Thursday, 9 June 2016

THURSDAY, 9 JUNE 2016

THURSDAY, 9 JUNE 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 14 June the Government will look to progress the Contract and Commercial Law Bill, the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2016-17, Closely Held Companies, and Remedial Matters) Bill, and a number of other first readings on the Order Paper.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Budget 2016—Defence Force

1. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement on the defence budget made in the House on Thursday, 2 June; if so, how?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes; by standing up and saying so.

Ron Mark: When he said the Defence Force “gets roughly a $100 million increase in its baseline. Over 10 years … that roughly adds up a lot of money.”, did he not realise that that is $10 billion short of what the Secretary of Defence needed in January 2016?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member is confusing quite a large number of figures. Firstly, the approximate $100 million operating figure is added to the defence baseline each year. Over that 10-year period, it would equate to something in excess of $5 billion operating. The figure that the member is interested in is an $11 billion figure that was signalled by the Ministry of Defence on 27 January 2016, which is a capital spend expected over a 10-year period.

Ron Mark: Where in this defence white paper is the budgetary funding model that tells our serving defence personnel when and how the newly pledged $20 billion worth of new kit will be delivered?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is a question that should be best addressed to the Minister of Defence.

Ron Mark: Where is the funding in the Budget to increase serving personnel numbers to at least the numbers they were when National took office in 2008?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That would be in the $300 million addition to baselines announced in the Budget.

Ron Mark: If, only 1 week after Budget 2016, the Government’s forecast surplus dropped by $1 billion, and there is no budgetary funding model in the white paper—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the supplementary question, please.

Ron Mark: —what confidence can any soldier or sailor or aviator have that this Government can and will deliver the $20 billion promised?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The $20 billion is made up of both operating and capital. Quite clearly, this is a very different approach to military procurement from that of the past. So what this white paper does is it gives an overarching intent that is agreed by the military and by the Government about the sort of capability we have and the capacity we need in order to deliver that. What it then sets out is, over a 15-year period, a capital spend that the Government is prepared to agree to. It allows the military to go out now and, on a case-by-case basis, as they wish, to replace aircraft inside the stipulation of surveillance, strategic, and tactical airlift of the ice-strengthened ships and the rest of the procurement that we know has to be replaced in the next few years—they can confidently engage in those purchases.

Housing, Auckland—Affordability

2. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Grant Robertson: Will he now revise his statement that there is no housing crisis in light of the Reserve Bank Governor saying today that “House price inflation in Auckland and other regions is adding to financial stability concerns. Auckland house prices in particular are at very high levels.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. The Reserve Bank Governor—and I was not at the particular event this morning that the member refers to—references a lot of things at different times that may cause worry in terms of financial stability. That is his job. But in terms of house prices in Auckland, yes, they are high, but, also, interest rates are at historically low levels, which means that mortgage payments for people are probably significantly less than they would have been in, say, 2008. The challenge with that is, of course, that we want to make sure that people are not banking on low interest rates for ever.

Grant Robertson: Why will he not agree to a mass State-sponsored affordable-housing building programme such as Labour’s KiwiBuild now that the Reserve Bank Governor has joined the chorus of people saying that additional housing supply is urgently needed?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: An additional housing supply is definitely happening. The member may not have seen at the beginning of the week Auckland residential construction topping $1 billion for the first time in the March 2016 quarter, growing 13 percent in that quarter alone. I also note from the Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Statement that it is expecting that growth in supply to continue. I actually had a look back at the Labour Party’s KiwiBuild proposal, and, frankly, it would have done hardly anything, and already the private sector and the Government working together is doing far more than that.

Grant Robertson: What specific actions will he take to give first-home buyers a fair go and to address the dominance of investors in the Auckland housing market who, according to the Reserve Bank today, account for 46 percent of sales?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Investors always play a significant part in the Auckland housing market, and, in fact, investors do serve a useful purpose in adding investment into the housing market. So the member complains that he wants more supply, but he then wants to knock over people who are prepared to invest in more supply.

Grant Robertson: No, I want first-home buyers to get it.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We are doing things for first-home buyers with the Minister for Building and Housing’s HomeStart programme, which is actually seeing very significant investments in first-home buyers.

Grant Robertson: Is there a housing crisis in New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. There is a building boom, there is a shortage in some areas, and this Government is seeing the biggest and fastest growth in residential homebuilding that we have seen in many, many years, after inheriting a situation where the house construction business was in absolute collapse in 2008.

Grant Robertson: Try an easy one, Steven. Is there a housing crisis in Auckland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Give me an easy one, and I will give you an easy answer. No, there is not, but there is a challenge in providing sufficient housing, and this Government has been working on supply, which the Labour Party has just woken up to. We have been working on first-home buyer grants, which the Labour Party has just woken up to, and we have been working to encourage construction generally. All the Labour Party can offer is a bunch of Government-sponsored builders.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister aware that in 2004, when Auckland house prices went up by 26 percent in 1 year, half the rate that they are then, the then Minister said it certainly was not a crisis?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the question is out of order for two reasons. There is—[Interruption] Order! Mr Twyford, if you wish to stay for question time on Thursday—it is always good fun, so I would advise you to cooperate. The question is out of order for two reasons: it is marginal whether there is Government responsibility, and it is certainly a question that I deem to be designed to attack the Opposition.

Economic Outlook—Monetary Policy Statement

3. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the outlook for the economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance): on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Reserve Bank earlier today released its Monetary Policy Statement for June. It left the official cash rate unchanged at 2.25 percent. The Reserve Bank’s outlook for the economy is positive. Growth is forecast to accelerate from around 2.5 percent currently to 3.3 percent by the middle of next year. Overall growth is expected to average 3 percent over the next 3 years. The Reserve Bank’s view is consistent with Treasury’s Budget outlook of 2 percent to 3 percent annual growth over 4 years. The outlook is supported by accommodative monetary conditions, low oil prices, strong construction activity, and migration.

Stuart Smith: What does the Reserve Bank say about jobs growth and higher wages?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Reserve Bank forecasts that growth will translate to more jobs and higher wages over the next 3 years. The Reserve Bank expects employment to increase by 129,000 jobs over the next 3 years. The unemployment rate is forecast to fall at a slightly faster rate than previously expected, to around 5 percent by the middle of next year. The Reserve Bank is forecasting wage growth to exceed inflation, meaning higher real wages, which would be welcome for Kiwi households, and the Reserve Bank forecasts higher household savings over the next 3 years as well.

Stuart Smith: What are some of the risks included in the economic outlook?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Although moderate growth of 3 percent is forecast over the next 3 years, there are risks to this outlook. The Reserve Bank says global economic uncertainty has moderated in the first half of this year and there has been some improvement in commodity prices, and that is expected to continue through to 2019. However, the global economy remains weak and significant downside risks remain. Domestically, the Reserve Bank cites inflation expectations, the possibility of continued high net migration, and pressures on the housing market as risks for the economy. The Government is helping to lift the resilience of the New Zealand economy through measures such as export diversification and market agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Stuart Smith: How are lower interest rates and low inflation helping New Zealand families get ahead? [Interruption]

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I note there are some members in the House who find the economy and households boring, but certainly not on this side of the House. Mortgage rates are at their lowest levels in 50 to 60 years. As the Reserve Bank shows, 2-year fixed rates are now approaching 4 percent. This is saving a family with a $300,000 mortgage almost $16,000 a year in interest costs, compared with 2008, when mortgage rates were reaching almost 11 percent. To put it another way, that is around $300 a week more in the pockets of those households. At the same time, cost of living increases remain low—just 0.4 percent over the last year—which means pay increases for New Zealand households are going much further. In uncertain world economic times, this country continues to head in the right direction.

Emergency Housing—Te Puea Marae

4. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for Social Housing: What assistance, if any, will be provided to marae like Te Puea, who in an expression of manaakitanga are supporting homeless whānau?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): I am advised that Ministry of Social Development staff have been made available and have regularly been at Te Puea to make sure the people there are having their housing needs assessed and are getting access to support wherever they might be entitled to it. Equally, after representations from the member herself earlier in the week, I have asked officials to look in to see whether there is other assistance that we could give to the actual marae and not just to individuals.

Marama Fox: Does she agree that relying on the goodwill of marae to support homeless whānau is not a viable long-term solution; if so, what does she intend to do about it?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I certainly do, and I do not think that anyone considers the current situation as ideal. That is why we have got a number of new builds that are under way—more than 500—under community housing providers. We have got about 589 that are contracted or are under contracts with Housing New Zealand. Equally, we have put $41 million extra into emergency housing, of which we have opened up the request for proposal for those who are already in contracts, so that I can speed that process up a bit. We have got 750 new houses that we have put $120 million into this year’s Budget for, as well.

Marama Fox: Is the Minister prepared to continue to work with the Māori Party to support marae, emergency housing providers, and community housing providers to provide the necessary assistance required to meet the emergency needs of the homeless whānau; if so, how does she intend to target that $41 million not just in Auckland but also in the regions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Of the $41 million, from memory, I think it is $32 million that will get divided up amongst emergency housing providers. Of that, it is a spread throughout New Zealand. Of the 3,000 places, around half will be in Auckland and the rest will be in the regions. An example might be that somewhere like Hamilton—a city of that size—is likely to be eligible for about 60 places. A town the size of Nelson, for example, is more like 20 places. Part of it will be existing beds, but the other part will be new beds, as well. But what is raised by the member often is that also we have now got to have homes for them to go permanently into. So those are emergency places there, which is why we have got the new build programme, which is going on as well, and a significant number of new houses are coming on board.

Marama Davidson: If the Minister does give any funding to Te Puea Marae, will the funding last till the end of the homeless housing crisis, and will the Minister tell Aucklanders when that will be?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not agree with the second part of the question, but with the first part of the question, certainly I had people asking whether or not Te Puea Marae should be an emergency housing provider. I personally think that there are probably easier ways that we could help them. Te Puni Kōkiri has already put in, I think, $10,000, and so we are now looking at whether there is something that we can do, if that money is running out, to help them keep going for a bit longer.

Business, Innovation and Employment, Ministry—Payroll

5. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister for Economic Development: What is his current best estimate of the financial liability that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s use of the AMS payroll system has generated for the Ministry as a result of issues with its compliance with the Holidays Act 2003, since its use was approved in 2012?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): First, I do need to correct the member’s question. The payroll provider has actually been used since 1999, and the contract was signed in 2004 for its use by one of the legacy agencies at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). At this point, I am not—

Grant Robertson: Whatever.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, it is quite important, I think you will find. At this point, I am not prepared to provide the member with any estimate, as I am not satisfied that any estimate would be sufficiently robust, and therefore it could be misleading to the House and the wider public. MBIE is currently working with the provider to resolve the issues it has identified with its payroll system. The most important aspect of that work is remediation of the issues, which will allow both future and historic payments to be calculated correctly. Once that has been achieved, I will be able to provide the House with an estimate of any outstanding liability.

Dr David Clark: Is the Minister aware that according to his own department’s data, 763,000 New Zealanders may be owed hundreds, if not thousands, in back-pay for the past 6 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am aware of a range of estimates. I think the labour inspectorate has been very careful to provide lots of provisos on those estimates, but in relation to the payroll, it is important for the member to understand that I have the ministerial responsibility for the MBIE payroll, and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has responsibility overall. If he has some questions he wants to put down in relation to the wider issue with holiday pay, those should best be put down to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wants to have the chance to ask supplementary questions, just stand and ask them, without the interjection.

Dr David Clark: As it is 9 months since he first learnt of the issue, when does he expect to have the liability properly quantified?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have a particular date for the member today, but what I can tell him is that I am receiving regular updates on progress. The actual liability will be able to be determined once the remediation fixes are in place and any adjustments made to both current staff and prior staff. It is important to note that, in terms of cash, the Holidays Act impacts are not faced in cash terms until the employee leaves or otherwise cashes up that holiday entitlement.

Dr David Clark: What is the average amount of back-pay owed to affected employees at his ministry?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I believe that I answered that in both the primary question and the supplementary question. We do not have that information at this time.

Dr David Clark: Has he seen advice from MBIE that shows that his current approach to this issue will result in many New Zealanders missing out on their rightful holiday pay?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, I think that the member might be confused. That might be a question that he wants to direct to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. He should go right ahead.

Public Transport, Auckland—City Rail Link

6. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Transport: How is the Government supporting the increased uptake of public transport in Auckland?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Last week, alongside the Prime Minister and the Mayor of Auckland, I had the pleasure of breaking the ground to mark the start of construction on the long-awaited City Rail Link. The project will be one of New Zealand’s largest-ever projects. This was made possible by the Government’s commitment, made earlier this year with Auckland Council, to bring forward a joint business plan for the City Rail Link and formalise our funding commitment from 2020. With Auckland’s population predicted to grow by more than 700,000 over the next 30 years, the City Rail Link will play an important part in getting people in and out of the city with ease and in boosting public transport use across the city.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How will the City Rail Link project benefit Auckland?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: When completed, the City Rail Link will double the capacity of Auckland’s rail network, provide two new stations in the central city, and benefit commuters, whose travel times will be reduced significantly. For example, Auckland Transport estimates that a commuter travelling between Henderson and the planned Aotea station will save, on average, 17 minutes per trip. The Government’s commitment to the project also provides certainty for large-scale projects like the $350 million NDG Auckland Centre and the $680 million Commercial Bay tower. Both of these projects will pump renewed investment into the central business district as well as create new jobs.

Earthquake Commission—Liabilities Estimate and Remedial Repairs

7. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: On what date was he first advised that EQC would be increasing the estimate of liabilities left to pay, as at June 2016, from $262 million to $1.9 billion and what amount of this increase is attributed to second-time repairs and reopened claims?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I speak to the Earthquake Commission (EQC) on a regular basis and am advised on the progress with reducing the liability—reducing the number of claims is the same thing. So it was evident soon after the publication of that $262 million figure that land payments were not being made as speedily as hoped, nor was the resolution of the last-remaining, more difficult properties happening as quickly as we would like. This is very well documented and, in fact, was previously mentioned in this House by the questioner. As for the cost of the second-time repairs, it is estimated that they will be in the vicinity of some $60 million to $70 million. Overall, the liability is a reducing figure on the initial June 2011 estimate of some $11.5 billion. The member is, unfortunately, trying to confuse, I think, the practicalities of making payments to people with the requirements to report expectations of dates when those would be paid. It makes absolutely no difference to the total liability.

Dr Megan Woods: What is the overall volume of post-repair inquiries, and how many does EQC estimate will lead to remedial works?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would stand corrected, but my understanding is that it is in the vicinity of 5 percent of those repairs that have been done. Some of those will lead to further work; some will not.

Dr Megan Woods: Does he have any confidence that EQC has the capacity to finalise claims associated with the liabilities for the coming financial year given the delays last year, in addition to remediating the thousands of dodgy repairs; if so, why?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Taking those many individual questions from the back to the front: firstly, when it comes to the suggestion that they are dodgy repairs, the important point to remember is that EQC is standing behind them, as is the Fletcher EQR office. I think the thing to remember is that even on a new build the call-back rate is up to 85 percent. EQC has got a call-back rate of around 5 percent, indicating quite a good performance. As for paying out what people are entitled to, when it comes to increased land damage or vulnerability to liquefaction or increased vulnerability to flooding, it is important that time is taken to get that right so that people get what they are entitled to. But I will make the statement again that the overall liability first calculated in June 2011 has not changed.

Dr Megan Woods: Does he stand by his statements in the House on 10 May dismissing the impact of the EQC action group settlement and, in particular, his example that a damaged asbestos roof would need a full replacement; if so, why is EQC insisting on repairing rather than replacing asbestos roofs?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two supplementary questions. I will invite the Minister Gerry Brownlee to address one.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would like to address them both, because I think the member is raising one interesting point and has got herself completely in the wrong space in the other. The first point is that the action that was brought by the action group, effectively, with its joint statement, meant no change. It is currently pursuing the EQC for very, very expensive lawyer fees that are in excess of 10 times the amount spent by EQC in its own defence. There was an agreed statement that agreed the EQC was right all along. When it comes to EQC apparently wanting to repair an asbestos roof, tell me where that asbestos roof is and where EQC is trying to repair it, and I will make sure it does not happen.

Dr Megan Woods: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. To assist the Minister to know what is happening—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. If the member wants to raise a point of order, she has been here long enough to know how to do it.

