Volume 652 Week 4 - Wednesday 18 February 2009 
Volume 652 Week 4 - Wednesday 18 February 2009 
[Volume:652;Page:1387] 
Wednesday 18 February 2009 
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Sub Judice Rule—Members’ Freedom of Expression 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members yesterday members raised points of order about the sub judice rule. I have given consideration to the practice that has developed around the application of the rule and members’ freedom of speech. 
The first issue is the time during which the rule is engaged. Standing Order 112 is very clear. The rule applies from the time a charge is laid or in relation to cases other than criminal cases from the time when proceedings have been initiated by the filing of the appropriate documents with the court. The rule ceases to apply when the verdict and sentence have been announced or a judgment given. 
There are two strands to the way in which the Speaker applies the rule. First reference to a matter before the court risks being prejudicial to the outcome of the case or may be unfair to those involved in the proceedings. Second it is contrary to New Zealand’s constitutional principles. 
Standing Order 111 articulates the minimum standard in respect of protecting the rights of individuals to a fair trial. The practice of the House that has evolved though is that the Speaker in exercising his or her discretion under Standing Order 111 must also have regard to the comity between Parliament and the courts. 
The House has set itself a high standard of restraint and respect with regard to its special constitutional relationship with the courts. What is before one ought not to be discussed or adjudicated on in the other. Parliament often asks the courts to uphold its privileges. It must be equally vigilant in defending the role of the courts. 
It is important however that the sub judice rule does not unduly constrain members’ freedom of speech or inhibit members discussing the law in general. There is a fine balance between the competing interests of the legislative and the judicial branches of Government. Members may feel that this balance needs reconsideration. The Privileges Committee currently has before it an inquiry dealing with these very issues. I urge members to put their views to the committee. Any rebalancing of these important constitutional principles requires proper consideration in such a forum. 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget Policy Statement—Steps Limiting Expenditure Growth 
1. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What steps is the Government taking to address the fiscal outlook outlined in the most recent Budget Policy Statement? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In the Budget Policy Statement we outlined steps to limit expenditure growth including dropping the unfunded priorities of the last Government putting a cap on the growth of the Public Service and advising departments there will be no new Budget bids apart from the priorities of the incoming Government. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How is the Government’s tax cut programme funded? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government’s tax cut package which was announced prior to the election was funded by removing the research and development tax credit and making changes to the KiwiSaver programme that enabled the Government to pass through significant income tax cuts to many many low and middle income New Zealanders without putting undue pressure on the fiscal outlook. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm that he told the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning that he had received no updated forecasts from Treasury since the Budget Policy Statement in December? And given that he said that officials have better things to do than provide updated forecasts on the economy can he explain to the House why he does not place a greater value on accurate information? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The reason is that we place a great value on actually making decisions so that people will be protected from the sharp edge of recession in order to get this economy ready for recovery. This Government is not making the mistake of the last Government which believed that gathering information and making announcements amounted to doing things. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What is this Government doing to address the rapid rise in public expenditure that occurred under the last Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We will need to have greater efficiency and value for money in order to provide better smarter public services for New Zealanders in a time of restraint. But as an indication of the momentum of Government spending built up under the previous Government from 2004 to 2012 core Crown expenses will increase by over $30 billion—that is from $40 billion to $72 billion. We will be looking for evidence that all that extra expenditure has actually led to better services for more people. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm that following his appearance at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning he submitted a correction on a $30 billion error that he made in testimony to the committee and that his correction statement itself contained further numerical errors; and when will that Minister lift his game on a matter of great importance to this economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I did get one date wrong in my testimony—is it “testimony” these days—to the very powerful Finance and Expenditure Committee but I have to say that unlike that member this Government is not preoccupied with all the details; we are preoccupied with getting measures before the House such as the extensive changes to the Resource Management Act. The whole community has waited 15 years for a Government to grasp the nettle and make those changes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table a document named Budget Policy Statement 8 which is an inaccurate correction by the Minister to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This document has been released by the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. 
Craig Foss 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are dealing with this point of order first. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Craig Foss 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I see that leave has been given but has the correct document been presented today not the one that may have been presented in the committee? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The document that will be tabled will indicate to the member whether the correct document has been tabled. He is most welcome to look at it. 
Unemployment Rate—Increase 
2.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is he satisfied that the measures he has announced are adequate to stop the projected surge in unemployment? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The measures we have announced so far and further measures that we will announce as economic events unfold are designed to take the sharpest edges off this recession. Job losses would have been greater had these measures not been introduced and support packages like the ReStart scheme will help to soften the blow of redundancy for many people but they will not prevent an overall increase in unemployment over the course of this recession and the Government has been very upfront in saying that. This is a very serious global recession affecting employment in every country in the world. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister intend to set out clear and consistent criteria on which the Government will base its decisions on whether to bail out specific companies in trouble; if so when will he publish these so that all companies that are facing difficulties are clear on where they stand? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Government has already made it clear that there would be a very high benchmark indeed for the Government to be involved in bailing out companies. Our preference is that companies look to the classical banking solution to their problems. That is not to say that the Government could not or would not get involved; we reserve the right to do that. I suggest that if the member does not think the Government should ever get involved he should go back to the shop floor and tell New Zealanders his message. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What conditions will the Prime Minister place around for example financial assistance to companies in trouble to ensure that New Zealand taxpayers’ money is being used to protect New Zealand jobs not jobs that have been or will be transferred overseas? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is jumping to conclusions in assuming there will be any bail-outs from this Government at this point. If there were any then there would be conditions of course and we would expect New Zealand jobs to be maintained but the member should not jump to conclusions. 
Nathan Guy 
: What measures has the Government introduced to take the sharpest edges off this recession? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Government has taken a number of measures and will continue to take even more but at this point we have overseen the wholesale funding and retail deposit guarantee schemes tax cuts will come in on 1 April 2009 and we have introduced a small to medium sized enterprise package worth $480 million. Can I say there has been an overwhelming response from the small to medium sized enterprise sector thanking us for that well-targeted package. We are bringing forward expenditure on infrastructure of $483 million and my good colleague Mr English just made reference to the packages that will be delivered through the changes to be made to the Resource Management Act. There will of course be the Job Summit on 27 February and more measures may well come from that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does Mr English—his good colleague I think he said—support his assurance to Fisher and Paykel Appliances that the firm would not be allowed to fail or are Mr English’s comments as reported in the  
Dominion Post  
this morning just further evidence of his view that while Mr Key floats from cloud to cloud Mr English makes the real decisions? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly no assurance has been given to Fisher and Paykel Appliances that it will not be allowed to fail. Those are the facts of life. Mr Mallard’s running around the press gallery trying to tell its members that something was said on Radio New Zealand National that was not said is just a further example that Mr Mallard makes it up as he goes along. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table this document which says that Mr Key says allowing Fisher and Paykel Appliances to fail would be unacceptable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could I just check for the benefit of the House. Is this a press release? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It is a statement. It might be from a blog site. Let me clarify it. It is headed “New Zealand”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down. Leave is sought to table a document from a blog site. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Nathan Guy 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any other reports of measures to address growing unemployment? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I have seen other measures and members will be relieved to know that I do not look just at blog sites to see those measures. I have seen a report from Ruth Dyson who said last year when the largest quarterly decline in employment for 19 years had taken place: “Oh well I don’t think that this is bad news at all actually.” I have also seen a report from the Opposition finance spokesman who apparently is developing his own suite of measures to address growing unemployment. He said that New Zealanders will be delighted to know that he intends to release that report some time before the next election. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that his comment quoted on NewZealand.co.uk that letting Fisher and Paykel Appliances fail would be unacceptable is therefore inaccurate? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think the member should read out the whole quote. The question was whether if an offshore company—I think it was in reference to—wanted to come into New Zealand we might look at changing the rules. The answer was that I think failure there is unacceptable. No assurances have been given to Fisher and Paykel Appliances that it will not be allowed to fail. That does not mean that the Government does not reserve the right to look at whether there are things we can do. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How many companies are on the list of businesses that the Prime Minister referred to on 21 January as being those that the taxpayer could be asked to bail out how much is he prepared to spend on bailing out such companies and where will he draw the line between which companies will be bailed out and which companies will be allowed to collapse? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: There is no list of companies to bail out; there is advice from Treasury of sensitivities within the market and challenges that companies could face. There is no long list of companies to bail out. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table a document that is headed “Key has business bailout list”. Is the media wrong again? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I just seek clarification again. Is this a press release the member is seeking to table? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: This is an article written by Vernon Small for the  
Dominion Post 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is seeking leave to table a press release. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Resource Management Act—Reforms 
3.  
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What advice has he received regarding the need to streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 There is a very strong consensus across the public and private sectors that reform of the Resource Management Act is long overdue. The advice of the Ministry for the Environment the Department of Conservation the Department of Internal Affairs the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Ministry of Economic Development the Ministry of Fisheries the Ministry of Transport the New Zealand Transport Agency Te Puni Kokiri and Treasury was that they all supported substantive reform. Local Government New Zealand and numerous councils have also strongly advocated for change. There has been a similar chorus from private sector organisations representing the farming forestry fishing manufacturing construction and tourism industries. Comments from environmental organisations such as the Environmental Defence Society have also acknowledged the need for reform. Many of these groups noted their frustration that the previous Government refused to heed such advice. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the time it takes for councils to write or change their resource management plans? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have. The latest report is from October 2008. It identified that 17 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act five councils still do not have an operative plan. It further showed that the average time to complete the planning process under the existing law is 8.2 years. I know that this is the average and that the current law requires a complete plan review 10 years after the plans become operative. The process for plan amendments is similarly cumbersome: the average time is just over 3 years. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Does the Minister really believe that community participation in the resource consent process causes unnecessary delays; if not what guarantee can the Minister give community groups that their participation in the decision-making process will not be limited by the proposed changes to the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government is being quite up front and is saying that there needs to be a careful balance between community participation and efficient decision-making. When it takes over 8 years for a council to make a plan this Government makes no apologies for saying that that is too slow and that those processes need to be changed. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Is the Minister aware of examples of where the health of the environment has been seriously compromised by the cumbersome planning processes of the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I am. Most MPs would acknowledge that freshwater management has been poor particularly in Canterbury where it has been under very significant pressure. Environment Canterbury first issued a draft regional policy plan on water in 1994 but got stuck in multiple rounds of public consultation until the plan was notified in 2004. This plan has triggered more than 8000 submissions. Those hearings are not due to be completed until the end of this year and the plan is then expected to face multiple appeals. The earliest likely time the water plan will become operative is 2013—20 years after the process began. I am bewildered that the Opposition MPs who are calling for an improvement in water management practice oppose the very measures that will enable us to make those improvements. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I timed that answer; it was 1 minute long. 
Hon Members 
: Hurrah! 
Hon Annette King 
: It was against the Standing Orders and it is not acceptable to this side of the House that Government members clap when they break the Standing Orders. A short answer is required under the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has raised a perfectly valid point and senior members in the Government know they should not be making noise during a point of order. The honourable Minister has been giving fairly lengthy answers but they have been very informative—I will acknowledge that—and have given the House significant information. But I ask that he be a little briefer. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I timed that point of order and your response; it was 1 minute and 10 seconds. If the Opposition members are keen to progress matters they should sit down and listen to the answers for a change. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That comment is a bit rich. You might have noticed Mr Speaker that since the change in Government question time takes a lot less time than it used to. One half of the reason for that is that Mr Hide is no longer raising points of order. The other half is no longer with us. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Everyone including me understands the importance of brevity for the House to get on. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Can the Minister assure me and the House that his reforms will address the problem faced by my constituents in the Buller District where a protest group acted irresponsibly in trying to block a council decision had costs awarded against it by the Environment Court and simply wound up its incorporated society leaving a bill of thousands of dollars for ratepayers? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. The member highlights a very real problem that has also cost the ratepayers in the Western Bay of Plenty $300000 and the ratepayers in Otago more than $250000. I note that Opposition parties have cried foul over the proposal to allow the Environment Court to require security of costs saying that this undermines the fundamental right to object and appeal. These parties seem to have no regard for the ratepayers who actually end up having to pay the bill. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister aware of the recent Environment Court decision regarding the Waitakere Ranges and the Waitakere City Council whereby the Environment Court ensured that there were much fewer subdivisions in the Waitakere Ranges hence protecting them for the people of Auckland and protecting the environment; that that was only possible because people could appeal the district plan to the Environment Court; and that the Minister is taking away the right to take that kind of appeal? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The reality of changing appeal rights is that it cuts both ways. It is true that some appeals that environmental groups might want to pursue will be constrained. But equally so too will be appeals from developers who want to proceed. I note that the mayor of Waitakere City Bob Harvey an ex-president of the Labour Party who is very passionate about the protection of the Waitakere Ranges has strongly endorsed the Government’s reform package because he thinks that it will work better for areas like the Waitakere Ranges. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister realise that in that case the Environment Court overruled the Waitakere City Council plan because the council wanted to have a certain number of subdivisions and the Environment Court said that it had to have fewer and that therefore it is not surprising that the mayor might support the kinds of changes the Minister is making? Surely both sides of this House want to protect the environment and protect the Waitakere Ranges—does that not mean giving community groups the right to challenge district plans when they undermine environmental values? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Dr Nick Smith if you can make sense of that question. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to seek your advice on your comment. I understand that you have been a very fair Speaker and everyone across the House recognises that. You do a very good job but I found that comment from you unnecessary. It undermines your role as the manager of good behaviour in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for her genuine point. I accept that I was perhaps unfair but I was making the point that the member should be asking a question not making a small speech. Dr Norman made a significant speech there that would make it extremely difficult for a Minister to give a sensible answer. A point of order was raised before about the length of the Hon Nick Smith’s answers which I agree were a bit long but he was informative and clear in what he was saying. Questions also need to be brief and to the point and that question went way too long; I was almost at the point of standing and sitting the member down simply because the question went on and on. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government’s intent in the reforms is to reduce the times and delays of the resource consenting process and not to change the overall balance between development and the environment. For that reason we are not making any changes to the key tests that are provided for in Part 2 of the Resource Management Act. 
Company Bail-outs—Criteria 
4.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What criteria is he developing if any in relation to Government assistance for companies in financial trouble? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Government assistance could take many forms and clearly there would be a high hurdle for any assistance. Our primary method of supporting the corporate sector is to ensure that the banking system is sound. All companies should look to all commercial options before considering any approach to the Government and we have consistently said that any Government assistance would be a last resort. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to reflect upon the question and the answer. The question did not ask what forms of assistance would be available but what the criteria for assistance would be. Apart from making a passing reference to a high hurdle the Minister did not outline any criteria or whether any criteria were being developed. The question was very specific about whether criteria were being developed—yes or no. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened carefully to the member and I accept that he has raised an interesting point of order but I cannot judge the quality of the answer. The Minister in answering the question gave one criterion and that is that it is a high hurdle. I cannot judge whether that is a good quality answer. The honourable member has the chance to delve further into that matter with supplementary questions and I invite the Hon David Cunliffe to do that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has the Minister been surprised at the very cautious reaction of a range of business leaders to the Prime Minister’s possible bail-out of Fisher and Paykel Appliances and in his view could this lie behind the Prime Minister’s clarification today that what was unthinkable—to allow a business to fail—on Monday does not now constitute an assurance? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I am not surprised at the cautious reaction. I think anyone would be cautious about the Government taking steps to assist a business in a recession and that is why the hurdles for any assistance have to be very high. 
Craig Foss 
: What steps has the Government already taken to provide assistance to companies and businesses? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has supported a very significant programme of fiscal stimulus to the economy that will inject around $9 billion which the Government will be borrowing into the economy over the next 2 years. We have also announced a package that directly affects the compliance and tax obligations of a whole range of businesses. Just last week we announced that we were bringing forward $500 million worth of infrastructure. Businesses are fully supportive of the Government’s regulatory reform programme which is intended to lighten the load on businesses and build confidence for them to invest with such steps as the changes to the Resource Management Act which are now well under way. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister have any advice as to the costs to say Fisher and Paykel Appliances of the removal of the research and development tax incentives and can he confirm that it was the Government’s own policy that in part lies behind the need for the Prime Minister’s quasi-assurance that the company should not be allowed to fail now? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member may be surprised to know that many firms have much more challenging issues than the abolition of the research and development tax credit. I might say that in discussions I have had with firms a number of them have told me that they spent more on the consultants they employed to work out what their company would be able to claim than they would actually be able to claim. One firm paid $70000 on consultants who told it that it would be able to claim $20000 in deductions. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm whether he has provided any advice to the Prime Minister in relation to any Securities Act implications from his statement that the company could not be allowed to fail and whether that constituted an assurance that was material information in the market place? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would not want to confirm any version that member gives of what the Prime Minister may have said. The Prime Minister is knowledgable in these matters and takes expert advice on them. 
Surgery Elective—Waiting Lists 
5.  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 on behalf of  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What advice has he received in relation to elective surgery and waiting lists? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have received a number of reports and in total they are an indictment on Labour’s failure and manipulation of hospital waiting lists. In order to reduce waiting lists the number of people receiving elective surgery needs to grow faster than population growth. From when district health boards were set up in 2000-01 to 2007-08 the number of patients receiving elective surgery each year on average did not even meet population growth let alone population ageing. It is undeniable that if waiting lists had not been reorganised to hide the numbers and thousands of patients had not been culled waiting lists would be much greater today. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What other advice has the Minister received in relation to elective waiting lists? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have received advice that in relation to the two waiting list systems some district health boards may not have been disclosing the full numbers. In particular I am advised that many district health boards hold people in their individual patient management systems and do not submit this information through to the national booking system. They are therefore not officially counted. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Can the Minister confirm that like the figures he quoted for district health board deficits when he forgot to recognise that there are two sorts of deficits—cyclical and structural—the figures he has just reported confuse individuals on elective surgery with case rate numbers discharges and cost weights; if not which figures was he quoting? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: What is quite clear is that that member fails to realise that elective surgery simply failed to keep up with population growth during the term of the Labour Government and if we look at the elective discharges we will see the evidence there. The member should be embarrassed because under her Government the health budget doubled and fewer people were getting elective surgery on a real basis. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What impact on access to primary health care—generally the route to elective surgery—will occur as a result of the Minister’s planned removal of the cap on general practitioner fee increases? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government has no plans to do so. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How can it be that the health vote has basically doubled from $6 billion to $12 billion yet fewer people in real terms get elective surgery? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is an astonishing $6 billion question. The facts are that under the Labour Government the health vote nearly doubled fewer people in real terms were getting elective surgery thousands were culled from hospital waiting lists and the new lists did not count all the people. Although the new Government has inherited many worrying failures from the previous Labour Government in the public health system including the track to financial crisis I outlined yesterday elective surgery and manipulation are at the forefront of Labour’s failures. 
Otago District Health Board—Dismissal of Chair 
6.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why did he dismiss the chair of the Otago District Health Board? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 While Mr Richard Thomson was chair of the Otago District Health Board the single-biggest fraud in the history of the New Zealand State services was taking place; $17 million was defrauded. This is about accountability. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has the Minister seen the transcript of an interview this morning with the new chair Mr Millar who when asked whether he would have done the same thing as Mr Thomson said yes and when asked whether Mr Thomson’s handling of the issue was proper said yes; if so why is the Otago District Health Board in a better place today than it was before he sacked Mr Thomson? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes. I think it needs to be recognised that Mr Millar was commenting in the context of managing ongoing board relationships. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Has the Minister seen the recent statement made by Mr Hodgson that Mr Ryall only wants to install his own man in the job; if so whom has he appointed to the role of chair? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have seen those comments from the former Minister of Health and I can confirm that I have appointed Mr Errol Millar. Mr Millar was first appointed to the Southland District Health Board in 2002 by Annette King. He was reappointed to the Southland District Health Board in 2004 by Annette King. He was then appointed to the Otago District Health Board in 2007 by David Cunliffe. He was also made the chair of the Airways Corporation in 2001 when appointed by the former Minister for State Owned Enterprises Mark Burton. Then he was appointed deputy chair of the Civil Aviation Authority in 2007 by the then failed Minister of Transport Annette King. This matter is not personal and it is not political. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has the Minister seen public comment today contrasting the actions of Mr Thomson who immediately acted on a tip-off of illegal activity with those of the person who was the responsible Minister 10 years ago when the illegal activities of the “goon squad” in Christchurch were at their height but who did nothing to stop them and did not resign; and does the phrase “double standards” come to mind? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: While Mr Thomson was chair of the Otago District Health Board the biggest single fraud in the history of the State services in New Zealand was taking place; $17 million was defrauded. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why did the Minister ignore the result of the October 2007 elections when Mr Thomson and all five other board members were re-elected by an Otago public that had full knowledge of the fraud case and might that be why he is now viewed by many people as being prone to misjudgment and prone to arrogance? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well I have to say having that claim from Pete Hodgson is unbelievable is it not? My primary accountability relationship as Minister of Health as that member would be aware is with the chair. 
Corrections Department—Management of Offenders on Parole 
7.  
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What reports has she received on the department’s management of offenders on parole? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I have received an alarming and damning report from the Auditor-General which identifies serious deficiencies in the management of offenders on parole. I am extremely concerned by the findings of the report and staggered at the extent of non-compliance especially as the audit took place after Karl Kuchenbecker’s senseless murder when one might have expected that those responsible had learnt from failings of the past. 
Simon Bridges 
: Did the previous Minister make any assurances regarding the management of offenders on parole? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. The previous Minister of Corrections the Hon Phil Goff claimed that his Government had made “extensive changes” and “quickly moved to deal with deficiencies in the system”. He gave assurances that action had been taken to improve the management of high-risk parolees that enforcement had been strengthened and that there were new requirements for home visits. Unfortunately these requirements were among the many identified by the Auditor-General as not having been complied with. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm that last June the Wellington Coroner who looked into the case of the murder of Mr Kuchenbecker stated that the then Government had moved quickly to deal with the deficiencies that had come to light and as a result he had no further recommendations to make for necessary Government action. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I can confirm that assurances were given to the coroner. Unfortunately they were not kept. 
