Thursday, 27 November 2014

THURSDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2014

THURSDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Acting Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 2 December the Government will look to progress the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill, the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill, the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill, and the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). Wednesday is a members’ day.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): Can I seek some reassurance from the Acting Leader of the House that when the SIS bill currently before the select committee is reported back, given the very short select committee process, sufficient time in the House will be set aside to allow it to be adequately debated and considered?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Acting Leader of the House): Well, I am sure there will be time for debate. The Government has been very clear that we will be passing this legislation as a priority before the House rises for Christmas and, as I say, there will also be time for debate.

Points of Order

Proceedings of the House—Hansard

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask you to investigate and report back to the House on an issue to do with the accuracy of the Hansard recording of questions for oral answer on 5 November of this year. To give you a brief summary of the issue, Dr Megan Woods asked on that day a question of the Prime Minister that ended with the very clear question: “What are the facts and circumstances that distinguish his communications with Cameron Slater as being undertaken as a party leader rather than as Prime Minister?”. The video and audio recordings of the House will show that the Prime Minister responded: “Mr Speaker, well, the nature of those discussions, and, Mr Speaker, it is pretty clear”—and then went on to give further answers. The Hansard omits in its entirety the first part of the Prime Minister’s answer. We have raised that issue with the Hansard Office, which has told us that it believed it was a false start by the Prime Minister and has, therefore, deleted it. However, it is very clear that the first part of the Prime Minister’s answer was, in fact, intended. I think the issue here—because we now have video recordings and audio recordings, and anyone can see what somebody has said—is that it is important that the Hansard records with some accuracy the answers that Ministers give, and I would like to ask you to investigate that matter.

Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly investigate the matter, and I am sure that the member does not expect me to make an answer on that question now. I will have a look at it and respond accordingly.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister—Communications with Blogger

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: How many times this year, and on what dates has he had communications with Cameron Slater?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Prime Minister: My office has gone through my diary, and there is no record of any meetings with Mr Slater. However, in my capacity as Prime Minister, I attend a large number of events and it is possible Mr Slater may have been at one or more of those. Over the course of the year, to the best of my recollection, my contact with Mr Slater has not been in my capacity as Prime Minister except for on the following three occasions. No. 1: I wrote to Mr Slater on 7 November in relation to his privacy complaint. No. 2: on Monday night I received an unsolicited text message from Mr Slater, and there was a brief exchange of texts, which have been publicly released. And No. 3: yesterday I communicated with Mr Slater, asking him to forward me his copies of the text messages so that they could be publicly released.

Hon Annette King: Given he said in September that “I took the liberty of changing my phone number.”, when he gave his new number to Cameron Slater, did he expect to maintain personal communications with him?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: My understanding is that the Prime Minister updated his number to virtually all his media contacts and did not give any thought as to the likelihood of seeking to receive communications from him or not.

Hon Annette King: Why did he tell journalists on Tuesday that Cameron Slater had “sent me a text one time, but I can’t remember when that was”, when he had engaged in a text conversation with Mr Slater the night before?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: He has actually addressed that matter with the media today. He acknowledged with them that he could have been more specific. At that stage he was—[Interruption] Well, he—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: But at that stage he was late to get to the House. In fact, members may recall it was on Tuesday when he actually arrived in the House and Opposition members were berating him for being late and arriving after the prayer, so he was very aware he was late. He had been answering questions in relation to the Chisholm report, and he also assumed that that was what the question related to.

Hon Annette King: Is the “Jason” referred to in his conversation with Cameron Slater on 24 November one Jason Ede, and does this level of cosiness not demonstrate that he, Mr Slater, and Mr Ede are in close contact?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I think he is known to refer to most people by their first names, and it does not imply any particular level of endearment.

Hon Annette King: Can he assure this House that the conversation he had with Cameron Slater on 24 November, which he published last night, is complete and unedited?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I understand that that is indeed correct.

Hon Annette King: Did he delete from his ministerial phone text messages from Cameron Slater that he received on 24 November?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure whether it was his ministerial phone, but he definitely deletes all his text messages in case his phone is lost at any stage. That is why he contacted Mr Slater to ask for them to be provided if he had them, so that he could release them to the media.

Hon Annette King: Is the reason he has tried to cover up his relationship with Cameron Slater that it shows that he, his office, his staff, and his blogger are engaged in operating one of the most vile smear machines this country has ever seen?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think Annette has borrowed Andy Little’s lines this afternoon—a little angry.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] I do not need assistance. Could the Minister, in responding, address members of the House properly. It is not appropriate to address members simply by their Christian name.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I was saying, I think Annette King has borrowed Mr Little’s lines for the day. In relation to—

Hon Annette King: They’re true.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, they are not the truth, at all. They are not the truth at all. If there has ever been a vile machine on the ninth floor, it was when that member was in Government, and it was under Helen Clark and when Grant Robertson was in the leader’s office.

Dr Russel Norman: In reference to his answer to the primary question, what exactly was it about the nature of the text messages that have been published, and which the Prime Minister has acknowledged he received as the Prime Minister, that defined them that he was acting in his role as Prime Minister rather than leader of the National Party when he received and exchanged those texts with Cameron Slater?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would say that would be because of the nature of the report that was under discussion. The member will recall that the report was under discussion because Phil Goff had leaked it to the media on the Monday, so it was being discussed up and down the country. I am assuming that that is possibly why Mr Slater texted the Prime Minister.

Dr Russel Norman: In light of the Prime Minister’s statement that he deletes all the other text messages he got from Mr Slater, how can he be confident that none of those text messages that would be in relation to his role as Prime Minister would be material, and hence should have been listed in answer to the primary question?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: He is confident on that in relation to the subject matter discussed.

Dr Russel Norman: How can he be confident on it when he has deleted all the text messages—how does he know what the content of all those text messages was; does he remember them all?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am assuming that he remembers the content of the conversations.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm that as early as 23 October Mr Cameron Slater was leaking parts of that report?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Sorry?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: One more time. Can he confirm—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not—[Interruption]. Order! It needs to be stated only once, I am sure. The Minister has heard the question, unless the Minister did not—

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Sorry, I actually did not hear it. That is why—

Mr SPEAKER: Then I apologise to both members. [Interruption] Order! Would the Rt Hon Winston Peters repeat the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can he confirm that as early as 23 October parts of that report were being leaked by Cameron Slater?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure what ministerial responsibility there would be, but I think I can confirm that no is the answer to the question.

Economic Growth and Job Creation—Progress

2. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Finance: What progress has been made towards meeting the Treasury’s Budget forecasts for job growth in the economy over recent years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I am very pleased to report that there is excellent progress being made towards meeting Treasury’s forecasts for job growth. Members will recall that in Budget 2010 Treasury forecast that 174,000 new jobs would be created across the economy over the 4 years to June 2014. As it happened, 170,000 new jobs were created over that period, so we are very close to achieving what was then seen as a very ambitious forecast. But the news gets better: in Budget 2011 Treasury forecast 171,000 new jobs would be created in the 4 years to June 2015. So far, with almost a year to run, 159,000 new jobs have been created since Budget 2011, so we have around 12,000 jobs to go. That is very good in terms of what we need to achieve for the forecast by June of next year.

Joanne Hayes: How is the growing economy, combined with continued high levels of business and consumer confidence, influencing the outlook for employment and investment?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The growing economy is supporting employment and investment—for example, the unemployment rate fell to 5.4 percent in September. That compares with 6.2 percent in Australia. There were 18,000 more people employed in the September quarter alone, and the labour force participation rate increased by 0.1 percent to 69 percent, which continues to be one of the highest in the developed world. Statistics New Zealand has noted that rising employment is more than keeping up with a strongly growing population and inwards migration. Although business and consumer confidence have come off their record highs, they do remain at elevated levels. This indicates strong employment intentions—for example, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research quarterly survey of business opinion reported that a net 18 percent of firms expect to increase staff numbers in the coming quarter.

Joanne Hayes: How are positive employment indicators being reflected in average wages, and how do the latest average wage increases compare with movements in the cost of living?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Cost of living increases are actually very low. Consumer price inflation was just 1 percent in the year to September. That is helping to keep interest rates lower for longer. Food prices actually fell by 0.1 percent in the year to September, with fruit and vegetable prices falling 3.3 percent. By comparison, average hourly wages rose 2.3 percent in the past year and average weekly wages rose 1.8 percent. Therefore—

Dr David Clark: What about median wages? What about something that matters?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Oh, I think, actually, people’s wages and costs of living do matter. I think it is interesting that the Opposition does not think it matters, but, actually, I think it does matter to New Zealanders. It probably matters a lot more than Dirty Politics and blogs and all the sort of rubbish the Labour Party focuses on.

Joanne Hayes: What other indicators confirm the economy is heading in the right direction and will continue supporting new jobs and higher incomes into the future?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Apart from low inflation, low interest rates, and real wage growth, there are a number of other positive indicators—for example, the economy grew by 3.9 percent in the 12 months to June, which is one of the fastest-growing developed economies in the world. New Zealand’s households have now posted positive savings rates for 5 consecutive years. Just this week the Institute of Economic Research said that although one-off boosts to the economy are fading, there is a durable underlying recovery taking place that is not built on borrowing. It is in stark contrast to the situation the Government inherited in 2008. Back then the economy was mired in a recession before the global financial crisis, inflation was more than 5 percent, floating home mortgage rates—you may remember—were nearly 11 percent, and we faced a decade of fiscal deficits.

Dr David Clark: Does he believe that the target of the Minister for Economic Development of reducing unemployment to 4 percent by 2025 is ambitious, given it falls 14 years after the Canterbury earthquake and 14 years after the end of the global financial crisis, or does he think we can perhaps get there just a little faster?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member is incorrect, and I think he was told about this in the last session. It is not the target of the Minister for Economic Development, and also, by the way, it is not even the target of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. The ministry target is to maintain employment as much as possible and maintain unemployment below 4 percent, and it is not specifically attached to 2025.

Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a document signed by the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need the source of the document.

Dr David Clark: It is the statement of intent from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, signed by the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, that is a document that is freely available to all members. [Interruption] Order!

Local Government—Māori Representation

3. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Local Government: He aha ngā kōwhiringa hou kua tirotirohia e ia kia nui ake ai ngā māngai o te tangata whenua i runga Kaunihera ā-Takiwā, Kaunihera ā-Hau Kāinga?

[What initiatives has she investigated to increase tangata whenua representation on local and district councils?]

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Local Government): I am always willing to look at how to improve representation overall with local government, but I do not currently have any plans to make changes to the current settings. However, in response to submissions made about Māori representation during the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) this year, the then Associate Minister of Local Government directed officials to work with relevant parties, including Te Puni Kōkiri, and report back to Ministers in March next year with advice about Māori participation in local government processes, and I will consider that advice when I receive it.

Marama Fox: Kai te whakapono tonu a ia ki tāna e kī rā, “he pai ngā tikanga kei te tū” mō ngā pōtitanga a ngā kaunihera ā-hau kāinga, ā, he aha te take kai te 5.7 pai hēneti anake o ngā māngai ā-kaunihera katoa huri noa i te motu he Māori?

[Does she stand by her view on Māori representation in local government that the “right processes are in place”; if so, how does she account for the fact that only 5.7 percent of all councillors throughout New Zealand identify as Māori?]

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do think the right settings are currently in place. As I have said before, I am always willing to consider advice. I am not sure that it is a piece of legislation that Parliament should actually pass to change, actually, the representation that is on councils. As we have seen over time and in this Parliament itself, we have seen an increase in Māori participation, and I certainly encourage that. I think it should be in both local and central government. I personally, though, do not think it is a piece of legislation that does that. I think it is by being actively involved, by how the process is, and by having the kind of backing locally to put a strong candidate forward who can hold on their account. If they are Māori, then I certainly encourage that.

Marama Fox: Ka tautoko ā-waha, ā-pūtea Te Minita o ngā Kaunihera ā-Rohe i ngā kaunihera me ngā koro matua hei whakapiki i ngā tāngata Māori kia tū ai hei māngai mō ngā kaunihera ā-takiwā huri noa i te motu, mēnā kāre i te tautoko i tēnei huarahi, he aha ai?

[Will the Minister actively support and resource councils and mayors to increase Māori representation in all district councils in New Zealand; if not, why not?]

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I will not be supporting resourcing councils, so we will not be giving them any other funding so that they can go out there and increase Māori participation, but what I will say is that we actively support and encourage Māori participation on councils. I would like to see more standing, but I would like them to get there on their merit. I think that there is a power machine behind our iwi, particularly our iwi leaders as we see them now, and if they were putting a strong campaign together behind that right candidate, then they could get there.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the Minister’s second and third answer on the question of resourcing separatist systems, what was the Government’s position with regard to the Auckland super-city, where there is a statutory body resourced by the ratepayer as a result of central government legislation, which represents not Kiwi over iwi but a principle that was sold down the drain by her and her Government?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: To get past the grandstanding, what I would say—[Interruption] Well, it is. It was absolutely, and that is fine; that is good. What I would say is that Auckland has seven councils coming together as one—well, eight, really. What we saw there was a number of different initiatives. We felt that it was the right step at that time to try to ensure that there was representation, particularly in a place as big as Auckland. However, I am always willing to have another look at whether or not the settings are right, and it is one that I am taking an interest in.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who was grandstanding when they said “Kiwi not iwi.” or “One law for all.”, and then in the case of the Auckland super-city has a statutory body with millions of dollars of support now required to look at most applications for resource changes, and is that a case of the National Party selling principles down the road?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! In so far as there is ministerial responsibility—the Hon Paula Bennett.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I was just going to point out to the member that the year is 2014 and not 2005, which is when that was actually done.

Air Services—China - New Zealand

4. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on increasing air services links between New Zealand and China?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): I am delighted to inform the House that the number of flights between New Zealand and China is set to double following an amendment to the air services agreement arrangements between our two countries. The amended arrangement is a further reflection of the growing depth of the relationship between our two great countries, and the arrangement will allow airlines from both New Zealand and China to offer 42 services per week per country. This is up from a limit of 21 per week at the moment.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What forecasts has he seen on the number of visitors arriving from China by air travel?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: So far this year just over 250,000 Chinese visitors have arrived in New Zealand by air travel. With increased air services, forecasts indicate that half a million Chinese people will visit New Zealand by air each year by 2020. Indeed, some commentators say those figures are conservative. Through the doubling of the number of flights between our countries we are taking steps to further expand tourism, trade, and personal ties between our two countries.

Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus

5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: What are the “other options” that the Prime Minister referred to in order to reach his Government’s surplus target for 2014/15, and do they include cutting funding for any existing programmes?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: As the Prime Minister actually said, there may be other options we choose to take. We will have to wait and see what the final Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update numbers look like. Whichever way they turn out, they will just be the latest forecasts. We will know the actual result after the accounts close later next year, when the Government’s annual financial statements are published. I can reassure the member, as I did in a speech last week, that the Government has a track record of sticking to our spending plans, particularly to protect the most vulnerable and to provide certainty for public services. We will not be changing that approach.

Grant Robertson: Is it correct that the forecasts for the economy for the rest of this financial year do not show any sign of the $5 billion hole created by lower commodity prices being filled by growth in other parts of the economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I do not think the Minister could confirm that at all. We will have to wait until the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update numbers come out. Other parts of the economy have been growing significantly strongly, but there is no doubt there will be some impact as a result of the change in dairy prices.

Grant Robertson: Why would he have confidence that there would be a surplus coming from other export products to fill the $5 billion hole in his books, when today’s Statistics New Zealand figures show a 5 percent fall in exports across the board.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member is confusing income to the dairy sector with income to the Government’s books. There is no $5 billion hole in the Government’s books. [Interruption] No, it is important for Mr Robertson to understand this, because he is new to finance. Just because a certain industry does not achieve a certain amount of income does not mean the Government’s books do not achieve exactly the same amount. The Government is not the country, even though I know Mr Robertson would like to make the Government the country

Grant Robertson: This will make for a good answer. Will he guarantee that a surplus will not be manufactured by artificially hiking ACC premiums or hiding expenditure for roading projects through loans, as he did in this year’s Budget?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry, but there appears to have been a leak over here. I wonder whether Phil Goff has been over, but I do not think he has. I can assure the member that when the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update comes out we will see what the numbers look like. But again I tell him that he needs to be aware that projections do not always come true in terms of the final outcome. There have been, for example, projections over the last year that Grant Robertson would be the leader of the Labour Party, and that did not work out very well.

Grant Robertson: Is it not the truth that his failure over 6 years to diversify the economy, grow exports, or discourage housing speculation means that the real surplus has dissolved, and any Budget surplus will result only from another attempt at cooking the books just like this year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry, but that is a little rich coming from the guy who is known as the “Walking ATM”, when he is actually prepared to hand out money to anybody who asks for any policy proposal and has opposed every cut in Government spending over the last 6 years. To turn round and say this Government is not fiscally responsible is truly unbelievable from Mr Robertson.

Beneficiaries—Whiteware and Optical Services Procurement Programmes

6. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received on the progress of the Government’s whiteware and optical programmes for beneficiaries and low-income New Zealanders?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): As part of the Government’s welfare reforms, beneficiaries and low-income people can purchase brand new quality whiteware and optical goods and services at a much cheaper price. Since May last year, as part of a Ministry of Social Development preferred supplier agreement, beneficiaries and low-income people have been able to get loans to buy brand new appliances from Fisher and Paykel Appliances. People are now paying on average about $70 less for new whiteware, which come with 2-year warranties, free delivery and installation, and removal of the old appliance. More than 22,500 people have benefited from the deal and the ministry has recently won an international procurement award for its success.

