government. The Minister’s predecessor, Simon Power, then did, I think, a pretty admirable job of trying to progress it, amongst all the other legislative priorities that were there, both in commerce and others—I think he was the Minister of Justice and Leader of the House at the time—and now we come to this Minister.

I would be grateful to know where he sees, in a general sense, the commerce legislation lying in respect of the priorities of the Government framework. As a sort of show of good faith to that point, I think he should address immediately, not in a subsequent debate or down the track, the issues that David Parker raised. They are quite critical; they are of a technical nature. I do not know whether the Minister is a lawyer; I certainly know I am not, and I am reliant on the eminence of the arguments put forward by Mr Parker and others. But I am sure, given the high level of expertise that is at the Minister’s disposal—and I paid tribute to the officials as we went through the select committee process, and I am sure my opposite number would have as well—the Minister has the ability to turn round, turn to his right, lean back, and ask for further information.

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): Very briefly—and I do acknowledge the previous speaker, Clayton Cosgrove, and the spirit of the way this bill, the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill, has progressed over quite some time. I will talk very briefly to Mr Parker’s points. Part 2 amends the Commerce Act, and clause 13 talks about section 108 of the Commerce Act. So the bits that he was interested in are actually separate from what is in Part 1. They are the normal fees and course of events in the existing Commerce Act. As the Commerce Committee pointed out in its commentary on the bill, the intent of perhaps exempting some of the small and medium sized enterprises from such fees is why that clause is as it is.

I intend to acknowledge some of the other points in the debate on the title and commencement clauses.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think David Clark almost had the call before. I will give it to him now.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I raise a further question in relation to the matter that the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Commerce, has just addressed, and seek some further clarification. In my speech on Part 1, I was told clearly by the Chairperson at the time, not the current one, that I could not raise matters in relation to fees. I was raising a matter in relation to a general principle in the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill, and I think on that occasion I failed to articulate quite how it was not fees but the principle I was addressing. But, having taken that advice, I will plant my question firmly in the clause discussing the fees. It relates to those exemptions and the more general principle of who should receive them; the Minister has mentioned small and medium enterprises.

The more general point is that overseas regulators consider the likelihood of reciprocity as a factor in determining whether to provide assistance or information to the commission. This is about reciprocity and it goes both ways. My question is really about the extent and nature of the consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade where there are requests for its assistance in matters that have significant international trade consequences for New Zealand, and whether this exemption could apply in those cases, and what the threshold would be when we say that the matter must be significant. In Part 1 of the bill, if I can refer to that because I think it does relate to this, it says in section 99H(2A), in clause 6: “If the Commission considers, after consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, that a request for compulsorily acquired information or investigative assistance may have significant trade consequences for New Zealand, the Commission must refer the matter to the Minister of Trade.” So in respect of those fees, I am wondering what the test for significance is and how that will be applied. That is the heart of my question, and I invite the Minister’s response on it.

Labour will be supporting this legislation because we believe that the principles it is addressing are important and ought to be addressed. The legislation has been a long time in coming. As the Minister referred to earlier, we have had a lengthy debate on this matter, but it is important legislation and it aligns us with Australia, which passed similar legislation in 2007.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I will take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in relation to Part 2 of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill 2008. It is that year 2008 that does somewhat concern us also, in that this piece of legislation, this bill, was first put forward on 9 September 2008 by the Hon Lianne Dalziel when there was still a Labour Government. It is somewhat concerning that it was then brought to this House for its first reading on 25 May 2010 by the Hon Simon Power, and it is now 31 July 2012.

This bill, and I will not go into Part 1 of it, is basically about greater cooperation between New Zealand and particularly Australia and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to ensure that things are properly investigated between the two commissions and to stamp out any improprieties in terms of commerce, particularly between Australia and New Zealand. It is somewhat disappointing that it has taken the best part of 3 or 4 years to go through to this point. It does reflect poorly on the legislative process that in that period of time who knows what sorts of things could have occurred that otherwise might have been picked up, had this bill been through by now. I am pleased that Minister Foss, the Minister of Commerce, has now moved this on—being a good Hawke’s Bay man like me, we do pick up the ball and run with it, like a good Magpies rugby player. I am pleased that this bill has been picked up by the Minister and is now being pushed through.

In terms of Part 2, in relation to, simply, some amendments to the Commerce Act 1986, these are understandable just in terms, as the Minister said, of determining any remission of fees and any reduction in fees, and that is understandable. So in terms of that, New Zealand First certainly is in support of this bill. This is, again, a good initiative to clamp down on some situations under the Commerce Act, and the Commerce Commission being able to investigate. It will allow greater transparency and ensure that there can be proper investigations and also charges made to overseas agencies requiring information of our Commerce Commission, and vice versa.

This is a good piece of legislation. As we have said in the past, New Zealand First will support Government legislation that is to the benefit of New Zealand, and we believe that this is good legislation. It was started by the former Labour Government and carried on through by the National Government, but, in terms of this bill, New Zealand First does support it and the sooner this is passed by the House the better. Thank you.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Committee stage of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. As has been repeated by a number of speakers in the House, and on this side of the House certainly, this bill is dated 2008 and it is now 2012. Although it aligns us with Australia, it is taking us quite a long time to actually make that happen. I think you have got to ask how that will affect other pieces of legislation and other general harmonisation mechanisms that this Government is purportedly undertaking.

One of the main points to make around this, before I get to the issue around the fees exemption, is the fact that this was a Labour bill and that it was brought by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It went through the Commerce Committee some time ago, and it has taken a long time to get to this part of the bill in the Committee. We are not actually getting to the end part, and goodness only knows when that will happen.

The issue of harmonisation with Australia is critical, and I suppose really it is a measure of our effectiveness as a country and in a parliamentary sense that we are pushing legislation through in commerce that is allowing and encouraging that greater reciprocal assistance from the equivalent overseas regulators. I think in terms of confidence for New Zealand, for other countries dealing with New Zealand, we really do have to be seen to be taking this stuff seriously. My concern, which has been echoed by other members in this House from my own party and also from other parties, is that we are not taking these issues seriously enough and we are certainly not pushing them forward quickly enough. We do expect that there is going to be greater reciprocal assistance between the regulators on this particular issue, but, as I pointed out—I think it was in the second reading—that reciprocal relationship is certainly not present on a whole range of other issues that are of great moment, great importance, at the moment, and that is particularly in the telecommunications industry.

There was an issue of telecommunications law that did come into this piece of legislation that was addressed because this bill did not extend to information that was gathered under the Telecommunications Act 2001. We heard submissions on this issue. It was brought to us as a particular issue, by a number of the telecommunications companies, that did not reflect the equivalent legislation that exists in other countries, including Australia, which is whom we are seeking this harmonisation with. So we had to address it, and certainly the officials’ advice to us was that the possibility of including the telecommunications law was raised by the Commerce Commission with the then Minister of Communications and Information Technology, which was then passed on to the Minister of Commerce.

There was an extensive amount of discussion in the select committee about this issue, and the regulatory impact statement certainly confirmed that including the Telecommunications Act in the bill outweighed the cost. But we could not do that, because it was outside the scope, so there had to be a Supplementary Order Paper introduced into the House on that issue.

Just briefly around the fee exemption issue, which is the subject of Part 2, we in the select committee considered removing the regulation powers to prescribe the classes of people who would be exempt from that requirement to pay any fees; we considered removing that power, but because that provision was targeted to the small to medium sized enterprises—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Are you seeking another call?

CLARE CURRAN: Yes, Mr Chair. I am seeking another call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Clare Curran.

CLARE CURRAN: As that provision was targeted to the small to medium sized enterprises, we decided that it was important to retain it. So that is the essence of Part 2 and why that was considered to be important.

I think it is important just to note that these are important pieces of legislation, which to the rest of the House and perhaps to the people watching on television tonight do seem quite technical in nature, and perhaps for some members may even seem quite tedious. They are very important, and they do not stand alone. I am sure the Minister would agree with me on this, that they are not stand-alone pieces of legislation that exist on their own; they are part of a package. We have seen come before this House a package of these harmonisation measures, which are about trying to enable business to occur more freely between ourselves and, particularly, Australia, which requires the regulatory environments of both countries to be more aligned.

In this piece of legislation, that is happening. It has taken a bit of time for us to get there, but I think we are all pretty much in support and agreement around this. But the intent of that is not occurring, as I pointed out earlier, in some other, very significant, parts of our economy—in particular, around, again, the telecommunications industry and the content creation industry, which are areas where there is tremendous growth and impact for us as a nation economically and where getting the infrastructure right, which includes the regulatory environment, is critical.

So the harmonisation issues there are just as important. I hope that the Minister in the chair tonight, the Minister of Commerce, is considering those issues, is thinking about those issues, and that we will actually see start to appear from his deep thinking on these issues some results in the form of potential regulatory change and, potentially, even legislative change in the future, because those issues are how we as a nation are going to actually perform better, with infrastructure that has a competitive environment and where the regulatory environment is aligned with our cousins across the Ditch. Although we certainly support this bill—and speaking on Part 2 on the fees issue, we certainly support this and the other parts of the legislation—we certainly see the much bigger picture, and I am expressing concern in the House today that the other side of the House, the Government, does not see that big picture.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): Just picking up on previous speakers’ general sentiments, I again acknowledge the contributions made by speakers to this bill, the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill, in this session or in the previous Committee stage session, and at the select committee—those who are on the Commerce Committee and those who have passed before us.

I fully acknowledge that the bill was introduced by Lianne Dalziel under the previous Labour Government. My colleague Mr Power picked it up, and with his very, very busy legislative programme—he also being Minister of Justice—I inherited the bill in November or December of last year when I got my warrant. Over the 5 or 6 months we have been able to deal with this bill, I think we have done very well.

The title of the bill is the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. As the previous speaker just said, so many of these bills are interlinked. Of course, they reference the Commerce Commission and the very, very important role it plays. One or two speakers have commented on the delay, or the time that it has taken to bring this bill here. I just note that if it was not for some of that delay, we would not have Supplementary Order Paper 274, which is dated 16 August 2011 and brings in telecommunications regulators’ exchanges of information. So maybe there was a bit of an upside to some of the time taken.

The bill is aptly named the “International Co-operation, and Fees” Bill, particularly cooperation with Australia, and perhaps with other jurisdictions or Government bodies as the bill prescribes as we go through. The name also reflects the cooperation on this and many commerce bills around and across the House generally. I acknowledge and thank members and parties for their cooperation on this legislation, which, at the end of the day, is better and more robust legislation for New Zealand in 2012.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I want to commend the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Commerce, for his work on the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill and also all of those who have already worked on this bill previously, and suggest—but largely in jest—that the bill might be called something different, perhaps the “Commerce Commission (Extensive Local and International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill”. There has been a great deal of cooperation in pulling this bill together over, as the Minister has said, a long period of time. It is illustrative of the way in which this House can function in a way that is constructive. Often, the debates we have are constructive, but they may sometimes appear less constructive than they actually are. Here is a clear occasion where many of us agree that these are sensible steps that need to be taken. We might sometimes debate the extent of them and the timing of these changes, but we wish to support them across the House.

Therefore, I wish to congratulate the Minister and all of those, including the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who have committed their own efforts to getting this legislation through and into its final form. It will be good to bring us into alignment with Australia, which passed similar legislation around 5 years ago. So my congratulations go to the Minister and to all of those who have worked on the bill previously. Thank you.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Commerce (International Co-operation, and Fees) Amendment Bill, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (International Co-operation) Amendment Bill, the Fair Trading (International Co-operation) Amendment Bill, and the Telecommunications (International Co-operation) Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 26.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill

In Committee

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I move an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill that it have the authority to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments in my name set out on Supplementary Order Paper 33.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am just trying to catch up with what the member is seeking to do. If the member is seeking to move an instruction to the bill, that cannot be done in Committee. That has to be done while the bill is in the House, normally at the second reading stage. A motion at this point is out of order.

Part 1 Jury service

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): The Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill is an interesting bill. Labour will support it. We have an interesting situation where there is no regulatory impact statement that has been prepared because it is expected that there will be no impacts on businesses, individuals, or not-for-profit entities—or, at least, if not no impact, then only very minor impacts. This is an unusual situation because it is usually the case that we have to consider those matters in great detail.

According to Cabinet papers last year, there was an incident where a self-represented accused corresponded with persons whose names and addresses were on the jury panel for his trial. This raised concerns about the safety of jurors, and it was decided to amend the Juries Act to restrict access to jurors’ address details. This bill is an example, in that sense, of the Government’s reactionary approach to justice issues. It would have been nice to see a proactive step taken to ensure this matter did not occur in the first place. I am sure the Government will, in response, suggest that perhaps previous Governments could also have acted on this matter. It is something that could always be claimed, but it certainly currently falls in the lap of the current Government to make amendments in this fashion. We will support it because, as I say, it is not particularly controversial that we should be amending this matter, but it would have been good to see a more proactive approach taken in the first place.

The bill, in effect, means that defence attorneys and advisers to defendants representing themselves will not be allowed to show addresses to defendants. They will still be able to see and hear the name in court, so, arguably, they could still look up the address in the White pages, perhaps, or on electoral rolls. This is a matter that will no doubt tax minds, in terms of how we adapt to that situation. But, in the very least, we have an approach that seeks in principle to restrict access to that information in a way that we would agree with. We agree that defendants having access to jury addresses is problematic. However, we do not think that this bill will make any difference, because of the example I have just cited. The defendants who want to find addresses will still be able to do so.

Currently, the Juries Act already allows people to be exempt from jury duty on the grounds of occupation or business, state of health, physical disability, family commitments, or other personal circumstances. They have to satisfy the registrar that they or some other person would be caused undue hardship or serious inconvenience if they were not excused. The registrar must excuse people if they are over 65 years of age, or if they have a religious view that is incompatible with jury service. This bill will allow for that exemption to be excused permanently, and that is another matter that is addressed by the bill.

There are other smaller matters that are picked up, which I have no doubt that other colleagues, more learned in this area, will wish to comment on. But defendants needing to be able to have certain information available to challenge the people selected as jurors is something that we know, and this will ensure that the defendant has a right to a fair trial, which is a fundamental right. So the steps taken in this bill will make sure that some of the loopholes in the Sentencing Amendment Act 2007 are tidied up.

There have been a number of wider concerns with the justice portfolio, and that is why we are concerned that this particular matter is being given attention when other bigger matters, arguably, are not being addressed. Although this incident has brought the matter of people corresponding with jurors to light, and a reaction has been sparked, it is difficult to argue that that is perhaps the most immediate thing, or the only thing, that needs to be addressed in respect of the justice portfolio. This Government has had a reactionary approach, and examples of that are the Search and Surveillance Bill, the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, and matters around provocation. It is an inappropriate use of parliamentary time, the select committee process, and urgency to pass significant justice bills that have not been sent to appropriate select committees. So when we see this bill coming, we see another example of tinkering around the edges, and we think the legislative agenda should have bills that will have an actual effect on the justice system, rather than peripheral changes that will make very little change to the overall nature and problems in our justice system.

We have in New Zealand a real problem with a growing prison population, which we all end up paying for. A lot of these people in prison are there as a consequence of poor choices they have made, but there is no doubt that other factors such as poverty contribute or are correlative factors in offending. We would like to see, from our side, those other factors also addressed. We are not happy with the growing gap between rich and poor in New Zealand, and we would like to see the big issues in the justice sector addressed, as those wider societal issues should also be addressed.

I thank you for hearing my thoughts on this matter, and wish that this bill does go through, because the little changes it makes are hard to argue against. But I wish to lay on record my concern that we are not really addressing the bigger issues in this sector, and, as I say, I am sure some of my more learned colleagues will go into greater details on those matters. Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I do want to reflect on one particular clause of the legislation, the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. Perhaps I should preface my comments by making the point that none of the current members for Labour on the Justice and Electoral Committee were on the Justice and Electoral Committee when this legislation went through, so we have not actually had the benefit of a discussion with officials over the intent of the particular part that I want to raise. I have also had a brief conversation with Denis O’Rourke, who I know is going to be taking a call on the same matter because he has an amendment to this particular clause in relation to his Supplementary Order Paper 33, which promotes omitting new section 15A(2) in clause 10.

The reason that I want to focus on new section 15A(2) is that I am not aware of the reason behind it. I think it would be incredibly useful if the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, could give us a description as to why the legislation—which is being promoted for one particular purpose that has had some publicity in relation to the example that my colleague David Clark already provided—in this particular section requires that “The Registrar must excuse a person summoned to attend as a juror on an occasion from attending in any court on any occasion if satisfied, on a written application for the purpose made by or on behalf of the person, that the person is of or over the age of 65 years.” So that is a permanent excusing from serving on a jury, and the only satisfaction of the criteria that is proposed by this clause is that the person is 65 years or older.