Simon Bridges 
: What other assurances did the previous Minister make regarding the management of offenders on parole? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: After Mr Kuchenbecker’s murder Mr Goff said: “we must learn from failings which occurred during this tragic episode.” Mr Goff gave assurances that changes had been made and lessons had been learnt. But these promises were meaningless because Mr Goff clearly did not check that the changes were actually being complied with. I have already asked the department to confirm that compliance checks are taking place and I will be demanding ongoing reports to confirm compliance with requirements. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will the Minister of Corrections guarantee—given that she failed to do so when asked yesterday—that National will fund additional probation officers and prison staff to ensure that staffing keeps pace with the workload created by the increasing numbers being dealt with by the Department of Corrections as Labour did when in last year’s Budget it funded an extra 89 probation officers which the department had requested? Will she guarantee that? She failed to give any guarantee yesterday. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The member who asked the question will be aware that there is a thing called a Budget and that he should wait for it but I will say to him that it is very important that the probation service is properly resourced. He would have heard me say yesterday that I agree with every one of the recommendations made in the Auditor-General’s report. I note however that the Auditor-General stated that “recruiting more probation officers will not fix all the problems my staff found.” Clearly more is needed. 
Rahui Katene 
: What action can be taken to lift the performance of service managers in particular to address the finding that 63 percent of the parole plans for offenders did not contain all the signatures required for the plans to be signed off? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: One of the matters that I have asked the State Services Commissioner to come back to me on concerns what can be done to restore the public’s faith in the parole system. I am sure that is one of the issues that will be addressed in the reply. 
David Garrett 
: Has the Minister yet received a letter of resignation from Mr Barry Matthews; if not is she still as she said in this House yesterday “confident that Mr Matthews is fully aware of how seriously I view this issue.”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have not received such a letter. I say to the House that I am not prejudging who might in fact be accountable. In fact I am saying that there may be one or more people accountable. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Minister agree with Ombudsman Mel Smith that “A risk averse approach to granting parole which lessens the chance for critical media headlines will condemn some prisoners who would pose little risk to the community to longer terms in institutions and in my view the potential for rehabilitation is lessened.”; if so what will she do to protect the interests of those low-risk prisoners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: My primary concern in the management of parole is the safety of the public. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—ACT Confidence and Supply Agreement 
8.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he intend to honour the terms of the 2008 confidence and supply arrangement with the ACT Party concerning the emissions trading scheme; if not why not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Yes. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What is the Minister’s view of last week’s reported comments by Mr Peter Clark Chief Executive of the forestry management and marketing firm PF Olsen Group that the National Government has “quietly swept that [part of the coalition agreement] under the carpet. What Rodney Hide has to say about that I don’t know”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The confidence and supply agreement with ACT provided for the establishment of a special select committee to look at climate change. I note that that committee has been established that its terms of reference have been agreed that submissions have been called for and that its important work is progressing. I also note that the confidence and supply agreement provided for the repeal of the thermal ban. That occurred prior to Christmas. In respect of the delay I say that I and my colleague the Minister of Agriculture Mr David Carter issued a press release last week announcing delays to aspects of the emissions trading scheme process in respect of forestry—all as provided for in the confidence and supply agreement. 
Craig Foss 
: Is it still Government policy that New Zealand should be a world leader on climate change; if not what is the new Government’s approach? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Good question! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is a very good question. The irony of the previous Government’s policy of being a world leader on climate change is that the only thing on which we seemed to lead was the fastest growth of emissions of any developed country in the world. As far as the policy of carbon neutrality is concerned I say that emissions figures reported to the United Nations show that emissions during the Labour term of office went up by 12 million tonnes greater than they did under the previous Government of 9 years. It is this new Government’s view that climate change is incredibly challenging. Our objective is to ensure that New Zealand does its fair share as a developed nation in addressing this global problem. Frankly that will mean doing a whole lot more than the last Government.  
Charles Chauvel 
: Apart from relying on a recession in the economy to get carbon emissions down what are the Minister’s plans to achieve that end? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government has a suite of measures to address climate change. Tomorrow I will be introducing an amendment bill for the Resource Management Act. Let me explain to the member opposite why that is so important. During the course of the last Government every year there was a decline in the proportion of renewable energy. In fact under the previous Government there was a trebling in the amount of electricity produced from coal. By amending the Resource Management Act National intends to make renewable energy more viable so that we can do a whole lot better—that is just one of many measures we will be taking. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does his Resource Management Act amendment propose then to reverse the recent decision of the Supreme Court which stated that climate change was not a relevant consideration when consenting generation for electricity? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The irony in that question is that the previous Government passed an amendment bill—[ 
Interruption 
] No the previous Government passed an amendment to the Resource Management Act and that amendment specifically removed the element of climate change being considered. The previous Government introduced and passed a bill to specifically remove climate change from being considered under the Resource Management Act. It is National’s view that the most important thing we can do under the Resource Management Act is provide timely processes for renewable energies so that we do not get projects being delayed for 6 years 7 years and—in some cases—over a decade. National is confident that with those changes we will actually see an expansion of renewable energy and some show of us meeting the target of 90 percent renewables. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have not been involved at all in this question but a number of us would be extremely interested to hear that last question answered. Is the Government going to reverse that change to the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Member 
: Yes or no? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Unfortunately the member cannot insist on a yes or no answer. My concern was that the honourable Minister’s answers are too long. They have to be reduced in length. 
John Boscawen 
: Why does the Minister not save jobs in New Zealand by immediately repealing the emissions trading scheme until after the Kyoto II meetings in Copenhagen later this year? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is not the Government’s view that we would serve New Zealand’s interests well by simply backtracking. It is the Government’s view that an emissions trading scheme is the right answer. The problem is that the legislation last year was rushed. Officials have noted that there are mistakes in it that will have to be corrected. It is subject to the review that is undertaken by the select committee. It is the Government’s preference to amend the emissions trading scheme so that it better balances New Zealand’s economic and environmental interests. 
Education Review Office—Review Process 
9.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for the Education Review Office 
: Has she made any changes to the way that the Education Review Office will review schools? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister responsible for the Education Review Office) 
: 
 Yes. I have asked the Education Review Office to identify schools that are performing consistently well and from 1 March this year these schools will now be reviewed every 4 to 5 years. These schools will have shown that they are capable of reviewing their own performance and processes and that they are able to use this information for the benefit of their students. This Government is proud to recognise that there are many high-performing schools in the education sector that should be able to get on with the business of providing high-quality teaching and learning experiences for their pupils. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What reports has she seen on support for these changes? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have seen a report from the New Zealand Educational Institute lauding the move and applauding the Government for “creating a high trust model which will be welcomed by those schools and they will appreciate the show of confidence.” I have also seen a typically confused report from the Labour spokesperson on education Chris Carter. In one line of his release he states that the policy may have some merit but in the next he refuses to support this high-trust model. The question for Opposition members is very simple: do they support a review system that lets our best schools get on with the job of teaching? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Will the Minister assure the House that extending the review periods for some schools will not affect the Education Review Office’s staffing numbers and resources given her recent commitment to enhancing support for struggling schools? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: This policy is not about changing the number of jobs at the Education Review Office. It is about ensuring that the resources of the office are focused on schools that are not performing consistently and that really need the support. 
Schools—Staff-pupil Ratios 
10.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Why has she scrapped the planned improvements to staff-child ratios which were to be implemented on 1 July 2009? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As the member was advised at the Education and Science Committee this morning studies of staff to child ratios are inconclusive as to whether there is any one correct staff to child ratio for early childhood education and care. The focus of this Government is that additional money spent on early childhood services should be directed towards increasing participation amongst groups that have ingrained low participation rates. I was not convinced that the proposed increased ratios would meet this goal. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does the Minister agree with the Ministry of Education’s statement in its annual report that the quality of early childhood education is linked to the level of the qualifications of the staff; and can she assure New Zealanders that she will maintain and improve the use of qualified teaching staff in this sector? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The difficulty is that there was no plan from the Opposition’s previous administration to ensure that the additional teachers needed for this change were there. A lack of qualified teachers would threaten the sustainability of some teacher-led services and limit the development of early childhood education in areas of high population growth. 
Allan Peachey 
: What advice has the Minister received on the impact of going ahead with the planned ratio changes? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have received advice that suggests that the planned changes to ratios would have required an additional 1150 teachers. Despite the previous Government knowing about the size of the teacher injection needed to meet this policy by 1 July 2009 no plans were in place to ensure that this number of additional teachers would be ready. It is another case of promise and hope from the previous Labour Government. 
Sue Moroney 
: Which organisations representing parents or educators did the Minister seek advice from before she made the decision to scrap planned improvements to staff to child ratios in early childhood education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The previous administration left the books in such a poor state that we have had to make some hard decisions. So we promised a reduction in the staff to child ratio for under-2-year-olds from 1:5 to 1:4 and we will deliver on that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very very direct question: “With whom did she consult—parents or educators?”. The question was not addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to answer the question. The question was very clear and asked which organisations were consulted. I think that the question deserves an answer. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As I stated in my answer to the substantive question studies of staff to child ratios are inconclusive as to whether there is any one correct staff to child ratio for early childhood education and care. That answer is drawn from a range of advice. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again I ask you to ask the Minister to answer the question—not to repeat what she read out. Her answer should be which organisations she consulted. That is exactly what she was asked. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think you have to be careful that we do not get into a situation where people asking questions use the Standing Orders process—or the letter of the Standing Orders to some extent—to ask for interpretations that simply cannot be given by the person answering or accepted by the person asking the question. In other words if we think about the answer that the honourable Minister just gave we see that she essentially said that any analysis is inconclusive. It may be Labour Party practice to consult on inconclusive analysis but that thought just would not enter the heads of most people. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will listen to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I am not quite sure what Mr Brownlee was trying to add to the discussion by way of that last point. If one is asked which organisations one consulted a perfectly legitimate answer is “None.” which I suspect is in fact the answer. That answer should be given. To go off into some fantasyland about what studies have been done and what they mean seems to indicate that the Minister is probably relying upon official advice. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I have heard sufficient on this point of order. It is an interesting point because the question was very clear. The issue for me as Speaker is how closely the answer relates to the primary question. The primary question asked why the Minister has scrapped planned improvements to the staff to child ratios. There is no reason to believe that the Minister could not know who was consulted on the matter. It seems to me that an answer to that question is deserved because there is public interest unless the Minister considers it not in the public interest to provide an answer and I will totally support the Minister if she says that. But I believe that the question is clear—it relates very clearly to the primary question. The House will listen to the answer. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I will repeat what I said in answer to the last question. I took a range of advice including from the ministry. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister has given an answer. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister could repeat her answer. We could not hear it; it tailed off at the end. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will invite the Minister to repeat her answer. I confess I did not hear the last part myself. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I said that I took a range of advice including advice from the ministry. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a document entitled  
The Continuing Contribution of Early Childhood Education to Young People’s Competency Levels 
 in which the authors identify the importance of improving staff to child ratios in the sector. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking to table an academic document? 
Sue Moroney 
: It is a research document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that the previous Labour-led Government increased early childhood spending by 281 percent from over $400 million— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like to understand what the document is. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: It is a document put out by the previous Government just before the last election showing—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The tabling of documents is a serious procedure and it will be heard in silence. But I warn the member that if the document does not exist he risks misleading the House. Leave is sought— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are dealing with the first point of order. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I want to assure you I have such a document and I will be tabling it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It arises out of the ruling you just gave which was very interesting. I wonder whether I can inquire whether Mr Rodney Hide yesterday tabled the document that he claimed to have. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will listen to the honourable member. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Of course I did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to find a particular document which at the moment for some reason is not on my desk. I seek the assistance of the Clerk. Forgive me honourable members for taking time to find what I want to say about this. 
The honourable member has raised a very serious issue. I note the contribution from the Hon Rodney Hide that in fact he did table the document. I want to make this clear statement to the House. I remind members that the rules for tabling documents have changed. I have indicated to members that where leave is granted for a document to be tabled under Standing Order 368 it must now be provided to the Clerk by the end of the sitting day. Where a member seeks leave to table a document the Clerk should not have to discern whether the document that has been provided is in fact the document for which the House granted leave. It should be evident on the face of it. The purpose of tabling a document is to inform debate by making available to members documents that otherwise would not be available. Members cannot use the procedure for tabling a document simply to make a political statement. If members seek leave to table a document that does not exist they run the risk of misleading the House. I draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 142/4 which says that if the House grants leave to a member to table a document and the member delivers a totally different document to the Clerk the member deliberately misleads the House and commits a contempt. 
Following the granting of leave to the Hon Rodney Hide to table a document yesterday Mr Hide provided to the Clerk a series of documents rather than a particular document. The practice of manufacturing a document after leave is granted does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders. I am aware that this is not the first time this practice has occurred. I am prepared to be lenient on this occasion as the rules have only recently changed. But in the future I will not tolerate the practice of using the procedure of seeking leave to table a document to make a statement and if leave is granted manufacturing a document to fit the leave after the event. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take it then that that means—as you have shown your practice to be—that no newspaper-type clippings should be tabled because they are readily available from other sources. Does that also mean that printouts of blogs which are easily accessible by the public would also be outside the requirements you have just outlined? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has raised a good point. Unfortunately I cannot rule on the type of documents that members seek leave to table. I have made it very clear I think in handling such leave being sought that where members seek to table press statements I try to elucidate the fact that it is either a printout from a blog or a press statement and let the House make its own judgment. There is nothing outside Standing Orders about that but the member raises a very good point. Members should desist from seeking to table press statements because it is not in the spirit of the Standing Orders that they should be raised. I will do everything I can to expose for what they are members who are seeking to table press statements but I cannot rule it out. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take it from your ruling previously that in your view Mr Hide manufactured those documents after leave had been sought and that that is a practice you will not countenance in future. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fact on that occasion it was not that the documents were manufactured—genuine documents were tabled—but that leave was sought to table one document showing something. The House generously gave leave for that purpose. Instead of one document showing something being tabled a series of documents were tabled. If one went through them one may have reached the point that the honourable member was trying to make. Had leave been sought to table a range of documents then that would have been a different matter. 
That was not the first occasion that this has happened. I am aware of another member from another party seeking leave to table a document when it seemed to me that the document that was tabled at the end of the day had been generated on a computer during the course of the day and clearly did not seem to me to have existed at the time that leave was sought to table it. This is a serious issue and I want to stamp out this practice. It is in the interests of the House because it is just wasting the House’s time. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have to say that I take grave exception to your statement that I manufactured documents. I sought leave to table documents. The first document was a press release in the name of Sue Kedgley. How on earth could I manufacture—as you alleged in your statement—a press release put out by Sue Kedgley? I consider that to be very serious. I did not manufacture that document; Sue Kedgley produced it some time ago and I tabled it. The second document I tabled was a newspaper clipping reporting Metiria Turei complaining about the police operation on University of Otago students. Again I did not manufacture that document. The two documents showed precisely the point that I sought leave to table them for. What did I manufacture? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have allowed the member time because I understand well why he may be concerned by the way I have described the situation. Had the member sought to table two press statements there would not have been a problem. The House could then have made a decision about whether it gave leave to table those two press statements. I invite the member to show me his  
Hansard 
 to demonstrate to me that he sought leave to table two press statements. I do not believe that  
Hansard 
 in fact shows that. 
That is the point I am making: that the House was not given the opportunity to make a judgment about whether leave should be granted. The House was led to believe that a document existed showing two positions on the same document which is what the House gave leave to table. I am not prepared to debate the matter further. If the honourable member wishes to bring me his  
Hansard 
 showing that he sought leave to table two separate press statements then I will apologise to him in the Chamber. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First of all I thank you for that very helpful clarification and ruling; I think it was very much needed. I suggest that if the House is to be clear about what it is giving leave to table then the title author and date of the document really need to be stated when leave is sought. Otherwise a member may well go and find a document that is broadly related to the topic and nobody can say that that was not the document he or she had in mind. I invite you to rule on that question too please. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member makes a perfectly good point. She will notice that when members are seeking leave to table a document I allow more time for members to describe the document than perhaps has previously been the case because I want the House to be able to make a valid judgment about the document. She may also note that if it is not clear exactly what the document is I have been seeking further advice from the member to assist the House. The member makes a good point. If members could make it more clear exactly what the document is then we can be more certain that that document is what is tabled by the end of the day. I will do my best to support the honourable member in achieving precision in that area. 
I hope we do not take further time on this issue right now. I think it is important for the House and I appreciate the spirit in which members have taken this ruling. We should come back to question time though which we departed from. We were dealing with question No. 10 at the time but it is finished because leave was sought for a document to be tabled. 
Forests—New Plantings and Emissions Impact 
11.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: How many hectares of new forest does he expect to be planted during the 2009 season if any; and how will these plantings impact on New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions in 2020? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I am advised that through the Afforestation Grant Scheme and the East Coast Forestry Project 3235 hectares of additional indigenous and exotic plantings are expected this year. This planting will assist in meeting New Zealand’s 2020 emissions target but insufficient data exists on the types of species to have an accurate estimate on what the carbon capture would be in that year. I have no advice about the level of private sector plantings. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister concerned that apart from the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative he has described 7 million tree seedlings grown in nurseries last year in preparation for a boom in planting under the emissions trading scheme remain unsold and have no prospect of going in the ground? Some 7000 hectares of forest will not be planted because of investor and landowner uncertainty over his Government’s review of the emissions trading scheme. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that between 1951 and 2004 34000 hectares of trees were planted every year; over the last 5 years there has been huge deforestation. The worst 5 years ever have been the previous 5 years. I accept there is some uncertainty as the Government works through its changes to the emissions trading scheme but I assure the member and more important forest investors that this Government is committed to carbon credits for forest owners and they can have confidence that those credits will be transferred in good time so that plantings can occur and we can reverse the appalling record of the previous Government. 
Shane Ardern 
: Has the Minister received any reports or advice on what caused the collapse in forest plantings during the term of the previous Government and the record high levels of deforestation particularly given that the previous Government throughout much of its tenure was supported by the Green Party? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There were three factors. Firstly there was a wave of deforestation in response to the deadline of 1 January 2008 whereby the previous Government provided a perverse incentive for people to cut down their trees. The second factor was the relative economics of pastoral farming particularly dairying and forestry which resulted in a greater level of investment in farming. The third factor was the uncertainty created by the previous Government’s flip-flops on policy. It firstly said that foresters would get carbon credits— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Flip-flops? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —then Mr Anderton who has interjected changed his mind and said that they would not get carbon credits. Two years later the Government changed its mind again. That sort of uncertainty destroys investor confidence and is one of the reasons that New Zealand’s forest estate declined over the last 5 years. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister aware that as a result of his Government’s so-called suspension of the emissions trading scheme which the forestry sector had actually entered into the Forest Owners Association says that New Zealand has lost one deal worth more than $100 million worth in plantings the Kyoto Forestry Association says that New Zealand has lost new forestry investment worth over $125 million and the New Zealand Stock Exchange has sold its carbon registry business to an offshore owner blaming the uncertainty caused by the Government’s suspension; how is all this in New Zealand’s interests at a time of recession when we desperately need inwards investment? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I hate to plagiarise my colleague Bill English but hearing Labour lecture us about forest plantings is a bit like Jack the Ripper talking about domestic violence. This Government will change the record on forestry. I invite members opposite to consider that forestry is a long-term investment. It is an investment whose horizon is likely to be about 30 years. I invite members opposite to constructively engage with the select committee on the review of the emissions trading scheme so that we can get long-term certainty. The last point I make is that the emissions trading scheme according to officials has mistakes in its forestry provisions and they will need to be amended regardless of any policy changes from the new Government. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister seen his own ministry’s projections of New Zealand’s future net greenhouse gas emissions which show a huge spike around 2020 as today’s forests are harvested; and what will he do to ensure that those 7 million seedlings go into the ground this year so that they will be big enough to offset that carbon loss in 2020 instead of just blaming the previous Government when he is responsible for the current lack of certainty? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I point out that we have little control today over the extent to which emission levels are offset by forestry in 2020 because it depends on what trees were actually planted in 1992. There is that spike because the previous National Government from 1990 to 1999 caused a huge amount of new forest plantings and those trees will be harvested in the 2020s. Regardless of what any future Government might do that peak will be there. Underlying this though is the trade-off; the trade-off in terms of our taking our time to do the review of the emissions trading scheme properly and the long-term gains of doing it right compared with the short-term uncertainty arising from the review. I think the Government has that balance right. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Minister acknowledge that trees planted this winter would be just the right age to offset that peak in 2020 and that is being delayed; and will he also acknowledge that the 7 million unwanted seedlings sitting there today represent one of the best shovel-ready job schemes he could find in a recession? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What surprises me about that member is that for the last 9 years when she was part of a Government she did not so much as raise a finger when there was a chainsaw massacre of trees yet she is demanding action from a Government that has been in office for less than 3 months. I ask that member to reflect on the record of the previous— 
Hon Members 
: Answer the question! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Members opposite should simply reflect on their record on deforestation—the worst of any post-war Government. I assure them that this Government backs the forest industry. With the work that David Carter is doing with that industry I have confidence in its future. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is bad enough to hear a lengthy answer to a question; it is worse when the lengthy speech does not even address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not blame the honourable member for his concern because answers have been too long—I must say to my friend the Hon Dr Nick Smith. But the dilemma was that the question asked whether the Minister would “acknowledge” something. Where a question asks that it is very difficult to expect a precise answer. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister knows very well that the Greens have never been part of a Government and did not contribute— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister then answer his own 2007 questions to the previous Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: “What sort of incompetent Government is it when it ... cannot tell foresters who are about to contemplate planting trees in June July and August of this year whether they will get credits for those trees? … when this very day nursery and forestry contractors are making decisions about whether to plant commercial trees this season; … can he not see that that is critical to their making investment decisions … say to the Minister that they do not want options or discussion papers but a simple answer:”—do we have an emissions trading scheme or not Minister? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before the Hon Dr Nick Smith answers I ask members that if they expect Ministers to give brief answers could they please focus the questions a bit more. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have made plain to that member and to those who want to plant trees that this Government is committed to providing carbon credits for them. I stress again that forestry is a long-term investment. Over the last 7 years we had the previous Government saying that foresters would get carbon credits then it said that they would not get carbon credits then it changed its mind a third time and said that they would. That is not a way to encourage long-term investment and that is why I would encourage all political parties in this House to build consensus around this issue of forestry so that we can restore confidence to that industry. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave—bearing in mind Mr Speaker your ruling about the tabling of documents—to table a document in light of the Minister’s exaltations to members on this side to take their time and participate in the scheme. This document is a media release from Nick Smith and David Carter saying that the select committee— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can we please hear what the document is. The member is taking a long time. 
