Wednesday, 18 February 2015

WEDNESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2015

WEDNESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Points of Order

Parliamentary ICT System—Outages

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you a matter that you are not directly responsible for, but it does have an impact on this House and, in particular, on question time. For the last 24 hours or so, I understand that around 50 percent of the parliamentary complex has been unable to access the parliamentary system. This has caused a significant disruption not only for parties in Parliament but also for the Clerk’s office and the Parliamentary Library, which have been reduced to handwriting out advice and hand-delivering it to some members. Although we all understand that ICT outages occur from time to time, it is quite clear that there is not any redundancy in the system. Once it goes down, it is down, and the way we run Parliament nowadays means that we are utterly reliant upon our technology. I would just ask, Mr Speaker, whether you could do whatever you can to ensure that the system continues to run in a way that we would like it to.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his point, and I certainly also share the member’s frustration. I have met with the general manager on two occasions this morning. I have met with the ICT manager once this morning. I am aware that a particular switching mechanism collapsed, and it has taken some time to fix it. I have asked for a substantive report to be available to present to the Business Committee, because it is a matter of order for this House, and also for a report to be presented on ways of remedying any further issues. That will be available for the Parliamentary Service Commission when it first meets.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

State and Social Housing—Sale of Housing Stock and Social Housing Providers

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the Government is planning to sell state houses to “encourage and develop more diverse ownership of social housing”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, and I think the Government’s approach going back over a number of years is well summarised in a speech to community housing providers, which says: “Our vision for that is to have Housing [New Zealand], local authorities, and a bigger, stronger community housing sector working in partnership to deliver more social housing, more diverse types of housing, and a broad range of services. We are committed to your members having access to the Income Related Rent Subsidy, to capital grants, and”—interestingly enough—“stock transfer.”, which would be the selling of houses. Funnily enough, that speech, which could have been given by me, was in fact given by Phil Twyford in July of last year.

Andrew Little: What does it say about his programme when the Salvation Army says that it does not have the capital to buy these houses and the Bay Community Housing Trust says that the only price that it will pay for them is “free”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We all know that some people want things for free. Some people want consulting services for free until it is pointed out.

Andrew Little: What does it say about his programme when the Salvation Army says it cannot manage these properties any better than Housing New Zealand without a large Government subsidy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The way I would summarise it would be that I would say to community housing providers that they “have real strengths in supported affordable first-home ownership and also in providing specialised supported living.”, like the Salvation Army; that “Tenants with high and complex needs may be better off being transferred to a community housing provider”, and I agree with that; that “Diversity, competition and collaboration can stimulate innovation”; that “You can leverage private sector investment”; and that you can “combine housing with social services that support high-needs tenants” when you use community housing providers. I have quoted for you verbatim from Phil Twyford’s speech to the Community Housing Aotearoa conference.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That will be sufficient.

Andrew Little: Just waiting for the walrus to quieten down over there. Does he stand by his statement—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition was only responding to an unsatisfactory interjection from my right.

Andrew Little: Does he stand by his statement on Radio New Zealand that some proposals to onsell ex-State houses to private developers “might be agreeable” to the Government; if so, why did he guarantee over and over again that these homes would not end up in developers’ hands?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What the Government has made quite clear is that if it sells social housing to community housing providers, the expectation is that they would keep those and maybe further develop those. That would be part of the contract. But of course it is quite possible that the Government could sell some social houses to a community housing provider, who then says that they are going to develop that area, have three or four times as many houses, and a few might be sold off as affordable housing. There would still be more housing available and more people through. This is a Government that cares about the most vulnerable and is doing something about it. I strongly suggest that the member reads Phil Twyford’s speech—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Andrew Little: Was Paula Bennett correct to refuse Official Information Act requests “for analysis on the benefits or disadvantages of social housing being provided by NGOs rather than Housing New Zealand” because “the information does not exist”; if so, why does that information not exist?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member would need to direct that question to Paula Bennett. I do not have those details.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Referring to the Prime Minister’s unchecked comment “consultancy services for free”, is he aware of a member of Parliament from his own caucus who owes large sums of money far higher than Mr Little’s piffling amount—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member needs to know that a supplementary question must relate to the text of the primary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that when he put that into contention—not relevant to the subject put up by Mr Little—he put it into contention and I related it to that. You did not check him; he talked about consultancy services for free—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! When I am on my feet the member must resume his seat. I will listen very carefully to the question. If it relates to a supplementary answer that we heard the Prime Minister give, that will be acceptable, provided that there is, equally, ministerial responsibility.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware, regarding his unchecked comment “consultancy services for free”, of another member of Parliament from his own caucus who owes large sums of money, far greater than Mr Little’s, and why is he in a glasshouse throwing stones?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no ministerial responsibility for a caucus member.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue we have—I am sorry it is so tiring—is that the answer that Mr Key gave, you allowed to stand. Had you said that the Minister is not responsible for that and ruled it out, then perhaps that would be an even state of affairs. But Mr Peters was merely asking a question about a matter that the Prime Minister had, somehow or other, claimed responsibility for by using it in his answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member needs to understand that any question raised in this House to a Minister must be related to ministerial responsibility. There is no ministerial responsibility that the Prime Minister holds for members of his caucus.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept that ruling. The question, then, is what is the status of answers where the Prime Minister gives an answer for which he has absolutely no responsibility? At that point he opens himself up for supplementary questions about those answers.

Mr SPEAKER: And I accepted that. I said in the first instance to the Rt Hon Winston Peters that I would not accept his question. Then, when I reconsidered and he rephrased his question, I accepted that it related to the answer that had been given by the Prime Minister. So we accept that point. Then it was asking about a matter on which I ruled that there was no ministerial responsibility.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to the Prime Minister’s comment and the Speaker’s ruling, has the Prime Minister been briefed on an amount of debt owing; if so, why is he in a glasshouse throwing stones?

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No ministerial—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order has been called. The Hon Simon Bridges.

Hon Simon Bridges: Again, there is no ministerial responsibility for that.

Mr SPEAKER: And I accept that point.

Andrew Little: So is this where we now stand: the buyers say they cannot afford to buy, the managers say they cannot do a better job, the Government has not done its homework, and the social housing programme does not create one new social house? Is this good policy or just ideology?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: To summarise the position, I share a vision “to have Housing [New Zealand], local authorities [having] a bigger, stronger community housing sector working in partnership to deliver more social housing, more diverse types of housing, and a broad range of services.”

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Prime Minister resume his seat. Again, I have a point of order and I expect to hear this in silence.

Grant Robertson: I am just wondering whether or not you consider that the Prime Minister has ministerial responsibility for Phil Twyford’s excellent speech.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No, I do not need assistance from the Prime Minister. The question was “Is this where we stand?”—that is the way the Leader of the Opposition started his question. The Prime Minister is certainly at liberty to then read from a speech, regardless of whom that is from, if he thinks that explains the position. [Interruption] Order! I have ruled on that matter. Is it a fresh point of order?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was just finishing my answer—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I think we have heard enough from the Prime Minister.

Andrew Little: Given the statement that the houses he plans to sell are the wrong size and in the wrong place for New Zealand’s social housing needs, how many of them will become better sized or better located for social housing when they are sold to someone else?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: On the advice I have, about 9 percent of Housing New Zealand homes are one bedroom, and the demand is about 30 percent. So I find it interesting that the member is essentially saying that we should keep the same housing stock, that we should not look to bring more people into the market, and that we should not reconfigure it. But it summarises the absolute shambles we ended up with when Labour was running the show, and the only definition of whether there was a community house or not was whether there was an absolute number, not the condition it was in or whether it was fit for purpose. The member needs to read Phil Twyford’s speech. He sums it up well.

Andrew Little: I seek leave to table a letter from the office of the Hon Paula Bennett that has the quote I alluded to in my earlier question about not having—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The date of that letter, please.

Andrew Little: It was received on 15 December in an office. It is undated by—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That will do. I will put the leave on a letter from Paula Bennett’s office received on 15 December. Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Household Savings and Debt—Savings Rate and Superannuation Fund Investments

2. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received about the latest trends in savings levels by New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I have seen a Statistics New Zealand report from 30 January that shows New Zealand households had positive savings for 5 consecutive years to March 2014. This has not happened since the early 1990s. The figures show that before 2010, household savings had been negative in all but 1 year since 1995. Household savings have totalled $11.6 billion over the last 5 years, a major turn-around on the $15.5 billion of borrowing—or what economist call dissaving—over the 5 previous years. This is the result of the resilience of our households and Government policy that is encouraging savings and a rebalancing of the economy.

Joanne Hayes: Over the past 6 years, what steps has the Government taken as part of its economic plan to encourage households to save more and to reduce borrowing and consumption?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One step was to encourage the Leader of the Opposition to pay his bills—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member would just address the question that has been asked without referring to—[Interruption]—Order!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has taken a number of other steps to rebalance the economy as well. One of those measures was a comprehensive tax package in 2010. This included across-the-board reductions in tax on savings and work, alongside an increase in tax on consumption and property investment. We have also continued to provide subsidies to the KiwiSaver scheme, as implemented by the previous Labour Government, which give New Zealanders additional avenues to save and invest, and in particular the Government share offer programme gave New Zealanders the opportunity through KiwiSaver, and directly, to invest in what they believe are sound long-term investments.

Joanne Hayes: What role do fiscal savings, as part of the Government’s wider programme of economic reform, have in rebalancing the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Fiscal restraint removes pressure from the economy for higher interest rates and higher inflation, and helps keep the cost of living increases low. The Government operating deficit has shrunk significantly from 9 percent of GDP in 2010, half of which went into supporting the people of Christchurch after the earthquakes. This has helped contribute to overall national savings, which Statistic New Zealand calculates are around $14.2 billion. Along with the Government’s programme of microeconomic reform through the Business Growth Agenda, this is creating conditions where businesses are investing, and current signs for increases in real business investment are encouraging.

Joanne Hayes: What are the economic benefits of a strong national savings rate?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand has a track record of relatively low national savings, and we are not quite sure why that is even now, but higher savings tend to help keep inflation and interest rates lower. For instance, better savings will be contributing, at least, to mortgage rates that are still just above 50-year lows. Higher savings enable domestically sourced investment, and that is helping drive New Zealand’s solid economic growth. For instance, there were 80,000 more jobs last year, paying wages that, on average, are growing faster than the cost of living.

Dr Russel Norman: Has the Minister seen reports that the savings of New Zealanders held in trust by the Superannuation Fund are at risk from the fund’s investments in fossil fuels—reports such as the recent speech by the head of the OECD, which referred to fossil fuel reserves as “stranded assets”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I have not seen those reports, but the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has ethical investment guidelines. According to all the monitoring of its decisions, it complies with those guidelines.

Dr Russel Norman: Has he seen reports from the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, the OECD, and the United Nations warning that at least two-thirds of discovered fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change, wiping much of the current value off the fossil fuel sector; and will he hence discuss possible divestment options with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund as a result?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I have not seen those reports, but it is possible that the Intelligence and Security Committee will scrutinise those at its first meeting with its new membership. We do not share the same anxiety as the Greens about the use of fossil fuels, but we would expect the Superannuation Fund to take into account the risks to future profits for the companies in which it invests.

Dr Russel Norman: Did he see the recent warning from the Governor of the Bank of England, who said that the vast majority of fossil fuel reserves are unburnable if global temperature rises are to be limited to below 2 degrees Celsius, and hence will he heed his call for investors such as the Superannuation Fund to begin divesting from the riskiest coal companies, as the Norwegian fund has done recently?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is ironic that Norway might be disinvesting when the main source of its sovereign wealth fund is, of course, endless oil out of the North Sea. So that position seems somewhat contradictory. We would expect, again, the Superannuation Fund to take account of the real risks. The fund can do a certain amount of speculation about the impact of climate change—no doubt that is built into some kind of probabilities that it calculates about the risks of the investments that it has. But the Government does not intend to direct it in any way around fossil fuels.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he believe that it is ethical for the Superannuation Fund to be investing over $676 million in fossil fuel companies, effectively taking a bet that the world will take no action to avoid catastrophic climate change?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I do, in just the same way that it is ethical for that member to pull up at a petrol pump and fill his car up to keep it going for the week. Fossil fuels are just part of our way of life. The Greens do not like them but continue to use them. The Superannuation Fund should take into account any future risks it sees. I have to say that the risks of fluctuation in prices of fossil fuels seem to be much greater and more immediate than the long-term impacts of climate change, with 50 and 60 percent reductions in the prices recently. We would certainly expect the Superannuation Fund to be taking account of that in its investment decisions.

SuperGold Card—Waiheke Ferry

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Transport: When will the targeted review of the operating mechanisms of the SuperGold Card free off-peak public transport scheme be completed?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Transport): I expect final decisions on the review will be made before 30 June 2015 and I am confident that New Zealanders will continue to enjoy the transportation benefits of the SuperGold Card.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the SuperGold Card review started in October 2009 and was meant to be completed within 5 years, is it fair to continue giving Fullers ferries exclusively $1.5 million in SuperGold Card funding when Explore Waiheke has been transporting a large proportion of SuperGold Card holders at Explore Waiheke’s expense over the last 4 months?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Any new entrants to that particular service after the moratorium was put in place took commercial risk and are making decisions to take passengers as they see fit.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did Auckland Minister Nikki Kaye and Minister for Senior Citizens Maggie Barry alert him and his colleagues that the SuperGold Card Waiheke ferry funding will not cost the taxpayer any more than the current $1.5 million; if so, is the Government comfortable with protecting a foreign monopoly against a legitimate New Zealand competitor who thought the review was going to be completed in 2014?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: My colleagues have been very robust in their representation from their various portfolios and their local electorate interests and their interest in the management of the SuperGold Card.

Electricity Market—Competition

4. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What update can he give on competition in the New Zealand electricity market as a result of the Government’s reforms?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): I can confirm that a record seven new electricity retailers have entered the retail electricity market since January of last year—more than any previous year. In 2012 and 2013 three new retailers entered the market, and in 2011 two new retailers. This brings the total number of retailers to 21 and the total number of retail brands to 27. This is great news for consumers who continue to have more power to choose the innovative and competitive services they want. The entry of new players also continues to put competitive pressure on existing retailers.

Todd Muller: In what other ways are consumers benefiting from increasing competition in the electricity market?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It is clear that competitive pressure from mid-sized retailers is having a very significant effect. In the last couple of years the big four retailers have been consistently losing market share to the mid-sized players: approximately 100,000 consumers have moved from big retailers to mid-sized retailers since 2013. Also, I am very pleased that so far three of the five largest retailers have publicly said they are holding the energy component of their prices this year. The Government believes that competition is the best way to keep downward pressure on prices, and we will continue to promote competitive and innovative measures in the electricity market for the absolute benefit of consumers.

Accident Compensation Corporation—Levies and Impact on Government Financial Position

5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “ACC is one of many decisions that add up to whether there is a surplus or not a surplus”; if so, was the decision to reject officials’ advice and keep ACC levies $178 million higher than they need to be a decision made to achieve a surplus?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes and no.

Grant Robertson: In reference to the last part of that answer, why did the then Minister for ACC, Judith Collins, say to Cabinet that “reductions to ACC levies impact on the Government’s fiscal strategy to balance the books.” if the Government’s long-promised surplus was not the reason that levies have been kept higher than they need to be?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because in making that decision the Government takes into account a range of considerations just in the same way it has to weigh up, for instance, the impact on the deficit of providing an increase in operational funding for our schools or more money for our hospitals. If you pass the money to the hospital you have a bigger deficit and it makes it harder to get to surplus, and ACC is no different. Generally, the Government has taken a more conservative view than officials about increases and decreases in the levy.

Jami-Lee Ross: What benefits will New Zealanders receive in the next few months as a result of this Government’s improved management of ACC?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The main benefit they will have is the security of knowing that the ACC scheme has now been stabilised after the mess it was left in by the previous Labour Government with multibillion dollar losses. As we announced in Budget 2014, ACC’s improving performance has meant that annual levies for households and businesses have fallen by close to $1 billion per annum since 2011-12 and, in addition, we have indicated further levy reductions of $480 million in 2015-16. By then we will have reduced ACC levies by almost $1.5 billion per annum—actually bigger than a small tax cut.

Grant Robertson: Why did the then Minister for ACC, Judith Collins, defend the inflated ACC levies by saying “because we need to get to surplus” and “we believe the surplus is something that is very important” if the reason for making New Zealand workers pay $60 more than they need to and businesses $1,500 more than they need to is simply a way of trying to reach his long-promised surplus?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, the decisions about the ACC levies have an impact on the surplus—and the member seems surprised that that has been referred to—in the same was as increases in the health budget have an impact on the surplus. Part of the job of any Government—as it was for the previous Labour Government—is to make the decisions about where you can make progress. In the case of ACC, this is a $1.5 billion in levy reductions at the same time as achieve surpluses, just as in the same way we try to manage the health system with relatively small increases because we want better health services and we want a surplus—and at the moment we are getting both.

Grant Robertson: When he said that the National Government would post “a meaningful surplus”, does he think New Zealanders would expect that to be the result of competently managing and growing the economy, rather than ripping off workers and businesses with hiked-up ACC levies?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not the right day for the Labour Party to be talking about ripping off the workers. I mean, at least the workers pay some levy, whereas Andrew Little did not pay any of the bill.

David Seymour: Does the Minister find it ironic to face accusations of divergent objectives and political meddling in ACC when it was those members who removed competition, renationalised it, and created the whole situation in the first place 15 years ago?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility—[Interruption] Order!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What the Government is responsible for is not the past policies of the Labour Government but for fixing up the tragic consequences of those policies, which were an unstable ACC system in 2008 losing billions of dollars. It is now performing so well that we are on track to cut levies by $1.5 billion and, for example, all those older people who have a car, which they register every year, will find that the cost of registering a car drops by $130 from 1 April this year.

Grant Robertson: Does he not think that reaching a surplus in May by unnecessarily hiking ACC levies, which will see businesses paying $1,500 a year more than they need to, actually breaks his promise to deliver a meaningful surplus, given that it is nothing more than a desperate attempt to rescue the Government from yet another dismal deficit?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not agree with any of that. Businesses and, I think, a lot of New Zealanders with an interest in ACC are pleased that they have got a stable, sustainable scheme that is rehabilitating more people more quickly than ever, and, as a result of good stewardship by the ACC board and the respective Ministers, ACC can now drop levies to the point where car registration costs will drop by $130 a year.

Charities—Charitable Status Rules and Police Checks

6. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: Does she stand by her statement “You and your charities are core in our life of caring and sharing, and drive our cultural expression and community based development. This investment of time, effort and energy not only helps our country to function, but also contributes to the strength and resilience of our communities, making them better places for us to live.”?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Yes. Charities are the heart and soul of our communities. To support them, my priorities include improving the public’s trust and confidence in the more than 27,000 registered charities in New Zealand.

Clayton Mitchell: In that case, how can she explain a situation where a 117-year-old bowling club that allows local schools to use its facilities and actively encourages local business teams to participate is being threatened with losing its charitable status—its lifeline to funding—and, therefore, its ability to simply provide for the community?

Hon JO GOODHEW: What I do know is that Charities Services works with every registered charity. In particular, when a charity notifies Charities Services that it is changing its rules, Charities Services will get back in touch with that charity if in any way its change of rules might preclude it from remaining a registered charity. This process happens over a period of time in which the rules are explained to the charity, and it can then weigh up its decision to change its rules to determine whether, in fact, it will continue to remain a charity or not. In the end, the decision around its rules remaining within the ambit of a registered charity is its own.

Clayton Mitchell: Why can the Government not do something to rectify the situation given that it amended the Charities Act in 2012 specifically to include the promotion of amateur sport as a charitable purpose?

Hon JO GOODHEW: I believe that I already indicated to the member in my previous answer that in fact Charities Services is working with that organisation. Charities Services is also working with other sporting bodies, and, as I have already indicated, when a sporting body indicates to Charities Services that it wishes to change its rules, it will receive guidance as to whether that rule change will continue to allow it to remain charitable. The law change in 2012 said that in order for an amateur sporting body to be within the realm of a charity, its intention had to principally be for the benefit of the community through education or through health. Therefore, it remains up to the organisation to determine whether any changes to its rules will take it outside of principally working in that area.

Clayton Mitchell: Why are you making it so hard for sporting groups to obtain funding by removing their charitable status—they are the lifeblood of our communities?

Hon JO GOODHEW: It would appear that the member has not been listening. What we are doing for the 27,000 charities is providing guidance to them when they seek to change their rules as to whether those rule changes will allow them to remain a registered charity—just sticking within the ambit of the 2012 extended law.

Poto Williams: Does she support the Government’s policy to charge charities for police checks; if so, how does charging charities hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for a service that is currently free help them to carry out the good work for our community?

Hon JO GOODHEW: This is a matter for the Minister of Police, but nevertheless I seek the indulgence of the House in that it very much concerns the community and voluntary sector. In order to assist the member I am able tell her that submissions on the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill are currently being considered by the Law and Order Committee. Many of these submissions ask the police to consider case by case exemptions for vetting fees, particularly for organisations that have many volunteers, and, of course, the Law and Order Committee will report back in May 2015. So I am watching this closely.

Prisons—Audiovisual Links

7. TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Corrections: What announcements has he made regarding the Government’s initiative to roll out Audio Visual Links in our prisons?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Yesterday I announced that the $10.68 million project to install audiovisual links in our prisons has been successfully completed. Twelve prisons that hold remand prisoners have the technology, along with Auckland prison, which holds the highest-risk prisoners. This technology allows for prisoners to attend court appearances without leaving the confines of prison. The audiovisual network is used mainly for procedural hearings, such as list appearances, call-overs, and bail hearings. The technology is particularly useful for remand prisoners, who typically have more court appearances. This smart use of technology in our prisons allows our corrections staff to focus more on prison security and offender rehabilitation rather than transporting prisoners to and from court.

Todd Barclay: What benefits will the justice sector see from this investment in the wider use of audiovisual links in our prisons?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Good question. Around 40,000 remand hearings take place each year. Each appearance requires considerable resources in transporting prisoners to court, some over long distances. It also carries a degree of risk. By ensuring that more appearances occur via audiovisual link, within prison complexes, potential public risks are reduced. The benefits of appearing via audiovisual link include reducing escape risks, transport costs, and the risk of contraband being smuggled. Prisoners will also spend more time in rehabilitation and reintegration activities, as they do not have to leave prison. It is a great success, and I look forward to that number of 5,000 remand appearances increasing as the newer site commences its audiovisual link connections.

Employment Relations—Zero-hour Contracts

8. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Is the definition of zero-hour contracts in his review of employment standards permanent, part-time employment agreements with no set hours of work?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: As I mentioned to the member in yesterday’s question time, the term “zero-hour contract” means different things to different people. It is, of course, not defined in New Zealand law, and one of the things that we will look at with the review is the different ways in which it has been described. Some people appear to apply it to all casual contracts, others to certain types of casual contracts, and still others to the part-time employment agreements of certain types as well. The Minister is primarily concerned with reported practices where mutual obligations are unbalanced, and has asked officials to go and talk to workers, unions, and businesses to identify specific issues and concerns so they can be addressed. The important thing is to address poor employment practices and ensure we maintain a fair and flexible labour market.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Will he support an amendment to the Employment Relations Act to give permanent part-time employees certainty about their hours of work?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If the member is referring to his proposed member’s bill, I have had a look at it and, unfortunately, I do not think it would deal with the issues that he is suggesting that it would deal with. I think that is one of the challenges of just sort of roaring in and quickly trying to come up with an answer. I think we need to look at it properly and make sure that we get the answer that is actually going to deal with practices that we are all concerned about.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Why does he insist on saying that people taking a stand against zero-hour contracts want to ban casual contracts, when this is not the case?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think there are some different approaches that different people are taking when they are using the term “zero-hour contract”. And I think—

Hon Member: Different people in the Government seem to be taking different approaches.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, no—I appreciate that Labour members have a view, but, as they find out from time to time, theirs is not the only view in New Zealand society, and, actually, other people have slightly different views and we have just got to work our way through it. There is no great conspiracy in this; it is just about looking at the situation and addressing particular issues that are there with particular types of agreements.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Why does he insist on conflating two separate issues—zero-hour contracts and the deduction of wages—when customers drive off without paying for petrol, given that, in the words of his own pollster, David Farrar, “The latter issue could occur no matter how many hours you are contracted for, and it is misleading to conflate those issues.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The simple reality is that we are looking at employment standards generally at the moment, and there has been a number of issues raised in recent months that need to be included as part of that review, and so we are doing it. There appears to be some sort of weird conspiracy about the fact that we are doing it, but the member’s point is completely lost on me.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Why will he not just deal with zero-hour contracts, rather than making misleading and confusing statements to distract people from the real issue?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It would be very interesting to take up the member’s suggestion for just dealing with zero-hour contracts, because I have read his bill and it appears that he wants to ban zero-hour contracts by insisting that employers put some hours in the contract. And the way the bill is written, it seems to me that all employers that wanted to have zero-hour contracts could simply put 1 hour in the contract and continue on their merry way. That is why you have to be very careful as you look at these issues, to make sure that you come up with answers—

Iain Lees-Galloway: That is what the select committee process is for, Steven.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, actually, you do not put dodgy bills to a select committee and waste everybody’s time.

Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012—Amendments

9. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for the Environment: Is he confident that the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 is fit for purpose, in light of the Environmental Protection Authority rejecting both the recent ironsands and phosphate seabed mining applications?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The exclusive economic zone law is new, and prior to 2012 New Zealand had no regime for regulating the environment in our vast oceans. I am confident that the purpose of the Act is sound. It is about New Zealand being able to take up the opportunities for economic development in the exclusive economic zone, subject to appropriate environmental controls. The Government is taking a careful and considered view on other amendments to the Act. There will not be a knee-jerk reaction to the two consent decisions referred to. Both the Environmental Protection Authority and my ministry, in their briefings to me as the incoming Minister, raised a number of implementation issues with the Act and flowing from this we will be progressing amendments to make the new regime more practical and workable.

David Seymour: In the Minister’s view does the Act currently give enough weighting to the potential for creating investment, jobs, and growth in provincial areas of New Zealand such as that defined by the boundaries of the Northland electorate?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The vast exclusive economic zone actually affects the bulk of New Zealand’s electorates and represents an area of about 23 times the size of New Zealand’s land area. That is why it was such a significant decision for our Government to be the very first in New Zealand’s history to have some environmental rules in that space. Any new law that I have been part of, in my 25 years in Parliament, always requires some finessing and that is why this Government—

Grant Robertson: That’s right. Every one that you’ve been part of does.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: From my recollection, right through the last 9 years, and I will tell you what. We have fixed up a fair share of that Government’s mess-ups—just to mention the $4 billion ACC loss that landed on my plate when I became the Minister. We will be doing some sensible finessing of that law that will work for Northland and the rest of New Zealand.

Business Growth Agenda—Support for Small Businesses

10. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister for Small Business: What initiatives have the Government implemented through the Business Growth Agenda that assist small business?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): Small businesses benefit from an environment that gives them confidence to invest and grow. The Business Growth Agenda is working to create a competitive and productive economy that supports both the export-focused and domestically focused small businesses. The Business Growth Agenda has introduced a number of changes that have made it easier for small businesses to export, to innovate, to raise capital, and to build skilled and safe workplaces. Some of the Business Growth Agenda initiatives helping small businesses are the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband, the reduction in personal and company tax rates, updating New Zealand’s intellectual property settings, implementing the voluntary 90-day trial, and reducing unnecessary financial reporting costs for small businesses, amongst many other initiatives.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What initiatives have been implemented to enable new ways for small businesses to access funding and capital?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Small businesses now have the opportunity to raise capital through changes brought in last year around crowdfunding and peer-to-peer lending. New Zealand leads the world in the ease of setting up a small business, but these changes create even more opportunities for more start-up businesses as it gives them more options to raise funds and capital. This helps small businesses grow and employ more people. I do note I am very pleased that Labour has embraced National’s changes by using crowdfunding itself to try to raise funds for its operation.

Jacinda Ardern: By how much has he reduced the compliance costs for small business in recent times?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: In the primary answer I mentioned changing some of the financial reporting costs for small businesses, so the vast majority of small businesses will not even have to produce full generally accepted accounting practice financial accounts, as they had to in the past, and as they had to under 9 long years of the Labour Government.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure you will applaud me for my very straight question, which simply asked by how much has he reduced compliance costs for small business.

Mr SPEAKER: But I think to expect a dollar value on that—when you consider the complexity and variation of different businesses around New Zealand, it would be impossible to expect the Minister to give that figure.