Matt Doocey: What savings has the Government’s procurement programme for optical services delivered to beneficiaries?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This initiative has meant savings for more than 6,000 low-income people in need of glasses. Before May people were borrowing more than $500 for new glasses but are now getting them for just over $200. This is brilliant, particularly for superannuitants who in the past were paying on average around $570 for new glasses. Plus, the new process has now saved people the hassle of having to get multiple quotes.

SIS—Report on Release of Information

7. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service: Does he agree with the findings of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security’s inquiry into release of NZSIS information to Cameron Slater?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service): As the Minister responsible for the agency I am not in a position to agree or disagree with the findings. I can and do accept the findings and recommendations, and I am pleased the director has also accepted the recommendations and is acting on them now.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister accept the finding of fact by the inspector-general that “SIS information was disclosed by a member of the staff of the Prime Minister’s office to Cameron Slater for political purposes.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I accept the findings of the inspector-general.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not my question. My question—

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to repeat the question.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister accept the finding of fact by the inspector-general that “SIS information was disclosed by a member of the staff of the Prime Minister’s office to Cameron Slater for political purposes.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As I have said, yes, I accept the findings of the inspector-general as she has stated them in her report, and it is important to emphasise I accept them as stated by her in her report—not necessarily as characterised by other members.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has not answered my question. My question concerned a finding of fact that the inspector-general made.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member has an opportunity to go back and look at Hansard, she will see that in the second answer given by the Minister he has answered the question the member raised.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that the inspector-general’s finding of fact that Jason Ede passed SIS information to Cameron Slater for political purposes is “highly contestable”, and if he does not agree, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I agree with everything the Prime Minister says. He said he accepted the findings. He did acknowledge, however, that some matters in the report were contested by one or other of the parties who gave evidence.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister accept the finding of fact by the inspector-general that Mr Slater provided emails to the inspector-general in which Mr Ede, by his own admission, said he “might be in the shit” over his use of New Zealand SIS information?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As I have said, I accept all the findings of the inspector-general, particularly as characterised by her, as opposed to what some people may say are her findings.

Metiria Turei: How is it that the Minister can say he agrees with the findings of the inspector-general if he is also saying he does not accept the findings of fact on which her conclusions were made?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Sadly, that question was drafted before the answer to the primary question. I said I was not in a position to agree or disagree. I was not a primary fact witness, and I was not Cheryl Gwyn, who decided the matter. What I can and do say is that I accept her recommendations, I accept her findings, and I am very pleased that the director is acting on the recommendations now.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with the facts set out by the inspector-general, which she states, and I quote from her report: “SIS information was disclosed by a member of the staff of the Prime Minister’s office to Cameron Slater for political purposes.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Regrettably, I think that question could have been drafted before the answer to the primary question, as well, because what I said was that I neither agree nor disagree as the Minister responsible for the agency, but I accept her findings.

Metiria Turei: Perhaps the Minister could make it clear to the House and the public on whose side does he stand—the side of the facts found by the inspector-general, that Mr Ede gave SIS information to Mr Slater to help him write an Official Information Act request; or the side of the Prime Minister and Cameron Slater, who consider those facts contestable?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As the Minister responsible for the agency I am on the side of making sure that the agency at all times acts in accordance with the rule of law and particularly observes that very important principle, inserted in the legislation, about political neutrality. That is my concern.

Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill—Consultation Period

8. DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) to the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service: Is he satisfied that the timeframe for submissions on the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill allows sufficient time for public input?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service): Yes.

David Shearer: Does he agree with the opinion of the New Zealand Law Society, which presented its evidence today orally because it had had no time to prepare written text, that “rushed legislation often misses the target, has unintended consequences, and often gets it wrong.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The matter is before the select committee now, but I would say as a general principle that I agree with that proposition. Rushed legislation often can miss the mark; so can carefully drafted legislation. The important task before us in this piece of legislation is to focus on the particular issues, bearing in mind that it is interim legislation, and bearing in mind that it is going to have a sunset clause to ensure, for example, that we comply with the requirements in the Security Council resolution while we plan the full review.

David Shearer: When he referred to a full select committee process this morning as “a 6-month chit-chat”, was he referring to the submission from the New Zealand Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, the Privacy Commissioner, or the many New Zealanders who are queuing up to make a submission on an important bill?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No. I wondered whether that would come up. As soon as I said it, I thought it was uncharacteristically flippant. The focus, really, is on the interim legislation. I am very firmly of the view, I say to that honourable member, that next year there is going to be a full and comprehensive review of all the legislation in this area, and it is incredibly important that every person has an opportunity to have his or her say. It certainly is not chit-chat, and, as I say—

Hon Annette King: Apologise.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I apologise. As I say, the interview was at 10 past 6, and I had just awoken from my slumbers.

David Shearer: I am astonished! Given that in Australia and in the UK the threat levels are considerably higher than they are here in New Zealand, and they are also passing parallel legislation in accordance with Resolution 2178, does he consider that the weeks they have to consider that legislation through their own respective select committees are also chit-chat?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not know the parliamentary procedures of other parliaments. What I can say is this: I have read the speech of Theresa May on what is proposed in the United Kingdom, and I have spoken to Senator George Brandis about what is going on in Australia. I am very conscious that their legislation goes beyond what we are seeking to do here, and it is not interim legislation. The opportunity for the full submissions will come next year, when we review all this legislation.

David Shearer: If New Zealand citizens have fewer than 48 hours to prepare and present a submission to the select committee, would the Minister agree that the SIS should not need a 48-hour period to spy on New Zealanders before getting a warrant?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I hear what the honourable member is saying, but what I do say is this: this is modelled in part at least on what is contained in the search and surveillance legislation, with other safeguards that I was very keen to see inserted. If there are other safeguards that are suggested as a result of the good work of the select committee, I—I am not the Government; I should not speak for the Government—and other members of Cabinet will have a very close look at those. I emphasise to the honourable member that what we are seeking to do is not give these powers to the SIS in perpetuity. There will be a sunset clause in this legislation—

Denis O’Rourke: Too long.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —and there will be an opportunity for full review. I say to Mr O’Rourke that if it is too long, well, let us have a talk about that as well.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why would a political party give support to this legislation with such constricted time for consideration when the very bodies he seeks to give expanded powers to have shown themselves to be so politically biased as to favour one political party over another?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility for that answer, the Hon Chris Finlayson.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, I think in answer to the right honourable member, it is very important to concentrate on the facts and what the findings were and, instead of engaging in third-rate rhetoric about bias, focus on—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order has been raised. I wish to hear it in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I asked this Minister, who is in charge of this legislation, as to why a political party would support it, given a certain event in the past. He has a responsibility. He is, after all, the man in charge of the bill—so that is the responsibility—and I do not want a lecture from this overblown—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I invite the member to go back and carefully study the question he asked and then consider the answer. I think the question was addressed by the Minister satisfactorily. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. When I give a ruling I do not expect a senior member to yell out, disputing a ruling I have just given. That lowers the dignity of this House, and it is happening frequently from that particular member. It is time he showed more respect to this place.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] When the member rises, he calls “Point of order”, and then I call the member, and then he speaks. A point of order has been called.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Do you, Mr Speaker, think it is fair that in a response that the Minister is responsible for, because he is in charge of the legislation, he should then be allowed to launch a personal attack, and then you find it suitable and appropriate?

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I do believe the answer was appropriate when I consider the tone and the language used by the member when he asked the question. That is why I invited the member to look carefully at his Hansard when he gets an opportunity.

Student Achievement—Partnership with New Zealand Rugby League

9. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about partnering with sports codes to improve the education of young people and families?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I was really excited to announce recently a partnership with New Zealand Rugby League, called It’s More Than Just a Game. New Zealand Rugby League has a strong relationship with 40,000 players, their families, and fans across the country, many of them in Māori and Pasifika communities. The Government and New Zealand Rugby League want to see the kids in these families and communities succeed on and off the field.

Paul Foster-Bell: How will this partnership support communities to raise the achievement of their children?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The Government is investing $250,000 into this initiative this year. New Zealand Rugby League will assist 300 junior players to achieve the National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, and expand early learning through formal playgroups in clubrooms across the country. I want to thank New Zealand Rugby League for its leadership, and for seeing and seizing the opportunity to partner with us to do better for our young people and families. I want to acknowledge the particular achievement of the New Zealand Kiwis winning the Four Nations title.

Corrections, Department—Management of Phillip John Smith Case and Mt Eden Prison

10. KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Kris Faafoi: Does he stand by his decision on Monday to make no statement to Radio New Zealand on the issue that Mt Eden prison, New Zealand’s only privately run prison, has the highest number of prisoner assaults over the last 3 years; if so, why?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I did not make a statement on Monday in terms of Mt Eden prison. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member Kris Faafoi to repeat the question. If we could have some silence, it would assist the Minister in hearing the question.

Kris Faafoi: Does he stand by his decision on Monday to make no statement to Radio New Zealand on the issue that Mt Eden prison, New Zealand’s only privately run prison, has the highest number of prisoner assaults over the last 3 years; if so, why?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Yes.

Kris Faafoi: Why?

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member should just elaborate. It was the second part of the question that was not answered before. The member has now—

Kris Faafoi: I will restate the question?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes.

Kris Faafoi: Why is he happy to stand by that decision?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: It is not related to any statement I made in terms of Mt Eden—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister was asked a particular question, and the second part of that question was: if that was his decision then why was it his decision? The Minister chose not to answer that, which is perfectly in order. If supplementary questions contain two legs, only one needs to be answered. The member then asked, in a second supplementary question, why the Minister made that decision. That needs to be addressed by the Minister. I call the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. Would it assist the Minister if I got the question asked again?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: Could I ask Kris Faafoi to ask the question again.

Kris Faafoi: Why does the Minister stand by his decision to not make a statement?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: This is ridiculous. I did not make a statement. I chose not to make that statement, and that is entirely up to me whether I make a statement or not.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not unreasonable to ask a Minister why they chose a particular course of action and why they chose not to make a comment on something. Simply saying “Because I didn’t.” is not actually giving an answer. That is not an unreasonable question. There are reasons why Ministers do not comment on things and do not speak about particular issues. It is not unreasonable to ask why in this instance he chose not to comment.

Tim Macindoe: The primary question asked whether the Minister stood by all of his statements. It is therefore illogical to the point of being a non sequitur to then ask the Minister why he does not stand by not making a statement. The two are not related and that could not possibly be a supplementary question to the original question.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Point of orders need to be heard in silence.

Chris Hipkins: Supplementary questions are related to the Minister’s answer. In the Minister’s answer, he stated: “I made a decision.”, and therefore the supplementary question relates to that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough and I have certainly had plenty of advice coming from both sides. On this particular occasion we have had the question now asked twice. The answer has not been satisfactory to the member asking the questions, and I can see why that has been so. I think the best way forward is that the member now has an additional supplementary question.

Kris Faafoi: Given that his officials told Radio New Zealand on Monday that safety at Mt Eden Prison was an operational matter for his department, why did he say in a press release on 21 October that he was focused on improving safety for staff and prisoners?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I am focused on improving staff for prisons. That is why I visited, in the last 2 weeks, a number of prisons across this country. I have talked to the unions and corrections, I have talked to the officials, and I will continue to focus on that safety.

Kris Faafoi: Why are privately run prisons more dangerous than State run prisons, given that there have been 139 fights between inmates and 26 assaults on guards at the privately run Mt Eden Prison, yet Christchurch Prison, with a similar size muster, has a total of 83 assaults, and does he think it is because privately run prisons run with a much lower ratio of staff to inmates?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No, I dispute that assertion that privately run prisons do not run as effectively. In fact, they are two totally different types of prisons. One is, essentially, a remand prison, so I actually disagree with that assertion.

Kris Faafoi: Why on 16 November did he tell me that Phillip Smith’s escape was an operational matter and not his responsibility, and on Monday his officials told Radio New Zealand that assaults at Mt Eden Prison are an operational issue and not his responsibility?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: It is an operational matter in terms of Phillip Smith. I did order a review into the incident around Phillip Smith absconding. We have had 13 recommendations, which the department is operationally adopting, and I will be keeping, as the Minister, a close eye on those recommendations being implemented.

Kris Faafoi: Seeing as the Minister thinks a lot of the things—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we just have the question please—[Interruption] Order! The member can see there the difficulty we get into if the—

Kris Faafoi: If the Minister believes that a lot of the things that happened in his department are operational matters and not his responsibility, why was he given any responsibility at all?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I said, as the Minister, I am responsible for fixing some of the problems that have been incurred in the Phillip Smith case. Some of those problems have been, obviously, at an operational level, but I am here to fix them. That is why I am working alongside the department to take on the recommendations to fix these issues.

Corrections, Department—Management of Phillip John Smith Case

RON MARK (NZ First): My question to the Minister is: does he stand by all of his statements in the House yesterday?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Yes, in the—

Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the Minister. That is not the question that is set down on the question paper.

Mr SPEAKER: It certainly is, according to what I have in front of me. It certainly was asked correctly, but we have now got a disrupted flow. I am going to ask Ron Mark to ask his question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have a point of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am trying to help out the senior Government whip, but maybe he has a different copy. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure that we have a point of order here anyway. The matter has been disputed. I have got a copy in front of me. Ron Mark asked it correctly. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. The important thing is now that we continue with question time, and I am asking Ron Mark to ask question No. 11.

RON MARK (NZ First): My question to the Minister—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We seem to have a technical difficulty, and the way we will proceed is Ron Mark will ask his question and the Minister will answer the question, and assuming the mikes continue to work, then we will operate as normal.

11. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all of his statements in the House yesterday?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Ron Mark: Is the Minister aware that under New Zealand law, a person subject to a sentence imposed by a New Zealand court, the effect of which requires the applicant to remain in New Zealand, may not receive a passport, regardless of what name they use on the application?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: My understanding is that prisoners do not automatically lose the right to be issued with a passport, but that is a matter—as I said yesterday—for the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Ron Mark: Is it not a matter for this Minister, though, that the responsibility for ensuring that communications between inmates and agencies outside, and communications with inmates and associates outside, that allow them to hoodwink and dupe his other Ministers’ departments is his responsibility? Can he confirm that?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: It is my understanding that the Department of Corrections is responsible for communications from inside the prison to some agencies outside, yes.

Ron Mark: Is the Minister aware through the failings of his own intelligence-gathering sources of his department and his operational staff that even in the editorial this morning his ministry, and his Government, is becoming a laughing stock, and can he assure the people of New Zealand—

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is far away from the question that has been asked—“Does he stand by all his statements?”—and now he is asking for opinions about an editorial in the paper.

Mr SPEAKER: In actual fact, it is a long-winded question, and that is why it is creating some difficulty. But the question itself is in order. The member has then used the editorial that he has found in a particular daily paper to reinforce his question. The difficulty we have is that if the question had been shorter and sharper it would have been easier, but I think we have got the gist of it. If the Minister needs any further assistance with the question, I am happy for Ron Mark to continue, but otherwise it can be answered.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Clearly in the Smith case mistakes have been made. We already know that. I am not happy about that and New Zealanders are not either. The recent review into the incident gave us 13 recommendations to improve temporary releases. We are adopting those, and as Minister I am keeping a close eye on their implementation.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just been advised from outside of the House that while the mikes are working here, the system does not appear to be working heading out of the House. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is certainly nothing that I can do from this position to assist with that at this stage. We are going to continue with question time.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister—accepting that he is new to his portfolio—

Mr SPEAKER: Can the member please just ask the question?

Ron Mark: Does the Minister recall previous gaffes by the corrections department and previous investigations of their failures, and does he not accept that this latest, huge gaffe, which resulted in a vicious killer escaping custody, is going to seriously undermine the confidence of the public in his department and in the staff if someone does not pay the price and we are given assurance that those people who failed in this case will be—

Mr SPEAKER: We are now getting into speech material.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No.

Road Safety—Breath and Blood-alcohol Limit Changes and Other Initiatives

12. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Associate Minister of Transport: How will the changes from 1 December, lowering the adult drink-driving limits, improve road safety?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Transport): Lower legal breath and blood-alcohol limits will help make our roads safer and save lives. From 1 December the legal alcohol limit for drivers aged 20 and over will lower from 400 to 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of blood [Interruption]—the member may be quite interested in this—or from 80 to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, bringing New Zealand into line with the majority of OECD countries. The alcohol limit for drivers aged below 20 will remain at zero. Lowering the adult drink-driving limit sends a clear message and signal that consuming alcohol at high levels and then driving is unacceptable. The lower limit will help save lives and prevent serious injuries caused by drunk drivers.

Sarah Dowie: How do these changes fit in the Government’s Safer Journeys strategy?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Reducing deaths and serious injuries from drink-driving is a key plank of the Government’s Safer Journeys strategy, which looks across the entire road system to improve safety, through safer roads and roadsides, safer speeds, safer vehicles, and safer road use. To make people aware of these changes, a number of agencies are undertaking public information campaigns. Today the Minister of Police and I have launched the “Reach the Beach Safely This Summer” campaign, an initiative led by the New Zealand Police that will also highlight the lower drink-drive limit. Each individual has a responsibility to ensure their families and friends are informed and make the right decisions. As this brochure from the New Zealand Transport Agency says, be a legend: stop mates and family from driving drunk.