Charles Chauvel 
: This is a press statement— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a press statement. 
Charles Chauvel 
: —indicating— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: From what? 
Charles Chauvel 
: —it is the Ministers’ press statement—that Nick Smith expects the select committee to report back in April. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK. Leave is sought to table a press statement from the Ministers. Is there any objection? There is objection to that course of action. 
Copyright Act—Section 92A 
12.  
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Does he intend to respond to public concerns expressed about the implementation of section 92A of the Copyright Act which comes into force next week; if so what will be his response? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Yes; I will respond by saying that I am mindful of the concerns that have been expressed by the public in relation to this provision coming into force. As the member will be aware industry representatives are currently working on a code of practice to help implement this law which was passed by the previous Labour Government. 
Clare Curran 
: Will the Minister delay the implementation of section 92A of the Copyright Act due to the concerns of Internet service providers Internet users and rights holders? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: At this stage I have confidence that the discussions that are occurring between the various parties will produce the code. 
Clare Curran 
: Given the Minister’s party’s support for this legislation at its time of passage will he amend the legislation to assist in developing workable guidelines to implement the policy; if not why not? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The Government will do everything it can to assist the implementation of the code between the parties concerned. 
Questions to Members 
Question No. 1 to the Chairperson of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee 
Question postponed. 
General Debate 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Today Opposition members indicated in select committees and public statements that they are more concerned about whether macroeconomic forecasters are kept busy revising weekly their forecasts than they are about whether people who have real jobs get to keep them. 
Although the forecasts about the economy will unfold as economic events unfold I want to cast our minds back to the economy that this current Government inherited. It is gospel among Labour Party members that they left everything in fine form. I will quickly run through a few pieces of information that indicate that before the world financial crisis occurred the New Zealand economy had very significant challenges. This Government has the job of dealing with both the effects of coordinated recession in our trading markets and the accumulated problems resulting from a decade of misdirected economic policy. 
First we were left with twin deficits. There were cash deficits on the Government’s books. The 2008 Budget showed that the swing from surplus to deficit occurred well before the world financial crisis not after it or as a result of it. Under the previous Labour Government large surpluses disappeared. In the 2008 Budget its members forecast cash deficits of $3.5 billion on average for the next 4 years. In the pre-election update those cash deficits blew out from $3.5 billion a year to $6 billion per year—in the pre-election update not the post-election update. The second deficit that we were left with was the balance of payments deficit. Despite a decade of rhetoric from the previous Minister of Finance about how he was going to fix it we ended up in 2008 with about the largest balance of payments deficit that we had had for two decades. In fact it was around 8 or 9 percent of GDP for the last few years of the previous Government despite all the rhetoric about setting about to fix it. 
The balance of payments deficit sums up the vulnerability of the New Zealand economy to its foreign liabilities. The previous Government actually left the New Zealand economy vulnerable to exactly the kind of shock that has now occurred. The balance of payments problem is not something that happened after the world financial crisis or after the election of this Government; it was already well locked in and embedded and is the product of 9 years of misdirected policy. If we want final proof of that by the time of the election the New Zealand economy had been in recession for 9 months; it had already been in recession for 9 months. It was a recession driven by adjustments that had to follow growth that was based on debt high inflation and very high interest rates because of unbalanced economic policy. So the New Zealand economy was left vulnerable to exactly the kind of shock that has occurred. 
Here are some more indications of it. In the 9 years ended September 2008 New Zealand’s overseas debt more than doubled. What is our biggest problem now? The ability to finance and maintain that stock of debt. The New Zealand banking sector had its net foreign liabilities grow by five times. The Labour Government inherited a banking sector with about $15 billion of foreign liabilities and it left us with a banking sector with foreign liabilities of $75 billion. That again is the vulnerability that this Government will have to manage for the New Zealand economy. 
What about unemployment? Labour members believe that unemployment kept dropping until the day they left office and started rising on 9 November. Well they are wrong. Unemployment rose by almost 30 percent through 2008. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 It is a bit rich for that member to come into the House and talk about twin deficits when this country was running a surplus and Michael Cullen was very prudently paying off the Government’s sovereign debt. That member in Opposition said we should be spending the surplus and we should be blowing out the economy. He must thank God every day that he inherited a situation from Michael Cullen whereby he has the third-lowest sovereign debt ratios in the OECD. He said that himself in the Budget Policy Statement when he said that he had inherited a situation whereby New Zealand has had consistently in the last 9 years one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Western World. 
He must be thankful that he inherited from the previous Government a sound banking situation and that guarantees were brought in at the right time. He should thank the Labour Government that sensible decisions to deal with the economy’s structural problems had been introduced by way of things like KiwiSaver. The only thing the National Government has done to KiwiSaver is to gut it. It has done so against the advice that was given to the Minister of Finance by his Treasury advisers which he did not have the honesty to release at the time the debate was happening in the House. He was so frightened of his own department’s advice that he suppressed it for 6 weeks after he had released almost every other piece of information. 
There is no doubt that New Zealand faces an economic crisis that threatens the jobs of literally thousands of New Zealanders. The Minister’s own Treasury advice is that unemployment could rise by as many as 68000 people over the course of this year. New Zealanders do not blame this Government—or for that matter the previous Government—for the problem of economic recession. We know that New Zealand is a small player in the world and we deal with the cards given to us. But what New Zealanders will hold this Government responsible for is the response to that economic situation. I think it is important that this National Government does not squander the very powerful position it has inherited in each of the areas I have outlined. 
I say to Mr English that as an Opposition we are more than happy to work constructively to support measures provided they are effective and provided they are fair. Mr English needs to acknowledge to this House that of the much-talked-about stimulus package that National is parading up and down 75 percent of it was brought in by Michael Cullen in the Budget in May of last year. That is what he needs to acknowledge. Unfortunately what he does not acknowledge is that since the Budget last year and since the end of last year the international economic situation has continued to get worse. National is putting in place stimulus measures designed to deal with the economy as it was seen by almost everybody in the middle of last year without responding to keep pace with how far that situation has deteriorated. 
What I regret about what the Government has done is that so much of it has been counter-productive. Everybody knows that if we want a stimulus package giving funds to those who are at the bottom of the heap—low and middle income families low-income earners—means that those people will go out and spend those funds immediately when they receive them. They will pick up goods and services which in turn will keep businesses afloat and jobs intact. What did Bill English do last year? He slashed three-quarters of a billion dollars out of the pockets of low and middle income families where each dollar spent as a stimulus would get the most cost-effective return and he gave that to members on the front bench in this House and to those on higher incomes who will pay down their mortgages and spend it internationally. 
We know that there is not a bottomless pit of money. We therefore know that the money has to be spent most effectively. That Government did exactly the wrong thing. It got advice from its own economic advisers that it chose to ignore. Everybody who knows anything about how to get sustainable growth knows that the last thing we should do if we want innovation is to slash research and development tax credits. The last thing we should do is to pull apart the Fast Forward fund which would have kept innovation in our vital primary sector. The last thing we should do is to put superannuation funds at risk which the Minister has done as a result of the changes he has made. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I was hoping to hear an apology from the Leader of the Opposition for the appalling state in which he left the Department of Corrections which was clearly identified yesterday in the damning report from the Auditor-General. I heard on radio this morning Clayton Cosgrove demanding accountability from Judith Collins for the performance of the Department of Corrections between May 2007 and May 2008. Who was the Minister between May 2007 and May 2008 when New Zealanders were put at risk by the probation staff of the Department of Corrections not ensuring that even the minutiae of procedures were followed in respect of the management of dangerous prisoners? That Minister was Phil Goff and he owes the people of New Zealand an apology for his incompetent management of that department. I say to Clayton Cosgrove opposite that he should hold his leader to account for that awful state of affairs. 
Hon Bill English 
: He will! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague Bill English says that he will. I think that day is coming. 
This Government is responding both sensibly and responsibly to the most challenging economic times our country has seen in at least 50 years. In just 3 months this Government has delivered a very substantive tax package for New Zealanders which will take effect on 1 April. This Government has delivered a substantive package worth over $500 million for small and medium sized businesses including provisions that will hold back on provisional tax and allow our small and medium sized businesses to find a path through this difficult period. This Government is helping families through this difficult period with the ReStart package which will provide well-targeted support to those families caught up at the hard edge of the recession. This Government also is committed to providing hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure spend to ensure we provide jobs and necessary infrastructure through this difficult patch. 
The other part of what the Government is doing is very important regulatory reform. I look forward to introducing the resource management amendment legislation which frankly should have been passed during the good times. The previous Government received advice from across the board that the Resource Management Act was holding New Zealand back and my only disappointment is that key elements of infrastructure that should have been built were not built. Key parts of business like aquaculture had real opportunities that were squandered by the previous Labour Government and we are missing out on those opportunities. 
It is also in my view timely to review this Government’s first 100 days in office. We are keeping our word. That is something that Labour does not know about—keeping one’s word. We said that we would repeal the Electoral Finance Act and we have done it. We said we would bring in fresh start legislation and we have done it. We said we would bring in legislation to help support victims of crime and we have done it. We said we would bring in laws to provide for the latest DNA technology to be used in solving crime and we have done it. We said we would crack down on gangs and organised crime and that we would introduce new laws to tackle that and we have done it. We said we would introduce changes to the bail laws and we have done it. We said we would introduce a package of tax reductions and we have done it. 
I say that for just 3 months—of which a considerable period was the Christmas period—that is an outstanding record of a Government in its first 100 days. I say to members opposite to get with the programme because in times of recession the last thing this country needs is a moaning whingeing unambitious Opposition. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Next week the Government hosts one of the key components of its celebrated rolling maul—the employment summit. Not being on the guest list for this illustrious occasion the Green Party awaits the results with interest. I am truly hopeful that it will not be a repeat of the mid-1980s predecessor where a large number of people assembled for a very similar job summit and did a lot of talking but from which very little eventuated apart from the then Labour Government’s going on to enact policies that saw the loss of many tens of thousands of jobs. 
Unemployment is already rising. We hear of more closures and potential closures every day—sadly. During the financial review of the Ministry of Social Development at the Social Services Committee this morning the chief executive Peter Hughes said that his ministry is looking ahead to there being 60000 people on the unemployment benefit—currently the figure is about 34000—although he said the figure may rise to 100000 and that “it is a very difficult situation.” The household labour force survey number our international comparator has already gone up to 105000. 
In this context it has therefore been quite dispiriting to read in the media over the last couple of days about Government plans to trim numbers across a range of departments. Mentioned so far are the Tertiary Education Commission the Ministry for the Environment the Department of Conservation the National Library and of course the Ministry of Social Development itself. There are deep ironies indeed in the Prime Minister saying when he launched the employment summit: “My Government is determined to show decisive leadership to protect New Zealanders’ jobs as we head into tougher economic times.” when at the same time the pressure is on across much of the Public Service it appears to reduce staff numbers. By how much and in what areas is of course the big question. Mr Key should understand that keeping people off the dole is not just about new jobs; it is also about retaining existing ones. 
When I questioned Mr Hughes this morning about the impact of the proposed cuts to Ministry of Social Development staff numbers—the very ministry that has to deal front-on with the rising numbers of those who are losing their jobs—he assured the select committee that in fact most positions would be lost through attrition. That is great; however this was only in relation to a possible 5 percent decline in the ministry’s job numbers not the 10 percent that has also been mooted. The Green Party hopes that the National leadership in its new-found concern for the unemployed and for those who are about to become so will revise the slash-and-burn approach it is bringing to the State sector and mount a much more constructive response in the weeks ahead. 
I turn briefly now to another high-risk area for unemployment; the difficulties in which Fisher and Paykel Appliances currently finds itself have highlighted another pressure point in the economy. The Green Party finds it interesting that—so far anyway—it is only ACT that stands right outside any need to consider the possibility that in the times ahead the Government may have a role to play in helping at least some parts of our manufacturing and productive sector to survive. From a Green Party perspective whether Fisher and Paykel Appliances—or any other company for that matter—should get taxpayer help remains an open question but we would like to offer some criteria that we think should apply before any company at all gets taxpayer assistance. 
For example we believe that help should be considered only when a company closure will result in substantial job losses and will have a significant broader downstream economic impact as well. Any help should be in the form of an equity stake with director powers attached not through soft loans and suchlike. Government shareholding should also be conditional on caps being set on chief executives’ and directors’ fees on jobs being kept in New Zealand and not taken offshore and on minimum protections and help with training or retraining being offered and set in place for all staff. Without conditions like these New Zealand risks repeating the mistakes seen in the United States where the first round of massive bail-outs mostly ended up in the pockets of those who caused the crisis in the first place rather than helping to keep or create jobs. 
Sadly our country is only just beginning to see the impacts of what is coming at us. It is imperative that the Government takes the unemployment crisis seriously on all fronts not just on some of them. I certainly hope that next week’s employment summit will result in ongoing and useful activity and will not go down in history as just another failed public relations exercise. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 It has been a long long time since Labour has been down to seven members in the Chamber for a general debate but I guess that pretty much sums up where that mob is at the moment. Frankly after that insipid uninspiring speech from the Leader of the Opposition people would feel like going off for a coffee to perk up. 
When we look at where Phil Goff is at the moment as the temporary leader of the Labour Party we can see that the future does not look too good. That leader opposite has been reduced to tabling blog sites and asking minor questions about staffing numbers while he leaves the big questions on the economy to David Cunliffe to address. There is no question that the “Phil-in” will soon be filled in. Phil Goff is the fall guy. He must be the biggest mug in New Zealand politics. 
When Labour wants someone to take the tough job—to fall on his sword—it is Phil. When Phil Goff was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Labour had to move someone out of the way to make room for Winston Peters it was Phil Goff. When Labour needed someone to take the hospital pass the corrections portfolio whom did it line up for that job? It was Phil Goff. When it needed a new leader after a crushing defeat who was the one person silly enough to actually take the job? It was Phil Goff. 
I can tell members what will happen next. Labour will sack Phil Goff because there is no doubt that there is a lot of unhappiness in the Labour corridors. If we look to members opposite we see a pretty dispirited disunited lot. There is a little left-wing faction down the corridor and it is built around Ruth Dyson Maryan Street and Charles Chauvel. They are grinning over there but they know it is absolutely true. They are not going to put up with this shocking performance for too much longer. Then we have the main faction the faction of one—but it has enough for a whole caucus—David Cunliffe. 
David Cunliffe is the man who now insists on asking the big questions in question time. He will not trust his leader to actually ask the questions. And then we have Shane Jones over there. Shane is in hibernation at the moment. He has got the Bill Liu stuff he wants to get out of the way. He is getting over the negative stuff about the shower-head stuff. But he will be back. He is biding his time. He is trying to decide whether he should leave Parliament now but no things look bad enough with Phil. David Cunliffe will be so uncomfortable for the party that Shane Jones could well come to the fore. So it is a very uncomfortable time over there. 
The running sore from the last Government was the Department of Corrections. And who was responsible for that department for the whole year that this Auditor-General’s report was based on? It was Phil Goff. I have some very interesting quotes here from Mr Goff. This is what he said when he was the Minister of Corrections: “Our corrections system has improved significantly over the past nine years …” and “I look forward to working with Corrections staff and with anyone prepared to offer constructive solutions to meeting the challenges within the corrections portfolio …” And there was his quote about parole—that he required the safety of the community to be the paramount consideration. Well frankly Phil Goff failed miserably in that portfolio. But he started this term pretty chipper. Those members have been up to it in the House. 
I can tell members though that if they were at the lantern festival in Auckland on Waitangi Day they would have seen a major turning point. When John Key got out of his car it took him 30 minutes to walk the 200 metres from his car to the stage. I do not think anything like that has been seen before in New Zealand politics. It was truly a 21st century Kiwi Camelot. Then we saw Phil Goff. We saw him realise that the tide had turned. We saw a dispirited hesitant man stumbling over his speech. The reality is that there is a sea change out there. 
What Labour—which was the previous Government and is now the Opposition—will have to face up to is the fact that we have a very popular Prime Minister who is the right man for the times. Those guys in Opposition are facing a Prime Minister who will put the interests of New Zealand first not the interests of the National Party. That is the major change now compared with the last 9 years and the glum faces over there know it. But worst of all for those guys is the fact that the public knows it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 People would not know from that speech that 87000 more New Zealanders are going to lose their jobs this year and that a quarter of a million New Zealanders live in families with an unemployed person because that speech was all about some fantastical picture of the inner politics of the Labour Party. 
Well it is a great honour that Jonathan Coleman spent time talking about the Labour Party but actually it is not about us and it is not about the National Party; it should be about New Zealanders. We face one of the greatest crises New Zealand has ever faced—the equivalent of the Great Depression or the Great War—and National is playing petty politics with New Zealanders’ futures. You know you have 3 days left to show leadership. It is going to be an amazing 3 days is it not? I suppose you will not do it tomorrow because the House will still be in session. That gives you 2 days. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not be doing it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Sorry not you Mr Speaker; the Government has 2 days. That gives the Government days 98 and 99 to show us the 100-day plan of action which has been cunningly hidden until the last possible moment in order to reduce opposition to it. 
One can only assume that in the next 3 days we will see the National Government’s real package for small and medium sized business not just the stuff the previous Government did which ACT opposed as being insufficient and that this Government said it would go past—or perhaps not. We will see a real infrastructure plan not just a rebranding and retiming of a few rats and mice that were already in the pipeline—or perhaps not. We will see an honest and detailed disclosure of the latest forecasts for the economy—or perhaps not. We will see tax relief that benefits all New Zealanders and that does something more than transfer three-quarters of a billion dollars from below-average income earners to chief executives and politicians—or perhaps not. We will see a strategic framework for innovation and productivity something that really underpins our businesses that are trying to make and export goods and services—or perhaps not. All this Government has done is to can research and development tax credits and now pick winners of individual companies. 
We are nearly 100 days in and I will reflect on what National started with. It started with a few raw numbers that now sound like they are from a forgotten age: a 25 percent real increase in personal incomes; 377000 more jobs not 87000 fewer jobs; significant increases in the minimum wage each year every year not just keeping up with inflation; 130000 children lifted out of poverty not consigned back to it after some people left; 12000 new State houses not a bogus increase of 69 at the same time as canning the Hobsonville development and the Home Ownership on the Public Estate programme cutting 2000; and 137000 fewer people on the unemployment benefit. 
It does not take long for summer to fade does it? It does not take long for the chill winds of winter to sweep across our economy. New Zealanders do not blame National for all of that. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: They blame Labour. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: They certainly do not blame Labour for it because they know they had a much better time in the previous 9 years. But they do ask that there is honesty that there is clarity and that there is strategic coherence in the response. 
It cannot be just a so-called rolling maul of dribs and drabs. We want to pack down together as a country in a tight scrum and it has to be the Government that leads that charge. It has to be the Government that leads that pack and at the moment it is not. 
National has 3 days to live up to its pre-election rhetoric of 100 days of action. It was not 100 days of rebranding the previous Government not 100 days of repeating and double-counting not 100 days of obfuscating and not 100 days of dribs and drabs. Uncertainty leads to under-confidence and principally we have fear itself to fear in this time of recession. Fear is our greatest enemy and this Government can help New Zealanders if it provides a plan. Ninety-seven days in we have yet to see it. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 The Minister of Corrections Judith Collins just yesterday asked the State Services Commissioner to establish who was accountable for the serious failings identified in the Auditor-General’s report on the management of offenders out on parole. The damning report looked at the case files of 100 offenders on parole between May 2007 and May 2008. Of the 100 case files examined the audit found that in most of them the Department of Corrections did not follow one or more of its own sentence management requirements. I ask members who the Minister of Corrections was at that time. The answer is Phil Goff. This is what Phil Goff had to say in 2007— 
Paul Quinn 
: The Leader of the Opposition? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Yes he is the Leader of the Opposition. Phil Goff had this to say in November 2007: “As Justice Minister I promoted tough sentencing and parole legislation which imposed much longer sentences on the worst offenders and for parole required the safety of the community to be the paramount consideration.” Well I think the report of the Auditor-General released yesterday by our own excellent Minister of Corrections Judith Collins puts the lie to that. Do members know that Labour has had 9 years to fix the problems in the justice area and in the corrections system yet nothing has been done? To hear Clayton Cosgrove on Radio New Zealand National calling for Judith Collins’ resignation is a joke. Clayton Cosgrove should look in his own backyard for someone to blame. He should look squarely at the Leader of the Opposition who was then the Minister of Corrections. Who is that man? The man responsible is Phil Goff. 
You know we live in extraordinary times. We are facing the most serious economic conditions that we have seen for several generations and this new National Government recognises the economic challenges we face. Unlike Labour which was asleep at the wheel for 9 long years we have a clear understanding of the economic challenges we face. We are focused on finding solutions. As a careful economic manager National has put together a strong economic management plan that will provide the fiscal stimulus to lift us out of recession and boost economic growth over the long term. Labour was in denial but the National Government has a 100-day action plan. 