Jacinda Ardern: Is the Speaker indeed right that the complexity is such that the Minister will not even be able to achieve his own public service target of reducing compliance costs by 25 percent, when he has no idea of the impact of anything he has done to date, or is it more to the point that he has not done anything to date?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: What I do know is that the complexity of a capital gains tax on small businesses would absolutely take off the amount of compliance, time, resource, and finances that small businesses would have to use and utilise to comply with such an initiative, as outlined by the Labour Party—

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect, the Minister was not asked about anything to do with a capital gains tax. He was asked a very direct question, allowed by the Speaker’s prior comments, and I would ask him to come back to the question he was asked.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty I have is that the Minister could comment on the essence of the question, which was around a Better Public Services aim of 25 percent and whether that target would be met. I think that is the essence of the question.

Hon CRAIG FOSS: We are well on progress to achieving our Better Public Services aim of 25 percent. Help is on the way. The member should just wait and see. What is not happening is a capital gains tax for small businesses to try to work out what part of the couch they use to do all their daily accounts.

Defence Force—Deployment of Troops to Iraq

11. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister of Defence: Does he stand by his statement “I’ve made it very clear that we don’t intend to have combat troops in Iraq once you go beyond the wire that’s what you’re involved in”?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources) on behalf of the Minister of Defence: Yes, and this was made clear by the Prime Minister on 5 November last year, when he stated that New Zealand troops would not be sent into a combat role in Iraq.

Dr Kennedy Graham: So when the Prime Minister said, more recently than that, that he could not rule out soldiers going beyond the wire, was the Prime Minister misleading the public?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Has Tim Keating, the Chief of Defence Force, been instructed to rule out New Zealand troops going beyond the wire and engaging in active combat, during his meeting with the club’s defence chiefs in Saudi Arabia today?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As the member is well aware, no decision on deployment has been made. We have made quite clear that we are not deploying in combat roles were a decision to be made. But, obviously, in the event of a decision being made to go to Iraq, personnel may, for example, be in transit. Iraq, we know in generalised terms, is at a heightened level of danger, so protective action cannot be entirely ruled out.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Has Tim Keating been instructed to raise the issue of the flow of money to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant from Saudi Arabia, a country also known for its celebration of public beheadings?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am not aware of that level of detail.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Is the club meeting in Saudi Arabia requested by, or even acknowledged by, the United Nations Security Council; if not, what is the legitimacy of the meeting in terms of the United Nations Charter?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That is a legal question that I do not have to answer.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Can he guarantee that no New Zealanders will engage and potentially be killed in active combat in Iraq?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think the member knows quite well now that no decision on deployment has been made. We have been quite clear that were a decision in the positive to be made, troops would not be in combat roles and they are not going beyond the wire. But as I have already said in answering the member’s question, Iraq is a dangerous place and even behind the wire there are some risks, so protective action cannot be entirely ruled out.

Defence Force—Deployment to Iraq and Status of Forces Agreement

12. DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will New Zealand troops operate under a status of forces agreement if they are deployed to Iraq?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: No decision has been made on whether to deploy troops in Iraq. Were such a decision to be made, clearly discussions would then need to occur, to work through what legal arrangements would operate.

David Shearer: Is it true that both New Zealand and Australia’s strategic assessment as to the likelihood of green on blue attacks—those are attacks on our trainers—has been assessed as high?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am not aware of that specific fact.

David Shearer: Has the New Zealand Government discussed with the Australian Government the use of private contractors as force protection for New Zealand troops, should they be deployed in Iraq?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Of course, we discuss many things with our Australian friends. We know here that it is quite clear that we have not made any decisions to deploy anyway, so those kinds of questions are hypothetical.

David Shearer: Can he categorically rule out, then, the use of private contractors as force protection of New Zealand troops deployed to Iraq, if they are deployed to Iraq, even if Australia and the United States do rely on them?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We have not even, with respect to the member, reached a decision on deployment yet. That, as has been made quite clear, is a decision that will be discussed next week. So it is not appropriate at this time to be answering what are, in effect, hypothetical questions.

David Shearer: Is it true that Australia and the United States till now have been negotiating on New Zealand’s behalf on our possible deployment to Iraq, given that New Zealand does not have diplomatic representation in Iraq, and Dr al-Jaafari’s visit to New Zealand last week was the first time that New Zealand and Iraq had discussed the possibility?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: New Zealand negotiates on its own behalf and will make a decision in the interests of New Zealanders, but we are not going to do what the member seems to be arguing for, and leave the heavy lifting to everyone else on matters as important as this and the human rights of other people.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 5 to Minister

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I just want to correct an answer I gave earlier—

Mr SPEAKER: So the member is going to seek leave to correct his answer?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I seek leave to correct an answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to correct an answer made earlier today. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think in my answer I said that ACC levy reductions relevant to car registrations would start from 1 April this year. In fact, it is 1 July this year.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 17 February.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): It is a pleasure to stand and speak in the House today to our Prime Minister’s excellent statement. He is quite right when he says that New Zealand is in good shape and that it is getting better. Actually, New Zealanders know that. When you go out and talk to them, as we all did during the election campaign last year, people knew that we were certainly working towards a brighter future for all New Zealanders, and they gave this Government and our coalition partners a mandate to get on with the job.

We have to acknowledge in all of this that New Zealanders have shown extremely good resilience throughout the years of the recession. It makes you very proud to be a Kiwi. We are the sort of people who roll up our sleeves and just get on with it when the going gets tough. That is what this Government has done. We have provided good, stable leadership over the last 6 years, and we have an outstanding Prime Minister who New Zealanders know is in touch with what they are thinking, understands the difficulties they are having, and is showing strong leadership throughout these very difficult years.

During his speech, the Prime Minister said that this Government was focused on improving the drivers of long-term performance. For those of us working in the social sector, that means quality education for all New Zealanders, it means good health for all New Zealanders, it means employment, and it means independence from the State for all New Zealanders. The results from the Ministry of Social Development, when you look back over the past few years, have been absolutely excellent. It has worked tremendously well with our community and produced some very, very good results. We are seeing the lowest number of solo parents on benefits in 22 years. I have to compliment my colleague Minister Bennett, who for 6 years worked away at making sure the systems were in place to support those solo parents back into work, at making sure that their children were well looked after, and at convincing education Ministers to invest in early childhood education and in after-school care, which is so important when we are trying to talk to parents about how they go back into work. So we see the lowest number of solo parents on a benefit for 22 years.

Every week in this country—every single week—1,600 people move off a benefit and into work. That is an outstanding achievement when you consider the deep, dark days of the recession. There are 80,000 more people in work today than there were 12 months ago. Eighty thousand people who a year ago were looking for work are now out there working. Again, that has not happened without a great deal of effort. Employers can take some credit for that, the Government can take some credit for that, and certainly the people working in Work and Income need to be given a great deal of credit for the work they have done. This country is now seeing 217,000 more people working than there were 5 years ago at the height of the recession. That is an enormous achievement for any Government. We are seeing unemployment now at 5.7 percent in December, which is lower than most of the other countries that we compare ourselves with—in particular, as we look across the Tasman at the Australian Government, which is coping with unemployment up at 6 or more percent.

If you want to talk about young people, we have put a tremendous amount of focus on supporting young people. They are always the first ones affected by any recession. We put in place the Youth Service, that pipeline managing those young people aged 16 to 18 who are dropping out of school and waiting around to go on to a benefit, and today we are seeing 40 percent more of those young people in education or training than there were 3 years ago, before we started the Youth Service. Forty percent more are back in education or some form of training, and that means their chances of ending up on a benefit at age 20 have dramatically reduced. They will have skills and qualifications that will help them into work.

So that is some tremendous work that has been done, but we are not resting on our laurels. This Government knows the research; the evidence is very clear. This Government believes that people are better off in work. They are better off supporting themselves and their families, and so we are helping them into work. But this is not a new idea, actually. It was quite interesting talking to a couple of other countries about how they were facing the numbers on unemployment benefits, and it was quoted to me that Galen, who was a prominent Greek physician, surgeon, and philosopher from 129 AD to 200 AD, said that employment is nature’s physician and is essential to human happiness. This is not a new idea. Actually, it has been around for a long, long time. Of course, this Government has not come up with this as a new idea; the evidence is very clear that if you have people supporting themselves and their families, they feel better about themselves and they are in better health, and, of course, we know that that enables their children to live a better and much more successful life.

This Government is focused, then, on continuing to support people off the benefit and into employment. This year we have a great deal more to do to support them, building on those early results. We are not going to rest on our laurels; there is always more to do. First of all, we are going to look at extending those youth services that we put in place to support 16 to 18-year-olds. We are going to look at how we can extend those to support 18 and 19-year-olds. We know that we have the criteria for identifying those at risk, but how can we support them into education? I am always a strong believer that we have got to get them those skills and qualifications. Otherwise, they circle around on the benefit. But if that does not suit them, how do we help and support them into work?

At the end of the December quarter we had about 55,000 people on Jobseeker Support who were in the health condition and disability benefit section—55,000 people who should be able to be out there looking for work but because they have a health condition or a disability they have been unable to do so. It is not a long-term condition. We will be working very closely with the health sector over this year to see how we can address their health conditions earlier so that they are able to get back into work. Second, we are going to look at how we can address their mental health conditions much more effectively. That is a growing area that employers have made us aware of, and we will be working to help those people back into work faster and with better support.

I could not possibly be talking today about the year’s plan if I did not talk about our vulnerable children. We identified 20,000–odd children as part of the Children’s Action Plan in the bill that we passed last year. We have got two Children’s Teams that have been going for over a year now: one in Rotorua and one in Whangarei. This year we have opened Children’s Teams in Horowhenua, Ōtaki, and Marlborough, and by the end of this year we will have Hamilton, Tai Rāwhiti, Whanganui, Eastern Bay of Plenty, Clendon, Manurewa, Papakura, and Christchurch up and running. We are targeting about 20,000 children who are classified as at-risk to prevent them going into State care.

While I talk about State care, we are undergoing a major review of Child, Youth and Family—a major review. It is about the children who are victims of some horrendous neglect, abuse, and crime, and they are victims in our society. They figure too highly in all of our statistics around prison and poor education results, and we as the State owe them a better set of outcomes, and so the focus for this year in Child, Youth and Family is how we achieve that.

I went overseas recently to look at how other countries are dealing with this, and was surprised to see that although we are talking 17-18 as the age until the State takes care of children, in Europe they are talking 23-25. We have a lot of work to do around how we get the voice of the child into that process, and I am delighted to be able to lead some of that work this year. This is an excellent statement from our Prime Minister, and I commend it to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Pika. Tuatahi he tino mihi rawa atu ki a koe mō ō mahi hei whakawā i ngā taupatupatu o ngā kaitōrangapū. E tika ana me mihi atu ki ngā tini mate, ērā o ngā tangata rongonui kua hipa atu ki tua o te ārai, tērā ki a Apirana Mahuika nō Ngāti Porou. Ki tērā o ngā tangata rongonui a Tama Huata rātou katoa e huri atu o te marama, o te wiki o nanahi. Haere, haere, haere atu rā.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I really commend you with regard to your determinations during debates by politicians. It is apt that the myriad deaths are acknowledged with regard to those noted people who have passed beyond the veil: Apirana Mahuika, from Ngāti Porou; Tama Huata, another famous identity; all of them throughout the month, the week, and yesterday. Farewell, depart, and journey on.]

I just want to acknowledge that, as this is my first speech in the House this year, it is an opportunity to say how delighted I am to be back in the House, on the Opposition benches, holding this Government to account on the things that really matter. I listened very carefully to the Minister for Social Development speak about jobs. Why is it then that those unemployed were fewer than 100,000 in 2008 and now there are 46,000 more people in addition to those on the dole queue? Why is it? In the last quarter there are 8,000 more people unemployed, and in our towns, rural communities, and provinces we have seen job losses not job increases.

I want to stand to support the amendment to the motion that Andrew Little moved. He made it really clear that Labour is here to represent people on the issues that matter to them in their communities, and on the things that will make a real difference in their lives. The No. 1 issue for Labour is jobs, jobs, jobs—more jobs, not fewer jobs, like what the Government is dishing out. In terms of housing, we want warm, affordable, healthy homes for all people, no matter where they live, where homeownership is a real prospect. Cost of living issues—we will tackle those types of issues that really hold families back and down, so that they can get better opportunities through a good public education and affordable healthcare. We want a regional economy that works for everyone, where people can see the benefit in their towns from Invercargill to Kaitāia, from Wanganui over to Te Puke and everywhere else in between. More important—and I guess given the topic of today in question time—we want a country that we can be proud of both here and abroad.

The political year has not started well for the Government at all. State homes are being sold off. Overcrowding is occurring in many communities, and Alfred Ngaro knows it. Homeownership is out of reach for many, and Auckland members know that more than many of us. More important, homelessness is becoming more visible on the streets of many of our cities, when 5 years ago that was not the case. There is a by-election in Northland, and public confidence in the Government is wearing thin. The Skycity pokies deal has been revealed to the public, who were being asked to put their hands in their pockets to the tune of $100 million for a world-class convention centre. That will be now significantly scaled back. Pokies for policy concessions—Labour does not support that.

The Government’s position on good employment law means zero-hour contracts and unstable work conditions. That is what this Government is standing for. There is a growing gap between rich and poor, where more kids are going to school without. In fact, they are living without, and the Government looks the other way. There are not enough teams working with the most vulnerable in our communities. Jacinda Ardern knows it, and, I tell you what, the Minister responsible is neglecting it.

The Government is potentially sending troops to Iraq without a United Nations sanction, to a live combat zone, all the while assuring the public that they will be behind the wire. What we heard today was that they will not be in combat roles, yet the Government cannot rule out protective action. This neglects the real worry that the public have on this particular issue. This is classic National: reality defies the spin machine, but, hey, let us stick with the spin!

We are listening and talking to people from all walks of life about the issues that matter to them and will make a real difference in their lives. National would have some people believe that more people are employed, and we have just heard that, but what National really means is that the job fairs are doing a fantastic job at bringing people who are already in work to fill up roles that people who are not working cannot even fill. Where is the sense in that? Local people here could fill those roles. Labour believes that reskilling, upskilling, and investing in that simple initiative will help more local people get the jobs that are available. Do not cast your eye the other way. The group of people whom I am referring to are actually stuck. They are stuck in seasonal employment and temporary work, and they need better solutions. They certainly do not need people being brought in from offshore to fill the jobs that are in their communities. National does not have a long term plan to invest in a high-skilled, high-waged workforce. Labour does. Labour’s Future of Work Commission will look towards regions, local government, community business, iwi, and the education stakeholders—a whole range of groups—for sustainable solutions to crank up our regional economy and create jobs and better work for people that will be sustainable. We are looking forward to that work programme in the year ahead.

You know what? Housing is in a shabby condition. The Government said it would not sell off State houses—“nek minnit” it sells off State homes. It makes it hard for people to get the homes that are left. Homeownership has absolutely been out of reach. We are seeing increasing private market rentals. What that is doing is increasing overcrowding. This is not a responsible solution in a country like ours. Social housing is just a myth under the National Government. This Government has got housing badly wrong. Both local and central government need to play a role in social housing, and Labour believes that.

You know, the Government’s plan for regional economic development neglects places outside of Christchurch and Auckland. But let us just talk about Auckland for one minute and the Skycity deal—the pokies for policies deal. Steven Joyce and the Prime Minister promised the public that they would not be reaching into their own pockets for this world-class convention centre—next minute, we hear that it could cost $100 million. Well, you know what? Labour initiated a petition, and in a number of hours a whole lot of names were collected—around about 28,000. I am pleased to see that the Government is retracting and listening to what Labour had started. The public should not be funding a deal with Skycity for a world-class convention centre. A Government subsidy on this is a no deal.

The cost of living and growing inequality should be the motivation for any Government in a country like ours. We pride ourselves on coming from New Zealand. But National does not want to set child poverty targets. Where is the sense in that? Targets would make its whole-of-Government policy platform more accountable to outcomes for our most vulnerable, our children. Sadly, the Government’s four priorities that the Prime Minister talked about fall short of measuring outcomes for children. I continue to implore the Government to rethink this strategy. Things could be better, and under Labour they will be, and I am confident in saying that.

This political term started with the annual pilgrimage of politicians to Rātana and Waitangi. Māori have put this Government on notice and set a challenge to Labour that, in time, I am confident we will rise to meet. Māori are saying that new thinking to old solutions is required. The country needs bold leadership to move beyond past hurts and resist scratching old wounds like the sovereignty debate. The symbols of our identity—the Treaty of Waitangi, a flag, our culture, language, and identity—no longer exist in a vacuum. Ask your Scottish grandson who has got Māori heritage who can do a karakia in his classroom. A more equal society is a fair one. Māori understand. Māori are no longer benefactors of benevolent policies churned out from the Government, and we want to be active determiners of our future in a new economy and determining what social responsibility can look like. The thinking amongst many iwi and Māori has reached a new maturity. No matter how hard the National Government might try to outsource this thinking in its relationships with other parties, it must be embedded in the political consciousness of its own party. Labour has that. We will grow that. I am hopeful that we will meet the challenge that Māori have set. Kia ora koutou.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I am not sure whether anyone is still awake out there after Nanaia Mahuta’s soporific mumblings, but if you are, there are a few points that badly need rebutting. That was really an alternative commentary on what is happening in New Zealand at the moment. There was so much there that you could drive a truck straight through.

Labour says that it is all about jobs. In actual fact, there were 80,000 more people in work over the last year. It is incredible. Nanaia Mahuta was talking about the cost of living. Inflation is at less than 1 percent. Nanaia Mahuta was talking about Skycity convention centre concessions. They are exactly the same concessions that the Government she was a part of gave Skycity when it built the original casino. Those are three points—three things you are actually being misled on by Labour members. Can you trust anything else they say? No, absolutely you cannot.

What I would say is that this Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament is really a sound plan for the future. What we provided over the last 6 years is very clear leadership of the economy. We have focused on the things that matter to New Zealanders. The things that really count are whether you have got a job, and, as I have said, there are 80,000 new jobs. It is whether you can get to the hospital and access the general practitioner. I will speak some more about that. It is whether you are happy with the local school. Of course, what we have done is go around the unions and the Labour Party to connect directly with parents to actually provide the sort of certainty about their kids’ education that they want. And ultimately, of course, it is all about the economy. Law and order is very important as well. We have presided over the lowest crime rates since 1978.

So contrast John Key’s very solid path for progress in the future with what Labour is focusing on, which is all the in-fighting, the hara-kiri stuff, the changes of leadership. Andrew Little is talking about zero-hour contracts, not to mention that he favours zero-pay contracts where, actually, the poor bloke who was working for him during his leadership campaign had to get an article printed in the National Business Review before Mr Little would actually pay up. Of course, the treachery is still going on. Grant Robertson, fully aware of that, today asked Bill English a question that invited an answer that totally exposed Andrew Little’s duplicity in this matter. So look, it is all bad over there. It is not looking good. It is pretty low energy over there, actually. You would have seen from Nanaia Mahuta’s sort of 30 heartbeats-a-minute speech there that there is not a lot happening.

Meanwhile, over here we are getting into our portfolios. I am very proud to be the new Minister of Health, building on the excellent work that Tony Ryall has done over the last 6 years.

Hon Annette King: You wait.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Annette King said: “You wait.” I do not know—we will be waiting a long time for her to get up and ask a question. It has not happened yet. I think, actually, Annette is just looking forward to the Wellington mayoralty, a soft retirement, and leaving that bunch of losers to it over there, because she is a winner. She is always there beside the winner of the Labour Party election campaigns, but she is saying: “I’m out of here, man. I’m having nothing to do with these people.”

When you look at the health system—I have spent the first 3 months going around all 20 district health boards having a look what is happening—I can say we have the best doctors and nurses and allied health professionals in the world, bar none. It is a highly dedicated workforce, which National is backing. There are 1,600 more doctors, 3,500 more nurses in that workforce. When I go there, I say to them—

Hon Annette King: Trained under Labour.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes—try it under Labour. They do not want to try it under Labour. Under Labour the doctors all went to Australia. Now they have come back. But what I say to them is: “OK, look at what has happened in health. In the end, is the health system getting better, is it getting worse, or is it staying the same?”. They all look at me and say that it is actually getting better, and that it has got better over the last 6 years. It is actually backed up by the statistics. Under Labour 760 people had to go to Australia to get cancer treatment; under National zero. Under Labour 30,000 people were waiting over 6 months for an operation; under National zero.

So we have set very direct targets around the health system and we are meeting them. We have brought that discipline and at the same time we are putting an extra $500 million a year into the health system. So we are funding it properly, but we are looking at the quality of spend. Under Labour money was frittered away on all sorts of stuff. Things were blowing out left, right, and centre. We are making real progress.

I am very proud of this one: under National smoking rates are down from 20 percent to 15 percent—a drop of 25 percent, so everyone’s paths can change. Look, this is very positive stuff. Under National we were achieving our first cancer target of everyone who is ready for treatment getting treatment within 4 weeks. We have achieved that. We have now moved on to this new gold standard target that everyone will get their treatment once they have been referred by their GP within 62 days. So we are setting the bar higher all the time.

Cancer treatment is very important. We are actually now delivering an extra 44,000 operations per year. When Annette King was the Minister of Health she put an extra $2 billion into the health system to deliver 2,000 fewer operations. Can you believe it—more money; fewer operations—and she has not even got a reply to that. So there are 118,000 operations a year, going up now to 162,000 a year, and these are the things that people really want us to focus on.

Immunisation rates under Labour were hopeless: 80 percent of kids were being immunised. We are now almost at 95 percent. It is just incredible. Heart and diabetes checks—we have set very rigorous targets around those, so we are delivering on that as well.

Emergency department waiting times—you know, at the select committee today Clare Curran was whining on about equipment being stacked in the corridors at Dunedin Hospital. Scott Simpson, MP for Coromandel, said that under Labour it was patients being stacked in the corridors, and that is absolutely true. That has to be the zinger of the day—absolutely true. I can remember going to North Shore Hospital, my local hospital, where the good people of Northcote, my electorate, go to. People were waiting in the corridors for 24 hours when Annette King was running it. Now, 95 percent of people are in and out of the emergency department within 6 hours. That district health board has turned round.

The people of New Zealand do not want Labour running the health system again. We could not afford to have Labour running the health system. No wonder Annette King is leaving because, frankly, she does not want to be the Minister of Health again. That is why she never asks a question in the House. She is out of here completely.

So when you look at it, you have also got to look at the international context, and I think Nanaia Mahuta should just go away and have a look at the facts of this. There is 3 percent economic growth for the next 3 years. Everywhere else in the world they are actually facing zero levels. There is deflation everywhere else, huge unemployment numbers everywhere else. Here we are looking good: fewer people out of work, the unemployment numbers are projected to drop over time. It is a very good economic story overall.

But look, it is not just all about health and the economy; it is the Cricket World Cup. It is a great time for New Zealand. New Zealanders are in an upbeat mood. If you look at New Zealand’s world cup record under the National Government over the last 6 years, well, who knows what might happen. The Cricket World Cup is going to be great for this country: over a billion people watching that, 30,000 to 40,000 visitors here over the next 6 weeks, and great legacy benefits. It is going to be an excellent time for New Zealand.

We have also got, of course, the FIFA U-20 World Cup coming here. That is a global opportunity. We had 100 million people watching the draw last week. We are going to get great long-term legacy benefits from those two tournaments. If you look at what we have done with high-performance sport, my predecessor, Murray McCully, did a great job: $30 million into building that network around the country. Labour members do not like sport—they will never admit it; but Helen Clark hated rugby—they really do not. You know, actually at the cricket on Saturday I could not see a Labour MP there.

Hon Anne Tolley: Really?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, they just were not there. But the point is that you would never have got that money into the high-performance network without the National Government. Mr McCully did a great job.

In the end that is what counts for New Zealanders. It is the hard stuff like jobs, the economy, law and order, health and education. But they love their sport as well. These people are just so far out of touch there. I would encourage members over there—how many Cricket World Cup games are people there going to?

Louisa Wall: I’m going to two.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: See—one. One person is going to two games and that is it. And what is more, I bet you that none of them has bought a ticket. So Labour—get with the programme, get behind the Cricket World Cup, get behind John Key and the National Government, get behind the winners. Thank you very much.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): I note that in the Prime Minister’s statement he emphasised that the Christchurch rebuild will be one of the Government’s four key priorities and I want to focus on that. Although it is welcomed by residents of Christchurch, it is disappointing that there is no mention of the importance of ensuring accessibility in the rebuild. It is worrying that there is no acknowledgment of the policy and legislative changes that are needed if they are going to ensure an accessible city for everyone, whether young or old, able-bodied or disabled, to live, work, and play.

It is very surprising that there is not that commitment expressed because it is one of the key priorities that the people of Christchurch want. There was a Share an Idea forum hosted by the Christchurch City Council and accessibility came out as the second-highest priority—second only to generally ensuring a place for everyone. Because of this it is really, really important that the Government fix that, because if it does not then we will see buildings going up now that are not accessible, that have major barriers in their way. It is also a critical issue because we have an ageing population. We have now nearly one in four New Zealanders with a disability.

An accessible environment is incredibly important from a whole number of viewpoints. It is important because it reduces social isolation so that people can participate in and access services. It also has significant economic benefits because it removes a barrier to employment for disabled people. There is no point constantly bashing disabled people on benefits on the head and telling them they have got to get out and work when they cannot often even get to a job interview because they cannot get in through the door. There are benefits for tourism. Christchurch has a unique opportunity to be the most accessible city in the world. It also makes Christchurch an attractive venue as a host for international conferences, for sporting events, and for study. It reduces reliance on paid support such as for transport, and so should immediately save public money.

Last week, more than a year after two petitions were presented to Parliament calling for the Government to take accessibility seriously and ensure an accessible city in the rebuild, the petitioners were finally heard at the select committee. The Earthquake Disability Leadership Group handed around photos to members of the select committee that showed just what was happening with the rebuild. They showed buildings that had wheelchair accessibility signage at the front door, but there were steps immediately in front of the door. There is no legal requirement that says that you cannot use that signage even when the building is clearly inaccessible. They talked about how developers were avoiding their responsibility by exploiting the loops in the building code to avoid meeting access requirements, such as not installing lifts in buildings that should require them by putting in artificial false dividing walls and that sort of thing. So the group has asked that the Government takes urgent steps to ensure that assessed buildings are accessible for everyone and that it really gets the policy and legislative changes that are needed now, as urgently as possible, because buildings are going up now. The inaccessible buildings that are going up now are locking in inaccessibility for the next 20, 30, and 40 years—a whole generation of people’s lifetimes. This is just simply not OK.

I do want to acknowledge that the Government has started a review of this through the Office for Disability Issues. A major report came out last year, but that report did not say anything new. It repeated the kinds of things that people have been saying for years. Access issues are continuing to be designed into buildings in New Zealand as a result of the way that the legislation is drafted and the resulting approach by architects, by developers, and by building owners. The purpose of the Building Act, which does say that the buildings need to be accessible, is not flowing through to the building code and acceptable solutions. This is resulting in buildings that are code-compliant but not accessible, and they do not meet the access needs of the users of the building. This is just simply not OK.

These issues are not new. We have known about them for years. The Human Rights Commission wrote a report on this several years ago, and yet this Government is still not taking the actual steps that need to happen to change this situation—really decisive action. There is a need, as I have said, for urgency because of the buildings that are going up now. There is concern that the changes in the Resource Management Act that are being proposed by the Government are actually going to make things worse. We have an opportunity with the Resource Management Act to actually require these issues to be considered right at the start of the process. But in the Government’s rush to go ahead and allow developers to build willy-nilly around the country and the removal of some of the perceived constraints around planning, it is also going to mean that an opportunity is missed to ensure that accessibility is considered right early on in the process.

We have an opportunity to make Christchurch the most accessible city in the world. We are missing that opportunity and it is a crying shame. It is a crying shame for the people of Christchurch, but it is also a shame for the whole of the country because the changes to the building code and the solutions that are needed to ensure that buildings in Christchurch are accessible will also, of course, affect all new buildings going up anywhere in New Zealand. So it is part of making the whole of the country more accessible for people with disabilities. If only you knew the number of people for whom access issues almost dominates their lives, who have to ring up and check with every building that they go to and ask whether it has really got an accessible entrance. And when they get to the building and maybe get inside, they cannot reach the push button to open the door or a lift because they are put in corners where people in wheelchairs cannot reach them, or they are put too high or they are put too low.

There are so many things that are just simply fundamental design flaws that are being allowed and certified as code-compliant either because of a lack of awareness in the planning and consenting authorities and also because they are inherent design flaws in the building code, which is actually enabling these kinds of inaccessible solutions to be consented and developed. Developers have spoken to me and said that until access is actually a fundamental requirement, inaccessible buildings will continue to be built.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): This Government is very ably led by John Key and, as we heard in the Prime Minister’s statement, New Zealand is in good shape and it is getting better all the time. That is something we believe in very strongly on this side of the House. We have a plan, we have a programme, and we are rolling it out. I need to look no further than my own three portfolios to see evidence of the fact that New Zealand is in very good heart. I think that for my call today I am going to concentrate on some of the aspects of my three portfolios and give an indication of the challenges and priorities that fit into what the Prime Minister was saying about our broad vision of where New Zealand is heading.