Of course, there has been a lot of discussion about how we have dealt with a somewhat ageist society, and many changes that we have promoted in this House actually take away discrimination based on age. Having the age of 65 as a criteria on a stand-alone basis seems, to me, to offend the principles of all of the legislation that we have promoted in terms of human rights to remove age as the basis, or as a delineating point, for anything other than entitlement to, for example, superannuation, as it still is in this country at the moment.

I think that it is worthy of some further discussion, because when we had our representatives on the select committee that heard the evidence on this particular bill, they felt that there was a concern about the age of 65 being used as a means. I will just quote from the report back from the select committee: “The Labour members are concerned that extending the Registrar’s power to grant permanent excusal solely because a person is 65 or over is at odds with progressive measures advanced over recent years to eliminate ageism and stereotypes, and to promote participation.” Then it went on to say that the bill does not actually propose to reintroduce an age limit for jury service, and that is the whole select committee commenting at that point. So Labour is simply saying that it is concerned about it looking like there is a bit of ageism creeping back into the law but saying: “No, this is not a cut-off point”.

Then the select committee actually talks about the fact that it does not consider—again, this is the whole committee, not the Labour members alone—that what is proposed implies that older people are less capable of serving on a jury. “On the contrary, we consider that the life experience of older people is of significant value to society and we would encourage those who are able to do so to continue to undertake jury service.” Well, I actually think that there is a little bit of a conflict in this, and this is what I would like the Minister to debate.

I think that on our side of the Chamber we should be supporting the amendment put forward by Denis O’Rourke. On the face of it, it does look as if we are putting in place a particular provision that, if it were taken up by everyone over the age of 65, I do not know how many juries would be able to be empanelled under those circumstances. I do not spend a lot of time down at the courts, but on the odd time I have been there for a jury trial there would be more than one or two people over the age of 65 sitting on any one jury.

I think that the concept of just simply having somebody using age as the basis for a permanent excusal—and it does appear that it does not even require them to have ever served on a jury. So, as long as you get to 65 and have never been called to give service on a jury, just by notifying the fact that you are 65 and do not wish to be ever called, you would never do what I consider to be a duty to the wider community in terms of serving on a jury. It does seem to me to not be in full accord, really, with the intent of the legislation as it was originally promoted.

The original reason for promoting this legislation was the concern that had occurred in relation to a self-represented accused who had corresponded with persons on the jury panel whose names and addresses were on the jury list for his trial. I do not think anyone has got any objection to that particular part of the legislation; it is this other part that does not seem to be connected with that in any way, shape, or form. I know that it does not have to be for it to be legally within the scope of the legislation, but it does seem to me to be taking advantage of a particular piece of legislation that is established for one purpose to, in fact, provide for another.

I really cannot for the life of me understand why it is that age would be the threshold on its own, despite the fact that the person may never have provided jury service in their entire lives. They may have not been called forward; they may have had a specific reason to be excused from jury service in a particular trial, having had a conflict of interest, or whatever. That person then, just because they have become 65 years of age, is able to write for a permanent excusal. That does not seem to make much sense to me, but then, as I say, none of us actually sat on that select committee when the bill was referred to it.

So even though it is a relatively small bill and we are supporting the passage of the bill, it does seem to me that Denis O’Rourke has a very good motive in terms of promoting his Supplementary Order Paper. I will be interested to hear his comments, obviously, as the promoter of the particular amendment that would omit the relevant subsection.

But I would also like to hear from the Minister in terms of how this particular provision came to be. I know that it was introduced under her predecessor, the Hon Simon Power—yet another piece of legislation the Minister has had to pick up in that regard. But I am sure that she has read the background briefing papers to it, and will understand and will be able to explain to the House why this particular provision is so important. And if it is not—if it is actually not that important and if it really does not need to proceed beyond here—then perhaps the Minister may be willing to consider Denis O’Rourke’s Supplementary Order Paper, which would remove it from the legislation. I guess my last question would be what effect would that have—whether it would impact on any other elements of the legislation that are proposed, and whether it would have such an effect. Perhaps the Minister could just simply explain that. I think that that would be very useful in terms of how we would vote on the Supplementary Order Paper to which I referred.

Just in summary, I think the Labour Opposition will be supporting the bill. We have had a rethink of the position that our committee members signalled when they sat on the select committee, in light of the fact that Denis O’Rourke has put up a Supplementary Order Paper. He clearly was not a member of Parliament at the time that the bill was introduced, so he has brought some fresh eyes to the subject, as I think new members of the select committee have brought to the subject as well. I am certainly hoping that we can get to an understanding of why this particular provision was considered to be necessary by the previous Government, and whether it is still considered necessary by the current Government.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I understand that neither of the previous speakers sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which actually heard this matter, the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill.

Charles Chauvel: Law and Order Committee, Judith.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Law and Order Committee, thank you. Thank you, Mr Chauvel, very good. However, I do presume that they have read the Juries Act, since they are commenting on it. The Juries Act currently allows people aged 65 years and over to be excused on written application each time they are summoned, on the basis of their age. They are currently able to do that, so it is difficult for me to comprehend why, in fact, we are saying to people: “If you feel that you don’t want to serve, or don’t feel that you can, then you have to write in every single time you are summonsed.”

I can tell the House that I have had a family member, now deceased, who after the age of 65—I think it was probably about 68—started to be affected by a particular motor neurone disorder. In her case it did not stop her being able to think—she could think excellently, she could do all sorts of things brilliantly—but she felt that every time she was summonsed, and she was summonsed an awful lot, she needed to get me to write in for her, to advise why she could not come in. She was never going to get better from this motor neurone disorder; she was never going to be able to be any more able to cope with that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s health, not age.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is a dreadful, dreadful thing, but then again, she did not want to have to write in every single time and do it. No, she wanted to be able to say—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Read the bill.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: She did not want to have to talk about—I am sorry that Mr Mallard thinks it is so disgusting for me to speak about a member of my family, now deceased, but actually that is the sort of behaviour that brings this Parliament into disrepute. It is absolutely disgraceful. That is absolutely disgraceful.

This family member of mine did not want to have to tell people she did not know all about her medical situation. She wanted to be able to say: “I have done my service; I don’t want to have to keep going.”

Hon Trevor Mallard: So the same condition at 64, she has to? How ridiculous.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: So—Mr Mallard is just appalling, is he not. But, however, I took note of David Clendon’s comments during the second reading, when he commented that to have this permanent excusal in place all the time might be unfair to someone who felt that they could not contribute, and then found that they could, and they felt able to. So in my Supplementary Order Paper 94, which I presume that Labour Opposition members have read since they have been commenting so much on this issue, they will note that I have taken up the Greens’ suggestion of actually enabling someone to say: “I don’t feel that I need to be in that situation now; I can now cope with this, and I do want to be now back into the list.”

The fact is that the Ministry of Justice receives thousands of applications every year from people aged 65 and over who do not want to be summonsed again to be a juror. It believes, and I believe, that it is right that people who are 65 years and over who have contributed to their community, if they feel that they have done their time, should be able to say so. But do they have to do it every single time they get summonsed? I think they should be able to say that actually, it is not for them. At a later date, if they change their mind, I think they should be able to come in. I think the Greens made a very good point, and I took it up, and it is in the Supplementary Order Paper. I would like to thank David Clendon for his helpful suggestion.

So there is no ageism about this; this is about people’s ability to feel that they can contribute, but also giving them options around it. I think that is sensible, and it actually means that people are not necessarily going to feel humiliated, and that they can actually say that they do not have to keep writing in every single time they get summonsed. Because I can tell the House that there are some people who are summonsed a lot to go and do jury service. Many of those people, because they are not actually listed as having occupations like member of Parliament, police officer, lawyer, or dentist—all those many occupations that are currently excluded from having to do jury service—they get called all the time. I actually think that when you are over 65, if you think you have done your time, you should be able to say so. But I do not think that is ageism. I think that is actually accepting that some people have already contributed an awful lot to society.

I do not understand why it is that Labour Opposition members are so worried about this. They certainly were not worried about it in the select committee. I can only think that they have been influenced by some very malevolent forces.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First supports both Part 1 and Part 2 of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, with an exception that I will come to, which we have been debating tonight. Part 1, of course, with its reference to excusals and disqualifications, I think and we think is pretty sensible. The new provisions about disqualification—new section 36A in clause 12, relating to people on home detention for over 3 months, and new section 14D in clause 8, where there is a discretion for the judge to impose home detention of under 3 months—are very sensible. Secondly, new section 15A(1) in clause 10, providing for excusal because of the state of a person’s health, is also sensible and would be good law. Thirdly, new section 16, giving a judge discretion where there is a conflict of interest or grounds of conscience, is also good law.

However, it is new section 15A(2) that we think is not good law and should not proceed. That, of course, is the provision that provides for right of excusal on application for a person over 65 simply because of their age. I take notice of the fact that the Minister of Justice has Supplementary Order Paper 94, which would allow a person to go back on the jury list, then go back off it, and then go back on it again I do not know how many times. That does not seem to be very sensible to me. But fundamentally New Zealand First does oppose that part of the bill, which provides for an application for excusal as of right for a person over 65 years of age.

The first reason—and there are five—relates to ageism. The Minister says that it is not ageism. Well, how on earth could a provision that is entirely based on age, and on no other criteria whatsoever, be anything other than ageism? It is based only on age. That is wrong in principle, and for that reason alone it should not proceed.

Secondly, it is irrational to do that, because people 65 years or over are actually better equipped than people younger than that to take on this role, and they are better equipped because they have a lifetime of experience to rely upon. As Lianne Dalziel quoted from the report of the Law and Order Committee, “we consider that the life experience of older people is of significant value to society and we would encourage those who are able to do so to continue to undertake jury service.” The select committee thinks that 65-year-olds and over should be encouraged. So where on earth could there be a reasonable, rational reason for providing a right to exclusion for people simply because they are 65 years of age or over?

Thirdly, people may, of course, actually retire at any age. Some people retire as early as 50, 55, or 60, and some, like me—and I am 66—do not intend to retire for some time yet. So what on earth has the retirement age got to do with the ability of a person to do their duty to the community in respect of jury service? The reason just does not exist.

Fourthly, 65 years of age is the superannuation age currently, but what on earth has that got to do with this issue? That is exclusively the age that, so far, this country has adopted as the retirement age. As I have said, that is only a notional age of retirement and not, for many people, a real age, at all. So if people are not, in fact, very commonly retiring at age 65, why on earth should they have a right to excuse themselves from jury service?

In any event, fifthly, the issue that is really relevant here is the one that is already in the Act in relation to an exclusion for health purposes. That, in fact, is actually the reason that the Minister gave in respect of this provision. She did not really talk about age; she talked about somebody who for health reasons was not able to, and did not want to, contribute. Those are the real issues—the ones I read out at the beginning of my speech. It is not age itself that matters.

People aged 65 or more, like me, do not like being told that because of their age there is something different about them that means they have to be treated differently in the law, whether it be for this purpose or for any other purposes at all. Therefore, I have moved on Supplementary Order Paper 33 an amendment to delete that provision in clause 10, which I think is appropriate. I do not accept, either, that section 15A(2) would be improved by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 94 amendment, allowing people to go on and come off and go on and come off this list. It just does not make sense. In fact, the whole thing about age should be removed altogether to solve the problem. That Supplementary Order Paper would only make it worse, I believe. It is misconceived and should not be inserted in the bill at all.

Apart from that, New Zealand First has the greatest pleasure in supporting this bill, because it makes some very sensible provisions, and some of those I have mentioned. In addition to that, of course, it does provide for privacy of information regarding jurors, and that is something that has been needed for quite some time and is a very good move. I think one of the reasons why there has been a bit of a bad reputation about being on juries is that that privacy is not there currently. Some people resist jury service not for the reasons that the Minister gave relating to age, or maybe that they are getting a bit past it—which I do not accept, and neither do they, by the way—but for other reasons altogether. The Baker case, of course, demonstrated what those reasons can be. In that case, a person who represented themself obtained a jurors list and sent a letter to a woman juror, making romantic overtures. I mean, that should never have been possible.

Records show that four out of five people called for jury service seek to avoid it. It has nothing to do with age—nothing whatsoever to do with age. In 2009, 67,938 people failed to attend for the purpose. So anyone who tells me that age has got anything to do with any of that, I think, is dreaming. The reasons are more about privacy and about the need to protect details of jurors than about anything else. Part 2 of the bill, for those reasons, is very, very important, and those are the main reasons why New Zealand First believes this bill should be enacted. If anything, however, we would prefer to see tougher measures and tougher penalties to ensure the protection of jurors from being contacted by an accused person, and especially by a convicted person—and that happens as well. So I do not think the bill goes far enough in those respects—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Part 1.

DENIS O’ROURKE: —but it goes too far in Part 1 in respect of the age issue. Thank you.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Yet again I am rising to speak about what is already in the Juries Act, which, in fact, allows people aged 65 years and over to ask to be excused from jury service every time they are summonsed. That is already the law. So what we have in the Ministry of Justice is we get thousands and thousands of requests each year from people to be permanently excused. This provision is not an insult to people aged 65; this is not ageism. This is actually recognising that people are asking for this. This is a privilege that is currently in the law now, in the Juries Act—

Denis O’Rourke: It shouldn’t be.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —which Mr O’Rourke will have read, which says that if you are 65 years and over you can write in and ask to be excused.

Mr O’Rourke says that it should not be. Well, it is in the law now and we do not propose to change it. What we do propose is that people can, in fact, say: “Look, I don’t want to have to write in every single time. You’ve got me on record as not wanting to do service any more, under the current Juries Act.”, and we want to be able to say: “Fine, you don’t have to keep writing in every time.” This is a privilege that is being granted for people aged 65 years and over. The bill provides just another benefit to people in this sector of New Zealand society.

It is all very well for Mr O’Rourke and the Labour Opposition to speak about ageism. Well, actually, the SuperGold card and transport discounts are all based on age, and I do not think that is ageism. This is just another privilege that is being given to people who are 65 years and over. Frankly, they do not have to take it up. They do not have to have it. With the Supplementary Order Paper amendment I am putting in, after the very good idea from Mr Clendon, actually they can change their mind. I do not think many will take up the option to change their mind, but I do think there will be some people, some hundreds of people, who will wish to take up the permanent recusal because, at the end of the day, it is their decision; they know themselves.

I do not think that is being ageist. I think that is giving yet another privilege, as we do with New Zealand superannuation, as we do with the SuperGold card, and as we do quite a lot to people aged 65 years and older who have contributed to their country and wish to contribute in other ways sometimes.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I am very pleased to take a call to discuss the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, which the Green Party will be supporting. Like the Hon Lianne Dalziel, Denis O’Rourke, and other Labour colleagues of mine on the Justice and Electoral Committee, I was not on the select committee when this legislation was first introduced. I believe this is my first opportunity to speak on this bill, so if I could just make a broader statement, then hone in on the provisions in Part 2, and in particular this interesting debate on Supplementary Order Paper 94, which relates to those who are 65 years of age and over.

I think that jury service represents an essential element of participation in civil society. It is really important to have a cross-section of our community come together to ascertain matters of fact in a trial, and, really, we are to aspire to the spirit of inclusiveness and diversity within democracy at every turn. The core provisions of this bill, especially in Part 1, are predominantly positive and reasonable. They seek to enhance the jury system’s integrity, to improve the administration of the jury system, and to reduce stress on people with chronic ill health, permanent disability, and those who are over the age of 65. The first two elements regarding integrity and administration are dealt with in the first part of the bill.

Clause 3 amends the principal Act, and clause 4 includes the purpose of the disqualification from jury service for a person who at any time within the preceding 5 years had been sentenced to a period of home detention of 3 months or longer. Clause 8 follows this up by inserting new section 14D, which grants the registrar discretion to defer the appearance of a juror who is serving a sentence of home detention of less than 3 months until after that person has ceased to be subject to that sentence. That seems like a sensible idea. Although it is really not conducive to democratic principles to exclude people from institutions arbitrarily when they can participate in society—such as the exclusion of prisoners from voting, which we find very troubling—neither does it do us any good to ignore the fact that the appearance of people serving a sentence for criminal behaviour does not positively contribute to the integrity of the jury system.