Let me just run through some of the things that National has achieved in the first 98 days of our 100-day action plan. We have acted swiftly and decisively to provide temporary relief to those made redundant with our excellent ReStart assistance package which has been very well received by the people who need it. We have passed legislation to reduce taxes. That measure will put more money in New Zealanders’ pockets; it comes into force on 1 April. We have introduced a 90-day trial period for new employees making it easier for small businesses to hire staff. “Hallelujah!” was what I heard from small-business owners all around New Zealand when that measure was brought in. The National Government is working to bring forward the infrastructure spending it has announced and it is working to promote economic growth with the reforms of the Resource Management Act that will be introduced into the House this week. I hear “Hallelujah!” again particularly from my own electorate of Waitaki where the Resource Management Act has been a vexatious issue for many people who wish to get things done. The National Government is a Government of action and we are true to our word. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 The National Government has talked about its 100 days of action which is coming towards its final phase. Part of the 100-day plan is the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill which will be introduced later today and part of that bill is ACT’s “three strikes and you’re out” policy. I stand to speak on this issue in this debate even though I will speak again later because I want to give members the benefit of the doubt. I have heard all sorts of comments from both sides of the House I am afraid I must say that the bill is a terrible idea because shoplifters could go to jail for 25 years. I heard the Prime Minister say that during the election campaign. I know that he now understands that that is incorrect. I want to leave members in no doubt about what this bill will do so that they cannot make that excuse to their constituents. 
I raise the matter of constituents because the people whom I mix with are actually funnily enough mostly Labour-voter types. People at the Kaukapakapa pub where I have a beer on the way home most days—out the back there among the smokers although I do not smoke—ask me: “Why are you giving them three strikes? One’s enough.” That demonstrates how out of touch with its core constituency the Labour Government became. People do not want three strikes; they want one. Those are the people who used to be Labour’s constituency. 
New Zealanders believe in fairness. No one wants to see an Act that locks up people for 25 years without giving them a chance. I certainly do not and I do not think anyone in the House does. The bill that will be introduced later today does not do that. I have heard references to systems in California from the usual suspects like Kim Workman Peter Williams QC and all the other bleeding-heart liberals and those people are just dishonest. They are either dishonest or they have not read the bill. There are only two choices. What we have drafted is not—I repeat not—California’s bill nor anything like it. I went to California in 2007 specifically to find out whether it was indeed possible for people to go to jail for life for shop-theft and whether it was possible to prevent that from happening. That is what we have done. When I say “we” I should say that I was the original drafter of the bill. It has now been worked on under the supervision of the Ministry of Justice but the essentials are all still there. The essentials are that it is simply impossible for someone to go to jail for life for shoplifting theft of another kind or burglary. I will say that again: it is simply impossible the way this bill is drafted for anyone to go to jail for 25 years to life imprisonment for theft burglary car conversion or any offence like that. It is impossible. Any member who stands up later in the debate to say it is possible simply has not read the bill or he or she is giving the alternative which we are not allowed to say in the House. 
The reason it is impossible is simple. The bill lists a number of serious violent offences. Those are the strike offences or what are now called qualifying offences. They are serious offences of violence. They are listed in the schedule of the bill—in I think section 84A—which is to be added. Those are the only offences for which a sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment can be imposed. I will say it a third time. No one can go to jail for 25 years for theft car conversion or burglary. I am saying it three times because I have already heard it claimed 10 times on the radio and on the telly that that is possible. That simply is not true. The way the bill is drafted makes that impossible. 
Here is how it will work. One of the serious offences listed in the bill is aggravated robbery a serious violent offence that is all too common. We saw the results of one such offence in the dreadful tragedy concerning Navtej Singh in South Auckland. In that situation some mongrel armed with a gun went into a liquor store and now someone is dead. Well let us leave the death out of it. If that was just an armed robbery and I should not say “just an armed robbery” and no one had died— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt but the member’s time has expired. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I have a message for the National Government and I think the media is also ready to deliver the message. The message is that it is time to stop trying to rewrite history. For the last 100 days the greatest consistency of message that we have seen from National members is in their attempts to rewrite history to insinuate that the Labour-led Government was a poor manager of the economy and that it left the economy of New Zealand on its knees and in a poor state of affairs. That is patently not so. 
At the meeting of the Finance and Expenditure Committee today I thought we saw Bill English getting over himself in acknowledging that he has inherited low unemployment. Indeed he compared New Zealand’s low unemployment of 4 percent with some overseas countries that he said have now entered double-digit inflation. He acknowledged that the Government debt he inherited was now at 18 percent of GDP and he contrasted that with many overseas countries. Many OECD countries are now facing budget deficits but the difference between those countries and New Zealand is that they have been running budget deficits even during boom times and as a consequence already have quite high levels of Government debt. He even acknowledged that in the past 6 years or so New Zealand has had high rates of economic growth. Those were his words—“high rates of economic growth”—not mine. 
I was somewhat surprised when Bill English came into the House for the general debate and reverted to the line he has been trying to parlay around New Zealand for most of the last 100 days which is that the National-led Government has inherited a difficult set of affairs. Patently the National Government is trying to paint a false picture that portrays the outgoing Labour Government as irresponsible managers of the economy and falsely suggests that because of the last Government the National Government has inherited a difficult set of cards to play with and therefore should be excused for underperformance in its term of Government. National members want to be able to come to the next election and say that “It was all the previous Government’s fault it’s all been very hard we’ve done as well as we can and give us another chance.” The reality is that the Government inherited low debt of under 20 percent of GDP compared with 38 percent of GDP when Labour took Government. It also inherited the lowest unemployment rate in the world over the last couple of years swapping that position with South Korea and even now sitting at only 4 percent unemployment far lower than the 7.3 percent unemployment inherited by the last Labour Government from the then National Government. 
National members talk of the Government’s stimulus package and vaunt it as some incredible achievement on their part. The extra amount that the Government is spending on infrastructure is a mere fraction of the increase on infrastructure spending made under the last Labour Government. When the last National Government left office it was spending 1 percent of GDP on transport investment. When the Labour Government left office that was already up to 1.6 percent of GDP—an increase of more than 50 percent. To put it in dollar terms the per annum amount spent on transport and communication by the Government was just over a billion dollars in 1999; it is now $3.5 billion. The major part of that spending was in roading expense. If we look at electricity infrastructure we see that transmission expenditure under the last National Government was running at about $50 million per annum. It was up to $500 million per annum under the last Labour Government yet the National Government heralds an extra one-off $100 million of expenditure it is bringing forward as the answer. 
The last thing I say in my limited time relates to the balance of payments deficit that Mr English referred to. He complained that the deficit is a large amount and that it should have been lower. It was his party that said we should not run surpluses. It was his party that said we should have tax cuts that would have further fed consumption further fed the property bubble further worsened the balance of payments position and further created inflationary pressures that would have increased interest rates. For him to turn up and say the balance of payments problem is a legacy that was the fault of Labour is not wholly truthful. There are huge imbalances in world trade at the moment. There have been for a number of years; there are huge surpluses in countries like China and deficits in the USA and in New Zealand. National’s prescription in recent years would have made that worse not better. Mr English should not try to rewrite history. He has inherited a good set of fiscal positions. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is the sort of muddle-headed thinking shown by the previous speaker that sank Labour. The inability of the members on the opposite side of the House to actually read public opinion is why they were chucked out of the Treasury benches. I want to deal with their leader. Those of us who were in the House over the last 3 years saw the total dislocation of the Government members. We saw their inactivity their infighting and their disaccord. What reveals a lot about what is seen today is a report from the Auditor-General on the way that parole was managed. We know that it is quite a glaring indictment upon the Labour Government that during its watch New Zealand had such heinous things occurring. 
Who was the Minister in charge at that particular time in November 2007? It was Phil Goff. When one stops to think about it that is quite interesting. There is a general theme of ineptitude when one looks at Phil Goff’s actions over the last 3 years. Sure he was the Minister of Trade but he was also the Minister of Defence. When I stop and think about it I realise one of the enduring photos I have in my mind of Phil Goff was in the Christchurch  
Press 
—which never lies; it tells the truth. It was of Phil Goff walking away with two C-130J Hercules in the background. That has carried on today. When we go to Marlborough the enduring monument to Phil Goff as the Minister of Defence will be 14 Skyhawks put out to pasture fenced on pasture and wrapped up in white cladding. He was going to sell them for $120 million to $140 million. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Did he sell them? 
COLIN KING 
: No he did not sell them. They have not sold. Now let us move on to Project Protector. The notion was a fantastic concept but where is Project Protector today? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Where is it? 
COLIN KING 
: It is still languishing at Whangarei Harbour because parts of it cannot get its marine survey. It is not working. 
A consistent theme here is that the Leader of the Opposition does not deliver and that message will be coming through loud and clear already to the other would-be contenders be it Cunliffe or whomever else. They will be awaiting their time. As previous speakers on this side of the House have alluded to it is only a matter of time before there is a change over there. There will be discord and disjointedness as we have not seen before because Phil Goff’s track record is not great. Just after the Government changed we were looking to see what state of readiness the Boeing 757-200s were in. Where were they? They were both out of the country. One was undergoing major repairs and the other was unable to be sent to Asia to bring back New Zealanders. Such were the poor organisational structures under Phil Goff. I want to put that on the Table. I sympathise with the burden he has to carry. Not only was he part of a dysfunctional Government over the last 3 years but now with that track record he has to try to pull together a pretty ragged bunch. 
However on a more positive note I point out that this Government is doing a stunning job. This Government is in the real world. Its 100-day programme is fantastic. We will hear members on the other side of the House ranting in line with their silo-type thinking and saying that tax cuts benefit only the rich and go only to chief executive officers. I can inform those members that tax cuts are one of the best ways of leaving money in Marlborough and reinforcing the economies of the provinces and I say: “Hallelujah!” to that. I think that this Government under John Key with Bill English as the Minister of Finance is doing a stunning job. So does the public of New Zealand. The stimulus package of about $9 billion is equal to if not better than any other in the world. 
I would just like to conclude by mentioning the stunning effort of Anne Tolley and her ability to pick what needs to be done in education. In the very last days of the Labour Government we saw 3 years of inactivity where more than 20 percent of people left school unable to read and write. They did not have a very good experience. The Southern Cross Campus in Auckland is a decile 1 school. Anne Tolley has had the wisdom to inject $6 million into that school to help with hands-on skills. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I make it clear to the people of New Zealand that the member who has just resumed his seat is Colin King who is I think the member for Marlborough. I think he used the word “stunning” seven times. 
Colin King 
: I would like to correct that member. I seek leave to correct the member. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to correct a statement made by the honourable member. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Colin King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House has dealt with that point of order Mr King. Is it a new point of order? 
Colin King 
: Yes. I want to inform the member that I am the MP for Kaikoura. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not actually a point of order and it is not good to interrupt a member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the member has just made the point I wanted to be made. I wanted him to be identified to people who are watching television and more important listening to the radio. He used the word “stunning” seven times. I think he should take some advice from John Carter as to whether it is an appropriate word to use so often in the Chamber. Mr Carter’s experience with that word has not always been positive. 
I ask the Prime Minister why he is so afraid to front up to what he has been saying about Fisher and Paykel Appliances. During question time today— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is not afraid of fronting up to anyone in this country. If the gentleman who is giving the speech cares to know just how much New Zealanders appreciate Mr Key’s outward nature then he will learn of that later this evening. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point and it is well made. The honourable member on his feet cannot in any way impugn the courage of members of the House. He cannot imply that anyone is afraid to do anything. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Prime Minister appears to be considerably reluctant to repeat in the Chamber the comments he made to Radio New Zealand. He dismisses Radio New Zealand transcripts as being blogs because they have come from a blog site. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: We call them “Radio Labour”. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Did he say it or did he not? Did he or did he not say that he would not let Fisher and Paykel Appliances collapse? All we want from the Prime Minister is the truth. 
In the Chamber earlier today he said that because the transcript was on a blog it was not true. I say that when a transcript from Radio New Zealand is on a blog— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Breathe through your nose. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Let us just get the facts. Why will the Prime Minister not back his courage on Radio New Zealand with similar courage in this Chamber? Why will he not be consistently courageous? Why does the Prime Minister hide when he is in the Chamber but when he is outside it he is prepared to make statements? 
He said he would not let Fisher and Paykel Appliances collapse. Did he say it once? Yes. Did he say it twice? Yes he did; he said it twice. We want to know who got to the Prime Minister. Was it Bill English who got to the Prime Minister and said “Look you can’t just go around making comments.”? Maurice Williamson is putting up his hand. Was it Maurice Williamson who got to the Prime Minister and said “I remember something about Telecom or something which means that you can’t make comments that could well affect a share price.”? 
Did the Prime Minister’s comments affect the share price? It only went up by over 30c following the Prime Minister’s comments. Were those events directly related? Did the people of New Zealand who were investing in the sharemarket listen to the Prime Minister and then bid the price back up by 30c or did that happen as an absolute coincidence? I think the problem is unfortunately that in this particular case some people did believe the Prime Minister when he said he would not let Fisher and Paykel Appliances collapse. 
Whether or not Fisher and Paykel Appliances collapses is not the issue here; it is the fact that we must have a system that has clear criteria if firms are going to be supported. It is something that has to apply— 
Paul Quinn 
: Speak up Trevor; I can’t hear. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
:—to smaller firms as well as to bigger firms. The member obviously has a problem that causes that. We have to make sure that the criteria apply to firms that have people who work in New Zealand—certainly the balance of their workforce. We need to consider questions of research. What is the effect on research and development in New Zealand of having particular firms here? Presumably we want to have questions of ownership considered as one of the factors. If all the jobs are offshore all the research is offshore and all the ownership is offshore—or the majority of all of them—is that the sort of company that we want to put taxpayers’ money into? 
There are clearly a lot of areas where criteria have to be developed and for the Prime Minister to say he will not let a particular firm collapse is something he should not do until those criteria have been developed. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 As a new member in this House I look at the older members—I say “older” because they have been here longer than I have—and want to be inspired. I have no idea what the member who spoke before me Trevor Mallard was talking about apart from the fact that I agree in some way with what he said about owning up to what members have actually been saying. Perhaps he should look to the leader of his party who was once the Minister of Justice. Let me quote the Minister: “As Justice Minister I promoted tough sentencing and parole legislation which imposed much longer sentences …”. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What? 
MELISSA LEE 
: Let me repeat: “As Justice Minister I promoted tough sentencing and parole legislation which imposed much longer sentences on the worst offenders and for parole required the safety of the community to be the paramount consideration.” That was Labour’s leader Phil Goff in November 2007. 
I will quote to members some of the headlines taken from the period under Labour’s watch: “Burton a ‘walking nightmare’ inquest told” and “Survivor of RSA murders can sue Corrections”. Further headlines included: “Alarm ignored for nine minutes during inmate’s escape” “… Corrections dossier found on street” “Many offenders fail to finish work-term sentences” and “Millionaire prisoner involved in drug ring”. I will read members some more headlines: “Three prisoners escape in Hamilton” “National grills Govt after axe killer on garden work escapes” and “ ‘High risk’ violent criminal escaped from home detention”. 
Labour had 9 years to fix these problems yet it did nothing. Nothing was done about them so we had to introduce legislation. It has been a very very busy 3 months since the new National Government took power in New Zealand with the biggest majority in the history of MMP. Did I say the “biggest majority”? 
Paul Quinn 
: The biggest? Absolutely. 
MELISSA LEE 
: That is right—the biggest. The people of New Zealand have said that National needs to do something about these problems. Our Prime Minister John Key formed working relationships very quickly and very effectively with parties that had worked with the previous Government. I wonder why that is—perhaps those parties saw the light and moved from the dark side to the light. 
These are difficult times. We are facing the most serious economic crisis that I have seen in 21 years in New Zealand. All I can say is that the response from the Opposition has been moaning whingeing— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That’s all. 
MELISSA LEE 
: That is all. Do members know what that response is doing? It is eroding the confidence of the public in the Government’s response to the economic crisis. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Indecision erodes the confidence of the public. 
MELISSA LEE 
: Members opposite can throw a couple of lines in my direction but I say that they did nothing—absolutely nothing—for 9 years. 
This Government unlike the previous Labour Government has moved very swiftly—yes swiftly. I will tell members how swifty this Government has moved. The previous Government took 9 years to give New Zealanders a tax cut—New Zealanders had to be very very patient. This Government however introduced a tax package before Christmas only a few days after National became Government—only days. That is how swift we were. Mind you the previous Government was pretty swift too. When it took office 9 years ago it also did something within days—it was very swift. But what it did was to raise taxes. That is the difference. 
I tell members that one of my passions is law and order. We want to make New Zealand a safe place; I mentioned that in my maiden speech. A raft of legislation has been introduced in this House. We have introduced legislation to remove the right of the worst repeat violent offenders to be released on parole. We have introduced legislation to clamp down on criminal gangs and their drug trade. We have introduced legislation to toughen the bail laws and I can give members anecdotal information on the workings of this because I was recently on the North Shore of Auckland talking to the police. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and first reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill.  
These two bills are important to the Government. They each have different effects. One of the bills should it be passed will enable the courts to put stronger parole conditions on those appearing before them particularly where violent offences are involved. The other bill will give the Youth Court a lot more flexibility in the way in which it may ask young people to engage in corrective activity. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the debate on the second and third readings of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill to follow the conclusion of the first reading of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. I will give a small explanation. The Business Committee has decided that upon the finish of the items in the urgency motion today which includes the first readings of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill we would ordinarily have come out of urgency and gone into a members’ day. That may according to our Standing Orders affect the day on which we next have a members’ day therefore denying members considerable hours in the House. So by agreement we have determined to seek the leave of the House to fill up the small amount of time that remains with debate on the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill. If there is remaining time I suspect that the House will probably adjourn. There will be though through this process a members’ day on 4 March. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection. 
Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill 
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I hereby present an interim report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. This report is made pursuant to section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Standing Order 261. I will present the final report for the select committee’s consideration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This paper is published under the authority of the House. 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill be now read a first time 
. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee for consideration. Parole is not a right for prisoners; it is a privilege—a privilege that must be earned. Any decision to grant parole to an offender should put the public’s right to safety first. Parole should be granted only to prisoners who have demonstrated that their behaviour has genuinely changed. 
Both the National Party and the ACT Party went into the election with policies that sought to restrict parole eligibility for serious repeat violent offenders. Under National’s policy those who committed a violent offence that earned them a prison sentence of 5 years or more regardless of whether they served the full term would not be eligible for parole if they committed a subsequent violent offence that received a sentence of 5 years or more. In the case of murderers with a prior record of serious violent offending this would mean that they would serve a life sentence without parole. In addition National wanted to give the courts the option of sentencing the worst murderers to life without the possibility of parole. I will leave ACT members to expand on their original “three strikes” policy but it will be obvious to those who read this bill that it accommodates the parole policies of both parties so as to fulfil the confidence and supply agreement. 
The bill deals with two types of offenders: the worst repeat violent and sexual offenders and the worst murderers. I will talk about these two types of offenders separately. The bill deals with the worst repeat violent and sexual offenders—those who are sentenced to 5 years or more in prison—in three stages. On sentencing for the first serious violent offence the court will warn the offender that if he or she commits a further offence of that type and magnitude he or she will automatically be ineligible for parole. If the offender is sentenced to 5 years or more for a second violent offence the court must make a non-parole order requiring this sentence to be served in full. The offender will receive a final warning that the consequences of further offending of this type may be even more severe. 
On the third occasion—the ACT policy in this case—if the offender is before the court for serious violent or sex offending and the court thinks that a sentence of at least 5 years is warranted again the offender will automatically receive a life sentence with a 25-year minimum non-parole period. In exceptional circumstances a 25-year minimum term may be inappropriate. The bill provides that where a non-parole order would be manifestly unjust the offender would still receive life imprisonment but the court would be able to specify a lesser term. If an offender with a first or final warning is sentenced to life for murder the offender will be ordered to serve the sentence in full unless this would be manifestly unjust. The “manifestly unjust” exception is intended to deal with exceptional cases where life without parole would be unjustifiably harsh. 
In keeping with National’s election policy the bill also introduces a new category of sentence aimed at the worst case of murder. For these cases the bill will enable the court to impose a life sentence without parole regardless of whether the offender has offended previously. In other words the court may decide that no minimum term would be sufficient to mark the seriousness of that offence. Of course every murder is abhorrent and each is a unique personal tragedy for the people who are directly affected. But the sad reality is that some murders are particularly heinous and demand the most severe response. This bill does not attempt to identify the specific factors that make a particular offence among the worst cases of murder. They will tend to have one or more of the aggravating factors listed in the Sentencing Act and what sets them apart will probably be a matter of degree rather than of kind. 
On the other hand the bill does not exclude prisoners subject to non-parole orders from applying for compassionate release. Under the existing law compassionate release is available for murderers and preventive detainees and it would be anomalous to explicitly exclude those subject to non-parole orders. Compassionate release is a very limited provision. In the past 4 years there have been a total of 11 applications—10 of which were approved—and all the applicants were seriously ill and unlikely to recover. 
This bill is the final component of the law and order legislative package that the Government pledged to introduce in its first 100 days in office. These measures are intended to enhance the integrity of the parole system and to protect the public from the worst repeat offenders. These offenders have shown contempt for the safety of others by committing serious acts of violence being released and then offending again. Under this legislation the public and victims will be spared uncertainty about when or whether these violent offenders will be released on parole—they will not be. Victims and their families will also be spared the repeat parole hearings that must be held for offenders serving life sentences and preventive detention after they have served a minimum term. 
I will pause here to thank directly those Ministry of Justice officials who worked over the summer break and who have worked long long hours to achieve the many bills that this new Government has brought to the House. Their professionalism and their willingness to engage on a range of issues have been second to none. I know it is not normally done but I thank them during this first reading debate for all their work. 
I make no apology in the case of this bill for putting the interests of the community ahead of the interests of violent offenders who have not taken the opportunity to change their ways. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will say from the outset that Labour will be opposing the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. We do not support it. Before we hear the heckles from certain individuals on the other side I will restate for the record our commitment to decreasing crime and restate for the record also some facts about what happened under our Government in respect of parole. 