I have the great privilege of being the Minister of Conservation, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and the Minister for Senior Citizens. It is the first time in New Zealand’s parliamentary history that one Minister has held the portfolio of conservation and the portfolio of arts, culture, and heritage at the same time, so it gives me the unique opportunity to explore not only what our flora and fauna do by way of defining us on the world’s stage but also how we see ourselves as New Zealanders—what defines us and what matters to us.

In this year of the World War I 100th anniversary commemorations—the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War I—we look back at the crucible of how our nationhood was forged and at how important it was for us as a fledgling, colonial nation to step forward out of the shadows and be a nation in our own right, because of the bravery and commitment of our soldiers. I will touch on that later, and on the importance of the contribution that seniors have made to New Zealand society, because we would not be where we are today without their talent, their skill, their hard work, and their unfailing energy and belief in the values that underpin the society that we are today.

I would like to begin, though, by talking about conservation. It is by telling our stories in conservation that we can connect with people and really highlight the issues and challenges that are important to our everyday lives. Winning the hearts and minds of New Zealanders around our conservation challenges means that we need to engage with the science. We need to understand the problems that exist and how they can be solved. We need to understand why it is so important that the Government leads but communities and partners and volunteers join together to combat the problems that we have.

One of the latest examples that I have seen as the incoming Minister of Conservation was launched last year by my predecessor, Dr Nick Smith, and it was called Battle for our Birds. That was a very deliberate way of describing the challenge that lay ahead of us at that time. What we needed to do was not get bogged down in the emotional arguments around the toxicity of some of the methods that we use to combat the pests that were going to be engulfing and literally extinguishing our at-risk birds. We had to rise above that, concentrate on the science, and look at the fact that we have very good baiting, very good trapping, and very good 1080—used in the sense of aerial drops—that will, in hard to reach places, really make it the only method we can use in some of those places to annihilate the rats and the stoats, and to a certain extent the possums as well. As people will recall, last year there was a beech mast, which meant that there was an epic plague of rats of biblical proportions, which needed to be exterminated.

I am happy to report that the predator control that we employed with Battle for our Birds worked very well, and the results have shown that we have successfully knocked back the rat and stoat numbers and that has allowed our native bird populations—and bats for that matter—to breed over the summer, to proliferate and do what nature intended them to do, and that is multiply instead of being exterminated by eco-invaders.

In addition to extensive pest control, given my background and interest in plants, I have really tried to concentrate our resources and our thoughts a little bit more on protecting our endangered plant species. Once again, it is about controlling eco-invaders. We have what I would call the war on weeds, which is about to be rolled out. We have identified, again, what I call the dirty dozen—the weeds that have choked New Zealand plants and forests for a very long period of time—

Carmel Sepuloni: The front bench of the National Party.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: —and really, we are talking about plants, not politicians on the other side of the House. We need to really combat these eco-invaders.

For the Greens’ benefit—we have clematis vitalba, and that is known as old man’s beard. These are plants that have botanic names and common names, and we do need to ensure that they are kept well under control.

Wilding pines are another problem. We have invested in this space, and I acknowledge the work that has been done by the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy. We really need to get to grips with the problem of wilding pines. These are the ultimate garden escapees. These are conifers that were planted in order to hold back erosion and for shelter belts and so forth—all of these good ideas—but because they did so well in this wonderful country of ours with its climate, they have proliferated. They have seeded too well, and you can have too much of a good thing. So we spend a lot of money, about $10 million a year, on combating weeds, and about a third of that is on wilding conifer control. The rest of it is on the sorts of sites that we need to concentrate on to really save our endangered plants. So I am focusing more time and attention on that in the next year.

I take great heart from Project Crimson, which was, as some of you might recall, launched about 20 years ago. At the time pōhutukawa trees were threatened to the point where people felt that they would disappear from the north. That is not a science fiction, made-up dramatisation; that was the real deal. That is how much damage possums have done to our native plants. The pōhutukawa was in danger. Project Crimson is a great blueprint and one that has reminded me of the importance of getting together with the Department of Conservation—an early partner in that. We also get together with partners that can provide money and expertise and communities and volunteers as a group, as a force, because the Government cannot do it all. But they have achieved remarkable things with Project Crimson. It was an honour for me last week at Government House to present prizes to the people involved and to acknowledge and value the work they had done in Project Crimson.

I remind the House and people out there in New Zealand today about Project Crimson because there are those who are pessimistic about our ability to save the kauri. Kauri dieback is a disease we do not know very much about and it is very complicated. We have put in a lot of money now, some $26 million, to trying to find out what causes it, how it arrived here, how to contain it, and really what to do about trying to stop its spread. At the moment we have emphasised this, and really added extra urgency to this, by putting in proper signage so that people know that they need to clean their boots, spray on disinfectant, and do what they can to not spread this disease, which is a soil-borne pathogen, from tree to tree. We have contained and confined the disease where we see it by closing off parks, by continuing public education. Along with the Minister for Primary Industries and the kauri dieback management programme we are spending $26.5 million. We are rolling that out now. In Whangarei we have just appointed a designated individual who is leading a team that is really working hard to ensure that that programme will do what it needs to do. You can expect to see more areas of bush contained and confined.

I have travelled around the country and have seen the work that partners have been doing in saving kiwis, for example, and I am going to be working more with those people and with iwi as well. The urgency, really, that I suppose kauri dieback has brought to the notion of protecting the north has, I think, added impetus to the notion of having a national park. So I am stepping up the work that was done by my predecessor, Nick Smith, in trying to get that Waipoua national kauri park established—to make our 10th park. Parks are good for people. They are good for our health.

Our oceans are the next challenge. I will be releasing very soon a public discussion document about the recreational fishing reserves, seabed reserves, and as well as that species-specific ones. That is coming out in the next few weeks.

We will also be looking at arts, culture, and heritage priorities around WW100, and looking at our heritage sites and, again, preserving and protecting what we have, and spreading the word that this is a young country and we are a young nation but we have a proud history. I will be engaging with the heritage groups and people commemorating the 175th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi to really spread the message. Those are those sorts of challenges that are coming up at the moment.

The Positive Ageing Strategy, which we are rolling out at the moment for seniors, concentrates on areas to do with valuing our seniors, not looking at them as if they are at some kind of disadvantage. Those 660,000 New Zealanders are a very important part of our population and we need to be very aware of the problems to do with elder abuse and social isolation. These are difficult issues but this Government, led by John Key, is making sure that we address them. We are not going to leave our elderly in a situation where they are living with dementia, living with social stigma, and living in a way that is not befitting of the wonderful contribution they have made to New Zealand society.

Mr SPEAKER: I understand this is a split National call.

ALFRED NGARO (National): It is an honour to speak this afternoon on the Prime Minister’s statement. Last week I attended the release of the state of the nation report from the Salvation Army. The report is entitled A Mountain All Can Climb. Why I was heartened by this report was actually that the statements that were used as the foundation of this report were talking about the values that Sir Edmund Hillary had. He talked about being of modest ability and having determination and ambition, which really sort of states the things that we as a Government also believe that all New Zealanders have and that are important for a growing and thriving country as well.

At that time, on that morning, what was quite interesting was that the Salvation Army was putting forward this report to indicate what it believed the Government was doing to meet the needs of the country. It is a report that has 22 indicators and five focus areas, and often the Salvation Army’s report is looked at as being a critique on the social and economic infrastructure of the country and its state at that time. I want to say that this report is encouraging for the Government. Out of the 22 indicators, 13 of those indicators indicate that there are things that the Government is doing that are making a difference.

We can hear from the Opposition, which will tell us about all the things that are going wrong from the inside looking out to the public out there. We will also tell our story. What becomes heartening, and what creates evidence to the fact of whether we are making a difference, is when those social commentators on the outside validate the direction that this Government has taken.

I want to encourage the indicators in this report. It talks about child poverty, which has been reduced by 2 percent. Yes, we know there is more to come and there is more to do, but the signs are encouraging. Children at risk—the number of substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect is down by 15 percent. On child poverty, the report talks about the percentage of children living in benefit-dependent households.

Today we had the annual review of the Ministry of Social Development. The opening statement by the chief executive officer, Mr Brendan Boyle, talked about the reduction of those benefit numbers. We on this side applauded that because that is one of the things that are absolutely important to us. From the Opposition, all we heard was the little nit-picking about all the systemic things that could go wrong.

The Prime Minister has made it really clear. Children in hardship is an area that we are focusing on. We know that we are beginning to make a difference to that as well. Teenage pregnancy—down by 14 percent, the rate of pregnancy among 15 to 19-year-olds. Overall crime—down by 3.7 percent. We know that crime as a whole is down at a 35-year low. That is an indicator that we are proud of, and we will continue that ongoing work as well. Imprisonment—down by 3.2 percent. Recidivism—down by 0.5 percent, and there is still work to be done there.

When we talk about jobs—Nanaia Mahuta talked about the importance of jobs and what they contribute to our communities as a whole. So let us talk about employment. The number of jobs within the economy has grown by 3.5 percent. We know that is encouraging. Household labour force surveys have shown that we have grown not only by 80,000 more jobs but by 215,000 jobs in the last 5 years. That is encouraging. Unemployment numbers are down by 0.4 percent—again, making a difference that we know of in our communities.

Let us talk about incomes. We know the difference that that makes for households in order for them to pay for the needs of their families, for education, for health, and for recreation as well. The average weekly wage or salary for employees has risen by 1.8 percent—1.8 percent. We know that the rate of increase in the average weekly wage is far above that of inflation at the moment. Living and food costs and poverty are down by 2 percent. It truly is making a difference. Social hazards, alcohol—we know that these things are making a difference.

I have got 1 minute to be able to summarise, and I want to summarise by quoting Simon Collins, who is a social commentator for the New Zealand Herald. This is what he said in last week’s New Zealand Herald on the state of the nation report: “More jobs, better incomes, and fewer on welfare, but we need 4,000 homes”. We will not deny that there is a need for work to be done. Here is what he had as a title on the middle page, on A14: “Life getting better on most indicators”.

We can have the Opposition talking about all the things that are going wrong, but from the outside looking in, most New Zealanders—47.5 percent of whom voted for this Government—believe that we are making a difference. That is the fact. That is the truth. It is hard to argue with it, but that is why this Government is making a difference. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): A certain Alfred Ngaro and I were debating who would go first and, of course, with his great passion and exploration of the truth it is a difficult one to follow, but Alfred, Mr Ngaro, has indicated some of the really strong elements of this Government. I am very pleased to take a call in support of the PM’s speech in a rejection of what are the “distractionary” comments of the Labour Party—in particular, in fact, bad grammar as well; always a shocker. But I want to acknowledge Alfred. He works incredibly hard for the good people in Te Atatū, in particular, and provided me with great support in Tāmaki with his connections there. But drawing on the fact of his passion, it is a passion shared by every member on this side of the House and a passion that is, importantly, unified. This is a National Party with purpose, and purpose behind the Prime Minister.

We know from the facts—and, as Alfred has said, the facts are very clear—that unemployment is coming down. We have an economy that is growing, and we are seeing wages increasing. And I myself find, as I move around my electorate, and Tāmaki is a diverse electorate, that people are feeling the benefits. They are feeling the benefits in their businesses, in their homes, in their schools, in the health sector—wherever they are engaging they are seeing the differences that the National Party is making. And, really important, they again see a strong, unified party that is united behind its leader.

I want to draw attention to a couple of what I think are really excellent elements happening within my electorate that manifest this. Most recently there was an announcement for the Government—this was in the space of public transport around shared cycleways. Tāmaki has been very pleased to receive, in effect, $2 million immediately to help with a cycleway between Glen Innes and Tāmaki Drive. This is something I have been very passionate about and that I know our local board there in Ōrākei has been passionate about: joining up our communities. Joining up our communities from Glen Innes to Tāmaki Drive—a $9.5 million project that this Government is committed to and the good people of Tāmaki are thrilled about. And it is symbolic, too. I used those words “joining up our communities” quite deliberately earlier. That is a core work that we in our constituencies do, and that we as a National Party seek and push towards.

We want to unite our communities—those doing well, those doing not so well, those who are in ill health, and those who need better educational outcomes. We are working across the board. We heard in the initial speech from Minister Tolley about the great work that she is leading in social development. I would be remiss now, as chair of the Health Committee, to not speak of what Jonathan Coleman is doing. We have had two Ministers in the health sector during this National Government. Obviously, the record of Tony Ryall stands for itself. In fact, I think all members across the House would acknowledge the amazing work that he did. But I want to acknowledge Minister Coleman as well. He has picked up the mantle and run with it incredibly strongly, and it is a pleasure to work with him.

We are hearing in the Health Committee at the moment really positive stories coming out of the district health boards particularly, but also from other groups like the New Zealand Blood Service—incredibly strong and helpful work that is going on for all New Zealanders. So in thanking the Minister I think it is also important, if I can in my role as chair, to thank all those involved in the health sector, from the doctors to the nurses to the cleaners to the health support workers and to the community workers. What they do makes an enormous difference.

I want to touch very quickly too—we have had a lot of talk about housing; where are the houses being built, what are the changes being made, and where are the statistics and figures. I just invite people, particularly from the Opposition, to come to Tāmaki, to come to Glen Innes, in particular actually, where the Tāmaki Transformation Project is really gaining legs. Houses are being built and lives are being changed. But I sense the bell is to ring—[Bell rung] There is some prescience for you.

I just want to finish, though, with a fun fact for the House. Goff lasted as leader of the Labour Party for around 1,100 days. David Shearer lasted for around 640 days. Mr Cunliffe lasted for over 300 days. So it seems to me that each Labour leader since 2008 has lasted about half as long as his predecessor—half as long as his predecessor—and so far Mr Little has lasted for 90 days. So, according to the numbers, he has got about 90 days to go. I would say that Mr Little has got about until late May before someone comes for his job. This is all about the maths, people. This is the Labour Party’s own Fibonacci sequence. In fact, looking across, the members there could have a chance of being in the leadership by December. Thank you.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. E ngā mema o te Whare nei kei te mihi. Ā, ko Tākuta Apirana Mahuika, ko Tama Tūranga Huata, e ōku rangatira kua wehe atu ki te pō, he taniwha, he tipua, he tangata, haere, haere, haere atu rā.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the members of this House, I acknowledge you. To Dr Apirana Mahuika and Tama Tūranga Huata, my revered leaders who have departed to the void, you are awesome, supernatural, and manly. Depart, go forth, journey on.]

I am pleased to take a call to debate the important Prime Minister’s statement for 2015. However, before I do that, may I wish you and all members of the House warm salutations, and I trust you have all had a very restful summer break, because, boy, are we going to need it this year.

In our Māori culture it is proper to acknowledge the recent passing of a great rangatira, and in my beloved Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, we have had our fair share. Dr Apirana Mahuika—scholar, teacher, leader, husband, father, koro, and uncle to many—was unequivocally passionate about and without deviation for the advancement of our Ngati Porou people. During his tangi he was acknowledged as the ultimate politician, playing and beating many in this House at our own game. I acknowledge his contribution to our people and to our nation: e te rangatira, moe mai [esteemed one, rest there].

Tama Tūranga Huata—arts and cultural visionary leader throughout Aotearoa, throughout the Pacific. With the support of his whānau he established Te Wānanga Whare Tapere o Tākitimu, one of the first performing arts tertiary institutions in this country. His Kahurangi Māori Dance Theatre company performs regularly in New Zealand, even here in Parliament, North America, and Canada. Employment and opportunities through culture—Tama established the national Waiata Māori Awards and was the first chairman of Te Matatini, New Zealand’s premier hapa kaka movement. Tama was before his time, committed to his culture, committed to his Anglican faith, committed to the descendants of the waka tipua Tākitimu. E te rangatira, moe mai [esteemed one, rest there].

It seems anticlimactic to go from espousing the virtues of these great rangatira, to now turn to the Prime Minister’s statement. It is like moving from a state of admiration and respect to a state of despair. The country deserves better. The constituents of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, whom I represent, deserve better. In the contribution earlier today by Minister Anne Tolley there was reference to the comment in the Prime Minister’s speech about the economy being in good shape and getting better. I rise to bring to this House the reality that I confront as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. It is not my view of what is happening. It is through the lens of the many constituents who unfortunately get turned away from some of my colleagues on that side of the House when they have issues of urgency, particularly around housing. The constituents of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti are over this spin Government—a Government with no substance, a Government with no policy and no plan, and a Government that simply does not care.

When we came together, after the 2014 election, I had great hope in the new class of members on the Government side when many rose to their feet and espoused the virtues of decency, of fairness, and of equity. I am talking particularly about Nuk Korako, Shane Reti, and Mr Bishop himself. I had great faith that things were going to change on that side of the House. But, alas, it was not to be.

When I travel throughout my electorate, which is 730 kilometres in distance, from Pōtaka in the north, to Wainuiōmata in the south, the issues that continuously come up with the people whom I meet as I travel are jobs and warm and decent homes. [Interruption] No, it is not my view. It is the view of the people whom I have to deal with as a member of Parliament. I have come to this House to put down what their struggles are—not mine, not yours, but theirs. Too much in this House is a big gap between talking about doing something and actually doing it. The results speak for themselves.

Let us turn to housing throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. The waiting list in December 2014 in Gisborne was 46. In Hastings there are 61 people waiting. In Napier there are 93 people waiting for homes, and in Wairoa, a small community, there are 10 people waiting. But let us look at the vacant houses in those same areas. As at October 2014 we have 87 vacant homes in Gisborne, we have 71 vacant homes in Hastings, and we have 130 vacant homes in Napier. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to ask why we have got these vacant homes but there are still people on the waiting list. It is because this Government does not care. It is because this Government is not actively providing safe, affordable, dry homes for the people throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti who need them.

I also want to come to the House to raise an issue that has come up in my engagement, again, with constituents. It is the lack of maintenance that is going on in State houses. I deal with the managers in both Hastings and Gisborne. They are great people, because we all need public servants in our regions, but their hands are tied. You have to go into nannies’ homes, who keep immaculate houses and lawns, but the paint is peeling, there is mildew in the bathrooms, and there are holes in the kitchen because the bathroom is leaking, but these people are just grateful to have a home. No one deserves to live like that—nobody. When the concerns are raised again with the managers of Housing New Zealand, they cannot do anything. Why? Because they have no budget. Is this the Government that we are proud of? Is that a “good shape … getting better” Government—which is what we heard the Prime Minister say—when people are forced to live in that level of housing? It is not. That is why I rise to bring that issue to this House.

Employment—we have heard that this Labour Party is prioritising jobs. We are prioritising jobs, and we are not just going to talk about it. We are going to do something about it. Again, I reference the earlier contribution by the Minister Anne Tolley around unemployment. Let us just have a look throughout our electorate, Minister Tolley. In Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay in December 2014 we had an unemployment rate of 7.8 percent. In December 2008 that percentage was 6.4. In Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay we are not in good shape. We are not getting better. The statistics are undeniably going the wrong way. When we have this Government talking about the glory and the benefits that are going out, I, for one, can definitely stand and say that the impact on the people throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti is not being felt. When Minister Tolley is up in Gisborne I invite her to come to Elgin and to be part of the community who come in every day when I am visiting to talk about the lack of jobs, the poor houses—in fact, we have got a house right next door to my electoral office that burnt down and is still standing.

This Government is completely out of touch with the ordinary New Zealander. Like I say, on this side of the House I want to hold the Government accountable for its non-performance and non-delivery of the bare basics of a warm, affordable home, sustainable employment, and a decent wage. This is why we are standing to hold this Government to account. That Prime Minister’s statement is just not hitting the mark. It is full of holes. Over this year I look forward to exposing the Government even more. Kia ora tātou.

Mr SPEAKER: I understand this is a split National call, Dr Shane Reti.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Ngā mihi ki a koe. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to the Prime Minister’s statement, and to especially talk about smart business, working with a smart Government to provide a better quality of life for New Zealanders. The formula is simple. Smart business and smart Government bring economic development and bring real jobs, and real jobs give New Zealanders options. That is what New Zealanders voted for.

A few weeks ago in Kerikeri the Northland regional growth strategy was released. It is a bottom-up collaboration with stakeholders that gives real direction, and by real direction I mean smart direction, to the region. What do I mean by that? Let us take an example from the growth strategy. Let us look at aquaculture in Northland. Northland has maybe 10 percent of the coastline, maybe a bit more. Aquaculture in Northland is a nascent industry. It is still in its early stages. It has got a lot of potential. It has done the teething time, but has not actually reached that full potential. The players in the Northland aquaculture industry are widespread across the region. We have the kingfish, and we have the finfish people at Ruakākā, and I will come back to them. The oyster industry is well developed—Pārua Bay, the Ōtamatea River in the Kaipara, Waikare, Te Puna, Kerikeri, Haupōuri, Whangaroa, Rangirū, Houhora, and Pāringaringa in the Hokianga. Pāua—who would have known? There are 11 tonnes of pāua coming out of Ruakākā. And the mussel industry is also well developed—Houhora and Whangaroa. They are all well developed and well spread across the Northland area.

What this Government is doing and what it is saying is: “Where’s our bang for our buck? We could actually spread it across everywhere, but where are we going to get the most gain?”. It turns out that most gains are with finfish and oysters. It does not mean we are going to ignore the other parts of the industry. Mussel farmers, for example, have their 70-hectare mussel farm at Stephenson Island in the Whangaroa. We are not forgetting the other areas, but finfish and oysters are our strategic direction. With a clear direction like that, it gives clarity and stability for investors in the industry.

Let us drill down on to that a little bit more. Let us get into some details and make it a bit real. What does it mean to prioritise finfish in Northland? This is a $14 million, 150-job opportunity and it is an excellent example of central government working with local government. We have four key stakeholders. We have the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA); we have the Ministry for Primary Industries; we have Northland Inc., the economic development arm of the Far North District Council and Whangarei District Council; and local iwi Ngāti Wai. NIWA did the initial work on finfish in sea cages and land tanks. When the King Salmon decision came out last year challenging sea-based farming, NIWA was simply able to redirect its model to the land-based farming that it was already doing. That is smart—that is smart. We were able to keep the momentum going and use these 500-tonne land-based cages that we have been working on.

Another feature of the regional growth strategy that this Government has and continues to enable is roading in Northland, and I want to talk to that for a moment. We get that roading matters. Furthermore, we do not just want to talk about it; we actually want to put it into action. The Pūhoi to Wellsford road of national significance is important to Northland and important to this Government, and it will be put into action. Between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles use State Highway 1 near Whangarei every single day. The volume of freight to and from Northland has gone up by 5 million tonnes between 2007 and 2012. That is freight growth of 6.6 percent per annum. The road of national significance to Northland will benefit many Northlanders in myriad ways. First of all, there will be the manufacture and maintenance, tourism, and then we will be closer to Auckland, the economic powerhouse.

So, in summary, the Prime Minister’s statement is good for Northland, good for New Zealanders, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be standing here in support of the Prime Minister’s statement. In fact, it is more than that; it is actually exciting to be part of the team that is radically overhauling New Zealand and that this Prime Minister has been leading for the last 6½ years. This is clearly a Government with a plan that is working hard, achieving results, and delivering great outcomes. This is not about having talkfests, symposiums, and conferences.

The results say it all—an economy growing by 3.2 percent. We have one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, and Treasury is forecasting that we are going to sustain that at 3 percent per annum for the next 3 years. We have got interest rates at a 20-year low, which is great for people wanting to buy new houses and expand their businesses. We have got more jobs—80,000 last year, and even Treasury is projecting that we will create 151,000 new jobs over the next 5 years. That means a quarter of a million new jobs for New Zealanders. That is pretty encouraging for people wanting to gain self-respect from having a good job and earning a regular income.

That brings me to income. Average wages have risen by 15 percent over the last 5 years and will continue to grow now that we have tamed inflation, which is at less than 1 percent. Debt is at a mere 26 percent of GDP and targeted to be at 20 percent by 2020. The prudent steps we have taken to control the Government sector—our Government expenditure is now sitting at just over 30 percent, a far cry from where it was 6 years ago.

I also want to acknowledge the great work that the Minister for Social Development has achieved in getting more people into work. There are 1,600 more people a week who are now enjoying the respect of having a good job.

Better health outcomes—as the Minister of Finance noted earlier today, free doctors visits for under-13s are to be introduced from 1 July this year. There is a focus on immunisation for our young toddlers. There are programmes to reduce obesity and to encourage more active lifestyles.

Improved educational outcomes—after doubling our investment in early childhood education, we are now at a stage where we have got 96 percent of our young children participating in early childhood education. We have much-improved National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) levels. Only this morning in the Education and Science Committee did we hear from the Ministry of Education that level 2 NCEA achievement rates for Māori and Pacific Islanders have increased by 10 percent and 12 percent respectively. They are great outcomes.

We are also assisting to get people into homes, not only with a supply of new homes but also through our Welcome Home Loan package, which allows first-time homeowners to buy their first homes.

We are also creating a better environment for our business people—reduced ACC levies, easier workplace practices, and changes to the Resource Management Act. We are also creating the right environment so that health and safety pervades all our work environments.

Finally and most important is our focus on vulnerable families. Our package of measures is comprehensive, coherent, and welcome. It was timely that earlier this week or last week the Salvation Army released its update report, which showed we had achieved improvement in 10 out of 13 measures. This is a Government that has a heart. This is a Government that has a soul and a desire to improve the well-being of all New Zealanders.

In essence, there is a lot more confidence in our regions as well as at an individual level. This is good government. All of us know that there is more to do, and that is why all 60 of us in the National Party cannot wait to continue focusing on dealing with the hard issues that have been troubling New Zealand’s generations. Our story is incomplete, but it has been exciting reading some of the chapters so far. I commend the Prime Minister for his vision and energy. It is great to be part of his team.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): New Zealand is in great heart and so is this Government. We have had a wonderful summer. The Black Caps are performing superbly, and are we not all so proud of them? The Chiefs did the business yet again when they demolished the Blues away last weekend. The people of Hamilton are in great heart and they support this Government. They do so partly because Hamilton continues to be New Zealand’s most desirable city. I invite members from throughout the House to come to Hamilton this month to sample our superb and internationally acclaimed botanic gardens—they are world-leading—and also to enjoy our magnificent summer arts festival set in those beautiful gardens. It is something to savour.

This debate, of course, has focused on confidence in the Government. Good Governments listen to the people. Good Governments focus on matters of importance to those people and deliver results in those significant areas. Good Governments have strong and decisive leadership, talented and committed executives, backbench teams, and high expectations of all who work in our public services, in employment, and in areas that deliver the goods for those people—and they are. That is how good Governments retain the confidence and the trust of the electorates they serve. What is absolutely remarkable is that in over more than 6 years in Government, this Government’s poll ratings have consistently been in the mid to high 40s and sometimes higher, showing that we have retained the trust of the people throughout our time in Government not because we are arrogant, not because there is anything that we are perhaps trying to do that is sneaky, but because we are focused on the things that matter and, more important, because we are delivering in the areas that matter.

So our opponents do not like it, but New Zealanders know that our Government’s management of the economy has earned international acclaim. The economic indicators are all positive. Employment is growing steadily. Wages are rising. Prices and interest rates are steady. We remain on track back to surplus. No wonder our Prime Minister was so highly regarded at the international economic forum that he attended in Davos last month. I am proud to be a part of John Key’s team. In health, education, law and order, and many other important areas, we are raising the bar, expecting better and better results, and together we are achieving. That is why the people of Hamilton West voted National so convincingly last year. That is why I am so proud to represent them in the John Key - led Government. It is why my colleagues and I will be so proud in a few moments to support the motion of confidence that will be voted upon.

Much has been achieved but there is more to be done. I am delighted by our commitment to increase and improve our social housing stock in my electorate and throughout the country. I commend and strongly support the work and passion of those who are protecting our vulnerable children and supporting their families and communities. Their work is crucial. I look forward to further initiatives to be rolled out in this year’s Budget that will assist children who are growing up in hardship and deprivation. They deserve our full support and they will get it. It is this clear and unwavering focus that has captured the imagination of New Zealanders and explains why they so strongly support this Government, and now we have the opportunity to show that confidence as this debate comes to its conclusion.

A party vote was called for on the question, That all the words after “That” be deleted and replaced with “this House express no confidence in this National-led Government because this is a government that has lost its moral compass and turned a blind eye to the deplorable actions of its MPs; that is fixated on selling off our state houses rather than building more homes; that is leading us into a war with no clear goals and no exit strategy; that has more Kiwis out of work and in poverty today than when it came to power; and that now has no greater ambition for New Zealand than changing our flag while leaving the real issues to fester.”

Ayes 57

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.

Noes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this House express its confidence in the National-led Government and commend its programme for 2015 as set out in the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.

Motion agreed to.