Question No. 1 to Minister

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I seek leave to table the transcript of the text conversation between the Prime Minister and Cameron Slater on 24 November, which was released yesterday, showing—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has now been described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular transcript of text conversations. Is there any objection to it being tabled? It will be tabled.

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

Questions to Members

Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill—Consultation Period

1. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: Will he consider extending the time period for submissions on the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill given public submissions close today; if not, why not?

MARK MITCHELL (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee): No, I will not, as the select committee is required to report back to the House on 2 December.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that reply, will he seek to extend the date for the report back to Parliament from next Tuesday, given the public interest in the legislation; if not, why not?

MARK MITCHELL: No, and I would just like to point out the fact that the secretariat is working quickly and efficiently, and the select committee is committed to meeting the needs of submitters. To date we have been able to do that.

Urgent Debates Declined

Corrections, Department—Management of Phillip John Smith Case

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the receipt by convicted murderer Phillip John Smith of $26,700 dollars in student living costs from the Ministry of Social Development. In order for an urgent debate to be held, there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The Ministry of Social Development yesterday confirmed it had been trying to recover student living costs paid to Phillip John Smith while in prison. The Government has initiated an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2013 into matters surrounding the use of different identities by Phillip John Smith and the adequacy of information sharing between Government departments in this regard. The inquiry is expected to run over the next 6 months.

Although I accept that this matter is a new development, I am not convinced that it is of sufficient urgency or importance in itself to warrant setting aside the business of the House today. The test is a high one. The matter can be considered over a longer time frame as the inquiry reports and its recommendations are worked through. The application is therefore declined.

Parliamentary Service Commission

Membership

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Acting Leader of the House): I move, That pursuant to section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, the following members be appointed as members of the Parliamentary Service Commission: Tim Macindoe, Chris Hipkins, David Clendon, Barbara Stewart, and Marama Fox.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I move, That the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill seeks to address the growing reports of match fixing. I would like to begin by thanking the Law and Order Committee for the work that has gone on and for its careful consideration of the bill. I would also like to thank all those who have submitted on the bill. As a result of those submissions and the committee’s careful consideration of them, a small but important amendment has been recommended, which I will return to later.

This bill makes an amendment to the Crimes Act to clarify, under section 240 of the Act, that match fixing is a form of deception. This amendment is necessary because it is currently unclear whether match fixing can be prosecuted in New Zealand. With two major sporting events to be hosted in New Zealand next year—the International Cricket Council Cricket World Cup and the FIFA U-20 World Cup—and with the risk of match fixing growing internationally, this bill is timely in providing that match fixing can be dealt with under the criminal law as well as by non-legislative means. This combination of legislative and sporting code responses will place New Zealand in a very strong position to tackle this threat.

New Zealand, along with Australia, will co-host the International Cricket Council Cricket World Cup in February next year. The Cricket World Cup is the International Cricket Council’s flagship 1-day international tournament. New Zealand has achieved an excellent allocation of matches, including the same number of pool matches and host cities as Australia. There will be 49 matches in 44 days across 14 venues across both nations. Christchurch will host the opening ceremony and the opening match of the tournament. The International Cricket Council Cricket World Cup will be the first major international sporting tournament held in the city since the Canterbury earthquakes. Government agencies, through Sport New Zealand’s world cup office, are working closely with the local organising committee to ensure the coordinated delivery of essential services and support. The world cup’s office is also working with “New Zealand Inc.” agencies and regional development bodies to ensure the benefits of hosting the tournament are fully realised.

Our hosting of the International Cricket Council Cricket World Cup is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This is not only a fantastic tournament for Kiwi cricket fans but also a great opportunity to showcase New Zealand to the world, with a television audience expected globally of 1.6 billion people. However, we have got to ensure that we are prepared for this event. Cricket is a sport well known for presenting match-fixing risks. We would be naive to assume that New Zealand is immune to those risks, and anyone who has read the sports pages over the past year will be well aware of what I am talking about. This bill forms an important part of the preparations for hosting this important tournament. Match fixing would damage the integrity, growth, and development of sport in New Zealand. It could also have a negative impact on our prospects of hosting future major sporting events, events that bring a raft of social, cultural, and economic benefits.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a few aspects of the bill and to pick up on some of the issues that were discussed by the committee. Firstly, this bill is about criminalising the most serious form of match fixing; it is not about making athletes or other people liable for serious criminal offences simply for not playing to the very best of their ability or for breaching their sport’s code of ethics. That sort of behaviour is very much within the purview of governing sports bodies. The bill is aimed at situations where a match or racing event is manipulated with intent to influence a betting outcome. This is where the conduct involved becomes truly criminal. The bill makes it clear that anyone who obtains a benefit or causes a loss by manipulating a match or racing event with intent to influence a betting outcome commits an offence. Such manipulation not only damages the integrity of sport, it also allows dishonest people to make potentially significant amounts of money through deception. Match fixing can also provide organised crime with a lucrative income stream. This type of behaviour has no place in New Zealand.

It is also important to note that this bill is not the only measure being adopted to fight match fixing. Sport New Zealand is doing a lot of work to help ensure that governing sports bodies have appropriate measures in place. New Zealand’s response to the risk of match fixing has been described as world leading by Interpol. The New Zealand Policy on Sports Match-fixing and Related Corruption was launched in May 2014. It includes a set of fundamental rules that governing sports bodies must put in place. These rules set out how they will prevent and respond to match fixing, and will be linked to sanctions such as bans from participation in sport for breaching the rules. Governing sports bodies will also be required to have education programmes in place so that everyone linked with the organisation understands their part in preventing match fixing. These non-legislative measures are crucial in the fight against match fixing because they give the sports sector the tools to protect itself from corruption.

One matter discussed by the Law and Order Committee was the extent to which the bill applies to a person who arranges the fix—that is, someone who induces a player to fix a match. Obviously, these kinds of questions are always fact and circumstance - specific. However, it is clear under the bill that anyone who obtains a benefit or causes a loss by manipulating a match with intent to influence a betting outcome will commit just such an offence. If the circumstances of a particular case do not allow the person who organised the fix to be prosecuted directly, he or she will still be captured by section 66 of the Crimes Act. This section makes a person liable if they help, encourage, or procure another person to commit an offence. Once this bill is passed, both those who arrange a fix and those who carry out the on-field deception will be liable.

The committee has recommended one small but significant amendment to the bill that will help to remove a possible unintended defence. This unintended defence is created by the words “otherwise than for tactical or strategic sporting reasons”. The committee has recommended that these words be removed from the bill. These words were originally intended to reflect the policy intent that mere manipulation of a match for tactical or strategic reasons should not be criminalised. However, it has become apparent that these words may provide an offence where a match is manipulated, at least in part for tactical or strategic sporting reasons. This defence could apply even if the person also acted with intent to influence a betting outcome. Such a defence is undesirable because it would allow a person who manipulated a match with intent to influence a betting income to escape liability. For example, a person who deliberately loses a match to gain an advantage in the next round of competition but who also bets on this result would escape liability.

There are a couple of other points I would like to make clear about the bill. First, the betting that motivates the match fixing need not occur in regulated betting markets. Match fixers will often be motivated by returns that can be made in lucrative, unregulated betting markets, including those offshore. Secondly, I would like to make it clear that the bill also covers spot fixing—the practice of predetermining discrete events within a match, such as the timing of a no-ball in cricket, or a yellow-card in football. New section 240A(1)(b), inserted by clause 4 of the bill, makes this clear.

Lastly, I would like to thank again the Law and Order Committee, those who submitted on the bill, and those officials who worked on the bill. It is an important bill that will protect the integrity of New Zealand sport, and it is great that it is going to be in place for what will be a wonderful event for New Zealand, the International Cricket Council Cricket World Cup. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I would like to congratulate the new Minister for Sport and Recreation, Jonathan Coleman, on his change of portfolio, but I give him a brickbat at the same time and say that when he says he is going to a netball match and he is welcome there, especially when the Prime Minister is there looking for him, he should actually be there. It is a habit of National Ministers—again, at the rugby league, the Minister Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga was meant to be the Government representative at the rugby league when we beat Australia in the final, and he did not turn up either. It is embarrassing for sports codes when people who are meant to be representing the Government and who are meant to be senior representatives do not bother turning up.

I first discussed this legislation with the then Minister for Sport and Recreation, the Hon Murray McCully, about 3 years ago. We did it in the context of: “This sort of thing wouldn’t ever happen here.” I think it is ironic that we are dealing with this legislation in a week where we are dealing with reports where 3 years ago in that area, as well as in rorting sports matches, we would have said it would not happen here. I am referring, obviously in passing, to the various reports that came out on Tuesday. We would never have thought that within New Zealand cricketers would cheat in order to obtain money, but equally we would never have thought that an official in the office of the Prime Minister would approach and encourage the SIS to use its material for part of that purpose. It is just the sort of thing that does not happen in New Zealand! Well, unfortunately, it is happening with New Zealanders in both those areas and it is something that is very, very embarrassing.

As I indicated, when we first knew that we had the Cricket World Cup, the then Minister, Murray McCully, and I had a discussion about the need to get up to speed on this legislation. We probably had half a dozen discussions over the ensuing period. When it became quite urgent, about 12 months ago, I indicated to the Minister that I would help, if possible, facilitate and foreshorten a select committee process in order to get the legislation through. I know he worked really hard with his colleagues within Cabinet, with the Leader of the House, and with the Attorney-General for the purposes of getting it drafted, and with the Minister of Justice, who ended up taking responsibility for it, but it is just shocking that 3 years after we knew that we needed this legislation, we are rushing it through with a shortened select committee process and without its proper hearing.

I now want to severely criticise the chair of the Law and Order Committee. One of the things that are really important in making the Parliament work is that when a member makes an undertaking to another member that if they want to change their mind or withdraw from their undertaking, they contact the member to do it. Mike Sabin agreed with me to have foreshortened hearings with a few sports organisations coming in, because we knew we did not have much time. What he was told was that the officials did not want to come in, and that is what he reported back to me, and he decided it would not happen.

What I wanted to do, as part of this—and I want to say that the way this Parliament should work is that if two members agree to do something, I do not need to tell my colleagues what we agreed, because it would automatically happen. I admit a mistake. I trusted Mike Sabin to do what he said he would do. I did not talk to my other colleagues on the committee, because I thought it would happen automatically. We had an agreement to get a very small group of national sporting organisations, and the Law Society, in front of the committee, and that did not happen. It did not happen, Mike Sabin told me, because the officials told him they thought he did not need to bring them in. I just want to know who runs this Parliament. Who runs this Parliament? Who chairs the select committee? Who pulls the strings? Are the members meant to be running it, or do we have someone who chairs a committee and says, when the officials say: “Oh, we don’t need to talk about it.”, that it is OK and we do not need to talk about it?

Well, it is just not good enough. We support this legislation. It is not brilliant legislation. It does not go as far as it should. It is badly inconsistent with the various sporting codes, and that is why I wanted to get the codes in, to see what they wanted to do to try to get their codes better aligned with each other and better aligned with where we want to go. I think that is a reasonable thing. It is part of making legislation work. It is part of making the system work. The way some of the codes—and I will give the International Rugby Board as an example; I have had an on-off relationship with that board over the years. But in this particular case its codes of conduct to do with sports betting are just nonsense. If I go down to the local kōhanga reo and have a cup of tea with Piri Weepu’s mum, as I do every now and again, I am not allowed to bet on rugby.

Mike Sabin: That’s not true.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes, it is ridiculous. I agree with Mike Sabin. It is ridiculous, but that is the way code works. People who have discussions with the relatives of contracted players are not allowed to go and have a bet on it at the TAB, whether or not they have a discussion about that particular sport.

Mike Sabin: Is that a sporting code of conduct, or is that the legislation?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member has got it. That has to do with the sports code of conduct. I am pleased Mike Sabin understands that. What I want to do is to make sure that the sports codes of conduct are consistent with each other and are coherent in the sense of the way they work with the legislation that we are dealing with now, and they are not. But Mike Sabin decided, after he was instructed by his officials, that that was not important. What he has done is change a piece of legislation that could have gone through the Parliament in a couple of hours, to something that is going to be contested and debated over the next period. I just say to the relatively junior chair of the select committee that a phone call to double-check could have sorted things out. I just want to say—and I might be old-fashioned and I might be slightly older than the member—that when a member gives me his word that he will do something, I expect him to do it. Thank you.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am glad to be able to take the opportunity to rebut some of the comments that Trevor Mallard has made. I will give the House an appreciation of what happened. I took over as the new chairperson of the Law and Order Committee. I went to the member because he held that portfolio as the Opposition spokesman. I explained to him about the truncated nature of the matter from this point, because this legislation clearly needs to pass before the end of this sitting year. I asked him whether there were any concerns or anything he wanted to bring to my attention. He gave me a range of sporting bodies and said it would be good for these people to be approached.

At that stage, when I spoke to the member Trevor Mallard, he told me that he did not know how long the bill had been open for submissions, or whether it was open for submissions. At that point it had been open for submissions for some 3½ months. I took the names of those organisations, instructed the clerk to make contact, and I also spoke to the officials about whom they had been in contact with. As a result of putting out the requests to those people, and to a number of others, actually, one further submitter came forward and said that they wanted to make a submission.

When I spoke to the officials on that, they advised that as a result of many months of consultation related to the sports codes of conduct work and the work that has actually been going on behind this—I think the honourable member makes a very good point about the fact that there has to be alignment between codes of conduct and this legislation. Otherwise you can get into a mickey mouse situation where the codes of conduct actually undermine what this legislation is setting out to do. But on checking with the officials, in terms of the level of engagement and putting out a call to those additional groups, and some others I might add, to see whether or not they wanted to make submissions, it was quite clear that they had been involved in heavy consultation and they had no matters to raise with the committee. I am not sure whether I am supposed to go and force them into the committee to make some conversation. I am sure that if the member felt they had some valuable contribution to make in terms of ensuring the process to align the codes of conduct and codes of ethics that sporting codes are working on, the member would go and speak to them regardless of the select committee process.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I have. I have.

MIKE SABIN: Well then, Mr Mallard, why did they not want to come along to the committee?

Hon Trevor Mallard: Because I saw them afterwards, because you shut them out.

MIKE SABIN: That is just simply not the case, Mr Mallard. That is simply not the case. As a new chairperson I went directly, and the first person I spoke to was Mr Mallard. He has come into this House and misrepresented the exact situation. I am a man of my word. I covered that off. [Interruption] That is absolutely the case, Mr Mallard. What you are saying does not line up with what I did. I also spoke to you and advised you subsequently that they had come back and said, admittedly via the officials, that they did not want to not have any submissions.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Just because the officials didn’t want them to come, doesn’t mean—

MIKE SABIN: It was not at all related to the fact that the officials did not want them to come. They never said that at all. Mr Goff was on the committee at the time, and he will vouch for that.

But I will come back to the bill. Obviously with the upcoming World Cup this is important, and I do accept what the honourable member Trevor Mallard says about the fact that we are now pressed up against Christmas-time and this bill needs to be passed.

In a perfect world we would be in a position where all the legislation that we want to have in front of the House is passed through in a timely manner and there would not be delays. But I have to say that members on the other side of the House will stand there and occupy as much time as they can with hot breath, not adding value to anything, to try to stall that very legislation, and they then turn round and say it should have been happening faster. I am not privy to why it was that this legislation has not got to the point where it should have, but I accept that it is important legislation and it must pass. But it is also clear that the submission process was open for 3½ months.

It is a very simple piece of legislation. I actually think that although it is an important piece of legislation, the most important work that is going on alongside it is the work of Sport New Zealand with the governing bodies of sporting organisations to ensure that the codes of ethics, the codes of conduct, the rules, are actually such that we get people on to—no pun intended—a level playing field. I think it is fair to say that that has not been the case.

It is also the case that this bill is relatively narrow in that it does not set out to criminalise behaviour that we would consider to be just cheating. I am reminded of the famous line-out episode of one Andy Haden, although I am not sure he would accept it was cheating. But if a sporting athlete gets into a situation where they are collapsing a scrum or where they are taking a fall, a dive, or what have you to influence an outcome that may give them a better position in the following round, or so on and so forth, clearly that is gamesmanship, and arguably something that should not happen, but it does. But when someone does that and there is a pecuniary advantage or they bet on the outcome—

Hon Trevor Mallard: What about a win bonus?

MIKE SABIN: Well, I guess that falls into a similar category.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, it doesn’t.

MIKE SABIN: No, no, it does. It is quite clear that this legislation does not set out to criminalise the sort of behaviour that could result in people dropping a game to put themselves in a better round, to get a better draw, to win a bonus. That is the challenge. If you look at this—and it is considered world-leading legislation—it is a very complex area because the depth and layers of match fixing, particularly, are quite substantive. But this is very clear and it is very narrow in its intentions. It is about a bet, a pecuniary advantage and someone trying to leverage an outcome of a match simply for that.

Although the honourable member, regrettably, is obviously concerned about the select committee process, I can put my hand on my heart and say that I was setting out to achieve exactly what he wants. This is not only important for match fixing, it is actually also important for sporting codes to ensure that the sort of gamesmanship and nonsense that we can sometimes see is eliminated as part of this. This is not so say that it is criminalised, but it is important that all sports are played in a fair and upfront manner. I commend the bill.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the chance to speak to the second reading of the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. I might take this opportunity to, as Mr Sabin said, give a “hot-mouth” speech to this bill, but I think it is very important that we do debate this piece of legislation fully. We understand that there are time constraints because on 14 February next year the Cricket World Cup will start in Christchurch. I think I, myself, like many people around the House who are sports fans, want to make sure that that tournament and the FIFA U-20 World Cup that is played shortly after that are held and completely and utterly have no question marks over some of the behaviour around those events. We want to make sure that they are showcases, as best as we can, for New Zealand.