The Parole Board now declines 72 percent of parole applications. That is up from 52 percent which was the rate before other legislation that we put in place came into effect. Seventy-two percent of applications are declined. That is the result of legislation passed under the previous Government. The average non-parole period imposed for life sentences increased by more than 25 percent between 1997 and 2006. I do not want to get into silly arguments with National members—because I am sure they will come—that they are tougher than us on crime. They will say we did nothing because that is the only tactic they have but it is factually incorrect. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: And it was unfunded anyway. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: And they will say that anything we put up was unfunded anyway as my colleague the former Minister of Finance said. That is a sort of “get out of jail free” card—if members will excuse the pun—for National. 
The reason we are opposed to this bill is that it implements what is commonly called the “three strikes and you’re out” policy. I will comment specifically on the ACT provisions in the bill. I note that National’s stated position is that it will support those provisions going to the select committee only—unless the Minister who has just resumed his seat Simon Power wants to correct me on that. He appears not to so I presume that that is National’s stated position. I will touch on the ACT policy because on the face of it “three strikes and you’re out” is a great slogan is it not? Anybody who does not have the privileges that we do in this House or access to the statistics and research available out in the ether would say it is a good policy. 
Before the election Mr Garrett—the former apparatchik for the Sensible Sentencing Trust and a learned lawyer—ran around this country and gave everybody the impression that the moment the “three strikes” legislation was passed the world would change. I am not sure which university he went to. I am not a lawyer; he is so I bow to his superior knowledge and experience. Everybody out there including constituents in my electorate was under the impression from Mr Garrett that once the legislation was passed the “three strikes” provisions would come into effect. It was only after the election that Mr Garrett made it clear to everybody that the “three strikes” provisions will have no effect on anyone in the system or on any criminal for 15 to 20 years. In fact if we look at the regulatory impact statement we see it states under the “Costs” heading: “It is estimated that when the full effects of implementation have been felt after 50 years”. That is the bill in its entirety—50 years; five zero. 
There is another stunning thing about this situation. I will read a quote from  
Hansard 
 in regard to the second reading of the Bail Amendment Bill. Before Christmas there was quite a bit of banter across the Chamber involving Annette King. Many members said the ACT Party’s policy which was giving everybody the impression that the day this bill is passed it all kicks in even though “three strikes and you’re out” has no effect for 15 to 20 years might well have been the biggest political fraud in the nation. I made that point to Mr Garrett and said as I interjected on him “You never told the people this before the election though did you?”. Mr Garrett replied “No I say to Mr Cosgrove”—and this is a clanger—“I had not worked it out.” If one goes on to read  
Hansard 
 further one sees that Mr Garrett tried to put a case that he had not got the calculator out and had failed to work out that his own legislation his own policy would not be retrospective. I have his policy document here and nowhere does it state that “three strikes and you’re out” will not be retrospective. Nowhere does it state to the public that the measure will have no effect for 15 to 20 years. He had not worked that out. 
I have no law degree. To some that will be obvious I am sure. 
David Garrett 
: Absolutely. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Garrett said “Absolutely.” and he is right. But even I could work out that five plus five plus five is 15 and that very few laws apart from some tax laws are retrospective. Yet that genius is a lawyer. Mr Garrett was the apparatchik for the Sensible Sentencing Trust. That man has LLB after his name and presumably has a practising certificate. He wandered round this country and told everybody and gave everybody the impression that if ACT’s “three strikes” policy was put into place the moment the Governor-General signed the bill the policy would kick in. That is what people thought. By his own admission he had not worked out that the policy would have no effect on a person in the justice system for 15 to 20 years. Mr Garrett’s own admission is prima facie evidence that the policy is ill-conceived and ill-thought-through. It rates five lines in the ACT law and order policy document. Five lines—that is the policy. Yet it is now jammed into this legislation. 
Interestingly even National—again unless the Minister corrects me if I am wrong—will only support those provisions going to a select committee. I would say that from a coalition partner that is a reasonably damning indictment. 
I feel sorry for the people of New Zealand who voted for that member and his ilk—Mr Hide. I wonder what Sir Roger Douglas—who I do not think has actually made a public utterance on this provision— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: He’s no better with the numbers though to be fair. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well I will leave that comment to my colleague. I wonder what Sir Roger Douglas really thinks about this “three strikes and you’re out” measure because we know it does not work. We know there are states in the US that are now pulling back on repealing or ditching it. 
But it is a really good political slogan is it not? Out there on “Struggle Street” people who do not have the benefit of the data that we have probably nod their head and say they will sign up to it thinking that it will have an immediate effect. The indictment that is now on the record of this House is that Mr Garrett said he had not worked that out. He had written the policy he said he had gone all over the world looking at it he convinced the Sensible Sentencing Trust to sign up to it and he convinced the ACT Party to sign up to it—and possibly got his place on the list as the result of being a guru an apparatchik and a learned officer of the court. Then he came into the House and when that policy was being debated in the House said the reason he went around and gave everyone the impression that it would kick in immediately was that he had not quite worked out that it would not be retrospective and therefore would apply 15 years hence—or 50 years if we look at the totality of the bill and at what is stated in the regulatory impact statement about the impact being 50 years out. Mr Garrett sort of forgot to tell that to the general public when they voted for ACT. 
It is true that under the previous Government there was a toughening-up of sentences. I have already talked about parole and the 72 percent decline rate for parole applications. The Parole Board now must take into account as its primary focus whether a person on release will be a danger to the community. I recall that when that crew was in Government that was not the primary focus of the Parole Board. One would think the Parole Board’s primary decision-making tool would be whether a person on release would commit a crime again and if that person is a violent or other serious offender whether the person would be a danger to the community. We changed that to make it the primary focus of the Parole Board. I would have thought that was common sense. 
But I ask Mr Garrett—and I will be interested in his comments—how he is going to correct the record and whether he will apologise to the people of New Zealand and the voters for hoodwinking them. He did that and so did Mr Hide Sir Roger Douglas and every member of the ACT Party. Mr Garrett’s admission that he had not worked out that this measure would not be retrospective condemns it for what it is. It will not work. The New Zealand people will be advised of that as we go through the select committee process on the bill. It is a political pamphlet. There is no evidence that the “three strikes and you’re out” rule has worked in places like the United States. There is no evidence in that respect. 
David Garrett 
: Have a look at the regulatory impact statement. You haven’t read it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I have read it and worked that out; that member has not worked it out. The bill makes no logical sense. We will be opposing the bill and we will be looking forward to the select committee process as again a bill is rushed through the House in order to try to tick another box in National’s 100-day work programme. I have referred to the Bail Amendment Bill. It is fictitious. Learned scholars said the changes that were proposed in it—a few words—would do nothing to make Kiwis more secure. One could run through the holes in the DNA bill. The “$50 bill” has peas shot through it but not even anecdotal evidence is set in the regulatory impact statement let alone authoritative evidence produced by the Minister. It is full of risks. 
This is a light bill. It is a political pamphlet. Sadly it toys with and plays on the heartstrings of those victims who have been impacted on by violent offenders. It portrays to them that the Government and Mr Garrett are going to get tough swagger around in John Wayne style and provide them with security. Sadly for those victims this bill is a fraud. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It is very appropriate that the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill be the subject of scrutiny by the Law and Order Committee on the referral of the House. The bill will be afforded the opportunity of full process public participation and of course a report back to the House in the context of our Parliamentary procedures. 
As a general proposition I make the comment that New Zealanders have lost faith in sentencing and parole laws and that major changes as we have seen in recent days are on the way. The public is rightly concerned about the number of serious offences committed by people who have been released on parole. The public is also concerned about the sentences of home detention that are given to violent criminals so restoring the public’s faith in sentencing and parole will be a priority over the next period. The community needs to be assured that people who are a threat are kept behind bars. The public also needs to be assured that processes are in place to ensure that prisoners are rigorously monitored and are released only when they present no threat to the community. So I say that New Zealanders have to have confidence that policies for sentencing and parole are focused on keeping the community safe and providing appropriate consequences for offenders. 
I pick up what the Hon Simon Power said a few moments ago: “Parole is not a right for prisoners; it is a privilege—a privilege that must be earned.” and I say that any decision to grant parole to an offender should put first the public’s right to safety. Parole should be granted only to prisoners who have demonstrated that their behaviour has changed. There are—and I think we know these cases—a number of people whose offences are simply so horrific that they do not deserve the opportunity to be released into our communities on parole. The Government is determined to make sure that the law reflects that reality so under this Government the worst repeat violent offenders will be in prison for the full duration of their terms. We believe that the knowledge that they will serve their full sentences in prison if they reoffend will increase the deterrent effect of other prison sentences. 
One needs only to look at the statistics. The rate of violent crime increased by 11.1 percent from 2006-07 to 2007-08. The rate of grievous assaults was up by 11.7 percent that of serious assaults was up by 13.7 percent and that of minor assaults was up by 13.2 percent. The rate of intimidation and threats was up by 7 percent and that of group assemblies was up by 19.6 percent. No one can be proud of those statistics. Since 1999-2000—and I choose that date because it is the date the Labour-led Government came into power—the rate of violent crime has risen by a massive 46.6 percent. It has gone from 40090 offences to 58761 offences. We need only to look at some of the classes of significant criminal activity to be appalled by the figures. The rate of kidnapping and abduction is up by 68 percent and the rate of grievous assaults has nearly doubled—it is up by 89.7 percent. The rate of robberies is up by 57 percent that of serious assaults is up by 54 percent that of intimidation and threats is up by 67 percent and that of sex crimes has risen by 12.5 percent. 
That is why a central aspect of the last election campaign was quite clearly the need to deal determinedly with law and order issues. This bill forms part of the action plan for violent crime that Prime Minister John Key outlined before the election. The Government is delivering on its promises. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I have always believed that in Parliament one of the most important things we can do is to bear witness to the truth—to stand up and tell what we know to be true despite the consequences. What I know about the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is that it is bound to play well as a popular measure but it is a fraud; it will not deliver on the promises the Government has made about it. I believe that the Ministers responsible for the bill know that it will not deliver the results they have promised. I believe that they are cynically pushing it through anyway for popular appeal; I accept its popular appeal—superficially. They are pushing it through knowing that it will not end violent crime as they have promised and knowing that it will not make a significant difference as they have promised. 
The Government has promised some extraordinary results: “there will be no more William Bells …”. That was the statement Rodney Hide made in his press release. Word for word he said: “Under this bill there will be no more William Bells …”. That statement is fraudulent; a lot more violent men will kill after this bill has been passed—there will be lots more. The promise the Minister made in his press release will come back to haunt him and he will regret it. 
The evidence that this bill will not work is spelt out in the explanatory note of the bill. The explanatory note states that any impact on prison numbers from this bill “will not be felt for at least 10 years”. I did not read that in the corrections Minister’s press release. I did not read that in Rodney Hide’s press release. The Minister’s statement did not say that 10 years after this bill was passed not one single extra person would be locked up. What will the potential William Bells do for the next 10 years? There will not be any more William Bells according to Rodney Hide. 
I read that we will get tough with violent criminals; that is what John Key promised. He did not say that getting tough meant waiting 10 years before one single person was locked up. I read of John Key saying that “New Zealanders are sick of waiting for promises on law and order to be delivered.” Well they will wait a long time for this promise to be delivered. I read that John Key said that the last Government took 9 years to deliver—it seems that he is going one better and is waiting 10 years to deliver. 
The explanatory note says that after 20 years an extra 70 prison beds will be needed—70. Let us add it up. The Government says that this bill will end violent crime by locking up a total of 70 people between 10 and 20 years from now—that is about seven people a year. National—joined of course by ACT—thinks that the extent of the violent crime problem in this country is seven violent crimes a year. That is nonsense; this Government has vastly oversold its ability to make a difference. 
I remember that National got elected in 1990 by saying that it would end violent crime—National said that in that year as well as this year. John Banks who was Minister of Police said that on his watch he would put an end to murder violence and pillage. One month after his appointment as Minister of Police the tragedy of Aramoana occurred—13 people were murdered in the worst mass killing in New Zealand’s history. After that we never heard much more from John Banks about ending violence on his watch. That is what happens to these silly promises. It turned out that violent crime was a lot more complex than the cheap headlines the Government then—and the Government and ACT now—make. It will turn out the same this time. I know that and I think that National in its heart of hearts is sensible and knows that too. 
This country has a serious problem with violent crime; there is no argument about that. I saw research this week that showed that 43 percent of New Zealanders feel completely unsatisfied about their security and safety in their own homes. Therefore we owe it to New Zealanders to do something real about violence. But in spite of the promises made this bill does nothing to reduce violence. People are not locked up until violent crimes have already been committed and that does not stop crime. We deal with it after the fact. This Government is soft on crime. It will not do anything to stop crimes being committed in the first place; it will do that after the event. The members opposite say they will reduce crime by locking up the most serious violent offenders but offenders are not locked up until they have already committed a violent offence—in fact three violent offences. 
This bill does not lock offenders up before they commit an offence so it is not really about reducing crime at all. It is about revenge and denouncing criminals. There is a market for denouncing criminals and I am not one who praises criminals or says that people who are outraged by criminal events are not right to be outraged. But agreeing that there is a place for denunciation in criminal sentencing is one thing; promising New Zealanders that this bill will end violent crime is completely another. That is why when my colleague Matt Robson was corrections Minister he started building more prisons than any corrections Minister in history. We had to pay for them. I am waiting for National to find out where they are going to put all these new prisons. Ninety-three percent of New Zealanders voted for more prisons but when it comes to putting a prison next to them nobody remembers that they voted for them. The next time we have a referendum like that we should take the names addresses and phone numbers of the voters who agree to have a prison next to them when they vote for them. 
I support putting violent offenders away; my party helped build prisons to do that. But we ought to be frank about what we are doing. If the object of this bill is to denounce crime then Government members should say so. They should not come into this House pretending that a bill like this will reduce violent crime because it will not. The bill will not do that and the Government members must know that. They cannot be silly enough to think otherwise. Pretending that it will reduce violent crime makes the very basis of this bill a fraud and it insults this House. It insults the intelligence of members to say that it will end violent crime. The object of this bill is to pretend that the Government will do that when in fact it will not. 
If I were generous I would say that the object of the bill might be to punish offenders more—that is a fair objective. But I do not believe that the object of the bill is to reduce offending. I put out during the last election campaign a widely ignored and very detailed plan for reducing crime. It was not as spectacular as ending all crime with a bill that has a “three strikes and you’re out” policy because I knew that that would not work. We went through every measure that expert research and expert policy show makes a long-term difference over time. It starts with reducing at-risk behaviour it continues with getting tough with young hoons and their life of crime and it includes addressing the major risk factors in prisons like alcohol and illiteracy. When over 90 percent of criminals have an alcohol or drug problem we cannot rehabilitate them and turn them away from a life of crime unless those problems and addictions are fixed. If there is a fair wind and a good day on which to implement all those details and prudent and efficient policies in the long run the best estimate is that crime would be reduced by about 17 percent—not that we will end all violent crime by passing this bill. 
The bill is a long way short of what the Government promised. It promised an end to violent crime and now it will be accountable for that promise. We will hold it to its promises. We have heard a lot of songs from this Government about accountability and now it is accountable for its promise to make a significant reduction in violent crime. The clock is ticking. It is accountable for its promise that “there will be no more William Bells …”. Members should watch this space—God help the Government if there is one more William Bell after this bill is passed. 
If the bill will not make much difference to crime what difference does the bill make? We know the answer. Other countries have tried the “three strikes and you’re out” approach and it always results in huge anomalies and greater injustices. When sentencing discretion is taken away there is bad sentencing. What are the chances that a woman living with and getting bashed up by a violent thug with a criminal record will be even less likely to leave after this bill is passed than at present? It is likely that there will be less chance of her reporting the behaviour of such a man if she knows that he will be locked up for life. Victims make these decisions all the time and the truth is that this bill will ensure that some women in exactly the position I have described will suffer grievously because of the horrifying dilemmas that this bill creates. I ask members what is compassionate about that. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill I take up a few of the comments made by the previous speaker Jim Anderton. I was absolutely astounded when he said that he did not want to denounce criminals. That is a pretty amazing comment from a former Minister. The opposite of denouncing is condoning so what does that comment mean? Does that mean that he actually condones the activities of criminals? I find that quite an extraordinary statement. 
I applaud the excellent work of the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power and the Minister of Police the Hon Judith Collins as they work so hard to ensure the safety of all law-abiding New Zealanders. We denounce criminals; we do not condone them in any way shape or form. That is what our position is all about and that is this Government’s intention. Our primary concern is the safety of all New Zealanders. The Opposition in saying that it does not want to denounce criminals quite clearly condones them. It is no wonder that there has been no action over the last 9 years and that we now find ourselves confronted with this mess. It will take some time to sort out so I heartily commend the work of my colleagues in bringing this bill to the House. 
We will put into practice the Government’s policy of no parole for the worst and most violent repeat offenders. We are unashamedly putting the safety of the community before violent offenders. When offenders if they are over 18 get their first sentence for a serious or violent offence they will get their first warning. If they then get another sentence other than life imprisonment for murder they will get their second recorded final warning and there is no parole. When they commit a further offence they get a life sentence. That is as it should be. The purpose of this bill is to create a three-stage regime of increasing consequences for the worst repeat violent offenders and it is all about ensuring the safety of law-abiding New Zealanders. We stand forthrightly behind that. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 Before I begin my speech I will touch on Mr Cosgrove’s jibes across the House. His remark about the Act as the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill will become not having full effect for 15 years was made after Mr Kim Workman one of the spokespeople and apparatchiks—a far more appropriate word for them—claimed on the radio that it would double the prison population within 2 years. That was where that remark came from. 
We know that this bill will work because right now there are 77 murderers in jail who committed a murder at a time when they had three or more violent offences under their belt—77 people. That is more than half of the number of members of this House. It is not half of the number of members here today and in fact there probably are not 77 in the House right now. But if this House were full for question time the number would be over half that of the House—77 murderers. Their victims would be alive today if at the time they were killed this bill had been enforced. That is not arguable; it is simple arithmetic. I notice there is silence from the other side. It is simple arithmetic; we know that it will work. 
We know that right now there are thousands of violent offenders out in the community who have not three but dozens of violent convictions. Mr Anderton talked about William Bell; he had 102 convictions when he killed three people at the Panmure RSA—102 convictions. The late unlamented—at least by me—Antonie Ronnie Dixon had 160 convictions at the time he killed James Te Aute. James Te Aute was the kind of person those people on the other side of the House are supposed to be concerned about—a Maori man from South Auckland who was simply down at a gas station—but that mongrel killed him. Antonie Dixon had had 160 previous convictions. We know from bitter experience that those 77 murderers who are in jail right now will be joined by others—we know it. 
What does this law do? Before talking about what this law will do I want briefly again—because I am sick of hearing the lies on the radio from the fellow travellers of those members across the other side— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you probably know what I am going to say. That comment was totally unparliamentary and the member should withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Sure. I tell the member he cannot use the word “lies”. I ask him to withdraw that comment please and apologise. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I withdraw and apologise Mr Deputy Speaker but I was referring to fellow travellers rather than— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. When I have ruled from the Chair the member must not question the ruling. The member apologises and withdraws the comment end of story. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: We hear from commentators—the familiar usual suspects—that under this legislation people can go to jail for 25 years or for life for shoplifting; stealing a chocolate bar is one of the favourite examples they use. That simply cannot happen. I said it an hour or two ago and I will say it again because I am sick of hearing wrong statements. It simply cannot happen because the bill defines what the offences are. Strike offences as we called them are now called serious offences. There are also qualifying offences—they are all listed there. The list does not include shoplifting theft burglary or car conversion; the Californian situation cannot happen here. 
There are many injustices in California. I went there 2 years ago to work out how to get around the situation and to avoid that happening here. There are some terrible stories. A Mexican chap with two strikes to his name—I do not know what they were for; I suppose I should have found out—sat a driving test for his cousin who was illiterate in English. Unfortunately for him in California that was what they call a technical felony. We do not have such a thing or anything else with a different name. These Californian horror stories cannot happen here. 
So how would the bill work? I started to explain in a speech an hour or so ago and I will finish what I was saying. If this bill were passed tomorrow and someone committed aggravated robbery the following day—an offence attracting a maximum penalty of 14 years jail—that man and it is usually men or almost always would receive a sentence of 7 or 8 years. Depending on what my colleagues in the National Party do with the parole provisions in relation to serving one-third or two-thirds of a sentence he would be out again in 3 4 or 5 years on parole. But let us say that he commits another aggravated robbery the next day despite the warning he has been given by the judge. This time because of the way in which the bill has been drafted he might say get 12 years. This time there would be no parole and he would get another warning from the judge—a final warning. Kiwis are fair people; we do not want people to have no chances. This time he will get 12 years and he will serve 12 years. But if “Mr Scumbag” comes out of prison and commits another such offence again he will go away for a sentence of 25 years to life. That is it. There is nothing magical or unfair about it. 
Members opposite should go out there and talk to their constituents. They have forgotten what they are like. I talk to them most evenings when I drop by for a beer on the way home. They say it is a great idea. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You didn’t tell people that before the election. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Mr Cosgrove—and Mr Anderton for that matter—made selective references from the regulatory impact statement or “RIS” as I believe it is called. The explanatory note states: “A study on the wide-sweeping Californian three-strike laws did find a statistically significant deterrent effect”—and I will not omit the next bit—“but the high cost of that deterrent effect needs to be weighed against the finding that almost all crime was committed by offenders who had not received strikes.” So there hidden away on page 10 of the explanatory note is an indication that there is a deterrent effect. There is a big cost—yes there is. No one is pushing the California model. This is not the “California Three-Strikes Bill”. If people like to use computer parlance it is “Three Strikes 2.0”. It is an improvement of an idea that emanated from America. 
This Government thankfully understands that the old television programme  
Yes Minister 
 was in fact a comedy and not a documentary. Officials do not run the Government. They might be continuing to try but they do not run the Government. 