Intelligence and Security Committee

Membership

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That under section 8 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996, this House endorse the following as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee: Hon Christopher Finlayson and Hon Amy Adams, nominated by the Prime Minister under section 7(1)(c) of the Act; and David Shearer, nominated by the Leader of the Opposition under section 7(1)(d) of the Act.

I also move, That

(a) the Intelligence and Security Committee will examine the Estimates Vote for each intelligence and security agency (Standing Orders 247, 248, 249, and 338 are to be read and applied accordingly)

(b) the Intelligence and Security Committee will examine the Supplementary Estimates for each intelligence and security agency (Standing Orders 247, 248, 249, and 341 are to be read and applied accordingly)

(c) the Intelligence and Security Committee will conduct an annual review of the performance in the previous financial year and the current operations of each intelligence and security agency (Standing Orders 247, 248, 249, 344, and 345 are to be read and applied accordingly)

(d) no select committee can examine an intelligence and security agency

(e) a bill or other matter relating to an intelligence and security agency may be referred by the House to the Intelligence and Security Committee (Standing Orders 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 276, 277, 278, 279, 288, 289, 291, 295, 296, 298, 299, and 300 are to be read and applied accordingly)

(f) the Clerk will allocate any petition relating to an intelligence and security agency to the Intelligence and Security Committee (Standing Order 370)

(g) for the purposes of this order—

intelligence and security agency means the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service or the Government Communications Security Bureau; and

Intelligence and Security Committee means the Intelligence and Security Committee established by section 5 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996.

I am honoured to take the first call in the parliamentary debate on the formation of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Intelligence and Security Committee is an important part of the oversight mechanisms of the intelligence and security agencies, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). The committee provides scrutiny on behalf of this House of the agencies’ policies, administration, and expenditure.

The committee plays a fundamental role in our democracy. It is a watchdog and a safeguard, and a necessary and fundamental oversight to provide New Zealanders with the trust and confidence they expect from our intelligence and security agencies. These agencies exist because we live in a world of growing threats of international terrorism, human trafficking, and cyber-security. These are very real threats and we as a country are not immune. We need to safeguard against these threats. Security and intelligence play an important role in protecting New Zealanders both here and abroad against those perils.

The committee’s governing legislation recognises the need for balance between transparency and secrecy in overseeing the agencies’ activities—transparency to enhance the confidence of Parliament and the public that the agencies are properly accountable and operating strictly in accordance with the law; and secrecy, so that the sensitive work of the agencies can be adequately reviewed. The transparency side of this balance was enhanced by measures Parliament agreed to in its review of 2013. The committee now carries out its annual financial reviews of the agencies in public session, and that will be one of the first duties in the coming weeks. I am sure that the committee will build on the good work that was done during the first public review in December 2013.

The committee consults with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, who has an important independent oversight role, on her annual report. The committee is also now required to present an annual report on its activities to Parliament. At the same time, the Government recognises that the need for secrecy remains when reviewing the work of the agencies, to ensure that they are able to carry out that work effectively. During this Parliament the committee will have important roles in the review of the intelligence and security agencies, the legislation governing them, and their oversight legislation, which will begin in coming months.

In my role as Acting Attorney-General I will be consulting the committee on the terms of reference for that review, and on the appointments of the two people who will carry out the review. The reviewers will report their results to the committee for its consideration, and if, as is likely, there are changes to legislation arising from the review, Parliament can be expected to refer the bill for the committee’s consideration. I reiterate that in this context the Government remains committed to a thorough public consultation process on any proposed changes.

The Government considers that the whole oversight framework for the New Zealand SIS and the GCSB is substantially stronger and more effective than it was 3 years ago. The key pillars of this framework are represented by the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and the Commissioner of Security Warrants. All three are important in building confidence in Parliament and amongst the general public.

The Intelligence and Security Committee works on some of the most critical issues facing New Zealand. It is essential to have members with the right skills, understanding, and experience to contribute constructively to the committee’s work, who understand the criticality of the decisions to be made, who are committed to moving beyond posturing and point-scoring, and who will participate in a meaningful way. The committee’s role is to scrutinise our intelligence agencies and to provide a platform for informed political discourse.

I am confident that the proposed membership of the committee will provide the balance of expertise, skills, and constructive debate necessary to make the committee an effective part of protecting the core foundations of New Zealand society, as we grapple with some of the most complex issues facing this country, and without looking to use the committee to advance personal agendas.

Every member comes to this House because we are passionate about this country and we are passionate about making a difference. We live here, we raise our families here, and we care deeply about the rights of New Zealanders and their safety. Every one of us is motivated to ensure we have an accountable and robust system, and I am confident that the Intelligence and Security Committee will deliver exactly that.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I rise to support the motion and to echo, at the very least, the principles that the Acting Attorney-General has just adumbrated, and that is about the importance of the security and intelligence oversight that Parliament provides as part of Government. As the Acting Attorney-General outlined, the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee is to conduct financial reviews of the security agencies and to deal with petitions and bills almost as if it were a select committee. What is interesting about this committee is that its default setting is one of confidentiality—one of secrecy. It requires a unanimous decision of that committee to act in an open way.

The committee acts in a climate today of the need for greater confidence not only about our security agencies but about the quality of the oversight that is provided, and of a growing demand in the 21st century for open government, including when it comes to the conduct of our security agencies and the powers that they wield. Those powers are extraordinary and they need effective oversight. Most New Zealanders will agree that we are caught between this tension or balance between the need for security for our people—people are entitled to move throughout their neighbourhood and their country with a sense of physical security—and for threats, whether from within or without, to be properly monitored and matched by the correct powers in order to provide that security. But, with the technology now available, New Zealanders are equally concerned about the ease with which their privacy can be intruded upon. We must get that tension right.

I have nominated David Shearer for three principal reasons. I have nominated him because he has an extraordinary background in dealing with security and security risks and in some of the greatest trouble spots in the world. He headed the UN mission in Iraq, running a budget of $2 billion and 500 staff. He was the UN’s humanitarian coordinator in Lebanon. He was head of the UN’s humanitarian office in Jerusalem. He was an adviser to the Afghanistan Government. He coordinated relief to 460,000 Kosovo refugees in Albania. The list goes on. In that fieldwork, David Shearer worked alongside security personnel and security agencies. He knows what it means in the field. In this part of the 21st century, as we head into the rest of this century, we know that the risks to the world are defined by what is happening in the parts of the world where he has greatest experience. He understands the risks. He understands the social, cultural, and ethnic drivers to the risks that are posed to us today. He has that background.

The second reason is his experience here in Parliament with the committee when he was Leader of the Opposition and, more recently, a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee when it dealt with the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill at the end of last year. It was David Shearer’s advocacy on that committee, along with Phil Goff’s, that led to much tighter restrictions on the exercise of intrusive powers by our security agencies, much greater protection for those who are targets of our security agencies, and also better recourse to appeal of those powers. So he knows this stuff and he is experienced in it.

It was David Shearer who led the call for a review of our security agencies. It was David Shearer who led the campaign to tighten up and improve the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation at a time when the Government had the numbers. The skill of parliamentary advocacy when the numbers are against you is measured by the achievements that have been made. I look at the legislation at the end of last year and I see the improvements that were made because of the knowledge, skills, understanding, and experience of someone like David Shearer.

There is a third reason why I have nominated David Shearer, and that is the issues that the committee will shortly face in terms of the reviews that the Acting Attorney-General just outlined. The truth is this: we need change in our security oversight architecture. This committee—which will be required to commence its review of the security agencies by 30 June this year, which with the Attorney-General will consult on the terms of reference, and to which the reviewers appointed by the Attorney-General will report—has its own issues. There are conflicts in its present structure. This is a committee chaired by the Prime Minister to provide oversight for agencies for which he is the responsible Minister. No other Government department or agency has that arrangement in terms of its parliamentary oversight. Its default setting, or a default arrangement for its meeting, is secrecy. But we are in an age of openness now, and an expectation by citizens is that they know what is being done in their name by the Government and that they have a chance to have a say, as they did in open forums last year with the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

This committee acts to all intents and purposes as a select committee, and there is no reason why it should not extend to citizens the same rights and protections as an ordinary select committee. Greater transparency is warranted. We saw last year that an ordinary select committee—the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—was capable of dealing with a bill that was highly sensitive, that dealt with the security agencies, and that could be debated and dealt with effectively in that ordinary setting.

The other reality is this: our nation and our world face more threats, worse threats—some real; some perceived. In that climate, there are growing claims by our security agencies for more intrusive powers, at the same time as citizens want greater openness. We have to get that right. Labour’s position is that if we are to get that balance right, that debate itself must be conducted in an open forum and an open environment. Our position is that we can do that without compromising the integrity of our security agencies or the information they deal with. These are the issues. This is the fundamental issue that will sit at the heart of the reviews this year and however long they take, and what is important is that we have advocates on that committee who understand those issues, understand the tensions, and are prepared to go in to bat for the rights and protections of citizens in this very sensitive area. David Shearer has demonstrated in his fieldwork prior to coming to this House and in his work in this House in this area that he is up for that task. I would wager that he will be the most effective MP in the Opposition benches, if not indeed in the entire Parliament, who is up for that role. So I support the motion.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): According to the Prime Minister, the business of the Intelligence and Security Committee will be a lot less complicated without the Green Party asking pesky questions and challenging the status quo. Well, I rest my case. John Key is quite right. National and Labour will be able to whip through the business of the committee with lightning speed without the Greens there attempting to provide the actual oversight that the committee is supposed to undertake. That is precisely why it is so wrong to exclude us from its membership.

By locking out the Greens, the two old parties have yet again colluded to entrench the powers of the Prime Minister and his spy agencies behind a façade of pretend accountability. As members of the committee, the Greens have done our very best to ensure that it is the watchdog it is supposed to be, rather than the lapdog that John Key and Andrew Little have now turned it into. If that complicated matters for the Government, then tough; it was a very good thing for the rest of New Zealand.

When we were members of the committee, the Green Party sought, among other things, an inquiry into John Key’s appointment of Ian Fletcher as head of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), asked for an inquiry into “Five Eyes”, and was the only member of that committee to bother to submit questions to the financial reviews of the GCSB and the SIS. This is what effective oversight looks like. This is what the old boys’ club has silenced.

No doubt a major review of our spy agencies by the committee this year would have been more complicated with the Greens there to ask questions about whether the spies, or the Prime Minister, actually need more intrusive powers, but that is what happens in a democracy. It is also true that it would have been easier for National to water down the Resource Management Act and to open up more areas of our pristine ocean for oil exploration without the Greens getting in the way with our pesky questions. It would have been much less complicated for National to gut the emissions trading scheme, to sell our laws to Skycity and Warner Bros, and to give tax cuts to the rich if the Green Party was not there questioning whether any of these things was such a great idea.

Yes, we scrutinise Government decisions and we hold Ministers to account. Yes, we come up with ideas like plans to feed hungry kids in this country. Yes, the Green Party gives voice to those who have asked us to speak for them. That is called democracy. That is called being the Opposition—a role that Labour has abdicated on security matters. Since 1999 Labour has voted with National on security and intelligence legislation 83 percent of the time. National and Labour agreed on increasing powers of intrusion and surveillance 83 percent of the time. The club is too cosy.

The history of the 20th century has shown that our democracies are made better and they are made stronger by the actions of people who stand up and question the authority of Governments. Kate Sheppard showed us this. Kate Sheppard drove Richard Seddon nuts with her pesky insistence that women participate in the old boys’ club that was the parliamentary democracy of the day. Seddon said of Kate Sheppard that she “did not have the training which fitted her to man’s equal.” But she presented petition after pesky petition calling for the right for women to vote. She made things more complicated, and in doing so she made New Zealand better. Kate Sheppard helped improve our democracy by asserting the right of all women to play a part in it. She did not make it better by keeping quiet.

If anything, this whole debacle shows the need for a full and independent review of New Zealand’s spy agencies. This has been the Green Party position for many years, and we are not the only ones. The Dominion Post today described the Intelligence and Security Committee as “a constitutional monstrosity, being led by the prime minister who has great powers to restrict its investigations”. The Dominion Post went on to say “what is needed is a proper select committee to replace it” and we agree. The Intelligence and Security Committee is also a constitutional anachronism, one that reflects the old days of first past the post, and neither the reality nor the intentions of MMP.

The real solution is for this committee to be established as a regular select committee of Parliament, with real powers to inquire into the activities of the spy agencies, and with all political parties playing a role. It absolutely should not be the responsible Minister—who until recently was the Prime Minister—who is the chair of the committee. Members of the select committee would have skills, understanding, and expertise, not as intelligence experts but as political representatives doing their democratic duty to hold those with the highest powers to the highest standards. And that is what is missing here.

Not only has Labour chosen to lock out the obvious second Opposition party from membership of the committee, but John Key has also turned his back on the long-held convention to have other Government parties represented as well. The membership of this hugely important committee has never been so closed at a time when concern over the powers of spy agencies has never been greater.

Historically, under other Prime Ministers there were always at least two other parties, other than National and Labour, represented on the committee. In choosing wider representation, those leaders, including, I might add, Helen Clark, acknowledged the constitutional gravity of the committee’s role. Somehow under National and, sadly, with the endorsement of our friends in Labour, this grave responsibility has been reduced down to the need to get a meeting over and done with in 5 minutes. I have made it clear that my concerns are not just about the process of nominations. The committee will be a better watchdog with us on it. Better still, it would be better if it was a genuine, representative select committee, and that remains the Green’s preferred position.

Some have suggested that the way this has been handled does not bode well for a future Labour-Green Government. Quite to the contrary—

David Shearer: You want to go down this track? Seriously? Throwing your toys out of the cot?

METIRIA TUREI: —it shows that for those New Zealanders who are concerned about Labour’s approach to security and intelligence, Mr Shearer, among the other matters where we have disagreement, a bigger Green Party is needed to help steer a future progressive Government on a better course. It has always been our view that we have an agree-to-disagree approach with Labour, and a mutual respect for those differences. Clearly, this is one of those issues where we disagree.

I would like to finish by suggesting that we all be aware of the truism in our democracy that the longer a Government is in power, the fewer questions it wants asked about how it exercises that power. Kate Sheppard knew this, but she asked the questions anyway. She made things very complicated for the Government of the day, and showed us just what a little peskiness can achieve. Thank you.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The motion before us is that three members of Parliament—Chris Finlayson, Amy Adams, and David Shearer—be endorsed as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. All three people are, no doubt, fine individuals. Speaking for myself, I have nothing against any of them. Each has, no doubt, some shining quality. The issue for the Green Party is not one of individual competence. Each of these individuals would no doubt pass the litmus test of minimal competence to serve on this committee. That is not the problem. The problem is that in one of these nominations the law was breached.

The Intelligence and Security Committee Act provides for the membership of the committee. Section 7(1)(d) addresses the nomination by the Leader of the Opposition. The member shall be nominated “following consultation with the leader of each party that is not in Government”. In February 2015, for the 51st Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition did not consult with the leaders of the Green Party. That is a violation of the Act and a breach of New Zealand legislation. Does it matter? Yes, it matters. The Parliament is the sovereign body of New Zealand. It is not constitutionally proper for any member, whether the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, to ignore its legislative provisions. To do so undermines the constitutional integrity of this country, which they are sworn to uphold.

It is strange for an Opposition leader, aspiring to be Prime Minister, to do such a thing. Perhaps Mr Little did not mean to do such a thing. Perhaps it was an oversight. But he stands by his decision not to have consulted. He declared an undertaking to consult with the Green Party about the committee’s deliberations. This, he said, would fulfil his legal obligations—wrong on both counts. First, the section states clearly that the MP shall be nominated following consultations. Mr Little acknowledges he did not consult. It is disingenuous to then assert that future consultation on the committee’s deliberations will meet his legal obligation to consult prior to and on the subject of a nomination. As a lawyer, he knows very well that this is incorrect. As a political leader, he knows very well that this is disingenuous. As an aspiring Prime Minister, he knows very well that he should have done better. He should have done better not only leading up to this nomination but in his subsequent dissembling.

Secondly, the law prohibits Mr Little, actually, from consulting with anyone about the deliberations of the committee. For someone aspiring to be a good committee member, this gentleman is in need of some elementary training. Well, that is that, and we leave it to Mr Little to reflect on what he needs to do. In case he has not reached for the legislation, it may be worth pointing out that section 9(2) states: “The Leader of the Opposition may at any time revoke the nomination of any person nominated by the Leader of the Opposition …”. This Act obviously presumes that the Leader of the Opposition has the moral compass to realise that people make mistakes, and that a nomination might be invalid through procedural error.

We repeat: the Green Party has nothing against the member whom Mr Little has nominated. The individual has some admirable background in issues of UN affairs, being a humanitarian aid chief in a number of conflict zones. It is not an easy job to do. It often takes courage to go there. It takes stamina, often, to stay. It requires judgment, including political judgment, about how to be effective there and what to do in some tough spots. I know how difficult some of these challenges can be. When I worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I was privy to intelligence reports we used to get about the strategic thinking that would go on in the major capitals of the world during the height of the Cold War. I found it sobering to say the least. Some of the tactical scheming that undermined and underpinned much of the strategising was not disarmingly pretty. You could age a few years on reading just one report.

Of course, this does not make every intelligence report a model of perfection. The US National Security Agency got it badly wrong over Iraq’s nuclear weapons in 2002, leading to the sad picture of a misled Colin Powell, an honourable man by and large, misleading the world with a PowerPoint and a pointer in the Security Council. And it is possible for an excitable Prime Minister to over-interpret some ambiguous material. Mr Blair’s disposition to hype anything that passed under his nose led him to declare London to be 45 minutes away from disaster from Iraq’s missiles—some intelligence. Maybe this is the price of the club.

Intelligence reporting is an art, and part of that art is in not overhyping the fragile shards of evidence that you can glean from fallible, often biased, and occasionally fraudulent sources. There is a temptation to bake a cake from crumbs. I recall that when I would travel to the Thai-Cambodian border shortly after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia back in the early 1980s, I and colleagues from other countries would try to make sense out of what was going on in front of our eyes in the resistance fighters’ camps up there. They were Son Sann’s Khmer People’s National Liberation Front and Sihanouk’s FUNCINPEC. We then went to Cambodia where the Khmer Rouge hung out. I remember talking with Son Sann one day about the strength of his forces and then a few hours later to Sihanouk’s people about theirs, and then comparing notes with colleagues. Arriving at an informed estimate that we could agree on was a nightmare.

So intelligence gathering is more an art than a science. This is not to say it is a completely useless art, but it is to say that you need to be politically careful and circumspect with your material. I guess that is the job of the committee in the sense of responsible political oversight. That is the reason the Green Party has in the past called for a review of the reviewers—not because we do not live in the real world but because we know how complex the real world actually is. These days that complexity is increasing. It is not just military violence and geostrategy that is at issue these days in a world of intelligence.

In the past decade or so the UN has begun to recognise the broader array of threats to peace and security that now exists. In 2004 the Secretary-General appointed the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change to report to him on this. That report, for which I served as a consultant, identified the whole gamut of new threats to peace. The report said: “we know all too well that the biggest security threats we face now, and in the decades ahead, go far beyond States waging aggressive war. They extend to poverty, infectious disease and environmental degradation; war and violence within States; the spread and possible use of …. [weapons of mass destruction]; terrorism; and transnational organized crime. The threats are from non-State actors as well as States, and to human security as well as State security.”

So our intelligence gathering in New Zealand, whether it is through our own national resources or through a sharing arrangement, needs to focus on the whole notion of human security and how to ensure that the State serves to protect the individual rather than the other way around. I saw this in starkest relief when I served as a UN official in the Middle East. When I went to the Syrian border and into the West Bank and Gaza it was clear that human security begets instability, and instability leads to violence. It was equally apparent to the Jordanian intelligence, the Mukhabarat, just down the road. That was why the king was so attentive to both his Bedouin tribes and his Palestinian refugees at home and to neighbouring Governments on his borders.

No doubt our Intelligence and Security Committee performs its functions with due diligence. No doubt it needs parliamentary review. It would not be a bad idea if the Leader of the Opposition recognised the need for a diverse range of experience and humble viewpoint on this committee.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I am pleased to take this call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Government motions. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Hon Chris Finlayson, the Hon Amy Adams, and David Shearer on their appointment to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

This committee was established by the Intelligence and Security Committee Act to increase the level of oversight and review of our SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). The Act requires that the committee has a membership of five, which includes the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Two of the remaining three members are to be appointed by the Prime Minister and one by the Leader of the Opposition.

In the past the Leader of the Opposition has offered the nomination to a fellow Opposition member, in consultation with other Opposition party leaders. So can I say that our party is somewhat surprised that a former foreign Minister, in the form of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, was not offered a position nor even consulted, as is required by law. It is, of course, the prerogative of the Leader of the Opposition to make this appointment, but in terms of bringing people inside the tent it is, perhaps, a missed opportunity. A problem shared is a problem halved. I am sure Mr Shearer would have worked just as diligently to support his new leader in this role.

Within our party the security agencies could have worked in the knowledge that the issues and the conversations that would have taken place would not be leaked. We have to seriously wonder how a National Party vassal who has leaked like a sieve in the past from this committee could continue to be rewarded at the taxpayers’ expense.

Last night this House debated the third reading of Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Amendment Bill. It was ironic to see Labour and the Greens line up behind the Government to add yet another tax on to the New Zealand motorist. My point is that only New Zealand First grasped the fact that our fuel stocks are held offshore in tickets, under this legislation. These are promissory notes that say we need these stocks and we will get them. Apparently they will be shipped to us if a ship turns up to collect them and bring them down to New Zealand. It seems—and I noted this last night—an incredibly naive position, when the only reason that we may have a shortage of oil supply to this country is if there is some kind of global crisis.

It highlights the acute vulnerability internationally and the vulnerability of our own infrastructure. Aside from Auckland’s well-publicised power outages over the past few years, a little over 1 year ago there was a shortage of diesel in the South Island when a planned outage at the Marsden Point oil refinery in Whangarei overran. You could say we face threats both external and internal, and we have choke points where infrastructure and even our banking system could be assailed physically and electronically. The cyber-attack on Sony and the theft from international banks just this past week is a warning that the focus of our security agencies is currently askew. Instead of warrantless surveillance on New Zealanders and the politicisation of our security services, our security agencies need to build capacity and responsiveness and focus on real threats.

The role of the Intelligence and Security Committee is an absolutely critical one, and it must be a self-critical one. It needs to challenge assumptions. But, above all, it needs to ensure the actions of our agencies and the people working within these agencies are legal and can be held to account by an independent authority—one whose primary role is not to work for the pleasure of the Minister in charge, which our current legislation defines; one whose job security is not determined by the Minister she is auditing, who, in fact, is her employer.

The objective of terrorism is to create fear where people feel safest. This was at the heart of the plan in Sydney to behead a member of the public. This can be seen in the organised attacks in London, Madrid, Paris, Copenhagen, Bali, and New York. Closer to home, the attack in Sydney was a truly chilling reminder about a lone wolf, not on a watch list, and with a security service funded infinitely better than our own. It was an object lesson that we cannot watch everyone, and nor should we. Instead, we saw heroic men and women respond to a real threat with numbers and resources. Police sending out debt collectors is not an answer to a 5-year budget freeze.

New Zealand, as we know, is at the far end of the world. We are seen to be a genuinely safe country. I would venture that this makes us an ideal target. To strike at the safest country on earth would strike a discordant note throughout the world. If you can hit at New Zealand you can hit at anyone in any community, anywhere on earth.

So we in this party look to the members of this Intelligence and Security Committee to take this challenge seriously. I make a plea on behalf of every person who made a submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee regarding the countering terrorism legislation, and I make this plea further on behalf of every New Zealander. Our newly appointed members cannot allow this Government to continue to corrupt our political system, for supposed political expediency. New Zealanders need to know what we are doing—not the operational matters; there are security issues—and they need to have a voice and a say into how this country meets its organisation and its obligations.

We live in an imperfect and often evil world—evidenced by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in Syria and Iraq and its new franchise in Libya. There is also Boko Haram in Africa, and in our backyard, Abu Sayyaf, as well as the Islamic insurgency in southern Thailand. We need security agencies such as the GCSB and the SIS. They need to be adequately resourced. We need good leadership on issues of national security and leaders whom we can trust.

New Zealand needs to be a good leader internationally. The club that this Government does belong to is the United Nations and we are now in that critical inner circle—the Security Council. How can we be taken seriously, when this Prime Minister is slowly but surely manipulating the New Zealand public into another club—a club that will work more for his own personal retirement plan rather than New Zealand’s national interests? The official club is the UN Security Council—a council that New Zealand helped to form—and New Zealand must now be seen as a world leader on that council. This country belongs to it now, and we must be seen as setting international standards. This Government’s actions are currently and absolutely counter to that necessity.

Trust has been in very short supply in recent years as our security agencies have become politicised—not just our security agencies but our military, as evidenced by the script prepared by Defence Force public relations for the captain of HMNZS Wellington to read out on her return to Port Chalmers. To ensure we get that trust we first need the members of this committee to do the hard yards and to win that trust back. It also means that political oversight, unfortunately, is now a duopoly of Labour and National. I am sure that the people of New Zealand now wonder who benefits more, and I personally feel it is not the Labour Party, nor the people of New Zealand.

New Zealand First wants a secure New Zealand. The challenge to the Intelligence and Security Committee is to ensure unbridled power does not erode hard-fought civil liberties. Power corrupts, but we must never forget that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thank you.

JAMES SHAW (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like your view on Speaker’s ruling 209/1. My understanding is that last night Metiria Turei wrote to the Speaker to ask for a ruling in relation to the legality of the nomination prior to consultation, and a letter was sent back saying that the Speaker did not have the authority to enforce that. But it seems from this ruling that actually it is within the Speaker’s gift to enforce that, and from what we have just heard from the member Fletcher Tabuteau it appears that New Zealand First was also not consulted prior to the nomination being made. This is new information and it may change the nature of things from the exchange of letters last night.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for those comments in relation to Speaker’s ruling 209/1. I have sought advice and I have a written statement here, which I hope will clarify it for the member. The motion asked for the House to endorse members of the Intelligence and Security Committee nominated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

The process of nomination is a statutory one. The Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 requires the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to make nominations having consulted with the leaders of parties. The Speaker has no part in the statutory process but obviously has a concern to ensure that the House operates within the law, which requires consultation to be undertaken. The House cannot make good a failure to consult. This is a matter for the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. It is they who have the statutory responsibility. It is not for the Speaker to set out what is required by way of consultation.

However, it is well established that in consultation the consulter should give the person being consulted the opportunity to be heard. It is more than simply informing a person of a decision but beyond that we cannot be too precious about consultation in a political context. Debate in the House provides members with the opportunity to make their case. Concerns have been raised about consultation. The Leader of the Opposition was advised of these concerns in the expectation that he would resolve them. It is always open for the House not to endorse a nomination to the Intelligence and Security Committee. If this were to happen the Act provides for further consultation or a new nomination to be made to the House.

Members may move to omit a name of a nominee but cannot move amendments. The House does not make the appointments. It merely confirms the nominations of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just attempting to understand and draw accurate conclusions from what you have said. Are we to understand that if the two people who have the responsibility statutorily to nominate other members for the committee fail to perform their statutory obligations in that respect, the only remedy lies within the hands of those very same two people? Is that a correct understanding?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The second paragraph—I will just read that again. The process of nomination is a statutory one. The Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 requires the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to make nominations. Then the final paragraph that I read states: members may move to omit a name of a nominee but cannot move amendments. The House does not make the appointments. It merely confirms the nominations of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, I do conclude from what you have said, particularly from your first statement, that the only remedy for any procedural invalidity lies within the hands of the two people who have committed the procedural invalidity. I draw that conclusion, and so be it—that appears to be the ruling. May I make one more point, Mr Assistant Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: From what you have said, and having studied the Act, it appears to me—and no doubt you can make a ruling, and no doubt the House will—that there appears to have been a procedural invalidity committed by one of those two persons. I presume it appears to be only in the hands of the House to make that determination, but, in the event the House acknowledged that, would it then follow that if there is a procedural invalidity the House cannot then proceed to endorse all of them, or any of them, or omit one?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, I mentioned also in my third paragraph that the Speaker has no part in the statutory process, and if one is referring to the point that I made earlier about consultation, that is a statutory requirement. It is not a requirement for this House to determine. That can be determined only in a court. So the ruling that I have given is a ruling that stands, and I am now calling the next speaker.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): Underlying the issues that we are discussing today are the issues of basic rights and basic principles—that is, New Zealanders’ right to live securely, the right to life, and the right to be able to prosper. Those are protected by our security services, our police force, and obviously our intelligence services as well. On the other side, there is the balance that we also expect between those rights and our right to privacy and to have our human rights respected in terms of not being, for example, listened to, and there is also our right to be able to confer with others and not have that interfered with secretly as well. That is the balance that we are trying to establish.