Dr Megan Woods: I seek leave to table an email to a claimant informing them that their asbestos roof will be repaired rather than replaced.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is—[Interruption] Is there any issue of privacy being invaded—

Dr Megan Woods: I’ll need to talk to the claimant.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, you put me in a difficult position. I was going to put the leave. Now you are saying that you will need to check with the claimant as to whether—[Interruption] Order! You have sought leave to table an email. I am trying to assist the member to put the leave. It is reasonable to know whether there are any privacy issues that would be breached by the tabling of it. If the member simply redacts, I guess, the name of the person—

Dr Megan Woods: That’s what I’m doing, yes.

Mr SPEAKER: —then, on that basis, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that email, redacting the author of the email so their privacy is protected. Is there any objection to that email being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may have misunderstood what I was saying. I think it would be useful to know the claim number at least so that the claimants can be contacted so that this situation can be put right. I do not believe that an asbestos roof is being repaired with an asbestos roof.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! All members of Parliament get on very well together. It will be easy for the Minister to take that up with Dr Megan Woods at the conclusion of question time.

Dr Megan Woods: Why does he not front up and admit that he cannot give straight answers, that EQC is telling claimants they cannot have what he says they are entitled to, and that 5 years on there is no end in sight to the mess at EQC?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That was one of the best questions ever delivered in this House and it would win a seventh form debating prize any day of the week, but it had absolutely no substance to it and is complete rubbish.

Budget 2016—Pharmac

8. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that Budget 2016 invests an extra $124 million over four years to provide more New Zealanders with access to new medicines?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health) Yes. I am pleased to announce that today Pharmac has named the six new treatments they will be funding as a direct result of that investment. Since the pre-Budget announcement, Pharmac has been consulting on the new medicines that it might fund, and the decisions that it announced today show that New Zealanders continue to gain access to new and innovative medicines. This first package of new treatments will benefit over 40,000 New Zealanders. These funding decisions show that Pharmac is continuing to provide New Zealanders with early access to new and innovative medicines, which they deserve.

Alastair Scott: What new treatments is Pharmac able to provide with this increased funding?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The extra funding in Budget 2016 means that Opdivo, a drug for advanced melanoma, is now fully subsidised. Other drugs announced today include treatments for brain tumours, patches for menopausal women, and a treatment for renal disease in children. Pharmac is also funding two new hepatitis C treatments that are a major advance in treatment, with cure rates of more than 90 percent, and that is potentially going to benefit 50,000 New Zealanders. This is hugely beneficial for a wide range of people and shows that the investment has been very worthwhile.

Jan Logie: Can he confirm that Budget 2016 did not include any money for equal pay for women like Kristine Bartlett and the 50,000 other care and support workers waiting for payment?

Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister is prepared to answer it, I will let it go, but it is so far from the original question that it is, strictly, out of order.

Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question was very specifically about health funding in the 2016—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member may not have heard me. I said it was too far away; it is out of order. I do not appreciate the member then arguing with me in this House.

Alastair Scott: How has Pharmac’s budget increased since 2008?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Overall, the Government has increased Pharmac’s budget by $200 million since 2008, bringing it to a record $850 million, and, of course, widening access to medicines is a key priority for this Government. The $39 million for Pharmac in this year’s Budget is part of an extra $568 million that the Government has invested in health in 2016-17, the biggest increase in 7 years, and almost $170 million more than last year.

Hon Annette King: Will the Government’s direct contribution of $39 million to the Pharmac budget, which reduces to $29 million in the next two Budgets, require the district health boards (DHBs) to pick up the $42 million shortfall if the budget is to stay the same over the next 3 years?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We are quite clear: there is $124 million of new money put in there for Pharmac over the next 4 years.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know you were listening carefully. My supplementary question was very specific about whether Pharmac’s budget would have to be supplemented by the DHBs over those 3 years, and I set out the figures. Would you like me to repeat it, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member needs to be very aware of Speaker’s ruling 187/4, when, effectively, I suspect the member is demanding a yes or no answer, which she is not entitled to do. It is Thursday, I am in a very good mood, and I will allow the question to be repeated.

Hon Annette King: Will the Government’s direct contribution of $39 million to the Pharmac budget, which reduces to $29 million in the next two Budgets, require DHBs to pick up the $42 million shortfall if the budget is to stay the same for the next 3 years?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member knows that DHBs have always made some contribution, but the key thing is that there is $124 million on top of the $400 million for DHBs this year—in fact, $1.6 billion for DHBs over the next 4 years—so there is a lot of money going in there. And, of course, that is providing more access to more services for more New Zealanders all the time—very dissimilar to when you were in charge.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, not me.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that if you were in charge, Mr Speaker, it would be much better.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just have the point of order.

Hon Annette King: The point of order is that he should not bring you into the debate.

Mr SPEAKER: I think, on that occasion, that is something that the Speaker will determine, not the Hon Annette King.

Spending—Defence Force, Climate Change, and Housing

9. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

James Shaw: How is it that his Government has been able to put together a 15-year plan and find $20 billion for new defence spending but still, after 8 years, does not have an equivalent plan for the housing crisis or climate change?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: On behalf of the Prime Minister, firstly, may I thank you for the compliments paid to my defence Minister; and, secondly, may I also direct you to the plans that are clearly being put in place by the housing Minister. May I ask the question of why the Greens do not support any of them? We have 40 houses a day being built in Auckland. We have an increased workforce in Auckland, in the construction industry, of over 20,000 people. We have 56,000 sections for house sites produced under the special amenities area. None of those things, of course, wins the support of the Green Party, which wants to stop immigration, does not like urban development, and, of course, generally likes to say anything it can to talk down the economy.

Question time interrupted.

Speaker’s Statements

Parliamentary ICT System—Good Email System

Mr SPEAKER: I do apologise for interrupting the line of questioning, but I have just been asked to advise all members that there is a major problem with the Good email system and there is a risk that if you open your emails, or attempt to, before this is rectified, you could lose all your information. So please take heed of that advice. Further updates will come via the normal system. [Interruption] Order! It is actually a rather—members may joke about it—serious matter. That is why I have warned you.

Question time resumed.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Spending—Defence Force, Climate Change, and Housing

JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): How does he explain the gulf between the US Department of Defense, which declared that climate change is “an urgent and growing threat to our national security”, and his own Government, which is spending $20 billion on military equipment but virtually nothing on bringing down New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: That is a very silly question. The first point would be that the New Zealand Government is spending a lot on climate change. We have got a target for climate change—to reduce our levels to 30 percent below 2005. Of course, 80 percent of our electricity is produced from renewable sources already, unlike many other countries. We also, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, got rid of the two-for-one price on carbon. In general, we are making every effort we can to reduce greenhouse gases in this country. To conflate those efforts with military spending is, I think, quite ridiculous.

Question time interrupted.

Points of Order

Parliamentary ICT System—Good Email System

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to your indication earlier, I have been advised that the outage, or the problem, is wider than just with emails. It is the entire so-called Good system. Diaries and other opening—any of that could cause a problem.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. I think the advice is to wait until question time is over and you return to your offices. We will bring you up to date as quickly as we can.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Robertson! Does the member want to raise a point of order?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do, Mr Speaker. Now that members are clearly going to be without their GPS system, will there be assistance provided to help them get back to their offices?

Mr SPEAKER: No. That is not a helpful point of order, if indeed it is a point of order. [Interruption] Order! We are going to get back to question time. It is unfair on James Shaw, and I am sorry to have had to interrupt his question time. Let us return.

Question time resumed.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Spending—Defence Force, Climate Change, and Housing

JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): To what extent does New Zealand’s 19 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions since his Government took office undermine “peace and erode trust” in the South Pacific region?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: I take issue with those figures.

James Shaw: How much is the Government planning to spend over the next 15 years on responding to the threat to homes and critical infrastructure from rising seas, or on the threat to farmers and exporters from more frequent and deeper droughts, versus the $20 billion that it is planning to spend on upgrading military equipment?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: One is known, so the figure is known; the other is not known, so we will get a figure as it is known.

James Shaw: How did he find $20 billion for defence but not for housing, given that 16 kids a year die in New Zealand as a result of poor quality housing?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This country spends $2 billion a year on housing assistance, not just once but incrementally, baseline on baseline on baseline. The member’s suggestion is quite unreasonable.

James Shaw: So can he confirm that for $20 billion he could build an additional 44,000 homes, which would be more than enough to house the 42,000 Kiwis who are suffering from severe housing deprivation?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This country is building 28,000 houses a year at the moment. So the member’s solutions, I think, are very thin and not really looking at the problem that we need to solve, or the challenge that we need to solve.

James Shaw: If he can plan to spend $20 billion and have a 15-year plan for upgrading military equipment, why can he not also do the same for building homes or mitigating the effects of climate change?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government does plan for those things.

Question No. 10 to Minister

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I seek leave to hold over my questions until the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage is available to answer them.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Creative New Zealand—Funding

10. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What arts organisations will have their support cut or reduced by Creative New Zealand as a result of their funding forecast $11 million drop in funding from the Lottery Grants Board in the last two years?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: The Minister is in Christchurch this afternoon, attending an arts funding forum. For the past 10 years, Creative New Zealand’s funding for the arts from both the Lottery Grants Board and the Government has averaged about $43 million a year, and 2016-17 is predicted to be similar. The actual Lottery Grants Board figure for 2015-16 and the forecast for 2016-17 will not be finalised until the end of the financial year, July 2016.

Jacinda Ardern: Did she make a bid in this Budget to plug the anticipated substantial gap in Creative New Zealand’s funding; if not, why not?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I am sorry, I do not have information on that. However, I do know that the Minister was enormously pleased with $11.6 million for the arts approved in Budget 2016.

Jacinda Ardern: Why did she tell me at select committee in June last year, when Creative New Zealand was facing a $3 million cut, that she was working to address the issue, when, clearly, she did nothing then and she has done nothing now?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: The funding model has actually worked very well for over 3 decades. During that time, lottery funding has fluctuated, but in the last 10 years the arts have benefited from $280 million of lottery funding. Interestingly, the Lotteries Commission is forecasting long-term growth.

Jacinda Ardern: What does she have to say to Court Theatre chief executive Philip Aldridge when he stated that “cuts would have a huge impact on the Christchurch arts scene. Some of the smaller organisations will go to the wall. Everyone is surviving on a knife edge as it is.”?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: The Minister is very aware of what is happening in the Christchurch arts scene. But Creative New Zealand makes decisions at arms’ length from the Government, and she is advised by it that no decision has been made yet for its budget and funding allocations for 2016-17. Also, the amount that is coming through from lotteries is increasing every month.

Jacinda Ardern: Can she confirm that her recent advice to arts organisations and supporters over the decline in funding was to tell them to buy a Lotto ticket because “the balls might just roll our way”, and is that not completely out of touch when arts organisations have been told to anticipate a 10 percent cut, they are facing a loss of staff and a loss of resource, and they will struggle to keep their doors open?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: No, the Minister cannot confirm that. But what she can confirm is that the Lotteries Commission is forecasting increased investment and long-term growth.

Budget 2016—Bovine Tuberculosis

11. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Primary Industries: How will Budget 2016 support the eradication of bovine tuberculosis?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Budget 2016 confirms almost $70 million of new funding over the next 4 years to help eradicate bovine tuberculosis. Together with the primary industries sector, we have made great progress in tackling this destructive disease. Since 2002 the number of infected cattle herds has reduced by 90 percent and infected deer herds are down by 95 percent. TB has been cleared from wild animals in more than 1.2 million hectares of forest since 2011. This new funding will help achieve the goal of eradicating bovine TB from cattle and deer by 2026.

Ian McKelvie: What are the benefits of eradicating TB from New Zealand?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The benefits of eradicating TB include helping to protect our livestock production and value, and maintaining New Zealand’s reputation in international markets. An independent economic analysis states that the TB plan will provide $11 in benefits for every $1 invested. This includes financial, trade, and biodiversity benefits. Having a clear target for eradication is welcomed by farmers, who have spent many years and millions of dollars fighting this disease.

Ian McKelvie: How does this funding differ from previous funding for TB management?

Hon NATHAN GUY: This new funding aligns with an amended TB plan, which is being reviewed and modernised. The new plan is more targeted. It has a scientific risk-based approach. It is a fundamental shift from containing the disease to active eradication of the disease in livestock and wildlife. That is great news for taxpayers and farmers, who contribute around 60 percent of the funding out of their own pockets.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Who is going to fund the $4 million shortfall that he has appropriated through this last Budget?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Well, I have just had an hour and three-quarters in front of the select committee this morning and that question was not even raised by that member. I do not know what he is on about.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did an agency he has responsibility for inject possums with TB, release them into the wild, and then state that “We probably captured about a quarter of the exposed possums.”; if so, does that mean that three-quarters of the deliberately TB-infected possums were not recaptured?

Hon NATHAN GUY: That member has been out in the public domain scaremongering. There was a scientific research programme by Landcare Research in the Ōrongorongos. Twelve infected possums were released. My understanding is that 6 months later 12 infected possums were captured and euthanised. Importantly, this is scientific evidence that allows us to adopt a new risk-based plan. It is very important that this happens, and, actually, TB is rife in this area.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table journal articles, which come from scientific journals beyond paywalls, that indicate that the scientists were unable to note the rate of secondary infections of possums.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I put the leave, I just want to know how many journals the member—

Hon Trevor Mallard: There are four separate ones.

Mr SPEAKER: I am putting the leave in total. Leave is sought to table those four journal articles. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: One further journal article, which—

Mr SPEAKER: You are seeking leave to table?

Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes. One further one that indicates that the average spread of an infected possum is 6 kilometres a year, which indicates that they would be 30 kilometres from the site—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has been well described. I put the leave. Leave is sought to table that further journal article. Is there any objection? There is none. You will now all be very well informed.

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

Childhood Obesity—Childhood Obesity Plan

12. RIA BOND (NZ First) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that “New Zealand is now one of the few countries in the OECD to have a target and a comprehensive plan to tackle childhood obesity”, regarding the launch of the Childhood Obesity Plan?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes.

Ria Bond: Can he confirm that New Zealand previously had a childhood obesity plan, launched in 2004, named Healthy Eating - Healthy Action to improve nutrition, improve physical activity levels, and reduce obesity until his Government cut the funding in 2009, saying it was part of a nanny State agenda?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It was not really a plan, and it was outdated.

Ria Bond: Given his answer, does he stand by his statement that children in the most deprived areas are three times more likely to be obese; if so, can he explain why Mangonui School, a decile 3 school in Northland, had its Health Promoting Schools funding cut in 2015?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes.

Ria Bond: Would he agree that it would be a better use of taxpayers’ money to give funding directly to schools to undertake the Health Promoting Schools programme instead of sending a ministry-dictated facilitator to a region as neglected as Northland; if not, why not?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am not quite sure what she is talking about, but what I can say is that in terms of Health Promoting Schools there has been a huge uplift in the numbers of decile 1 to 3 schools that are taking part in it. We aim to add another 150 schools to that. We have now added 96, and, frankly, we are making very good progress on that and it is a very important part of the overall plan.

Clayton Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Minister had difficulty understanding the question, could we perhaps repeat the question so he could understand it?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. In fact, it is timely for me to remind all members that members’ supplementary questions are meant to be short and concise. There have been a large number of occasions today when members have taken the opportunity to raise two questions within a supplementary question. I may start to be tougher on such things from next week onwards.

Bills

Evidence Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Evidence Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill is about making sure that the Evidence Act works as well as possible for the benefit of everyone involved in court processes. Its key changes focus on improving the experience of vulnerable witnesses who give evidence. Minimising the trauma that can result from helping to bring offenders to justice is an essential part of the Government’s commitment to supporting victims of crime.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Can Ministers, if they want to have a talk—[Interruption] Sorry, the Minister is delivering an important speech; he deserves some courtesy.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The bill also makes a number of amendments to keep the Evidence Act up to date and workable in practice, as recommended by the Law Commission in its 2013 review of the Act. The passing of the Act in 2006 represented a near full codification of evidence laws, which were previously found in various places across the statute book and case law. The review and resultant amendments in this bill are valuable measures to take to ensure the Act operates appropriately and as intended. At this point I would like to thank the Law Commission again for its work on the review.

This bill has been considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee, which has recommended a number of sensible amendments that I support in full. I thank the members of the committee for their thorough consideration of what is quite a technical area of law. I understand that 12 submissions were received and the resulting tweaks have, I think, strengthened the bill.