I see that in the regulatory impact statement there is talk of the impact on Maori. That is quite correct. It states that Maori are more likely than other ethnic groupings to be convicted of violent offences. That is true but there is a little half-truth there. Maori are also much more likely to be affected by those offences. James Te Aute was going about his lawful business at a gas station in South Auckland and a white man Antonie Dixon shot him with a machine gun. Maori people are more likely to be affected by crime than I am. I am a middle-aged white man I live out in the country and I have got lots of insurance. If I get burgled it does not matter too much. But the people the Opposition supposedly represents are the ones who are disproportionately affected by crime. It is not just about offenders; it is about victims as well. We will hear the bleat from the John Mintos the Peter Williamses and the Kim Workmans but they will be being dishonest. 
A lot of people talk about rehabilitation. Who could be against rehabilitation? In research I discovered that Singapore has a somewhat similar provision. In Singapore if you are convicted of a strike offence— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No don’t bring the Speaker into it. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: —which by definition is a long sentence you are given psychological and psychometric testing to find out what might be wrong with you in the mental health sense and what you are good at. Then the mental health issues or whatever issues there are are addressed. Let us say it is decided that you would be a good mechanic; you are then trained as a mechanic. So after 10 years 8 years or whatever you come out as a trained mechanic having had your “issues” as they say these days addressed. If you commit another strike offence— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Look the member knows that he cannot bring the Speaker into the debate. Every time he uses the word “you” he is referring to the Speaker or presiding officer at the time. The member should talk about “somebody” or speak in the third person but he should not use the word “you” please. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: My apologies Mr Deputy Speaker. If that person after release commits a second strike offence in Singapore he will go back and get special treatment. Oh I was hoping for a poignant interjection! No it is not the rotan or anything else. The authorities have another look at the person and try to find out what else they can do to make that person a decent citizen. So they try harder. They put the person in a special stream and give the person more attention. If that person comes out again and commits another crime that is it—goodbye There are no questions. I support that. It will be costly but I support trying to stop people from becoming three-strikers. Nobody wants that. I do not want that. What sensible person would want people to be locked up for 25 years or for life? The aim is to get felons to see where they are going to decide they do not want to spend from 25 years to a lifetime in jail and to change their ways. I am all for rehabilitation if it can work but this bill is designed to protect people and we know it will work because of the 77 in jail now. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker tena koe. Tena tatou katoa. One week ago the federal judges ordered the state of California to release as many as 57000 inmates—one-third of all inmates—over the next 3 years. The call to let the people go was a dramatic intervention to alleviate prisons swollen by unprecedented numbers of inmates. The multibillion-dollar costs of California’s prison system the inadequate health facilities and the overcrowded cells are a grim wake-up call for this nation as we sit on the cusp of new measures that may cause massive increases in our prison population. Measures such as the “three strikes” rule tougher and longer sentences harsher prison conditions such as chain gangs and degrading treatment are measures that made Sheriff Joe famous. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona is the one who grabbed media attention by painting jail cells pink and making inmates wear pink garb. He is the same guy who dreamt up the “tent city” jail; who cut jail meals back to 40c a serving and then charged inmates for the right to eat them. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is all the warning we need that Sheriff Joe has come to town. 
As the headlines have told us over these last 24 hours it is not as if the corrections system in Aotearoa is at all perfect—far from it. It is an utter disgrace to read the Auditor-General’s scathing report into a parole system that by anyone’s estimation is on the brink of collapse. How more relevant can parole reform be than when we are told that out of the cases of 100 paroled offenders examined the Department of Corrections failed to follow its own rules in nearly every case? The Auditor-General found that consideration of victims was at best scant. Paroled offenders were being accommodated in locations that could place victims at risk. Victims were not being notified when offenders breached parole conditions. They were not being regularly visited by probation officers and senior department staff were failing to give priority to the management and supervision of their probation officers in handling high-risk offenders. 
I want to make it absolutely clear. The inability of the Department of Corrections to adhere to its own parole conditions to address any breaches and the shocking disregard for the concerns about placing public safety at risk is a failure we cannot ignore. The Maori Party stands by the Minister of Corrections in her call to the State Services Commissioner to “please explain”. Her immediate response demanding that we find out who is accountable for this appalling situation is both appropriate and absolutely fundamental if we are ever to restore public confidence in the parole system. 
I remind the House that section 7 of the Parole Act 2002 states that “the paramount consideration for the Board in every case is the safety of the community.” It is a paramount consideration more important than anything else. Yet as we all know as in the recent high-profile cases public safety appears to be compromised. The fact is that restoring prisoners to their communities is a complex and demanding process and hardly takes place within the environment of a prison. Parole was designed to reduce the greater risk to the community of prisoners being released without any chance to adjust to life outside prison. Abolishing parole is not a realistic option but the parole system must be backed up with sufficient resources. 
The Auditor-General’s report brings home the true cost of the previous Government’s policy of getting tough on crims. That cost must be measured not when offenders are released from prison but only after they have been successfully reintegrated into their communities. As a nation we must examine alternatives to prison. I remind the House that the state of the criminal justice system requires a significant and comprehensive review and that is what we should be pushing for in this Parliament. 
The Ombudsman Mel Smith’s inquiry into the criminal justice system reported back at the end of 2007 recommending a high-level examination of all of the issues and of all of the approaches that we could turn to to produce a more efficient and improved justice sector. He suggested a royal commission of inquiry was necessary concluding that prison is not the most effective or efficient approach to reducing crime. He pointed out the economic and social costs of crime had risen to $9.1 billion in 2003 and were predicted to explode as the population grew with punitive policy changes. Yet that report and those recommendations are ignored. It beggars belief. 
The Ombudsman reports to Parliament that the extraordinarily rapid changes in the criminal justice policy are set to continue and that an inquiry is urgently needed to reflect on whether the punitive treadmill is picking up speed yet nothing is done. 
So is this bill the answer to such wide-ranging issues? The Maori Party does not think so. All the research we have uncovered on the “three strikes” provision indicates a number of fatal flaws with this approach. There have in fact been increased homicide rates significantly larger prison population disproportionate effect on non-violent offenders disproportionate effect on marginalised populations and significant costs and negative impacts on offenders’ families. It would appear to us that rather than investing in crime prevention and restorative justice introducing such a punitive package will work only to increase the level of dysfunction unwinding in an already suffering system. 
The issue of the disproportionate impact of the “three strikes” legislation is particularly of interest to the Maori Party. The Justice Policy Institute analysis of the racial and ethnic make-up of “three strikes” defendants in the United States reported that African Americans are given life sentences at nearly 13 times the rate of whites and Latinos are incarcerated at a staggering rate of 82 percent more than white people. In fact Vincent Schiraldi the executive director of the institute commented: “rarely does one see any law imposed so disproportionately against any one racial group.” 
There are other unintended consequences of such legislation—issues like the risk of leading to serious under-reporting of violent offending. As we know many victims of family violence just want the violence to stop. They do not necessarily want to see perpetrators locked up in long-term incarceration. And of course the significant cumulative effect on the size of the prison population—and the additional expense to taxpayers—is unsustainable. 
The analysis we have carried out on the 11 pages of this radical legislation gives us no choice but to vote against the bill. We do not believe that incarceration deters people from committing crime. We did not find any evidence that increasing imprisonment has any effect on serious crimes. And there is nothing to suggest that the cost of building prisons and incarcerating people is resulting in reduced offending. 
Last November a colloquium on Maori justice held in Ngati Kahungunu noted that 91 percent of the 2000 research participants wanted some alternative options to be considered to reduce the offending rate and impact upon the rate of recidivism. It called for whare whakaoranga—rehabilitation centres—which focus more on concentrated reform and restoration rather than on harsher prison conditions. It is not a new idea. In 1989 such a concept was presented to Mr Justice Roper in a review of the prison systems. It is but one of many positive and constructive solutions that could have been investigated rather than simply importing the worst of American policy experiments. That is where we believe any further debate on this issue should be based—on our own locally determined solution for our population. The Maori Party policy advocates that the cure is in the care and that we should support a restorative justice system where victims are empowered and the community is integral to bolster relationships and reduce crime. We will not and cannot support this bill. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I fully support the very rational analysis that my colleague the Hon Tariana Turia has put forward today and it has been very nice to hear that on a debate as intense as this which is often full of fluff and drama but no proper analysis. I very much appreciate that. 
The Green Party will oppose the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and we cannot see any reason why it should proceed any further than this first reading debate. We would like to see it go up in flames if at all possible. The legislation is dangerous it is discriminatory and it will fail to achieve a safer community. The Green Party policy is focused on keeping the community safe by eliminating the causes of crime poverty under-education and unemployment; by supporting victims and promoting the rights of victims as being central to the legal system; by focusing on the rehabilitation of offenders to reduce reoffending rates; by fully supporting restorative justice programmes to restore and rebuild community relationships; by investing in Maori justice systems and in Maori restorative justice programmes; and by relying on imprisonment to keep only the worst and most dangerous offenders away from the community. This policy direction of the Green Party requires less of an obsession with retribution and punishment for their own sake and looks instead for evidence-based solutions that work for the community. This legislation that we have debated today absolutely fails to achieve any of the Green Party goals in our policy. 
The bill is the result of lobbying by the Sensible Sentencing Trust and ACT as I understand. There is no inherent evil in that process but I make the point that the Sensible Sentencing Trust has distressingly abrogated its principle of supporting victims of crime with the recent statements made by Garth McVicar concerning the killing of Pihema Cameron by Bruce Emery. That case was a tragedy for two families—a terrible tragedy for the families of the victim and the offender. I note that under this bill Bruce Emery would have risked a minimum 25-year sentence and no parole in some circumstances. But it is especially awful for the victim’s family in this case when the spokesperson for a supposed victims’ support group has stated that the offender convicted of the manslaughter of a young man should have been discharged from that crime because minor crimes like graffiti need to be “dealt with seriously”. One cannot get more serious than the taking of another’s life. In no circumstances can such a killing be justified let alone for a base property infringement. The Sensible Sentencing Trust is advocating vigilantism and lynching and the trust has both raised the stakes for Mr Emery and abandoned the family of the victim in that case. 
This bill also arises from the agreement between National and ACT. The agreement says that National has agreed to introduce this legislation as part of a package of stuff. National has agreed to give the ACT bill a fair hearing at the select committee based on the evidence but I note that National has made no promise to pass this legislation into law. That might explain why the bill’s regulatory impact statement which was written into the bill by the Ministry of Justice completely slams this legislation. The statement has nothing good to say about this bill at all and surprisingly enough I largely agree with it. 
I will describe some of the comments that the regulatory impact statement makes. It states that the provisions lead to the possibility of disproportionate outcomes that may affect public confidence in the judicial system. This bill is supposed to be about increasing public confidence; it will reduce public confidence. It states there is no evidence that the bill will improve public safety and indeed there is nothing in the bill that deals with the causes of crime. It states there is little if any evidence that such provisions will act as a deterrent to offenders or that offenders will even understand the consequences of this legislation in the process of their offending. So there will be no deterrent effect. Even if we accept that offenders will weigh the consequences of whether this bill will apply to them the bill leads to a perverse incentive for offenders who will become liable for a life sentence regardless of the severity of the crime they commit as long as that crime fits within a wide range of different crimes. So the bill incentivises them to commit the worst crimes. There is the danger of disproportionately harsh sentencing that could lead to judges avoiding the imposition of the qualifying sentence of 5 years in order to ensure a later or long-term just outcome. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report on this legislation clearly sets out that this approach is irrational; it is not a rational approach to dealing with issues particularly around disproportionately harsh sentencing. 
The regulatory impact statement states that the bill will impact on Maori disproportionately more than on any other population group in this country. It is rare for the ministry to make statements such as that I have to say. Mr Garrett referred to the comment in the legislation that Maori are more likely to be convicted. Well that is quite right because there is absolutely clear evidence that there are racist filters in the police and in the legal system that lead to a greater number of Maori being stopped by the police being arrested by the police being convicted by the legal system and attracting harsher penalties from that legal system than do other population groups in this country. I note that for young Maori offenders there is an even greater increased risk of disproportionate treatment. In 2004 research showed that young Maori come to the attention of the police more often even though their offending is less serious than that of their non-Maori counterparts. This bill entrenches the impact of those racist filters in our system leading to an increased number of Maori being kept in prison for the length of their natural lives. We are talking about a significant proportion of our Maori talent—our rangatahi our pakeke—spending their whole lives in prison. This is especially grotesque because we know that the Maori lifespan compared with the Pakeha lifespan is so much shorter. Some Maori will spend their whole lives in prison because of a ridiculous dangerous irrational bill. This bill entrenches racism and perhaps given Garth McVicar’s comments about the Cameron whanau—who are Maori victims of crime—we should not be at all surprised. 
This bill also deprives offenders of the possibility of rehabilitation which disproportionately compounds the impacts on whanau and families of offenders and there has been some discussion about that already this afternoon. From even a purely economic point of view this bill will subsequently increase the prison population with a significant higher cost and there has been very little cost-benefit analysis to suggest that the bill will work or be of benefit in terms of the use of taxpayers’ money. The money that will be used to keep people predominantly Maori in prison for the term of their natural lives will come from a limited pool. Indeed that pool of money which comes out of Government coffers is the same money that is used now for the support of victims of crime for restorative justice programmes and community-building programmes for rehabilitation and for education programmes in prison. It is the same pool of money with so much of it to be directed to just a few when if that money were used for the purposes of dealing with reoffending rates rehabilitation and the causes of crime we would get a much bigger bang for our taxpayer buck. That will not be the case if this legislation is passed. The more money that is spent on those few offenders the less will be available to implement the programmes that will actually keep our communities safer by reducing offending. 
If this bill is set into the general context of the policy on private prisons the story gets even dirtier. If corporations are able to make a profit from public money and a bums-on-seats model of shifting people into jails then this “three strikes” legislation will become a profit-generating mechanism for those corporations. That has happened in the US. This week two judges have been charged with corruption for taking kickbacks for sending young offenders to privately owned boot camps whose owners had then given the judges money for those sentences which had been imposed for very very low-level crimes. That is happening elsewhere where this system exists. It will happen in this country because neither this legislation nor any other Government policy has put in any protection mechanisms to make sure it does not happen. There has been no discussion of the relationship of all these different bits of legislation and the private prisons’ corporate profit capacity that this Government is proposing as part of its supposed crackdown on crime. There are no safeguards. 
This legislation will cause extraordinary harm particularly to Maori communities but also to people in general. It will be enormously expensive and it will do nothing to solve the crime issues in this country. The Green Party will not support this bill. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. It is important to note that of course the first role of the Government is to protect its citizens. That point is often made in this House. It is within the capability of the Government though to protect only the vulnerable to prevent a state of anarchy and vigilantism. It is imperative then that the Government takes that role seriously and that is what the National Government is doing. 
It is important to note that the role of sentencing as defined within the Sentencing Act is denunciation deterrence rehabilitation reparation and restoration. Some people would assume that it is only about punishment which is not the case. 
Here is another bill that delivers on National’s promise to put before Parliament bills that will positively impact on the safety of vulnerable New Zealanders. Members cannot look at this bill in isolation; they need to look at the other bills that have been put before the House recently which include the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill the body sampling legislation the Bail Amendment Bill the legislation in respect of short-term protection orders the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill which was before the House last night the gang legislation and a number of others. 
Other legislation will be introduced in the House that will enable better rehabilitative programmes to be offered earlier in prison. It is important to draw the attention of the House to the fact that under the previous Government prisoners had to do at least 2 years in jail before they could receive any rehabilitative programmes at all irrespective of the fact that 83 percent of the people in our prisons have drug and alcohol dependency issues. 
We have heard that there is consensus among all those involved in the criminal justice system that there are people who should never be allowed out of prison and that those people are generally identified by their violent offending. Even Labour members nod their heads at that. The question is how we define those offenders and the answer is that we define them by the worst serious violent offending. It is not a reactive political knee-jerk to bring the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill before the House; it is a clear and logical response which has struck a chord with the public. Public agreement is not a reason to condemn this initiative—and it is popular with the public—but it is one of the many good reasons why it should be supported. 
I would like to say in closing that I do not accept that prisoners should be referred to as “scumbags” “dirt bags” “dross of society” or anything else. I believe that many—if not all—of the people in our prisons actually fall on a continuum that runs between victim and offender and that somebody other than them has created or helped to create the people who sit behind bars. It is our duty as a society to protect those who are most vulnerable. Some of those people are in jail; most of them are on the street. 
I look forward to seeing the progress of this legislation through the select committee process and I look forward to being part of the select committee that will work on it. National’s position is that we will support the bill’s referral to the Law and Order Committee and that was part of the confidence and supply agreement. Thank you. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. I do not ordinarily speak about justice measures prison sentences etc. Naturally I support Clayton Cosgrove and my other colleagues. We will not be supporting the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill nor the foul mind that conceived it. The reality is that this is a vexing issue for those of us from the Maori community. On one level we acknowledge that Maori are disproportionately present in the gang scene. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but as the person who conceived this bill I take offence at being referred to as somebody with a foul mind. I wonder whether the member might like to reflect on that for a moment. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member withdraws and apologises. Thank you. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I mistakenly thought that the architect of the bill sat over there on my left. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I similarly object to being described as a person with a foul mind. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If the member said that I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Indeed Mr Speaker. It is spelt ‘f-o-u-l’ and “f-o-w-l”. In our Maori community— 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member was asked to withdraw and apologise and he didn’t do it. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise unreservedly so that we can continue with the debate. Thank you. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
It is a vexing issue. On one hand we have the disproportionate presence of Maori associates and members of gangs creating all levels of havoc within communities and indeed infiltrating marae etc. and potentially using marae as recruiting grounds. A host of us in positions of leadership find that very very dangerous. On the other hand however this bill is very savage in terms of its impact not only on Maori offenders but also on the confidence that Maori families already have or might have in the future administration of the justice system. That is something that troubles me deeply because when a system does not enjoy confidence across the community and when elements of the community feel that system is completely stacked against them they either will show no respect for it or will continue to behave in such a fashion that they court personal or community disaster by refusing to modify their behaviour because of a deeply held belief that the system is stacked against them. I do not adhere to that point of view. 
David Garrett 
: They refuse to modify their behaviour now! That’s the problem. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: We know that Parliament is a wonderful institution but it causes us to deliberate gravely and think very deeply when we take a step like the one that is now being advanced by the Government and promoted particularly strongly by the ACT Party. Once it leaves our hands the legislation falls into the hands of the judiciary. Obviously the electoral tide brings all sorts of characters into Parliament and in the most recent tide-surge it brought in Mr Garrett. I cannot insult Mr Garrett other than to say that I worked for the Ministry for the Environment and I can remember when “snot grass” or didymo— 
Grant Robertson 
: “Rock snot”. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: —“rock snot” arrived in the form of ballast on a very high tide. Many of the ideas put forward by Mr Garrett today came from the same ballast and endeavour to convince the victims of crime that this bill will somehow bring criminal behaviour to an end and will give them the kind of solace that they seek after their mothers brothers sisters etc. have suffered at the hands of these villains. That not only is a fraud; it also makes this a very sad day for the more liberal and sensible members of the ruling party that is associated with that man. Of course that man will not be here in 3 years and in its current form this bill will go nowhere following its referral to the Law and Order Committee. We all know that. We know that the Prime Minister found it necessary to go to Peru. We know that it was necessary for him to form a relationship with Tariana Turia’s group and with Rodney Hide’s group. We also know that the warhorse Sir Roger Douglas came back to bolster the economic credentials of the ACT Party. That is fine. Some of us do not like that and some have no drama with it. But when Mr Garrett comes in with the promise of solving crime with “three strikes and you’re out” we know it is a joke. The reality is that it will not take effect for between 25 and 50 years and that makes it a very sad and misleading day for the families who have actually suffered as victims of crime. 
I would like to make an important point to the architects and Ministers who are shepherding through this legislation. The views in Te Ao Maori are mixed. There are people with views that are almost Old Testament ones and that come from the world of utu. Those people say that if they suffer an insult from someone they will deliver it back with fatal consequences. Then there are those who say that that is not actually a sustainable way to organise a society. I ask how much understanding offenders will actually have once Mr Garrett has sought to change the world with this foul proposed legislation. What will the actual consequences be? The research and indeed the regulatory impact statement show that there will be nothing—a minimal deterrent effect. 
David Garrett 
: Go and talk to your constituents. Go and see what they say. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Now when I hear the member speaking I am reminded of the people who join the Fire Service then quietly go around lighting fires. There is something unnatural about his contribution on these matters of criminal and penal policy. There is no point in coming to the House and in trying to establish a consensus of opinion when he is hell-bent with traffic lights—orange red and green—flashing in his pupils every time he speaks. That is why that member’s advocacy of this bill condemns it to irrelevance. We also know that the more judicious members opposite will tolerate it for a mercifully short period of time then replicate what the Labour Government did anyway. Labour increased quite significantly the parole provisions. At the moment we are waiting for members opposite to effect the final step which is the Sentencing Council but they are hanging back because they want to avoid the opprobrium of being seen to plagiarise and nick another idea. However that is the nature of politics. That which can be adapted will no doubt be modified. 
Let us go on to a matter that will no doubt interest Sir Richard Douglas and that is the financial cost of this policy. The financial cost of this policy represents exponential growth. It has not actually been funded or budgeted for. It is very likely that Bill English at some point in time will push the red button—the light we occasionally see flashing in the pupils of Mr Garrett—and it will be haere ra for that piece of this particular bill. 