We are living in challenging times at the moment. We have seen right across the world an increase in the amount of terrorism that is focused basically on innocent civilians for political and religious purposes, mainly stemming out of the Middle East region. I do not want to talk those up too much. When you look at the threat that they pose versus what we faced in the 1960s and 1950s during the Cold War, we are talking about very small numbers versus the possibility of human extinction. Nevertheless, they are still conflicts that we are seeing that are impinging on our rights and our right to life.

For those reasons, we need to have good, solid expertise within our intelligence services to ensure that we are well protected. At the same time, we cannot just rely on our intelligence services to rectify the possible threats that are coming from within our society. It is also about reaching out to those very communities from which some of the threats might come, and, in my view, we have not done that adequately enough. We have talked about, in a sense, the security, which often tends to be the bottom-of-the-cliff response, and not the other, and we need to take much more care in dealing with the issues that underlie some of the grievances that might lead to terrorist activities occurring here in New Zealand.

Two years ago, the Labour Party announced that we should have a review of our intelligence services. That was largely ignored by the Government. It wanted to push through changes to the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation. It was prepared to do that without cross-party support. It was going to do that with only the barest majority of one member of this House, which it had, and it went and did that. Now, 2 years later, I would say that those 2 years have been wasted, because we could have had that review done and dusted. I remember talking to the Prime Minister and suggesting that the review be done over the course of the election so that whoever was in power after the election would actually be able to pick up that review and put its recommendations in place. That did not happen, and now we are facing the situation where, a long way further down the track, we are looking at having a review of our intelligence services, and I welcome that.

I think there are a couple of other things that we insisted on as part of that review that I would hope that the Government would take up. One is that the terms of reference of that review be shared right across the entire House. We should all have confidence that that review is going to be a thorough and robust one and that we will have a say in the terms of reference. Second is that we should have a look at the people who are going to be conducting that review to ensure that they are of the highest calibre and, again, have the confidence not only of this House but of New Zealand as a greater whole. So my firm recommendation, before these terms of reference are completed and handed to any of us as a fait accompli, is that those two things are seen to.

Last year we had a very interesting exercise with regard to the way that we dealt with some legislation designed to combat a terrorist threat. We went into a truncated select committee process, which none of us were very happy about. But, nevertheless, we worked very hard and collegially in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to make sure that we had the best possible outcome from it that we could possibly achieve. We did do that. It was a robust process that was much too short, and we have talked about that at length, but we had a wide range of people coming into that select committee, speaking openly in public. It was reported on by the media, with the exception of some of the proceedings that we heard when we heard from the SIS, and that was for very good reason.

I think that this serves to act as a model for what we can expect in the future. Andrew Little talked about this in his speech. I believe that we should not send this review to the Intelligence and Security Committee; it actually should be sent to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, because I believe that it is open. Frankly, it has got fewer logistical problems about hearing evidence due to the composition of that committee. It is composed right across the board of members from all major parties on that committee, as well. So I would make a third suggestion, in addition to my others, that the terms of reference be consulted on, the membership of that review, again, be consulted, and that the review itself be heard in public in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and not in the Intelligence and Security Committee.

There have been some changes made, and some very good changes made, to our intelligence services in terms of the oversight that we place on them. Certainly from what we understand—and having been a former member of that Intelligence and Security Committee—I can say that the operational procedures within the SIS and the GCSB have improved. We have made some changes in the judicial overview, which is what I would call the second level of oversight, with the appointment of Cheryl Gwyn to the position of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and the power that she holds and that she is free to wield is important as well.

The area where we are missing proper oversight is the area of our political oversight, and that comes down to the actual composition and the functioning of the Intelligence and Security Committee itself. This review must take on this responsibly and look critically at the way that this committee functions. It is unlike any other committee. It is unlike any other committee in one important way, and that is that the Minister in charge of the SIS and the GCSB is also the chair of the committee that looks into the oversight of those departments. That is a direct conflict of interest. There is no other place in Parliament where that occurs. If we compare the way that that occurs in New Zealand with the political composition of the committee in Australia, we find that it is made up of non-Cabinet members. When we look at the composition of the committee in the United Kingdom, it is also made up of non-Cabinet Ministers. These are people who are very respected and who have generally been in Government and have served their country, but who are no longer Cabinet Ministers and, therefore, they no longer have the direct conflict of interest that our committee in New Zealand has. We have one of the most conflicted intelligence and security committees in the world.

If you take a look at Norway as a more contrasting example, it has no MPs on its intelligence and security committee, and that committee provides the oversight.

I believe that we need to step forward carefully when we go into this review to make sure that we have a review that is robust and upholds the confidence of New Zealand, and I have made some suggestions about some of the practicalities on which that should be based. I also believe that the Intelligence and Security Committee itself needs to be reformed. That should be a major focus of the review coming up.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): I would like to speak about the membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is unfortunate that we learnt of the decisions around the membership through the media rather than being consulted along with other parties, such as New Zealand First, beforehand, as should have happened and as is legally required. It does not build public confidence in the committee when such poor regard for process and legal requirements is shown right at the start.

I have to say that as a woman I was particularly dismayed by the comment made by the leader of the Labour Party to the media when he said that he did not invite our co-leader Metiria Turei to be on the committee because he wanted someone with the skills, understanding, and experience to be on that committee, implying that Metiria did not have these qualities, which is so far from the truth as to be farcical. I was dismayed because whatever one’s politics it is abundantly clear that Metiria is both a highly experienced and extremely skilled member of Parliament who has not only 5 years of extremely stable and successful leadership, 3 years as a whip, and 12 years of parliamentary experience but comes from a strong legal background. Her intelligence and legal expertise would have been valuable indeed on such an important committee. It is hard to escape the feeling the male privilege played a key role in the dismissal of Metiria’s formidable skills and expertise. I find myself wondering what planet the leader of the Labour Party lives on—not “Planet Key” I hope. I would like to be generous and give Little, who has been a member of Parliament for just 3 years, and a leader for all of 2 months, the benefit of the doubt and assume that he made these comments without thinking. But that makes these comments no less offensive to me and many other women.

This kind of arrogant dismissal of women’s skills and expertise is nothing new. It happens every day throughout New Zealand when skilled women who apply for jobs are overlooked for promotion and find themselves competing with men with far less experience and skill. This dismissal of women’s skills and expertise relative to men’s is a major reason why we have a gender wage gap. Men in New Zealand earn 25 percent more for the same work as women. I would also say that as a woman with a disability, I have also experienced, frequently, the assumption that I will not have the skills or the expertise for a particular role, such as chairing a group, because of my hearing loss. That is a scenario that many others are also all too familiar with.

The Green Party knows all too well about the need for oversight of formerly dodgy institutions that have spied, ineffectively but offensively, on New Zealanders, on our friends, and on our colleagues, including our colleague Catherine Delahunty. Because of this former background I believe that as well as Metiria’s skills, understanding, and experience, her commitment to human rights and critical thinking would have been invaluable on that committee. She might well have brought to the committee views that some others do not want to hear, such as, maybe, a powerful understanding of what powerlessness and humiliation feels like, and maybe a haunting view of surveillance based on the experiences of how prejudice and privilege excludes and labels the potentially spied-upon. She would bring exactly what is needed on this committee.

Leadership is the inspirational moment when a person can articulate a vision and build unity for the greater good. Leadership cannot be built on the assumption that male able-bodied politicians are better fitted for important roles than female politicians, especially on a committee that needs to have strong oversight from a human rights perspective. The Green Party is the only party in the House that has achieved gender balance and has a commitment to gender equity, through practice not rhetoric. We know the value of our commitment to this balanced approach. We know that power sharing is better than the dominant group chest thumping. We stand here today as experienced, knowledgable, and skilled women in a party that values us as leaders and we say to this House that you are under surveillance and we will continue to speak out for women and other marginalised groups.

Metiria is inspiring, intelligent, and a highly talented woman who absolutely should have been considered for selection for the committee, and it is a shame—an absolute shame—that her skills, understanding, and experience were dismissed out of hand in such an arrogant way. This is an opportunity for genuine oversight of the committee that has been missed and our country will be poorer for it.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I want to focus my comments in this debate on the need for structural change in the Intelligence and Security Committee, rather than narrowly on the personality and membership composition of it, because I think the former is the most important.

But I do want to say this first: the decision that was made by Andrew Little to nominate David Shearer for this committee was not based on a negative reflection on the Greens, or on New Zealand First, or on anybody else; it was based on a positive assessment of the skills and the experience that David Shearer brings to this job. I know better than most—but I think the members to whom I am referring now also recognise—that over a 20-year period David has experience that has not previously been seen in this House, in terms of the places where he worked, the way that he needed to conduct himself, and the understanding that he developed, in places like Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, Iraq, and Afghanistan. These are areas where he developed an understanding of the level of international threat and the nature of that threat, which will be invaluable on this committee.

But I want to talk about the structure of the committee because I think that is the point that is most important. New Zealanders want two things when it comes to security intelligence services. First of all, they want the certainty that they are safe and secure, and that they live in a society where the State can meet its fundamental obligations to its people, which are the right to life and the right to live free from fear of violence against them.

But they also want something else. They want the certainty that when you give extraordinary powers to an agency like the SIS or the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), and those extraordinary powers are exercised in secrecy, that they can have the confidence that there will be proper scrutiny and accountability over the exercise of those powers, that there will not be an abuse of those powers, and not only that the agencies themselves do not behave improperly and irresponsibly in regard to invasion of privacy but that the political masters of that agency also behave properly.

I had some personal experience where both the agencies and the political masters behaved improperly. That is not my prejudice against them—that was the finding of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, where she said that the person who was in charge of the SIS behaved in a way that was unbalanced and lacked responsibility and was prejudiced.

That is an appalling indictment on an official whom I worked with over a 15-year period. But it happened, and it is a recent example of why we need to make sure that these people are accountable. I concede immediately to the SIS that Rebecca Kitteridge came into my room and apologised for the appalling behaviour of her predecessor. I am still waiting for the apology from the person who allowed his political office to politicise the SIS through Whale Oil Beef Hooked, but I will not be lying awake at night waiting for that apology, because to apologise for something you have got to be man enough to do so.

I want to come to the structure of the Intelligence and Security Committee, because I do not believe that it is structured to do the job that we expect of it. This is a body that should be a safeguard against abuse of either political power or power by the agencies. But how can it possibly be a watchdog and a safeguard, and all of the other things that Amy Adams said were important about it, when it is chaired by the very Minister whose work it is overseeing? It is an absolute conflict of interest.

Mr Key, or whoever is the Minister at the time, is the Minister who directs the SIS and the GCSB. The role of the committee should be to exercise oversight as to whether the Minister is doing his job properly, and it is quite unacceptable, and also unprecedented among other Western democracies, to have the Minister who should be being scrutinised chairing the committee. I sat on that committee, so I know something about it.

The power of the chair is to call the committee together. It scarcely ever meets, scarcely ever meets, and it is entirely at the discretion of the Minister unless there is a statutory requirement, as in the financial review—and that is the only time, actually, the committee met. Not only does he call the committee together, he sets the agenda; so the Minister is scarcely going to set an agenda that puts him under greater pressure.

There is no other Western democracy that operates like that. Our mates across the Tasman, the Australians, do not do it. The Brits do not do it. The Americans do not do it. They have independent scrutiny over the actions of the security agencies, and that is what we should do as well.

So my first point is in setting the terms of reference for the review of the security agencies—something that we have called for, and I think all of the parties have called for—there should be an input from every party in this House. I mean, it is really important that we can develop a consensus around an issue like security agencies. That is the best protection against abuse of power. So I call on the Ministers and the Prime Minister to allow all parties to have an input into those terms of reference. But specifically I call on the Prime Minister to ensure that in those terms of reference a full review and a restructuring of the Intelligence and Security Committee takes place, because it is not doing the job that it should be doing and it needs to change. It needs to change quite radically.

I want to say one other thing, however. I am pleased that the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security as an independent watchdog has been borne out, and I am pleased to give credit to Cheryl Gwyn as a person who has been able to act independently and neutrally. And I say it is really important that we have those safeguards to ensure that the SIS and the GCSB act independently and neutrally because, while I think they are both better organisations today, they have a history of not acting neutrally and impartially.

You have only to look at the track records of whom they have spied upon over the years to see that they have been members—including members of this House, or past members of this House—who are absolutely committed to democratic and peaceful ways of going about things but who were subject to scrutiny. The groups that are subject to scrutiny are groups that tend to be left of centre rather than right of centre.

I am one who believes that the intelligence agencies need to be absolutely politically neutral. That is what my real grievance was against the Prime Minister’s politicising of it in terms of the leaking of material to Cameron Slater. The second thing I want to say—it will be the last thing I want to say, I guess, with the bell ringing—is that when the new legislation comes in I want to commend to Amy Adams and Chris Finlayson and John Key the role of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee as the appropriate select committee to look at this. If we are examining the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee, it is better that another committee outside of that committee looks at it.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee worked cooperatively and responsibly on the legislation we looked at last year. I had different views from Kennedy Graham and from Fletcher Tabuteau, but we worked cooperatively, we contained our differences, and we came out with some really good changes that strengthened that legislation. And Labour and National worked quite responsibly across the select committee.

So my call to the Prime Minister is: when the legislation is drafted, send that legislation to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. It has the other advantage, which almost goes without saying, of there being broad membership on that committee. It has got all of the Opposition parties on it. What we need, as much as anything, is the confidence of all sides of this House, and all Kiwis, that the powers that quite properly we give to intelligence agencies are properly safeguarded, are subject to proper scrutiny, and what better way to do that than to seek a genuine consensus about it by putting it before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I commend that idea, genuinely, to the National Party. That is the best way this House as a whole will have confidence in the output of that legislation and the review that inspires it.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): It has been an interesting debate. I would like to begin by saying to those who have doubt about the ability of Labour to hold the Government to account in terms of any review or the Intelligence and Security Committee that they needed only to listen to the contributions that we have heard from Mr Shearer, Mr Goff, and Mr Little to know that we are determined to carry out our role in a transparent and open way and in the best interests of New Zealand.

I just want to answer some points that have been made today. I have to disagree with Mojo Mathers. This is not about whether it is a man or a woman, or a bum on a seat, or numbers; it is about the most competent person for the job. For example, I am the deputy leader of this party and I have been a Minister of Police; I perhaps could have done this role. But I do not believe that I have the skills that David Shearer has. When I look, on balance, as to whom we should put on this committee, I could not go past a person who has had on-the-ground experience, has actually worked in these areas, has worked with intelligence agencies, and has been the Leader of the Opposition. So when deciding who was the best person, there could have been a number of people. It could have been someone from New Zealand First. It could have been someone from the Greens. But at the end of the day I believe that David Shearer has the skills that we need on this committee.

This is going to be very important work. I know as a New Zealander, as a parent, as a constituency MP, that there is a lot of unease in the New Zealand community about what is happening overseas. It does seem like a long way away from New Zealand, but it is not in reality. You need only speak with the Australians to know how concerned they are about security matters.

We are a little different in New Zealand. We do have the distance from these places and we do have a different idea about the balance between security and human rights and the ability for people to have their privacy. What we have to do here is balance those two rights—the right for New Zealanders to be secure in their homes, in their streets, and to be secure against threats from other nations, from other people, and the right to have their privacy. That is going to be where we are going to put a lot of effort into getting that balance right.

I think it is important to point out that we have been interested in a review of these security intelligence agencies for a long time. As David Shearer pointed out, 2 years ago we called for a review. We believed that there had been too much secrecy and not enough openness. When we hear criticism that Labour has been in the club and things happened under Labour, I can assure members that if the former Prime Minister knew that there were illegal things happening, she would have acted. So I take exception to the idea that we just let illegal activities by those agencies occur. We have said there ought to be a review of the intelligence services. They ought to be held to account and there ought to be much more transparency.

I am very attracted to the three issues that David Shearer put forward today. The terms of reference for this review should be shared, and we will push for that. We will push the Government to share the terms of reference. Why would it not share them? What would be the problem with that? I believe a Government that has its ears open, knowing that we need to work across this House, will listen to that call. I do believe we should have an input on those who do carry out the review. I think that there should be a call across this House for people to put in nominations for those people to carry out the review.

Phil Goff made a very, very good point, and so did Mr Shearer, and it was about the use of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. That committee, as you heard today, was able to undertake work that you would normally have in the privacy and the secrecy of another committee. It was able to do it in public and to work across this House. Why should that not be a standard practice in this country? We are very keen to have a committee that is able to work, that is able to get out decisions, and that is more open and more transparent.

I think we have shown in the work we did on recent legislation that we are able to implement change if you know how to work cooperatively. If you look at the changes that were made in the legislation that we recently had, you will see that we were able, for example, to cut down the time for warrantless surveillance from 48 hours to 24 hours. That was done by negotiation, by working on being constructive in terms of the work that we carried out. We negotiated restricting the new powers of the SIS to counter-terrorism work only. That was able to be done by working constructively and maturely within a committee. We were able to bring in a sunset clause. These were changes the Government did not want. It was not in favour of these changes, but they were negotiated by our excellent members on that committee, Phil Goff and David Shearer. I think they have shown that Labour is able to work constructively for the benefit of New Zealanders.

I have to say, in conclusion, that I support the nomination of David Shearer to this committee. I want this committee to be a more open and transparent one. I want us to get the very best intelligence services in New Zealand, to benefit New Zealanders so that they can feel secure in their homes and on the streets as much as is possible in this troubled world that we live in. There is no doubt it is a different world from the world of the 1960s and 1970s and the benign environment many of us lived in. It is a problem that we face this far away, and how we react to it is going to be important. Good intelligence services are an important part of it. But, as I said, the balance between intelligence services and their ability to carry out their job and the rights of New Zealanders to their privacy is a balance that we will watch very closely indeed.

TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a very quick call just to clarify, to reiterate, New Zealand First’s position on this motion, as articulated by Fletcher Tabuteau. I want to make it very clear that New Zealand First has not at any time criticised Mr Shearer, his experience, his abilities, or the job that we believe he will be able to do on that committee, nor have we at any time criticised Mr Goff and his input, or Mr Little and his input, or the Labour Party’s input around other issues for the Government Communications Security Bureau and the security of this nation.

The concerns that New Zealand First has expressed have been around the statutory obligation to consult. The concern that New Zealand First will continue to express is the unfortunate position we find ourselves in, where we are asked to agree to an assumption that we will agree. That is a very difficult place to come from, from the Labour Party, when talking about the fact that it will uphold transparency, trust, and these other things. We obviously have a very experienced member, but there is nothing to say that should New Zealand First have been spoken to we would not have endorsed Mr Shearer’s selection. I want to be very clear. New Zealand First does not see this as a gender issue; nor do we see this as an issue around Mr Shearer’s abilities. We see this as an unfortunate incident, where a single phone call could have created a sense of collaboration that would have meant our position would be different today. Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That under section 8 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996, this House endorse the following as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee: Hon Christopher Finlayson and Hon Amy Adams, nominated by the Prime Minister under section 7(1)(c) of the Act; and David Shearer, nominated by the Leader of the Opposition under section 7(1)(d) of the Act.

Ayes 95

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 25

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the terms of reference for the Intelligence and Security Committee be agreed to.

Ayes 95

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Māori Party 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 25

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Judicature Modernisation Bill

Second Reading

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Judicature Modernisation Bill be now read a second time. This omnibus bill creates five new Acts. It amends 17 existing Acts. The five new Acts will be the Senior Courts Act, which sets out arrangements relating to the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court; the District Court Act, which does the same in respect of the District Court; the Judicial Review Procedure Act, which restates the existing process for seeking judicial review but in contemporary language; the Interest on Money Claims Act, which puts the process for courts awarding interest on claims involving monetary amounts on a more defined and comprehensive legislative footing; and, finally, the Electronic Courts and Tribunals Act, which paves the way for the use of electronic documents in New Zealand’s courts and tribunals. Part 6 of the bill sets out amendments to 17 other Acts, principally by relocating existing provisions of the Judicature Act or by extending certain provisions applying to the senior courts and the District Court to our specialist courts.

The Judicature Act 1908, which this bill repeals, is one of New Zealand’s oldest statutes still in force. It is also one of the most important, forming the cornerstone of a set of statutes that provide for New Zealand’s courts. In 2010 the Government asked the Law Commission to review that Act. In December 2012 the Law Commission’s report was tabled, and 12 months later the Government introduced this bill. We advance this work because society and technology are changing rapidly and it is increasingly clear that our justice system must be modernised to keep up with the demands of the 21st century.

The bill modernises the legislation and arrangements relating to New Zealand’s court system, and provides scope for a more efficient system. The changes increase transparency, certainty, and clarity. This will lead to greater public confidence in New Zealand’s court system. Although this is a very large bill, many of its provisions are not new. The bill does continue many existing provisions, albeit with more modern language and style where necessary.

I wish to acknowledge the efforts of the Justice and Electoral Committee for its examination of the bill, and commend the committee for its work on this significant piece of legislation. The committee received 25 written submissions on the bill and heard 15 oral submissions. The submissions came from the judiciary, professional organisations, and interested groups and individuals. The submissions were thorough, and I understand they provided the committee with considerable focus in its deliberations.

I will highlight a handful of the changes recommended by the committee. Along with other changes made, they collectively improve the bill’s clarity and effectiveness. The reported-back bill retains provisions establishing specialist panels in the High Court. It does, however, clarify that parties may request that a case be heard by a judge from a panel unless the Chief High Court Judge determines otherwise. Also, Part 1’s general rule-making power is now relied upon for setting court rules needed for a panel’s operation.

The committee amended provisions giving courts the power to make graduated orders, which limit people who have initiated previous meritless civil proceedings from continuing or commencing more proceedings. The amended bill allows a court to make an order of its own volition. This will be useful in cases where the court has the best knowledge of a person’s litigation history. The bill also clarifies the definition of meritless proceedings required before an order can be considered by the court. Courts will also have greater flexibility as to how long orders last. The orders may be imposed for any period up to 3 years, rather than exactly 3 years. The 5-year time limit remains for cases involving exceptional circumstances.

The committee has incorporated a Government proposal to improve information sharing between Government departments and other agencies. This will enable elements of court information, such as the existence of protection or restraining orders relating to a person, to be shared between these organisations. Sharing will be possible only through approved information-sharing agreements permitted under the Privacy Act. The new provision will help deliver better public services.

On a related note, the bill also adds certainty to the obligations of court registrars and the court in respect of disclosing certain court information, particularly convictions, to registration authorities. As a result of the bill, registrars must notify registration authorities unless the court specifically orders otherwise. This change will remedy instances where information has not been shared and so has prevented a registration authority from taking appropriate action. The committee has made a number of recommendations specifically relating to the District Court. The bill as reported back confirms the unification of the District Court and the increase in the court’s civil jurisdiction up to $350,000.

Many other changes are of a minor yet necessary nature. I would emphasise the increase to the financial value of tools of trade and necessary household furniture and effects that may not be seized from a judgment debtor. This increase matches the High Court’s threshold and so better protects debtors from unfair seizure of basic assets. It removes an anomalous difference, given that the purpose of the two thresholds is identical in each case.

There are several changes made in Part 4 of the bill, relating to interest on money claims. Of note is an amendment widening the jurisdiction of the new Act to include amounts under $5,000. This reflects that modern technology now enables ready calculation of interest on small amounts. Not so long ago the cost required to confirm this calculation would have very likely offset the value of the interest awarded.

Part 5 allows our courts and tribunals to become electronic. The revised Part 5 makes a further nod to modern technology, with a new regulation-making power enabling classes of court users designated by regulation to be required to use electronic documents. This change recognises that some categories of court users, such as lawyers, are and should be able to deal electronically in order to achieve the full benefits of electronic courts and tribunals.

As part of wider consultation on the bill, questions have arisen about including reference to commitment to the rule of law, principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and parliamentary sovereignty in the purpose clause of this bill. After close consideration, I do not consider that such statements sit properly in this bill. These are commitments of a constitutional nature that best belong in the Constitution Act rather than in this bill, which governs only the architecture of certain courts.

I conclude by saying that this bill is notable not only for its considerable length but also for the significant contribution it makes to modernised aspects of New Zealand’s court system. I commend this bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Judicature Modernisation Bill. Just for the many viewers out there who are no doubt keenly watching the debate, as the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector rightly pointed out, the modernisation of one of our oldest Acts of Parliament—this is what it looks like when you take on such a significant omnibus bill. There is a significant amount of detailed work that has gone into this bill. The Minister has touched on as much as she is able to in 10 minutes of what has been reformed.

I want to speak in some general terms, if I may, in my first opportunity to speak on this bill. As has been said, the Judicature Act is over 100 years old. I believe that amendments to this Act have been made up to 40 times over the years. It follows on from recommendations from the Law Commission as to what we should be amending. We as a party, in the first instance, did raise—and one has been touched on by the Minister—two areas of concern. I just want to cover them off very quickly before I make some more general points.

The first was the omission from the purpose clause of any reference to a commitment to parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, judicial independence, and the Treaty of Waitangi. We believed that in a piece of legislation that consolidates legislation that guides the governance of our judiciary it would make sense to have that purpose clause. We were bringing into the legislation bills that relate to our various courts, and the Supreme Court Act 2003 already includes these terms. So why were they not carried over, given that that was in one of our more modern pieces of legislation, guiding the governance of our Supreme Court? Why was it not brought into this particular bill? So that remains a concern for the Labour Party. I did not feel that the Minister’s response adequately covered off that concern.

The second area of concern was around the fact that the bill includes an age of retirement for judges. That is a very specific element of the bill, where it is setting up guidelines for who should and should not serve on our judiciary. At various points in this debate the point has been raised as to whether or not we should limit based on age. The issue I want to raise—and perhaps I am best to do it after the dinner break, seeing as I am going to be cut off and I would not want to lose my substantive—

Kris Faafoi: Make a start.

JACINDA ARDERN: —point. Perhaps I could make a start. My concern is that the general diversity within—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

JACINDA ARDERN: I have brought all the members to the yard because they all wanted to hear about my views on the diversity within the judiciary, or perhaps what should be our aspiration for greater diversity within the judiciary because the Judicature Modernisation Bill, amongst many, many other things, does set out an age of retirement for judges. The question that I was raising was this concern, which was very eloquently summarised in a piece by Catriona MacLennan at the beginning of 2013, where she pointed out that at present 72 percent of New Zealand’s judges are male—72 percent—and 28 percent are female. In the Court of Appeal, for instance, 80 percent of judges are male. In the District Court 69 percent of judges are male. Before anyone makes the argument around meritocracy and availability of female lawyers, the New Zealand Law Society magazine calculates that 3,463 women are eligible for appointment as judges. So I just thought I would put out that challenge.

Gender, of course, is not the only diversity we should be ensuring we have on our judiciary. There are no statistics on ethnic diversity in the judiciary. I have even asked for that. I am keen to ask again because the experiences, the life experiences, and the cultural competencies that we bring to the judiciary are incredibly important—incredibly important. Of course there is training that tries to teach all of those things, but I think ensuring that our judiciary has a wide range of experience as well as legal expertise, of course, is something that we should be constantly mindful of. I wanted to raise that.

Coming back to the Judicature Modernisation Bill, the Law Commission was very clear in its key recommendations in the report it issued in November 2012 that the primary purpose of the review it was conducting was a simplification and modernisation exercise. In fact it has even stated that “The primary purpose of this review was to clarify and modernise the laws under which New Zealand’s primary trial and appellate courts are constituted. These laws determine how the courts are set up, how judges are appointed, their jurisdiction, rule-making powers and the procedures by which they administer justice. Given the fundamental role of the courts in society, it is imperative that this legislation be clear, accessible and intelligible.” It then sets out the ways in which it has consolidated the Acts in order to achieve those goals.

“Accessible” is the one word that stood out to me when I read that. Yes, simplifying the language by which our judiciary is governed and structured is incredibly important, but accessibility can be measured in many, many ways. I recently read, as I would hope other members in the House would have, the Ethel Benjamin Address by Her Honour Justice Helen Winkelmann, the Chief High Court Judge, which was given in only November 2014. When she talked about the accessibility of our justice system she quoted Lord Neuberger, and said that accessibility “has a number of components. First, a competent and impartial judiciary; secondly, accessible courts; thirdly, properly administered courts; fourthly, a competent and honest legal profession; fifthly, an effective procedure for getting a case before the courts; sixthly, an effective legal process; seventhly, effective execution; eighthly, affordable justice.”

There are many elements within that that we could discuss and pick apart, but I think the element that Justice Winkelmann rightly raised within her address is the affordability element. She went on to state that “there are indications that far from being viewed as a democratic institution, civil courts are, for policy purposes at least, regarded as a luxury service for which users should pay. There is a new language that is used in connection with courts; people who come before the courts are called customers, judges and lawyers are referred to as stakeholders, District Court centres are referred to as franchises. We are now to understand that we are part of a market for justice services and our product is being ‘marketised’.” I know that there was some discussion in the first reading of this bill around that concern, and it was shared. The Hon David Parker raised it, and there was then some discussion by the Attorney-General acknowledging that concern. The reason I raise it now is that if we are to maintain that very important principle of access we must be constantly mindful of simple things like court filing fees and whether or not someone is able to access a lawyer. That is something that we have considerable concern about.