As part of my new responsibilities under Andrew Little’s leadership, I have been given the portfolio of racing. I will be asking for plenty of help from Sue Moroney, who has experience in that sphere. But part of that responsibility—[Interruption] Thank you. But part of that responsibility is for the New Zealand Racing Board and the activities of the TAB, and we want to make sure that the integrity and, I guess, the economic benefits of sports betting are kept and make sure that all the proceeds that come about from sports betting go back into the codes that are covered by that. So this is a very important piece of legislation to make sure the economic benefit and the emotional attachment that New Zealanders have to making sure that the sport is fair is kept intact.

As I said, I was a bit of cricket tragic when I grew up and continue to watch cricket. And as you watched tournaments like the 1992 Cricket World Cup, you were hoping and you knew that the players who were playing for New Zealand were out there doing the best for their country. But it is, unfortunately, a reality of international sports these days that sports match-fixing has crept into top-level sports. There have been a number of cases in the last year—one, I think, where Lou Vincent has become the hero-villain for exposing the extent of what was happening with our top-level cricketers, and we need to make sure that there is integrity in our top-level sports. I think it is a sad state of affairs that we do have to come to this Parliament and pass this kind of legislation but, at the end of the day, it is an unfortunate reality of the world we live in.

Sports match-fixing is at its nastiest when people who have the ability to make profits have relationships with people who can affect the outcome and that is where the value is for what you would call match fixers, because they will have relationships with people within the sports teams who can either bowl a no-ball or bowl wide, and, for sports betting, be able to manipulate the outcome of a match. That is an interesting thing to look at when you look at the anatomy of match-fixing, when someone can manipulate the outcome to get benefit.

I guess that is what we have seen in the reports that have come out this week. We had an official in John Key’s office, his deputy chief of staff, who had access to information, because he held that position, from the SIS, and passed that on to another staff member in Mr Key’s office, who then went to someone he had a relationship with, Cameron Slater, to manipulate an outcome—to manipulate an outcome. So there is a strange irony in what we are doing here today, because that Government over there is quite happy to manipulate an outcome. When any other fair-minded Kiwi—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member knows the subject of this debate. The previous speaker from his party made a passing comment. If the member continues to direct the flow of his speech along these lines he will be in breach of the rules of the House. I ask him to come back to the point in hand.

KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. I was just coming to the end of my point that any other New Zealander would call that cheating. Kiwis do not like cheating. They find it abhorrent. It is not the way that we do things; it is not cricket. So when they see people manipulate situations to their benefit when they should not have been doing that, they do not like that. They do not like that at all, whether it be sporting at the top level at Lancaster Park or here at the stadium, or whether it be at their own sportsgrounds watching their kids play. They do not like it. They certainly do not like it in their politics either. So this bill goes to integrity. This goes to whether or not this is fair.

New Zealanders will be watching these events that are going to be happening early in 2015, and subsequent events that this piece of legislation will cover. They will say: “If you jimmy the system, if you work it to benefit you and it goes against the rules that are set out, then it is not a good look.” They will make judgments, as they have with sportspeople, and as they will with their kids, who might play rugby on the weekend, or adults who are participating in sports, or their politicians. If there is one thing about Kiwis, they like people to get a fair go. That is why the show Fair Go has been so popular for decades. Kiwis fundamentally believe in the notion of getting a fair go, and when they see someone on the other side who is not getting a fair go, they seem to think that the people who are not giving people a fair go should not be there any more—given the red card, I should say. I think that is what most Kiwis will think about.

When we are out there, thinking of laying a bet on a Cricket World Cup game, or on the FIFA World Cup, we will lay that bet thinking that everyone is playing by the rules. When you lay a bet or cast a vote next time, you will know who is playing by the rules and who is not. There will be, maybe, a track record, maybe like we have in the Turf Digest or the form book, or the book you get at the races. You will see what that horse, what that team, or what that party has done for the last 3 years, and say: “OK, given that form, am I going to back this party, am I going to back this horse, or am I going to back this team anymore?”. I think you will see in 3 years’ time that some horses will have done well and some horses will have faded away.

This does go down to integrity in the sporting sector. I think, as Mr Mallard said earlier in his contribution around the select committee process, that it could have been tighter, because there are codes within specific sports where we can make sure that those align closer to the sporting bodies and what is in this legislation. We do want to make sure we do have integrity around this process of sports betting. There are a lot of proceeds that go from sports betting into the sports that we have that are run by the TAB—the likes of cricket, rugby, and rugby league. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you have just blown the buzzer on me and I will call to a close soon, but I do want to call back to what is important about this. It is about integrity. It is about whether or not we trust our sportspeople or people who operate horses—or maybe our politicians—to act with honesty and integrity. I think as you look at that form book and you want to back a horse or back a team that is doing things properly and playing by rules, you will not put your money on a team that has run the vilest smear campaign out of the Prime Minister’s office for the last 6 years.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. We Kiwis like our sport without any of the games that cheats like to play. We believe in the sportsman’s spirit, in playing the sport to the best of our ability, and in the spirit of “may the best team win”. We New Zealanders strongly believe that teamwork is the fuel that allows common people to produce uncommon results. When New Zealand is rightfully contesting and hosting some of the world’s top sporting events, I think it is the perfect time to have a law in place that deals stringently with any cheaters or scammers. By way of the legislation, the Government wants to ensure that our sports and sportspeople remain competitive and honest, as match-fixing is the No. 1 threat to our sports today. The legislation provides a firm definition of what match fixing is—that any manipulation in any form of sport with the intention of influencing the outcome of the match is considered as match fixing. It is critical to address match fixing, as the end result of it is $140 billion in world cup money laundering, which is itself a crime. The law will come into effect on 15 December 2014, which is in time for the Cricket World Cup. It gives tools to the authorities to deal with any such situation. It is important that such bills are passed in a timely manner and I commend this bill to the House.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): It is my pleasure to take a call on this matter. Sport serves a number of different functions: it entertains; it fosters a national or community spirit or identity, and pride; and it inspires others to activity, which is particularly important in this country, or to endeavour of other sorts. So sport plays a pretty vital function in our society and in societies around the world. I believe I am probably more of a cricket tragic than Kris Faafoi, and I wear the badge with some honour.

Carmel Sepuloni: And you have the moustache.

KEVIN HAGUE: Yes, it is approaching the Merv Hughes moustache. Certainly in the moustache-growing competition in the House at the moment, I believe I am ahead by more a head.

When sport is not a genuine competition though, all of those functions it serves are compromised. In modern sport the twin scourges have been doping and match fixing. I am an inveterate follower of the Tour de France and professional road cycling. It has become a sport that is very difficult to watch or to have any kind of stake in because of the level of doping in that sport. When we watch the Tour de France, we simply do not know whether people are competing fairly or not, and therefore whether the competition is real or not. And, similarly, actually some aspects of my great love cricket have also become difficult to watch for that same reason. We have seen Lou Vincent’s revelations. We are watching the court case in the UK involving Chris Cairns and the Indian Premier League. When I look at the Indian Premier League, I do not know whether I can trust what I see on my TV screen as to whether or not it is a fair competition.

In the field of gambling, it is pretty much a truism that the house always wins. So whether it is a casino, or pokie machines, or a lottery, or, indeed, sports betting, those who bet often enough and to a sufficient level will pretty well always lose, unless the odds are stacked, or unless the match or the sport in which they are betting is, in some way, fixed. It is one of the reasons that I loathe sports betting, because it has introduced into sport the very strong incentive to skew the odds, to make it an unfair competition in order to maximise profitability from betting activity.

There are two kinds of harm that emerge from that. One is the harm from the skewed betting activity itself, whereby people are, effectively, defrauded by those who have procured the fixing of the match because the odds on which they have betted do not reflect the actual probability of the events on which they have betted. So that is one type of harm. The other type of harm is the attack that I have described, in fact, on the integrity of sport itself. This is a bill that sets out to deal particularly with the second of those problems, to defend the integrity of sport, and the Green Party is proud to support that intention and will continue to support this bill.

It is the second reading, so I want to express my thanks to the officials who worked to support the Law and Order Committee. There was good advice from Sport New Zealand. I thank the submitters on the bill. It is interesting to learn here in this debate that, actually, there was some debate over who would be submitting on that bill, and I look forward to hearing more about that matter. I was surprised by the small number of submissions—perhaps that was no coincidence. Maybe that is a topical reference to the subject of this bill.

The submissions that we did receive—and I subbed in on the select committee towards the end of its process—were largely supportive of the bill. They made a small number of points proposing changes. For the most part, those proposed changes were ones that were unnecessary because the matters raised were already dealt with by law elsewhere, or because a deliberate policy choice was being made—and appropriately, in my view—to not take that particular course. So, for example, we have this minor amendment to the Crimes Act rather than specific legislation on match fixing. Another example is the approach to taking a rather narrow focus on particular aspects of match fixing rather than addressing all of the possible aspects. Those were appropriate choices.

There are two further points that I want to make. First of all, there is one change that was recommended by the select committee and the Minister for Sport and Recreation, Jonathan Coleman, whom I join with others in congratulating on his appointment to that portfolio. This was around removal of a qualification that was in the original first draft of the bill that could have been used as a defence by those who actually were guilty of match fixing, and we certainly support that change to the bill.

The other point that I want to place on record is that the view of the select committee—and I take it that it will be the view of this Parliament, and therefore I place it into Hansard—is that the intention of this bill is that all of those who are associated with the chain of procurement of match fixing or spot fixing should be captured by the wording of this bill. It is important to state that the Legislation Advisory Committee did raise a doubt as to whether the originator of the procurement of match fixing or spot fixing would be caught by this bill. The advice that the select committee received from prosecuting authorities and from Sport New Zealand, and our own analysis, was that the bill would be adequate to catch that originator, who probably is the most culpable of all of those in the chain, but for the avoidance of doubt, I want to place that on record in Hansard.

So I am looking forward to the Cricket World Cup at the beginning of next year and looking forward, in particular, to a Cricket World Cup just that little bit more confident that what I will be seeing is a genuine competition in which the Black Caps do as well as they possibly can. Thank you.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this bill. I would just like to start by acknowledging the people in the gallery who are here today who are clearly sports fans. Colin Charles, it is great to see you here. I also want to speak to this bill. Unlike some of the members who have spoken here today, I do not have a lot of fluffery, and I am not embroiled in some cross-party discussion, so I will probably keep it well and truly under my 10 minutes of allotted time.

Carmel Sepuloni: Take the 10.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Take the 10, you reckon? Sounds like a bench call. This is an overdue amendment to a piece of legislation that has been around since 1961. It has been wrapped up somewhere under section 240 of the Crimes Act. It is ambiguous at best to know whether match fixing is covered by existing offences in the Crimes Act or not, so what better way to ensure it exists than to clearly and concisely put it in.

There is only one minor, but very important, amendment to the bill, which I will read out to you now. It says: “… anyone who obtained a benefit or caused a loss by engaging in match-fixing would commit an offence and be liable to a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.” I think that is very, very important, because New Zealand’s culture is made around sports. We get great pleasure in having discussions at our local pub or around the television on a Saturday night when we watch our favourite matches and our sports games, whether it be the Tour de France or an All Blacks game.

I think we can all cast our minds back to the many times throughout recent times that have hit the headlines, but also going back to 1981 when we had the infamous “underarm incident’ in cricket in the final of the Australia versus New Zealand Benson and Hedges World Series Cup, when Trevor Chappell did the nice roll down the road—bowled underarm—for the final ball of the match, which, of course, clearly changed the outcome, or potential outcome, of that match.

In 1995, when the All Blacks were playing the final against South Africa, of course we know the outcome of that. The All Blacks were poisoned, and the outcome was altered and changed. That gives nobody any pleasure. Whether it is in your local boxing arena, on your local rugby field, or in a netball game, nobody, no matter how it fits in, likes to see this sort of behaviour taking place.

We are a small nation, and we have enjoyed great successes in many sports, both internationally and nationally. We hold our achievements very dear to us, and sport forms a very important cornerstone of our culture. It does not matter whether it is from badminton to boxing, rugby to racing, or netball to rowing, it gives us huge amounts of national pride.

Like so many other New Zealanders, I believe that lives are enriched through participation in sport and recreation and I wish to acknowledge the many dedicated New Zealanders working within the sporting sector to encourage more Kiwis to participate, and ultimately benefit from their involvement in sport.

This is why we must protect our sports from any form of mistreatment, and why the ethics of sport and good sportsmanship are taught to our youngest right from the start, so that we ensure that the moral and ethical values are upheld from the cradle to the grave. Ninety percent of Kiwis spend at least 3 hours a week taking part in sport, and this can be increased. But it will be increased only if we have that pride when our youngsters look up to those sporting heroes, live by their code of conduct, and do not follow any underhandedness.

Any negative stigma from match-fixing activities in sports will impact on all those participating and all those spectating, from grassroots to the very elite sportsperson—no matter their experience level—right through to the volunteers who are the backbone of New Zealand sport and recreation and keep it all running behind the scenes.

Here in New Zealand 50 percent of all adults participate in sports at least once a month, and sport makes up $5.2 billion of New Zealand’s GDP. Interpol warns that illegal sports-betting—unregulated, fraudulent betting including associated match-fixing activities—is an increasing global problem. It is estimated that such betting generated US$140 billion in 2010. This bill will ensure that we are able to address match fixing here in New Zealand, because it is common sense—I just had to throw that in.

This bill works alongside New Zealand’s policy on sports match-fixing and related corruption, which was released by the Minister for Sport and Recreation in May. This bill is not designed to address every kind of match fixing; it focuses on the most serious kind where the intent is to influence a betting outcome. I would like to say that perhaps this Government could take a leaf out of this legislation too. It touches on what Kris Faafoi was talking about with regard to the whole Dirty Politics scandal, and not just that, but also in relation to the fixing of the electorate of Epsom creating an MMP—I am out of my scope—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just bring it back in.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: —I will bring it back in. Anyway, we commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I just want to commend the previous speaker, Clayton Mitchell, on a very good speech. He brought through some very pertinent points, I think, that are very important for us to understand, because match fixing not only damages the integrity of sport but starts to undermine the very fabric of competition here in our country. We know that as our young people go through those sporting teams and fields, through primary school and high school, they learn what it is to compete based upon their own merits, strengths, skills, and determination. Those are some of the aspects of the Kiwi way of life that we must protect and enhance. So not only are we dealing with issues around professional sport and international sport, but we are also looking at aspects of what makes up the fabric of New Zealand society. I think every single one of us probably has played or continues to play sport, appreciates it, and supports our sporting teams in our communities. There is something absolutely fantastic and marvellous when two teams get out there, and you know that they are giving their best and it is an even playing field—and may the best man or woman win. That is the way we like it and that is the way it ought to be.

There are many, many aspects to the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. Obviously, we are bringing this bill to the House—bringing it through quite quickly—because we are co-hosting the Cricket World Cup commencing next year. We want to ensure that that is a fair and good competition that all the world may enjoy, and that we protect the integrity of that. I am very happy to support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a short call—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a 5-minute call.

DENISE ROCHE: —yes, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—for the second reading of the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. I was not on the select committee that heard the submissions on this bill. However, I do note that the Law and Order Committee received the bill after its first reading on around 30 July, and then submissions closed on 22 October, which is quite a generous amount of time to call for submissions. I note that we have just had a bill referred to a select committee that has only a 48-hour period for submissions. I am sure that there is a lot more public interest in that bill than there is in this one because—as I have seen in the report from the select committee—there were only four submissions on this bill, which indicates, I guess, that there is quite widespread agreement with the whole thrust of what this bill does.

So what does this bill do? Well, according to the report from the select committee, under this bill anyone who obtained a benefit or caused a loss by engaging in match fixing would commit an offence and be liable to a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment, and we think that is fair. We think that is reasonable. I note also that match fixing applies not just to sports games but also to horse racing. We believe that, yes, that should be a crime because we are a sporting nation and we uphold the fact that sports should be fair. We believe, as a nation, in fair play. We are all about fairness, or at least we should be. Why should international crime syndicates make millions by rorting the system?

I think we should look at what this bill does—who benefits from it. I guess we as a nation benefit from it because we get to keep our reputation, and our reputation has taken some beating recently. We are passing bills that sort of degrade our employment rights. We are passing bills that do nothing to lift child poverty. We are doing those sorts of things, which do damage our reputation, so it is nice to be doing something that does actually support and benefit our reputation.

But the other beneficiaries of this bill, really, are the TAB and the betting organisations. I guess we have to acknowledge that sports betting is the latest gateway drug, if you like, to problem gambling. The Australian experience—and I have been to a conference on this—is that the TABs over there are targeting younger males. They are doing that by encouraging them to bet on sports, to bet on their teams, and it is a show of solidarity and support for their teams if they bet on their teams while the game is happening. So we have changed that whole thing about being a supporter of a team from being: “We support you. We’ll talk about the stats of the match.”, and now it has become talking about the odds. This has become more and more of a problem, and is becoming more and more of a problem, because what is happening is that young men are being targeted. They are using their mobile phones to bet immediately on the outcome of a game, and this is where the TABs over there are raking in the money, because it becomes highly addictive. What the people in the problem-gambling sector say is that the closer to the result that you place the bet, then that is where you start to get problem behaviour occurring. It is that whole instant gratification thing.