One of the key amendments in the bill is the new presumption that child witnesses will give their evidence in alternative ways. This means that rather than having to face lots of strangers in court when telling their story, children will give their evidence through a pre-recorded interview via closed-circuit television, or from behind a screen in the courtroom. In the 2014-15 year around 465 child witnesses gave evidence in criminal courts around the country. Studies have documented the damaging effects on children of giving evidence in the traditional way and how alternative methods of eliciting evidence, such as those provided for in this bill, can alleviate some of that stress. Ensuring that children avoid the more confrontational aspects of the courtroom wherever possible can also result in better-quality evidence.

The new presumption will ensure that the courts’ general practice, which is to receive children’s evidence by alternative means, is applied consistently across the country for all children, in all criminal cases. It is also important to note that the bill allows for exceptions to be made by the judge in recognition of the particular circumstances of the case and the needs of the child. A further amendment targeted specifically to children in the court process will afford all child witnesses the automatic right to a support person while giving evidence. Under the current Act only child complainants have this automatic right. The amendment will, again, help to reduce the traumatic effects of having to give evidence in a foreign and sometimes intimidating environment for all children participating in the court process.

Both child complainants and witnesses in sexual and violence cases will benefit from another of the amendments in the bill. When their evidence is recorded on video, to be used in court, there will be new safeguards in place to ensure that those videos are not used inappropriately and do not fall into the wrong hands. Taking these steps is important to preserve victims’ confidence in the justice system, in light of the quite devastating effects that could result from such a video surfacing on the internet, for example. The changes mean that defence counsel will no longer receive a copy of these sensitive videos as of right. They will still be able to view the video at premises agreed to by the police and will still automatically receive a transcript. As well as these provisions, the ability to apply to the court for permission to have a copy of the video will ensure adequate access to the video for conducting the defence. The bill also introduces new offences for those who possess, copy, show, or supply a video record of evidence outside of what is permitted by statute or regulations.

I understand that some of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s recommendations have furthered and strengthened the intent of these amendments around video records of evidence. I think they continue to strike an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable witnesses and preserving defendants’ fair trial rights. Another of the bill’s key provisions will make changes to the procedure for cases involving sexual violence, which, although vastly unreported, are entering our justice system at a rate of around 1,200 per year. By the time they get to court, complainants in sexual violence cases will have already taken many steps involving great courage to bring their attackers to justice. These steps are not without cost to themselves, and I know that it will always be extremely difficult to tell anyone about being a victim of sexual offending. One thing that we can do is try to make sure that after taking those steps, complainants can be as prepared as possible for what will happen at trial.

Under the current law, any party wanting to introduce evidence about a complainant’s sexual history with a person other than the defendant must apply to the court for permission. The court may allow that evidence only if it would be contrary to the interests of justice not to do so. However, this permission can be sought at any time during the trial. What this bill does is introduce a requirement that permission must be sought prior to the start of the trial. This will ensure that complainants know what to expect in advance of giving evidence, which will assist to reduce further trauma and re-victimisation of that process.

This change was recommended by the Law Commission and was included in the introduced version of the bill in very similar terms. I note that the select committee has made some sensible changes to the provision, to ensure that the intent of the amendment is carried through without adding unnecessary steps to the pre-trial process.

As I have mentioned, the other changes in this bill follow from the Law Commission’s amendments in its report on the Evidence Act in 2013. That review found the Act to be meeting its objectives and generally working well. It did suggest a number of minor or technical amendments, to reflect modern practice and precedent, and to ensure all provisions of the Act are working as intended. With a few amendments to make sure that the law is as clear as possible, the bill progresses all but one of the Law Commission’s recommendations. Worth noting are the changes around when a witness’s out-of-court statement can be used in court to support their testimony.

Under the bill more types of previous consistent statement will be explicitly admissible in court. The fact of a complaint having been made will be able to be used as evidence, as will a witness statement, if it makes up an integral part of the events in question. Explicitly allowing these types of evidence will mean that witnesses can give their evidence in a way that makes more sense.

Another notable technical change expressly provides that plea discussions are privileged. In criminal cases, plea discussions are increasingly common. Applying privilege will allow these discussions to be more effective and will encourage the more efficient disposal of cases. Exceptions to the privilege mean that where the court orders, the contents of plea discussions may still be disclosed, in the interests of justice.

A criminal process needs to run smoothly, efficiently, and fairly. By improving the court process for vulnerable witnesses and ensuring our laws of evidence are fit for purpose, the Evidence Amendment Bill makes some really important changes to achieve those results. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The Labour Party supports the Evidence Amendment Bill. Can I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for the work that it has done. Can I also place on record that I think that this is an area that Amy Adams is doing good work in. I do think she genuinely has concerns about the levels of violence—particularly against women—in society and she is determined in her period as Minister of Justice to try to change the settings in a way that brings more of these instances to court for resolution but also deals with these matters in other ways so that we have a reduction in the level of violence against women and children in New Zealand. I commend her for doing that. I am sure, were it a Labour member in that office, they would be similarly motivated to improve this problem that we have in New Zealand.

I, for one, do not accept that all of the increase that we have in domestic violence shown by our statistics is caused by additional reporting. I think we have got a long enough history of being able to report domestic violence in New Zealand to actually have to face the uncomfortable conclusion that in New Zealand in recent decades, we have had increasing rates of violence against women and children, and I think that shows up now in the statistics. I do not accept the proposition that the terrible statistics that we now have in relation to domestic violence and violence against children are because it is being reported properly. I think that is part of the situation, but I also think it is partly because we do have an appalling record in respect of those issues in New Zealand. Indeed, there are so many ways in which New Zealand can hold its head high in respect of outcomes, be they socio-economic or environmental, compared with other parts of the world—but in terms of our record of violence against children, we do have a terrible record. So I support the changes that are being made in respect of evidence, particularly in trials relating to sexual violence, and I think the proposals that are made by the bill here are proper.

I want to highlight one issue that has been picked up by the select committee, and that relates to what care we have to take when it comes to the admissibility of hearsay evidence. It is very easy for us in this Parliament to say “Oh, we’ve just got to make things easier for the prosecution in order to get convictions.”, but we must always guard against injustice. In the legal system in New Zealand and, indeed, in all of the countries that have followed the Westminster model—and in countries like the United States, which I suppose, broadly, is based on that model, albeit going back some centuries further, and it has departed from it a little bit more—we say that it is better that a guilty person goes free than an innocent person be found guilty. That is, essentially, why we have a higher standard of proof in criminal proceedings, which have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, compared with civil prosecutions, because a criminal prosecution can end with a stain on a person’s reputation and, in serious cases, the loss of their liberty. It can, effectively, ruin their lives if they are found guilty wrongly.

I am sure there are some limited cases in New Zealand where people are found guilty when they are innocent, but, more often, we have people who are guilty found innocent. And that is where the balance should lie because we should, in Western societies, be holding firm to this principle. We have got to be very, very sure before we impose the coercive powers of the State to penalise people who have been found guilty of crimes.

Where does the rule against hearsay fit into that? Well, there are some very sound rules of evidence that make sure that prosecutions against people are soundly based, rather than just assertion. One of those rules is the best evidence rule: that is a rule where, effectively, the courts say that the evidence that they will hear in order to convict someone of a crime—and it is actually the same in this respect in civil proceedings, as well—the evidence to be tendered, is the best evidence that is available. So if there is a secondary source of evidence that is not as good as primary evidence, then the court ought not to hear the secondary evidence; it ought to hear the primary evidence.

The rule against hearsay is, in some ways, a subset of the best evidence rule. It says that where there is primary evidence, we should hear it, and we should not just hear someone giving hearsay evidence of what someone else might have said. There are a number of reasons for that. One is the best evidence rule, as I have said. It is also very hard for an accused—or a judge, for that matter—to be sure that hearsay evidence is true, because the person who is giving the evidence about what they heard did not witness the original event and, therefore, cannot be challenged as to the details of that evidence or as to the demeanour of the person who was there, because they were not there.

There are some exceptions to the rule against hearsay, and they are practical and they are necessary. For example, in respect of a statement that is made by someone before death—and they are no longer alive at the time of a prosecution—obviously, they cannot be there to give evidence, so there are some limited exceptions to the rule against hearsay in respect of statements of people who are dead. Therefore, the best evidence of that dead person is never going to be available to the court, and the court will, in some instances, hear hearsay evidence as to what the deceased person said prior to their death. We can understand that. That is still the best evidence available. Obviously, it would not be as good as the original evidence, but I am sure that courts and judges can give appropriate warnings to juries in respect of the limitations of that evidence.

There are also exceptions relating to business records. This Evidence Amendment Bill tried to make that clearer by saying that where there are standard business records, then those business records can be admitted without further first-party proof that they are correct, and they can just be admitted as being evidence of what they show, rather than there having to be some primary evidence tendered to prove that they are correct. That was another exception to the rule against hearsay.

An amendment brought forward by this legislation tried to clear that up, but as the select committee found, no doubt on the basis of submissions, probably from the Law Society—and if it was from the Law Society, or the Criminal Bar Association of New Zealand, can I thank them for their submission; I expect it was—there was a definition issue. I was not sitting on the select committee, but, you know, as a member of that profession who pays my annual practising fee I am really so pleased that the Law Society coordinates this. Actually, those people who make those submissions are not paid, but the Law Society does a fantastic service to New Zealand when it gets into the detail of these things. It pointed out that the definition of what was a “business record” was so broad as to possibly include some police statements that ought not to be admissible as a business record as an exception to the rule against hearsay. In respect of that sort of evidence, it ought to be provided by the police in accordance with the best evidence rule, and not be an exception to the rule against hearsay.

So the select committee identified that as a problem with the bill as introduced to the House. I think that the select committee has fixed it by the amendment to clause 7 of the bill, which rewords the definition of “business record” in section 16(1) of the Evidence Act to say that this exception “does not include a Police record that contains any statement of interview by or with an eyewitness, or a complainant, or any other person who purports to have knowledge or information about the circumstances of alleged offending or the issues in dispute in a civil proceeding.” It has made it clear that a witness statement that a policeman takes down cannot be tendered in evidence, because that witness statement is, effectively, a hearsay report by the policeman of what they heard the witness say to them. In that situation we should have the witness before the court giving primary evidence, not a police record, which is hearsay.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thanks to the member, David Parker, who previously spoke on the admissibility of hearsay evidence, which is one of the matters contained in the bill. He is quite right; there are some changes around that, but this bill contains a number of other measures, and those measures continue with this Government’s focus on putting victims at the heart and the centre of our justice system. I acknowledge the member, who also noted this: that along with a focus on the victim, we are also making improvements to efficiency and the accessibility to our justice system, because access to justice is one of the strong tenets of New Zealand’s justice system.

It is pleasing to see not only that the Justice and Electoral Committee worked very cooperatively on this bill in particular but that the Justice and Electoral Committee is a committee that works with a focus on the issues at hand. We tend to traverse and make our way through those issues where we disagree, and try to find a way that we can present back to the House a bill that reflects what is good in the intention of the bill at hand. In this case, it is the Evidence Amendment Bill.

The select committee did make a few changes to the bill. Really just a minor change, or minor in terms of the debate, is the change to the commencement date, which will allow time for regulations to be made before the bill comes into force. It is a topic of some argument amongst select committees these days around how many regulations there should be, or whether really they should be in the primary legislation. It is my view that sometimes regulations are best dealt with, and we get a better result if they are dealt with after the legislation has been passed. I believe this is one of those examples.

We also recommended a number of technical changes to clarify definitions and phrases, to provide some consistency not only within the Evidence Amendment Bill but also between this bill and other Acts. What we are also coming up against is terminology. In some pieces of legislation, a person under the age of 16 is a child; in other pieces of legislation, a person under 16 is referred to as a person, or by some other term. That clarity in legislation is very important.

This bill will give child witnesses the right to a support person while giving evidence. That is a change. It will not have to be done on application to the court; it will be a presumption that a child will get a support person when giving evidence, and also presumptive will be the ability to have alternate ways of giving evidence. The reason for that is very simple. The reason for that is well accepted and well supported around the House, and I do not think we would find a single person in New Zealand who could disagree with the premise that these measures will go a long way towards helping reduce anxiety and helping reduce stress on children. It will enable them to give better testimony and enable them to be better witnesses. I think that if we get not only a better result for the child witness but also a better result coming out of the court, then this is a good measure, on every level.

We are also placing restrictions on video record evidence—tightening up on who can see the video evidence and to whom it is available—and a notice requirement around evidence of previous sexual history. Once again, this is a measure that puts on notice that if previous sexual history is to be raised in the court then that is done with some warning to the witness.

The bill will also allow more previous consistent statements to be admissible in court, and that is to enable a more complete story for the jury. I think the previous speaker spoke at length around this issue. It is one point in quite a comprehensive bill. We do have further readings; I do have more to contribute, but I commend the bill to the House.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): As David Parker mentioned before, Labour is supporting this bill, and, actually, is supporting it with some enthusiasm, because I think it is a very good bill and well needed at the moment.

The Evidence Amendment Bill first came into being in 2006. It was the product of about 10 years of investigation and research by the Law Commission. It was brought in under the Labour Government and, I think, supported by the National Party at the time. This bill is 10 years further down the track and looks to tweak, amend, and improve some of the issues that perhaps were not as relevant at the time, or certainly did not gain the attention of people at the time, but have become issues over the course of those last 10 years and are now being sought to be redressed.

The member who just sat down, Jacqui Dean, went through some of those changes. David Parker looked at the issues around consistent statements, which will be more admissible under this piece of legislation—it will improve the workings of the court. I should say, perhaps, before getting into the detail of the bill, that the Evidence Act itself is really at the cornerstone of our ability to conduct a fair trial. It really sets out what is admissible, what is not, and the behaviour with which lawyers should hold themselves within a court, so that the people who are in front of the court get a fair trial. The witnesses and those people who are the alleged victims are also given a fair go as well. The changes to this bill are varied and will improve the ability of the courts to conduct themselves and see that evidence through, so that people are actually able to get a fair trial and it is made easier for people giving evidence.

As I was saying before, the Hon David Parker talked about how enabling consistent statements to be admissible in the court makes that easier. It enables privileges for plea discussions to happen, and makes that happen more easily where that is appropriate. That will enable the case to go before a court and be heard more easily.

What the attention has been focused on is the way in which the victims and witnesses in crimes of a domestic violence or sexual nature are able to give evidence, particularly those crimes that affect children. Unfortunately, this is really long overdue. New Zealand has one of the worst records when it comes to child abuse and child deaths in the OECD. In fact, we are fifth from the bottom, out of 31 OECD countries. It is not a record that we should be in any way proud of. In fact, it is a disgrace. One child is killed every 5 weeks in New Zealand, and 90 percent of those deaths occur through somebody whom they know, and generally somebody whom they know very well. Domestic violence is also one of the worst in the OECD. Again, it is a pretty terrible record. On average, we kill 13 women, 10 men, and about nine children every year.

These are shocking statistics. Part of dealing with that is making sure that those who perpetrate these crimes are actually brought through the justice system, and that we are able to make sure that they are punished through our court system. That means giving the victims and the witnesses to those crimes the ability to give evidence in a way that does not prejudice or affect or further traumatise them as well. By the same token, the people who are the defendants in these cases, who are in the court, deserve a fair trial—like anybody does and like our court system demands that we have.

So, at the same time, we are not changing dramatically the way in which evidence is able to be considered; we are simply looking at the means and the methods by which that evidence is able to be given by child victims or women who have perhaps been sexually assaulted, for example, and being able to do that in way where they are not further traumatised by the experience of having to go through that court system and be cross-examined.

There was a case not so long ago of Mark Lyon, who was a businessman, a drug dealer, and who was eventually convicted and sentenced to a number of years in jail for his sexual assaults on girls as young as 14. The father of one of those victims said that the changes that have been put forward today would have made a world of difference to his daughter and for frightened children, knowing that they did not have to go into an adversarial courtroom. He went on to say that his daughter was shown through the court, and although Mark Lyon was on the other side of a screen, she was aware that he who had preyed on her was there and watching everything that she was doing. It terrified her—the fact that she had to give evidence in front of him.

This bill, as the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, has just said, enables the evidence to be given by both the victim and the witness through the means of video, rather than them having to be there, physically present, in court. It does not mean they cannot be cross-examined or that the defence counsel cannot ask questions of them, but some of those questions can be asked through closed-circuit television rather than directly in person, in the court, in front of a bunch of strangers, in front of their alleged attackers and abusers, and with them therefore becoming, in a sense, re-traumatised as a result of having to do that.