Part 4 of this bill, for instance, responds to the Law Commission’s report Aspects of Damages: The Award of Interest on Money Claims, and creates a single statutory system for the awarding of judgments. It ensures that interest placed on awards is compounded rather than simple interest. It raises an interesting point: currently the interest rates that apply to the Judicature Act are much lower than the rates that apply to legal aid debt, which sits at 8 percent. Anyone who accesses it is told that they may have a debt collector who may recover legal aid debt. I raise this because any attempt to modernise the rules that govern our judiciary are to be applauded and welcomed because of the principle of accessibility, but we should make sure that we never lose sight of how well in real terms that is playing out for citizens in civil society. When the judiciary starts to raise that an increase in self-representation is perhaps demonstrating an issue within our court system and that the court costs are becoming prohibitive to the accessing of justice, particularly within the civil courts, we should listen—we should listen. I wish to use this opportunity in the second reading to raise that.

In the third reading I would also like to come back to some of the other elements of the bill like, for instance, electronic technology, which there is greater movement towards in the justice system generally, but there have been examples where centralisation of the registry courts, for instance, in Auckland has not lead to efficiency or cost savings but actually to mistakes, errors, lost files, and greater inefficiency. We should not just simply move rapidly towards gains without ensuring that they are rolled out in a way that does not hamper an already extraordinarily busy court system and a heavily burdened justice system. There is much more that could be said and I look forward to the opportunity to do that at the third reading. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I want to commence my contribution to the second reading of the Judicature Modernisation Bill by congratulating the former Justice and Electoral Committee, chaired very ably by Scott Simpson, on producing what is by any measure a weighty tome. I have promised to share it around my colleagues because it is quite a big document and there is often a cry across the House of: “Have you read the bill?”. Hand on heart, in the time that I have had today I have not had time to read this bill. However, I hope I do have enough of an insight into and understanding of the issues it has canvassed through its passage through the select committee, to begin to make a contribution.

The first comment I would like to make is that one of the overarching principles of the Judicature Modernisation Bill is to make access to the court system and to justice more streamlined and more in line with what is increasingly becoming common practice in the Public Service but also amongst the judiciary and the law fraternity. If one were to go into any law office around New Zealand there would be a flat screen set up in the library with the ability to do videoconferencing so that the legal profession can have good dialogue with their clients or with other counsel, which would have the great benefit of their clients not having to travel, at some expense and time, to be connected.

It is interesting that our court system remains the one last bastion of the paper-based system. I also acknowledge that there is a lot of tradition around that. The sight of a judge stamping things on the bench is something that they probably enjoy. It is part of the chatter of the courtroom, and has been so for a hundred and however many years that we have had court sittings in New Zealand—I have failed; I should have known that off by heart. It is a proud tradition and one that is upheld by those who work in the court—the court registrars, the bench, of course, and also by judges in New Zealand.

However, time has moved on and we now have, for example, a police service that has made the transition from waiting behind the desk in its little outpost in the suburb, waiting for trouble to come to it. The police have got out from behind that desk and they are now out in the community, armed with an iPhone and a laptop and an attitude that says: “We will get out in front of trouble.” That is called Prevention First, in terms of the police. That is what we are moving through the officers of this bill, with the judiciary. So the focus is going away from a paper-based system, beloved by many, into a more modern approach that ensures a more streamlined process through the court system for all those involved. But it also has the added benefit of cutting down on cost.

If I perhaps think about my own patch—perhaps in Alexandra, where there is a court—if someone were to be called to the court on a court sitting day for perhaps a traffic offence or some charge like assault, or it could be anything, and that person happens to live 100 kilometres away, it is a lot of time and it is a lot of expense for somebody to go for perhaps a 5-minute court sitting that might even be adjourned. They have taken the day off work, if they are in work, and they have paid for a round trip plus lunch. Gosh! For 100 kilometres, you are looking at $40 or $50 to do that.

I would like to think we are moving to a system—and we are well on the way; I have seen it already in some courts throughout New Zealand—where appearances can be made via videoconferencing. And just as that is a quantum leap forward, so it is for prisoners in custody and perhaps on remand, where there are a number of brief but necessary court appearances to be made. Due to some of the legislative changes that this Government has brought through, we have tightened up laws around strip-searching in order to keep prisons a safer place for everybody involved in prisons. We now have a very clear regime of strip-searching. So whenever a remand prisoner was called from Milton prison or any other prison around New Zealand to go to court for a 5-minute court sitting, that involved a whole day. It involved a strip-search on coming back into the facility. There would be a lengthy drive in a van with an escort, and there would be police at the court. And then the trip would be reversed, on the way back.

That is expensive and it is time-consuming. There is danger there that contraband or weapons or drugs can be reintroduced into the prison environment, notwithstanding the strengthened regime of strip-searching. So the modernisation—and I have just touched on one aspect of it here—of the court system, embodied in this Judicature Modernisation Bill, is bringing benefits not only to the public at large but also to those who work within the court system and the prison system and to those who come into touch with the reality of interface with the court system. Fundamentally, this bill implements reforms that are in response to the Law Commission’s report Review of the Judicature Act 1908: Towards a New Courts Act. It is a pretty old Act, so it is well overdue.

I started my contribution by acknowledging the work of the select committee, and I want to do that again because I understand that the Justice and Electoral Committee considered this bill for months. As you can see with the bill that sits before us today, it was a big piece of work, covering many aspects. In the due course of this bill going through the House, the bill will be divided at the Committee stage, which is still to come, so that Part 1 becomes the Senior Courts Bill, Part 2 becomes the District Court Bill, Part 3 the Judicial Review Procedure Bill, Part 4 the Interest on Money Claims Bill, Part 5 the Electronic Courts and Tribunals Bill, and Part 6 goes into 17 separate bills as a result of amendments to their own respective Acts.

On top of that there are three statutes to be repealed as a result of this work, and they are the Supreme Court Act of 2003, the Judicature Act of 1908, and the Unconsolidated Judicature Amendment Act. I hope David Parker is speaking, because he can probably make more sense of some of these pieces of legislation, but none the less—

Simon O’Connor: Are you saying he was around in 1908?

JACQUI DEAN: No, David Parker was not around in 1908. That is unfair—that is unfair. But I do acknowledge David Parker over the other side of the House and his far more in-depth knowledge—

Hon David Parker: Old enough to have trained with your husband.

JACQUI DEAN: Yes. I must tell my husband that David Parker wishes to go tramping with him; he will be thrilled. He would rather go fishing, but that is just by the by.

This is a second reading speech. I really have not delved too much into the substance of the bill. I have merely picked up one or two aspects of this bill as a member who was not overly familiar with the select committee consideration, but I think if we want to consider what benefit this bill brings—and what a temptation it would be to thump it on the way through, but I will not do that—the overriding message I think we should take out of this bill is that the judicial system is working well and has served us well for many, many years. However, the Act is due for review. It has been reviewed. It is coming into line with other aspects of the Public Service in New Zealand, particularly in the justice area with courts modernisation, with modernisation of the Department of Corrections, and also with the police modernisation. It is a good bill. Once again, it shows this Government’s focus on good public service, and I commend it to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): One of the great mysteries of the House today has been why the computer system keeps going down. Well, if you see the length of this bill that people might have printed off—1,226 pages long—maybe this is the reason.

Just before I commence my comments on the Judicature Modernisation Bill, can I just refer to one of the matters that arise from Jacqui Dean’s contribution. I agree with what Jacqui Dean was saying in respect of remand appearances and things being made simpler through electronic means. I will not traverse some of the civil liberties that were just about infringed by the Government’s attempt to extend that to hearings of fact, where people could potentially lose their right to appear in defence of their own trial, because we did resolve that in this House—but her comments did remind me that I think we have an aberrant corrections system when you create enormous prisons and site them in rural areas so that you have got many hundreds, if not a thousand, prisoners dislocated from the towns and cities whence they come and put into a little rural area like Milton, for example. As a consequence, the likely outcome, when it comes to reintegration of them into the community, is worse because their families have had less contact with them while they are in prison, their friends and support networks have not been there, and it is harder to integrate them into work because there is not much work in those rural areas. I think it is one of the unresolved issues that we have got in New Zealand—this idea that we should have these enormous prisons sited in rural areas rather than smaller institutions closer to the places where prisoners come from.

Anyway, if I turn to this bill, the Judicature Modernisation Bill is a good thing. It is housekeeping legislation bringing the laws up to date and standardising some of the rules between some of the senior courts, and promulgating appropriate legislation for the District Court as well. But it does absolutely nothing to improve access to justice. Unless you have access to justice that is practical, then the courts do not meet their social function, which is to avoid violence but allow for the just settlement of disputes. Disputes sometimes arise between well-meaning people on each side who cannot agree. Those disputes need to be settled. Also, you have disputes where you have powerful or overbearing people on one side and weak and vulnerable people on the other side, and our courts need to be accessible to the weak and the vulnerable in order to protect their positions. If you do not have that, then you actually lose respect for the rule of law as well as encourage inappropriate, uncivil action in society. We call them civil procedures because they are meant to be civil and they are meant to avoid uncivil behaviour.

We have got problems right across the Western World with access to justice, but New Zealand is no different, and it is getting worse in New Zealand. The period that people stand on remand before they get into a criminal process is far too long in New Zealand. People who are not guilty but are on remand are held in custody longer than they should. People who are guilty should be brought to justice and convicted earlier. Witnesses should not have to suffer the loss of memory that happens with time through long processes.

In the criminal justice system now, because of changes to the way in which the prosecutorial services through Crown prosecutors’ offices are being funded, we have got plea bargaining in a way that we never used to have in New Zealand a decade ago, and it is wrong. We now have lawyers who know that they will get a better deal the longer they wait in the process in respect of guilty defendants whom they are representing, because the prosecutors have not got enough money to prosecute them. We have now got serious assaults in New Zealand being categorised as minor assaults because they can get away with that in the plea bargain, and that is wrong.

So I would like to see the Government spending a bit more money on the courts. I think it is one of the duties of Government to make sure our courts are effective. That is not to say that money is the cure to all of these things, but it is relevant.

The civil arena is even worse. Did you know that the maximum income you can have to get legal aid in the civil courts is $22,366 gross income for a single person and $34,420 of family income for a family with one child? There is virtually no one in New Zealand who is employed who is entitled to legal aid, but there are lots of people who are employed who cannot afford to fund a lawyer upfront. As a consequence, there are lots of things that are unjust in New Zealand that are not litigated, and that is wrong too—that is wrong too. That is the case not just in the Family Court—and there are some innovations in the Family Court that I do not have time to go into that I disagree with as well—but in the civil courts. It is wrong.

We now have the rule of law being broken down because contracts cannot be enforced. If you cannot rely upon your contract being enforceable for quite significant sums, well, again, you are undermining the rule of law. These points were made by Her Honour Justice Helen Winkelmann in a speech that my colleague Jacinda Ardern mentioned, which she gave at the Ethel Benjamin Address on 7 November last year, which was about access to justice. She also made the point that court fees have become excessive, and this is the legislation that provides, effectively, for the setting of those fees. Did you know that in the simplest of cases that go to the High Court, by the time you have a straightforward proceeding involving a hearing of 1 day, the court fees alone—this is not the solicitor’s fees—paid to the Crown total $6,700? It is amongst the highest rates in the world—amongst the highest rates in the world. Again, this is a block to access to justice, and I do not think we have got the balance right here. This is, I am told, about 50 percent higher than the comparable fees in the United Kingdom, and that is a country that I think has a fine record of upholding justice.

One of the other consequences, when you do not have accessible cost-effective access to judges, is you get a lot of people actually not even pursuing their rights, but other people do pursue their rights and defend themselves personally in court. There has been an incredible rise in the number of people who represent themselves in court. Justice Winkelmann says of the 228 active civil files in the Court of Appeal, 56—that is about a quarter—involve unrepresented litigants. In the Auckland High Court, 40 percent of all judicial review cases have one or more unrepresented litigants. What happens as a consequence of this is it is incredibly inefficient in the courts. It is incredibly inefficient because unrepresented litigants do not know how to prosecute their rights. It takes a lot longer for the judge. The judges sometimes have to conflict themselves. We have an adversarial system. The judge is not meant to be helping either of the parties, and yet the judge is either having to help one of the parties or asking counsel for the other side to help the party. If you are the other side, you do not think you should have to pay for your own lawyer as well as paying your own lawyer to help the other side.

So all of these problems relating to access to justice are coming home to roost in New Zealand. As a consequence, I think most people in New Zealand do not think our courts are something that they can afford to use. That is wrong. For me, the courts are not serving their social purpose.

Where does the answer lie? The answer lies a wee bit in a little bit more money from the Government. It also lies in improved lawyer behaviour, judges taking control of their courts and stopping them from wasting too much time, and some shorter judgments. There are too many judgments that read like academic treatises at the moment, despite appeal rights. Rely on appeal rights for things that go wrong rather than academic treatises, at first instance. I am sad to say that this bill does absolutely nothing—nothing—in respect of those problems that I have categorised in respect of access to justice in New Zealand.

JONO NAYLOR (National): It is with great pleasure that I rise to take a call on this bill. It is interesting, actually—I was just talking to one of the members opposite in the lift on the way here. I thought I was bound to get the name of the bill wrong, this Judicature Modernisation Bill. We had a little debate in the lift chamber as to how to pronounce it. Thankfully, the member was able to set me straight as I got my tongue twisted around it.

It is certainly a substantive bill. There is a lot of reading in this thing—1,226 pages. It is a little slow to start off with, but I found that by about page 473 it really had you hooked.

Jacqui Dean: Oh, stop it.

JONO NAYLOR: Well, I guess I was fibbing perhaps just a little bit. It is certainly very weighty. As the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee said, it takes a little while to get through it. Although I have not read all of it, I have certainly paid very close attention to some aspects of it.

I think it is very aptly named as the Judicature Modernisation Bill, because when we have an Act that has been around since 1908—despite the fact that it has had a few amendments along the way—it seems most appropriate that we have something like this to modernise it. The existing Act has stood the test of time for some 107 years, but now it is time to just, I guess, joosh things up a little bit, and for us to move on and have a look at what is happening.

It has been great for me to see this Government’s reforms in the justice area. We have been working very hard at putting victims first in the legislation that we have been drafting. I think this is incredibly appropriate because, although it is not necessarily directly related to this, I know, certainly, that whenever we have things that make things better for victims, to me that it is incredibly important. Some 6 or 7 years ago, my brother-in-law was killed in a motorcycle accident. The driver there was up on charges. It meant that we had to travel to the court hearings from time to time. I know that my wife went and supported her sister a number of times, travelling up to Taupō and Rotorua from Palmerston North only to find when they got there that the lawyer was not going to be available and the case was not going to be proceeding that day. At that time I could not help but think, actually, that we really need to ensure that our justice system becomes more victim-focused and takes into account the needs of those people. And that is exactly what this Government is working on doing with the justice legislation that we have been working on for the past 6 or so years.

So I guess, really, that what we are looking for and what this bill is aiming to do is ensure that our justice system is more flexible, more responsive, and more transparent, be it in the criminal field or in the civil field. It is not just the victims who will benefit from that; our society will most certainly benefit when our justice system is more flexible, is more responsive, and is more transparent. That is exactly what these 1,226 pages are aiming to do—to modernise our justice system and bring it in to the 21st century, and to ensure that those principles are adhered to.

I want to focus initially on the technological advances that are being taken throughout this bill. I think it is really great to see things moving along and getting into something that is more appropriate to this day and age. We do live in a world of Facebook and Twitter and people living online. So I think the provision that says that there is a presumption that all written judgments will be published online unless there is a good reason not to is a very good provision for us to have in the bill. Of course there need to be limits on this. I think it might, perhaps, be inappropriate if every judge had a Twitter account, and just after making a judgment they fired it up on Twitter and said: “Just locked that guy up for 5 years. That was awesome.” I do not know that that would necessarily be quite appropriate in terms of technological advances. I guess we do not necessarily want judges sitting in their chair with selfie sticks and posting photos up on Facebook either. So I think there are clearly some boundaries that we would want to have in terms of technology and how it is moving forward. But there are some very good provisions in the bill. As I said, publishing written judgments online unless there is a good reason not to is a very good place to start.

The other technological advance that I really do support is the idea of there being audiovisual links, in particular, at certain types of hearings. The member opposite said that we should not necessarily be having them for the full hearing part of it, but I think, when we are talking about remand court appearances, that this is going to make a significant saving in terms of time, effort, and money. Someone said to me—and I have not verified this amount but it would not surprise me if this were the case—that every time we transfer a prisoner from remand to court and back to prison again, it costs the taxpayer about $5,000. I guess that seems really ridiculous, but if you think of the fact that you have to take two prison guards and a vehicle, and their time associated with that, and then perhaps you have to have somebody providing cover, to fulfil the duties they would otherwise have been doing—even if it is only half that amount, it is significant. What we know is that there are approximately 40,000 remand court appearances made each year.

Brett Hudson: How many remand court appearances?

JONO NAYLOR: 40,000. So if that was, in fact, $5,000, that is a $200 million saving for taxpayers right there if we can have those—

Brett Hudson: How much was the saving?

JONO NAYLOR: $200 million, Mr Hudson—listen up and I will help you out. Listen the first time and we will get it right. But there are significant savings to be made. If we are going to have 40,000—

Carmel Sepuloni: He can’t hear.

JONO NAYLOR: Well, it is hard because he cannot read my lips. He is behind me, you see, so he cannot read my lips. I may have eyes in the back of my head; I just do not have lips in the back of my head for him to read.

Anyway, we have got, as I say, 40,000 remand court appearances being made. If we can start to introduce those audiovisual links for more and more of those, there are significant savings to be made. There will be significant benefits to our whole system when we do that.

There are so many things to say—I could go on for hours if I went through this page by page. Although I know the members opposite would just love me to climb into it and take them through the bill page by page, clause by clause, I do not want to do that to you because it would just not be fair. But I do want to touch on Part 4 of the bill a little bit, which provides for interest to be paid as compensation for delays to repayments of debts. I think we would all agree that there is nothing more frustrating than when somebody owes you money and has not paid you that money—in fact, it is actually fair and reasonable to be able to start incurring interest on that money. At the moment, thankfully, we are in a low-inflation environment, and that is exceptionally good, but if things were to change at some point in the future and inflation were to run through the roof, then, of course, the amount of money that people might be owed in terms of a monetary claim would diminish at a great rate of knots.

So I think it is incredibly important, again, to protect through the court system victims or people who are owed money, whether it be through reparation, damages, or other moneys, and to enable them to reclaim that cost of interest. I think it is a really fair and reasonable thing to expect. As I said, there is nothing worse than when you are owed money by somebody and they have not got around to repaying it, for whatever reason, and you are worse off because there is no interest accruing against it.

I just want to conclude by talking about the provision to reconstitute all District Courts as one. At the end of the day, I think there is no need for us, going forward, to have completely separate entities as District Courts right around New Zealand. It might have made sense, I guess, back in 1908, when to transfer documents between one court and the other would have taken however long by horseback—or whatever the mode was for delivering information back in 1908—and there certainly was not the possibility of audiovisual links, that is for sure. But I think it is incredibly important that we actually get some joined-up thinking right across the country, and that we take advantage of the ability of those District Courts to be able to work together more closely. Of course we will have branches in different places because work will obviously need to be done—we are not just going to have one centralised court—but I think it is incredibly important that as we bring these things together we will be able to work in a far more efficient and effective manner.

So there has been a great deal of work for the Justice and Electoral Committee to work its way through. There has been a lot of work for the people who have worked on drafting this legislation. But it seems that there is agreement on both sides of the House that it was certainly timely for us to do this. With that, I would like to endorse this bill to the House. Thank you.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Could I begin just by acknowledging the contribution from Mr David Parker. I think it was an interesting speech in that he talked mostly about what is not in the bill, but I think one of his key points was that we are coming perilously close to being a country where people get the best justice they can afford. I think that is something we need to attend to, be alert to, and seek to wind back. In returning to this bill, the key number is 1908. It is over 100 years since there was a sort of clean sheet, a substantive approach to reconfiguring our justice system. It is a good piece of work that has been done. It has followed on from a number of key inquiries and some substantive drafting work, obviously, by the Minister of Justice and, indeed, by the Justice and Electoral Committee. But I still think there is a bit of work that can be done, and I dare say that indeed at the Committee of the whole House stage I think we can tweak this bill further to make it an even better bill than it is.

The Greens, of course, are supporting this bill. I sat in on some of the select committee process. I sort of played a tag team with my then colleague Holly Walker. I enjoyed getting some insight into some of the challenges confronting this overhaul of the legislation. It has been done, I think, in a spirit of considerable good will, and I would hope that continues. It does some practical things that have been mentioned like the establishment of a Senior Courts Act bringing together the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. As the point was just made, it brings together the district courts. I think it is not well known that in a sense each district court is currently its own fiefdom with its own legislation and the like, and that is neither desirable nor sensible in a modern age.

It establishes panels of judges—of High Court judges, for example, to deal with commercial cases—and, indeed, other panels. The world has become more complex. The law is complex. The legal challenges and situations are complex. I think the idea of getting specialist panels of judges to build experience and familiarity with particular areas of law is a very positive one, and I think that will pay off to our mutual advantage. A provision in the legislation that caused considerable concern to a number of submitters and that I think was responded to reasonably positively by the committee was in clause 401. This was this business of the proposition that written judgments ought to be published on the internet. In the original drafting it said simply: “Every final written judgment of the court must be published on the Internet unless there is good reason not to publish.” That sat there, and the point was made that that was completely inadequate. It did not adequately define what is actually meant by a “final written judgment”. It gave no guidance as to what might or might not constitute good reason to publish. There was significant and well-justified concern about that. The committee has now put some definition around it and some more substance around the clause.

The key proposition that, unless there is a reason otherwise, the judgment should be published on the face of it is not a bad idea, but we do have a concern in the Greens—and I recall that we did express this—that there is a possibility that it runs up against the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, which is 2004 legislation, for which we owe some—

Hon Phil Goff: Very good legislation.

DAVID CLENDON: —yes, thank you—acknowledgment to my former colleague Nandor Tanczos, who helped shepherd that through the House. The proposition of it is that people who commit crimes and are convicted early in life or at some point in their life and then come out the other side can go on to lead good, honest, decent lives and they should be able to leave that criminal record behind them. That was the intention and the effect of the clean slate Act. So the notion of publication on the internet is problematic. The conversation of the committee did acknowledge that that, of course, goes beyond the provisions of any one piece of legislation. The reality of anything that is reported in the news these days is that if something is put online it is incredibly difficult to remove it. I think that is a challenge we are going to have to confront and try to work around and just find some solutions to that that are not immediately obvious to us, perhaps.

It raises the whole question of justice in the age of the internet, in fact, and that although the digital regime obviously does offer some significant advantages, it also creates new challenges and new difficulties for us. I did accompany the select committee on a tour of the District Court just across the road here. In the course of the tour they took us down into the basement and showed us some of the store of paper. I forget what period of time it had taken that paper to accumulate but it was not very long, and it is quite daunting when one considers the sheer volume of paper that is of necessity stored now to meet the requirements of legislation. It is a very significant problem and the move towards electronic storage clearly is one solution to the question of volume.

Perhaps I am showing my age a bit, but I do have some residual concern, as do others, about the nature of the storage medium that we choose. Even in the last 20 years we have moved from floppy disks to 3¼ inch disks, to external hard drives, to data sticks of ever-increasing capacity, and now to the cloud. Where does it end and how secure is that information? What are its vulnerabilities? It has been mentioned today that for the last 24 hours or so the work of Parliament has been impeded in some important ways because of a hiccup in the IT system. We do not want a situation where our justice system becomes so reliant on electronics and technology that the progress of that justice system could be impeded for shorter or longer periods. I do think that is something we are going to have to confront, manage, and be alert to. Again, I offer no solutions, I am afraid to say, but I do think we must not simply allow any complacency to sneak in—the idea that “OK, yeah, we’ll let the technical people sort that one out.” We do have to think of the social, cultural, and, of course, judicial consequences of some of the decisions that are made around this stuff.

As an aside to that, I would mention that I do have some continuing concerns about the media reporting of court processes. Cameras are allowed in our courts—that is a relatively new phenomenon—and I am aware that there is a review process in train as we speak to measure the success and the appropriateness of the existing regime, and about the use of recording devices in our courts. Although I absolutely support the notion of our courts being public domain and that people should and must be able to see what is happening in our courts—that is entirely appropriate with the obvious exceptions—I do think we need to be aware that the presence of cameras and of media in the courts can have a negative effect on the outcome of the courts and, critically, on the public perception of crime, of offending, and of punishment. That is a bundle of issues I think we need to more overtly and quite swiftly address. I do think that the administration of justice is somewhat impeded by the sensationalisation of the court processes and crime and offending issues generally. Although that does not appear specifically in this legislation, I do think that we run the danger of turning our courts into a circus, quite frankly. One small example is this tendency to identify people by nicknames—the “Beast of Blenheim” and the “Black Widow”. I think this is degrading and utterly unacceptable and it is, unfortunately, commonplace in the media.

Just to close on a few points, I would just like to acknowledge the Labour minority review where it highlights quite correctly that what is missing from this legislation is reference to a commitment to parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, judicial independence, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It would seem entirely appropriate that such a fundamental and—we hope—long-lasting piece of legislation does embed those commitments into statute, into the documents. I did sit in on this particular day on the select committee when there was mention of the rather fraught issue of the retirement age of judges. It went round and round. There are arguments on all sides that there should be a limit, an age restriction. The point was also very soundly made that people can be in full charge of their faculties and very acute into their 80s and 90s, and some people lack that capacity, shall we say, at much younger ages. So to be age-prescriptive actually is a problem and I think it is something we need to attend to a little more.

We have a couple more stages. We have got the Committee stage and the third reading ahead of us. I think, as I said at the beginning, that there is still some work to be done on this bill and we look forward to being part of that. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will continue to support the Judicature Modernisation Bill. It has been a long, long time coming and it is high time for the courts legislation to be updated to allow for 21st century technology to be used effectively, to allow better use of resources, to improve administration, and to make the courts more people-friendly, more accessible, more understandable, and, most of all, more transparent.

The only part that New Zealand First does not support is clause 132 regarding the compulsory retirement of judges. Our reasons are, firstly, that this is ageism. This is a common problem in many parts of New Zealand business, the Public Service, and society. Government should be ensuring that people capable of working, and who wish to do so, are not legally precluded. Under the Human Rights Act discrimination on the grounds of age is unlawful and employers may not contract for a fixed age of retirement. And the provision is unnecessary. Few people carry on when they are unable to perform adequately, so there is no real problem. The Chief Judge could and should advise and counsel judges in that position and this bill should have said just that.

The age of 70 is not so late in life these days for very many able people that they cannot perform well. Indeed, their huge experience makes them extremely valuable and that expertise should not be lost. I remember the late Justice Wilson when I was a young lawyer and he was still “judgifying” well into his 70s. He looked his age but, my goodness, his mind was very sharp and his judgments were very sound. So although New Zealand First opposes this clause and although it is an important matter, we will still vote for the bill as a whole.

I now want to commend the Justice and Electoral Committee, as it was then, for work well done. It worked really hard on this and it is a very difficult and technical bill. It has made many amendments that I support and I want to mention just a few of those. Clause 18 provides for the establishment of a panel of High Court judges to hear commercial cases and other panels to hear other proceedings. The committee inserted new subclause (6) in clause 18 so that any party to a case could request that their case be heard by a panel judge subject to the Chief High Court Judge’s power to determine otherwise. I endorse that. In commercial cases a party will be aware of the particular issues it will be arguing—and there are so many that can arise in commercial cases—therefore, it should be able to suggest a judge whom it believes is experienced in those particular matters. That, of course, is still subject to the Chief High Court Judge’s discretion, so there is a bit of a safeguard there.

Another important change relates to orders limiting commencement or continuation of civil proceedings under clause 162. These are aimed at the serious problem of vexatious or unnecessary litigation. This can cause distress and financial loss to other parties and, of course, it can waste a lot of court time. It must, of course, be balanced by the need to ensure that people have access to the courts for cases having sufficient merit to justify a hearing. Clause 162 provides for the High Court to make limited orders, extended orders, and general orders restricting, to varying degrees, a person from commencing or continuing legal proceedings. But that clause might not always be enough, so the committee added new clause 162(6) to clarify that powers limiting civil proceedings would not derogate from a court’s inherent powers to control its own proceedings, and I also endorse that change. So the court could still control its processes, as it sees fit, for proceedings without merit in situations where clauses 162 to 165 do not apply.