I will get to the subject of the debate, which I listened to with quite a good deal of interest this afternoon. Although I have quite a bit of sympathy for Denis O’Rourke and, indeed, the members of the Law and Order Committee who submitted a minority report about any appearance of ageism or any appearance of the State to be saying to people over the age of 65 that they are not welcome to serve on juries, I also have a great deal of sympathy for what the Minister of Justice has said here today. I think it makes a good deal of sense.

It is really hard for me to understand how it is ageism to allow people over the age of 65, which is the age of national superannuation and, as the Minister pointed out, the SuperGold card, the opportunity to decline just once as opposed to having to decline every time if they feel themselves not up to the task of attending—and probably not for mental health reasons.

I guess I will bring in some personal experience. I have three living grandparents. Two of them are 88 years old and one is 90. They all live at home, alone. They are all fully independent and they are all very bright people whom I love talking to and talking politics with. They are wonderful people, and I have a great deal of respect for them. I have no doubt that at this point in their lives they would find it physically very onerous to have to serve on a jury. I do not think that they would want to take up that request if it was sent to them now. Given that it has now been, let us see, a good deal of time that they would have been receiving requests to serve on a jury, I think it is perfectly sensible and reasonable to allow them that choice if they do not feel themselves physically up to it.

I do not think it is ageist to recognise that there are different stages of life, and, although it is true that there might be somebody with ill health or a disability or other reasons who may not be physically up to serving on a jury at the age of 50, the chances that someone will not be up to it significantly increase as time goes by. We have to have an age at some point.

The critical thing is that this bill, particularly with the addition of Supplementary Order Paper 94, which was introduced by the Minister today, will allow these people to have the choice. No one is saying if you are over 65 you should not take up jury service; it is just that if you feel that you are not up to it, you have the option to decline. Thanks to Supplementary Order Paper 94, which the Green Party will be supporting—and I thank the Minister for her kind comments and for taking up the points made by my colleague David Clendon in the second reading of the bill—people will have the choice to revisit that decision that they made at some point to decline the invitation to serve on a jury. They could change their mind if they were finding themselves in different circumstances later.

Although I completely hear the comments of the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Denis O’Rourke that we do not want to be ageist and we do not want to exclude people over the age of 65 from participating in this incredibly important democratic institution, I just cannot see the harm in allowing people the choice to decline once, as opposed to having to decline multiple times. Ultimately, the cut-off is always going to be somewhat arbitrary, and I think linking it to the age of—well, if there is not this provision, then that means that people in the state that my grandparents are in might not find it as easy as they would other wise to decline an invitation to serve on a jury. I just do not see what the big drama is, to be honest. Giving people choice, acknowledging there are different stages of life, and respecting our elders—I think this is totally in line with all of those principles. I really do not see what the problem is. The Green Party is quite happy to support the Minister’s Supplementary Order Papers. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): In speaking to the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill I want to go to the purpose, in talking about Part 1 of the bill, which is to improve the administration of the jury system and to make life easier for those who are called to sit on a jury. As the chair of the Law and Order Committee, we indeed heard a number of submissions on this provision. It seems to have caused some consternation amongst some members of this House, but, thankfully, there has been some good thinking on behalf of the Green Party. I want to, in particular, congratulate David Clendon, who has provided a thoughtful addition to the Law and Order Committee’s consideration.

The provision that provides for excusals from jury service came about, we were told, and I believe, from people over the age of 65, who, as the Minister has reminded the House, already have protection under the Juries Act. They can apply to the registrar for an excusal on a case by case basis. They already have that privilege. They already have that ability. But we were told that a number of complaints are made on a regular basis—and, again, the Minister told us it amounts to thousands in a year—to the Minister of Justice herself and also to the Ministry of Justice from members of the public who are periodically summonsed to undertake jury service. And that is despite previous excusals from jury service on one or maybe multiple occasions. That might be because they are over 65 but also, and I think critically here in the Committee’s consideration of this part, it might be because they have another reason. It might be because of a chronic health problem. That person might have mobility problems. They might find it extremely difficult to get to the court for perhaps a couple of days’ jury service, or more. Indeed, it might be a permanent disability.

To me, the consideration of this clause in the select committee process was about extending that privilege to those people. It might be because they were over 65 and they felt they had done their bit—well, why not; maybe they had done their bit—or, more important perhaps, it might be because it was physically difficult for that person to attend jury service. Indeed, they might be suffering from some other chronic illness. So I am a little mystified at the attitude of some members of this House who, for some reason, regard this as ageism. It is not ageism. What it does is extend that courtesy, if you like, and privilege, as it has been referred to, to those members of the public who have previously served, and who have previously been excused from jury service, the ability to have a permanent excusal. So what that means is that when they get a letter in the post that says they have been called to jury service, they do not need to go down to the courthouse, they do not need to write a letter in return, or make the phone call, yet again, to the registrar of the court to explain their circumstances, yet again, and to ask for an excusal from jury service—yet again.

So to me this is a clause in Part 1 of this bill that conforms to the purpose of the bill very neatly, and that is to improve the jury system’s administration. The benefits, of course, are to those people who want to have permanent excusal, and I have just gone over those, but, of course, there are benefits to the court registrar, as well. We are in the 21st century now. The courts are modernising. There are a number of pieces of legislation, including this one, that are enhancing the operation of our courts. To me, this is quite apart from the human element, where if somebody is over 65 and for whatever reason, and it can be a very personal reason, that person over 65 wishes to have an excusal.

I would not want to be in that situation, if I were over 65 and I had a medical condition. I do not want to have to tell a court registrar, time and time and time again, about my personal circumstances. I think it is a much more humane process, and it is a privilege. The Minister has said that, and I agree with her. It is a privilege that we can extend to people in those circumstances. If we can do that for people, that is good.

So that is just one part of Part 1 of this bill. It does not propose to reintroduce an age limit for jury service. We had some interesting submissions on that, and quite frankly I think that the clause has been misunderstood. So with that, thank you.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I would like to start by thanking the member who has resumed her seat, Jacqui Dean, for that contribution. Having had a look at the list of members of the Law and Order Committee who actually heard submissions on this Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, I think she is the only member in the Chamber who was on the committee at the time, and obviously it helps that she chaired it. I think what this shows us, independently of expressing any view about the merits of what Jacqui Dean has just said or the argument she made, is that it really does not do to leave these bills languishing on the Order Paper.

The legislation was referred to the committee back on 12 April 2011. The closing date for submissions was 26 May. Looking at the membership list, two of the committee are not even in the House any more. They did not survive the November election, which intervened between the committee’s report and today, and I do not think, apart from Jacqui Dean, there is any member of the committee otherwise who served at the time and who is still on that committee. So, by way of general observation, I am not going to speculate as to why this bill has taken so long to progress, although if it were of such burning importance, you might think the Minister of Justice would have given it higher priority. Perhaps the most charitable thing that can be said is that she is still cleaning up after her predecessor, and that this bill—

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no, no, she’s been diverted by other matters.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Well, my colleague observes that maybe the truth is that she has been diverted by other matters. I am sure he will have more to say about that later in the debate. But, whatever the case, let us hope that the House has seen the back of this sort of bill, which is only really arguably needed and is certainly not a burning priority—just like the next item of business that, I apprehend, we are going to get to.

The other thing that is worth saying, by way of a general observation, also relates to priorities. We have had legislation relating to perhaps the major driver of crime in New Zealand—alcohol—on the Order Paper for some time, and we still have not got to it. I do hope the Chair will indulge me, because I have got the Minister of Justice in the chair here and I can express this view directly to her. I do hope we are going to see that bill progressed with priority and expedition, rather than legislation like this, which, at least, very arguably deals with matters that are adequately provided for in legislation already.

On the question of Mr O’Rourke’s Supplementary Order Paper, I accept what the Government has said, to an extent. The Government has decided not to remove, on an ongoing basis, the exemption for persons over the age of 65 to serve on a jury, and it is calling it a benefit. Well, frankly, I think that is patronising. The Juries Act dates back to 1981. It dates back to an era when we had compulsory retirement at the age of 65. People did not have the choice. That was when they were deemed by the law to be old, deemed by the law to start becoming past it, and required to retire. That has not been the case for many a year, and it would have been open to the Government to have said: “Well, we are updating the law here. We should actually dispense with the arbitrary requirement that somebody at the age of 65 can be excused from jury service, simply by reason that they reach a certain age.” We just do not make those arbitrary assumptions in our law and practice in New Zealand any more.

I am, like the rest of the House, sympathetic to the type of situation the Minister recounted. She talked about a family member who was infirm, had motor neurone disease, and did not want to go through the process of having to seek an exclusion every time she was called for jury service. People at any age can get motor neurone disease. People at any age can be afflicted by an infirmity that makes them either uncomfortable or right-out incapable of serving on a jury or performing some other sort of civic service. The way they ought to be dealt with is by a straight-out exemption on the basis of disability. It ought to be the case that if somebody cannot serve, then clearly they should be able to be excused on the basis of that infirmity. It has nothing to do with age. People in New Zealand now who are over the age of 65—many people—will find this entire debate and this sort of arbitrary provision completely patronising. If we think about what was argued for by Julie Anne Genter, there is actually no need for an arbitrary age in this area, just as we do not have arbitrary ages across most other areas of our law. As I said earlier, it simply is not the way we do things. So it is a little disappointing that we have heard the contributions that we have had on the age issue. Like my colleague Lianne Dalziel, and like the other members of the Labour Opposition, we will be—if we have the opportunity—voting in support of Denis O’Rourke’s amendment, which would do away with this patronising anachronism around the age of 65 in respect of jury service.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I want to take another quick call on this provision—excusal from jury service—in Part 1 of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, and I have to apologise to my colleagues who are also keen to take a call on this. I was just reflecting on the departmental report. The advice that we on the Law and Order Committee had after listening to submissions on this was that the amendment that provides for older people to apply for permanent excusal is not discriminatory and does not provide any disadvantage for them. If it did provide a disadvantage for people over the age of 65 due to their age, or a medical condition, or a permanent disability—if that were the purpose of it and they were disadvantaged—then that would be something completely different.

The advice of the Attorney-General stated that the proposed amendment is not a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think that is pretty germane and critical to this argument. There is no disadvantage to people over the age of 65 who, for whatever reason, wish to have a permanent excusal—far from it. It is the flip of that, I would argue. It is not contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and that is the advice the select committee received from the Attorney-General. In fact, what it is is a—well, I believe that it is a kindness. I believe that it is a kindness to somebody who has a medical condition or has a permanent disability, so that they do not have to ring up the registrar time after time, or go in, or write a letter, and explain their medical condition yet again. I do not know, maybe they have got to get a medical certificate to verify their medical condition time after time. There is a cost associated with that.

So far from this amendment being discriminatory against people over the age of 65, this is not ageism at all. What this is is providing for smoother administration of the court system. Surely that has got to underpin all our work here in this Parliament. The Attorney-General has given us the advice that this provision is not contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

I also want to reiterate, because I think it is important to remember, that far from being motivated by reasons that, as was suggested by the Human Rights Commission in its submission, older people are less capable and more subject to stress, this amendment was actually prompted by members of the public—older people—who contact the Minister of Justice and the Ministry of Justice seeking a permanent excusal. So this is not an amendment that was dreamt up by advisers from the Ministry of Justice; this is an amendment that is in response to a demand and a wish from the community. I wanted to stand up and make another comment on that, because I think it is very germane to this argument. Thank you.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I will take just one more very short call on the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. I feel compelled to point out that if we did not think there was any need to have arbitrary ages for things, that would raise a question about all these other things we have like the age of consent, the driving age, and the age when we vote. I just find that a bit—I just do not—

Charles Chauvel: They don’t exclude old people.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, I do not see how this excludes old people, because it does not—

Charles Chauvel: They don’t assume that after a certain age, you’re past it.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: I just do not see anything in the legislation that says that after the age of 65, citizens are no longer welcome on juries. But I just have to point out that the actual effect of Supplementary Order Paper 33, based on the Juries Act, would not be to change anything about the fact that people over the age of 65 would now have the ability to apply for excusal from or permission not to attend jury service when they were summoned. It would not enable them to do it just once; they would have to do it time and time again, every time they were summoned.

Although I think there is a case to be made that 65 is too young for a lot of things, now that our health is increasing, and perhaps the age for many things should be put up above 65, as long as that is the age at which we are considering superannuation and the SuperGold card, I do not see what the problem is, because it is certainly not compelling anyone over the age of 65 to not participate in jury service should they want to. The practical effect of voting for Supplementary Order Paper 33 would simply be that people over the age of 65 who would like to permanently excuse themselves from jury service would have to apply every single time they were summoned, and that just seems to me to be imposing a sort of annoyance on people who maybe have decided that they have made their contribution. So I really do struggle to see the point of view of the Labour members and New Zealand First on this particular issue. That is all I would like to say. Thank you.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I am pleased to make a contribution on this part. I am sensing a bit of tension between the Greens and Labour—the potential coalition for the future there. Once again they are fighting each other. They are having difficulties and I do wonder whether they will be able to, you know, ever form a Government together.

I think it is worthwhile having some further discussion around this whole age issue, because it is very important to remember that this is not compulsory. The Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill is not reintroducing an age limit; it is completely voluntary. If a person over the age of 65—after the next election, if Mr O’Rourke wishes to serve on a jury, he will be able to. He will be able to if he chooses to, and he can choose to, because we are not reintroducing an age limit.

Let us just look at a bit of history around the age 65, because I think it is important to have a look at the history around it. The age 65 in the juries legislation was actually reintroduced by a previous piece of legislation in the year 2000. In the year 2000 the Labour Party was in Government. In the year 2000 the Labour Government put in place legislation that specifically referred to the age of 65, whereby those over the age of 65, for the very reason that they were over the age of 65, could apply to the registrar asking to be excused. The only problem with that legislation is that every time they wish to be excused, they have to keep going backwards and forwards, asking to be re-excused.

Essentially all that we are doing through this piece of legislation, on this particular aspect, is giving those people over the age of 65 the option to be permanently excused. We are even going further than that and giving them a further option. If they did decide that they wanted to be permanently excused but then changed their mind, they can then come back and say: “No, actually, I would like to serve on a jury.” So I see this as actually giving those over the age of 65 greater flexibility, greater freedom, and a greater ability to determine what they wish to do for their own lives, and that is a good thing.

You have to say that if one is standing in this House arguing that having the age of 65 as the age at which people can make a choice for themselves is ageism, then those same people must also believe that superannuation is ageism—the age around superannuation is ageism.

Denis O’Rourke: Ridiculous!

JAMI-LEE ROSS: No, it is not.

Hon Jo Goodhew: The school age.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: The Minister for Senior Citizens herself suggests that perhaps the school age is ageism, because that is an age in a piece of legislation. Well, it is not, and it is quite a poor argument.

But you also have to ask yourself whether this is such a big issue out there. Older people out there are outraged, supposedly, as we hear from the other side that an age flexibility is being reintroduced and applied in this way in this legislation. Perhaps older people are making submissions in huge numbers. Guess how many submissions there were on this bill. Three. Did Age Concern submit on this bill in the first instance? No, it did not. It had to be asked to submit before it provided any information. Did Grey Power submit on this issue? Grey Power is very vocal whenever it comes to an issue around older people. Grey Power did not submit in the first instance. It did not submit when it was asked to provide some information, as well.

But when Age Concern came back after being asked to submit, it gave some interesting perspectives, because Age Concern actually asked older people what they thought. Here are some of the comments from older people. “Life is easy for some and not for others. Giving people a choice makes sense.” We believe in choice. “Since the proposal gives people a choice, I think it a good idea”, said another older person. “Good on those … who feel ready and able to appear for jury service, but let’s show some respect for those who don’t.” I say to those people who are opposing having this particular aspect in the legislation, show some respect for those who do not feel they are in a position to be able to serve on a jury and who wish to exercise the rights that we want to give them to permanently excuse themselves from a jury.

It is very simple. It is not that controversial. It is easy to understand. I think it deserves the Committee’s support.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to say that Lee-Ross Jami’s approach continues the patronising approach that we have seen from National members time and time again.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member needs to refer to another member by their correct name. It is Jami-Lee Ross.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I apologise. I just get confused by the member having three first names.

Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not take offence. I realise the member has onset dementia.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Are you going to deal with that?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sit. I am on my feet. The member did not need to get up, and I said to sit down. I am giving the member the call.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am offended by that comment. It is yet another attack on older people, and we are sick of it from this Government.

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

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That offensive idiot Jami-Lee Ross has made yet another comment in this Chamber of the sort that those members make about anyone who is above 55. That is the sort of offensive nonsense that we expect from National, and we have it time and time again. I am surprised that you, Mr Chair, who I think is of the same generation, would not rule in a way that is appropriate. I am very surprised that you do not do that.