I think this piece of legislation—there are other parts to it as well, but in many ways I think that is the most critical part. In New Zealand, where we have such a deplorable and an appalling record of domestic violence and sexual violence against children and women right across our society, this bill will give at least some comfort to those who want to go to court and to go to trial in order to be able to give evidence and to make sure that the perpetrators of these crimes are actually taken before the courts, with the possibility they will be prosecuted and sent to prison and punished. It will make their job not only easier when they are there, but might encourage them to actually get to court and make sure that those people who have perpetrated these crimes are punished.

I am sure that a lot of times now many crimes that have been committed are not making it into court because of the way in which the court deals, or can deal, with those victims. If that is the outcome of this amendment to the Evidence Act, then I think it will have done a very good job. Once again, like others, I commend not only this bill but also the Government for bringing it forward. Thank you.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Can I just say what a pleasure it is to see a bill of this nature getting such widespread support from around the House. I think issues like these really are beyond party politics; they are about having a good and decent society, they are about ensuring we have a fair and equitable justice system, and those things go beyond party politics.

For any judicial system to work well, to me it needs to have three factors, really: it needs to be just, it needs to be timely, and it must not revictimise victims—or, I guess, alleged victims—who have experienced particularly traumatic events. This bill, I think, goes a long way, particularly in respect of the second and third parts of it. I think we already have a pretty just system, but the bill helps to make things more timely in the way they are resolved through the court system and also, and, most importantly, it ensures victims of particularly heinous crimes are not revictimised. This is a part of this Government’s work across a number of other pieces of legislation, whether it be through the offender levy or through the victims’ rights amendment legislation that we have seen going through earlier, as part of our efforts to ensure we are making a better justice system, and I commend the work Amy Adams is doing with regard to this.

I want to focus, in particular, my contribution around the presumption of children and young people being able to give video evidence. That has always been something that has been available as an option, but I think what is particularly important in this legislation is the presumption that that will occur. I think that is critically important, as David Shearer has just outlined, and will encourage, I believe, more victims to come forward because they will be able to know up front that there is this presumption they will be able to deliver their evidence on video and not have to do it within the court setting, or otherwise. It also enables them to have a support person with them while they are presenting their evidence.

I think that is really, really critical. We have got to make sure we really look after victims across all types of crime but, in particular, in these types of circumstances that we have been discussing this afternoon, it is critically important that children and young people who have suffered really quite horrendous and devastating things are able to be supported and are able to be protected through this presumption that they will have video-record evidence.

I think there is something else that is critical, which came through when we were talking about this at the Justice and Electoral Committee. In particular, I want to just acknowledge clause 30 of the bill, where it talks about how “a party or their lawyer is not entitled to be given a copy …”. I think that is one of the things we have got to make sure of—that victims can have confidence that this video evidence they have given is not going to be passed around, that it is not going to be open and available, either to the person who has perpetrated the crime, or otherwise, or other people. People are going to be disclosing in this type of evidence very personal, very traumatic events, and it is critical they have confidence in a system that ensures that video evidence is protected. So there are provisions within this bill to ensure that occurs.

Going through the select committee process we received a wide range of submissions, and I think they have helped us to make a few minor amendments that will, I believe, strengthen the bill. It is a good bill. It will help us to ensure we have a good justice system going forward. It improves on what we have already got going on and, as I have said a couple of times already, it will ensure we are doing the utmost that we can to protect victims. I commend it to the House.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): It is a pleasure to continue the agreeable tone of this debate, which Mr Naylor referred to, on behalf of the Greens. This is a good bill; the Greens have supported it and will continue to do so. It does some useful and necessary and, indeed, some important things around the giving of evidence and other court processes, so we will continue to support it.

The bill, of course, amends the Evidence Act 2006, which, in itself, was quite new 10 years ago. It did some different and interesting things, and, after 5 years, it was deemed appropriate that it should be reviewed to ensure it was doing the best it could, which, of course, triggered the Law Commission review, including a document published in 2013. Much of the content of this bill, of course, does reflect the recommendations brought by the Law Commission. In a sense it is odd—the commission came back with a general statement that the 2006 Act was in pretty good shape, that it was quite a fit-for-purpose piece of legislation, but then went on to propose 33 amendments to it. They might be contrary statements, in one view.

Of course, many of those 33 recommendations were for so-called technical and minor amendments, which is not to say they are unimportant. The chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee commented on the issue of consistency, which is particularly important both within pieces of legislation and between pieces of legislation. It is important we get consistency of definition and the like. So although many of the recommendations were deemed minor and technical, that is not to say they are unimportant. It is good to see them being enacted within this new legislation.

Some of the more substantial changes or additions the committee has made are, as has been said, around protecting, and, indeed, enhancing the well-being of vulnerable people who often, through no wish of their own, are obliged to be before the courts. Children and complainants in cases where there is alleged sexual violence or violence of other forms are people who deserve the best, safest, and most secure environment we can give them when they are obliged to enter the court. The changes in this bill go some way towards achieving that.

I will speak briefly to a couple of those. One is that, as has been mentioned, the legislation will now contain the presumption that a child giving evidence in a court as a witness will be expected to use so-called alternative means. A child is defined as a person under the age of 18. We heard an example from Mr Shearer in his contribution of when a young person was put in a pretty horrific situation by being obliged to be in the same room as a person who that young person believed had done them serious and significant harm.

The provisions of this bill will create the presumption that the child will not be put in that situation, but also allows for exceptions to that, when it is deemed by the judge that it is OK for that young person. You might have a confident 17-year-old who is entirely capable and willing to stand in a court and say their piece. So this bill does not block that possibility, but it does put the onus on that being the exception rather than the rule, and that is a good thing. We have various technical means of achieving that; there is no challenge about that, be it using video or other forms of recording technology, or simply screens. It is timely that we do this.

The one other significant change in this bill is that it changes the circumstances around the court hearing evidence about a person’s previous sexual history, particularly a complainant’s. Sadly, there have been too many instances over the years when women, particularly, in this situation have suffered very aggressive questioning, which, frankly, has been designed to shame them, to ruin their reputation, and to present them as being promiscuous. This is a very ugly way to have our conduct happening in our courts, and this bill will go some way towards diffusing that. Any reference to a complainant’s former sexual history will need to be notified in advance, its relevance will need to be demonstrated—that it is appropriate, that it ought to come to the court, and, obviously, any complainant will then have the opportunity to develop some response to that. Again, it does not exclude that sort of line of questioning, but it certainly, shall we say, creates a little bit of decency around it, perhaps, if that is the right word.

Finally, the point has been made also that, in the situation when evidence is given on video, there is no as-of-right access to that video, recording, or evidence by any party to the proceedings. A case needs to be made that access to the video or the other recording is necessary and important. Obviously, it is important in the general flow of our justice system that all parties to a hearing should have access to all the information that is applicable to it, but there are ways of getting around that. I think taking away the as-of-right nature that anybody involved might have access to what may well be video or information that is of a very personal nature—that does, again, require the approval of the judge to say it is appropriate for that person or that party to have access to it, and then there are significant constraints about what can be done with that. It is about protecting privacy; it is about people’s well-being. It does, however, avoid the risk of any evidence, or even the appearance of any evidence, being suppressed.

With those few words, I think I will leave it to my colleague, who will be speaking later, to make further comments on behalf of the Greens, but, for the moment, we are happy to support this legislation.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will continue to support this bill, which implements almost all of the Law Commission’s recommendations—and, of course, the Associate Minister of Justice, Simon Bridges, has already reviewed the main changes in the bill. So what I want to do is focus on four of the improvements made by the Justice and Electoral Committee and why I think, in particular, they should be supported. I would just like to begin by commending the Justice and Electoral Committee for the work it did. I think that it went through the bill very well, and it was a great pleasure to be part of it.

The first improvement that I want to focus on relates to hearsay statements, and to section 16 of the Evidence Act. There are types of police records that, as we know, are not inherently reliable, and in the current Act, they should be excluded, rather, from the definition of the term “business record” in section 16. The reason for that is that hearsay statements made by witnesses or comments made by them in interviews—by people who say that they have important knowledge to contribute—are not inherently reliable and ought to be excluded, because reliability is absolutely vital and fundamental. So I think that is an important improvement that the committee has made to the bill, and one that deserves to be supported.

The second one relates to clause 30, which amends section 106, and the need to prevent the misuse of video records. The Justice and Electoral Committee has made some important improvements to clarify the Act on this matter. There are two of them that I want to mention. The first one amends section 106 to clearly specify the duties and restrictions relating to those video records that parties and lawyers have access to. What the amendment will do is ensure that defendants and their lawyers are still able to view video records and to determine whether to oppose, or not, what is in them. But they are now able to do so in an appropriate way and in an appropriate place. That is a significant improvement, and it is very important that access to those video records is available, but there needs to be the protection that it is done in an appropriate way and in an appropriate place. I think now we have that balance correct, as a result of this particular amendment.

In addition to that, and secondly in relation to this matter, the committee recommended that it is important that regulations should be made, and that there should be provision to make regulations, to cover the various ways in which all of this will operate. So that is also included in the improvements. It is a minor point, but I think, in itself, it is still very important.

The third improvement that I want to focus on is the difficult area of children giving evidence. As Mr Clendon pointed out, this actually means people under the age of 18—so they are not necessarily infantile. Some of them may be able to give evidence in the ordinary way and others will not be able to do so. What we have currently is a situation that does not reflect that. The improvements to section 107, inserted by clause 32, do give effect to the presumption that a child witness does need to give evidence in alternative ways—that is an infant, I mean—while at the same time ensuring that the defendant, in particular, but also the judge, jury, and other parties can hear the evidence given and will be able to understand it.

As the law stands, a party other than the party intending to call the child witness may apply to the judge for a direction that the child is to give evidence in the ordinary way. But that is not quite enough. So what this improvement does is to amend section 107, via clause 32, so that it will allow a party other than the party calling the child witness to apply to the court for a direction that the witness can give evidence in the ordinary way, or alternatively, in the alternative way. So that reflects the need to cater for both those witnesses who are capable of giving evidence in the ordinary way and those witnesses who really need to use the alternative methodologies. That again is a fairly minor but, I think, quite an important improvement that is being made to the bill.

The fourth and last improvement that I want to focus on is, I think, the most important one. We heard a submission from a particular person, whose name I will not mention. I felt it had particular relevance, and I think the committee did as well. I felt that that submission was quite compelling in demonstrating what can happen to a person if we do not get the law right in these respects. What I am particularly referring to is access to video records of evidence outside Criminal or Family Court cases. The truth is that some bodies—tribunals, and so on—do have powers quite outside this legislation to call for and consider video evidence, but are not subject to the regime that is actually prescribed by this Act in regulations, and injustices can flow from that.

The recommendations that were made and that I am sure will be adopted by the Justice and Electoral Committee will ensure a clear and broadly uniform regulatory approach to prevent the misuse of those records. I am sure that by inserting in new clause 33A, which inserts new sections 119A and 119B, the requirement that police would be prohibited from releasing a video record of evidence to parties to proceedings outside Criminal or Family Courts, unless the relevant body orders it, is most appropriate. I think it will operate to avoid the sorts of injustices to which that particular submitter had been subjected, and which can cause significant problems to such a person, particularly for their future employment prospects, and so on. Again, it is a relatively minor improvement in itself, but it can have very important effects. I think it needs to be mentioned as a particular improvement recommended by the committee that really needs to be supported, and I am sure it will be.

In addition to that, the amendment inserted by new clause 33A will provide that the body concerned may order the release of the video record only if it would not jeopardise any pending criminal trial, and that it is in the interests of justice to do so. So I think that, again, we have here a balance: the balance being the need to protect individuals where, for example, the police release this sort of information in a way that can be damaging to an individual, and that individual has no way of effectively preventing that damage from happening, and, on the other hand, the need for such information to be available if it is in the interests of justice to do so. So I think, again, the balance has been achieved there.

Overall, I think that, as I have said, the Justice and Electoral Committee has done a very good job in reviewing this particular bill, identifying some of the issues with it that needed to be corrected, and it has then made some very sensible and worthwhile—perhaps minor in themselves, but nevertheless very important—improvements to the bill, and we will get a good piece of legislation as a result. New Zealand First will be very happy on that basis to continue to support it.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): This is a very important piece of legislation, and people listening on the radio or watching on Parliament TV this afternoon may not appreciate the significance of the codification of the Evidence Act in 2006. It drew together the various strands from the common law and common law rules and various other parts of statutes, and codified the law relating to evidence. Evidence law is actually of paramount importance in our justice system and to the rule of law, because it governs the way in which things can be put before the courts in trials. It is of huge significance.

The Evidence Act in 2006 was a big step forward, because, as I say, it did codify that and it allowed people to go to a particular Act on the statute book and identify all of the various rules and all of the various things that they had to do in trials. Of course, one might well make the criticism that it is all very well to say you can go to a particular Act, but of course the terms of art that are within that Act are based on the common law. But notwithstanding that, it was definitely a big step forward. In fact, I was at law school in 2006 when this was going through, and we actually had to learn two pieces of law—we had to learn the former law and then we had to learn the codified law, so it did create a few issues. But I think it was a big step forward.

One of the far-sighted things, I think, that Parliament did in 2016 was to put in place an automatic review mechanism so that the Law Commission would do a review of the Act in 2011. Of course, the Law Commission is a very appropriate body to do such a review. For something that is so technical but so important, you want the experts in the field, which, of course, is the Law Commission—or, at least, it has access to the experts, and the time and resources to consider something intensively and in a proper and appropriate fashion. It did the review in 2011, then in 2013 we had its report, and then Parliament acted last year—well, the Government acted and put this bill before Parliament. I think the way in which the Government and Parliament have gone about reforming the law in this is sort of like a case study, I guess you could say, for the way in which proper deliberative and consultative law reform should be done. That is highly appropriate, given the particular area of law that we are talking about.

This is a reasonably technical bill. It is something that is very targeted at the minor but important changes that came out of the Law Commission’s review, and it is really great that we have, I think, unanimous support in the Parliament for passing this bill. With something so important, you do want to have, I think, a degree of consensus in the Parliament.

I just want to briefly mention the area of the admissibility of sexual experience of complainants before the court. This is something that the New Zealand common law and, in fact, the New Zealand legal system, as is the case in other countries, has struggled with for many years, and we continue to struggle with it. Some members will of course have seen the Stanford rape case that is currently going on in the United States, and the national conversation that is going on in the United States about rape culture, the way in which the legal system over there has dealt with the victim, and also the way in which the system has dealt with the offender in that case. The letter that the victim in that case read before the court as a sort of victim impact statement is the most harrowing 7,500 words you will ever want to read, and quite a shocking and searing experience. The way in which the legal system deals with rape, in particular, and sexual violence and assault needs to be improved, and I think everyone acknowledges that. This bill goes some way towards doing that.

There is an argument—I think an argument that people make in good faith and in good conscience—that the sexual history or experience of victims should not be admissible at all and that there should just be a blanket prohibition on that. Some people make that argument, and I acknowledge that argument. The position that the New Zealand law has got to is that it is admissible only when relevant, and only if to exclude it would be contrary to the interests of justice. That is the position that the New Zealand law has got to. But what this bill does is introduce not so much a safeguard as an improvement on the status quo, by adding a requirement that the defence gives notice before they start a trial as to whether they intend to use evidence about a victim’s sexual history with someone other than the defendant.

This was a change recommended by the Law Commission. It came out of very important work that Yvette Tinsley and Associate Professor Elisabeth McDonald from Victoria University of Wellington’s law school have done, and I think it is replicated in the legal system in the state of Victoria in Australia. What that will mean is that the admissibility of that evidence will be determined pre-trial. At the moment the status quo is that it can be introduced at any time, or at least permission can be sought from the judge at any time. That can be distressing for victims and can lead to some uncertainty. So at least everyone is going to be on the same page, and the trial will commence with everyone knowing whether or not that evidence will be used or at least put before the court.

I think that is a step forward, and I think there is a wider debate that we need to have as a society and as Parliament about the way in which we deal with these issues. The Government is doing important work in a number of different respects to do with family and sexual violence, and sexual violence more generally, but I think that it is an ongoing conversation that we need to have. With those brief remarks, I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It is an honour to speak in the second reading of the Evidence Amendment Bill. This is an incredibly important area of law, and the Green Party is—I will use the word—happy to support this, and we will be voting in support of it. However, I do want to register my frustration at how absolutely limited this piece of legislation is and how much further we have to go to be able to ensure that victims of sexual violence, as well as domestic violence, are able to get justice in this country.