Clause 163(1) is also amended so that the test for the number of proceedings considered by a judge before making an order would be at least two proceedings, rather than “more than 1”. This means that a small number of substantive proceedings can lead to an order on the grounds of a substantial amount of related litigation that is without merit, and an order can now be made for up to 3 years, providing more flexibility than specifying a 3-year period. Clause 165(3A) will refuse a person appealing a decision leave to file a new proceeding. There is simply no need for that right of appeal.

Another important new provision would require every final written judgment of a senior court to be published online unless there is good reason not to do so. Clause 167(3) includes as good reasons not to publish all or part of a judgment the existence of a relevant suppression order or a statutory requirement. Also, judgments of limited public interest—and there are bound to be quite a few of those—need not be published. And there is an omnium gatherum clause so that a judge can decide against publication in the interests of justice, having considered the general presumption in favour of publication. New clause 167(1) requires publication “as soon as practicable”, which I am sure will please many parties and other observers, although exactly what “practicable” means is not entirely clear.

The maximum number of District Court judges caused some discussion in the select committee, understandably. Clause 193 sets the maximum permitted number of permanent District Court judges at 156, with adjustments for part-time judges incorporated. The committee majority thought the existing mechanisms for assessing and delivering judicial resources, including the appointment of acting judges and a semi-regular review of judicial capacity, works well. Although I agree with those who would like regular reviews of judicial capacity, this is not a major issue and would not cause New Zealand First to vote against the bill.

Part 4 is important. It covers interest as compensation for delay in the payment of debts, damages, and other money claims in civil proceedings. I am very glad to see this. It is something that needed to be there for a very long time. The absence of that provision did lead to some injustice.

The committee has amended clause 452 to insert a worked example to clarify the calculation of interest to be awarded under clause 450. That will assist in making the workings of the provision clear, and it is very necessary to do that. Also in the original bill, interest was to apply only to judgment amounts exceeding $5,000. As the internet site calculator can calculate interest on smaller judgment amounts, it is appropriate that it should be possible to calculate and award interest on judgments for $5,000 or less, and, in fact, that now must be done. So this is another very good provision.

There are many, many such provisions in the bill. It is a very good piece of legislation, apart from the provision for the compulsory retirement of judges, of course, but, generally it is one that has been well-developed. The committee did a good job. The officials who produced it—and no doubt they took some years to do so—have done a superb job and we should all be proud of this particular piece of legislation being enacted. So, overall, New Zealand First welcomes the bill, and it deserves our full support.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to speak in the second reading of the Judicature Modernisation Bill. As I begin I need to give a shout-out, if you will, to Ethan up in my electorate. I like to think of myself as a responsive MP, and although I do not want everyone starting to message and tweet me for a shout-out, to young Ethan, who I know is a very keen follower of Parliament—hello to him.

Metiria Turei: Hi, Ethan.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Indeed, look, we have got cross-party support going on here, Ethan, even from the Greens.

So I am very pleased to hear of New Zealand First’s support for the bill. I note that, from a number of speakers from other Opposition parties, there are elements of concern and I think that it is right, proper, and appropriate that they are being voiced here in the second reading and, of course, through this rather weighty document in front of me.

I must admit that I have not sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is something that I have been interested in following, though. This bill is quite a tome, and a number of people have spoken about it in different ways. I think what it does, at least symbolically by its sheer size and weight—other than removing the need to go to the gym by just lifting it—is show how serious our judiciary and the systems within it are. What is being discussed here today is serious and has some rather profound impacts on how we as a country move forward.

The bill is reviewing a previous Act from 1908—107 years ago. I do not think that anyone from this House can claim to have been around then, but 1908 was when the Act first came about, and this omnibus bill seeks to review it. Out of interest I note that in 1908, I believe, Shackleton headed to the Antarctic. I think either it was called the Nimrod Expedition or his ship was called Nimrod, but that is something that happened in 1908. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were killed in 1908. For the feminists amongst us, Simone de Beauvoir was born in that year and, for some reason that I still have not worked out, the King of Portugal was killed in that year. I do not know why I have that in my head, but it just begins to show you the context of why this bill was needed and has reached us here today.

This sits within a Government commitment to modernise the Act. A previous Minister for Courts began a lot of work in this space, updating and modernising—particularly through the use of audiovisual technology—and this bill plays into that. In some ways, it could be inspired by that. I know that then Minister Collins was a big proponent of bringing this bill before the House, and it now sits within the very capable hands of Amy Adams.

The bill itself has gone through several iterations in terms of the select committee. Scott Simpson, the very fine member for Coromandel, was the chair when he started to bring this bill through the House in his capacity as chair, and more recently it has moved on to Jacqui Dean. I was very pleased to hear her speak soon after the first speech from the Opposition earlier.

The bill, as I was saying, is about modernising our courts. This is not something we should rush into quickly or, in fact, even often. Some of us, myself included, have noted that it is 107 years since the Act that we are looking to amend and modernise first came about. In some ways I think that illustrates how the structure of law in the realm of New Zealand has worked, and worked rather well. It has served us well, but Parliament has, rightly, decided that now is the time to look and to modernise. But, as I just said a bit earlier, this is not something we need to race or rush into. I think we move, excuse the pun, judiciously.

Hon Louise Upston: Oh, very good.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I have been waiting for that all night.

This is an omnibus bill. It was noted earlier, but I think it is helpful that we are going to break down this rather large tome into a series of parts and individual bills. Part 1 is going to be the Senior Courts Bill, and is going to include schedule 1, I see here, which is about the High Court Rules.

Part 2 is about the District Courts and will be called the District Court Bill, which is rather self-explanatory. Part 3 of this bill will become the Judicial Review Procedure Bill. Part 4—again, as you can understand, this is a substantial bill; an omnibus bill—becomes the Interest on Money Claims Bill. We heard from the previous speaker from New Zealand First some thoughts and concerns. I think about $5,000 has been the de minimus that has been set. Obviously, the committee has widely discussed this, and batted it back and forth, but it is still obviously an issue that has been raised here in the House on the second reading.

Part 5 will be called the Electronic Courts and Tribunals Bill, with Part 6 basically becoming, on top of this, 17 separate bills because they are amending those 17 respective Acts. Three statutes are to be repealed: the more recent Supreme Court Act 2003; obviously, the Judicature Act 1908; the unconsolidated Judicature Amendment Act 1972; and, finally, the District Courts Act 1947.

This is an enormous piece of work, and I think it is right to commend not only the MPs who have worked on this in the select committee but the Ministers and their officials. This is a lengthy and substantial piece of work, and kudos to whoever has read from page 1 through, I think, to page 1,200- and -something. It is a substantial piece of work.

Several members, particularly from the Labour Party, have raised the issue of the purpose clause, and this has been articulated quite well and succinctly in Labour’s minority report. If I can just go to page 7, the Labour Party was very concerned that concepts that it believes comprise the fundamental values of the New Zealand justice system, such as the rule of law, judicial independence, the Treaty of Waitangi, and parliamentary sovereignty, were not put in the purpose clause. I must say I agree that they are not in the purpose clause, for a number of reasons. I think the Minister, in her opening address, noted that this is an application, if you will, of those principles, all of them incredibly important. I do not think—well, I hope that no one in the House would disagree that elements such as parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, the Treaty of Waitangi, and judicial independence are important, but the bill itself is not there to express those purposes by defining them; it is there to do it through its actions.

The other side, if I was to put on a philosophical hat, is that you cannot really have a purpose “to commit”. I do not think it makes very much sense. In the minority report, the first omission that the Labour Opposition sees is that the purpose clause, clause 3, should have a reference to a commitment to parliamentary sovereignty. Again, you cannot quite have a purpose “to commit”. You can have a purpose to bring about, a purpose to express a duty, but I think we do a disservice, actually, to the elements of the Treaty and principles of the rule of law by just simply throwing them in as a purpose.

The other element that comes in is always around clarity with these things. They are wonderful notions and, many of us, depending on what we have studied, through law or philosophy or whatever—some of them can be rather well-debated elements. People’s perceptions of some of these purposes or intended purposes are still open to debate, and I think that we as a House do ourselves a disservice if we try to almost poetically throw them in because it sounds good and has high moral tones without fully understanding what they mean and being able to clearly articulate them. Ultimately, when you are dealing with a bill such as this one, it is vitally important that we get the minutiae right, and the best way to start getting things right is to be precise with one’s language and precise with one’s understanding. So I just want to, I suppose, push back on that notion. I can understand, I think, where it might come from, but it is not right, appropriate, or even good lawmaking that we would insert those four elements into this bill. In fact, this bill, when it becomes an Act and is rightly and justly applied, will bring about those purposes coincidently, but it does not need an explicit note.

I am conscious that the bell has been rung, which means there is only a short time to go. I do want to just draw attention to the whole use of the audiovisual links. Again, a former Minister for Courts in particular championed a lot of this work, as well as the whole use of electronic paperwork. This bill draws that right across the judicial system. I think it is fantastic that those other courts will be able to submit electronically. We heard today from the Minister of Corrections, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, about, I think, a $10.6 million spend that the Government has put out across 12 prisons to increase the audiovisual capacity. Again, if memory serves me right, something like 40,000 remand hearings have been heard. I think it is important for us to understand that certain hearings will always require, I think, that a citizen who has been accused can stand face to face, in actuality, with their accuser, but things like bail hearings and remand hearings can easily be done audiovisually. So that is my not so short contribution, but do commend the bill to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a shared call between the Greens and Labour. I call Dr Kennedy Graham.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I do not plan to take up too much of the time of the House with my input on this bill. I will just pick up on one or two comments from the previous speaker in his critique of the Labour Party minority view.

This, perhaps, is not the most auspicious day for the Green Party to be defending the Labour Party corner, and perhaps I will leave it Phil Goff who is splitting the call with me. But, no, let me rush in and assist. The critique of Labour here was, I think, a little bit over the top from the Government. It was hugely unfair and churlish. It was effectively a criticism that Labour, in its minority view, is looking to have as a purpose, a commitment, and that this was judiciously injudicious. If, in fact, one reads the minority view, it says that the first omission from the purposes clause is any reference to a commitment to parliamentary sovereignty. So, as I understand it, the intent would be to express a commitment to parliamentary sovereignty and other values, which are exactly the same terms that seem to appear in the Supreme Court Act 2003. So, from our viewpoint, it seems entirely valid and proper that one of the purposes of the bill would be to have such an expression of a commitment to certain values. But, hey, we can argue the toss, or Labour can. I will leave it to the Hon Phil Goff.

I just reaffirm what my colleague David Clendon said. It is our intent to support the bill. It is a massive piece of work and I think that especially officials should be commended for this work. It is 1,226 pages—arguably the biggest piece of work in my time in this House. The previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, wondered whether anybody had read the bill. I tend to agree that that is probably the case. I doubt that anybody has, thereby proving that there is such a thing as the group mind. These things, these products, become the product of a group mind. We got to the moon that way. Neil Armstrong had sufficient faith in the group mind to step out on to the moon’s surface and back, and I would enjoin all of us to have equal faith in the group mind to produce something useful here.

My one serious comment tonight on this is that when it comes to one particular clause it is our view that that clause could still stand some improvement, and that is clause 168, pertaining to recusal. It refers back to some interest the Green Party had in developing a register of pecuniary interests for judges. That bill, which was a member’s bill in my name, ran its natural course of life in the 50th and 51st Parliaments and rests in the heavens in the sublime belief that it may yet have some constructive, if not to say angelic, influence on the current incarnation in the form of 1,226 pages of the Judicature Modernisation Bill.

Clause 168 does refer to recusal, and it imposes an obligation on judges to develop, through the Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal, I think, ways in which they can recuse themselves from judging a trial. We, of course, endorse that. We think it could go a little further. We think there could be assistance in terms of using the guidelines that come from the Guidelines for Judicial Conduct in making the statements a little more specific. There could be a register of pecuniary interests; it does not have to be made public, which was in our own member’s bill. It could simply be confined to the judiciary, to avoid the critique that it becomes public and judges might become vulnerable. It could also contain statements to the chief judges, reflecting those guidelines: no close relationship to litigants; any public statement of firm opinion, if it had been made; and a close relative. There are three criteria, and when the time comes we will consider putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper on that subject, in a constructive spirit.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Labour supports the Judicature Modernisation Bill. I have got to say that it is a little hard to do justice to this bill here tonight in a 5-minute speech. I have got 50 seconds per 200 pages, so I will have to rush it a little. [Interruption] My colleague Kris Faafoi will move an extension of time, I am sure, and it will be endorsed by everybody in the House.

This is a good piece of legislation. It is very worthy, which is sometimes another word for dull. It is based on the Law Commission report, the Review of the Judicature Act 1908: Towards a New Courts Act. I think you would have to say that after 107 years’ time, it is about time that we rewrote it. The current Act is outdated, it is inconsistent, and it is quite difficult to follow. We have modernised it, but it is fair to say that the terms of reference for the drafters did not include the words “concise” or “succinct”. In fact, I think, at 1,226 pages long, this is longer than the concise English dictionary. When they called it an omnibus bill, I was not sure whether it was because it covered a whole lot of bills or because it was the size of a bus; I think probably a little bit of both. What it does, however, does make sense. Part 1 brings all of the senior courts together into one Act. Part 2 makes a unitary District Court, so that the other courts become specialist divisions of that court—the Family Court, the Youth Court, and the disputes tribunal. Part 3 deals with a quite modern piece of legislation, only 43 years old—the Judicature Amendment Act 1972—and it updates that. Part 4 is the Government response to a specific Law Commission report, which is Aspects of Damages: The Award of Interests on Money Claims. And Part 5 is quite important because it enables the use of electronic technology in court proceedings.

But I want to associate myself with David Parker’s comments on this bill. When I read the commentary, it says that the bill is intended to “make the justice system more people-centred, modern, and accessible”. By accessible, I guess the drafters meant it is easy to find where the legislation is, because if they were saying accessible in terms of people’s access to justice, that would be quite wrong. Obviously, access to justice is a lot more important. If you really believed that the justice system was equal and we were all equal under the law, you would have to argue that the person who can afford to employ a Queen’s Counsel has the same standing as the person on legal aid, or, worse still, the person who is not eligible for legal aid. The changes made in this House in the last 5 years to legal aid say that if you are on the minimum wage—the minimum wage—you are not eligible for legal aid, for God’s sake. You have to be on a benefit in order to get legal aid. Who in this House could say that that is justice? And I have to say that last year, when we passed the Family Courts Act—with our opposition—that made the law less accessible to those who are most vulnerable, particularly our children. So accessibility is not what this bill actually achieves.

I want to in my last couple of minutes refer to the minority report of the Labour Party and its particular reference to the Speaker in the Chair, Trevor Mallard. It says that there is a retirement age of 72. Well, that is actually against the Human Rights Act, in terms of the Human Rights Act saying that we should not discriminate on the basis of age. I am sure that there are judges aged 72 who are just as capable as you, Mr Assistant Speaker, despite their advanced age, and it should not be based on the nominal age; it should be based on ability to do the job.

The second and most important point is that this bill explicitly excludes what is in the Supreme Court Act, which talks about the independence of the judiciary. The independence of the judiciary, in a country that does not have a formal, written constitution, should be written into the law. Jack Hodder and other people who are eminent in the law have said that this is a mistake, and not one National member of Parliament has stood up to justify why we have taken out reference to judicial independence, which is a fundamental foundation stone of the democratic system.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It gives me great pleasure to rise in regard to the second reading of the Judicature Modernisation Bill. I would like to thank Phil Goff for his most passionate speech in regard to this bill. I do not know how anyone could get up there and shout over a bill of this length, but he managed to do it and go totally offline, but that is all part of it.

Stuart Nash: Enthusiasm.

DAVID BENNETT: Enthusiasm. That is what we like to see from the Labour Party.

This is a very substantial bill. All members of Parliament have referred to its scope and size and the impact it will have, and it does not give it justice to do a 10-minute speech on it really. Even members of this Parliament will not be able to do that. So to cut it down to something that is probably more interesting than going through the whole bill—as everybody would like, no doubt, for us to do—it is important, as members have focused on our judicature system and especially on our court system, and the ability for New Zealanders to have good representation, to have fair representation, to actually have a system that is fair and open, and the ability to have faith in the rule of law in our country. That is a defining thing that makes our country one of the great countries of the world and one where we can have a Parliament like this, which is successful and enables people to share their views in an open and constructive way. It enables us to have a system where if people feel there are disputes and they feel that they have not been treated properly, they have a fair and open process that they can go through to rectify that situation. It enables New Zealanders to have comfort that if they ever do get in a position where they are on the wrong side of the law, they will actually have a genuine, open, and independent process that will enable them to have the full rights that you would expect in such situations.

We need to contrast that with many other countries around the world that do not have such open and fair systems. I think New Zealanders are very proud of what this system enables us to do as a country. But at the same time, a failure to have a strong judiciary, a failure to have a strong police force, a failure to have an independent judiciary, and a failure to have an independent police force can lead to corruption. It can lead to the inability of a country to grow and prosper and, ultimately, it can dictate that there is less democracy in the actual country. That is something that all people in the world, regardless of their State, want: a fair deal and the right to be heard and to make their views known.

This bill, as members have said, is divided into a number of parts, and those parts cover off some of the major parts of our legal system. Although it is a substantial bill in size and scope at this stage, it actually is a reflection of many bills and many parts of our legal system that in themselves are quite substantial anyway.

To look at some of the main parts of the bill, Part 1 has regard to the senior courts. It replaces the Supreme Court Act and the Judicature Act. It improves the transparency and flexibility of senior courts, and provides for the establishment of a panel of judges. That is Part 1, which relates to senior courts.

Part 2 relates to the District Court. It constitutes District Courts as a unitary court, rather than the many separate District Courts that we have now throughout New Zealand. That is similarly done with the Family Court, the Youth Court, and the disputes tribunal. Effectively, when you go to one court it could be the District Court in Te Awamutu or the District Court in Whakatāne. It is all part of the District Court, rather than each individual court. That is something that I think New Zealanders would probably have assumed already, but now actually see in reality.

Part 3 looks at the judicial review procedure. That sets up a stand-alone statute that continues the process and procedure for judicial review applications. Many people will be aware that judicial review is one of the back-up abilities of constituents in a case where they feel the justice system has let them down. Judicial review is often used as a form of perhaps opening the ambit of what the justice system may have considered, in order to enable those involved in those cases to be fully reflected in their judgment.

Part 4 is on the interest on money claims. That was covered off very nicely by Jono Naylor in his speech. He went through that, and discussed the importance of it and the interest that would be charged in such situations.

Part 5 is on electronic courts and tribunals. That is part of the growth you are seeing in the technology that will be used in any Government department, but our courts system, especially, needs to make sure that it has the best technology and the ability to use that technology. In question time today we heard how that can assist in the process of ensuring fairness of trial, but also can assist in ensuring the saving of money through the system.

Part 6, “Amendments to other enactments”, covers off a variety of court-related changes to existing Acts.

The legislation has a series of parts to it, and to do it justice is really quite difficult in this situation. But the context of it, for all New Zealanders to understand, is really that we have an excellent legal system in this country. It underpins our ability to have democracy. It underpins our ability to be treated with fairness and equity, should something go wrong or in time of dispute with another person or corporate. The strength of that legal system is built upon rules that have been developed over many years, and those rules will continue to develop. They will require and dictate that you will have large pieces of legislation like this. But this legislation will be broken down into those series of parts, which are essentially laws that you will find around each of those areas, such as the senior courts, the District Courts, the judicial review procedure, interest on money claims, and electronic tribunals. Effectively, we are dealing with something that is really a summary and also a proactive attempt to devise the best judicial system that we can in our country.

It is very pleasing to see that the parties in this House, especially the Labour Party and the Green Party, are supportive of this bill. It is one of those pieces of legislation that all New Zealanders can be proud of in the sense that the parties of this Parliament come together and see its practical implications. It is not a policy issue; it is something that makes a better difference practically to the way that our systems are run, and therefore is something that would encourage people to have faith in our judiciary and our legal system.

This is a strong bill. It is a substantial bill as well. It will achieve its purpose. We appreciate the support that other political parties have given in this House. I think, as mentioned before, a thankyou needs to go out to all those involved in writing the legislation, and to the officials who have been involved, for their great work on this. Thank you.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): This is my first speech in the House as the associate justice spokesperson for the Labour Party. In that light I would like to first make reference to my father, James Bertrand Kinney Curran, otherwise known as JBK or Kinney, who began his career in 1945 in Invercargill, where he joined the courts division of the Department of Justice as an office boy. His first key appointment was in Lower Hutt as a deputy court registrar, and then in Christchurch as the Official Assignee in the 1970s. He ended up in Dunedin as the High Court registrar, and ended his career back in Wellington as a courts manager.

I suppose the point of this is that I grew up in the courts system, and in fact I used to spend time down at the courts, waiting for the jury to come out in murder trials, when he was the—

Kris Faafoi: That’s healthy.

CLARE CURRAN: Ha, ha! It was an interesting childhood. One of the things, though, that he did do—and this is the relevance—is that he co-edited the fourth edition of Dobbie’s Probate and Administration Practice, which is a weighty tome and still resides on the shelves of most practising solicitors. In that vein, in that spirit, I hope that I can do him justice tonight.

The first point I would like to make on this bill—and I will not reiterate what everyone has said about its size and its weight—is that I want to respond to something that was said by the other side of the House during this debate. It was basically a brush-off around the importance of purpose clauses in legislation. On this side of the House, Labour believes that purpose clauses are a very important part in legislation, in writing legislation, because—and it is pretty blindingly obvious why—they give you a very clear idea of what flows from that legislation.

Labour put forward two main concerns about this legislation in our minority report. The first concern is the omission from the purpose clause of any reference to a commitment to parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, judicial independence, and the Treaty of Waitangi. Unfortunately, this Government has been messing around with purpose clauses in a number of pieces of legislation. We have got a big argument coming around the purpose of the Resource Management Act. We have had changes to the purpose clauses of telecommunications Acts. There is probably a whole list of them that I could name. But the point is that when you remove things or when you change the purpose clauses, then the interpretation of the legislation, when an issue comes to court, is very important. We say that those purpose clauses are critically important and should be noted.

Our approach to legislation generally is values-based. We are pragmatic, but we are also very thoughtful. We stand for an independent and fair judicial system as being the cornerstone of an important part of our society. Therefore, the purpose in legislation, even if it is relatively uncontroversial legislation—it is rather large legislation, but relatively uncontroversial—is extremely important. So I do want reiterate that point.

Another point is that access to justice is critically important. My colleague Phil Goff referenced the issues around access to justice for people on low wages, on the minimum wage, and how critical it is that we ensure that. If you are on the minimum wage or even a bit above the minimum wage, accessing justice in this day and age is actually quite difficult. We must remain, as a Parliament, committed across the board to removing the obstacles to justice for people in the community.

The other part of this legislation that I want to touch on—it is blindingly, obviously important—is around the role of modernisation. I actually, curiously, want to agree with Judith Collins, who made some comments when the legislation was first being introduced to Parliament about the importance of changes to ensure that all written judgments are published online unless there is a good reason not to. Again, I think that in this day and age we have to ensure—and this is in regards to access to justice; it is also an access to information issue—that the outcomes of complex issues that are going through our courts are made available to the public at large. Access to the internet and having those judgments published on the internet are very important in order for people to access them; it can be quite difficult otherwise.

This legislation places a requirement on the judiciary to publish information on the numbers of outstanding judgments beyond a reasonable time, and it also lays out how people can get access. I know, myself, when I have been trying to access judgments that are of interest to me and my portfolios, that sometimes it is not always that easy to get them immediately, and this can actually have an impact on how there can be a response. It can have an immediate impact on the public discourse and the dynamics that go on around the public discourse. So I think this is a very important part of the modernisation of any of our procedures in the public arena—that we are making judgments, we are making decisions, we are putting policy and we are putting all of this information into the public arena, and we are doing that in the online environment. We are not just doing it in the online environment; we are making it very obvious about where we are doing it in the online environment.

Judith Collins also said that New Zealanders are paying for this justice; they should also be able to access it. The higher courts already publish decisions of interest, but the biggest gap is in the District Courts, where the bulk of cases are heard. We must work with the judiciary to close this gap, and this new bill is a key part of that dialogue. This is an important part of the purpose of this legislation.

Actually, looking at the size of this bill, you would not think that it was that modern. It could maybe have been written in plain English and maybe made a little bit shorter. I hate to think that, if anyone would actually need to get hold of a copy of it, they would try to print it off from an online environment at home in order to try to come to grips with it. I certainly advise that nobody should attempt to do that.

I guess the main other point—and also to reiterate what Phil Goff said around the second concern that Labour has—is around the age of retirement of judges. I am hoping that we are going to have a further discussion about that in the Committee stage. Under the existing Human Rights Act, discrimination on the grounds of age is declared to be unlawful, and employers may not contract for, or otherwise insist on, a fixed age of retirement. I think this is an important issue that we should debate.

The independence of the judiciary—the importance of not having too much influence on the judiciary—is a critical part of the division of powers within our society. I think this is one issue that we do need to debate during the Committee of the whole House stage.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take the final call in the second reading of the Judicature Modernisation Bill. It almost seems like a badge of honour that everyone is putting this thing here—all 1,226 pages. I want to say that in the 50th Parliament I was on the Justice and Electoral Committee, and we had this bill before us from 2013 to 2014. I think it was fulfilling work. It was tiring. We heard a number of submissions. On that, I do want to acknowledge the Minister of Justice at that time, the Hon Judith Collins, and her leadership on this. I want also to acknowledge our fine chair at that point in time in the 50th Parliament, Scott Simpson, who was ably supported by his deputy chair—myself—and all the other committee members.

I suppose the thing about this bill is that we have had many speeches about parts of the bill and the importance of it. Having been privileged to be in the committee when we had the submissions, I want to sort of humanise a part of the process to bring to light some of the submissions that were actually part of the process of hearing and forming the bill as we have it now in the House. One of the comments that I took away with me from that submission, as a takeaway point, was when one of the submitters said that justice delayed is justice denied—justice delayed is justice denied. I think that speaks to the heart of what this bill is intending to do. From 1908 to where we are today, this bill is purely about being people-centred, being modern, and being more accessible. That is the heart of this bill—all 1,226 pages.

I want to touch on a few things. One of the things is, I suppose, that the intent and the timing becomes really important for this bill. We know that at the moment we have the lowest crime rate in New Zealand in 35 years. That is something to be celebrated—the work that this Government has done to ensure that we are in a place where we are able to make sure that our communities are as safe as possible. There are still issues around harm and welfare that we need to be attentive to, but I think that what can actually be celebrated is the work of our police and also of our judiciary. Hence the reason the timing of this bill and the modernisation of it have become critically important as well—knowing that we have got time to be able to look at what some of the drivers of crime are, but at the same time too at the ways we can ensure that there is a greater customer focus, especially for victims, lower costs, more efficiency, and a more accessible justice system. I believe that the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee and also of this Judicature Modernisation Bill will contribute to that as well.

I just want to draw on and highlight, I suppose, some of the submissions in regard to the comments that were made. If I can beg your indulgence and read just the parts of the submission that highlight what I think is important for, I suppose, the House and also the listeners out there to give them an understanding about the whole of the sector—the whole of the sector.

Pita Paraone: Who made the submissions?

ALFRED NGARO: Yes, it is coming, Mr Paraone. This is from the submission of the Supreme Appeal Court of New Zealand and the High Court. This was their submission on the Judicature Modernisation Bill. In the introduction this is what they say, and if I can beg your indulgence to read just this part here: “The Judicature Modernisation Bill 2013 bears upon the balances struck by the New Zealand constitution in relation to the functions of the judiciary in a society based upon law. The matters covered are of importance to all New Zealanders. Being central to the exercise of judicial responsibilities, they are also matters upon which judges have particular perspective and interest, which we have thought it to be in the public interest to express. In the context of New Zealand’s largely unwritten constitution, constitutional values and balances can be easily overlooked. The Judicature Act 1908 is constitutional legislation”—constitutional legislation—“because it is concerned with the jurisdiction and administration of the judicial branch of government. Changes to it therefore require particular care to ensure that they do not disrupt fundamental balances. Indeed, our preference is that the title ‘Judicature Act’ is appropriately retained as a more accurate representation of the foundational nature of the principal act constituting the superior courts of record.”

I know that was a little bit technical, but the intent that I get from it is the fact that this is about making sure that we have the balances and that we do not have unintended consequences by changing a number of the laws. I take what Mrs Curran is saying—she is absolutely right—in regard to the purpose statements that we do not unintentionally create consequences that could impact on our system and our judicial system as well.

One of the things that was also part of our submissions and that I think was important was that although we heard from some of the judges, we also heard from those who have experienced the court system, who have found for themselves that this system has at times not responded to their needs, and who have at times felt—as I recall that statement—that justice delayed is justice denied.