I see the Green Party members laughing. I see the Green Party members laughing, because they take the same offensive approach to older people. “Anyone over 55 must have dementia.” says Jami-Lee Ross—Jami-Ross Lee, which one is it—Jami-Lee Ross says that. He has three first names. If his mother had given him a surname rather than three first names, it would have been a lot simpler for him later in his life.

The point I am making is that this provision of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill is something that is ageist. It is clearly ageist, and members opposite who do not realise that are people who clearly have not had a decent discussion with older people about rights and responsibilities. What is absolutely clear in the current legislation is that people who are ill, people who do have good reasons for not serving, and people who are older can get an exemption. The question is whether that exemption is something that should last for ever.

I do accept that some older people have memory loss. There is no doubt about that at all. John Banks, the very close friend of Jami-Lee Ross, is someone who clearly suffers from memory loss. He cannot remember when he gets cheques. He cannot remember when he asks to get cheques. He cannot remember getting brown paper bags with money in them. He cannot remember getting envelopes from Skycity with cheques in them that are worth at least $15,000. I can accept that there are some people who should not be Ministers and who should not serve on juries, but to say it is only a matter of age is something that is wrong, and that is what this Government is doing in its approach. I must say that this legislation is something that is, frankly, pretty badly drafted. I do not know—I understand it is something that came from a previous Minister, but if one sees the repetition between clauses 4 and 12, where the purpose clause is repeated—absolutely, absolutely unnecessary. It is not high quality drafting and the Minister here, the Minister of Justice, is someone who is responsible for that.

The other point that I would like to make in relation to this goes to the question around evidence. My understanding, in relation to new section 15A in clause 10, relating to the registrar’s discretion and duty to exclude people permanently, and looking at section 15A(3), is that in fact, as far as the age question is concerned, that evidence is already available. Why should the registrar have the right to demand further evidence in this area, when the registrar is already in possession of that evidence, because of the way the jury is drawn? It is already available. I think also it is worth looking, in clause 10, section 16(4), at whether the Minister has looked carefully at the interplay between section 15, as opposed to section 15A, and section 16(4) and whether that is well enough drafted.

I think there is a question about whether people should be allowed to have a conscientious objection—whether or not based on religious grounds—to serving on a jury. We have got to work out whether there is a civil duty and a civil responsibility to serve on a jury, and whether that duty should be exempt because of some view that someone has a conscience that says they should not serve.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: They’ll be queuing up for your trial.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I tell you what. We are looking forward to calling the jury in this trial. In fact, we have just been working our way through the list of witnesses who are going to come to the trial. The only question is whether the High Court in Auckland is going to be big enough for that particular trial. We are going to work our way through the jury, and on that particular area I understand that there is a very silly litigant who would prefer to have the trial in front of a judge alone. Well, tell her she has not got a chance. She has not got a chance. Under New Zealand law litigants have the right to have a jury, and why, whether for this jury or any other jury, do the particular individuals want to exclude old people or, in her case, why does she want to exclude all New Zealanders from a particular jury trial? I tell her that she has not got a chance of doing that. [Interruption] Sorry—Louise Upston, your comment? Oh no, she is too scared to say it again. That is right. All the courage in Taupō, but she is a lamb when she comes down here. She is a lamb—

Louise Upston: Not at all.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That member is a shocker on occasions. Let us go now to the question of—[Interruption] Banks? I think we will get back to Mr Banks, and I want to thank those people in the National Government for their comments after question time today and their encouragement to the Labour Party not to ask questions of Mr Banks but to ask questions of the Prime Minister.

Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member seems to have strayed quite a way outside Part 1 of this very important bill and I would ask you to call him to order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am listening very carefully.

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

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very pleased to take a call on the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. I am sure my colleagues Charles Chauvel, Lianne Dalziel, David Clark, and Clayton Cosgrove are on their way to the House momentarily and will be here any moment now, very keen as they are, I know, to take their calls on this particular piece of legislation.

I am very interested that there is no regulatory impact analysis and regulatory impact statement on this bill because the proposals set out are expected to have no impact, or minor impacts, on businesses, individuals, and not-for-profit entities. I am somewhat surprised by that, and I would like to hear further from the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, as to exactly why there has been no regulatory impact statement set out. That is not particularly good practice by the Government, and I am sure we will hear more from the Minister.

According to Cabinet papers last year, there was an incident where a self-represented accused corresponded with persons whose names and addresses were on the jury panel for his trial. This raised concern about the safety of jurors, and it was decided to amend the Juries Act to restrict access to jurors’ address details. This bill is an example of how, I think, the Government takes a somewhat reactionary approach to dealing with privacy issues, rather than something that is more systematic. Of course, it is interesting that the Minister in charge of this bill, the Hon Judith Collins, the Minister of Justice, is not known necessarily for her stellar track record when it comes to privacy issues, and I am not entirely sure—

Hon Judith Collins: Actually, that’s insulting.

CHRIS HIPKINS: It is insulting? Goodness me! It speaks. I am interested to see that she is in charge of this particular piece of legislation, given that her track record on privacy issues is not particularly flash. Labour members will be supporting this bill, because we do think it is appropriate that the extra protections this bill puts in place are passed into law. Defence attorneys and advisers to defendants representing themselves will not be allowed to show addresses to defendants, and I think that is something we will—

Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is Part 1 of the bill, and that member is straying into Part 2 of the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well, I had not had enough time to see where he was going to be going, but shall we just say that we are on Part 1, Mr Hipkins. Continue on Part 1, please.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Absolutely. No problem, Mr Chair, but this is, of course, the introductory part of the debate. I have been listening in on the debate back in my office. It has been a relatively wide-ranging debate so far, and I certainly look forward to hearing that member’s contribution to the debate. When the big hand hits 12 and the little hand hits 8, maybe she might finally rouse herself into action and decide to make a contribution to this debate that is a little bit more useful than the one she just contributed.

Now that some more of my colleagues—who, I am sure, are very keen to get into this debate some more—have arrived, I will just conclude my comments by saying that, overall, I think there are some useful provisions in this bill. I am looking forward to hearing what colleagues around the Chamber have to say on the debate, and I am looking forward to seeing how it unfolds. I am sure I will have more to say as we go through it.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I have listened to the last hour of this extraordinary debate on this bill, the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, with interest, and I note with some pleasure that we have got a new member of this side of the Chamber whom I had never heard of before. But not only that, I was really interested in the, I guess, vehement defence of the over-65-year-olds that we have heard from the other side of the Chamber tonight. I am intrigued by that, but at the same time I think that when you get to 65 you have got a certain right to be exempted from some things, and I frankly think that we should be exempt from all sorts of things when we get to 65. Particularly, I think there is a very good reason to—

Denis O’Rourke: Politics.

IAN McKELVIE: Certainly from politics, Denis O’Rourke—certainly from politics. I think that there is a very good reason for our over 65s to be exempt from jury duty, and I do not think there is any reason to think that that is a criticism of the over 65s.

I note that even the Human Rights Commission, which is usually pretty vehement in its defence of what it thinks is right, is pretty mild in its wording about the approach to the over 65s in this bill.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: What did they say?

IAN McKELVIE: They say that they are uncomfortable with it, but they are comfortable with it, if you know I mean, and that is typical of the Human Rights Commission.

Chris Hipkins: You’ve just made that up!

IAN McKELVIE: Well, I had to make something up! I really have got to go back to the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by Denis O’Rourke. I think that whilst I can understand his concern about the over 65s, I think it is an ideal situation for us to be in—for us to allow someone who is 65 to opt in or out of something like jury service.

I, interestingly, am one of those people, whom Lianne Dalziel was talking about before the dinner break, who have never served on a jury. The reason I have never served on a jury is not because I am over 65; I am far from it. The reason I have never served on a jury is that I live outside, or did live outside—before this amendment bill—the distance required to serve on a jury. I think we have also heard a lot tonight about the number of people who get excused from jury service, and, frankly, it is very difficult for somebody who lives out of town to take time off work to serve on juries. I think we will see a lot of those sorts of people, who have difficulty getting to jury service, who have difficulty taking time off work, making those excuses. That is the reason for the large number of people who are exempted from jury service.

I think it is a bit of a privilege to get to 65, and I think it is a privilege for those people to be then given the opportunity to opt either in or out of jury service. I have not noticed tonight during all the criticism, or the apparent attack on the 65-year-olds, anyone wanting to exempt the 65-year-olds from being able to apply for superannuation or, frankly, the SuperGold card. I think it is a very similar situation. So I think that we are in a very good place on this bill. I think that it should sit where it is, and I think that the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by Denis O’Rourke is unnecessary. Thank you; that is my lot.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I am grateful to have another opportunity to contribute to the debate on Part 1 of the Jury (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. The reason why is that I have listened to the discussion, the debate, go on beyond my original contribution, which was one where I was totally upfront with the Committee. I said I was not on the Law and Order Committee, which had considered this bill, and I had not read the background material. Of course, I have spent my dinner break going back and printing out all of the documents from the select committee, from the departmental report, and all the additional advice that was received on this particular matter, because I think the issue is actually very important.

When Denis O’Rourke put forward his amendment, his Supplementary Order Paper 33, I do not know that he realised that he would spark off such a significant inquiry in the Committee, but it is because so few members of that original select committee who heard all of the advice and heard all of the evidence are actually in this House. I think Jacqui Dean is the only member who has contributed to the entire debate who actually sat on that select committee and heard that advice firsthand.

So I went away and, as I say, I have printed out the advice. It is very interesting to follow on from the member who has just resumed his seat, Ian McKelvie, because what Ian McKelvie just told this Committee was that the Human Rights Commission was kind of for it and against it. I think he said it was a little bit for and a little bit against. I cannot recall exactly how he described it. Let me quote what the Human Rights Commission actually said: “The Commission believes that permanent excusals will discriminate against older people. It also takes issue with the advice of the Attorney-General that this amendment is not a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (the Bill of Rights). The Commission considers the amendment to be discriminatory and not justifiable under the Bill of Rights.” I wonder whether the member has actually got the quote. I think he has got the quote with him and he is looking very embarrassed, I think, right at this moment, that he said that the Human Rights Commission did not really give a strong view on this matter. I think that is a pretty strong view.

The reason that the Human Rights Commission gave this view was that it had done a little bit of background homework into why we ended up in this situation in the first place. I think we have to go back in time to when we did not have a law that did not allow for discrimination based on age. When National was in Government, back in 1993—perhaps my colleagues can assist in that regard; I was actually here at the time—the human rights amendment legislation went through, and that provided for the removal of the discrimination of age being a ground for discrimination. So what happened was that there was an obligation set upon Governments thereafter to bring their laws up to date so that they in fact complied with the requirement not to discriminate on the variety of grounds that were passed in 1993. I see the Chairman is nodding because he, like me, was there at the time—I am not allowed to mention that!

But the point I am making is that with the question of age having been put in place, it was up to each subsequent Government to go back through the books and to look where there was discrimination based on age. And there was discrimination in the Juries Act. That discrimination was there in the legislation, on the basis that at age 65 you were no longer competent to serve on a jury. So the law was changed. The law was changed to allow people to continue to serve on juries beyond the age of 65, which of course was the right and proper thing to do. Parliament at the time decided that since we were changing the law, perhaps what we should do is allow people the ability to opt out of a particular trial simply on the ground of age. They have always had the right to opt out on the ground of age, so let us just allow them to opt out, on the ground of age, of a particular trial. So that is what the law allowed. Instead of fixing the real problem in the law, which is this ongoing discriminatory provision, Parliament has decided on this occasion to actually entrench the provision that says that not only could they opt out of an individual case but they can actually opt out on a permanent basis, simply for the sake of being 65 years of age.

When I read the Ministry of Justice’s advice to the Law and Order Committee, what I discovered was that the real reason that the select committee did not consider the underlying issue was that this was not an issue referred to it. It was never asked to look at the question of whether 65 was an appropriate age to be put in place as an essentially discriminatory basis for claiming the right never to serve on a jury. Even if people have never served on a jury in their entire life, at the one age where perhaps people have the time to commit to a trial and, of course, the wisdom to apply their experience to a particular set of facts that they are given, these people have a right to absent themselves from trials for ever after, simply on the ground of age. There is no basis for that, and, in fact, the select committee never really considered the real issue, which was whether the underlying principle of the legislation is worthy of continuing in this day and age.

The number of examples that we have had given to us in the House tonight actually refer to those cases where people have a reason other than age not to want to ever serve on a jury again, and not to want to have to continue to reapply. In fact, this legislation, if it were to stand without subsection (2) of new section 15A in the offending clause 10, if it were to continue, then most of the people who apply to have permanent exemptions would continue to have permanent exemptions under subsection (1), which reads: “The Registrar may excuse a person summoned to attend as a juror on an occasion from attending in any court on any occasion if satisfied, on a written application for the purpose made by or on behalf of the person, that, because of the person’s disability or state of health, the person would not, if required to attend as a juror in any court on any occasion, be able to perform a juror’s duties satisfactorily.” That is enough in itself to actually deal with the vast majority of those who apply for an exemption.

If you look at subsection (2), it says: “The Registrar must excuse a person summoned to attend as a juror on an occasion from attending in any court on any occasion if satisfied, … that the person is of or over the age of 65 years.” Why do they have to be satisfied? The truth is that all the Government has done is take the language of the first subsection, which has “able to perform a juror’s duties satisfactorily”, and apply the same language—if they are “satisfied” that they have turned the age of 65. Well, what if you are not satisfied with being 65? I do not think I will ever be satisfied if I am 65. And I may not get there. If I continue giving addresses like this, I may. But the point that I am making is that the language of subsection (2) is actually framed on subsection (1), which has as a basis the language to be “satisfied”.

The question whether somebody is 65 years or over is a question of discrimination; it is simply that. That is what the Human Rights Commission said when it made its submission to the select committee. The select committee unfortunately did not take that into account, and unfortunately the previous speaker for the Government did not actually read the Human Rights Commission’s submission to the select committee, nor report it accurately from the report to the select committee from the Ministry of Justice—the departmental report. I think that is really the issue we have in front of us tonight. The select committee did not deal with the underlying issue. I believe that this Committee has an obligation to do so, and that it should support the amendment moved by my colleague Denis O’Rourke.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I will take just a short call on the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill to deal with some of the issues raised by the Hon Lianne Dalziel, and I thank her for her contribution. One of the issues I think I heard her raise is that once someone is excused from jury service, they can continue to be excused. She rightly also, I think later on, said that that is in relation to disability or health issues, and that it does not relate to age. I will give the Committee a bit of an example of the number of people aged 65 and over who have asked to be excused based on their age, since this provision was first brought in in 2000. So in the last 11 years there have been 4,066,053 total jury excusals and that includes those under 65, as well. Of those, the total number of recorded excusals or reasons for people aged 65 and over is 615,202, and the total number of recorded excusals where the sole reason given by the person who has been summoned to be a juror is that they are aged 65 years or over is 247,371. I cannot tell the Committee how many of those are the same people having to ask to be excused time and time again.

I just refer the Committee to the contribution from Miss Genter, who referred to her own elderly grandparents, who sounded, from what she said, like they are very able to do things but who would not feel able to sit through a jury trial. It is all very well for members to perhaps say that they should go and do their day’s jury service. Well, actually, these days sometimes jury trials can go on for weeks and weeks; it could be 3 or 4 weeks, day in, day out, listening to matters and having to come to a decision. Many people over 65 will feel fine about doing that and welcome the opportunity to contribute, but not everybody aged over 65 does feel able. In fact, I can say that in the last decade and 1 year 247,371 such requests for excusal were actually given for people on the sole basis that they said they were over 65 and they wanted to take a break or a rest from this.

Quite frankly, I have no idea why Labour and New Zealand First are arguing about this. We have a very good solution provided by Mr Clendon and the Greens, which is if they decide they do not want to continue to be permanently excused, then they can come back into the system. Well, is that not marvellous? A bit of choice is being offered.

The other point is that no one is discriminating. It is a privilege that they do not need to come back and say that they are disabled or there is a health issue; they can simply say they are over a certain age, they have done their bit for the community, and they would like to take a break. And why should they not be able to say that, if that is what they want to do? Quite frankly, it is appalling to think that Labour and New Zealand First think we should say to those 247,371 people—the number of excusals in the last decade and 1 year, or 11 years—that they have to go and do their jury service. Those members would be turning around, I am sure, should they get some of the complaints that we have had about having to constantly ask to be excused. They would then say that that was discriminatory and we were being mean to those people. Quite frankly, this nonsense about discrimination is no more accurate than it is to say it is discriminatory to give people a SuperGold Card. That is not discrimination. This is a right that we are extending to those people aged over 65, if they want it, and, actually, only for as long as they want it. How is that discriminatory? The Human Rights Commission may well have made a submission along the lines of what Ms Dalziel said, but, actually, I do not agree with it. It is wrong. The answer is to give people a choice. They are 65. If they want to do it, good on them; if they do not, why should they?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): By 2027, 1 million New Zealanders will be over the age of 65.