We believe in fair play—we truly do—and we think that we should be having some fairness towards those who actually suffer from the betting sector. I note that although there are a lot of people in this country who gamble—about four out of five people have a flutter—and it is only a small proportion of those people, around about 10 percent, who are at risk of having problems with their gambling behaviour, it is an issue that contributes an enormous amount of money that sloshes around, and so it is a honeypot for all sorts of different crimes. That is why we are supporting this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Carmel Sepuloni—5 minutes.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I stand to express Labour’s support for this bill. We believe it is important to ensure that we do not have match fixing in sport in this country. New Zealand has a long tradition of good sportsmanship and success, most recently demonstrated by Lydia Ko, whom I wanted to mention, for her win with both the LPGA tour championship and the season-long order of merit on Monday, earning her $1.9 million in prize money. We do not want to see match fixing in this country, and we are concerned that we are receiving international threat assessments that warn of the increasing risk of crime syndicates and individuals targeting Australasia for sports match-fixing. There have already been high profile match-fixing cases in Australia, which we are all aware of here in New Zealand. Match fixing would significantly damage the integrity, value, and growth of New Zealand sport, which contributed $5 billion to our economy in 2008 to 2009.

The Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill will help to address match-fixing risks presented by New Zealand’s hosting of the Cricket World Cup and the FIFA U-20 World Cup. These events will occur over February, March, and May to June 2015 respectively. Implementing this bill will give New Zealanders some peace of mind in terms of having an assurance that our sports that are being played here are being played cleanly and without the risk of any untoward behaviour, or any risks of match fixing, basically. The bill is not designed to capture every form of match-fixing activity. It is intended to address the most serious match-fixing activity where influencing a betting outcome is intended by improperly manipulating a sporting match or race. The other types of match-fixing activity are better addressed by a code of conduct or disciplinary procedures by relevant governing sports bodies or by other areas of the general law, and we accept that.

Match fixing is a fast developing area of law globally. Unfortunately, it is an area of law that is necessary. Sport New Zealand will continue to monitor international best practice to cover the non-core activity not dealt with in the bill. The bill inserts new section 240A into the Crimes Act 1961 to make it clear that certain match-fixing activity is a form of deception under section 240. This removes the current uncertainty about whether match-fixing falls within the scope of section 240 of the Crimes Act. The Law and Order Committee received four submissions and made one change, amending clause 4 of the bill by removing the words “otherwise than for tactical or for strategic sporting reasons,” from the definition of “deception”. Across the House we have heard from the other members of other political parties, and it is very clear that this is an issue that we take seriously. As a Parliament and as a country we do not want to see our good name in tatters on the international sports stage as a result of match fixing, and with two international contests coming up in the form of cricket and also the FIFA U-20 World Cup we do need to be prepared for that.

It will be great to see New Zealand host that Cricket World Cup and the FIFA U-20 World Cup next year. This Government knows, I have to add, a little bit about match fixing in respect of some of the things that have been going on recently. We do have to make sure that this Parliament is not responsible for presiding over dirty, filthy, grubby, vile sporting operations, unlike the way, unfortunately, that the Prime Minister has presided over dirty, filthy, grubby, vile political operations. I commend this bill to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I will take just a brief call on this bill, but before I get into what I want to talk about, I just want to defend our Law and Order Committee chairman, Mike Sabin. I think he has done a pretty good job in very tight circumstances, and I think the attack on him by the Assistant Speaker from the Labour Party, Trevor Mallard, was quite unnecessary and in the same tone, in fact, as the previous speaker’s description of the Prime Minister. I think that if they want to behave like that, they deserve it. So I am sorry—

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of order I wish to raise is that when the member spoke about Trevor Mallard’s contribution, he referred to him as the Assistant Speaker, and, of course, he was not making that contribution as the Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for that. No, the member was speaking in his right as a member of Parliament. I would just ask Mr McKelvie to withdraw that comment.

IAN McKELVIE: I withdraw that comment. Irrespective of whether the statement was made correctly or not, it was an inappropriate comment by the member for Hutt South. I think it is a sad indictment, because I think the select committee process, held in tight circumstances, was very good. I just wanted to comment on a couple of other things. I think that Kevin Hague raised a really interesting issue. I think that the fact that we have diversified gambling, I suppose, in New Zealand, from what was a very simple process at one stage into a very complicated process now, is enabling all sorts of other opportunities to occur. We saw this recently with a jockey in the central districts where a diverse form of betting enabled that jockey to bet against himself winning a race. I think that that really exposes the same type of thing that we see with match fixing, and that we have seen throughout history, with the ability to manipulate events to get a result.

I realise that there are a lot of words being said on a very small bill. None the less, it is very important, and we look forward to the Cricket World Cup in the new year. I also noted in the course of a couple of speeches that both Kris Faafoi and Kevin Hague said they were what they call “cricket tragics”. I seem to have inherited the responsibility for the parliamentary cricket team, so I will note those two, and they will certainly be called upon in the future. Thank you.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa i te Whare nei. I too rise in support of this albeit small bill but, none the less, very important bill, and my contribution is to acknowledge that every Kiwi has a sporting gene in them—

Carmel Sepuloni: Especially you.

MEKA WHAITIRI: —ha, ha—be it as a participant, an armchair critic, or a supporter. But, as mentioned earlier, there are also the many managers, coaches, and administrators who do some amazing things for our sporting bodies throughout the country. So I do want to acknowledge them. There is absolutely no room in New Zealand for match fixing, or cheating, whatsoever. That is why it is a no-brainer that we stand up and eradicate something that could easily influence or infiltrate our precious sporting systems here in New Zealand.

As others have mentioned, coming through the sporting system has a way of teaching you and preparing you for many challenges in life. I have been quite fortunate to have represented this country as a netballer and a softballer, and I played—[Interruption]; thank you very much—many, many years ago. Also, I know we are pushing through this particular legislation in anticipation that we are going to have the Cricket World Cup, so I do want to acknowledge that I also played representative cricket for Hawke’s Bay way back. I will not tell you the year, but I did take on the Indian women’s team. So I say to my fellow colleague there, Mr Ian McKelvie: if you want to resurrect the parliamentary cricket team, I am sure I can bring out a couple of underarms, overarms, or whatever else to contribute.

On a serious note, it is important that we safeguard against any intrusion into our country of what is determined as cheating and match fixing. Like previous speakers have said, there are threat assessments warning of an increasing risk of crime syndicates in terms of sports match-fixing, particularly in Australia, and we only have to reflect on the Cairns family name in cricket. I recall watching the older Mr Cairns—Lance—play. I have memories of him not actually having a bat; he had a club, reminiscent of a caveman. I remember watching him with great delight as he almost hit a six for six in an over, and thinking: “What a giant of a man.” So it is unfortunate that the Cairns name has been tarnished with the allegations that have occurred under match fixing.

We talk about match fixing in terms of the significant damage that it can do to the integrity of our sporting reputation internationally, given that sports contributed almost $5 billion to our economy back in 2008-09. I would like to reflect on, as has been earlier mentioned, the successes of people like Lydia Ko, Michael Campbell, and Joseph Parker, and teams like the Silver Ferns, who represent our nation as they take on the wider world. It is important that we do not just uphold our reputation in terms of stamping out a potential wrong that can creep into our sport; it is also about actually preserving and safeguarding our reputation internationally. Therefore, we need to be vigilant in this space.

The bill will help to address the risks that might occur during next year’s New Zealand Cricket World Cup and the FIFA U-20 World Cup. Both events are coming to our country, and I am looking forward to seeing them play in February and March, and in May and June, respectively. There were some earlier comments made by my colleague Trevor Mallard in terms of the recently victorious display of our rugby league team just down the road here, where we, unfortunately, did not have a Government representative at that game.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Very poor.

MEKA WHAITIRI: Very, very poor. But I was there and I raised the flag. It is a very rare thing to see the Kiwis take on the Aussies and beat them on our own home turf, so I do want to acknowledge the success of our New Zealand rugby league team.

These are enjoyable times when we as Kiwis can attend sporting events such as the rugby league. I wish I had the same passion as the Silver Ferns at the moment, who are going through a bit of a rebuild and a reconnect—[Interruption] Yes, well, maybe we need to look at the coach, but we will leave that for another korero. But, seriously, I am just—

Hon Trevor Mallard: You could swap.

MEKA WHAITIRI: No, no, no. I quite like the job I have got at the moment, Trevor, thank you very much. There are a lot of sportspeople like I mentioned earlier who dedicate their lives not just in terms of enjoyment of the sport but in terms of success of the sport, and the benefits we gain as participants in New Zealand sport cannot be underestimated. Therefore, it is, like I said, important that we see this piece of legislation go through. I look forward to when it comes to the Committee of the whole House stage. At the end of the day it is preserving what we as Kiwis have grown up with, and we do not want cheating creeping at all into what we hold very dear and what does create the fabric of our country in terms of the opportunities, successes, and, of course, learnings that we get through sport participation.

In terms of the parts of the bill specifically, I want to make mention of the insertion of new section 240A into the Crimes Act 1961, which is to make clear that certain match-fixing activity is a form of deception, under section 240. This removes the current uncertainty about whether match fixing falls within the scope of that part of the Crimes Act. I too want to acknowledge the work of the Law and Order Committee. Obviously I am not a member of that select committee, but, none the less, I want to acknowledge all members in terms of putting up this amendment. As for the submitters, I too was hoping that we would have more submissions from across our national bodies. I know this has been pushed ahead simply because of the pending sports fixtures next year, but we cannot lose sight that there are opportunities where this kind of practice can creep in. That is what I understand this legislation is going to prevent, so we need to take that wide-angle lens and look at not just what occurs on the field and on the court but also what happens on our waterways and on our racing tracks, which has been ably covered by the contributors this afternoon.

It has been very enjoyable to actually contribute to this bill, which goes to the heart of something that I love dearly and, like I said, that most New Zealanders love dearly. We do not want cheats and we do not want match fixing, but we sure as hell do want a fair and equitable chance for all New Zealanders, unlike what we have seen in this House this week—the vile and grubby politics that has come from the Prime Minister. Kia ora tātou.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): I also did not sit on the select committee that considered this bill, the Law and Order Committee, but it is a pleasure to take a short call in support of it. I also want to echo the sentiments of the previous member who spoke, Meka Whaitiri, and acknowledge the members who did sit on the select committee and considered the bill, given the urgent nature and importance of this piece of legislation. As we have heard from the Minister for Sport and Recreation, match fixing has been described internationally as the No. 1 threat to sport today. Match fixing damages the integrity of sport, not to mention the fun of it. It is a shame that we are having to consider such a piece of legislation, but match fixing does come at a significant cost, as outlined previously by some of the members here today, and where the International Centre for Sport Security has estimated that over $140 billion has been laundered worldwide, per year, through match fixing and sport betting.

Given the two international events that we are hosting next year, as a country our international reputation is also very important and at stake here. It also filters down to a local level where we have got young people and children participating in sport with the hope of potentially being some of our sporting stars of the future, and it is teaching them a good example by instituting a high level of integrity at this point. I think we all want honesty and fairness in our sporting matches. If the honesty is taken out of that then there is no real competition and no one would choose to watch a game or participate in one where they knew the fixed outcome. I think we need to protect the sporting industry and protect its integrity, and therefore I commend this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Education Amendment Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is debate on clauses 4 to 39 and schedules 1 to 3.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to take a call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2)—

Grant Robertson: One of many.

CHRIS HIPKINS:—one of many; one of the first of what I am sure will be many—and say that we will be wholeheartedly opposing this legislation. I am intending to go through clause by clause, in fact, and explain why that is.

I want to turn my comments, first of all, to the clauses of the bill that establish the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand—EDUCANZ, as it is to be known. I want to start by talking about the first amendment that I have put forward in my own name, which would ensure that this new regulatory body for the teaching profession may, in fact, be able to develop the confidence of the profession by giving it some democratic oversight of that body. As it stands at the moment, the New Zealand Teachers Council, which this body replaces, has members who are drawn from the sector, and there is a democratic process for doing so. This new bill removes that entire democratic process and allows the Minister of Education to simply hand-pick the full membership of the board. That is not going to engender the confidence of the teaching profession, and that is why the amendment that I have put forward restores democratic representation to the governing body of EDUCANZ, and I think that is very important if the sector is going to support it.

The Minister has indicated that she will be appointing at least five registered teachers. It is important to note that the original drafting of the bill allowed for only up to five of the nine members to be registered teachers. The Education and Science Committee has changed that to be that at least five of the nine members must be registered teachers. However, they are still going to be hand-picked by the Minister. I think that that is going to be one of the things that creates resentment within the sector and that prevents the new EDUCANZ body from achieving the objective it is there to achieve. So if the objective is, as the Government has indicated, to raise the status of the teaching profession, to provide leadership to the profession, and to be an independent voice for teachers, how can the body do that if the teachers themselves do not have any say over who represents them? If it is a representative body, then where else would we say that a body is representative if the people whom it represents do not actually have any say over who makes it up? It is just a nonsense, and therefore the amendment to restore a democratic process, which I have put forward, is a very important one.

The second thing that I think we need to consider in light of that is some of the new powers that this legislation confers on the new body, EDUCANZ. One of the things it will do, and one of the things that I think is important—and I support the introduction of it but I think it needs to be jealously safeguarded—is the power for EDUCANZ to conduct what you could call own motion investigations. At the moment the existing Teachers Council can investigate the conduct of a teacher only where it receives a formal complaint. If it becomes aware in the process of investigating one formal complaint that there is another issue involving another teacher or even another issue involving the same teacher, the council cannot investigate that unless someone then subsequently makes an additional complaint. So there is no provision in the existing legislation for the council to launch an own motion investigation.

This bill changes that, and I welcome that. I think that is important, because we have had a bizarre situation where in order to investigate some complaints the director of the Teachers Council was the complainant. This was because, actually, the council would become aware of an issue in the process of investigating something, it would not have the power to launch another investigation into that additional matter, so therefore the director would be the person who made the complaint to the body that he—it was a he—was responsible for the oversight of. I think that that was a nonsense, and therefore this new own motion investigation provision makes that clear.

But there has to be some safeguard about this. One of the anxieties that we will hear back from the subjects of this legislation, the teaching profession throughout the country, is that if the Government is going to have the power to completely hand-pick who is on this body and the Government is giving them the power to conduct investigations on whatever they want to at their own instigation, that is an awful lot of power that the Minister, effectively, is going to have. It is not actually going to make this body more independent; it is going to make it less independent, and it is going to result in the profession having less confidence in it. So I think those two things together—[Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to give the call to Chris Hipkins, but just before I do, these microphones—oh, it is working.

CHRIS HIPKINS: I think we are having microphone issues all over the Chamber at the moment, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I was told it was not working, so my apologies.

CHRIS HIPKINS: That is all right—it seems to be working. I am happy to continue my comments. I am very happy to talk louder, if that would be desirable to the Committee, of course. So to return back to the comments that I was making—

Grant Robertson: Stay on track.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —to stay on track—that unlike the current Government, the issue we are dealing with here in this legislation is around whether the teaching profession can have confidence in the regulatory body that is going to have oversight of the profession given its lack of direct representation on that body and the increased powers that that body is going to have. I think it cannot, and that is one of the reasons that I have put forward the amendment that I have.

I want to then turn to some of the additional powers, in addition to the own motion investigations, which I have mentioned. EDUCANZ is going to have responsibilities for the leadership of the profession, for raising the status of the profession. I want to be clear here that there were 1,032 submissions dealing with this particular part of the bill. So 1,032 submissions dealt with the creation of the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, and there were fewer than a dozen of those that actually supported it. So there was overwhelming feedback from the people who are covered by EDUCANZ that they do not want it and they do not support it, and that has fallen completely on deaf ears when it comes to the current Government. So having overwhelmingly rejected it, they are still going to be subject to it.

This body is supposed to raise the status of teaching. Well, there are some interesting aspects to that, the first of which is, obviously, that the profession clearly does not support it. The second is that if it is going to raise the status of the teaching profession, why has the word “teaching” been banished from the name of the organisation? That was something that a lot of submitters commented on. They said that, actually, they wanted to see “teaching” back in the title of the organisation, and I think that is fair. The third point—I think; I am up to about three now—that many submitters raised amongst the additional responsibilities the organisation is going to have is around the dissemination of best practice. The overwhelming feedback was that that is not the responsibility of this body. This body is a regulatory body. It is about ensuring that teachers are registered and that there is appropriate professional conduct and so on. This is not a body about sharing professional best practice. What that is going to do is result in the transfer of cost from the agencies of the State in the form of the Ministry of Education, the Education Review Office, and so on, on to a body that is paid for through teacher registration fees. That is unjust and that is overwhelmingly the feedback from the profession. I think before the Government goes ahead and tries to impose these additional responsibilities on to the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, it needs to make sure that it is supported by the profession. I can say from the submissions that that certainly is not the case. Those were some of the concerns that were raised. There were many, many others. Overwhelmingly, the teaching profession was saying that it does not support this legislation. The question really becomes whether it can discharge its responsibilities effectively if the people who are covered by it do not support it, and the answer to that clearly has to be no.