As has been mentioned by the previous speaker, this piece of legislation fits within the context of many, many, many years of discussion about the need for reform and so much advocacy from those on the ground. It is important to remember that we have about a 1 percent conviction rate in this country for sexual violence. What this bill delivers us are three key changes: the presumption that a child under 18 will not have to give face-to-face evidence in the court; changes around the circumstances of a court hearing evidence on the sexual history of a complainant, where that can be put in writing first and given to the judge ahead of the trial so that, in effect, notice is given and there is the possibility that it may be ruled inadmissible; and that where evidence is given by video, there will not be automatic access to this evidence, and conditions or constraints on how this is viewed can be applied.

In my brief submission I would like to primarily reference the advice from the Associate Professor of Law from Victoria University, Elizabeth McDonald. She advised the House on what else could be done. I doubt that anyone in this House would argue that Associate Professor McDonald and Yvette Tinsley are the New Zealand experts on this. They are the people whom the Law Commission typically go to to make sure it is getting it right. I do need to register that I will be intending to develop Supplementary Order Papers to give this House the opportunity to actually make the changes that she recommended that would benefit the victims of sexual violence in our country.

She made several submissions. One is in terms of the presumption of not having to give evidence face to face. She suggested that that should be extended to just beyond the age limitation of 18 to all victims of family and sexual violence. That does not mean they would all choose to have that but that there would be that presumption. In fact, the presumption for giving video evidence would be to put in guidance as the best practice for all sexual violence cases, because we know that these cases take so long to get to trial that victims are holding on and repeating the experience to be able to feel as if they can confidently give evidence in the court maybe over a year later. That is holding them in the place of reliving that abuse. It is unnecessary and it could be fixed by an amendment to this Act, and I believe this House should make that amendment.

She also sought for the court to consider, when considering the admissibility of evidence, the likelihood of it causing distress when considering admissibility. She noted that the arguments against this are saying that distress needs to be balanced against relevance, and relevance has primacy. But she said that section 8 of the Act already has this balance in place, in considering the probative value against the prejudicial impact. It is not without precedence, so it could be done. She also noted, significantly, a recent Supreme Court ruling on the cases of historical abuse that actually have the effect of reintroducing a corroboration warning in sexual cases, which is deeply worrying and goes against a trend and needs clarifying in this Act. There are many things still to fix.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Clare Curran—5 minutes.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I would like to start by agreeing with Chris Bishop, which is something that I rarely do, in that, quite genuinely, this is an important piece of legislation and Labour will be supporting it. I would also like to commend the work being done on this by the Minister of Justice, Amy Adams. However, in saying that, I agree with the Green member Jan Logie that there is much more to do—that this is just one part of the work that needs to be done to improve the situation around family violence and sexual assault in our country, which is woeful. Improving the law and improving the court processes for vulnerable witnesses is an important part of that, but it is just a part of it—although it is good to have accord around the House on this issue tonight. It is rare that we have a piece of legislation on which everybody has worked hard and in the same direction, and feels strongly about it.

I do note, though, that this change in legislation relates to a Law Commission report from 2013, which had been essentially in abeyance until it was picked up by Amy Adams as the justice Minister. It was not until it was picked up that things started moving. I would note that it would be good if things could start moving on a couple of other Law Commission reports, such as the report into the Privacy Act and the report on the Official Information Act. There are much needed law changes in those areas as well.

This particular piece of legislation does a number of things. Because my time is short, I will confine my remarks to two of them. The first is around the change that makes it easier for witnesses under 18 who can give evidence to give evidence other than when sitting in court. This is highly overdue and a bit of a no-brainer, really. There has been quite a lot of discussion on that this afternoon, so I will not continue with that.

I do want to make some remarks around the requirement that defence counsel give advance notice if they intend to bring evidence about the sexual history of a complainant in sexual offence cases. The record of sexual violence against women and children in this country is woeful, and sexual assault victims are deterred from coming forward because of the low conviction rate in New Zealand; I think we all know this. Here we have a concrete measure that may start to give women the sense that they will have more chance of getting a conviction, they will have more chance of getting heard—because it takes so much courage to come forward to report a sexual assault, let alone take it right through the court system.

In 2015, 4,801 sexual assault crimes occurred in New Zealand. Only 1,007 of those crimes made it to court last year, with just 635 convictions, which meant that for 2015 there were convictions for about 13 percent of reported sexual assault crimes in New Zealand. That just simply is not good enough. In the year to date 18 percent fewer sexual assaults have led to court action so far this financial year, compared with the last financial year where 16.2 percent led to court action in the 2015-16 year to date, compared with 19.2 percent in 2014.

The change that has been made on this has been tweaked in the select committee. It has become much more specific. But what it does do is provide a process for giving notice when a party proposes to offer evidence or question a witness about the sexual experience of the complainant. This means that in terms of the courage that it takes for women to report sexual abuse crimes and to actually get up in court and speak about them, this may make things easier for them.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to stand and speak to the Evidence Amendment Bill in its second reading today. This bill is in the name of the Hon Amy Adams and, as we have heard today, the Hon Amy Adams is credited with doing great work in this space at this time. It is another example of legislation being tidied up and made relevant for the 21st century, and this is absolutely necessary for the clear and appropriate application of the legal system that we have in this country today.

The changes involve a number of minor and technical amendments—many of which have been debated in detail today. They are as a result of the Law Commission’s review of the Evidence Act 2006. That review took place, as we have heard, in 2013. Included in the amendments to this bill are those relating to the video record of evidence, and how that evidence can be released and to whom. It puts victims at the heart of the justice system in these amendments, and it does ensure that our more vulnerable and more sensitive cases are actually dealt with and considered in respect of their sensitivity and the impact on those witnesses, and that of course helps to reduce their anxiety and stress in an otherwise stressful situation.

Clause 32 of the bill, which adds a replacement section 107 to the Act, provides directions about the way child complainants are to give evidence. This is simply putting the victims at the heart of this justice system. It gives child witnesses the right to a support person when they are giving evidence and provides for alternate ways to provide evidence.

Clause 33 of the bill, which amends section 119 of the Act, introduces three new offences for the improper handling of video records of evidence, and is further expanded by inserting new sections 119A and 199B, in clause 33A, which deal with how parties may access video records of evidence outside those criminal or Family Court cases.

This bill is another step in the Government’s commitment to updating the justice system, making it more efficient and more focused on victims. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my actual pleasure to speak on the Evidence Amendment Bill in this, the second reading. Labour does support this bill. I am now a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, however I was not for the hearing of evidence related to this piece of legislation.

I guess, historically, it is good to note that the Law Commission had been monitoring this Evidence Act since it came into force in 2006. In 2007 the Law Commission was asked to review the law relating to the disclosure to criminal courts of evidence of defendants’ previous convictions. That was, actually, inspired by the acquittal of two former police officers on trial for sexual offending. So for the House and people listening, I note that that was actually part of the motivation for the review that the Law Commission then did. It is interesting to note also that the judiciary had its own Evidence Act committee that was monitoring its implementation. In April 2012 the Law Commission invited comment and feedback on the operation of the Act from the public, and at that time a group was established, an advisory group, that had as members Ministry of Justice, Crown Law, the Public Defence Service, the New Zealand Law Society, and some academics.

The purpose of this piece of legislation is as follows: admitting previous consistent statements, privilege for plea discussions, minor and technical amendments, and restrictions on video record evidence. I really want to focus my contribution this afternoon on three particular areas: the notice requirements for evidence of sexual history; the presumption that child witnesses give evidence in alternative ways—part of that incorporates that victims should never be the ones on trial; and also the ability now for a support person, or more than one support person, to support child witnesses when they give evidence.

To the bill itself—if we focus on clause 16, which will insert new section 44A to provide for a process for giving notice where a party proposes to offer evidence or question a witness about the sexual experience of the complainant with the person other than the defendant. The interesting thing to note is that the intention of the bill is to encourage admissibility decisions before trial. There was a submission from the judges of the district courts that actually has led to a stipulation about specified time frames, which was a highlight in their submission, so now there is a time frame. New section 44A(5), inserted by clause 16, provides that application must be made when a case management memorandum or a trial callover memorandum is filed under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 subject to the judge’s discretion. I want to highlight that the select committee did do a great job, and it responded directly to the submission of the judges of the district courts.

The other clause in the bill that I would like to highlight is clause 25, which will amend section 79 of the principal Act, providing a support person to a child witness. Now there is a presumption that child witnesses will have somebody who will support them through that process. There is also scope for more than one person to support children giving evidence. There was also a subsection replaced—that was a suggestion of the Law Commission, and I want to highlight that—section 79(3), which reads: “the Judge may, in the interests of justice, direct that support may not be given to a complainant or a child witness or other witnesses by (a) any person; or (b) a particular person.” The Law Commission highlighted that there should still be scope in the process to ensure that there are not adverse influences on any witnesses. So I want to commend the select committee for responding to that particular submission.

In terms of my substantive contribution, I really want to focus on clause 32, which replaces section 107 of the principal Act. This is about alternative ways of giving evidence by child witnesses in criminal proceedings. What I was actually horrified to read was that there are 750 child witnesses every year and that most of the complainants have faced sexual abuse. The intention of this piece of the legislation is that children do not have to be in courts with their abusers.

It was interesting to find out that a piece of research was undertaken in 2010, and it was titled “Child witnesses in the New Zealand criminal courts: a review of practice and implications for policy”. That was conducted by the Institute of Public Policy at Auckland University of Technology, and it was by Hanna, Davies, Henderson, Crothers, and Rotherham. It was funded by the Law Foundation of New Zealand with support from the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Justice, and the New Zealand Police. What the research, essentially, emphasised was that what sits behind our justice system and our court system is that everyone has the right to a fair trial, and that the most accurate and complete testimony from witnesses is paramount. Also there is a question of justice within our court system. What it noted was that, from the 1960s, New Zealand’s treatment of child witnesses had been questioned. So that was the motivation behind this piece of research.

But what I found really interesting is that in terms of the ability now for video evidence, what the research found was that during the 1990s child witnesses were waiting up to 260 days before they were able to present evidence in court. At the time of writing this report—and I guess it would have been in 2009-10—children were waiting up to 477 days. So the ability for some sort of contamination of the evidence—because they did a whole lot of other studies, showing that children’s memories do become compromised because of the delays. What this section 107 in the legislation allows is for the forensic interviews of those children to be played in court and that they are considered as evidence-in-chief. Actually, for me, that is one of the most significant changes in this piece of legislation, because what I found horrific, as I said, was that 750 children who had been sexually abused had to give evidence in court with their abuser there, and that is now going to be rectified.

I would also like to highlight just a couple of other things. In January 2016 the Law Commission acknowledged that sexual violence was significantly under-reported in New Zealand; many victims fear how they will be treated in court. So what we are talking about is incredibly relevant, and I want to tautoko my colleague Jan Logie’s earlier contribution. Actually, I will be looking at those Supplementary Order Papers. This is what the president of the Law Commission said: “A high percentage of victims of sexual violence are ‘opting out’ of the very system that is designed to deliver them justice.”; and: “They are doing so largely because they perceive the formal criminal justice system to be alienating, traumatising, and unresponsive to their legitimate concerns.” What I have found frightening is that in 2014-15 only 19.2 percent of assaults actually got to court, but in 2015-16 that had decreased to 16.2 percent. So we actually do have a problem about the victims of sexual assault coming forward and wanting to give testimony in court.

The other point that I want to highlight—and this is actually a bit of a wero to our Minister, because I think she is doing a fantastic job—is that in December 2015 there was a recommendation by the Law Commission that a specialised sexual violence court be created. I think a natural progression of this whole area, this kaupapa, is the establishment of that specialised sexual violence court. So I want her to know, I want the people of Aotearoa to know, that this issue is a priority and that we will all work on it constructively. Kia ora.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Human Rights Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Human Rights Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill will enhance New Zealand’s ability to comply with our domestic and international human rights obligation. The bill makes changes to the structure and functions of the Human Rights Commission. The purpose of these changes is to strengthen the performance of the commission, particularly by giving a greater flexibility to respond to emerging human rights issues, including disability rights. I would like to recap what specific changes the bill makes and the key issues that have arisen during its passage through the House.

First, the bill replaces the current composition of three full-time and up to five part-time commissioners with four to five commissioners who can be full-time or part-time. The Act currently requires the three named commissioners to be full-time, while all other commissioners must be part-time. This could exclude suitably qualified people from the positions of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner or Race Relations Commissioner because they are not able to work full-time. It could also limit the ability of other commissioners to take a more active role. Removing that distinction will help make the commission more effective, as it deals with a wide range of human rights issues.

The second change the bill makes is to remove specific provisions related to the Race Relations Commissioner and Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. The bill will still require that commissioners be appointed to lead the work of the commission in these areas and in disability rights. The bill adds disability rights to the list of mandatory portfolios in recognition of the commission’s role under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The commission is part of a group of organisations set up to monitor and report on the Government’s performance under the convention.

Initially, the bill removed the statutory titles of the commissioners. There was concern that removing the named positions would diminish the role of the commissioners. The Minister of Justice therefore proposed an amendment to clarify that a commissioner leading work in one of the three priority areas may use the appropriate title for that leadership role. These three areas are among those that receive the most discrimination complaints, and it is important that the commission retains a focus on these areas for the foreseeable future.

The third change the bill makes is to enable the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to designate commissioners to lead work in other human rights areas the commission considers to be a priority. This means the formal portfolios will not be restricted to the areas specified in the Act. In practice, all commissioners have responsibility for several areas. The bill allows these roles to be recognised formally but without the need to amend the Act. The new priority areas are designated in accordance with the strategic direction of the commission, which is set by all the commissioners acting collectively. Empowering the chief commissioner to create new roles while also retaining the existing roles in the Act gives the commission flexibility to respond to emerging human rights issues while also indicating those areas that Parliament considers to be of ongoing importance.

There was a concern that requiring the chief commissioner to consult with the Minister when designating an area of work as a priority and when allocating that area of responsibility to a commissioner would reduce the independence of the commission. That is not the case. Requiring the chief commissioner to consult with the Minister is not a new requirement, as this part of the bill essentially duplicates consultation provisions that are currently in the Act. The requirement to consult does not mean the Minister may direct the commission. It is a requirement to consult and nothing more, which accords with best practice.

Finally, I want to thank the commission for its support during the development of the bill. The changes in this bill will help the commission to remain effective and will position it to respond to the human rights needs of everyone in New Zealand, now and in the future. I commend this bill to the House.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): It is my privilege to be able to stand and address this bill and to also say that Labour will be supporting this bill. That support has come about through, actually, a pretty tortuous process, both through the select committee and through the Committee stages, where the many issues that we had particularly opposed were reversed by the Government. We are very pleased that that has happened and, as a result of that, we feel content with the changes and sufficiently content to back the bill. As I said, the bill has changed considerably since it was introduced. It started off really as a bill to look at the Human Rights Commission and to bring in the possibility of having a disabilities rights commissioner, which of course we supported, and I think there was a need there that needed to be fulfilled.

But what the Government did was use the legislation more as a sort of a Trojan Horse to bring about other changes that we did not agree with. As the Minister who has just sat down noted, there was likely to be the removal of individual designations, particularly that of the Race Relations Commissioner—a position currently held by Susan Devoy, and I believe she is doing a good job, and a necessary job, in our society; I come from Auckland, which is the third most diverse city in the world, and certainly we need a Race Relations Commissioner—and, secondly, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, a position that is currently held by Jackie Blue, a former National Party MP, who is also, I have to say, doing a good job. She is actually holding the Government to account on many of the issues that have come up in front of the commission, so she is certainly showing no favour in terms of her previous employment. So we felt those two commissioners were necessary, and that was one of the reasons why we, in the first and second readings, vehemently argued that those particular designations needed to be reinstated.

I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague Jacinda Ardern and the way that she has pushed this bill through, because she wrote to the Minister, setting out very clearly that we opposed the bill for that reason, but also for some of the other issues that had come up as well. The second issue she spoke to was the number of commissioners, which was proposed to be limited by the amendments in this piece of legislation, and we did not feel that limiting the number of commissioners was a very positive move. Thirdly, the other issue was that the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, when seeking to get the work programme put in place, had to consult—and it sounded very much to us like “had to get the acceptance of”—the Minister.

Those are the three issues that we disagreed on. Jacinda Ardern argued those vehemently—as did my other colleagues, as well. She also wrote to the Minister of Justice and wanted to get some confirmation that those three issues were not going to be problems. As a result of that, Supplementary Order Paper 175 was brought before the House at the Committee stage, which reversed—fairly much, it reversed—the first two problems that we had with the legislation. It was further clarified in the letter that the Minister sent to Jacinda Ardern after Jacinda Ardern had written to the Minister, and as a result of that we are now in a position to be able to support the bill.