Jacqui Dean: You’re not going to advance that argument.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I am. Actually, just as Jacqui Dean and everyone else in the National Party seems to be in denial as to the need to be fiscally responsible in terms of the number of people who have to be paid superannuation, that number of people is also relevant to this debate. The Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, has not addressed the issue as to what is the principle that lies under our jury laws.

The principle of jury trials is that an accused has the right to be judged by a panel of their peers, a representative group of society. The Crown, when prosecuting someone in a jury trial, has the right to have that trial determined by a jury made up of peers out of the community who are representative of members of the community. As the population ages, a greater proportion of those people are aged over 65. Those people ought to be part of the pool of people who are conducting jury trials.

The arguments in favour of giving people a one-off exemption are already well traversed, and they are already covered in the law. If you have got a disability, if you have got some work commitment—or it might be a childcare commitment, such as looking after your grandchildren—if you are over the age of 65, you can already write in to the court and seek to delay your obligation to serve on a jury, to be on a panel and be in the ballot, until a later period. If that case is made out to the registrar, or to the judge if the registrar does not agree, then you will not be on the jury.

Andrew Little: A pretty low threshold.

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is a pretty good threshold already. But what this amendment does is say that someone from that age cohort can withdraw themselves from the pool for ever, despite the fact that they may be very competent, that they might have more spare time in their lives—

Jacqui Dean: It’s their choice. It’s about choice.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh, it is about choice, Jacqui Dean says. It is choice for the person over 65, not choice for the Crown, not choice for the accused, and not the same level of service or obligation required of people who are under the age of 65, despite the fact that the only difference between a person under the age of 65 and one over the age of 65, in some cases, will be not capability or time availability but age.

There is no logic that lies behind this. It is not only discriminatory from the point of view of the Human Rights Commission but also actually wrong in principle, because the principle is that, in respect of a jury, a jury should be collected from the population, from people who are representative of the community. As our population ages, as people live longer, a higher proportion of our population are aged over 65, and the effect of this amendment, if it proceeds, is that, by 2027, 1 million people will be able to permanently exclude themselves from being available for jury duty. And that, to me, is a very strong argument as to why this piece of legislation is flawed in that regard.

I want juries in my country to be representative of New Zealand. If people have a disability or if they cannot attend because they have got some other obligation, yes, they should be allowed to be excused. If they have got a permanent disability or they are permanently incapable because they are aged or infirm, they would have a level of disability that would entitle them to permanent excusal anyway. But if they are capable, if they have got their full capacity still, if they have the time to be on the jury, and if they have not even got a work commitment that lets them off, the person should be available for jury service. That is one of our duties as people in society. We might not like doing it, we might have to confront some pretty unpleasant facts on juries at times, but it is part of the civic duty that we all have, and have all had for centuries in the English tradition of law, which we should strive to uphold in New Zealand.

I thank Denis O’Rourke for his amendment. I think he is right that there should be no automatic extension. Indeed, I suggest that the existing right of repeatedly applying for an exemption without grounds is wrong, and that that should, in turn, be tightened so that it is on similar grounds to those people who can be excused because they have got other commitments or suffer a disability. Not only is there something in the Human Rights Commission advice that this is discriminatory; it also strikes against the fundamental principle that underlies juries, which is that they should be representative of the community.

If I was an accused and I was charged with a particular crime, I actually might want to have a jury that had a number of people who were over the age of 65. At the very least, I would want a number of the people who were empanelled, who came before the lawyer acting for me—and I have got a right to challenge a certain number—in some cases to be mature and to have seen life. They might have a slightly different viewpoint from a younger cohort of people that I think might be more relevant to the issues that were at large, if I was being charged with a crime. I think my rights as a New Zealander to have a fair trial include the right to have a jury made up of people who are representative of the age cohort, including people aged over 65. Similarly, if I was the prosecution, I can see cases where as a prosecutor I would have a similar view.

My greatest concern about this bill is that it infringes the underlying basic principle of juries, which is that everyone who is competent and available and does not have a good reason to be excused should be available for jury service, and being over the age of 65 is not a sufficient reason for being excused, of itself. If it is associated with a disability that is long term, you can already get out of it. I think I have probably said enough.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I move, That the question be now put.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I begin my contribution to this important part of the Committee stage of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill by declaring an interest that I may well be before a jury before too long. I will not be the only member of this House before a jury if that happens; my colleague Mr Mallard, and, of course, the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, will be before the same jury. We forget that the Juries Act applies not just to criminal trials but also to the remaining civil trial that can include a jury—that is, a trial for defamation. We should not make light of that. I declare that interest.

It does raise the interesting issue, of course, that we have a Minister who has a personal stake now in the progress of this legislation and in the conduct of the subject matter to which this legislation applies.

Charles Chauvel: Ms Barry would say you’ve got an additional interest; you’ll be 65 one day.

ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I meet the “Maggie Barry Standing Order” here that I am entitled to talk about this because of my interest in it, having been drawn before the jurisdiction of this legislation thanks to the Minister in the chair. But I do say that there is an issue about a Minister, who has a personal stake, playing the role that the Minister in the chair has. I have made this comment before the House before—that I think that it is appropriate for a Minister of Justice who is taking legal action in the courts, in the system for which she is responsible, to step aside until such time as the proceedings are disposed of. But the comments I wanted to make relate to the excusal provision in relation to 65-year-olds.

As my colleague Mr Parker has said, the role of the jury in civilised society is not only historical but also fundamentally important—it is fundamentally important to our system of justice. When those who are facing the prosecutorial power of the State, where the Crown brings an action against a citizen, or where a powerful citizen brings a defamation proceeding against another citizen, we have in our justice system the ability for the community to pass judgment, to weigh the facts, and to assess the conduct, whether it is of the Crown or of police or of the powerful citizen taking the defamation proceedings. The community is represented in that system of justice to pass judgment, to weigh the facts, to weigh the respective power imbalance, you might say, and to be satisfied that those who have brought the allegation have made out their case and that it is not an abuse of that power and of that position. In performing that role, it is important that we have access to those with maturity and those with a sense of judgment.

I think it was the great US jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes who said “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience …”. Experience is absolutely crucial to the conduct of justice, to the management of justice. So why would we have a piece of legislation that would allow those who have the most experience in life—those who have the ability to bring the greatest wisdom to bear on matters before our justice system—to exclude themselves as of right? It simply does not make sense. So we support Supplementary Order Paper 33, brought in by Denis O’Rourke, because, I think, as a matter of community, as a matter of civic duty, and as a matter of citizens’ duties, it is not right that one portion of the community should be able to exempt itself from this very important civic duty, this very important civic role. We need those 65-year-olds. In fact, it is somewhat patronising and condescending to those who are 65 years and older, many of whom continue to work and many of whom continue to lead and conduct a full life, to say that they should be given this provision to exclude themselves.

There is no question that some people find jury service inconvenient. They would rather not do it. We have a pretty low threshold for excusal at the moment, but that is no reason to extend that further and allow a whole chunk of our population to remove themselves from the ability to serve on a jury. In fact, it is a community expectation that those people will be available, and will conduct themselves and equip themselves, for jury trials. That is very important. So this legislation goes to the heart of a very important principle of our form of public justice. For that reason we strongly urge the Committee to not support the bill as it is currently drafted, but to instead support Mr O’Rourke’s provision, which would make for a level playing field for the whole community—for everybody, for anybody who may be called upon to perform the very serious, very grave role of passing judgment on their peers.

That is very important, of course, and not just in the criminal field. In the criminal jurisdiction it is about deciding whether the Crown, with all its resources and the power that it has, has done its job properly to prove serious allegations against another citizen. In civil proceedings it is about passing judgment on another citizen. In fact, it is in those circumstances that it is even more important that we have access in our justice system, in our jury system, to the widest possible cohort of people who can participate in that. We should not have a situation where the very wealthy and the very powerful—those who sometimes occupy positions where they hold ministerial warrants—can use their economic power to drag other citizens—sometimes innocent; most times innocent—before the courts and require them to be subject to the judgment and the assessment of others in the community when they may not be as well resourced and as well equipped as the more powerful—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I have been listening very carefully to the member. I think he has gone outside the scope of Part 1 and I ask him to return to that.

ANDREW LITTLE: I am advised, Mr Chairman. The point I am making is that the jury process having access to the maximum possible wisdom of people is very important—

Hon Tau Henare: Preparing for your case?

ANDREW LITTLE: —which is why the bill, as it is currently drafted, should not be supported. It allows an entire chunk of the community, those who may have more respect than others—for example, our comrade Tau Henare across the way there—and who may be able to bring with them their life’s experiences and the wisdom that that gives to all manner of issues that go before juries in both the criminal and the civil jurisdictions, to be excused. For that reason, although we are supportive of the general thrust and tenor of the bill, that provision does not make sense. It is not good. It is contrary to good civic responsibility and community duties. We are opposed to that aspect, and we will be supporting Mr O’Rourke’s amendment.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The question is that the question be now put.

Andrew Williams: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have our member here from New Zealand First who was the first in this Chamber at 7.30 p.m. tonight, whose Supplementary Order Paper is before us, which has been discussed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! Please sit. If the member is challenging the fact that I have put the question to the Committee for closure he is out of order.

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! The member will leave the Chamber if he does that again. When a member votes he is to vote only yes or no and his number. I require him to do it again.

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

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 92 and 94 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Having passed those amendments, Supplementary Order Paper 94 makes Denis O’Rourke’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 33 out of order because it is inconsistent with the decision we have just made.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Protection of particulars of jury list information

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): The commentary from the Law and Order Committee contains a helpful explanation of the rationale for Part 2 of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. I would like to quote directly from the penultimate paragraph of the commentary, because it is probably the best way to give members who are not familiar with the legislation, and those listening at home, an idea of what Part 2 is designed to do: “Concern was raised in 2010 when a self-represented defendant corresponded with people whose names and addresses were on the jury panel for his trial. The bill is intended to address this problem by amending the Juries Act 1981 to allow some information to be excluded from the jury panel. It would be called protected information, and access to it would be restricted.” The committee goes on to note one recommended amendment in respect of police employees, which probably is not material for the purposes of the discussion.

The scheme that the amendment bill would put in place is to classify jury panel information as protected particulars, and it would go on to restrict the classes of people who could get access to that information—for example, a barrister or a solicitor acting for a party to the proceedings, the Crown or other prosecutor in criminal proceedings that are due to be heard during the week of the trial, and so on. Then there are restrictions placed throughout the rest of the legislation on how those people who can get access to this protected information are at liberty to use it.

The reason that members on this side of the House have decided to support the bill is that we think that it represents a generally helpful way to strengthen some of the protections that are contained in the legislation. We are, however, concerned that there is not total protection provided for. I would be most obliged if the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, would take a call. She may want to get some advice from the officials. There are clearly categories of information that remain outside the protection—[Interruption] Well, National members, by their interruptions, are merely conceding the fact that this is not legislation that they regard as a priority. They have let it languish on the Order Paper since May last year. It has not been progressed with any expedition. If they are actually serious about improving the jury system, they might want to consider what this legislation fails do to. Here is what it fails to do: a person who is determined to stalk a juror can go along to a jury trial and they can sit in the well of the court, because we hold these proceedings in public, for good reason. And there are all sorts of ways that the particulars of a juror can be obtained. These days, they can be googled, or they can be looked up in the phone book, electronically or otherwise. There are all sorts of ways that a person who is absolutely bent on making mischief in respect of a particular juror could find things like their home address or their particulars for correspondence, and then communicate with them outside the jury system. That is the very evil that this part of the bill is designed to prevent.

It seems that nobody has really given a lot of thought to the way things work in the age of Google. We might, for example, have considered in this legislation extending the protections provided for jury particulars by making it an offence to conduct your own research about a juror for purposes not connected with a particular trial—at least about that person’s home address or particulars—if we really were concerned in the House here and if the Government was really concerned about protecting jurors in a meaningful way. But nothing like that has been done. There is only limited protection on a paper-based, old-fashioned basis for that information. When members are considering this legislation, they are going to have to consider the rather slapdash way it has been advanced, and the fact that it really does advance only a partial protection along the lines I have described, rather than the fuller protections that one would expect in the information age.

I think it is relevant in this regard to reflect on the fact that the Minister, in her capacity as Minister of Justice, has before her a report from the Law Commission concerning privacy and information management in New Zealand. These are exactly the sorts of issues that the Law Commission and the Privacy Commissioner pointed out to the Minister. The Minister has accepted some of those recommendations, but by no means all of them. This is probably a very, very good example of the sort of situation where, given that we are in the age of Google, we need to think a lot more laterally about the sorts of protections that we can put in place around people who are performing a public duty like jury service, where they are, effectively, putting themselves in a situation where they can be at risk, as the evil that this bill is designed to address demonstrates. But it is no good simply providing partial protection, just as in the privacy area it is no good for the Minister to say: “I’m going to pick and choose out of the Law Commission’s recommendations. I quite like that one, but I’m not going to do what it recommended here.”

The report is a holistic approach to information management and privacy in the age of Google. It recommends giving the Privacy Commissioner powers to order compliance and powers to audit where there is a suspicion that unsatisfactory practices are occurring with information management. Yet we still do not have a commitment from the Government on those issues, because I do not think the Minister or her advisers fully understand the ramifications of that report, just as here we have an incomplete protection for jurors, who do a fine job and who do deserve much fuller protections—indeed, the fullest protections that we can give them—as we respond to technological challenges.

We will be supporting this part, because there is no doubt that the protections it provides will be greater than they are now. They respond, in part, to the case back in 2010 that is referred to in the commentary. But they by no means provide protection for jurors as full as we might be providing them, and I fear we will be back here doing this job again in a couple of years because, for whatever reason, there was not enough thought given to the sorts of protections that we ought to provide jurors for doing the fine work that they do.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The member who just resumed his seat, Charles Chauvel, raised an interesting issue: how do we properly protect jurors’ information? That member cited the age of Google, so let us have a look at that. If I wanted to, and if I was allowed to, I could google that member right now on my iPhone. I would venture to say that many people in New Zealand now—it does not matter where they are—have this kind of device that these days will give one instant information on just about anything, should they care to look. So the question is how do we stop that? Of course, that very question is the subject of a lot of debate. There are conferences held on how—

Chris Hipkins: Say something useful.

JACQUI DEAN: —do we protect information. Of course, that little member over there, Chris Hipkins, said “Say something useful.” What I am saying—and I will say it a bit more carefully, perhaps, so that the member can understand it, because the issue here is quite important—if we go to this bill, it is called the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. It is about an incident where a female juror’s information was given to a person who was accused of a crime. That person—and this is not the only time this has happened—then used that information against that juror, to stalk that juror and to make that juror’s life miserable. So that member across the other side of the House can chip away—chip away, get it? But actually this is quite an important issue. Part 2 of the bill, I believe, makes a very serious and good attempt to protect the particulars of jurors, particularly female, women jurors, who up until now and the passage of this bill have been, in a way, victimised and vulnerable to those people against whom they are sitting, who have been accused of a crime.

Currently, a jury list has to contain things like the name, the occupation, the date of birth, and the full address of its potential jurors. That is an awful lot of information that right now is available to those people who are defending themselves, in particular. They can be in receipt of that information, can memorise it, can take it back to the jail, and can then use it against that person. If that member across the Chamber and his colleagues think that that is matter of some delight, then I venture to disagree with them. I would also venture to say that the provisions in this bill in Part 2 deal with this in a proper way.

I would also like to remind that member that section 14A(6) of the Juries Act makes it clear that misconduct in relation to jury lists may now be treated as contempt of court. That was quite a serious and new offence to bring into the Juries Act. I believe—and, of course, I sat on the select committee that considered this bill—that the provisions in Part 2 do provide that protection that our jurors need. I would argue that that is the most important provision in this bill—these good protections for jurors who hitherto have been subject to some harassment and victimisation. Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I think the member who has just resumed her seat, Jacqui Dean, was telling us about how urgent it was that this House address this particular matter. I think she said things about members on this side of the Chamber, who have said very clearly that we support the passage of the bill, the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, in respect of this particular matter because it is an important issue. But when she describes it as an urgent issue, she is describing a bill that was introduced on 5 April 2011. I think that was before the last general election.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Say that again. When?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: It was introduced on 5 April 2011. To be true to its word, the Government did treat it urgently. It had its first reading on 12 April 2011, which is pretty smart. Who was the Minister back then? I think it might have been a different Minister. But he was in charge back then and he said it was urgent and it needed to go straight to a select committee. We had had a problem arise where a particular juror had been followed up by somebody who was defending themselves. They had access to information that would normally go through their lawyer. It had raised a genuine issue, so he introduced the bill on 5 April and it had its first reading on 12 April.