My colleagues are going to talk about the changes to tertiary governance that are covered in this part, and I will come back to those in a subsequent intervention, I guess, if I get the opportunity to do so. But I want to talk more about this: I mentioned that one of the issues around the regulatory nature and the responsibilities of the regulatory body is setting professional standards. The Teachers Council, as it exists at the moment, sets a code of ethics, which is aspirational, but it does set minimum standards for what the conduct, I guess, of the teaching profession should be, but it is more aspirational than that. It is more than saying this is not about setting minimum expectations; it is about saying this is what we are striving for, and it is much more than just the minimums. So, yes, it clearly establishes minimums by definition but it actually goes further and says, actually, we want to go further than that and we want to be an aspirational profession. Once upon a time, of course, the National Government claimed to be aspirational. It no longer does. Instead, this bill replaces the aspirational code of ethics with a very arbitrary code of conduct, which would be narrower and set minimum expectations for the profession. Overwhelmingly, those who submitted to the Education and Science Committee said they did not think that was good enough. They actually thought that the teaching profession should be striving for more than just a minimum code of conduct. I absolutely agree with them. That is why I have put forward an additional amendment to return the focus to the code of ethics, which is an aspirational document, rather than the code of conduct, which is around minimum expectations.

Finally, in this contribution I want to talk about the requirement for the council to audit 10 percent of teacher registrations. That is going to create a huge bureaucratic burden, which teachers will have to pay for.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I am delighted to take a call on this important piece of legislation, the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), and would like to reiterate what my colleague Chris Hipkins has said about the submitters. I think for those of us who attended the hearings, there was an amazing consistency in the submissions from the many voices of people, and we really heard very clear messages about what is important. Hence the Green Party is opposing the bill and we are putting up 10 Supplementary Order Papers on different aspects of the bill in an effort to make sure that the bill could actually reflect what the profession wants out of its council.

If we go back to how change is best achieved, it is interesting to think about whether change is best achieved by imposition or inspiration. Nobody disagrees that the Teachers Council could go through a review process. It is a necessary part of any institution that it be reviewed and that it be reviewed by Government, which puts money in, and by the profession, which should own it in the professional sense. Clearly, the profession is not happy with what has been suggested for this organisation. We had an overwhelming number of submissions that clearly stated that the profession did not want the Teachers Council to be turned from a registration body run by professionals, where at least some of the people were appointed by those professionals, to a creature of the Minister of Education of the day. This is basically what has happened. It has become a creature of the Minister of the day. Hence the large number of submissions that focused on the issue of representation. Although we did have a victory on one issue, which is to get teachers on to the council, I would like first to address the issue of representation, which is in one of my Supplementary Order Papers.

One of the problems that we have with representation is teachers not being able to choose their own people. The field is now open to anyone to vote, and every single one of the nine appointments will have to be accepted by the Minister. That is not the situation at the moment. At the moment, though the Minister appoints some of the people, we actually have a large number of teachers engaged in voting for the representatives. They have just been through that process, and we have seen the result, which is some very high-calibre people being voted on by the profession. We do not see why—and hence Supplementary Order Paper 29 we have put up—there is such a lack of trust in the ability of teachers to govern themselves.

We support, as do the teachers who came and submitted—and it was largely teachers organisations that came and submitted—an improvement to registration. They actually would like to see an improvement to registration. There was no disputing the support for the improvement to registration and the importance of having tight and heavily monitored guidelines for making sure who gets to work with our children, because this is what this Teachers Council has been about. It has been about who gets to work with our kids. When there has been problems, then it has been really important that we look at the loopholes in the structures and make sure that we cannot have loopholes and that the vulnerable—the children—will not be exposed to people who should not be there. That is one of the issues that we wanted to raise in the Supplementary Order Papers—the critical issue of representation. We really do believe that if we want change, it should be inspired, not imposed, and teachers themselves should have control of their own professional body. You have already heard that from a number of us in the first levels of debate, but we heard it thousands of times—literally thousands of times—at the Education and Science Committee. Day after day after day in different cities we heard people say: “Please. We want to represent ourselves. We are professionals.”

This leads me on to another of my Supplementary Order Papers, Supplementary Order Paper 35, which relates to the question of ethics versus conduct. Again, the professionals were saying: “If you really want to lift the status of the profession, which you claim to do in this bill, why don’t you respect the fact that the code of ethics is a fundamental recognition of that? Why are you going for a code of conduct, which is far more about a tick-box, public service control model than recognising our professionalism?”. It should be remembered that the fees that teachers pay are for their own professional body. Therefore, they should have the type of code that reflects their responsibilities, their beliefs, and their capacity as professionals. The medical profession does, as was pointed out to us numerous times, as do other bodies, so why not the teachers? If we are really serious about valuing teachers and making sure that we have the best possible education system in this country, this was the moment to listen to those submitters. But unfortunately the Government has not listened. The bill has not been changed sufficiently to do that. That is very disappointing. A code of ethics would have been a signal from the Government that we recognise that the teaching profession is more than capable of distinguishing the difference between conduct and ethics, and that ethics require a broader, deeper, and more educational approach.

Continuing with some of the other Supplementary Order Papers on the functions of the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand (EDUCANZ)—these are really important issues because again the status of the profession is at stake in this. The idea of the broad powers of this new council—it is interesting but it is very vague. It does not really address the issue that the council was set up for. It is changing its function profoundly without, again, the support of the profession. If it is going to raise the status of the profession, the way this is structured it relies far more on the actions of the Minister and the Ministry of Education. It does not actually raise the status of the profession at all. The purpose statement of the new body is really vague; it is not clear. The status of teaching relies much more on matters such as employment, conditions, and remuneration than something that the council itself can control. We do not really need a ministerial body duplicating the efforts of other bodies that we already have for raising the status of the profession and for the functions that are suggested. It will not lead to safe, high-quality leadership in teaching unless it has buy-in from those people, unless it is the core business.

The debate remains. What is the core business of this council? I do not think that was clarified at all. We did not hear in these statements about the function, and raising status, etc., what they mean and how that is core business. Teachers were very concerned that they were going to pay fees for something that was vague and that could rely on certain things happening with that money that did not raise the status of the profession, that it was just fashion of the day, or an opportunity to spend money, which they had paid for, to do things that they did not have any power over. For example, if the council started to run expensive advertising campaigns or give out awards or invite new standards or criteria, which no one had any proper input into. These costs could then be sheeted home to the teachers, who have not got those powers, who do not want to change the functions in the way that has been suggested. We are going to say that if you are going to put a cost on teachers, we ought to listen to what it is that they want done. That is another of our Supplementary Order Papers. There are several of them relating to the functions of EDUCANZ, because it is critical that the functions are not only clear but that they are supported by the people who have to carry them out.

We are also very concerned about the clauses in the bill around changing the name of the council, because of the symbolic importance of the word “teacher”, and we understand why so many submitters raised this. It may seem like a petty and minor point to some people, but, actually, it is quite critical if you recognise that teaching is a profession that we want to uplift in this country and therefore a teachers council will understand exactly what a teachers council does. EDUCANZ—that could be any NGO, it could be any consultancy, it could be any private body. It is one of those meaningless names that does not actually inspire the confidence of the people whom it is supposed to represent. So it is a very concerning issue and a symbolic issue, rather than a profound content issue. But people were afraid that it would flow into content.

The clauses around limited authority to teach—we want to change those, so we have Supplementary Order Paper 25 about skill shortages. We have no problem with the limited authority to teach, so long as it is related to skill shortages. But, actually, what we heard around the country, from the submitters, is that there are not these skill shortages, so why are the limited authority to teach clauses being expanded in this? Is it something to do with charter schools? Is it the fact the Government wants to make sure there are more unqualified people in front of groups of children who have been identified by it as priority learners? We do not know. But when many of us from the Opposition asked at the select committee: “Do you have skill shortages?”, the schools said: “No, that’s not the issue. Not in that way. We do not need an extension to the limited authority to teach.” So that was another one.

We would like to change the law to make it clear that we support the limited authority to teach where there are skill shortages, but not as a blanket increase in the number of people who are coming into schools without having the pedagogical background to understand the difference between knowing a subject and teaching a subject. That is a profound difference. It is a difference particularly for primary schools, but it applies to secondary schools as well. When you are teaching a person, as opposed to a subject, you have to understand the dynamics and the pedagogy, not just be really good at understanding how to do some particular thing or have even a knowledge of quantum physics. That is not how it works, if you want people to learn. So we are disappointed in those clauses, and we are making those suggestions. In the late stages my colleague and I will talk about the clauses around tertiary governance. It is very, very concerning.

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā tātou. Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. I rise to take a short call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). I would like to begin by thanking and acknowledging the Education and Science Committee for the recommendations that it has made, which have been included in the bill—in particular, the recommendation about the appointment of members to the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand (EDUCANZ).

I want to start with the point about changing from the New Zealand Teachers Council to the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand and answer some of the concerns that seem still to be apparent in the minds of members, notwithstanding that they spent so long on the select committee. The New Zealand Teachers Council is, at law, a Crown entity. It must obey and work within certain restrictions and parameters that apply to Crown entities. What is being set out in this bill is that this new council will be statutorily independent. It will be able to make its decisions as an independent body.

Education is, of course, of great interest to many New Zealanders. It is important, given that this public good, if you like—this public right—is to be managed or governed by a statutorily independent entity, that there are some levers that the Government of the day is able to exercise to ensure that that public good is being governed in the best possible way. There are only two of those levers in this bill. One is the opportunity for the Government of the day to ask for reports, and the other is the opportunity to appoint council members.

One of the recommendations that Education and Science Committee made, which has been accepted and which I applaud, is that five of the nine appointees must not only be registered teachers but hold current practising certificates. I thank the committee for picking up that anomaly and correcting it. It is important that the majority of members on that council are from the profession. But let me be clear: firstly, the appointment will be made by the Minister, but all teachers, all education organisations, all parents groups, and all members of the public will have the ability to nominate for consideration those people who they think should be on the board and be considered for appointment. Secondly, the competencies and capabilities of those nominees will be clear and gazetted so that we understand that we are putting together a body that represents the broad range of experiences and expertise that will be required for governance of this council. It will be an entirely transparent and public process that can be subject to the scrutiny of all, given the importance of this appointment.

The next question is why the name is changing. Well, we have an education system that is of sectors joined loosely: the early childhood sector, the primary sector, the secondary sector, and the tertiary sector. But New Zealand’s children do not consider themselves to be in a sector. They are having their educational experience from 0 to 18 years of age, generally, which is the provision for our free and compulsory education schooling system. What we are trying to do through the educational council is provide for educators and teachers who operate in the early childhood sector, as well as teacher, leaders, and principals who operate throughout.

So, although teaching as a qualification is an integral and critical part of this, we want to try to ensure that we are embracing the entire system so that the focus can be on the students, their learning, their achievement, and the contribution that these professionals can make to it. It is the Educational Council of Aotearoa New Zealand because we also wanted to indicate that this country was founded on a bicultural platform, that it is a platform for our increasingly diverse and multicultural and plural modern nation, so that name is not a meaningless name, as has been suggested by previous speakers, but it is evocative of the inclusiveness that we think is important to characterise an education system of the 21st century.

The next issue that has been of some concern for members is the distinction between ethics and conduct. Clearly, these are not mutually exclusive. Conduct must reflect the ethics and values that are held to be important by a body. So I just wanted to make that short contribution. Thank you.

TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I thank the Minister of Education for clarifying a couple of issues. Can I raise a couple of others that perhaps the Minister could take another call on to clarify. One is with regard to the name change and the removal of the word “teacher” inside the name of the council and replaced with “educators”. It is good to have the Minister point out that this body will now cover all those who are termed “educators”, which is an interesting term. It has become quite prevalent particularly since this Government came into power.

At the moment, it is interesting that inside early childhood education, educators are home-based educators. They are trained and qualified and registered teachers, and they are people with specific skills. We move into the compulsory sector of schooling and we now have the partnership school legislation, which also has educators but not trained and qualified teachers in it. Can I ask the Minister then whether this body will, firstly, be creating a register of educators in the same way that it creates a teachers register? If and when any of those educators break the rules there will be a public record of those educators, so that they cannot move from one facility to another. If this body creates a register of educators, will those educators have to pay the amount, the registration fee, that is going to fund all the functions of this particular body; if not, why not?

Let us move on. That is the first question around the name. The next thing the Minister mentioned was around the code of conduct, as opposed to the code of ethics. Let us get down to brass tacks about language, shall we. Conduct is your behaviour—

Hon Hekia Parata: Correct.

TRACEY MARTIN: Thank you, Minister. So a code of conduct dictates your behaviour, and therein lies the interesting point. I also note that in the department’s report it says that the code of conduct, so how you will now behave—I beg your pardon; how educators will behave, but we are not sure whether educators will be incorporated by this body and registered by and tracked by it. We know only that teachers will be at this stage. This will be created in consultation with stakeholders. We just had 1,525 stakeholders—bar 13—come and actually say that they did not want it, so that will be an interesting consultation period. I wonder who is going to take that consultation with those people or with what people about this code of conduct as to how you will behave.

I think, quite reasonably, the sector is concerned that with these outlines of how you will behave, one of the things that will come out is that you will not criticise the Minister or the ministry. You will not publicly go out there and defend what you believe is bad practice with regard to the teaching and education of our children, because there will now be a code of conduct that stops you from doing so.

But because I am not confident that I am going to get a second call, I want to also move on to another piece of Part 1, which is actually the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 21 says: In clause 38, delete new section 353(2) (page 35, lines 25 to 27).” Those lines are: “When performing its function and exercising its powers, the Education Council must act in accordance with the rules of natural justice.” That is the only time “natural justice” is mentioned, and the Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister requests it be removed.

Would the Minister stand up and take a call and perhaps just clarify for me, particularly, and I am sure for the teachers out there, why she feels the need to remove the rules of natural justice from this legislation and this body when dealing with this profession. I will leave it there because I am hoping—very much hoping—that this is such an important statement about removing natural justice from this group of professionals and that the reason why it was not discussed at select committee was that nobody asked about it then, but it is now in a Supplementary Order Paper.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I was waiting to see whether the Minister would respond to Tracy Martin’s question. I am sure she will at a later moment in this debate.

I want to focus my first contribution on the changes to tertiary governance that are covered by clause 6, which amends sections 171 and 173 of the Education Act. This is a classic case of a solution in search of a problem. There has been no evidence provided by the Government for why it is making these changes. There have been comprehensive submissions from everybody involved in the tertiary sector to say that these changes are unnecessary, ill-considered, and inconsistent with international norms and best practices. The submissions say that the changes will undermine the integrity of institutions and undermine the autonomy of institutions, and that they will threaten the international reputation of New Zealand’s tertiary institutions. Yet Steven Joyce and Hekia Parata come to this House, put this in front of us, and say that it must happen. Well, there is no justification.

I refer to the regulatory impact statement, which, helpfully, has a heading “Problem definition”. It is not a good start for the problem definition when it begins to compare these changes with the changes to the governance of polytechs, which were put through in 2009. The regulatory impact statement says: “Changes to ITP governance in 2009 resulted from poor financial and educational performance in the ITP sector. Unlike this situation … there are no immediate issues …” with the university sector. So the first element of the problem definition actually is not there anymore.

I would say, as an aside, that in fact after the changes were made to polytechnic governance to restrict the membership of staff and students, financial performance for polytechs declined. So the very reason that was given for doing it in the first place actually turned out to make the opposite happen.

But that actually is not the justification here. The justification here talks about: “Greater competitive pressures from further internationalisation of the education market through the emergence of online provision …”, and the fact that students can now access courses from all over the world. Well, I know what a good response to that would be. Take students off the councils! Take off the council the very people who are making these decisions that are relevant. So that is the first part of the problem definition that does not make any sense.

The second part of the alleged problem is the importance of better responding to areas of high occupational demand. Well, actually, there is not a lot of evidence that universities are not doing that. So does it make any sense whatsoever, then, to remove guaranteed representation of employers from councils? That is what this bill does. So if there is an issue and a problem about whether universities are responding to the need for the skills required for occupations that are emerging, would it not be better to guarantee representation from employers on it? But, no, the Government wants to take away guaranteed representation from employers as well.

I move on to other parts of the problem definition and to the importance of universities: “Making strategic investments to enhance their attractiveness to students and emphasise their particular areas of expertise”. Again, why, then, take away the guaranteed representation of that class of people—of students, the people who are supposedly needing to be attracted into these institutions?

This part of the legislation is a solution in search of a problem. This problem definition is absolutely empty. Therefore, you have to look around and ask what the reasons would be. Mr Joyce has never come up with one, other than an ideological commitment to smaller governance. Members on the other side of the House will be familiar with Mr Joyce’s role in this during his time as general secretary of whatever the equivalent is in the National Party, when he took the board of the National Party and reduced it in size as well so that he could control it and control the National Party. That is what this is about. It is about control—unbelievably, from the National Party, the party that is supposedly about freedom. It is about control. This is the most controlling Government—

Hon David Parker: They brought in Jason Ede.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I am coming to that. This is the most controlling Government that you will ever see.

The other part of Steven Joyce’s justification here is about the stifling of dissent. The organisations within the tertiary sector that have put in the most criticism of the Government’s policies are staff and students, and it is staff and students whose guaranteed representation is being taken away.

So there we have the desire of Steven Joyce to control more institutions that have the role in our society of being the critic and the conscience, and then also to stifle dissent. Does this sound familiar to anybody? This is exactly the operation that has been run from the ninth floor of the Beehive—a smear machine to control and get rid of dissent. The vile smear machine of the ninth floor is represented here in this legislation. It is almost as if this legislation was dictated to Jason Ede and sent to Cameron Slater as well. That is what this looks like, because it comes from the same principle of control of these institutions.