I want to read from the Red Raincoat NZ Trust—and again it is just a brief statement from its submission, which I think highlights the need that we have to ensure that we have a modern judicial system that meets people’s needs, particularly the needs of the victims who experience this court system. This is from the Red Raincoat NZ Trust, and it says this: “I was disappointed when reading parts of this lengthy bill”—a bit of an honest critique—“that there seems to be very little consideration and provisions given for the victim and their family. The court process is one of the most significant and lengthy parts of the process for them and I would have liked to have thought that they would be a crucial consideration to this bill. The victim and their needs are therefore the basis of my submission. I will cover four important areas I believe need to be considered …”.

We took these comments, along with many others that talked about those who experienced the court system, to ensure that it is a system that does take care of the needs of victims when they are experiencing it.

In the light of that, then, what are some of the changes that we are making in this bill in regard to the needs of the victims? It makes it more efficient, and there has been some comment about that. I suppose with modernisation it means changes to increase information about court judgments. I know that a number of submitters talked about how, when they were waiting as a family—waiting for the decisions of the judges, and not really knowing what was actually happening—they would like to have received information in a timely manner to actually relieve some of the stress and some of the burden that they were carrying upon themselves when they entered into the court system.

We are introducing a legislative assumption for the online publication of all written judgments. I know that many members have talked about it in their speeches, but I wanted to give the context: this actually becomes very important to the victims and to the families. This will give the public greater access to what happens in courts and to the outcomes of cases. This work is an important part of raising the level of public trust and confidence in the courts, as well as of providing access to information.

What was also important to this, which came through the Justice and Electoral Committee, was when the Ministry of Justice came and presented to us some of the development that was actually happening down in Christchurch and to the Christchurch courts. Although there was capital expenditure in regard to the development of the courts, along with this piece of legislation—so although the inside operations were important—we also know that the outside operation was important, ensuring that the courts themselves physically responded to the need to be accessible and responded to the needs of those who were partaking in the judicial system and its administration side. We saw some of the changes, and although I have not actually been there myself, I know the new Christchurch court is one that has achieved that as well.

Just in summarising some of my contribution, just in this second reading of the Judicature Modernisation Bill, I think that what has become the highlight of this is that this Government is ensuring that it is modernising the legislation to overhaul our courts. It is following the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s review. I believe the work that we have done has made a difference. I look forward to the Committee stage and third reading. I commend this bill in its second reading to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill be now read a second time. Can I take this opportunity to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its work on the bill. I understand that the committee received eight submissions on the bill, and has recommended that it proceed without amendment. This bill addresses a repugnant issue faced by societies around the globe. Advances in technology mean that the public can now access, store, and distribute information in ways and with speeds that were unimaginable even a decade ago.

Although for the most part this connectivity is a positive thing, it can also facilitate the offending of those who seek to exploit our children for their own perverse ends. Offenders can now possess frightening numbers of images depicting child sexual abuse with ease, and at the click of button distribute these to a wide audience. The images can be replicated and distributed further again, often enduring for the lifetime of the victim and beyond. The knowledge that an image remains available to be viewed and shared can create ongoing feelings of re-victimisation.

A 2009 study estimated that internationally 200 new images depicting sexual abuse of children were put into circulation every day. There is also evidence that the content of the publications is getting worse and the children are getting younger. Law enforcement agencies have indicated that those who reoffend in this area tend to do so with a high level of premeditation and go to great lengths to avoid detection.

I have great confidence in New Zealand’s law enforcement agencies, which have a history of successful prosecutions against those who trade, make, or possess child exploitation material. However, the law in this area is outdated and the sentencing regime for objectionable publication offences no longer reflects the seriousness of this offending and the ease with which offenders can obtain and share these images. This bill seeks to address this issue by modernising the law and sending a clear message that the possession of, and trade in, child exploitation material are abhorrent acts that encourage the abuse of children.

To achieve that purpose the bill makes several key changes. Firstly, the bill increases maximum penalties for possession, import, and export of an objectionable publication from 5 years to 10 years. The maximum penalty for supply, distribution, and the making of an objectionable publication increases from 10 years’ to 14 years’ imprisonment.

Secondly, the bill also provides for a presumption of imprisonment for persons convicted of offences involving child exploitation material for a second or later time. This presumption will apply unless the court is satisfied that the offender should not be so sentenced, having regard to the particular circumstances of the offender or the offence. Both the increased penalties and the presumption of imprisonment for repeat offenders will ensure that the sentencing regime for objectionable publications offences better reflects the vast range of offending in this area.

Thirdly, the bill clarifies that the possession of an objectionable electronic publication includes intentionally viewing electronic material without consciously downloading or saving it. This amendment is for the avoidance of doubt and ensures that offenders with particular technical expertise are not able to escape liability by viewing electronic objectionable publications without also saving them.

A further key change is the removal of the requirement for law enforcement agencies to obtain the Attorney-General’s consent to prosecute objectionable publications and indecency offences. Historically this requirement provided a safeguard against inappropriate public prosecutions. However, the New Zealand Police, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the New Zealand Customs Service now have significant experience in determining inadequate internal processes to assess the appropriateness of a proposed prosecution. The requirement for consent for public prosecutions thus no longer serves a useful purpose.

Lastly, the bill creates a new Crimes Act offence of indecent communication with a young person, and that means anyone under the age of 16. The new offence also applies where the person charged communicates indecently with a police constable believing that constable to be a young person. The new offence will be punishable by a maximum of 3 years’ imprisonment. This offence aims to address a gap in the law that exists between objectionable publications offences, which apply only where an offender records a communication, and the sexual grooming offence, which is only made out where the offender takes steps to meet that young person.

Indecent communication with a young person can occur in a variety of old and new media, including text or picture messaging, internet chat, and, of course, the telephone.

Such communications are damaging to the child, regardless of the medium. A specific offence is therefore needed to ensure that this damaging behaviour is criminalised, regardless of whether a communication is recorded or whether the offender takes steps to physically meet with the young person.

I propose to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to the bill in the Committee stage that will ensure that ACC cover is provided for mental injury caused by this new offence and the existing sexual grooming offence in the Crimes Act. In addition, the Supplementary Order Paper will amend the Vulnerable Children Act to ensure that anyone convicted of indecent communication with a young person will have restrictions placed on their employment in core children’s workforce roles.

The measures in this bill make it clear that the law prohibits indecent communication with children, and will ensure that those who possess and trade in this objectionable child exploitation material receive a sentence that properly reflects the grave nature of the offence. I commend the bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to speak at the second reading of the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill. At the outset I would like to thank colleagues within Labour, the Hon Maryan Street and Raymond Huo, who were both members of the Justice and Electoral Committee on Labour’s behalf and were fantastic members of the Labour caucus. We hope we can carry on their work in our scrutiny of this bill.

I say up front that Labour is supporting this legislation, although I believe that in other readings of this bill we have expressed some concern that we have seen just a slightly ad hoc approach to some of the justice legislation that has been coming through the House, and that perhaps there is room for a more systemic, coherent justice strategy on issues like this. Because although this bill addresses some of the concerns with indecency and child pornography, we wondered whether or not further justice legislation needs to be created to get at the—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

JACINDA ARDERN: —societal issues that really go to the heart of this issue. Child pornography offenders, for instance, have particular characteristics that do set them apart from other offenders, and legislation could perhaps be worked out that addresses that concern.

Denis O’Rourke: That’ll learn him.

JACINDA ARDERN: The member did not give me the royal wave as he entered the Chamber, which I think was what was missing.

We have had a history of increasing penalties in this area over time, as recognition of the severity of these issues has come to the fore. In 2002 I worked in the Hon Phil Goff’s office when he was Minister of Justice. As I recall—

Grant Robertson: Did you get counselling?

JACINDA ARDERN: —no counselling required; it gave me a very good political start—organisations like End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT New Zealand), an international group with an excellent advocacy chapter here in New Zealand, would frequently visit Phil as Minister of Justice. They raised the issue of the inadequacy of the laws that we had in New Zealand, which had been based around censorship legislation. In 2003 Phil specifically raised that the penalties were “clearly inadequate and fail to reflect the fact that the production of child pornography involves the actual abuse of children”. I do think that the changes that we are making today reflect that that is a sad reality indeed. So it led to the current penalty regime. I believe that 2005 was the last time we saw an increase in the penalty regime, and we are now reviewing it again. In fact, ECPAT New Zealand always argued that the penalty regime should be in line with our child abuse penalties and regime.

As the Minister of Justice has already outlined, we have got an increase in the maximum penalties for possession, importing, and exporting of objectionable publications from 5 to 10 years—keeping in mind that of course we have judicial discretion as to where on the severity of that scale any offender will sit—and in the maximum penalty for the supply, distribution, or making of an objectionable publication from 10 to 14 years. Again, as has been said, given the abuse of a child that takes place in the making of some of this material, that seems absolutely appropriate. There was, however, a concern heard, as I understand, by the select committee, made by some submitters, that increasing penalties for objectionable publications was a very general way to approach the issue, because it was not so specific as to say that it should solely be for objectionable publications that involve children. There was concern about whether or not that could actually be specified.

Actually, this was an issue, as I understand it, that was raised back in 2005, because the framework legislation that we are working from is still a subset of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act, which does not hold, as I understand it, a separate offence around child exploitation material. So I would be interested to hear from a member of the committee as to why it was considered. Obviously, in 2005 they said it would be too complex to create a subset. I would be interested to hear from a member of the committee as to the nature of that discussion. I understand that there was some talk about whether or not you would need to create separate subsets, then, for women who were objectified in an exploitative way in material as well; whether or not you would then have to individually codify everything if we went down this track. It was a concern raised by, I believe, the Law Society, so it certainly merits some discussion and analysis. So I look forward to any member who was a member of the committee expanding on that.

There was also some discussion around the way that multiple offences should be treated. It is something that we debate frequently in this House: should we tell the judiciary that if it has someone who comes before the courts more than once, it should then be required to impose certain penalties? Of course I mean the three-strikes legislation. On this side of the House we always had trouble and issue with legislation such as that. But what this bill does instead is say that for the very specific offence of the publication of exploitative material that involves children, if an offender presents for a second time, there should be a presumption of jail. That is very different, for instance, from the three-strikes legislation, which is not specific to an offence.

In particular, and, again, I would be interested to hear if there was evidence of this, if there have been multiple offences in this area, or a second offence—and, as the Minister said, offenders are often calculating in this area and particularly manipulative in the way they operate to continue their offending—if we know that the evidence suggests that this will continue and there will be an escalation, then it would make sense that if someone was found guilty of a second offence, we should give a suggestion to the judiciary of what our expectation is for that offender. We do not have things like the Sentencing Council, which might be able to give guidelines to the judiciary on issues like this, so perhaps Parliament unfortunately does need to be much more explicit in that regard and express a presumption of imprisonment. But, again, judicial discretion always, always does remain in that regard.

We then move to the Attorney-General’s consent for prosecution, which was an issue raised by the Minister. I think this is a piece of legislation that demonstrates that often when we put in place legislation in a new area, where we have not been able to test the way that Government departments will utilise the provisions that are given, checks and balances are a wise thing to do. But it is questionable whether or not we still need to have, for instance, a requirement for law enforcement agencies to obtain the Attorney-General’s consent to prosecute for objectionable publications and indecency offences. Indeed, when it is the police, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the New Zealand Customs Service that are predominantly involved in those prosecutions, I think the common sense of the House would say that after this period of time when they have been tested in this area, we can have faith in removing that provision. But of course it still remains for private prosecutions, and that makes absolute sense, on my reading.

Finally, I refer to indecent communication with a young person. It has been an issue for some time as to whether or not a prosecution should still be able to proceed under the realm of grooming, for instance, or indecent communication with a young person under the age of 16, for which we are now creating a new offence in the Crimes Act. But should, for instance, a law enforcement agency be able to purport to be that under-16-year-old in an interaction and have that offence still hold? Again, this is something there has been enough experience with in the departments that I think they have made a fair case that it would be on reasonable grounds. Someone purporting to be a 16-year-old but is in fact a law enforcement agent—we can be assured that there are enough protections in the law to ensure that is only being used in an appropriate way. Otherwise, we are putting children at risk if we are not enabling checks and balances to exist in some form around allowing law enforcement agencies to go on and gather the evidence that may be required for a successful prosecution, but in such a way that we are not using entrapment, for instance.

I think that covers the main provisions. The select committee, in my view, has done excellent work. Labour, of course, supports the continued progress in that area to make sure that we are up to date with the current challenges that we face.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I also want to commend the previous Justice and Electoral Committee in the Parliament before this one—the 50th Parliament, I think it was—for its work on this bill, the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill. I am not surprised to see that Labour is supporting this bill, and I want to congratulate the Labour members of the select committee. As the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, did mention, there were several Labour members—the Hon Maryan Street in particular, who I know made great contributions to this kind of legislation during her time in Parliament.

This Government, as all Governments of course do, takes child abuse very seriously, and is working hard to do everything we can across a number of spheres to combat child abuse. Members will recall the Vulnerable Children Act, which was passed in the last Parliament, sponsored by the Hon Paula Bennett, and which put children at the front and centre of the consideration of the Government agencies of police, justice, social development, education, and health. It provided for better communication and more joined-up services by those Government agencies, and provided a stronger focus on protecting young children from harm. Of course, that Act, and a lot of the work this Government does, is around child abuse. In this bill we are talking largely about online abuse and cyber-abuse of children and indecent and objectionable publications. But I think in the wider context it would be fair to say that this Government has done a lot of work, supported by parties around the House. I do acknowledge that this is an issue that does cross party boundaries.

It is interesting to know, and gratifying, that the number of children abused in the year ending in June of last year fell by 12 percent from the previous year. OK, that is just 1 year of figures, and these things do vary, but it is gratifying to know that the work that is being done by Government agencies on behalf of us all, and on behalf of the Crown, is making a material impact on the level of child abuse in New Zealand. Long may that continue. That is why it is important that we keep our attention on this issue and keep bringing decent pieces of legislation to the House so that we can attack, if you like, this issue across a number of fronts.

There are just a couple of other things I want to mention, because they are really assisting in making a material difference to children, and that is the Social Workers in Schools programme. That covers all decile 1 to 3 schools now. That is affecting and contributing to the safety and the well-being of around 140-odd thousand children in New Zealand, and I think that is—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I think the member has now had about 4 minutes. It would be good if she could come to the bill that we are debating.

JACQUI DEAN: Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. Am I dressed OK, too? Thank you. Good. Good. As is the Social Workers in Hospitals initiative—I am going to move on very quickly, but I always think it is important to provide a bit of context—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): You are not commenting on my ruling, are you?

JACQUI DEAN: —and having done that I will now move specifically to mention the purpose of the bill, which, quite simply, is to increase penalties for the production, trading, and possession of objectionable publications. That includes images depicting the sexual abuse of the children. Maybe, Mr Assistant Speaker, it is that I simply did not want to come to the matter in hand, because it is a hard matter to speak about, but speak about it we must.

The bill does amend a number of Acts, those being the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act, the Customs and Excise Act, of course, and the Crimes Act. There will be a Supplementary Order Paper breaking the bill into five separate bills, amending legislation on films, videos and publications; customs and excise; crimes; accident compensation—that covers off cover for mental injury through indecent offences, so that is why the Accident Compensation Act is being amended; and, of course, there is the Vulnerable Children (Children’s Worker Safety Checking—Indecency Offence) Amendment Bill. If I might say so, speaking to relevance, my words around Social Workers in Schools really do relate directly to the amendment contained within the Vulnerable Children Act, so I am just tying it in, I hope, for the Assistant Speaker’s satisfaction.

The main provisions in this bill include increasing the maximum penalty—those penalties have been considerably increased—for the importation or exportation of an objectionable publication, which currently sits at 5 years’ maximum penalty. That is doubled, and the penalty for that will be 10 years of imprisonment. The bill is increasing the maximum penalty for distributing or making an objectionable publication. The penalty for that currently sits at 10 years, and that has increased to 14 years’ imprisonment. If you think about that term of imprisonment, it is a menu from which a judge can choose to protect children from an offender by incarcerating the offender in prison, but it also, on the upside, gives the opportunity for our corrections system to provide some rehabilitation and corrective training to those offenders whilst they are in prison. It is notable that rather than just incarcerating people for however long—up to 14 years but maybe 11 or 12 years—that it is a good period of time for a prisoner to undergo a number of programmes to address his or her offending, as the case may be.

That is the other half of the equation. We know that that prisoner is ultimately going to be returned to society under parole conditions and maybe under court orders—none the less, it is one thing to lock them up, and increasing the penalties is a good move—but, of course, ultimately these offenders are going to go back into society. When one has a look at the work of the Parole Board, perhaps, you see that offenders who have been released come back in front of the Parole Board because yet again they are hanging around a city mall, yet again they have got hold of a cell phone and are beginning to contact young children and beginning that whole ghastly process of grooming young children yet again.

We need to take the issue of reoffending very seriously indeed. There will be under this bill the presumption of imprisonment for repeat offenders. Those repeat offenders include any person convicted of a child exploitation material offence for a second or later time. So that is for repeat offenders. From what I have come to learn around this area, there is a strong incidence of offenders planning to reoffend, giving a good deal of their time, when they can, to grooming and planning to reoffend. That is why the multi-pronged approach that this Government is taking to these offenders by increasing the penalties, and also at the same time providing for rehabilitation, is making a difference and will continue to make a difference.

The bill makes it clear in the Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Act that possession of objectionable material includes intentionally viewing material over the internet without consciously downloading or saving it. So the internet seemed like a good idea at the time, I am sure, but, as we all know, a large percentage of internet use is not googling for our speech notes. The bill is also creating a new offence of indecent communication with a young person—that is, a person under the age of 16 years. So indecent communication with a young person can occur in a variety of old media and new media, and of course nowadays there is text messaging, picture messaging, Instagram—

Paul Foster-Bell: Snapchat.

JACQUI DEAN: —Snapchat, all the new technologies that are so very attractive to increasingly younger and younger and younger children, internet chatting, and, of course, the telephone. This we have in this legislation. We are futureproofing child protection by recognising that the technology is changing and the use of technology is changing very rapidly. Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for your indulgence; I know I have strayed a little. Thank you for your indulgence, but this is an important bill. I commend it to the House.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I would also like to add my acknowledgment of the work done by my Labour colleagues the Hon Maryan Street and Raymond Huo on this bill as the representatives for the Labour Party during the select committee discussion on this bill. I spoke on this bill briefly in the first reading and I have been back and had a bit of a read about what I said and why I said it. I would like to confine my remarks on the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill to the issues that concerned me back in the first reading and that still concern me following the return of this bill to the House. There is no doubt—and we will put it on the record that Labour is supporting this bill—that the behaviours that it is seeking to address or to provide penalties for are absolutely critical. The abuse of children—and not just the abuse of children but the actions of child pornographers and people who use and disseminate and produce objectionable publications and distribute them—should be condemned. There is no doubt about that. Nobody is going to deny that.

My particular issue with this piece of legislation and another one that I am going to mention shortly is the absolutely important nature for this Parliament in 2015 to be thinking very seriously about how the legislation that impacts on the physical environment meshes with legislation that we bring before the House that impacts on the online environment. The internet is not a sentient being, despite the point I think the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, was making. It is a means of transmission. It is a means of connecting and communicating. It is not a thing in itself. There have to be people creating the actions and doing the communications. The behaviours in the physical world and the behaviours in the online world and the penalties and laws that we put around them have to have some consistency. It is my real concern that what is starting to emerge is a discrepancy between those things. I know we are going to see further debate and angst around the implications of that. So I am putting on the record that I remain concerned about this legislation and whether all of those issues have been thought through.

One of the reasons that I make that comment is that when looking at the list of submitters on this legislation—of which there are eight, I think, and all extremely worthy submitters, there is no doubt about that—it did not include the organisations and the people who are doing a lot of thinking and mulling over these implications. This raises a further point, and that is how we as a Parliament and, in particular, the Government, which is putting the laws on the Table for debate, are actually communicating with the wider public around legislation that is being put before the House. I think we have to ask ourselves whether our process of communicating and inviting submissions, ensuring that there is good consultation and engagement before we pass these laws, is sufficient. Personally, I do not think it is and I think that we are not doing enough work to get the draft legislation out there to the community to have those discussions. We expect everyone to come to us and we expect everyone to just know that these laws are out there. In legislation such as this I think there could have been, perhaps, a more extensive engagement process.

There is another piece of legislation coming back to Parliament, no doubt soon, called the Harmful Digital Communications Bill, which also attempts to create a new set of penalties that impact on the electronic digital environment, which is different and separate to the physical environment. I think that this raises some significant issues for us as to whether we are getting it right. I think it is less controversial with this bill before the House at the moment; much more controversial with the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. I would like to signal that there is going to be—and there does need to be—a wider discussion in the community around that particular bill, which introduces a new civil enforcement regime and a new criminal penalty that applies only in the online environment. Nothing like this has been done anywhere in the world—creating a new penalty, which could mean prison, that applies only in the online environment. So that is significant and it is very important that we are not having piecemeal discussions about these things.

The point that my colleague Jacinda Ardern made at the beginning is about the importance of having a coherent strategy around a justice strategy and not coming up with pieces of legislation in a knee-jerk reaction. I am not meaning that in an extremely pejorative way, but I am saying that any legislation such as this should fit within a wider strategy and we should be very careful not only to mesh it with other pieces of legislation but also, especially if it is talking about the online, electronic environment, to make sure that there has been a lot of careful thinking about that. I just do not think it has happened. I do not think that that thinking is going on. I think we have got this “We have a problem, therefore we must do something about it, and here’s the thing to do something about it.” response, and I am concerned that the unintended consequences of some of our approaches to this will have impacts down the track.

One remedy is to ensure that we have done the right consultation with the right groups, and with the right people who are doing the good thinking around this. That has not happened as far as I am concerned in this piece of legislation. One of the issues that has been raised—and I think it was raised in a regulatory impact statement—was around the difficulty in predicting the effect an increase in maximum penalty will have on reducing the offence. I think there has been a little bit of discussion about that already. One of the submitters on this legislation was the Dunedin Community Law Centre. I must say that the Dunedin Community Law Centre is a pretty awesome organisation. It submits on almost every piece of legislation—can I say—and I am pretty proud of it, just giving it a bit of a shout out here tonight.

Grant Robertson: Started by David Parker.

CLARE CURRAN: Oh, it was started by David Parker—our own David Parker—but the centre is a very assiduous organisation, which really gets out there and puts the work in to submitting. Another submitter was the Salvation Army, which pointed out that increasing the penalties for objectionable publications offences could distort relativity with other offences by treating some physical offending as being less serious than the depiction of that same offending. The Salvation Army submitted that this created an anomaly, as physical crimes should be punished more severely than objectionable publications offences, and the Dunedin Community Law Centre suggested that this may send the wrong message to those physically abusing children. Well, I rest my case. This is the physical environment versus the online environment. Are we doing enough thinking about the impact of the new laws that we are bringing into this environment, and what are the implications for that? I do not have all the answers to that, but I just do not think we are really thinking it through.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Can I seek a split call with my colleague Brett Hudson and a bell at the 4-minute mark?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): You may and you are granted.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I take no particular pleasure in speaking on the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill in this second reading debate. I can see, looking around this chamber at members’ faces, that everyone regards this as a distasteful matter, and it is actually a bit of an indictment on our society that we need this sort of legislation and that there are people out there with a sickness, obviously, and a tendency to exploit children through the viewing of indecent images.

I will address some of the things that previous speakers have brought up. Firstly, actually, in responding to the previous speaker from the Opposition, it is a little bit ironic to hear about piecemeal discussions and a non-systemic approach to the justice system, as that member sat next to a many-hundred-page Judicature Modernisation Bill that systemically reforms the entire justice and court system. I think this is a Government that takes these matters very seriously. Clare Curran is right about one thing, and that is that there is a problem. These images are being created, they are being disseminated, they are being viewed, and they are a form of abuse in and of themselves. So when we hear about the difference between the depictions of abuse and the abuse itself, in a way they are one and the same thing. In fact, the depictions amplify, they distribute, they disseminate, and they record over a long period of time images that I am sure the victims of those crimes would rather forget than be reminded of whenever those images are circulated.

There were a few other issues that were raised. Jacinda Ardern asked about the views, I suppose, of those on the Justice and Electoral Committee about a particular issue, and that was the definition of “indecency” and why, if we are trying to achieve a focus on preventing the dissemination of child abuse images, there is not a prevention of the wider issues coming into play. Well, there are a number of other kinds of objectionable material—and I am sure our New Zealand First colleagues will raise this because it was discussed by them in the committee—but I actually have no problem with images of bestiality being treated in the same way as images of child abuse. They are equally objectionable in my view, and I think we should increase the prison sentences to up to 10 years for the possession and up to 14 years for the importation and distribution of such images. I do not actually have a problem with that kind of approach.

Secondly, in terms of the Attorney-General’s role in this, we have moved into a new era in which we do not need the Attorney-General to be the arbiter of whether a prosecution could be reasonable or not. The police, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Customs Service have significant experience in this area. In my view, we are not going to see, as a result of this legislation, material that we could consider to be of an artistic nature being pursued by overly enthusiastic enforcement officers. I think we are going to see our law enforcement agencies, which provide us with a safe and secure society to live in, take a pragmatic and sensible approach on these issues, and that is the driver behind the removal of that traditional Attorney-General consent requirement—except for cases of international and private prosecutions. So it is important legislation. It protects children in New Zealand and abroad.

The bill does give more opportunity for rehabilitation. As my colleague Jacqui Dean mentioned, it gives a longer period of time in which multiple rehabilitation programmes can be undertaken by offenders so that when they inevitably are released—because we do not keep people in prison for ever—it is absolutely incumbent upon us to make sure that all that is reasonable has been done to reform, to remediate, to rehabilitate, and to lead to a situation where those people are not going to reoffend in the way that they have been.

One last point to touch on is the wider definition of “indecency” in general. Members are right: in this legislation there is no one definition of indecency, but there is considerable case law in this area. We are bringing this in to modernise the technical aspects as well as to increase the penalties. For those who have suffered from the IT problems in Parliament today, it goes to show how reliant we are in the modern world on the cloud. This is to keep the legislation up to date with the technology that we have in the world today. Thank you.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I think it is fair to say that we all enter this House to achieve very important things. Some of us may have entered here with views around economic development, education, health, or other areas of social justice. What we have the opportunity to do here is to do some really important—very great, in fact—work around helping to protect our children and helping to keep them safe. I think it is very much part of the idea of what brings us all together into this House.

I would like to follow on from what my colleague has said, with particular emphasis on making sure that our laws are keeping up with modern society and the tools that we are using today. Firstly, this bill is about implementing an action plan to increase penalties for producing, trading, or possessing objectionable publications. New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their homes and in their communities, and this Government is definitely building a safer New Zealand. At the moment, crime in New Zealand is at a 35-year low, but that did not happen by accident and it will not continue by chance. It is only through vigilance and ensuring that our legislation is keeping up to date with modern methods and modes of communication, in particular, that we can ensure that.

The part I wanted to really focus on was around the information age. The provisions in this bill make it clear that in the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act the possession of objectionable material includes intentionally viewing material over the internet—including viewing material without consciously downloading it or saving it. One of the great things, of course, about the internet is that it has given most of the population incredible access to information that some years ago, certainly a decade or more ago, was much harder to source. That gives people a lot more power in their day-to-day business when they trade or buy things, whether they do so over the internet or in shops, but what it also does is proliferate a lot of material that many people find quite objectionable, and the areas of pornography, and in particular child pornography, are held to be very prevalent. So it is extremely good that what we are doing with this bill is ensuring that our law enforcement agencies and our judicial system can adjust and adapt to the fact that the way people are viewing this sort of material today is perhaps a great deal different from when this sort of legislation was first enacted and last amended.

Just before I go on to some part of that, it was not without some irony that I noted before, with the Judicature Modernisation Bill, that members had about half a tree sitting on their benches. It seemed a bit odd, when we are talking about modernising something, that we would be killing trees to be able to display it. I would have thought that tablets would be better, and not tablets of stone either, but tablets connected to the internet.

So today, as has been canvassed, offenders can access objectionable material in any sort of form and at any speeds over the internet. In fact, the problem here is that possessing that material actually creates a market for further production and proliferation. This House has heard, in debates on other matters, about peer-to-peer networking and file-sharing technologies and services. So once an individual has sourced this material from the internet, possessing it actually makes it a lot easier to share it and spread it around, which is, of course, something we do not want to be seeing.

So it is very, very good that we are making sure that we are capturing not only people who download material but also people who consciously view it but take some measures to ensure they do not save it on to their local machine—where, of course, it can be more readily detected. It is also very important that we are including tools such as social networking sites, texting, and other forms of technology that make it easier, particularly, for adults to communicate with children in order to exploit them. So I would just like to finish by saying this is a wonderful bill and I commend it to the House.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.