Submissions to the Law and Order Committee were due on 26 May. The then chair of the Law and Order Committee, Jacqui Dean, who has just resumed her seat, was obviously working under instruction that this was an urgent bill and had to be dealt with quickly. We needed quick submissions and we needed to get it back to the House so it could be dealt with as a matter of urgency, as we have heard from her just now. So it was dealt with, and the submissions were due on 26 May. That is a very quick turn-round for submissions to be called for. When did the select committee report back to the House? Well, actually, it did a very, very good job. It did it on 11 July 2011. That is extraordinary. It absolutely did its job; it got this bill back.

When did the bill have its second reading? The 22nd of May this year.

Chris Hipkins: Nearly a year later.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Nearly a year later the Government managed to actually prioritise something that it told this House was such an urgent priority that had to be addressed. We have heard it repeated tonight from Jacqui Dean, criticising this side of the Chamber for daring to raise the actual substance of the issues in the debate and for actually seeing exactly what it is that the Government has done. The reality is that when it suits the Government to choose something as a particular issue for the—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: SOEs.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Well, State-owned enterprises—it managed to get that legislation through a heck of a lot more quickly, and why did it get that through so quickly? Do you think the Government might be nervous about a certain number of signatures that are being added to the petition day by day by day? Of course, that takes priority. This issue, which we have just had a lecture about from the former chair of the Law and Order Committee—

Charles Chauvel: She’s still the chair.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Oh, she is still the chair. Well, I have not had the pleasure of actually serving on that committee at any stage; that just reminds me that I am very busy tomorrow morning, because I know that the whips are looking for somebody to serve on that committee tomorrow.

But the truth is that there is no question of urgency when one is dealing with these matters unless it is a matter that the Government wants to bring to the attention of the House at a particular time. Yes, it was urgent back then, because there had been, I think, a fundamental flaw in the system that allowed access to information that would not normally be available to somebody. Nobody had thought about that being an issue before. It did come up as an issue, and it was dealt with in an appropriate way. But for my colleague Charles Chauvel to then to get a lecture in the Chamber from the chair of the select committee for daring to debate the substance of the issue—and my colleague Charles Chauvel actually does understand these issues extremely well—on the basis that the time frame for dealing with these issues still meets that urgency, when we find ourselves 11 months or 10 months down the track from when the bill was reported back from the select committee, is absolutely extraordinary. In fact, it is 12 months later now that we are debating it in its Committee stage. We have made it absolutely clear that we agree with the substance of this part.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I take the opportunity to address some of the issues that have been raised tonight—some of the issues that Mr Chauvel mentioned and raised in, I have to say, a pretty patronising way, frankly. Having said that, it was significantly better than the contribution from Mr Andrew Little, which, I have to say, resembled a plea in mitigation more than anything else.

One of the issues that Mr Chauvel has referred to is that it is apparently now the age of Google. Well, it has been like that for a wee while. But we also have a situation where the Law Commission has considered the issue of jury anonymity in its 2001 report Juries in Criminal Trials, which I am sure he has read—and if not, will. The comment was made that some international jurisdictions have implemented laws allowing or in some cases ensuring anonymity, using unique identifiers rather than names. That would be something that would help in terms of identification, obviously, for jurors and their protection. However, the commission did not recommend any such provision in New Zealand, on the basis that it could be justified only if there was a genuine threat to juror safety in terms of that particular issue.

But the Law Commission also noted—and I think this is very important because, of course, juries have to look at the facts, they have to be fairly dealt with, and they have to be able to deal fairly with the issues before them—that there is some evidence that juror anonymity may affect jury verdicts, with anonymous jurors far more likely to convict. I think that is something that we should take seriously, that, in fact, jurors—and I think that is the experience of most people who have had anything to do with them—take their job extremely seriously and do their very best. Sometimes when we only see media reports about cases we might wonder as to how they came to those decisions, but actually they have heard all the evidence. They and the judges are the only people apart from defendants and the lawyers who have heard all the evidence, and they have come to their decisions having considered it very fully.

However, we do know that there has been this problem of how we provide the lawyer for the defendant with information that can help them decide whether or not a juror might have a conflict of interest or some prejudged comment that they have made—all those sorts of things—and at the same time do what we can to protect the juror. A comment was made by Mr Chauvel, a suggestion, around the fact that we could make it an offence to google or to try to contact someone or get their information without lawful excuse—that is pretty much what you were saying, was it not, Mr Chauvel? Well, actually, the people we are talking about who could be so dangerous to jurors are sometimes murderers. I really do not think they will worry too much about a fine for contacting someone or trying to get information on Google. I do not think that will work, but I think the solution that we have come up with is a very sensible solution. In fact, the Law and Order Committee felt so, too—that it is balanced, it does consider the right to a fair trial, and, at the same time, it enables the jury list information that has particular information around the jurors’ address information to be designated as protected particulars so that it can be dealt with by way of a self-represented defendant who would actually not get to see all those particulars. A lawyer would be appointed to look at those for that defendant. The lawyer would be able to certify to the judge that they did not give them the copy of it, that they brought them back and they in fact enabled a defendant to be able to say “That person there is someone who used to go out with that witness, who is going to say this about me.” That is the sort of thing that they should be able to do.

So it is actually a balance. It does not solve every situation that might occur. It does not futureproof everything because, actually, that is not how the law works. The law is not so certain. It is a balance between the right to a fair trial and also for jurors to be able to feel that they are safe, that they can be protected, and that they will, in fact, want to serve their service as jurors.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): The Minister of Justice did not really respond to the question that I raised, because we have had a lecture from the chair of the Law and Order Committee about the particular priority that the Government is putting on this particular piece of legislation, the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill.

What I had not appreciated, and I have kind of been googling away here, which is an extremely useful facility on one’s iPhone, and what I have identified, what I have found, is the actual Cabinet paper that allowed for this particular provision to be brought to the House in the first place. What I discovered was that this particular issue that we have had so much focus on now related to an incident that occurred, I believe, in 2010, if I am reading this correctly. As a result, the Government actually immediately moved into action. It took immediate action and it decided that what it would do is it would make provision for restricting access to jurors’ addresses, which is the topic for the debate but which was actually approved to be legislated for in 2010. In 2011 the Government actually reviewed its position, because what it had discovered was that it could not put this amendment into the legislation that it wanted it put it into because that particular legislation did not allow for this particular amendment to be included.

As I understand it—and perhaps the Minister could actually deal with this matter, because I think it is worthwhile having it on the record—it originally states: “The amendments to restrict access to jurors’ addresses, which aim to further protect jurors’ privacy, safety and security, were to be included in a Supplementary Order Paper to the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. However, the Office of the Clerk of the House advised the amendments were ‘foreign to the objects’ of that Bill.” So “foreign to the objects” of that bill, which is unusual language—

Charles Chauvel: The office thinks them out of scope.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, it was out of scope. So they were not able to include it as a Supplementary Order Paper to the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. Therefore, the Minister of the day, back in 2011, before the election, decided the most appropriate course of action was to introduce stand-alone juries amendment legislation, which is the one we have before us now, that would contain a small package of non-contentious amendments. But, of course, that is when it made the decision to include the elements that we have dealt with under the Part 1 debate. The Part 2 debate, though, relates to this question of the Juries Act amendment, and basically says that this was a matter that had been brought to its attention the year before. I just wonder why the reference has been made to how urgent it is to have this matter addressed.

I will just refer to the particular decision that was made in the Cabinet paper. Basically, it identified that there was an incident where a self-represented accused corresponded with persons whose names and addresses were on the panel for his trial, which raised concern about the safety of jurors, and it was decided to amend the Act to restrict access to jurors’ address details. It was agreed that all address information should be deleted from the jury panel. Access to the address information would be available to the prosecution and to the counsel for the accused, which I think my colleague has dealt with, in order to assist with jury challenges. Where an accused is self-represented, the registrar would be empowered to appoint a lawyer to represent the accused during the jury formation process, and that lawyer would be entitled to the jurors’ address information. It would be prohibited, for those who are entitled to access the address information, to show it to the accused or any other unauthorised person.

I think the point we have made is that we accept that that is an appropriate step for the legislation to take. We support it, but to have a member of the Government stand in this House and say that this matter is an urgent matter, and anyone who wants to debate it is actually standing in the way of the urgency that it has to be given, has to accept that these words were written last year and that the case that they were referring to was the result of a decision made the previous year to that.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a great pleasure that I get to rise and speak in support of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, and, in particular, Part 1.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Part 2.

MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Part 2—thank you. As a new member of Parliament, I feel strongly that when we have the opportunity to be able to give New Zealanders more choice and to make legislation that is going to offer more protections to them, then we should take those opportunities. I have listened very closely to the debate tonight, and I have to say that—and I will be getting to Part 2; this is leading to Part 2—when a New Zealander does reach the age of 65, they probably have made in that time a major contribution to the country. They have made a major contribution to the country and they probably have given a lot of community service. When they get to the age of 65 and they are presented with an option in terms of whether or not they will be a juror, I have to say that jury service can be very daunting to some people—for the people in this House perhaps not so much, but for someone to actually go in and have to sit in a court and confront a defendant in a murder trial or a rape trial—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Can I assist the member? We are on Part 2. I think what the member is referring to is actually in Part 1. I ask the member to come to Part 2.

MARK MITCHELL: I am coming to it. I have actually moved into Part 2, and that is that when someone does come—and this particularly does relate to someone who is probably over 65—and it becomes a bit more daunting for them, it is nice for them to have a choice. When they do come to court, I am sure that if they were asked before becoming a juror whether their decision would be influenced based around whether their details were going to be provided to and available to the defendant, that would have a profound effect on their decision. That is why, in actual fact, this piece of legislation is not only very good in relation to providing those protections for them, and actually encouraging them and providing them with more incentive to want to come along and be a good juror, but also very good in providing more incentive for those people over 65, because it does provide more protection to those older people.

I have an electorate myself with a lot of retired people in it and older people, and a lot of them are going to want to become jurors. A lot of them are going to want to continue to provide a service to their community. But what is going to make them a lot more motivated to do that is knowing that they have some strong protection wrapped around them in terms of knowing that a defendant will not have their details. That is what this legislation is providing. I am very happy to stand in support of this legislation. Thank you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I have some vague recollections of this Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, having served on the Law and Order Committee at the time that it was put through, and, like other members, I find it a little bit strange, the attitude of the Government, which says that a great deal of urgent pressure—quite rightly so, given the circumstances—was put about to get this legislation through. Then, as my colleague Lianne Dalziel has pointed out, like a number of other bills it languished on the Order Paper for a year. This Minister of Justice has decided to bring it to the House and push it along. To then be criticised as an Opposition because we dare—we dare—to actually challenge the authority of this Minister and perhaps put up cogent questions and raise issues, and we dare to put up—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Ideas above your station.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am sorry?

Hon Ruth Dyson: Ideas above your station.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Indeed. My colleague says I put up ideas above my station—absolutely! That would be considered patronising, of course, but what the Minister forgets is that this is a Parliament and this is a democracy, unlike her little world. It may be that people are not allowed to ask questions, are not allowed to put hypotheses up, and are not allowed to criticise in her little world that she orbits from time to time—and I was not being patronising; I was being factual. But in this place, an Opposition is charged with the responsibility of challenging a Minister. This Minister and this Government gave this bill such priority—and we have in the House the sort of political cadaver in the front row there, Mr Banks—this Government gave this legislation so much priority—

Hon John Banks: Get on to Part 2.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am coming to you. I am coming to you, do not worry. Do not worry, I am coming. Hold on, help is on the way. It gave it so much priority that—

Hon John Banks: I can smell roast duck.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —I can smell pork—that Mr Banks’ bill, the Regulatory Reform Bill, had a higher priority, and you will recall this, I am sure, than this urgent piece of legislation.

Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. [Interruption] I do not know the name of the member, but the member speaking is not addressing the part in the bill quite specifically. It is more like a third reading address, and he has just about completed half of his speech. Can I put it to you that you need to haul him into line under the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will ask the member to speak on Part 2.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am very happy to speak on Part 2, especially, as other members have, and maybe Mr Banks was not listening, as you never ruled out other members who talked about the priorities and the delays in getting Part 2 through. So where I left off. I am glad to see the member is alive and kicking. He is out of the crypt; he is ready to roll. As I said, this Government gave this bill such a priority that Mr Banks’ Regulatory Reform Bill, which I will not go into—

Hon John Banks: Point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member does not need to raise it. I have asked the member to speak to Part 2.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Unlike Part 2, which deals with some substantive issues—what was the clause? It expunged 31 Acts that do not exist. I will not go into that bill any more because we are here to talk about Part 2, but such was the priority this Government placed on this jury protection measure that another piece of legislation that expunged 31 Acts that do not exist was put up ahead of it. Mr Banks may not like it, but that is a fact. The Minister, I am sure, may not like it, but after all her posturing and patronising attitude in questioning us and saying how outrageous it is that we even ask questions and raise issues about such a serious matter, her priority list, led by Mr Banks’ legislation, took a bigger priority than this jury protection legislation—a far bigger priority.

So she can sit there and smile away, as she does, but in this Parliament, Minister, we get to ask the questions and we get to raise the issues. That Minister will go down on record as a person who puffs and blows and talks about urgency and talks about priorities. Then, of course, we have the reality of this piece of legislation coming out of the select committee. It was a select committee, I have got to say, that was chaired well by Ms Dean—well, I think, from memory. It was efficient; it went through. The problem for Ms Collins is it sat around for a year. It sat around for a year—

Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have been here a lot longer than the member. I know the Standing Orders. You know the Standing Orders. He has got to address the part in the bill. He has rambled on. He said he wants to ask questions and get verification. He has not asked one question or asked for verification. He must address his propositions to the part in the bill being addressed in this Committee stage. It is quite a narrow debate. I put it to you, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Relevancy is really the role of the Chair to determine. I have listened very carefully to the member and I have mechanisms available to me. Mr Cosgrove—Part 2.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Indeed, and I am sure you will exercise those mechanisms.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Absolutely. I have great faith in you.

The question I want to ask, to satisfy Mr Banks’ penchant for ideas, is about the relevant section inserted by clause 17, new section 14AB(7): “A breach of subsection (4) or (5) may be dealt with as contempt of court.” So in the Minister’s little world, if you make a breach, you are subject—if you are a murderer, for instance—to a contempt of court. That is the only offence mechanism, I am advised by learned counsel on our side, that is contained within this part. There is no big deterrent. She is not going to go out there and crush their cars or dance on them or anything like that. It is simply a contempt of court, which is a penalty that is at the discretion of a judge.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 92 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): In the debate tonight, we first of all dealt with the questions around Part 1, and, as members on this side of the Chamber explained at the time, there are good things in Part 1 of this bill, the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. It is appropriate that somebody seeking to become part of a jury panel who in the preceding 5 years has been sentenced to home detention for more than 3 months should probably not be part of a jury. Somebody who has other restrictions that are dealt with in the part that I am speaking to now should not be able to be part of a jury, and because that is a sensible reform Labour members have decided that that part of the bill should have their support.

What we cannot support, though, is the arbitrary extension of the discriminatory standard relating to jurors that has been traversed exhaustively in the debate, about which Denis O’Rourke has put forward a Supplementary Order Paper, whose history my colleague Lianne Dalziel traversed. She showed, I think, through a forensic examination of the various statutory provisions that that anachronistic provision dates back to the time that the House, back in 1993, decided that the Human Rights Act should provide a general standard for our laws, and that it should not just be the case that somebody should be deemed to be likely to be incompetent or less competent simply because they reach a certain age.

I think a big disappointment for members on this side of the Chamber is that this was not an opportunity that was taken by the Government to bring the Juries Act into line with the rest of our laws, which do not contain arbitrary standards around age. We had a very good contribution from my colleague David Parker, who talked about the importance of keeping the jury pool representative, because the purpose of jury trials is so that we can be assured that accused persons will be tried by a jury of their peers. He reminded the Committee that by 2027 there will be a million people in New Zealand over the age of 65.