But it is not just the Labour Party saying this. It is coming from places like Auckland University and Stuart McCutcheon—

Hon Simon Bridges: The Green Party too.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I do not think that Stuart McCutcheon would be a member of the Green Party, Mr Bridges. I think Stuart McCutcheon’s politics might lie considerably elsewhere. But he and other vice-chancellors and other members of the tertiary sector have been absolutely clear that this will undermine their role. They look to the international examples because reducing the number of people on a council perhaps down to eight, from 12, you might think was in line with international examples. But it is not—The University of Melbourne, 22; Queensland University, 22; Cambridge University, 24; Oxford University, 25; Harvard University, 32. They are all ranked higher. Stanford University is 33, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 72. At the moment, membership on New Zealand university councils has to be between 12 and 20. This is a number that has worked well. There is no problem here, and internationally we will be out of step. A random sample of 50 of the top 200 universities in the world shows that the size of the council is irrelevant to the performance of that institution in the top 200. We want more New Zealand universities in the top 200, and, instead, what we have got is a Minister tinkering around and trying to take more control.

If you want more evidence of that, Mr Chair, these proposals in this bill move the proportion of council members appointed by a Minister from 20 percent to 25 percent, to 33 percent to 40 percent. So the Minister now takes control of nearly half the membership of these councils. These are institutions that are meant to be autonomous. These are institutions that are meant to be independent. They play a critical role in our society of standing up to Government, and now Steven Joyce wants to control up to 40 percent of the membership. So nothing in this bill will do anything to improve the performance of universities. In fact, what it will do is simply ideologically reduce the size and increase the control that the Minister thinks he can have over this.

And what about the staff and students who make up institutions? Time and again, people came to the select committee and said that the value added by having staff and students at the table was immeasurable. That is where the voice of the people was heard. In the case of Auckland University, it talked in its submission about the 6,000 staff, the 40,000 students, and the 64,000 graduates, whose participation in a university council is no longer guaranteed.

These measures will undermine our tertiary institutions. They will increase the control of the Government, and for no reason other than an ideological wish by Steven Joyce to silence his critics. Well, that is not good enough. On this side of the House we actually stand for a tertiary sector that is independent, that can play its role as the critic of conscience in society, and that is not beholden to Steven Joyce and his mates.

It is not like this came up just the other day. This is about the history of universities, going back centuries. It is about the fundamental principles of institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and, yes, of equity. And if we want to see equity as part of our tertiary sector, then having the people who are affected by decisions that are made at the council table is vital. All we have been asking for in this debate is the ability for students, for staff, for employers, and for people in communities who are affected by tertiary institutions to be given the right to have a say.

Steven Joyce justified this piece of legislation on the basis that one university, Canterbury University, wanted to change the membership of its council. It could do exactly what it wanted to do, under the current law. The current law says 12 to 20 members. It has worked well in almost every tertiary institution in this country. There is no problem here. Tertiary institutions are doing relatively well financially, despite the fact that the Government has actually cut their funding over the last 5 years. There is nothing in this piece of legislation to justify the claims that Steven Joyce has made about why he wants to make a change. When and if this legislation passes, it will be a shame on this country.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I would also like to concentrate primarily on clause 6 of the bill, in the first of my many contributions on this piece of legislation. Although Steven Joyce has dumped his tertiary reform into a bill of Hekia Parata’s, there are actually some common themes that run through the two aspects of the bill. My colleagues Chris Hipkins and Grant Robertson have drawn these out, largely. Primarily, what these reforms are doing is taking away the representative nature of our education system and investing a whole lot more power in the Minister of Education and the Minister of Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment.

In the second reading of this bill the Minister of Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, in his contribution to the House, said there is nothing to worry about here because academic freedom and the role of the university are protected and enshrined in sections 160 and 161 of the primary legislation. Well, if we have a look at new sections 171 through 176, inserted by this legislation, what we will see is a number of clauses that actually undermine sections 160 and 161 of the primary legislation—that very fundamental purpose of what it is a university is to do, and protecting the fundamental right of our universities to academic freedom.

So, if we turn our attention firstly to new section 171B covering the matters to be considered when appointing members to a university council. What is required to be considered is that the appointments reflect the socio-economic diversity of the community in which the institution sits. Although this is an admirable requirement to put into the legislation, and certainly nothing we took any issue with, what we do have is some sympathy with a number of submitters, in the ability to ensure that that representation of communities can be reflected in a council that is so small.

We heard from a number of speakers about being situated in incredibly diverse communities, right along the socio-economic axis—various people who needed representation. Their ability to do this in such a small council, when the Minister was going to be appointing such a high proportion of the people to the council, was, indeed, problematic.

As my colleague Grant Robertson has alluded to, no case for change has been made for this legislation. We have had the Minister tell us it was about creating innovative and efficient universities that could foot it in the world. Well, what we have seen is that our universities actually have smaller councils already than a number of far more successful universities around the world have. What we also heard around the reduction in the size of councils and the erosion of academic freedom—and I will go through some more of the clauses that bring this into effect—was that a number of the vice-chancellors and, indeed, universities in New Zealand had a very real concern about what this would do to our international reputation and our ability to market our academic institutions in order for them to be able to be seen as a credible place for international students to come to and undertake their studies. Because what we can see is the severity of what is happening to that core purpose of a university and its institutional and academic freedom.

If we turn our attention next to new section 176A, inserted by clause 9 of the bill, what we can see there is the individual duties of the members being defined. One the things that really comes into play here—which we can see in new section 176B(1)—is that the duties are not accorded to the institution or, indeed, the council, but to the Minister. This is something that a number of submitters rightly took a great deal of umbrage to. They expressed real concern that the duties of the members of the governing body of a university would be answerable to the Minister is a fundamental change in the way we govern our universities. A fundamental change that makes the people who are running a university accountable to a Government Minister rather than to the university itself undermines the very notion of what a university is. This is something that needs to be taken very seriously. For centuries, universities have been colleges of colleagues—that is where the word comes from—who have run successful academic institutions. We are not saying that there cannot be any accountability, but every member of that appointed council is going to be primarily and firstly accountable to the Minister.

It does not stop there in terms of what this does to erode academic freedom, if we turn to new section 176C and look at the removal clauses that are there and the powers that the Minister has to remove members from the council. The Minister not only has these powers to remove their own appointments, the Minister also has the power to remove any member appointed to the council, whether it be by the institution or by the Minister themselves.

This is a truly frightening prospect when you put this together with the previous clause, which makes the members of those governing bodies accountable to that Minister. If you do not do what that Minister wants, they have the power to remove you. Remember, we are talking about organisations that are meant to be the critic and conscience of our society. We are not talking about the board of directors of a company; we are talking about a university, which has a particular function within our society and it is being eroded by this legislation.

The Minister has not made the case for change. I invite the Minister in the chair, the Hon Hekia Parata—I realise this is not under her responsibility, but she is the Minister in the chair—to stand up and make the case for change. Tell us why it is that we are departing from centuries-old traditions of how we ensure that academic freedom is guarded and why it is that we are departing from centuries-old traditions of how we have a critic and a conscience in our society, because the case has not been made.

The universities are opposed to it, the vice-chancellors are opposed to it, and Universities New Zealand is opposed to it. This is a serious and grave change to an important set of institutions in our society, and I would like to hear from the Minister why those changes are being made. We need to consider how all these new sections interact. It is not enough for Minister Joyce to say that there is nothing to see here and nothing to worry about because sections 160 and 161 of the principal Act remain intact. They do not, because they are being eroded through a series of clauses that are contained in this legislation.

The case for change needs to be made by this Government, because this is nothing short of disassembling an important institution in our country at the very time that this Government is showing us we need institutions that will hold power to account. This is a Government that is intent on shutting down discussion. It is a Government that is intent on shutting down criticism of itself. We have seen its own smear machine that seeks to shut down dissenters. We are now seeing the Government introduce legislation that attempts to curtail the ability of our universities to fulfil that function in our society, and it is not good enough.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No. This is a major bill and it really has only one substantive part. I am not prepared to take it.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Mr Chair, kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. In this speech I would like to limit my contribution to looking at clause 6 in Part 1, which basically gives the Minister oversight of the university councils. It takes over what the Government did in 2009 with the institutes of technology and polytechnics sector.

What the Green Party cares about is quality education. What it cares about is making sure students have a voice and representation around the governance tables at our universities, which clause 6 will disestablish in favour of the Minister deciding who will be on there. What we want to see is a good student voice coming through the top levels of a university, because, ultimately, this is what our universities are for. They are not just businesses. They are not just corporations. In fact, they are there to educate, to inspire, and to grow the New Zealand economy with trade, enterprise, and academic skills.

We face a challenging and new time for our university sector. I think now is a critical time to have student voices, staff voices, and other representatives around that table to make sure our universities are planning for the future. That is exactly what the regulatory impact assessment said. When you look in that report at all the challenges that universities are facing, I do not know why you would not want students around that table to provide their insight and advice.

Obviously, it is an incredibly unpopular change. Of the more than a thousand submissions, 474 were opposed to this in particular. Only five—only five people—thought this was a good idea. I invite the Minister to explain exactly what the rationale is. Why are we doing this? The submitters raised numerous concerns around institutional autonomy, our international rankings—which actually measure institutional autonomy—why it was beneficial to get rid of student and staff voices. How are we going to make sure diversity is actually represented there, and where is the evidence for smaller university councils without those guaranteed representative roles? Where is the evidence? Where is the harm that they are trying to address through this legislative change?

I would like the Minister to actually answer the question, which is: “Why do we need smaller councils?”. When you look at the corporate evidence in New Zealand, in fact the corporate evidence of New Zealand and Australian businesses shows that larger councils or boards actually have better financial performances than smaller ones. So if this is simply around a corporate argument for efficiency, I ask the Minister to look at the evidence that is portrayed.

If there is an issue, as there was in the institutes of technology and polytechnics sector in 2009, what is it? Where is the financial mismanagement? Where is the harm they are trying to address? And where is the international example? When you look around the world, you have got the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—they have got 70 people on their council—and Cambridge University has got 30 people. This is why I have put in Supplementary Order Paper 24 to address three issues. The first issue is getting rid of clause 6 by repealing it. This ideological, flawed approach to university governance, which gets rid of staff and students’ voices, should not proceed. There is no evidence, there is no support from the public, and there is no good reason why this should go ahead. The second part of the Supplementary Order Paper would ensure that tertiary institutions accurately represent the demographics of their constituents and their support staff. By repealing clause 6 I am, essentially, proposing that we return to the status quo, but I think we can do better when it comes to reporting and monitoring diversity. The last part of this Supplementary Order Paper would limit the length of term of ministerial appointments from 4 to 2 years.

There is a place, an appropriate place, for ministerial appointments—not in the dominant position of up to 40 percent, which is what this legislation would achieve. What I want to see is university councils representing their students and their staff, actively planning for the future, and addressing those challenges because they have got the best advice, the advice of not just customers—as I imagine some National members may view them—but the students, the life and soul of universities; what they are actually there for.

What I do not want to see is university councils that look more and more like Minister Steven Joyce, that look more and more like the Government’s view. I think we should make sure we ensure diversity and transparency in the university councils. Kia ora.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): This bill is what it is: a razor that takes away another slice of the public education system, and another slice of what makes our tertiary institutions really effective and responsive to delivering community education. It is taking away the rights and opportunities of students, of staff, and of the community to have a say in what is happening at their local tertiary institution. So it is what it is: a razor to further slice and dice the public education system in ways that are not helpful. I am really concerned, because I did listen to the response of the Minister—and she carefully went through the purposes of the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand (EDUCANZ), which will take over the Teachers Council—and I am thinking to myself: “You know, principals and teachers in all our communities are respected leaders, yet they cannot lead their own profession.” That is what the Government is saying: “They cannot be trusted to lead their own profession.”

Where is the sense in that? We let health professionals lead the health profession, because the care of people is absolutely critical. Yet we cannot let the teaching profession lead its organisation to ensure that the minds of the next generation can be shaped by people who know absolutely what they are doing. In fact, I am really concerned, listening to the Minister’s explanation of why independent people will be appointed to EDUCANZ, because it sounds to me that EDUCANZ will be running the teaching profession like a business. In a similar way to how the Government wants to ensure that charter schools will be there to privatise the education system, it seems that EDUCANZ will be there to privatise the way in which the teaching profession operates.

We only need to go back to the comments about the difference between a code of conduct and a code of ethics. With regard to the code of ethics, it is a lot like how it works in the health profession, where you lift up the standards of the profession to a degree where excellence is the threshold. A code of conduct is very transactional. It forces teaching into the mode where you do your job, and if you do not do certain things and tick certain boxes, well, then you may not get your registration. That makes absolute sense when we consider the fact that the Government has been pushing through national standards. Teachers throughout many schools are saying that national standards do not prepare our children for the future, in terms of being innovative and creative learners.

In fact, national standards force young people to learn by rote learning—the bad old days, when the teacher stands at the front of the classroom and just lectures to the kids. You have to pass tests, and that is the only way that we are assessing learning. Well, that is the past. We need an education system that prepares our young people for the future. We need to trust that our teachers are able to arbitrate over their own profession and set good ethical standards, and be able to ensure that the profession can be the trusted profession that it always has been in New Zealand.

This bill moves away from what I believe is core to what will be a successful public education system. I want to come back, in particular, to the provisions in the bill from new sections 379 to 387, inserted by clause 38, and make these particular comments. The current Teachers Council has provision for advisory groups for Māori-medium education and early childhood education, yet the way in which the bill now reads, EDUCANZ will create these boards. There is no guarantee that those boards will make provision for Māori-medium education or early childhood groups. That said, the important element of this is that we cannot get away from the things that have been successful. It does not make any sense, so I would actually appreciate if the Minister of Education responded to that, to give some assurance, because it is unclear. She well knows that I was not a member of the Education and Science Committee, so the question may be simple to answer, and I would appreciate an answer.

Also many submissions, as I have read in the select committee records, show that the education profession itself was not very supportive of EDUCANZ, because it believes that its members need to be freely elected—democratically elected—by the profession. That was such an important point that came through from a number of schools and submissions that went to the select committee. Obviously, the Government did not take on board those particular recommendations.

The other aspect that was commented on—and I think the point was well made by Chris Hipkins, our spokesperson on education—was on the issue of the code of ethics. The code of ethics was actually developed by the teaching profession—and I am speaking to new section 387, which is inserted by clause 38—and that is such an important point because, again, these are trusted leaders of our community who know their profession, many of whom have gone through an extensive qualification process. In order to ensure that they can lift up professional standards, having a code of ethics is by far the best way to ensure that. In fact, when we go and visit our schools, principals and teachers will say that the best thing about the New Zealand education system is, actually, the collegial nature within which it is able to share best practice and learning behaviours, and actually build on those types of opportunities. The code of ethics helps drive leadership.

I am really concerned that the code of conduct will reduce the way in which teachers are going to be assessed, which will build on the narrative that, actually, the Government’s move towards performance pay based on the code of conduct sounds a little bit not right. I am also concerned that there is a feeling of mistrust in terms of the way in which teachers are now beginning to feel within the schools—and you certainly hear it on the ground; I am sure, actually, that members of the Government will be well aware of that—and they do not feel that they are trusted any longer by the Government. Some of that may be relevant to the discussion that we have had on the code of ethics.

The other part that I would like to comment on is the limited authority to teach. As they currently operate, as we all know, the many limited authorities to teach that exist within our schools are fulfilling specific skill sets that are missing, school by school. This bill will change the way in which you recognise the skill set of an individual, and the gaining of the authority to educate, and that will allow those people to go anywhere. But the problem with that is that it is harder to assess where these individuals best fit. I would still maintain that the limited authority to teach gives far greater autonomy to schools to be able to determine—unique to their community, to their demographic, and to the skills that they are able to attract into their community—the type of approach for that school, because then that will enable the granting of a registration for that purpose and for a period of time. But if you have these free-roaming people with the authority to educate, it is much harder to get a grasp of where they are going and whether, in fact, they are filling gaps.

The biggest concern that I have relates to charter schools, and that is covered in clause 4A of Part 1. That is a fact—and we have debated it many times in this Chamber—that charter schools can have non-registered teachers. It seems to me that at a time when we need the profession to lift standards and to be able to ensure that it is in control of setting those standards, we are saying that with charter schools they can do whatever they want. As long as the contract between the Crown and the sponsor enables certain conditions to be met, the individuals they get to teach and the quality of their ability to teach is actually something that sits very much within the terms of the contract. It cannot be assessed in the same way that we are expecting teachers within the public education system to be assessed, and I just think that that is wrong.

This bill continues to act as a razor that slices and dices the public education system in a way that is not helpful. It continues to reinforce to the teaching profession that teachers and principals cannot be trusted and that they cannot arbitrate over their own profession, and it continues to address issues that I think are not real to the challenges that communities face. Delivering education that is responsive to communities—to the demographic—actually requires a community voice. We know how hard it is within schools to attract people on to the boards of trustees, yet in tertiary institutions, when we are going for higher qualifications, the Government is saying: “Well, we’re going to take the community voice out of it. We’re not going to recognise the demographic that this tertiary institution is responding to. There is no need to have those types of views reflected at the strategic level to drive the delivery of tertiary education.”