Effectively, what this actually means is that the Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner will stay in place and that the number of commissioners will not be curtailed and will not be limited, as the Associate Minister of Justice, Simon Bridges, who just spoke, gave us assurance, and I am sure this will be an assurance that will be read. His Hansard will be read in the future when the Chief Human Rights Commissioner is looking at this particular legislation in terms of guidance for their own work. The chief commissioner will be able to see that the chief commissioner does not need to sit down with the Minister and seek approval for a particular work plan that they are embarking on.

So the three issues that we were opposed to have all been met by the Government, and I want to thank the Government for coming to the party and doing that. We are now—with some minor tweaks—effectively, back where we were before with the acceptance of a Disability Rights Commissioner, which we think is a very positive move. As a result of that, this legislation is a reasonable piece of legislation. We have spent a lot of time on it and a lot of effort on it, perhaps going in a bit of a circle, but nevertheless it certainly is more acceptable, I think, and not only to us. I think it is a better piece of legislation for New Zealand and for defending the rights of New Zealanders, which this office is, importantly, given the job of defending.

I cannot count the number of times that the Race Relations Commissioner or the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner have spoken out in terms of what has been going on in our society. It is welcome. It is a check on some of the more egregious issues that have come up. It is a means of letting off steam. It is a means of changing people’s opinions. It plays a very, very positive and important part in the life of New Zealand. For that reason I am very pleased that Labour is now able to support this bill and is able to see that the commission will continue to do a very good job in terms of defending the human rights of New Zealanders, no matter who they are.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am very pleased to be speaking on the Human Rights Amendment Bill’s third reading. It has been a while since we considered this bill, which has given us the opportunity to do our homework, have another look at it, and just reconfirm to ourselves that it is a pretty good piece of legislation—reflected by the way it enjoys support, I hope, across the House, because the measures in the bill are pretty helpful in terms of the Human Rights Commission.

What this bill does is make changes to the composition of the Human Rights Commission. It makes changes to the governance arrangements; it also makes changes to the functions and powers of the commission. There are a number of emerging human rights issues, and the changes that are contained within this bill will enable the commission to respond better to those emerging human rights issues and to do so in line with this Government’s Better Public Services targets. It is about providing good services where they are required.

The bill gives the designation of Disability Rights Commissioner. It gives the designations of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and Race Relations Commissioner to the commissioners appointed to lead the work of the Human Rights Commission in those priority areas, which are listed under clause 6, which amends section 8. The bill will give greater flexibility to the office, so that the office of the Human Rights Commission can set its own priorities and be more flexible and responsible to what is required and the issues that it comes across with this new group of commissioners. Strengthening the commission will also enable and enhance New Zealand’s ability to comply with its human rights obligations, as well as, of course, benefiting implementation of domestic human rights legislation.

So in the third reading and in this short call I commend the bill to the House.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I am pleased to take a call on this bill. I was just referring back to the first reading of this bill on 29 November 2012, when I spoke, which is quite some time ago. Clearly, there have been a few hiccups—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: No, just a careful gestation.

CLARE CURRAN: —a long gestation period—around getting this bill through the select committee process and actually getting it back to the House. As we heard from my colleague David Shearer, who went through some of the changes that were made—not just at the select committee stage but, at the last minute, at the Committee stage—that have resulted in Labour now offering its support for this bill, this has been, as I think he described it, a tortuous process. It is tortuous in terms of the arguments, but also in terms of the length of time that it has taken to get to this point.

I would like to make an overarching point around this with regard to the context of Prime Minister John Key’s meeting this very week with Frank Bainimarama in Fiji, when the events of the last 10 years and the suspension of democracy are again high in our collective mind. As we speak on this bill this afternoon, it is valid to be asking what the core elements of a civilised society are and what those essential parts are.

During the passage of this bill through the Justice and Electoral Committee and back to the House, our concern has been the disestablishment of two particular commissioner roles—the equal employment opportunity role and the race relations role—as full-time appointments, which is what the bill did in its original form, and then making the requirement for there to be consultation with a Minister to whom the commission reports before determining what its “priority work areas” are. When all added together, these did provide the impression, and our deep concern, around the watering down of the role of the commission with regard to equal employment opportunities and race relations, and also the sniff of political interference in the role of the commission. Any suggestion of political interference with the Human Rights Commission is something to be fiercely opposed, which is where you have seen opposition from the Labour Party on this bill.

However, there has been much debate. There have been arguments put to and accepted by the Government, which has enabled the Labour Party to change its position while still having some reservations, particularly around the requirement to consult with a Minister and what the actual implications of that are in law. I have heard what the Minister said this afternoon in the third reading, and I read what the Minister said in the second reading about the intent of the bill, but, still, what the actual law says still carries a lot of weight.

However, this bill has changed considerably since it was first introduced. The first change that we objected to was the removal of those specific commissioner roles. We strongly opposed that change because removing those positions would have sent a strong signal by the Government that it was not committed to improving race relations or gender equality—essentially downgrading those important issues. In the context of this week, when pay equity has again come back on to the agenda and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner herself has issued a statement around the importance of the work being done by the working party on this, this is certainly not an issue that is out of date in any shape or form. It is very current and contemporary, as is the work of the Race Relations Commissioner. Mr Shearer himself referred to Auckland being the third most diverse city in the world—I think that is what he said. It is of utmost importance that we do put those issues at the very top of the agenda, so we are very glad that the Government has backed down on this.

We also understand that Peter Dunne may have made his support conditional on these changes, and if that is the case, we thank him for that. We have seen the generalisation of these public roles, where key organisations and people are taken away from focusing on a single role and must work on other areas. Such an example is when the Alcohol Advisory Council was merged into the Health Promotion Authority. We have grave concerns about any watering down of those roles. I should also put on the record the support for the creation of a Disability Rights Commissioner and the importance of that work, and we commend the Government for its promotion of that.

The second objection that we raised was around the number of commissioners. As my colleague David Shearer mentioned, Jacinda Ardern, our lead spokesperson on this matter in the select committee, wrote to the Minister seeking an assurance that the number of commissioners was not going to be reduced. That assurance did appear to come back from the Minister when she said: “Over the last 10 years the commission has operated with around 4.5 fulltime-equivalent commissioners. The intent of the changes in the bill is to remove the current prescription about which commissioners can be full-time or part-time, and in delegating extra portfolios to best meet the needs of the commission. The mix of commissioners will be a matter for the chief commissioner to determine. However, we do not anticipate there being any significant changes to the number of commissioners as a result of this legislation.” On the face of it, again, that is heartening. It has allowed the Labour Party to support this bill, and we will certainly be holding the Minister to her assurances. However, our concerns remain about the required consultation with a Minister.

I will finally refer to clause 6, which inserts new section 8. It states: “A Commissioner must lead the work of the Commission in any other priority area that is designated by the Chief Commissioner, and the Chief Commissioner may designate an area of work as a priority area only in accordance with the strategic direction and the general nature of activities determined by the Commission under section 7(1)”—and this is the important phrase—“and after consultation with the Minister …”. That is in the legislation. It is all very well for the Minister to get up today and talk about intent, but that is in the legislation—“and after consultation with the Minister”. It is vitally important that the Human Rights Commission remains absolutely independent. It is a core tenet of our democracy that it must be able to give free and frank advice and it must be absolutely independent of the Government’s involvement. We support this bill, but I am putting on the record today that we still have concerns about this clause in the bill.

JONO NAYLOR (National): It is a pleasure that this is the second bill in a row where we have had wide support from right across the House, which, you know, makes for a nice Thursday afternoon, really. It is quite pleasant, in fact.

Of course, this is another area where we do need to be, I think, operating across parties as well. We have a great human rights record internationally and in New Zealand, but that does not mean we should rest on our laurels. Basic human rights are really important issues for us to be able to ensure that we maintain our international record, but that we also actually still continue to improve on our human rights in New Zealand as well.

The primary purpose of this bill is to give greater flexibility to the Human Rights Commission. I think we would all agree that it is important that when we have any public body there is an ability to be flexible, to best meet the needs of the people whom they are trying to serve. I think that is what this was all about.

The original legislation did not necessarily disestablish the roles of the Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, but the job titles, as such. I think, on reflection, as we have gone through this process—the Minister of Justice brought in Supplementary Order Paper 175 at the Committee stage, which said that if it is going to give people confidence that those people are still going to be focused on these things if we retain the titles for the people who are focused on that part of the work, then so be it. I think that has been a healthy process and a good one.

I just want to focus on the establishment of the Disability Rights Commissioner. I think this is a really strong signal for us to send to the disability community. Palmerston North, where I come from, has the highest proportion of population with disabilities, and it is going to be really important, I think, for those people to know that as a Government we take their issues seriously. When they have got issues they want resolved they will know there is going to be somebody who is committed to that—who is committed, as part of the Human Rights Commission, to devoting a huge amount of their time and energy to that particular sector.

As I have said earlier, I think this is a positive move forward. I think it is high time that we did get it sorted. I know Clare Curran just said it was 2012 when she gave her first reading speech and the bill itself was introduced in 2011. It is not quite Mainland cheese, I know, but good things do take time. I think it is great that we have now got to a place where we can all agree on this going forward, and that we can now continue to move forward with improving the human rights of New Zealanders and ensuring that everybody’s rights are protected. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I am very happy to rise and take a short call on behalf of the Green Party to support the Human Rights Amendment Bill. As we all know, human rights are an important part of any functioning civil society. I speak fondly, actually, to this legislation, having had a career of 10-plus years at the Human Rights Commission, from, I think, 2003 to the end of 2013. I want to acknowledge my colleague Louisa Wall also, who was a contemporary of mine while I was at the Human Rights Commission. It does mean I got to see firsthand not just the importance of the work of the commission but, in particular, the importance of having distinguishable titles that could separate out the actual difference of the work between the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, the Disability Rights Commissioner, and the Race Relations Commissioner, for example.

I just call fondly on my time at the commission and remember the time this bill originally came up for this discussion, and I understand there were strong feelings from within the commission, from us as staff but also from the commission as a whole, as to the importance of ensuring those distinguished titles maintained their special focus and maintained their special weight. So although I have been an MP for only 6 or 7 months or so and I am new to this legislation, I can recall at the original time the bill came up how important it was for us who were working at the Human Rights Commission.

I do want to acknowledge my colleague Catherine Delahunty for her role in taking on board the concerns of the disability community, because at that time she was our spokesperson for disability issues. I will also welcome my colleague Mojo Mathers, our current spokesperson—to focus more on this issue—but I do just want to acknowledge Catherine Delahunty for receiving from the sector the concern and the desire to have a specific disability focus and for working through that. She put a member’s bill into the ballot that was to establish the Disability Rights Commissioner, and in working with—and here I acknowledge the Māori Party—the Māori Party on this bill, she was able to get changes so that the Green Party can confidently support this bill now. So I do acknowledge Catherine Delahunty, the disability community, the Māori Party, and all of us for supporting this bill.

There was one other particular issue I thought I would also pick up. Please, I actually cannot see it in the bill myself and I am happy to be corrected on this—after all, this is just debate. One part—I could not say for sure—in the Human Rights Commission’s submission on this bill, in its conclusion, asked that there would be consideration given to adding the promotion of indigenous rights to the primary functions of the commission. I have not been able to find in the legislation whether that has actually happened, but I would have strongly supported that, and I did want to put that on the Hansard record. My background in the Human Rights Commission also focused on indigenous rights, and being able to give our country some weight and some focus on indigenous rights I think would have been a fantastic amendment to this bill, if that has not already been done—and I am happy to be corrected.

The Human Rights Commission did, in particular, raise the fact that we did sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and for that I do acknowledge the Government of the time. We did sign that, it was adopted in 2007, and, unlike many of the other treaty and human rights obligations, there is no particular place where that monitoring fits and is given some formal weight. I did just want to go through the international groups—in conversation—that supported the Human Rights Commission in bringing that into focus, and requiring and suggesting that that also be an amendment in this bill.

The international meeting of experts in Bangkok in December 2009 included the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, representatives of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. They addressed the role of national human rights institutions in promoting the implementation of the UN declaration. If we signed the declaration, why did we sign it? None of our treaty obligations were ever supposed to just be purely a document that sits there. We are supposed to proactively monitor, protect, and uphold those obligations in each of the treaties that we sign. So that international meeting of experts in Bangkok did conclude that national human rights institutions do have a critical role to play in protecting and promoting the rights of indigenous peoples at the national and local level.

Just, finally, the reason for that—the importance of that—is that, when we uphold the rights of particular minority groups, marginalised groups, or groups that we acknowledge have less power in the power relationships, we actually create a more sustainable society for all of us. If we do not uphold these rights, we all end up paying anyway and doing a fix-up job some way down the track. The issue the Human Rights Commission raised in its submission would have, I think, made a great amendment. If it has been made, then I stand here to support it and talk about why, and if it has not been made, then I stand here to put on to the record that that would have been fantastic legislation.

We are supporting this bill in this third reading, in light of the good changes that were included, and the good work that happened across the parties. Thank you again for this opportunity. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will continue to support this bill, and we have supported it from the beginning because we think that support has been well justified. I am glad to see all of the other Opposition parties have now seen their way clear to support it as well, because we think this is a good piece of legislation. The major change concerns the roles of the commissioners. There must be a commissioner to lead each of the priority areas, but now they will not lose their designation in their specialised areas, as some had feared. So I suppose that is a good thing. I do not think that is such a huge deal myself, but it is a good thing, and that change has been made.

The permanent priority areas are disability rights, equal employment opportunities, and race relations. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner will now be able to designate a commissioner to lead work in other priority areas of human rights, and we in New Zealand First are particularly pleased about that and it is why we have supported the bill from the beginning. The expansion of the work of the Human Rights Commission into other areas of human rights is exactly fundamental to New Zealand First policy, and exactly what this bill does. We are very pleased by it and, as I have said, we have always supported it for that reason. I note also that in choosing those new priority areas, the chief commissioner must consult, of course, with the other commissioners, which is natural, but also with the Minister. I know that some have been concerned about that, but consultation, actually, is not direction, and it is appropriate in these circumstances for the Minister to have input. I have never been worried that in this context the Minister would ever have been able to direct the commission. So I think the concerns about that have been largely misplaced.

The most important change in the bill, as I have said, is the ability to designate lead areas and other areas of human rights. One of the reasons why New Zealand Frist is so pleased about that is we are very concerned about some of those other areas. One of them is elderly persons’ rights, for example. Ageism is rife in New Zealand, nothing is being done about it, and it needs attention. In addition to that, there is the whole area of elder abuse. Elder abuse is an equally extremely important problem in New Zealand and I do not think it is being properly addressed, and perhaps the Human Rights Commission can do something about that. We very much hope that one of the new priority areas that will be designated in the future will be that whole area relating to the rights of elderly people in New Zealand.

These new priority areas must be chosen, to quote from new section 8(1B), inserted by clause 6, “in accordance with the strategic direction and the general nature of activities determined by the Commission under section 7(1)”. That allows the commissioner, indeed, to designate new priority areas, but the important thing is that it has to be done in accordance with a strategy to be established and determined jointly by all of the commissioners acting together. New Zealand First is, again, particularly pleased by that approach, because although it allows the specialisation that is required, it also allows the commissioners to act together to choose new priority areas. As I have already said, that is what New Zealand First has always wanted to happen particularly.

Finally, another important change that we particularly approve of is the need for the appointment of suitable people in each of those new priority areas. Under new section 13 in clause 9, I see the Minister must have regard to, firstly, the candidate’s understanding of the principles and practice relating to the relevant priority area; secondly, their appreciation of the issues in the area internationally; and, thirdly, their ability to carry out the functions specified in new section 16 in clause 12. Those have been amended too. They relate to ensuring that the person has skills in leadership ability and the ability to contribute to public debate in the particular area where that person has expertise.

We in New Zealand First feel that that is a very valuable addition to the legislation governing the Human Rights Commission. All too often in the past I think there has been an element of political appointment to some of those Human Rights Commission roles, and that is not appropriate. We are glad to see these criteria will now have to apply. That is very important.

We have always thought this is a good piece of legislation, for the reasons I have already stated. We still support it. We are very happy to continue to support it now.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Unfortunately, this is the first contribution I have been able to make on this useful piece of legislation. It seems to be a classic Thursday afternoon piece of legislation. It is something that has been kicking around the Order Paper for a while, and it is worth passing it into law.