In addition how much safer is “three strikes and you’re out” actually going to make the whanau of Aotearoa? Mr Garrett will no doubt say they will be a lot safer. He will talk about Mr Bell he will talk about Mr Burton and he will talk about a host of other people who quite frankly should never enjoy the privileges of freedom of wandering around amongst our children our nieces our nephews and our supporters in this House. But one cannot bring such a profound change to justice policy and have it translated into legislation on the whim of reciting half a dozen very ugly incidents. That is not a basis for good law. Good law requires long deliberate calculated considerations. The way to get emotions to boil—either in our community Te Ao Maori or just broad garden-variety Kiwis—is to seize upon an isolated example extrapolate it out and pretend that that is happening every day of the week. This is why that member there is actually ill-suited for the role that he has arrogated to himself. He comes like a sheriff into this House on behalf of unknown New Zealanders with a pair of six guns and he is going to blow all the opposition away. He has had an epiphany in the Nevada Desert and imagines that what has happened in the United States of America—where they are currently deliberating as to how they can release many of the inmates caught in this policy—is going to capture the popular imagination of New Zealanders. 
That will never ever happen which is why Labour will not be supporting this bill. We look forward to those portions of the bill that are basically a mirror image of what our party when we governed was proposing to do anyway. I have no doubt there will be sensible discussions at a high level on both sides of the House and given I use the word “sense” it would exclude that member Mr Garrett. At some point in time parole policy and the Sentencing Council will emerge but at this stage this bill like that member is going nowhere. Ka kite ano. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a very short call. I have to apologise to the member opposite Shane Jones. I was so shocked that a member from the Green Party had called the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill a racist bill that I did not really pay too much attention to what he had to say. I did not realise victims’ rights could be colour-coded so carelessly. 
This bill is designed to create a three-stage regime of increasing consequences for the worst repeat violent offenders. To me as a mother the idea of giving a warning to a child like a good mother would to make sure that he or she performed better next time is a good idea. This Government like a good parent would wants to give warning to an offender who commits a serious crime. The second time round obviously it will be a bigger warning. In terms of that person committing the offence a third time a lot of people in New Zealand will agree that the full duration of his or her term in prison should be served. I have to say that all of New Zealand will be applauding this bill and I do not understand how anybody could actually oppose it. That is all I have to say. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am very proud to rise and give Melissa Lee the member opposite who just spoke briefly the Labour Party’s set of reasons as to why anyone sensible should not be supporting the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill but first I will point out that what we see here is the week of appeasement. This is the week in which National justifies the reasons why it went into its coalition agreement with ACT. If this is not the week of appeasement then I imagine we will see National supporting this bill when it comes back from the select committee—if indeed this act is not just an act of appeasement. 
Unlike some of my colleagues who have talked a little bit about the impact of this bill and at what stage it will be felt—whether it will be felt in 20 years 50 years or 100 years—I will not dwell on that because to my mind bad legislation is bad legislation whether we see its effect tomorrow or in 20 years’ time. But I do want to go back to first principles on this policy. I think that that is a good way to break down legislation. 
What are the first principles when we are considering sentencing legislation? Firstly almost all sentencing legislation comes to this House with the primary role of ensuring that a debt to society is repaid. That of course is done through the removal of an individual’s civil liberties. Of equal importance—and we have seen this every time that Labour introduced criminal justice reform—is the role of ensuring the safety of the community. That has always been the driver behind what we saw in 2002 with the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act where we increased minimum non-parole periods and that was why we made the primary consideration of the Parole Board the safety of the community. Labour has always seen those two factors as part of one very powerful line—extraordinarily powerful. It was a principle it was prescribed and it was clear. There were no bones about it; it was clear what our attempted impact was. Those have always been key principles when we are looking at sentencing legislation. 
What does this bill the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill do? We have already heard the technical description of the three stages of the strike so I will not dwell on those. But this bill does add an additional layer to sentencing. That additional layer essentially removes the discretion of the presiding judge. 
David Garrett 
: That’s right. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: At the point at which someone comes back before a judge for a third time it does not matter what the judge sees before him or her. 
David Garrett 
: That’s right. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: The member across the House says that that is right and is what he intends. 
Let us not talk about this in vague terms. Let us add to this debate some real descriptions some real-life scenarios of what might happen. We have heard about a few of the American examples. Aggravated burglary is one of the crimes that could be covered by this bill. It carries a maximum sentence of about 14 years which is well above the criteria that Mr Garrett has laid out via the National Government in this bill. Aggravated burglary could include an individual with a crowbar robbing a home. There is a wide descriptor of what constitutes a weapon in our law. So if an individual chooses to rob a home on more that one occasion and finds himself or herself in front of a judge for a third time this legislation will apply. And who knows what the personal circumstances of that individual are? I will not dwell on that here; I will leave that to individual members to decipher. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: There’s no excuse. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: There is no excuse and we would expect judges to deal with that. In fact they can deal with it with maximum prison sentences of up to 14 years which is quite punitive. Is it just for someone in those circumstances—let us say he is 24 years old and he has committed three burglaries—to go to prison for the rest of his life? We could be talking about more than 60 years. He could have stolen three stereos in that time using a crowbar. Is that what the Government intends by this legislation? I point out here that one of the most common crimes committed by young people who go through our Youth Court happens to be burglary and it is often a one-off offence. I do think the member should keep that in mind. 
A number of other unintended consequences are not dealt with here. Mr Garrett has already stated that on the first cut of his bill he decided he had been too liberal. I acknowledge the  
Hansard 
 in which Mr Garrett did state he was trying to avoid “the unjust consequences that have happened in California.” but he decided that he had been too liberal and that he needed to tighten it up and toughen it up even further. I will reflect on that. We have seen that this sort of measure has not worked in the USA. Twenty-two states have it; eight are currently trying to get rid of it. I think that the member may have tightened up the bill beyond his own comprehension. 
I do however defer to the advice from the Ministry of Justice. It is thinly veiled and it is coded this time. The Ministry of Justice has put forward its advice via the regulatory impact statement. I would like to dwell on the statement. I see the Chair may be rising to cut me off though so I am unsure whether I should launch into my hefty tirade. I see—that has been granted. One of the issues raised in the risk assessment by the Ministry of Justice is that of public safety. The explanatory note of the bill states that “it is not possible to conclude with any certainty to what extent any of the options will improve public safety.” Surely that was one of the intentions of both the Government and ACT when this bill was introduced. If public safety is not one of their intentions then the bill must be a solely punitive measure. That is all I can conclude. The second statement the ministry notes is: “However offenders who commit serious violent offences do not necessarily have previous sentences for serious violent offences.” 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Before the House rose for the dinner break I was reviewing the regulatory impact statement for this Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and had reflected on the community safety aspect. I will now quickly go over a second issue—public confidence. The regulatory impact statement states: “the worst repeat offenders policy raises the potential for disproportionate outcomes which may negatively affect public confidence in the criminal justice system …”. The final statement I will highlight relates to the unintended consequences of this bill: “An offender who commits a third qualifying offence that would otherwise be liable for around 5 years’ imprisonment could receive 4 years 11 months’ imprisonment”. This is a distortion of our criminal justice system that Mr Garrett would not have anticipated but I see every likelihood of this arising if this bill progresses past the select committee stage—which I doubt very much that the National Government would like to happen. 
One of the reasons I raise the community aspect of this bill and speak of the community’s expectations is that all law and order issues impact on public confidence. I strongly believe—as I am sure that many members of this House believe—that the bidding war around law and order must at some point come to an end. All of us very recently campaigned in our home electorates and we know how heavily law and order weighs upon the minds of our constituents—it is a major issue. We do our constituents a disservice if we imply that measures like this will make them safer because we know that that is not the case. 
The crime rate in New Zealand has decreased. 
Hon Members 
: Rubbish! 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: It has decreased. The Ministry of Justice states in its briefing on the  
Offender Volumes Report 
 that although crime rates are dropping the composition of recorded crime is changing. We know that sentencing levels are higher. Prisoners are serving a greater proportion of their sentences prior to release. This has led us to having one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world yet comparative to that our crime rates are decreasing. So we are doing the public a disservice if we state that legislation like this will make New Zealand a safer place. The regulatory impact statement states clearly that that is not the case. 
The rhetoric around toughness is misplaced—I want to highlight that. If we are talking tough I say that the toughest challenge we have as politicians is to restore faith in our justice system with honesty about what will and will not work. That means two things and I say to Mr Garrett that what is popular is not always right. Let us get back to evidence; let us use that evidence to decide between the two. I have seen no evidence on this. We need to invest in prevention. We have heard a lot of rhetoric around it. We already know the drivers and the risk factors that contribute to offending. It is time for members on the other side of the House to start talking more about addressing those risk factors and restoring confidence for the public and for us to make sure that we collectively bring a halt to the bidding war that is doing an absolute disservice to those in the electorates of New Zealand. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee. 
Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the conclusion of the first reading debate I will move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee for consideration. 
Reducing violent serious and repeat offending by young people is a vital element of this Government’s plan to deal with crime in this country. We intend to offer these young people and their families a fresh start in order to turn their lives around and to address the causes of their offending. We need to intervene at the earliest opportunity to safeguard our communities to do what we can to break the crime cycle and to give young offenders the chance to rebuild their lives in a positive way. 
The current system works well for most children and young people who break the law. Police diversion works and our courts have powers to deal effectively with most young people who come before them. Unfortunately a number of serious and persistent young offenders cause significant harm to their victims themselves their families and their communities. Based on police apprehension figures and the number of higher-level orders used by the Youth Court we see that this group of serious young offenders consists of about 1000 children and young people aged between 12 and 16 years. The present system is not effective enough for this group and these Fresh Start initiatives focus specifically on them. 
When it comes to preventing serious and repeat offending there is no simple solution. The factors that lead children and young people to commit serious offences or to embark on a destructive path of repeat offending are many and varied. We need responses based on what we know works and that recognise the developmental needs of growing children and young people. It will take time to ensure that the right providers and Government agencies have the opportunity to upskill and to expand their services and systems to meet these needs. The wrong approach could hurt and harden these young people and exacerbate rather than solve the problems we are trying to address. 
This bill and the Fresh Start range of initiatives will improve the current system by providing tougher but significantly more flexible and effective legislation that gives a greater range of options for responding to serious and persistent offending by children and young people. To begin with the bill widens the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to cover the small group of recidivist 12 and 13-year-olds who are accused of committing serious crime or who commit repeat offences despite the best efforts of police Child Youth and Family and the Family Court. For most children and young people a diversionary approach works well and they are involved with the police only once. This is why we have set a high threshold before those 12 and 13-year-olds would be processed through the Youth Court. 
The bill also ensures that the Youth Court deals with those children in a way that takes their age into account and that protects them from the negative influences of or victimisation by more mature young offenders. The police and the Youth Court will be given the flexibility to decide how to deal with serious offending by these children. If a Youth Court judge decides that it is not in the public interest for the offending to be dealt with in the criminal jurisdiction he or she can refer it to the Family Court. Under our Fresh Start changes the Youth Court will have a wide range of powers available including new and longer orders and programmes. The bill doubles the length of the Youth Court’s highest-end sentences and this will affect about 300 young offenders. Currently one of the most serious sentences presently available to the court is to send a young person to a youth justice residence for a period of 3 months followed by 6 months’ supervision. In practice as long as the offender does not escape or commit more offences while there his or her time in residence will always be reduced to 2 months. This is simply not long enough. It does not send the right message to young offenders about how seriously society views their offending and just as important it does not provide enough time for them to receive the help and support they need to turn their lives around. The bill doubles the length of the sentence to a maximum of 6 months in residence followed by supervision for up to 12 months. The supervision with activity order will also be doubled to a maximum of 6 months which may be followed by up to 6 months’ supervision. 
Many of the young offenders who receive these high-end orders come from backgrounds that may involve chronic alcohol or drug abuse and families that condone antisocial behaviour where negative peer relationships are too often the norm. In order to provide these young people with the best chance to avoid becoming serious adult offenders these Fresh Start changes will require the investment of time and intensive support by the Government and the providers who work with them. It is important that we identify the right people and programmes for these young people. The bill will enable young offenders on supervision with residence orders to undergo activity programmes. Under this amendment military-style activity camps will be introduced. They will provide a small group of young people with the opportunity to move away from a secure residence and into a camp where they can develop life skills personal discipline and self-confidence under the training and control of army or ex-army staff members who have a particular aptitude for working with young people. It will be part of a comprehensive package designed to address the underlying causes of the young person’s offending. 
These longer sentences offer the opportunity for intensive work to be done with the young offender to stop the offender from committing further crimes. Each young offender will be the subject of an individually tailored plan designed to address the underlying causes of his or her offending and to support his or her transition back into the community. The lack of drug and alcohol rehabilitation programmes for young offenders in the past has not been good enough. As part of the Fresh Start suite of new sentencing orders introduced by the bill young offenders may where necessary be sentenced to attend and participate in drug and alcohol rehabilitation programmes for up to 12 months. This will require the strengthening and development of residential or day programmes to respond to the expected increase in demand. 
Many young offenders lack positive adult role models in their families and communities. The bill introduces a mentoring programme order that may be imposed on young offenders for up to 12 months. Mentoring will also be an important part of all the programmes in the Fresh Start package. I hope that through the process of developing the new mentoring order we can have good dialogue across the sector about what high-quality and effective mentoring looks like for the particular young people we are dealing with. 
Some parents have not been held to account for their role in their children’s offending. The bill empowers the Youth Court to make an order requiring parents of young offenders to attend a parenting education programme for a maximum period of 6 months. Such orders may also be made against young offenders who are or are about to become parents. This will help them to become better parents and in reinforcing a sense of responsibility will contribute to their motivation to stop offending. 
The bill also deals with young criminals who keep offending and ignore their community-based orders. It introduces spotlight sentences to empower the Youth Court to actively monitor young people who are serious repeat offenders or who have breached the terms of their community-based orders. The level of monitoring of young offenders will be up to the court in each case. Further breaches of community-based orders may require the imposition of a new intensive supervision order. This will subject the young offender to extremely intensive monitoring for a period of 12 months and where necessary this may include curfew monitoring by way of an electronic bracelet for a period of up to 6 months. 
The bill also proposes a range of additional amendments to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act that will support these important changes. These include introducing split sentencing establishing a hierarchy of orders and making transfers to the District Court available where any Youth Court order is clearly inadequate. The requirement that young offenders consent to supervision with activities or community work orders is also removed. These orders are made in response to serious offending and it is not for offenders to decide which orders are appropriate for them. 
The new programmes and orders we are introducing and the funding we will make available to implement them will ensure that the people with the proven expertise knowledge and community standing needed to make a difference will be available to help serious young offenders turn their lives round. The passing of this bill will provide an opportunity for community groups Maori and iwi-based service providers and individuals to step up and make a fundamental positive difference in the lives of some of our most troubled and destructive young people. We are committed to ensuring that the right providers are identified and involved in the development of these services and that they are ultimately responsible for delivering the services in community-based settings. 
This Government believes that serious and repeat offending by young people needs a serious and intensive response. This bill offers a new approach and a fresh start for the worst young offenders. It is tough but it acknowledges that these people are trapped in a cycle of crime and need help and support to break away from a lifestyle of offending. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 The Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill was given to Opposition members at 1.30 this afternoon. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: At 1.30 today we received this bill. I have a copy of the bill as given to me. It was printed and ready for introduction on 16 February not on 18 February when it was given to us. If the Minister is serious about this bill why would she not want to share it with the Opposition? Why would she not want to share it with the media? Why are the public of New Zealand not able to have a look at this bill? Why is it not allowed to sit on the Table of the House for the usual number of days? Why would the Government not allow that to happen? 
By taking urgency on this bill the Government has bypassed a crucial part of the democratic process. It means that the bill does not have to lie on the Table of the House for 2 to 3 days as normally occurs with bills so that people can have the opportunity to digest the bill in detail and to take some account of what is in it. Why is there such an urgent rush to introduce this bill right now? 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Are you going to support it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If that member would stop carping and think about the democratic process I would ask her to have a look at the bill and turn to the part of the bill that tells the people of New Zealand when the implementation date will be. Does the member know when this bill is to be implemented? When is it to take place? Does the member know? I can tell the member that this bill is not due to come into force until October 2010. According to the bill itself it does not come into effect until 1 October 2010. 
The Government has introduced the bill under urgency without allowing the opportunity for any other member of this House let alone the media or the public to look at it and study it. I say it is an absolute disgrace. The Minister herself has said that the Government will not be able to put boot camps in place until the end of 2010—in 20 months’ time. It is 20 months before this policy can kick off but we have to introduce the bill under urgency right now. If the Minister thought it was so important to bring in an order covering residential care why not support the bill already in her name before the House which was Labour’s bill? The Minister has also said that the residential facilities needed for the hardened young criminals will not be ready until the end of 2010. We have to ask ourselves why we are rushing such a serious legislation. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Because you were talking about it but there was no action. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Government members do not like me raising this point but it is a fair point to make. When those members were in Opposition they made a pledge to the people of New Zealand they would always be transparent they would always be open and they would be cooperative in the way they approached legislation. On every one of those counts those members have failed. This is not the first time the Government has introduced legislation in this manner. I say to the Minister that I am very disappointed in her bulldozing of democracy when the bill does not come into effect until October 2010. 
What about the bill itself? It sets out to do five things: it widens the jurisdiction of Youth Courts to deal with serious offenders between the ages of 12 and 13 it widens the sentencing options available to Youth Courts it imposes longer residential orders of up to 6 months it introduces military-style activity camp programmes for the most serious and recidivist offenders and it enables the Youth Court to spotlight and monitor the conditions of certain community-based orders. 
Let us look firstly at the aim to widen the jurisdiction of Youth Courts. The provisions base the need to widen the jurisdiction on 80 apprehensions—not 80 arrests not 80 convictions but 80 apprehensions—given as a figure by the police. That figure of 80 includes an offender who has reoffended. So in that 80 there might be a young offender who has reoffended four times and that makes part of the 80. On the basis of 80 youths—some of whom have reoffended many times—the Government needs to bring in this legislation to extend the jurisdiction to 12 and 13-year-olds. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: You’re not making any sense. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member should read her own bill and read the reference in her own bill that states that it is based on 80 apprehensions including recidivist youths. It is in the bill. It is notated in the bill and it comes from the New Zealand Police. 
If we look at the sentencing options what do we know about the sentencing options that already exist? We find that there is already a range of options under section 306 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. I say that for the member’s benefit. Judges can already add additional conditions and they tell me they have been doing it for the last 20 years. They have been able to send young people to drug and alcohol and mentoring programmes etc. They can summon parents before the court. So to say that this is something new that has never been done before does not take account of 20 years of what has been happening. 
Then we look at the residential orders for up to 6 months. This is what has been in a bill that is currently in the Minister’s name but which was the previous Government’s bill. If it was so urgent that we have that measure why was it not put ahead of the Minister of Education’s educational standards which had to be rushed through before Christmas even though the schools were closed for 8 weeks? That had to be done under such urgency because the schools were closed and obviously high standards were needed when the schools were closed! I have to ask if this matter was so important why did it not happen then? We support this part of the bill. 
Then we get to the military-style boot camps. I have to say to the Minister that there has certainly been a change of attitude by the Government. During the election campaign John Key said that boot camps would not be run by the Ministry of Defence. National did not intend to have the army running military-style boot camps in New Zealand. Oh yes he did. It is on record I tell Mrs Tolley. It is on the public record that John Key said that the army would not be running these boot camps. Now we know that National is in negotiations with the Ministry of Defence for it to run boot camps. I have to say that the Ministry of Defence gave us advice that it did not want to run such programmes other than voluntary programmes such as the Limited Service Volunteers programme that is already in place. 
I was astounded to hear from the Minister yesterday when I asked her whether she had read any reports or any international evidence and research about the success of boot camps that her answer was no she had not read such reports or research. Can members imagine a Minister bringing out a policy that has no analysis around it? She had not read a single report. I direct her to a report on boot camps that were abolished in Florida 2 years ago; the report on boot camps in America in 2007; the Home Office report on military-style boot camps which condemned them as a failure in 2002; and the study of offenders for 2 years after they were released which showed that they were more likely to commit violent offences than others who had not been in such camps. 
The report that came out of the United States showed that this corrective training has not led to fewer young criminals. In fact what is the reason that we have so many? What do the judges say? What does a judge like Judge Becroft say? Judge Becroft said that the underlying causes of offending are poverty drug and alcohol abuse neglect and abuse of a young person. This bill tells us that it will tackle the underlying causes of offending. How can it tackle the underlying causes of offending when the programmes are being put in place after the young people have offended? This is really a case of the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It is not an approach whereby one is trying to address the causes of offending. It does not matter how much the Minister yells across the Chamber because that does not make this bill any better. Labour will vote against it. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to contribute to the debate on the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. I do so sure in my own mind after that contribution from the member opposite Annette King that those members on the Opposition benches will not be supporting this bill. I am very very sad to hear that they are totally opposed to this bill—or at least that is what I gained from the member opposite’s contribution. 
I intend to answer some of the questions that were posed to me by constituents during the election campaign. We campaigned on this issue. One of the reasons why this bill is having its first reading here under urgency is that this National Government delivers on its promises. We promised that it would be here and members opposite need to understand that we deliver on our promises. 
We have a slight problem about the implementation of this bill which arises from the fact that after 6 years of talking about the youth justice facility the previous Labour Government did not manage to actually produce or build it. That needs to be done before we can implement the bill. However we promised we would deliver it and I am proud that I will serve on the select committee—where we will hear considered submissions and continued debate—that will receive this bill. We will look at this bill carefully. 
The public of New Zealand have told us that they fear for our young people. They fear for young offenders. They fear that the current system is not supporting those young offenders to not continue down their offending track and that we do not acknowledge the seriousness of the situations of some of the 12 and 13-year-old offenders. There is a need for us to better address ways to do things. The member opposite—Annette King—harped on about how this could prevent offending. She needs to understand that there is recidivist offending happening among young people. Therefore when they have offended we need to put all manner of things around them; for example a residential camp where we increase the length of time they spend in a residential facility rather than simply getting them through the paperwork process and letting them off without anything actually happening. We need to make sure that education is around them and we need to address their alcohol and drug habits or addictions—the things that will cause them to reoffend. 