So how are you going to retain the high numbers of people who are not able to get there—and we need them to walk through the door and stay in tertiary education—if you do not have their voice reflected at the strategic governance level? I am not sure, but I think that if we peel away all the surface talk of the Government, we will find some very challenging statistics for the Government. It is harder and harder for tertiary institutions—

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise to address and request a response from the Minister of Education as to why the Minister thinks that the Government should have overall control of universities, because that is the effect of having the ability to appoint 40 percent of members of any board. Indeed, securities legislation is illustrative of this point. If a company acquiring shares in another company acquires something like either 40 percent of the voting power on a board or 40 percent of the shares, it is treated as taking it over.

Dr Megan Woods: A hostile takeover.

Hon DAVID PARKER: That is right. It is treated as taking it over, and it has got to be fair to the minority, even though the minority, in that sense, is more than 50 percent. If you take the case in point here, if the Minister has the authority to appoint 40 percent of a university council, which is what the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), if passed, will allow, all it has got to do is get, in some cases, the vote of one other person on the university council, or the board or whatever the Government is going to call them—one other vote in addition to the 40 percent that the Minister is going to have the right to appoint. We have had no justification for that. No justification has been attempted by Steven Joyce and no justification has been attempted by the Minister in the chair, Hekia Parata.

There is enormous change coming in the provision of tertiary education around the world. We are seeing enormous change as a consequence of information technology. Universities have a number of functions, some of which this Government does not like. This Government would prefer universities to be merely technical training colleges. It does not value learning that does not have direct economic output—and that is absolutely clear from the statements that you have from the likes of Steven Joyce—and yet the social purpose of universities through the centuries has been much broader than merely vocational training. We ought not to elevate vocational training, which is part of the role of universities, to being more important than other values. This change allows Steven Joyce to get his way and to elevate vocational training further. What will it do? It will also suppress dissent, including political dissent. That is one of the reasons why the Government is removing the right of university councils to say that they want to have student representatives. This legislation is saying that they cannot say that. It is not saying that it is going to leave it to the universities to choose as to whether they do; it is going to remove that current right of student representation that exists in some institutions. Why is that important? Well, we know that when things go wrong in society political activism is one of the things that causes them to come right and therefore protects democracy. We have got some terrible things happening at the moment in New Zealand in respect of political standards. I would expect one of the societal responses to that to come from universities and political activism at universities from both academics and students at those universities. When we had the worst period in New Zealand’s democracy, prior to the recent events, it was actually under the Rt Hon Robert Muldoon’s National Government, when we had apartheid controversies and we had Springbok tours. Where was the heart of the dissent coming from? It was in large part from university activism—it was. University activists and university students were the heart of activism against apartheid and against the Robert Muldoon regime, which, effectively, did not push against it in the way the New Zealand population wanted it to.

One of the other challenges that is coming to the university system arises from online learning. The cost of tertiary education fees is going to plummet around the world, and this presents real challenges to university funding models that are already pressed. Already, and Stuart McCutcheon of the University of Auckland has told me this, the profits of the University of Auckland—the annual amount that it has got to put towards its additional capital expenditure and to improve the university—is about the same as the amount of fees that it gathers from foreign students. There is the importance of foreign students now, because the level of funding that comes from the university—the amount of funding that is in part controlled by the generosity of Government provision—is so lean now that universities are increasingly reliant on foreign fee-paying students in order to make the budget balance. The challenges that are faced by that funding model are immense because universities are going to face competition from internet-based teaching programmes, which will be of supremely high quality, including from superstar lecturers from around the world, from universities which are, frankly, overall, in the international rankings, far higher ranked than the highest of New Zealand rankings. Those universities are going to be competing into New Zealand and they are also going to be competing for those foreign fee-paying students, who are already a source of revenue that is higher than the overall profitability of the major universities.

How do you get through that transition? Well, you have actually got to trust universities and the wide groups of stakeholders who go to universities, including students and the staff who work there, to manage their way through that challenging changing circumstance in the future, just as they have managed their way through the challenging circumstances as they have changed over the last hundreds of years. How have they done that? They have done that by being allowed to be independent as they balance the different interests of the different stakeholders who are involved. They do include the Government, because the Government provides part of the money, and, of course, the Government has got an interest in the education policy, but the stakeholders also include students and they also include staff. Those are the sorts of reasons why all of the stakeholders—other than, I think, one submitter, according to the select committee report—came along and asked why the Government is changing the make-up of university councils, because they are inhibiting the ability of universities to find the right pathway through this very challenging circumstance, which, if managed well, will mean that more people will be able to get a good education for less money and more of the money that is spent on education can go into world-leading research, which will actually improve the standing of the New Zealand institutions.

The changes that are proposed in this bill make this very difficult transition harder rather than easier and we have yet to have one contribution from the Minister in the chair, Hekia Parata, justifying why these changes to the method of university governance are required and why the Minister will not stand and defend the fact that the Minister will now have effective control of universities by being able to appoint up to 40 percent of the members, which, if it was a private company, would be seen to be effective control. The member on the other side, Andrew Bayly, who made the last brief contribution, is well experienced in commerce. He will know that the right to appoint 40 percent of the board of directors or 40 percent of a university council amounts, in commerce, to effective control. Can we have some acknowledgment from the other side, please, that what is happening here is that we are devolving to a Minister of the Crown the future effective control of universities, which is casting aside the hundreds of years of experience not only in New Zealand but also throughout Europe and throughout the United States.

Interestingly, in the submission from Mr McCutcheon on behalf of some of the universities, he actually noted some US jurisprudence that actually went through this history as to why it is that not just academic freedom but also political freedom and the ability to adapt to changing circumstance have been protected by universities maintaining their distance from Governments, and not being under the control of Governments—of course being influenced by Governments; there is nothing wrong with that, but not going so far as to be under the control of Governments. The effect of this legislation is that in future Steven Joyce will be able to control universities. He will be able to say: “We don’t want you to do as much on political activism; we want you to give more vocational training.”

TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I know why the members on the Government benches may be shouting out but not actually commenting on this bill. It is because Mr Macindoe is the only member on the Government benches who actually heard any of the submitters, and even Mr Macindoe cannot rise to his feet and articulate why these changes need to take place. That is very unfortunate, because Mr Macindoe is usually a very constructive individual. Mr Macindoe is highly respected here. But even he cannot rise to his feet and explain why these changes, particularly—and I again challenge the Minister of Education to rise to her feet and explain why we need the removal of natural justice for our teachers. [Interruption] And there is laughter from the new members of this Government. That tells you a lot, New Zealand. It tells you a lot that when the discussion around natural justice is talked about and the removal of it is discussed with regard to New Zealanders and professionals in the New Zealand environment, new members of this Government laugh. They laugh in your face. The Minister, unfortunately, just joins them. So again I ask them.

I just want to read from an article. There was a ministerial inquiry in 2011 into how convicted sex offender—[Interruption] Do you want to keep talking, Mr Bridges, about convicted sex offenders? Convicted sex offender Te Rito Henry Miki managed to get back into teaching roles. This is why the department said we needed a code of conduct—this case. Apparently he did so simply by changing his name. Reportedly, he had 53 aliases and then used that new identity to get fresh documentation.

Hon Simon Bridges: So this is relevant to this bill how?

TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Bridges, the Minister over there, makes light of this case, even in the light of the case we have just had repeated.

Hon Simon Bridges: No, it’s not relevant. It’s not relevant to the bill.

TRACEY MARTIN: If it was relevant to the code of conduct when it was put forward by the ministry, it is relevant now, Mr Bridges. But Mr Bridges has not read the bill or the regulatory impact statement or the report on what is one of the most major takeovers of the educational institution in this country.

Apparently Te Rito Henry Miki did so by changing his name, so he had 53 aliases, and then used a new identity to get fresh documentation and a teaching job. It makes grim reading in the light of the subsequent ability of Phillip Smith / Phillip Traynor, also a sex offender, to get away with much the same thing. This is largely because the recommendations made in 2011 to Minister of Education Hekia Parata were evidently not acted upon—were evidently not acted upon.

But now we have a code of conduct for the teaching profession that does not cover educators; it covers only registered teachers. And we have a widening of the criteria for limited authorities to teach. So that is unlike what we have currently, where a school must prove that it has tried to fill that role with a qualified and registered teacher but cannot do so and therefore applies for a limited authority to teach to have a skilled individual come into their school—and 62 percent of them are music teachers.

We are not having that any more, under this bill. An individual can front up to the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand and say: “Look, I’ve got a skill. I’ve got a skill—no, I haven’t gone through any teaching qualification or whatever, but I have got a skill. I would like to wander about the country and offer my services to—I don’t know—rural schools that might be hard-up for teaching staff or something.” Was that part of the recommendation that came out in 2011, Minister? Was that part of the recommendation to tighten up the system?

Hon Hekia Parata: 2012.

TRACEY MARTIN: It was 2012—I do apologise. Was it part of the recommendations of 2012, Minister, which apparently have never been enacted, or is this it? Because this is what the department said it was about, and if it is not about that, then what is it about, Minister? Rise to your feet and answer the question. What is it about?

Why do we have to remove the laws of natural justice for teachers? When did that become—and why was that really important clause not brought to the Education and Science Committee? When did this Government decide to remove natural justice from teachers? We had that long process, with huge numbers of submissions. We discussed and discussed and discussed this bill, and that topic never came up—never ever ever came up—but now, suddenly, it is desperately needed in a Supplementary Order Paper on this bill. Will the Minister answer for it? No, she will not.

JONO NAYLOR (National): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, I am not prepared to take it. I indicated earlier that this is a major bill and it has only one part. There are two very important sections of it, and, so far, people have actually been speaking to it.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): That member over there, Jono Naylor, will never be the member of Parliament for Palmerston North if the only contribution he can make on a debate about tertiary education is to try to shut it down.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): What the member is doing now is out of order because he is referring to a ruling that I have made. That is gone; we will speak to the bill.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: If members opposite are wondering why so many members on this side of the Chamber are taking an interest in the provisions in this legislation that refer to the governance of universities, it is because neither the Minister of Education nor any member on that side of the Chamber has been able to provide a shred of evidence as to why these measures are necessary.

Grant Robertson: Not one.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Not one. Not the Minister—the Minister who seems to have spent most of her time on her phone looking at her texts, possibly deleting them. Not one of the members opposite has got to their feet and told us what the evidence base is. What is the evidence base? What is the international evidence? What is the domestic evidence? Where did this idea come from? Why is it in the interests of our universities to reduce the size of their councils? If we could have just one member give us one piece of evidence—

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: For 1 minute.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: They do not even need to speak for 5 minutes. If they could just stand up and give us 1 minute on why this is a good idea, maybe members on this side would not keep asking the Minister to give us their contribution. This is important to Massey University and to the Universal College of Learning, the major tertiary education providers in my electorate of Palmerston North. It has a particular effect on those institutions and institutions like them, because they are multi-campus institutions.

When you have to get representation at a governance level that covers the variety of communities of a multi-campus institution, that immediately restricts the ability to get the other ranges of experience and representation that are required on a council. We have already seen it with the Universal College of Learning council. When that council was reduced to eight members, the student representation went and the staff representation went. That was not a decision that either the governance or the management of Universal College of Learning wanted to make. Nobody in that institution thought that it was a good idea to remove student and staff representation on their council, but they were in a bind because they have a campus in Palmerston North, they have a campus in Masterton, and they have a campus in Wanganui.

By the time the Minister’s appointments had been made and they got appropriate representation from those different campuses and ensured that they had the mix of skills that a governance board requires, there was no room left—no room left—for the student or staff representation. According to everybody whom I have spoken to at the Universal College of Learning, that is to the detriment of that institution and to the detriment of its ability to show leadership and governance that is in the interests of ensuring that that institution can provide to their community.

If members opposite—and one member in particular—think that I am wrong, they should get to their feet and tell us why that is wrong. They should stand up and tell us why that is wrong, but they have failed to do so—absolutely failed to do so. That is why the Massey University council came to the Education and Science Committee and gave its submission absolutely in opposition to this legislation. It opened by saying there is no hard evidence—there is absolutely no evidence—that reducing the size of the council will have the effect of making the council more efficient or more effective, making the institution more effective, or delivering better educational outcomes for the students who study at those institutions. The council said that it would create difficulties in achieving the balance of interests and skills. Massey University will face the same challenge as the Universal College of Learning faced, because it has a campus in Palmerston North, a campus in Wellington, and a campus in Auckland.

They are very different communities that require very different types of representation—the representation that is encouraged in this legislation. Councils are encouraged in this legislation to make sure they have a mixture of representation that represents the communities that they operate in, yet at the same time what this legislation principally does is restricts the ability to ensure that they can do that.

Hon David Parker: They say one thing and do another.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: They do always say one thing and do another. Then, of course, we have got the point that the Hon David Parker and others have made, that the proportion of representation provided—

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I am pleased to take another call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) and I would like to just cover off a couple of issues that were raised before. The issue of the name of the council—I agree with the Minister of Education about the importance of the word “Aotearoa”. I would be the first person to say it is very important to recognise that the foundation of this nation is Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that should be reflected in the way in which we name our institutions. I have no problem with calling it the “Teachers Council of Aotearoa New Zealand”. I do not think there is any problem with including that word and I would hate anyone to think that the Green Party would oppose that. What we are arguing for is a name that reflects the two issues: one, that we are Aotearoa New Zealand, and, two, that this is about teachers. Our disappointment is with the first bit, not with the second bit. I just want to clear that up for the benefit of anyone listening.

I also would like to agree with Tracey Martin’s analysis of what happened at the Education and Science Committee regarding the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 21. We never heard anything about it. It was never mentioned. We had a very exhaustive time going through all kinds of issues. There was a great deal of detail on the bill about registrations, about monitoring, about teacher practices, and about various rights, but there was absolutely no mention of removing the clause “natural justice”. So it has come to us as a surprise. It was not something that we anticipated. Initially, when I looked at the Minister’s amendment, I thought: “Oh, this looks OK.” and then that has been brought to my attention. I realised that, no, we need an explanation for this. Perhaps the Green Party could support it if there was an explanation, but we have not had one. The challenge was put out, probably an hour ago, and we still have not had one. We need an explanation about why the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper is going to remove that clause on natural justice. It is actually really important, when dealing with issues of rights, that we address the issue of natural justice. There may be a perfectly harmless explanation, but we did not hear it at the select committee and we have not heard it yet. We would like to hear it.

I would like to also address some of the university issues because the clear-cut, most outrageous issues in this bill have been around the right of teachers to choose their own representation on the Teachers Council, as it was, and around university governance. There was a really interesting submission at the select committee by a guy who was an expert in governance and management. He came to the select committee and said: “This is bizarre. If a person knows anything about governance and management, management needs to be lean, small, and efficient; governance needs to be broad, inclusive, and creative.” He said further: “Any modern organisation will have small management and big governance, for that reason.” He said that it is completely ridiculous to be making the governance of important leading educational institutions smaller.

Although there are places for Māori and a few other places guaranteed, there is so much not guaranteed about this, including the rights of people to dispute the power of the Minister, that we had professors come to the select committee—many professors, not one or two—arguing that this was setting up conflicts with the fundamental purpose of the education system. Not only were they saying you have got governance and management completely wrong, they also said that when the universities are the critic and conscience of society, the university council members must be able to raise difficult issues and disagree. If you go into the clauses about the removal of people from that council, there is some very interesting language in there, which needs to be scrutinised, around the removal of people who dare to disagree. The point of governance is that it should be a robust environment where many voices are heard, so that disagreement can be worked through, not so that disagreement can be silenced.

That is why, although we agree that both on a teachers professional body and a university council there is a role for ministerial appointment, it should not be the controlling interest. It is very concerning that there is the possibility of removing people who dissent. That is what the professors were talking about. They were talking about the role of the university, which is an ancient role, or the wānanga, or any other institution, where, hopefully, the wise heads gather in our society, where they challenge the Government of the day or the thinking of the day, and they tell the country: “We must act with a bigger picture. We must act with a wider understanding. We must act with a deeper perspective that comes only from people who are focused deeply on those issues.” Limiting the size of governance and removing the free and open—

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I will do something a little unusual at the start—with your indulgence, Mr Chair—which is to acknowledge in this House the very recent passing of Phillip Hughes, the Australian cricketer, who many in the House will know was in hospital. He passed away a few moments ago. I am sure others in the House will join me in wishing his family and friends all the best at this very difficult time. Our condolences go out to them and to the wider cricketing community. It is awful for someone to die in such circumstances, and our thoughts are with all who are involved in that situation.

I want to refer to a matter that has not been referred to yet in the context of this bill, and it is in schedule 1, which inserts new schedule 19 into the Education Act 1989. It is around the transitional provisions relating to councils of tertiary institutions. I want to invite the Minister to explain a new clause that has been put into the Act. It is the temporary power of direction.

This is clause 9 of the new schedule. It says: “Before the close of a council’s transition period,”—the transition period is the period between which the old council that currently exists in a university and the new council comes into place—“the Minister”—according to this clause—“may, by written notice to the chief executive of the institution concerned, give any directions he or she thinks reasonably necessary to ensure that the council as reconstituted can deal effectively with the business before it … (a) the chief executive must give the council notice of the directions as soon as practicable after the close of that period; and (b) the council must comply with the directions.”

I would like to know why this clause has been placed in the legislation. It is new, it has not been seen before, and it appears to give rise to the very thing that members on this side of the Chamber have been concerned about, which is a greater—

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) and no progress on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2).

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.