The bill was first introduced in October 2011, so that is well into the term of the 50th Parliament, and it has been before the House for not quite 5 years, but approaching 5 years. In fact, it had its second reading, I think, even before the last election as well. It is not quite up there with the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill, which I know exercised Ms Dyson and Ms Curran for a very long time in the length of time it took to pass that bill, but it is certainly up there. It is good to see it passing into law. I think it is a useful bill.

In particular, I am very pleased about the permanent recognition of disability rights and having a Disability Rights Commissioner. I think that is something that is overdue, and I agree with the remarks of my colleague Marama Davidson before. It is fair to say that before I came to the Parliament, disability rights and dealing with people with disabilities was not something I had a huge amount of familiarity with. Certainly in my time as an MP so far, since the election in 2014, it is something I have really enjoyed learning more about. You are always learning in this job, and I have really enjoyed that.

I note this is one of those international treaties people get very worked up about from time to time—sorry, I should not say this is an international treaty. This bill is part of the Government’s giving effect to an international treaty, which, of course, is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which New Zealand ratified way back in September 2008. At various times, people in this House get very worked up about whether or not international treaties are a breach of New Zealand’s sovereignty and whether or not New Zealand’s committing on the international stage to give effect to a particular treaty is something that affects our sovereignty. Various members in this House have made allegations about treaties that New Zealand has signed up to. But I just note, for the record of the House, this bill does give effect to one of those conventions, one of those treaties, that we are subject to in order to follow international law.

As I mentioned, that is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That obliges New Zealand, through article 33, to “maintain, strengthen, designate or establish within the State Party, a framework, including … independent mechanisms, … to promote, protect and monitor implementation of the present Convention.”, of course, in terms of disabilities. The New Zealand Government’s response to that is to give the Human Rights Commission a broad role in promoting, protecting, and monitoring the implementation of the convention. Of course, giving statutory power to a particular commissioner with responsibility for disability rights is part of that, and I think that is a good step forward.

I think, to be fair, the rest of the bill makes useful changes. It is not a wholesale reform of the Human Rights Commission, but I think the changes around the flexibility to do with commissioners and part-time commissioners are all sensible things. Actually, there has been a bit of debate between the select committee stage and the second reading and the Committee of the whole House as to the various structures of the commission, but I think we have landed, as a House, in the right space, where I think all parties are supporting the bill, as they did the Evidence Amendment Bill before this. It is important, I think, in the area of human rights to have widespread unanimity when it comes to these things.

The Human Rights Commission has a long history. It was first established in 1977. A lot of people think it came into existence only in 1993, but, actually, it goes all the way back to 1977. It is part of that broad sweep—that proliferation, really—of human rights, civil and political rights, and also economic, social, and cultural rights in that post-war era. Of course, it was really given teeth by the Human Rights Act 1993 and, potentially, you could argue, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 as well. I think this is probably an incremental step forward on the Human Rights Commission’s journey, and it is a useful one. I commend the bill to the House.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): I rise to take a call on the Human Rights Amendment Bill. The Green Party is now supporting the bill. We are supporting it because one of our major concerns has finally been addressed. We note the role that the Māori Party played in improving this bill, and we thank those members for that.

First, I will go into some background as to how this bill came about, which my colleague Marama Davidson alluded to earlier. Six years ago the Government agreed to establish the position of a Disability Rights Commissioner when my colleague Catherine Delahunty had her member’s bill pulled from the ballot. Catherine’s bill provided for the creation of a designated disability commissioner to sit alongside the current specialist designations of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and the Race Relations Commissioner. She was motivated to develop that bill because the position of a disability commissioner was long overdue.

For far too long—far too long—the needs and rights of disabled people have languished way behind those of others. Disabled people face systemic and structural discrimination that affects every area of our lives. We should be able to do simple things like access buildings and cafes and shops. We should be able to access the news. We should be able to get jobs that match our skills. We should be able to find a place to live that has an accessible toilet. Above all, we should be able to be safe. We should have the right to fundamental things such as freedom from abuse and torture. These are the kinds of things that disabled people have a right to but are so often denied. It should not be so hard for us to get jobs or own our homes. It should not be so hard to find an accessible place to rent, but it is.

Every day we see stories in the media of exclusion and discrimination. Right now we have the plight of Ashley Peacock, an autistic man who has been kept in seclusion for years, as just one example. Behind Ashley there are many more disabled people denied justice. Yesterday the Human Rights Commission announced a review into the use of seclusion and restraint in New Zealand. We will be closely watching the outcome of that review and the Government’s response. Ashley’s plight highlights just one of the many, many reasons why we need to entrench a designated disability human rights commissioner.

I want to expand now on why we voted against the bill at the first reading. We voted against it because at that time it did not create a designated disability commissioner to stand alongside the existing specialist designations in the way that Catherine’s bill did. Actually, the original bill removed these specialist designations of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and the Race Relations Commissioner from the Act, and instead added them to the list of functions of the commission. We could not support that move, because titles matter—having specific statutory designations for commissioners matters. We heard from many groups at the Justice and Electoral Committee about why it matters for the groups that were represented. The specific designation creates both visibility and clarity for these positions. They affirm the importance of addressing the discrimination that these communities face. That is why we, the Green Party, are pleased that the specific designations have now been reinstated.

But, regardless, the bill could have been so much better. In particular, we are disappointed that the bill fails to mention the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities specifically and up front. The function and role of the Disability Rights Commissioner should explicitly reference the convention. There should also be even more specific requirements for the Disability Rights Commissioner, such as making it explicit that the Disability Rights Commissioner is to actively engage with different disability communities and has a mandate to act as an advocate on their behalf. In our view, the bill does only the minimum that is needed—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret that I have to interrupt the member, but her time has expired.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure to speak on this third reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill. I am really pleased that Labour is now in a position to support this piece of legislation. I want to just highlight the primary purpose of this Human Rights Amendment Bill, which is to establish the role of a Disability Rights Commissioner and to ensure that we uphold our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

I would like to acknowledge that the then Minister for Disability Issues, the Hon Ruth Dyson, signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on behalf of the New Zealand Government—that was in 2006. As a result of us signing that convention, the Hon Tariana Turia then appointed a disability commissioner under the Human Rights Act, and, in fact, it was then Catherine Delahunty who proposed a member’s bill to ensure that that role was a formal role within the Human Rights Commission. That is why this piece of legislation is before us today. What is interesting to note is that during the passage of the review we somehow then lost our Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. As part of the process of review through this House it is heartening to see that the response to the overwhelming call to retain those two particular positions means that we are now in a position to support this piece of legislation.

I too want to acknowledge my colleague Jacinda Ardern, who is our lead in the justice area. I want to highlight that she wrote to Minister Amy Adams on 2 June, and this is what she asked: she wanted some assurance that the changes proposed would not lead to a reduction in the number of commissioners currently operating or the loss of their current portfolios. The two areas that she highlighted, in addition to race relations, equal employment opportunities, and disability, were indigenous and LGBTI commissioners. Currently, the commission has designated LGBTI and indigenous commissioners.

So I want to quote from Amy Adams’ response, dated 9 June: “Over the last 10 years the commission has operated with around 4.5 fulltime-equivalent commissioners. The intent of the changes in the bill is to remove the current prescription about which commissioners can be full-time or part-time, and in delegating extra portfolios to best meet the needs of the commission. The mix of commissioners will be a matter for the chief commissioner to determine. However,”—and this is the point I want to highlight—“we do not anticipate there being any significant changes to the number of commissioners as a result of this legislation.” It was on that advice from the Minister that Labour is supporting this piece of legislation. So it is very important that I have read the Minister’s response to a letter from my colleague Jacinda Ardern because that, in fact, is how this piece of legislation now needs to be interpreted by the Chief Human Rights Commissioner in delegating those particular indigenous and LGBT rights commissioners.

So the history of this piece of legislation is aligned to us as a country signing up to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Actually, if you look at all of the named commissioners, they all relate to different conventions that over time New Zealand has signed up to. The chief commissioner’s role, for example, really is about New Zealand signing up to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966. The Race Relations Commissioner is directly aligned to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1965. What I really want to highlight is that, of the commissioners, the LGBTIQ commissioner probably is the one who does not have a convention, but the UN has actually produced two reports and the last was out in June 2005. There is a commitment by the United Nations to continue to highlight those people across the world who are most marginalised, who are most discriminated against, and, really, that is what our commitment to the United Nations conventions and human rights is all about. We cannot stand by and watch particular members of our family—our human family—and our communities being discriminated against. So it is a pleasure for me to be speaking in support of this legislation. Kia ora.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to also stand today in support of the Human Rights Amendment Bill, in the name of the Hon Amy Adams, in its third reading. It is her second piece of legislation before us today, which reflects the great work that she is doing in this space.

This bill was considered and deliberated on in some detail by the Justice and Electoral Committee, but, unfortunately, that was prior to my joining that committee, so I do not have the depth of information that some of my colleagues have on this issue. What I do know is that this bill seeks to clarify the description of the Human Rights Commission’s functions. It also sets out to provide flexibility to the specialised commissioners by replacing the three full-time and the up to four or five part-time commissioners with four or five commissioners who are all part-time. It does allow for the establishment of a full-time commissioner with the responsibility for leadership and disability rights within the Human Rights Commission, and I believe this is a fantastic addition to this bill. This reinforces the Government’s commitment to promoting and monitoring mechanisms that will really make a difference to the lives of disabled people here in New Zealand.

The commission’s functions are being amended in several ways. One of those is amending the commission’s functions to promote and monitor New Zealand’s compliance with its international human rights obligations, and we have heard quite a bit about that in this debate today. The functions will also include providing important feedback on legislation and policies that affect human rights matters as they emerge. Another function of the Human Rights Commission that is introduced in this bill will be to express an opinion on matters or situations in which human rights may be infringed. For me, I think the most important change is the explicit reference in this bill to race relations, equal employment, and disability rights. These will be the primary functions of the Human Rights Commission. This reflects that these areas of human rights are priority issues for the commission, and rightly so.

The changes will enable the Human Rights Commission to better respond to human rights issues as they emerge, and this is completely in line with the Government’s focus on delivering better public services. I have pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): It is a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill and to reaffirm that although Labour earlier opposed the bill, it is now in a position to support it. I want to quickly touch on the matters that have changed that have allowed us to take that position, and reaffirm the principles that lie behind Labour’s approach to the Human Rights Commission. In fact, let me start with that.

The commission is a very important independent watchdog for human rights across a range of fronts, including equal opportunities for women, a stand against racism, and the protection of civil rights across our society. It is one of a number of independent watchdog agencies or institutions that are core parts of our democracy. Labour initially opposed this bill because we were concerned that along with other, what you might call, shavings away of those independent watchdog agencies, be it the underfunding of the Ombudsman or other issues, the Human Rights Commission was gradually and repeatedly being weakened by resourcing and by the loss of the previous titles, which were guaranteed for certain, of the commissioners. And let us be frank, even with the restoration of those titles—which is the principle change here; we are now in a position to support this bill—we will continue to be vigilant that human rights are being upheld and that the commission, as one of a network of independent statutory agencies, continues to be able to play its vital role as one of the cornerstones of our democracy.

We are in the third term of a Government that some would say is getting increasingly arrogant and out of touch. We are also—[Interruption] Well, the first sign of arrogance is laughing when people offer criticisms.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Well, I was actually just coughing, but—

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Only a cough. The Minister of Health is coughing. That is a bad sign.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you. It is a shame that the Minister of Health is coughing, but I hope he gets over it. He needs clinical advice, but that has been clear for years.

The Human Rights Amendment Bill—getting back to the substance—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes, I am going to ask the member to resume his seat and ask both members now to lift the tone a bit.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am certainly happy to be guided by someone attired with such eminence.

The change to the specific commissioner roles that we refer to was contained in section 8(1A), under clause 6, which removed the specific commissioner roles. The original Act had ensured that each of the commissioner roles were specific appointments, and that was important because we felt it was necessary for the commissioners to be able to stand on a particular statutory office when speaking on things as set out in section 8(1A): “(a) disability rights: (b) equal employment opportunities: [and] (c) race relations.” But just prior to the Committee stage the Minister reversed her position and introduced Supplementary Order Paper 175, which would, essentially, ensure the status quo and re-add the statutory titles of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and Race Relations Commissioner. That ensures that those offices will continue with the full statutory weight, and that is important if we look back at the history of those offices.

We are glad that the Government has backed down. We think it is the right thing to do. We are not sure why it had the contrary idea in the first place. We can only surmise that it is part of a trend to underplay or underfund independent watchdog agencies that have the role of leaning against the executive, and we have continuously warned the public of New Zealand that if that process, that trend, continues, then our democratic institutions could be under threat.

The number of commissioners was the second objection we raised, and the amendment bill allows that to be reversed. The existing section 8(1)(a) to (d) of the 1993 Act had three full-time commissioners appointed as the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, the Race Relations Commissioner, and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. It also allowed an additional five part-time commissioners to be appointed. At the Committee stage we reaffirmed our strong concern that the amendment bill had the potential to reduce that number and we continued to vote against the bill at the Committee stage on this issue. After the Committee stage we sought assurances from the Minister that the amendment bill would not result in a reduction of the existing commissioners and the Minister has replied in writing giving that assurance. So we are pleased that those concerns have been mitigated.

Consultation was our third key concern. Clause 6 inserts new section 8(1B), which states: “A Commissioner must lead the work of the Commission in any other priority area that is designated by the Chief Commissioner, and the Chief Commissioner may designate an area of work as a priority area only in accordance with the strategic direction and the general nature of activities determined by the Commission under section 7(1) and after consultation with the Minister and the other Commissioners.” It is not appropriate—never has been—for an independent statutory agency to have its work plan and strategy directed only after consultation with a Minister. The whole point is that it is there, if necessary, to lean against the actions of the executive of the day, whoever that might be. We therefore were very concerned about the consultation requirement. We will continue to be vigilant on that issue.

May I summarise by saying that Labour attaches enormous importance to the work of this commission. We do so because of the valuable substance of the role—the importance of equal opportunities for women, equal opportunities for people of disability, and equal opportunities across the races, so that New Zealand is a place where people of whatever background, creed, or colour can all participate fully and make our country great, and in so doing can maximise their potential and continue to build on a country that has a reputation for an easygoing acceptance of all and a celebration of our diversity. That is part of what makes modern New Zealand New Zealand—and that is a good thing—and the roles of Race Relations Commissioner and Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner have been fundamental in underpinning that.

As we look forward we are aware that we live in a world that is evermore complex and apparently hostile. We see conflict in the Middle East. We see tensions in East Asia. We see growing gaps between wealth and poverty worldwide. We observe in Western democracies a growing rebellion—not too strong a word—against the prevailing orthodoxies of the last several decades. We know that the treasure of democracy is something that is hard-won, has been hard-won, and must be vigilantly maintained.

So although to some this bill may seem like a very small—one might say anodyne—bill, and as Mr Bishop said, it is the sort of bill you pass into law last thing on a Thursday afternoon, it is not a trivial bill. It goes to the independence of a commission and the strength of a commission that upholds and signifies some of the values that make our lovely country what it is—a place where everybody can be themselves or should be able to be themselves, a place where every Kiwi kid can grow up and aspire to do anything or be anything that they want and are capable of.

This is not a country where we think our children should grow up living in cars, as is too often the case. It is not a country where males and females should have different incomes or entitlements. It is not a country where people of different races and ethnicities have their earning potential or their career potential limited. It is not a place where we want to see qualified doctors driving taxis. It is not a place where we want to see some suburbs are designated the wrong side of the tracks and others—where we have winner schools and loser schools. It is not a place where we want the child of a driver or a drover only able to aspire to the same roles as their parents. It is the Human Rights Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, and the Race Relations Commissioner that we must protect, and we welcome the amendments in this bill that reduce the threats to that office.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): It is great to see the support for this bill from all sides. I also support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Health (Protection) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I move, That the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I would like to acknowledge the officials and the members of the Health Committee for their work on the bill. There were 71 submissions and the committee heard 22 oral submissions. I know it was a most constructive process. I would like to thank other parties in Parliament for their support of the legislation.

This bill amends the Health Act 1956. Back in October 2013 the Government decided to improve the range of measures in the Health Act in two specific areas: measures to protect the public from the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and the spread of some infections, and then, unrelated but, obviously, within the same bill, in the case of people under the age of 18, measures to protect them from the harms associated with UV tanning. This bill is going to protect people from those preventable harms, and it will do so through a range of measures proportional to the risks faced.