My father’s old law firm held the Crown warrant in Gisborne for years. I remember the Crown solicitor telling me how hard it was to get people to serve on a jury. We are abetting a public policy faux pas here by extending that entitlement or extending that problem by really saying that anybody over the age of 65—a million of our fellow New Zealanders by 2027—simply has a right not to participate, to opt out of the jury system in situations where it is incredibly hard to fill a jury pool. Not only is that patronising to people over the age of 65; it is just stupid public policy. We do regret that the Committee did not see those arguments with favour. We do not think an arbitrary entitlement to exclude oneself from a jury just because one reaches a certain age is sensible public policy. In fact, it deprives the court system of wisdom that it would, I think, well be able to use.

We have our criticisms of Part 2 as well. I tried to set some of those out in my speech on that part. I am sorry if the Minister of Justice found any of it patronising; that was absolutely not my intention. I was glad that she did seek the advice of her officials and did respond. I think the problem is that the response was lacking. First of all, she said there was no need to make the misuse of jury information an offence because a Law Commission report back in 2001 had said that there was not really any case for great reforms to the law relating to the information that could be discovered about jurors.

Well, of course, the problem with that argument is that that was in 2001. The abuse of the system that occurred in the particular case that lead to this particular bill, the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, occurred 9 years later in 2010 and was the reason that this bill was put forward. So it is not an answer to say: “Oh, there was a Law Commission report 10 years ago that said there was not a case for change because there was no evidence of abuse of the jury system. Therefore, the suggestion that it ought to be an offence to misuse jury information does not have any merit.” There is just no logic in that argument.

I think that the other problem was with what the Minister said when she was on her feet before, which was that some of these people are murderers so they would not really pay any attention to criminal sanctions around the misuse of jury information. That is a sad argument. It is basically telling the Committee: “Well, we give up when it comes to particularly violent people. We will not try to subject them to the rule of law or to any particular sanction or penalty, because we are just a bit scared that they might not pay any attention.” I actually thought better of the Minister, and expected better from her. I never thought I would hear the argument that “Oh well, they are murderers, so they are too tough for the law under my supervision to deal with.” That was effectively what she told the Committee.

The other problem with this legislation was again set out by my colleague Lianne Dalziel, and that is the leisurely progress that the bill has had. We heard that the Law and Order Committee dealt with the issue with expedition between April and June in 2010. That was immediately following the misuse of the juror information by the litigant in person. The Minister of Justice at the time sprang into action and referred legislation to the select committee. The select committee processed it quickly, heard evidence, and reported back to the House. Then the legislation languished for 10 months, or 12 months—however long it was—and nothing was done. And I am afraid that gives the lie to any claim that the Minister might make to be concerned at all about the safety of one of the most precious elements of our court system—that is, the safety of jurors.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I will just deal with a couple of the comments made this evening. In fact, the best commentary that I have heard from Labour on this bill, the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, has not actually been made tonight; it was made by the Hon Phil Goff in the second reading. Mr Goff dealt with the issue of those aged over 65 and those who may wish to be excused from jury service. Mr Goff said: “The bill also allows people to seek exclusion from jury service on the basis of their disability, or their ill health, or if they are over the age of 65. The important point here is that those who seek such an exclusion are excluded permanently from service.” He said that he felt it was an important point that this “does not introduce an age limit for jury service.” Mr Goff then goes on to say: “I think on that basis”—that is, that people can choose to exclude themselves—“the permanent exclusion provision is acceptable.” That was the Hon Phil Goff during the second reading of this bill, and what has changed since then?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: When was that?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That was the second reading of this bill, which was, in fact, on 22 May this year. Mr Goff said that. He was a Minister of Justice in the Labour Government, and what we have heard tonight from the Labour Party is that this is a dreadful provision and that we were, somehow, penalising people aged over 65—or words to that effect—that we were patronising them, and that we were discriminating against them. We have heard that comment from those members tonight. Just a few months ago the Hon Phil Goff had read the bill and had understood the bill. He was not taking a point just to be silly about it. The fact is that he did, in fact, look at it and he felt that, actually, it was a fair provision.

Since then we have consulted with the Green Party, which suggested we should look at a situation where some people who wanted to permanently excuse themselves from jury service on the basis that they were over the age 65 might want to come back into jury service. We allowed that. We said that that was a sensible amendment to make, because somebody might feel at some stage that they just could not cope with doing a 3-week trial. They may be 75, 80, or something like that, and then they might get better, or they might decide that, actually, they can do it. They can put themselves forward, and then it is up to the people who choose the jury to decide whether or not they are selected.

Actually, I thought that was a sensible contribution from the Hon Phil Goff. I am surprised that the Labour members did not read the words of their former leader and former Minister of Justice. Mind you, they never listened much to him when he was the leader, but I thought his contribution was good. I thought it was sensible. It was not particularly political. He was looking at it, having looked at all of the ramifications. He was looking at how people can be fair in this, and I actually think it was a jolly good contribution. Sadly, it was not made tonight, except through me, repeating him.

Mr Chauvel has commented about how—what was it he said that I had said? Oh—that we could not do anything about these nasty murderers. Well, that is not actually what I said. I pointed out that it could be a very dangerous thing for a person who is a self-represented defendant in a criminal trail to get access to jurors’ particulars, including addresses, and that is the evil that we are trying to remedy. However, even that person—the accused—has still got the right to a fair trial.

So the provision in the bill is that, in fact, a lawyer will be appointed for the purpose of enabling that defendant to be able to know who is on the jury, but the defendant is not to take that information away. If the lawyer, Mr Chauvel—not the defendant; the lawyer—breaches the trust that the court has placed in them, then that lawyer would be up for contempt of court. That is a serious offence for a lawyer, as Mr Chauvel knows. However, the defendant who is up on a charge of murder, for instance, is hardly going to be concerned about that.

So I think it is important to understand that we need a provision in there to enable the defendant to get a fair trial and to know who is on that jury. It could be someone who has a longstanding angst against the defendant—a longstanding angst against them. But the defendant is enabled—there is a provision—to get the information they need but not information that they do not need. I think this is a very sensible provision. I am very pleased that the Committee has been supportive of it in general.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): That was not particularly instructive as a response to the issue that my colleague Charles Chauvel has raised. I mean, if we are going to, again, traverse the history of this matter, the original legislation was, in fact, dealt with by the Hon Phil Goff when he was the Minister of Justice, and that was the amendment to the Juries Act. The amendment to the Juries Act did provide for addressing a discrimination that did exist in the law prior to 2000, despite the fact that the National Party had been in Government at the time that it passed the human rights amendment that said it could no longer discriminate on the basis of age. In 1993 that law was passed, and the National Government did nothing around the fact that nobody could serve on a jury beyond the age of 65 years. That was actually something that the Hon Phil Goff, rightly pointed out by the current Minister of Justice, commented on, on this matter more recently. He was the Minister of Justice who removed the discrimination that said persons aged 65 years and over were not, in fact, qualified to serve on a jury, which they were not able to up until that point.

If we were going to ask questions about what people said they were going to do and what they actually did, then maybe we could ask the National members why they sat on legislation for 6 years after it was passed and did nothing about overt discrimination on serving on juries. When National was last in Government, if you were at age 65, you could not serve on a jury at all, despite the fact that National was perfectly happy to take credit for the human rights amendment that saw discrimination based on age removed from our statute book pretty well, we thought, thereafter, but actually many years after, because in fact the Government had to keep extending the period beyond which the Government was not capable of being challenged for having discrimination in its laws over and over again. I think there were two amendments that extended the sunset provision that was written into the original Human Rights Act. I have actually been here long enough to remember its passage through the House and I know that the honourable member on the other side of the Chamber, John Banks, does too, but for slightly different reasons than, probably, I do.

The point that I want to make is this: the Minister went on about how we had not previously considered whether this matter should have been addressed by the Law and Order Committee. As I quoted from the select committee report, we raised it in the select committee. We did not think it was sufficient to warrant moving an amendment in this Chamber, but since then a new member of Parliament from a party that was not represented in the last Parliament has moved a Supplementary Order Paper that has caused us to reflect on the issue. It is not a question of whether we took a particular stance on a particular issue in a particular year in a particular Parliament. It is actually a question of whether the grounds are made out for sustaining a particular position we may have adopted in the past. I mean, sometimes it is OK to say we have reflected on new evidence, and we have decided that on the balance of what we have heard, we are prepared to consider that maybe there is another option. To be fair, I think that Denis O’Rourke—

John Hayes: Most people would call that inconsistency.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Well, you know, it is all very well to say it is being inconsistent. I was not aware that this had been put up as a serious issue until I was involved in this particular debate and until I knew that one of my colleagues had moved an amendment. I had not even contemplated whether our side of the Chamber should be moving such an amendment, but I have heard him make a case for removing the discrimination that exists in the legislation. Let me just quote from the Cabinet paper that I referred to before, because I think it answers the question that the Minister raised: “Giving registrars the power to grant permanent excusals in certain circumstances would provide a solution to this problem. Because it is important to retain a wide jury pool from which jurors can be drawn it is recommended that the permanent excusal power be confined to the grounds of age and permanent disability or health problems. Other matters such as religious objections to jury service may change over time and the person may become available to serve in the future.” Does that not actually really address the issue that the Green Party has raised? The Green Party asked as to what happens if somebody who has asked for permanent excusal suddenly wakes up one day and thinks: “Gosh, I wish I hadn’t done that. I’m actually perfectly willing to serve on a jury. I don’t want to have a permanent excusal any more. I think I’ll just write back in and ask for them to overturn it.” That is why the Minister has written the significant amendment to the bill as introduced that she has done. She has taken on board the comments that my colleague David Clendon had raised in the second reading of the debate, as I understand it.

David Clendon raised the very good point, but what he may not have realised is that actually the Government looked at this issue and felt that that issue was best addressed by not allowing permanent excusal, and I think that that is right. I think that if somebody has a reason for permanent excusal, then they should put the reason for permanent excusal, not simply to say they are of a particular age. I do not know about other people in this Chamber, but 65 does not seem as old to me now as it used to, and I think that there are many people—

John Hayes: You look every year of it, dear.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, I get closer to it every single day—

Hon Ruth Dyson: At the same rate as he does.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: —at exactly the same rate. We all feel the same way. But the point I am making is that just because that is the way that the legislation has been drafted does not actually mean that we have dealt with the fundamental underlying problem, and that is that the Government decided that there were a number of people who applied for permanent excusal. A significant number of those did so on the basis of age, but that was on the basis that they could apply each individual time on the basis of age. Why should age of itself be the reason for excusal? I have no problem with people saying: “I’m applying for excusal on this case, but for these reasons I want to be permanently excused from ever having to serve on a jury.” I have got no problems with that.

But what I object to is that the starting point and the end point is the age—that just because I am of a particular age, I have a right to apply for a permanent excusal. It is almost sounding as if people believe that this is something that we should be able to give people in the twilight of their lives—that somehow at age 65 you can be exempt from serving on juries, as if that is somehow onerous, when we all know that in fact we rely on people committing to what is a civic duty to perform their jury service. I know that there are people, because of their occupations, who have automatic exemptions, and often those exemptions are either based on the urgency of their location within the community—the doctors, the dentists, those who are required to serve the community in other ways—but they are also people who because of their particular circumstances would never be chosen to serve on a jury anyway. A member of Parliament or a lawyer, for example, would never be chosen to serve on a jury, and the same goes for a police officer. There is a conflict that sits with certain professions. But to say that that sits with somebody simply because they have reached a magic age does not actually make sense, and I am not ashamed ever to stand in this Parliament and say that I did not consider this issue when the bill was originally introduced, and I did not consider the issue when it had its second reading. But I want to thank Denis O’Rourke for having the courage to bring an issue to the floor of this Chamber and to have it debated intelligently and reasonably, which I believe members have done on both sides of the Chamber. There is an element of disagreement, and that is OK, but I think it would be much better if Parliament itself could say: “Well, actually, maybe this isn’t the position that we should have adopted. Maybe we have heard the argument and maybe it’s time to reflect on why we made the original decision, and why we should make a change now.”

Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): I have been listening to this debate very carefully over the evening, and I have got to say that I have some sympathy for the propositions being put up from members opposite. But, on balance, I think the Minister of Justice has probably got this about right. I think deep in the hearts of the Opposition members they know that.

I have never been able to work out why someone would be excluded from jury service at age 65. Some of our best, hardest-working, most productive citizens and role model leaders in the community are working at 65—and some even in this Parliament. The point I am making—and an observation—is from experience when I served this Parliament in a small rural provincial town in Northland, in Whangarei. One of the great problems with running jury trials in that city at that time was the pool of people available for jury service—the pool of people available for jury service. It was an eye-opening exercise to go to the local District Court or the High Court in Whangarei any day of the week, and witness the people who were herded to the court for jury service. As an observation, I can conclude only that most of them would have far preferred to be somewhere else. The problem with wanting to be somewhere else, if a person on a jury wants to be somewhere else, I put it to you, Mr Chairman, and to the Minister, is that they are not going to serve the interest of the court system at all well.

Listening to the debate tonight from both sides of the Chamber—and I respect the opposition to some of the provisions in the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill—I have this view that the jury service in this country will work only if there is a good chance that those who step up for jury service or who are called upon for jury service are interested in exercising their public duty in the way that the jury service has worked for so long. Because, as I said, if you have a look at some of the people on the jury—I do not take away from them as being good human persons—some of them are unqualified for jury service in a perfect world, and many of them certainly do not want to be involved in jury service in a perfect world. Indeed, I witnessed firsthand in rural, provincial Whangarei that some of them who were rocking up to the court for jury service should have been in some part of the court but not on the jury benches. I put that to you as an observation.

I heard from the learned lawyers opposite that a lawyer cannot be available for jury service, or a member of Parliament, or, I presume, a Minister of Police. I presume that a former Minister of Police like the Minister in the chair could not be available for jury service—by the way, the best Minister of Police we have had since the former member for Whangarei. If a lawyer retires at aged 65, 66, 67, or 68—and we know some particularly sharp-brained lawyers in the community who are at a loose end because they have retired early, because 65 is early these days—I put it to you that they would make excellent jurors, and they would be well qualified to do very good jury service. I have no doubt that, like most lawyers, when the member opposite, who is Labour’s spokesman on justice, is 65 he would discharge his obligation to jury service with distinction.

I think we should be careful about some of these exemptions. There is no doubt about it. For people listening—for the 360 people watching on television tonight, for instance; it might be 361 now and going south—I put it to you that some of the provisions we have got here by way of negotiation are sound and sensible. The provision that you can opt out at 65 and the provision that you can come back in at 75, as long as you seek to do jury service, make sense to me. I do agree with the question from the other side of the Chamber as to why we have not done this previously.

Can I conclude by saying this to the Minister: this bill is well overdue. For the purposes of the courts to work effectively, the jury service process must be robust, must be accountable, and must be transparent. And we must get the pool as big as we can, and this bill will do that.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill with amendment, the Commerce (International Co-operation, and Fees) Amendment Bill with amendment, and that the Committee had divided it into four bills, and the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House): Following discussion in the Business Committee I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill that it have the authority to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of Charles Chauvel to extend the bill to emergency health and fire service personnel, and to those on Supplementary Order Paper 9 in the name of Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor to extend the bill to those engaged in enforcement duties.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): Just to explain to colleagues what we are doing here, there is a bill before the House entitled the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill in the name of the Minister of Justice. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that an offence committed against a police officer or prison officer acting in the course of his or her duty is taken into account as an aggravating factor at sentencing. When this proposal was considered by the Labour Opposition we thought that it was a sensible provision. We are fully supportive of ensuring that police officers or prison officers in the course of their duty have the maximum protection that can be provided by the law. We accept the case that there has been an increase in risk against both professions by reason of their having suffered greater threats and actual violence in the course of their duties. Those duties are important—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Because we are doing it clause by clause, and not part by part, clause 1 is actually the title. Although what the member is saying is interesting, there is a way around this that would allow you to continue, but it is up to the Minister or a Government member to seek leave that the clauses be taken as one question.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I seek leave of the Committee for this matter to be taken as one question, so we can have a wide-ranging debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for the debate to be on clauses 1 to 5. The question is that clauses 1 to 5 stand part. Is there any objection? There is no objection. I will allow the member to start his 5 minutes, starting now.

Clauses 1 to 5

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I know that my colleagues will be very happy about that. I am very grateful that the Committee accepted the leave application from the Minister, because how we would have heard any sensible speeches on a clause that provides that “This Act is the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Act 2010.” is a question that is probably not worth pondering.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I don’t know. I’ve done it before.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: The member next to me says she has done it before. That was clearly in the bad old days.