New Zealand has high rates of sexually transmitted diseases, and, of course, such diseases affect individuals, families, and communities. There are a variety of potential complications that stay with people for life, including chronic pain, infertility, neonatal morbidity, and genital-tract cancer. So these diseases are serious matters indeed. The bill adds new provisions for the surveillance and management of infectious diseases, and those measures will improve the availability of information on certain conditions, they will provide for more effective management of behaviours that put others at risk of infection, and they will strengthen the legislative provisions for contact tracing.

The bill establishes a clear legal basis for the principles applying to medical officers of health and the courts in the exercising of their disease-management powers. People exercising these powers will be required to take into account any known special circumstances or vulnerabilities of the individual concerned. These may be due to youth, disability, incapacity, or a range of other circumstances at the discretion of the officer. The bill requires that measures are proportionate to the public health risk that is being managed, so that you do not have a situation where a sledgehammer is being used to deal with an acorn. People get to manage or exercise discretion in the range of measures applied.

The principles also encourage individuals to take responsibility for their own health and the health of their communities. Currently, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), with the exception of AIDS, are not notifiable by medical practitioners in New Zealand. The bill makes HIV infection, gonorrhoea, and syphilis notifiable on a non-identified basis, along with AIDS. The notifying of information for STIs needs to be sufficient to enable different kinds of public health interventions while making sure they are complying with privacy safeguards. The bill requires notification of serious STIs while protecting the individual’s identity from being disclosed in the first instance. Reluctance to disclose information or to be diagnosed and treated could arise from fear of consequence as a result. However, this information can be vital to help identify others who may be at risk and to prevent further spread of infection and disease. The bill says that information requested and provided under Part 3A will not be used or disclosed for any purpose other than the management of infectious disease.

Contact tracing is a very valuable public health tool in preventing and managing infectious disease outbreaks, such as gonorrhoea, measles, and meningococcal disease, and it is a very important tool for public health officials. Subpart 5 of the bill extends contact tracing powers to contacts of people suspected of having an infectious disease, allowing speedy follow-up and diagnosis, and then, of course, treatment and containment where appropriate.

On looking at this bill’s impact on existing venereal disease legislation, the committee decided that it should be replaced by this bill. The current definition of venereal disease is not fit for modern conditions. For example, it does not include HIV infection, AIDS, or chlamydia. Other outdated legislation the bill will repeal includes section 79 of the Health Act. This authorises a medical officer of health to detain and isolate people likely to cause the spread of an infectious disease. Part 3A, effectively, replaces section 79 with graduated powers of increasing robustness when an individual refuses to comply with management aimed at preventing other people from becoming infected.

On to Part 2 of the bill, which prohibits the commercial provision of artificial ultraviolet-light tanning services to people under the age of 18. A complete ban on the provision of artificial UV tanning services would prevent access to artificial tanning services by adults who are well informed and choose to take on that risk. The Health Committee reported back that it is satisfied the bill will protect the vulnerable under-18 age group while allowing adults to make informed decisions. That is comparable to other legislation, such as the sale and supply of alcohol legislation, which recognises that 18 is an age at which people are capable of making their own choices.

Clauses 8 and 13 of the bill include several new provisions. These provide an infringement process to deal with breaches on the ban of providing artificial UV tanning services to people under the age of 18. This process will deal efficiently with offences and prevent expensive and time-consuming criminal prosecutions. Voluntary standards and guidance on operating sunbeds exist. However, surveys have found there is variable compliance with those steps designed to minimise harm, despite the considerable effort that has gone in to educating operators and to encourage compliance.

I have, therefore, asked health officials to look into whether licensing of premises and operators and the introduction of mandatory standards is indeed appropriate. Because of the danger that sunbeds potentially pose, it is important to have a licensing and training regime that ensures cowboy operators can no longer exist in this particular industry. I have asked officials to provide advice on a range of possible measures, including licensing all sunbed premises and operators, requiring that operators are trained to ensure the risks of sunbed use are minimised, and insisting on clear information being provided to clients before they jump on a sunbed.

This bill improves the protections we have for the health of New Zealanders. It is an important part of the legislative framework for managing and reducing health risks, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): “Mr Waiter”—I mean, Mr Assistant Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill and—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I might call the member soon.

Hon ANNETTE KING: “Mrs Waiter”? So this is a red-letter day in terms of health legislation. The Health (Protection) Amendment Bill, which the Labour Party supports, is one that has been waiting for its day to come—waiting for over 8 years, 8 long years—because the Public Health Bill regarding infectious diseases was first introduced by the Hon Pete Hodgson. It was so urgent that we have waited 8 years for it to pass, but, putting that to one side, we are pleased that we have reached the third reading of this bill.

This bill does a number of things that are very positive. It improves the range of measures available to protect the public from harms associated with some diseases, which include a range of infectious diseases that are notifiable to a medical officer of health. The key thing is that it is done without the identifying information of the patient or the diseased person. It will include HIV infection, gonorrhoeal infection, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and syphilis. There was a lot of concern from those who work in public health and staff who work in the health agencies that the management of this area over a sustained period was hindered by an Act that was not up to modern standards and up to scratch, and, in fact, that it was long overdue for us to make these amendments.

I have to say that the Health Committee worked very hard on this bill, as it does on most bills and petitions. It is a very hard-working committee and its members usually find ways to come to agreement on most things. So we did agree on Part 1 of this bill and the three measures that it introduced, which are contact tracing, the increase in the range of diseases that are notifiable, and the option for the management of individuals with significant infectious diseases. But we were not in agreement on Part 2 of this bill, although I do believe that members of the Government opposite would have liked to support my Supplementary Order Paper 80 at the Committee stage, which would have banned some sunbeds in New Zealand.

It would have banned them because of the danger of them. You know, I always like to think that we lead Australia in most things. We are very proud as a small nation that we can do things nimbly and that we can do things in a way that a big, bureaucratic government process in Australia makes it difficult to do. Australia has banned sunbeds because it has seen the health risks of them, and we should have done the same. But, unfortunately, our Minister of Health decided that he would ban them for those who are 18 and under. This Government is not going to ban them for an age group they consider old enough to make a decision. This is how the Minister has decided we will approach public health issues. So, if you want to choose to smoke, why are we wasting money on trying to help people to stop? I mean, I found the whole argument about saying that the overriding issue, and this is what the Ministry of Health said, was that it would prevent access to sunbed services by adults who are well informed and who choose to take the risk of UV tanning for cosmetic purposes—well, I think this was a very limp-wristed approach.

I would expect a former medical doctor to have picked up this issue and led on it in New Zealand and to have said that we are not going to continue to allow people in New Zealand to use commercial sunbeds that lead to melanoma. I do not say that lightly, because we do know that the use of sunbeds increases the risk of melanoma by 75 percent, as shown in the analysis of over 20 epidemiological studies. They concluded that the risk of melanoma is increased by 75 percent when the use of tanning devices starts before the age of 30—not 18, but the age of 30. Would we not listen to that sort of evidence? Would Professor Gluckman, the Chief Science Advisor, not be saying to the Minister of Health: “The evidence is overwhelming that if you use this product, it increases the risk of getting melanoma by 75 percent.”? It increases the risk of a terrible cancer. And here we are, about to spend tens of millions of dollars on a melanoma drug—a drug that is for advanced melanoma, when it has reached the point where most people are unlikely to survive—but we are not prepared to take the opportunity to ban commercial sunbeds. We do not need them. You can get enough from the sun—the natural sunlight.

What we also know is that those who operate the sunbeds are not always the best of folk when it comes to ensuring that those who use them ought to be using them. We were told at the select committee that the Consumer New Zealand survey found that 40 percent of sunbed operators failed to implement basic safety checks. The public health units carried out a systematic assessment of 97 establishments and found that only 35 percent of operators complied with a joint standard. Half-hearted regulation does not work in this area. Now we are putting in a regime that is a regulatory regime that has to then be checked and followed up and monitored and inspected. The cleanest, easiest thing to do, in this case, would have been to ban them. If people want to use sunbeds in their own home, that is their choice, but there is no need for us to be providing commercial sunbeds.

My worry is particularly for young people under the age of 30 who decide they need to look good and they need to be brown. They spend hours in these sunbed operators so that they feel that they look better, while at the same time increasing their risk of melanoma. There is another thing that I found interesting: the Minister of Health has now decided that he is going to do further consultation on the restriction of sunbeds—at the same time as we are passing this legislation. Well, we waited 8 years to get to today—we could have waited a few more months for his further consultation on what further restrictions he might like on sunbeds. It just does not add up.

I think it must be half-hearted consultation, because otherwise a Minister on top of his portfolio would have said: “Hang on. Let’s not pass this bill now. I’m doing further consultation on restrictions, and maybe I’d like to include them in this bill, or maybe, on the advice I receive, I would like to ban sunbeds altogether.” Knowing those who are in public health within the Ministry of Health, I do not believe that they would support this move. I believe that they would have wanted us to take the public health approach, which would remove something that is unnecessary in New Zealand: for people to become more beautiful by having a browner body, when we have the sun available. I do not believe they would have supported a move that would see a 75 percent increase in the risk of melanoma for those under the age of 30 who use sunbeds in New Zealand.

The Australians were clever enough to see it—and we have the highest rate of melanoma in the world; we are ahead of Australia now—and they have taken a sensible measure. I am very, very disappointed in this particular measure, and I am sorry that the Government could not see fit to ban sunbeds altogether, which my Supplementary Order Paper would have done.

We will support the passage of this bill because it does put in place some restrictions for those who are 18 and under, but it does not go far enough. I look forward to the day when as Minister of Health I will move legislation that does ban sunbeds, so that the cost of paying for very high-cost melanoma drugs when people are at the end of their lives will be unnecessary, because we will do what we can to prevent it before people end up with such a nasty cancer.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I want to acknowledge the last speaker, Annette King. I think it is actually an implicit sign of how good the health system is that she expects to be alive, fit and healthy, and a Minister in at least 20 years’ time. I think that is fantastic. It is also clearly a night of celebration, as has been seen or visualised in the House, but I am very pleased that we are now at this third reading of the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill.

Can I thank the Minister of Health and his team for bringing the bill to the House. I thank the officials, who had quite assiduously helped us through this bill. I am going to touch on the two main themes within it. There is often a lot of talk around the sunbeds, but I will spend most of my time talking on the contact tracing side of it. I thank again the officials for their work and understanding. I thank the Health Committee members from all sides. Other members have said it at this stage of the reading, and in other stages: it is a very collegial committee. We work very hard together to try to bring, I think, the best results possible. We do not always see eye to eye, and the sunbed provisions in this bill are an example of that, but that does not prevent us working ahead.

The context of this bill is a reaction, if you will, to a lack around how we trace infectious diseases in this country. If I go back, I am pretty sure I would have mentioned in my first reading, many, many months ago, that the system before the introduction of this bill really just put a moral compunction on a New Zealander to report an infectious disease, and it did not really give any powers to medical practitioners to ensure that someone notifies their disease. In other words, if someone was found to have something like gonorrhoea, for example, a doctor could not force them to undertake—well, could not force the person to have that, effectively, registered or noted. And one of the things we have to acknowledge, quite importantly, is that even though we are individuals, we live in a society, and when it comes to things like infectious diseases, society as a whole—the community—needs to know.

So this bill puts in place what we would term “contact tracing”, and it, basically, puts in a series of steps to allow medical professionals to ensure that if someone has an infectious disease, it is notified and they are effectively managed, contained, and assisted as best they can be. So, again, the moral side is now replaced by a series of steps and structures to make sure not only that that person is well cared for and looked after but also that the community itself is protected.

It is bringing together a range of new—sorry, the conditions themselves are not new, but it is bringing a number of other notifiable diseases into this category; the likes of gonorrhoea, syphilis, and HIV are three that come to mind. They are words that you will not normally have me speaking about in public, but they come under the bill.

Another element is actually around tuberculosis, or TB, which, up until the introduction of this bill, has been dealt with as a separate piece of legislation. This Health Protection Amendment Bill, effectively, ends the Tuberculosis Act and brings tuberculosis in as a notifiable disease. Although I think that we are quite well on top of it, it is something that we have to look upon quite carefully—particularly for people coming from overseas.

Members on the committee in particular will remember that there was a lot of discussion about hepatitis C, and, in fact, quite a good number of submitters came and spoke. Hepatitis C was not put at the top level of a notifiable disease for a variety of reasons, but particularly to those submitters, some of whom I know are watching, I hope and trust they are very pleased with the Government’s announcement of extra funding to Pharmac, which is allowing, I believe, at least two drugs now that directly affect hepatitis C in New Zealand, and is, in fact, moving from a management to a curative model. So I think that that is quite exciting.

Within the whole area of contact tracing, I think it is really important to stress the importance of privacy. We spent a lot of time as a committee focused on the importance of privacy, but we also heard from a number of epidemiologists and those working in public health that there are elements we need to know about—New Zealanders who have infectious diseases—and that includes the NHI, or National Health Index number. We have accepted that, and the committee amended that into its report, and I am pleased to see it remain in the bill.

I just want to finish around the whole sunbeds discussion. As chair of the committee I am very comfortable with where we have landed with this legislation. I think it protects the rights and allows New Zealanders who wish to use sunbeds to continue doing so if they are over 18 years of age. We are not here to, if you will, mollycoddle every person’s decision, but I think we have also made a very clear statement in a variety of ways that sunbeds are not healthy at all. I have said many times on the record that the science is very, very clear that the use of any sorts of ultraviolet generating machines such as a solaria or sunbed enormously increases the risk of melanoma, but I think, really importantly, it enormously increases the risk of non-melanoma skin cancers, which are, in fact, far more prevalent in this country. So I certainly encourage New Zealanders to enjoy the sun responsibly and not necessarily to use a sunbed, but ultimately the choice is theirs, as it is the choice of mine to do what I want in life here. So I think we have a good balance, and I would like to commend this bill in its third reading to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I rise to take a call on this third reading of the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. I guess I have the prime spot of the last call on a Thursday afternoon—

Grant Robertson: Sought after.

POTO WILLIAMS: Yes, highly sought after.

Even though I had the pleasure of speaking on the first reading of this bill, I was not a member of the Health Committee that deliberated on the bill at the select committee stage, so I do want to commend the members of the Health Committee and the officials for the passage of the bill and the amendments that were made during the course of that discussion at the select committee.

The bill that returns to us really concentrates on two main areas. The first is around infectious diseases and notifiable diseases and, of course, the second, which we have had much discussion on, is with regard to sunbeds that are used for cosmetic purposes. One of the elements that I do not think has been discussed fully throughout this first reading that I want to pay particular attention to is that the bill was returned to the House with the inclusion of some key principles as part of Part 3A Subpart 1.

I want to discuss some of those key principles. The first one is paramountcy. This principle ensures that the protection of public health is given paramountcy when you are dealing in matters where there are infectious or notifiable diseases at hand. So what that says is that public health interest must be the most important interest when dealing with issues of infectious and notifiable diseases.

The second key principle is that of respect, where in performing any duties the dignity of the individuals must be protected. Often we are talking about fairly sensitive areas and sensitive discussions, and it ensures that when we are having those discussions we treat that person with the utmost dignity. There have been cases where people with certain notifiable diseases, particularly if they are sexually transmitted diseases, may have been treated with some disrespect.

The third principle is that the individual must be given the opportunity to comply voluntarily before any compulsion is placed upon that person. I think it is really important that we give people every opportunity to comply with medical officers when the issue of public health is at risk.

Individuals taking responsibility for their own health is principle No. 4, and No. 5 is that consideration is given when an individual has taken the opportunity to do what they can to minimise risk, but they may still be at risk of being contagious or at risk to the public, but they have done everything they can in order to minimise risk.

The next principle is that the individuals be fully informed. The principle of informed consent is one that is well traversed across the health sector, and it is important that in this bill it continues to be an important part of the discussion. Next is the principle of proportionality, which is with regard to minimising or preventing health risk, and also the principle of applying least-restrictive measures, which means you ensure that you provide public health and public safety but you do it using the least restrictive measures. So, for example, you would not go to the extreme of ensuring somebody was quarantined if all they really needed was to ensure that if they were infectious, perhaps, they wore a mask and gloves. The final principle is that when measures are no longer necessary they are discontinued as soon as possible. That was part of Part 3A—that was Subpart 1. There are another two parts within that piece of legislation: Subpart 2, which looks at the directions given by and to the medical officer, and Subpart 3, which was about public health orders.

But in my final time, I do want to refer back to the issue that has been considered quite a bit in this House in this third reading, and that is the matter of sunbeds. The evidence was heard that we should have been looking at banning sunbeds altogether, and I concur with my colleague the Hon Annette King. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am very happy to rise and speak to the Health—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I regret interrupting the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.