As I was saying, the original purpose of the bill was to provide that it would be expressly a duty on the court in sentencing somebody who assaulted a police officer or a prison officer in the course of their duties to regard the occupation of the person who suffered the assault as an aggravating factor. As I said, we were fully supportive of the policy and intent behind that, but we were concerned that there are members of other professions, just like police officers and prison officers, who have no choice in the course of their duties but to put themselves in harm’s way. It did not seem logical to us that members of those professions should not receive the fullest protection of the law as well. That is why Supplementary Order Paper 14 in my name would provide that emergency health or fire services providers acting in the course of their duties at the scene of an emergency would also, if assaulted, have the fact of their professions and the fact that they were carrying out those duties when they were assaulted regarded as aggravating factors in the event that the matter came to trial and sentencing.

I want to acknowledge the Minister for her cooperative approach when I first put the suggestion to her. We did have some to-ing and fro-ing about the exact wording of the Supplementary Order Paper, but in the end the principle was agreed. My understanding is that that Supplementary Order Paper, along with the principal Act, will receive support at least from the two major parties and one or two other parties that have written to me to express support for the approach in my Supplementary Order Paper.

The instruction from the Deputy Leader of the House, by leave, also applies to Supplementary Order Paper 9 in the name of Asenati Lole-Taylor. That Supplementary Order Paper would also make it an aggravating factor in sentencing the fact that the assault occurred against a corrections officer conducting enforcement duties, which would be defined as “the exercise of any statutory enforcement power, and for the purposes of the Corrections Act 2004 includes performing non-custodial services:”. I do not know what the position of the Government is concerning that particular Supplementary Order Paper, but I can signal that the Labour Opposition will give that Supplementary Order Paper its support on a substantive basis.

To summarise, as far as the position on this side of the Chamber is concerned, yes we agree that prison officers and the police do deserve the fullest protection of the law if it can be afforded to them through making an assault on them an aggravating factor at sentencing—that is, magnifying the effect in law of the sentence because of the identity of the person assaulted. But it should also happen to fire service responders and to emergency medical responders who are in a similar position at accident scenes. It seems to us that the further extension in respect of prison officers that is moved by Asenati Lole-Taylor is logical as well, because, again, you have people who put themselves, through their job, through no choice of their own, into the path of danger in order to preserve and protect public safety, and we ought to support everybody in that position.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill is just a small bill. It really makes one change, and that is to require judges to make an assault on a police officer or a corrections officer an aggravating factor in the sentencing of that person who has been accused. But I think it is a bill that yet again highlights this Government’s approach to the police, to the corrections service, and indeed to their personnel, because Minister Judith Collins, when she was the Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections, very firmly said that she valued the police and she backed the police as Minister, and backed corrections. I think that in the last 4 years, and I have been associated with the Law and Order Committee for perhaps only two of those years, I have noticed the police and corrections responding to that backing. There have been a number of pieces of legislation that have gone through this House, and this is one of them—this is another one of those—that expressly confirm this Government’s backing of our police and of our corrections service.

Further to that, I would say that the Law and Order Committee has had the privilege so far this year of visiting several corrections facilities and seeing for ourselves the work and the challenges that our corrections officers face in facilities all around New Zealand. It is hard work. They are dealing with people who do not necessarily wish to be confined, who do not necessarily wish to be confined for a period of months or years, and they have to deal with those people on a daily, ongoing basis—and so, too, for the police. When the Law and Order Committee, which is a cross-party committee with colleagues from around the House, visited the Counties-Manukau community policing initiative, we could see for ourselves that our police are highly motivated, as are our corrections staff, to do the best job they can for our community.

So it is the responsibility of us in Parliament to return the favour, if you like, and say that we back the police and corrections. When, as happens, there is an assault on a corrections officer, as there was within the last couple of weeks—a serious assault, I believe—and there are frequent assaults on our police personnel as well, if the District Court judge can say to the alleged offender, in sentencing, that this assault is an aggravating factor, that shows that this Parliament and this country do back the police and do back corrections.

I was very pleased to be part of the consideration of this bill. It is really interesting, and regrettable, that the number of assaults against police officers and corrections officers has been increasing quite alarmingly over the last few years. For example, in 2008-09 there was a total of 2,481 recorded assaults on police officers, and of those, 412 were serious assaults. This is something that our police officers and corrections officers have to deal with all the time. In this bill this Government—and I do hope it enjoys wide support through the House—and this Parliament are saying to those officers “We back you. We have your back.” Those officers are doing a great job. Thank you.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill, the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. This is a very short bill, but it has had a lot of consideration put into it. It was really brought about by the fact that, certainly when I was Minister of Police, several police officers had spoken to me about the fact that when they were assaulted by offenders and charges were laid about that assault, quite often comments were made, even in court, to the extent that they were police officers and should be able to put up with it. That is completely unacceptable. Our Government decided that that was not going to be something that we would stand by and let happen, and that we would make it very clear to judges that, in fact, it is important that they view the work of the police, and corrections officers placed in similar positions, as positions of extreme importance. They help keep the country safe. They are certainly the first who will be criticised if they do not take action in dangerous situations, and they are expected to go into situations that the rest of us can flee, or choose not to go into. They do not get the choices the rest of us do.

On the matter that has been raised in Supplementary Order Paper 14 from Charles Chauvel, Mr Chauvel came to me and spoke to me about what he would like to add to the bill. We looked at that, and I acknowledge the fact that he came and spoke to me about that. I would also like to acknowledge the work done by the Ministry of Justice in being able to assist with that Supplementary Order Paper along with the bill, and in making sure that the Supplementary Order Paper and the bill itself would, in fact, be able to work well together. The ministry has done a lot of work on that, as has my office, with Mr Chauvel.

Supplementary Order Paper 9 was tabled by Mrs Lole-Taylor. Unfortunately, Mrs Lole-Taylor has not raised this matter with me at all, which I was quite surprised to see. That is not really the way we would normally get changes to a bill. I am always happy to discuss changes to a bill, as I think the Green Party and Mr Clendon should know. I am happy to take an issue on board, as Mr Chauvel knows, as long as we discuss it. So it was disappointing to see that Mrs Lole-Taylor did not come and see me about it or want to discuss it. If I had not been a previous Minister of Corrections—

Denis O’Rourke: Nobody needs to come and see you about anything. It wouldn’t be a good idea.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Sorry, what was that, Mr O’Rourke?

Denis O’Rourke: I said nobody needs to come and see you about anything.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually, Mr O’Rourke, it is really helpful, so we can get matters sorted out. Unfortunately, Mr O’Rourke thinks you should get changes to bills by not coming to see the Minister about it. I think that is somewhat naive, and I think he should take a move from the—

Denis O’Rourke: It’s actually a good idea not to do that.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It was very naive. However, fortunately for Mrs Lole-Taylor and what she is trying to do, I am a former Minister of Corrections and therefore have been into the prisons—as has Mrs Lole-Taylor when she used to work for the Department of Corrections—so I am aware of the situation. There are many non-uniform staff who are often put in quite dangerous situations if an offender wants to behave in a violent manner towards them, so I have a great deal of sympathy for what Mrs Lole-Taylor is trying to do.

I understand from Mr O’Rourke that they did not want to talk to me about it, but I think it is quite a good thing for us to look at. I am sure he will want to convince me about why we should be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper. So far, they have treated us with some arrogance, frankly. This Parliament has been very good at looking at this bill and looking at how we can actually make the bill better. Mr Chauvel has been able to do that, and I am looking forward to the contribution from Mr O’Rourke. On the face of it, I think it is probably quite a good provision, but I am sure he will want to fully convince me on it.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): The Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill has a similar history to the bill we were previously debating. It was introduced on 13 October 2010. It had its first reading on 12 April 2011. It was referred to the Law and Order Committee. Submissions were obviously called for in a relatively short period of time. It had a mission. On 26 May 2011 the submissions closed. The select committee report was referred back to this House on 7 July 2011. We had the second reading earlier on this year, on 8 February 2012, and now, today, we are at the end of July; tomorrow is 1 August. So this bill has been around for some time, but I do appreciate what the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, has just said about the importance of having conversations with each other about particular elements of legislation, if we do want to see change.

Can I repeat in the House the plea that I have made outside the House to have some conversation about the Alcohol Reform Bill, because my colleague’s amendment—[Interruption] No, it is absolutely relevant to the amendment that is going to be accepted by the Government, the Supplementary Order Paper moved by my colleague Charles Chauvel relating to our emergency front-line first responders, particularly those in the ambulance service. They face alcohol-fuelled attacks every single day, and that is one of the huge motivating factors for the amendment that the Minister has agreed to. One of my colleagues, Louisa Wall, who has a Supplementary Order Paper on the Alcohol Reform Bill, would like to be able to put to the Minister directly the concerns she has. There are a number of amendments that we would make, and I do want to meet with the Minister personally to go through those, because I believe that if we actually sat down and had a conversation about some of these issues, we would find a meeting of the minds on some of them—not all of them. I do not have unrealistic expectations, but I do believe that—

Andrew Little: You might have to be a liquor baron to get a meeting.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No—the same as me. I think the Minister and I both agree that there are some issues that are more important than some of the positions that may be adopted from time to time, and alcohol is such a fuel of the type of violence that we are seeking to address with this particular measure that we are debating here tonight. It would seem to me to be one of those ones. Because one of my colleagues came and tapped me on the shoulder and said that she would like to take up the challenge that the Minister had just made about speaking directly on the matter, I informed her that I have made the same request and I would like to formalise that request in the House.

I want to congratulate Charles Chauvel on making this an issue and on dealing with it in the way he has, because I think it is important that we do set aside party political positions when there are issues where we can find common ground, and this has been one where we have found common ground. The common ground does relate to how important all of our first responders are, whether they are in the prison setting, whether they are our police, or whether they are our emergency services at the front line. They will find themselves in challenging circumstances, and I know that I have personally spoken to ambulance officers, and, on occasion, to volunteer firefighters who found themselves in the position of seeking to save somebody who did not feel like they wanted to be saved at that particular moment, whether they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or whether they were, in fact, quite disturbed for a variety of different reasons. The person who goes to save another can find themselves on the receiving end of a vicious attack. All of us in this House would want to join together to find ways of resolving that. I have never particularly found that deterrent sentences deter behaviour such as that, but I do think that having sentencing around aggravating factors is the right way to go. So I am very supportive of the particular measure as introduced by the Government, then also as improved by the amendment that has been put up by my colleague Charles Chauvel.

I do hope that the Committee of the whole House takes notes of, I think, the goodwill that is being expressed on both sides of this House as we deal with these difficult issues, but, I think, important issues, for the sake of all those who are affected by them.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a brief call on this bill, the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill, firstly, to affirm the Greens continuing support. We have supported this bill through previous readings and will continue to do so. Indeed, we will certainly support the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Mr Chauvel. Support for this bill was initially somewhat diffident, I have to say, a couple of years ago when it first surfaced, simply because we could not see that it would change a great deal. On our experience and observation the evidence was that courts, the judiciary, actually did consider an aggravating factor—that is, if the victim of an assault was a uniformed officer, a police officer, then, certainly, that was deemed to be an aggravating factor, albeit it was not written into the law. But, nevertheless, it certainly did no harm, and we are pleased to support it. As it has evolved, and particularly with reference to Supplementary Order Paper 14, we think that is a particularly useful addition. It does extend the protection offered or the acknowledged seriousness.

Like other speakers, I have personally witnessed ambulance officers being assaulted by people so drunk—when they had usually suffered some injury as a result of getting involved in a punch-up in a pub—that they thought to lash out at that ambulance officer, a person endeavouring to mend them. I had up until recently a family member who was also a volunteer ambulance person. That is clearly a matter we have to take really seriously.

I am intrigued by the chair of the Law and Order Committee, who commented earlier that when a number of assaults on police is measured in thousands, clearly we do have a problem here. It does seem to me that the problem seemed to have peaked in around 2010. My understanding is that, in fact, in assaults on police the trend is downward. That is something, of course, that we all could only be pleased about. The latest version of Ten One—the police journal, its monthly magazine—talks about a more strategic approach to risk minimisation. Clearly, I consider that to be an extremely intelligent approach to policing. Not wishing to sound patronising, but I will say that just having this very, very structured framework of minimising risk to serving police officers means, as I understand it—not to pick a fight or argue numbers—the assaults are diminishing and that has got to be a good thing. And to the extent that the judiciary can send messages by treating the status of victims as an aggravating factor has got to be a good thing.

I have already said that we will very happily support Mr Chauvel’s Supplementary Order Paper. I have just one question, and I hope that New Zealand First, or some other person, might be able to enlighten me. Supplementary Order Paper 9 talks about extending this protection, if you like, or these provisions, to people working in the Department of Corrections, essentially police officers. It is very specific about employees of the Crown. I just wonder in that context what this means for employees of private contractors, such as in respect of Auckland Central Remand Prison, and people who are not employed by the Crown but by Serco, a private contractor. Does that exclude those prison officers from the provisions of this bill? Does it mean that for a prison office in Rimutaka, an employee of the Crown, an assault on that person would then be an aggravating factor, but not if that person happens to be employed by Serco, albeit that they are obviously working in a very similar environment and in an environment of equal risk? In fact, I would argue that in a private contract prison the likelihood is that there would be a greater risk of a prison officer being assaulted, given the characteristics of private providers and private contractors.

So we are very happy to support this bill and to support the two Supplementary Order Papers under discussion, but I do pose that question about whether this is intended and whether it would cover those who are employed by private contractors in our prison service. Kia ora.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will always put the safety of our police and corrections officers as a high priority, but New Zealand First also recognises the need for the safety of all other law enforcement officers or staff. With an increase in severity of assaults on police and corrections officers in recent years, we acknowledge the need for prevention of assaults on them all. We do support the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill, but we question the scope of coverage of it. It was documented by the Law and Order Committee in its report dated 7 July last year that the aggravating factors be considered for other groups and public sector workers, too. It was then noted that the amendment was constructed specifically to address an increase in assault cases against only police and prison officers.

Asenati Lole-Taylor has therefore proposed an amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 9. As a past employee of the Department of Corrections in the role of a regional adviser for the northern region, she tells me that she would not have been covered by this bill if she had been subjected to an assault or harmed intentionally by a prison officer or offender. She did not come within the title “prison officer” for the purposes of this bill, but her position still held a duty of carrying out similar responsibilities to prison officers. Non-uniformed staff also work with prison officers and offenders whenever and wherever necessary. The ratio of corrections staff, she tells me, is one prison officer to 20 prisoners; non-uniformed staff could be working with up to 30 and sometimes 50 prisoners without a prison officer present. Mrs Lole-Taylor tells me that she was often called upon to defuse situations amongst some of the prisoners where corrections officers could not resolve the prisoners’ behaviour. In these roles she would do exactly the same, if not more, than a corrections officer would have done, and this bill does not take this into account.

Other public sector workers also play a big part in the rehabilitation of offenders and prisoners. Facilitators of many other programmes, medical people, community probation officers, and psychologists who work within the corrections department are not covered, yet they are exposed to the same risk factors as the prison officers themselves. The non-uniformed and all other Crown law enforcement staff serve an equally important role in sustaining the safety and rehabilitation of inmates in our prisons throughout the country. In fact, the bill could be perceived, perhaps, as discriminating against other staff within the corrections and police force, as well as those of the Customs Service and fisheries officers. I believe that it is vital that the bill includes non-uniformed staff of police and corrections services for these reasons. The bill falls short of protection for other Crown law enforcement roles such as, in particular, fisheries officers and customs officers.

New Zealand First supports the bill, but are we giving real solutions to this very real problem? We ask whether the training programmes within the police and the prison force are adequate in the prevention of assaults on officers, why there has not been a review of the processes and procedures in regards to this, and why there has not been more investment in resources to improve that situation.

New Zealand First, as I have said, supports the bill, and it is good to see that the Government has gotten something right in identifying a problem of this nature, but it does not go far enough. Other parties have shared the view that they do not feel that this bill would give weight to effectively changing these statistics, or making a significant difference in assault cases regarding the country’s enforcement employees and ancillary staff, whether uniformed or not. I therefore encourage members to support Mrs Lole-Taylor’s Supplementary Order Paper, in order to also include other employees of the Crown lawfully engaged in enforcement duties and acting in the course of those duties.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 9 in the name of Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor be agreed to.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 65

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of Charles Chauvel to clause 5 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 117

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 4

Māori Party 3; Mana 1.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 117

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 4

Māori Party 3; Mana 1.

Clauses 1 to 5 as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Given that the next item on the Order Paper is another Committee stage and that the House cannot convene in Committee within 5 minutes of the hour of rising, it remains for me to announce that the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.