One of the questions my constituents have asked me is how much this will cost. This does not come cheap. This will cost up to $35 million and it is worth it to keep our young people out of prison where almost twice as much money per year is spent as we usually pay to keep an elderly person in a rest home. It is worth it so we need to get it right. We need to make a real effort. We are heading down the track of new territory and we are improving on what we already have. Other organisations will be involved such as the Ministry of Social Development and Child Youth and Family the Ministry of Justice the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Defence Force plus all those justice and welfare agencies that will support these people and wrap around the parenting orders to support parents to be good parents and to support their young people. 
I am very supportive of this bill. I look forward to addressing the bill in our select committee and I look forward to hearing from New Zealanders who are as worried about our young people and their offending practices as I am. Thank you. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 Before I begin I point out that it interests me that the National members’ biggest triumph at the moment seems to be that they are fulfilling the election promises they made. We on this side of the House have pretty high expectations. We expect that when people come into this House they do what they said they would do; I do not think that that is something to celebrate. 
Moana Mackey 
: You don’t get brownie points for not lying. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: One does not get brownie points for not lying. Just to clarify for members on the other side of the House who may not have picked up on this I say that we do not support the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. 
Before I continue I acknowledge the common ground that exists between us on the principles of what we are trying to achieve in youth justice. There is common ground despite what might be said on the other side of the House. Everyone here wants young people who commit crime to be held to account; no one is disputing that. However we acknowledge that when it comes to youth justice—and there is a reason we cordon off that part of the justice sector—we are dealing with young adults and children. Therefore we expect that there is an ability to intervene and to turn lives round. There is a perception that when it comes to the youth justice sector we should make use of that opportunity; it is right that we try to address both aspects of youth justice. But if ultimately the aim is to address offending and to prevent reoffending then I have to say that the Government has failed. What do we base that on? It is not just on assertion and rhetoric; we base it on evidence. 
Let me begin with boot camps. I know that my colleague the Hon Annette King has already addressed that briefly but I want to go back to the one time in New Zealand’s justice system when we tried this. That was with corrective training. I reflect here not on my own words but on the words of someone who is held in high regard in the justice fraternity and by both sides of this House—that is Judge Andrew Becroft. He noted in a paper on youth justice that “the sentence of Corrective Training was abolished in … 2001. It had been designed as a short sharp three month “shock” in a military training/borstal type facility for 15 - 19 year old boys. It proved a spectacular failure.” It was not just a failure but a spectacular failure. “If anything it simply produced fitter and stronger young offenders.”—a point we have made continually. “The reoffending rates approached 92%. It was the least effective intervention in New Zealand’s criminal justice history!” 
Chester Borrows 
: Check the legislation. It has nothing to do with corrective training. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I am quite open to hearing from members on the other side of the House about whether there are differences between the military-style training they are proposing and corrective training which was also military-style training. I am happy to hear from them. The Brits have tried it since the 1940s; it is not a new idea. It has arisen a few times since but since then it has been abolished because Governments have realised that it does not work. 
I add an additional statement from Judge Becroft on this: “A commonly held and erroneous perception at least in New Zealand is that youth offending is ‘out of control’. Knee-jerk responses can all too easily include ‘scare them straight and send them to boot camp/corrective training’ demands. These types of suggestions are usually ‘intuitive’ well-meaning and born out of profound concern. But it is clear they are not effective in reducing youth offending.” We all have to acknowledge that statement by Judge Andrew Becroft. He has more to do with the youth justice sector than we do—he sees these offenders every day—and he says those ideas do not work. I tell Mr “Burrows”— 
Chester Borrows 
: Borrows! 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Fortunately the pronunciation is not spelt out in  
Hansard 
. 
If that were not clear enough for the Government members I tell them that the judge went on to say that a simple solution of sending all youth offenders to a programme such as boot camp would be unsuccessful. Indeed it could increase reoffending. I do not need to go over that point any further; Judge Becroft has made it quite clearly. 
These are not the only measures contained in the bill; I will quickly address some of the others. Firstly there is the extension of the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to include 12 and 13-year-olds to bring them into liability for prosecution. The first question I have for the Minister for Social Development and Employment on this is: what evidence does the Government have that the Family Court’s current jurisdiction over these offenders and its role in addressing offending at that age group is not working? We have not seen any evidence and I think that it is critical that we see the evidence before we pursue that option. 
Secondly what evidence do we have that this extension will prevent reoffending? We acknowledge of course that some children—and they are children; we are talking about 12 and 13-year-olds—are committing crimes at what we would perceive to be the higher end of the offending scale but let us keep this in perspective. Do members on the other side of the House know how many 14-year-olds were convicted in the Youth Court in 2006? There were three. We need to keep this in perspective. We have seen no data on how many 12 and 13-year-olds we propose the Youth Court to deal with and no data on why the Family Court is not currently catering for these offenders. 
I can see that there is a temptation on the other side of the House to treat these children as adults so my question is: if we are sending these children to the Youth Court are we also extending its ability to send them on to the District Court? That can be done currently by the Youth Court for those who appear before it and I want to know whether this provision will cover 12 and 13-year-olds as well. 
Why am I asking these questions? As has been pointed out by Judge Becroft “there is an increasing trend towards treating youth offenders as junior adults for whom ‘adult crime demands adult time’. The pendulum swings between ‘welfare’ and more punitive ‘justice’ approaches in different youth justice systems. These changes in policy have historically bedevilled a consistent approach to youth crime. Currently the pendulum is moving firmly towards a more punitive approach.” Why is it important to make that point? It is important because Judge Becroft goes on to state that with more punitive measures come heavier levels of sentencing. One would expect that if 12 and 13-year-olds are being sent to the Youth Court the Government has an expectation of heavier levels of sentencing. Judge Becroft points out that that more punitive approach—moving from community-based approaches towards custodial sentences—is less effective. 
I reiterate this point: we are looking at policies without any evidence base behind them. Why? And when will the Government produce the evidence on which it is basing these quite major legislative changes that impact on our youth justice system? Our youth justice system has historically been heralded as an exemplar of how to deal with young people in the justice system. That has been because we have always differentiated between youth and adult activities and we have tailored our approach to suit. The Government is rebalancing—it is shifting the balance—and we need to see evidence as to why it proposes to do so. Until that time we will not support this bill. 
I want to briefly cover off the additional measures that have been talked about. We have already mentioned the extension of certain orders. Again we would like some explanation from the Minister as to why the ability of the Family Court—already within current legislation—to pass down those orders is not adequate. 
The final point I make is that given that there is such a lack of evidence around these proposals we should go back to what there is evidence around—that is the risk factors and triggers for youth offending. We know that such offending comes out of drug and alcohol abuse; out of dysfunctional disadvantaged and violent families; and out of truanting. But the responses we have seen from the Government thus far in all of those areas have been shallow at best and at worst those areas have been ignored. We on this side of the House have higher expectations. That is where our focus was when we were in Government and that is where we expect— 
Chris Tremain 
: On truancy? It was a disaster. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Truancy? The response from the Government of raising fines on parents who probably cannot afford those fines anyway will do nothing to put children back in school. 
I finish with one final quote. This one is not from Judge Becroft; it actually comes from Simon Power. He states that “The enduring solutions”—in reference to justice generally—“are not to be found in locking up offenders at younger and younger ages but to reach them at the earliest stages of development when character empathy and responsibility can be shaped and a future defined … And a future with something that’s perhaps become a four-letter word in politics these days. Hope.” I hope the Government produces something based on evidence and that this side of the House would be willing to support. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of my colleague Metiria Turei in opposition to the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. We have not had any opportunity to look at the bill as it has only just been tabled and made available to members and the public. Frankly I am surprised that the Minister would allow such an abuse of the parliamentary process. I thought she would have been more upfront than that because failing to give the House or the public advance notice of the legislation is an attack on the democratic process. There is no way that the legislation can be properly scrutinised and no means for the public to analyse the legislation and tell their representatives what their views are. That is disgracefully anti-democratic. 
This bill provides a mixed bag of provisions; some we support and some we cannot. Extending the breadth of orders for the Youth Court is a good thing. Some are a little dubious such as the parenting orders for the parents of a young offender. It is contrary to the principles of justice that someone who is not the subject of the court proceedings could have a binding court order imposed on him or her for which any breach would have legal consequences. I look forward to investigating that in the select committee process. 
Other measures such as the use of ankle bracelets to avoid residential sentences enable the court to impose longer supervision orders. They have their problems but they are not necessarily objectionable. I am aware that Judge Becroft the Principal Youth Court Judge suggested that this might be a useful option. I have read his work particularly his address to the Prison Fellowship’s 25th anniversary national conference in May last year where he canvassed these issues. I think that his analysis of what is effective intervention is faultless. 
It is also very important that access to drug and alcohol rehabilitation and counselling is extended both in terms of breadth and also in length of time on the programmes. Young people need to be able to spend reasonable periods—6 months or more—on these kinds of programmes if they are to be fully effective in the long term. There is a huge gap in the provision of these services so it is not enough to give the court powers to require young offenders to attend them. Those services must be of the highest quality and be readily available. We simply do not have the funding available at present to provide all the necessary drug and alcohol interventions that we need. These provisions will not be effective unless there are high-quality best-practice and properly funded long-term services for young offenders to attend. 
One provision that is entirely objectionable is the extension of the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to those children aged 12 and 13 who commit serious crimes. This was the subject of a member’s bill; the policy was roundly condemned and should continue to be so. When that bill was being discussed at the select committee submitters reminded members that there are serious principles at stake in any attempt to increase the criminal responsibility of children. 
The first issue of course is that the bill is contrary to New Zealand’s obligations under the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child. The bill treats very young children of 12 in the same context as much older young people denying them the opportunity to be treated in the context of their family and their age. There is no reason why children as young as this should be dealt with in more formal criminal proceedings because of the nature of their crime. A child of 12 is no more likely to exhibit greater understanding of the effects of his or her actions simply because the crime is of greater severity. In addition all the evidence shows that the younger the offender the more likely the success of his or her rehabilitation if the intervention is family based and immediate. The best opportunity for that kind of systemic family intervention is in the Family Court. There is absolutely no reason why these children should be dealt with in the Youth Court. This provision alone renders the bill unsupportable but of course there are the provisions for the establishment of boot camps. 
Following the work of Judge Becroft and the address by Jacinda Ardern it is clear that exposure to older offenders time spent in prison and explicitly punitive centres like boot camps at best have no impact on reoffending and at worst produce the results already shown in New Zealand: reoffending rates in excess of 90 percent. The evidence of the old 3-month custodial sentence of corrective training proved beyond reasonable doubt that these kinds of courses fail to reduce reoffending. Hence they contribute to unsafe communities by producing stronger fitter and better-informed young offenders. By working with young offenders’ families there is much less risk that any deviant behaviour is shared or becomes entrenched. The young person is reconnected to his or her family and community. The risk of reoffending is greatly reduced and that is surely the point. By isolating young people with other young offenders real opportunities to turn their behaviour around are lost to the community’s detriment. 
Young Maori offenders will suffer the worst from these measures. Research presented by Judge Becroft in May last year shows that young Maori offenders are more likely to come to the attention of the police even though their offending is less serious than that of their Pakeha counterparts. Other New Zealand statistics show—by way of example in diversion rates—that young Pakeha are four times more likely to get diversion than young Maori. Further research from Christchurch shows that if people are Maori they are more likely to be stopped and arrested than if they are Pakeha. The system has filters that over-identify Maori leading to higher imprisonment rates and longer sentences than those for non-Maori. This bill will mean that these failed boot camps will be filled with predominantly Maori young offenders even when their crimes are of less severity than those of Pakeha. It will mean that many of our young Maori men and women will spend a large proportion of their youth in institutions that will encourage a greater chance of reoffending. When set against the “three strikes” legislation these young people begin their lives on a slippery slope towards a lifetime of incarceration. 
This bill is designed to deal with only a very small number of serious young offenders who need the highest level of intervention. Many of the interventions proposed in this bill are demonstrable failures and will lead to increased reoffending. No doubt Government policy will not be blamed despite all evidence clearly showing that it is wrong. No doubt young people and their families will be vilified when the policies fail to deliver the safer communities that New Zealanders deserve. We have evidence of that with the statement from Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust that an adult offender convicted of manslaughter of a young man should have been discharged because minor crimes like graffiti need to be “dealt with seriously”—“seriously” in this case being a euphemism for “fatally”. The Green Party will oppose this bill. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party rises to support the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. It is part of the agreement with our confidence and supply partner—National—that has enabled us to get our “three strikes” bill referred to a select committee. The ACT Party looks forward to robust debate at the select committee and back in this House over the issues raised by this bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill has been branded as a fresh start but it is not the fresh start we know of. This one is supposed to be about an exciting new opportunity for young hoodlums to turn over a new leaf start with a new clean slate and get a second chance. But when I look through the bill I see that it is kind of like what Annette King was saying and I suggest that some of the solutions are not very fresh at all. Some of them are already past their use-by date. 
They are a bit like Borstals which were designed in 1924 specifically to prevent crime and reform young offenders. Unfortunately 70 percent of Borstal kids got straight back into trouble again afterwards and it took the State 80 years to wake up to the failings of that system. Nowadays they call them “youth residences” or something as equally bland and meaningless. They are just as useless in terms of turning kids round yet we still have them. 
Clearly there is a problem with youth offending and just as clearly that problem is magnified in Maori society. We already know that half the Maori population is under 20 years. We know that nearly 50 percent of all teenage offenders are Maori most of them young men just out of school. We know that Maori are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system. We also know that most of the kids targeted under this bill will be Maori. So we as Maori MPs particularly have to commit to taking whatever steps are required to reduce that reoffending and to give our kids a better shot at a decent future. We need to make sure that we push for the kinds of programmes staffing and resources that will make a difference. 
We know for example that kura kaupapa work for Maori kids. We know that Maori kids respond to strong and positive leadership. We know that all kids develop well with good support from the whanau. We need to bring that same commitment to kaupapa Maori into this field as well. So it was good to hear the Minister confirm in this House yesterday—and I repeat it for the record— that “The increased involvement of Maori providers is a priority. I have made a commitment to broaden the range of providers. This will be done by consulting with both the Maori Party and Maori in general. We recognise that Maori have different needs and we will be implementing programmes that will have a real effect.” Those four statements recognise the importance of bringing Maori into the loop but they are also a challenge to us Maori MPs and to all Maori providers who care about what happens to our kids to step up to the plate with programmes that work to help turn our kids round. 
Like other Maori MPs the Maori Party also wants to decrease Maori offending and victimisation but we also support a restorative justice system. We want to change the nature of imprisonment in this country so that it actually reduces reoffending and enhances rehabilitation neither of which happens at the moment and in doing so we are not aiming to replace white bureaucrats with brown ones; we want to replace all bureaucrats with community people. 
And because I know that people will ask because I know that the media are anxious to know and because I know that the liberals are hoping we were not serious about it I might as well come right out and tell everyone that properly run there is nothing wrong with boot camps. There is nothing inherently wrong with expecting kids to get out of bed early have a wash have three decent meals a day get a decent education do some hard work and go to bed early. And if the truth be known I know for a fact as do most other Maori MPs in this House—although some of them might not want to admit it—that young Maori men actually flourish in a disciplined environment including boot camps. 
I know that the jury is still out on whether these short sharp shocks actually work but most Maori are rightfully wary of what juries have to say anyway. I know too that people have concerns about bullying hazing harassment and other practices that run counter to good learning and good behaviour but I have seen with my own eyes how short and long stints in the armed forces have changed our kids many of whom were on the edge of going bad. I have seen kids whom our community had written off as being completely lost go away for a 12-week course in the army and come back completely changed people. I have to say that nearly every single one of those young people whom I have seen leave Kaitaia has come back a better person than when he or she went in. So forget the juries and never mind the advice of the liberals; the truth is that good boot camps work. Yep they will not all be good ones but we weed them out and make sure that the good ones operate. And if they do I can tell members that I would not have any problem at all with Maori kids going to them. 
I also note that another proposal is to allow Youth Courts to issue parenting and educational orders mentoring orders and drug and alcohol treatment orders as well as the old “Home D” bracelet for kids to keep some of these kids under more regular surveillance. Although each of these ideas ain’t particularly cool they are worth considering. But I also think there needs to be some very vigorous monitoring of the effectiveness of some of these proposals so that we do not end up pursuing a policy to the point of stupidity like previous Governments did with Borstals and current Governments do with kids’ prisons and so that we can very quickly dump any programmes that have been brought in as a response to the blind panic generated by media hype and very little reality. The Maori Party will be monitoring all of these new initiatives closely so that we can pick out the good ideas and quite frankly dump the rest. 
The Maori Party faces a big dilemma with this bill because we genuinely care about these kids of ours who get into trouble. I wanted to talk about how Pita has taken kids in how Tariana has taken kids in how Te Ururoa has and so have I but then I realised that it becomes part and parcel of our whole lifestyle. We genuinely care about what is happening with these kids of ours who get into trouble—some of it very serious. We know that a lot of the proposals in this bill do not include decent research on the impacts on Maori families and the long-term effects on the Maori kids who will be chewed up by these initiatives we know that this bill is more about immediate sanction than it is about long-term rehabilitation and we know that this bill does not have all the answers—not by a long shot. 
But we also know that the previous Government did not offer anything particularly positive for young Maori offenders so this current lot can hardly do much worse. We also note that the previous Government pretty much ignored the opinions of its own Maori MPs. Well this time round the Maori Party at least has the opportunity to get something positive happening in some of these areas and we have decided that rather than just sit on the outside and throw stones we want to have a shot at trying to make something happen. We want to try because our kids deserve the best that we can give and we want to try because we are not afraid to try. Yes we can criticise initiatives that we do not like and we intend to do so but we have chosen to step through the door and at least try to involve people who can offer positive ideas for the rehabilitation of young Maori offenders. 
We know that the challenge is bigger than just youth crime. We know that society must take seriously its obligations to eliminate poverty improve living conditions for the poor offer decent education to all of its citizens create the environment for a strong economy provide decent wages and throw aside the yoke of racism that still burdens our society and limits our potential. But we will support this bill’s first reading to enable this debate to continue. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak on the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill tonight. Firstly I acknowledge a young lady in the gallery Emma Daken who walked the length of New Zealand to raise awareness of cystic fibrosis. She is an inspiration for many young New Zealanders. She believed in a cause and actually got out there and did something about it so I would like to acknowledge her tonight. 
This bill fulfils one of our 100-day commitments which was to get tough on crime and provide young offenders with a fresh start in New Zealand. This is a Government that will keep its word and deliver on its pre-election policy promises. This is a Government that New Zealanders can rely on to keep its word and deliver for all New Zealanders. This is a Government that passionately believes in every single child that backs every child in New Zealand and that will not let a child slip through the cracks. We will not give up on a child. We will try and try again to make sure that every child in New Zealand has hope because every child is precious to us. Every child can grow up to be a good productive citizen of New Zealand who adds to the value of what we have here which is a wonderful wonderful country. 
The Labour Government had no inspiration no answers it could not think outside of the square and it let more than a thousand children slip through the cracks. But what is even sadder is that a thousand children slipped through the cracks and 54 percent of them were Maori children. That is not good enough; it is not good enough for Maori in New Zealand and it is not good enough for all of the thousand children who slipped through. But this Government has some inspiration this Government is thinking outside the square and this Government will deliver for those thousand children. 
The Opposition says this bill is the ambulance sitting at the bottom of the cliff. Yes it is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff because that is where the children are and we cannot let them stay there. We have to pick them up and we have to give them some hope. That actually is what this legislation is all about. It is about recognising that these children need a lot of attention to be given to them. They need a lot of wraparound services. They need to be accountable for some of their actions. We cannot just let them go. 
Part of this bill extends the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to include 12 and 13-year-olds which many previous speakers have spoken on a lot. But the part I want to speak on is the tool kit; the tool kit that we will give the Youth Court to actually add some value to allow it to put in place more programmes for these children—programmes such as parenting orders mentoring and drug and alcohol rehabilitation. It is not actually rocket science. What one sees coming from the National Government is not rocket science; it is common sense prevailing. The Youth Court will be able to order parents to take part in education programmes. That is not rocket science is it? Imagine being able to tell parents they have to take part in education programmes! That is a great thing. The thing is we can put children in programmes but when they are released to their families they go back to exactly the same environment. It is about having a holistic approach. It is about ensuring that the children get looked after and the families get looked after as well and get some skills with which they can move forward. 
In concluding I would like to say that I am proud to stand here to support legislation that will help our young children to move forward. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to oppose this bill on three particular points. The first point was well made by the deputy leader of the Labour Party Annette King. I say to Paula Bennett that purely and simply it is a matter of poor process. I say to the Minister that she will be developing policy that will affect the lives of a lot of children families and young people but to have a bill tabled like this with very little time for the Opposition to examine its pros and cons I think is poor form on her part and I am sure that that is not how she intends to go on. However we cannot support the bill on that basis. 
The second point concerns a lack of genuine input into the policy intent of the bill. When I look at the explanatory note of the bill I see the list of who has been consulted. Sure a lot of ministries have been consulted but what about the Office of the Children’s Commissioner what about Judge Becroft what about Judge Henwood what about the youth sector itself which can offer a lot of important points in this space and what about the community and voluntary sector also? They have not really been consulted or it is not demonstrated in the explanatory note that they have been consulted at all. 
On the third point I say—and it has been said again and again—that boot camps simply do not work. Let me explain that. In Hauraki-Waikato there are some really good examples of how a community—in fact how a region—is trying to tackle some of these very difficult issues and they are very difficult. I acknowledge the youth workers the social workers the community providers and the Maori providers who work in this space and it is a very difficult space to work in. Nobody can deny that when we are talking about the most difficult cases in our community we have to talk about a whole-of-Government a whole-of-community approach in order to be able to address these issues. Yes it does take a village to raise a child. 
If we look at Hamilton and at what is available—and I see my colleague Tim Macindoe over there—I note we have Te Hurihanga. That particular initiative emerged as a result of extensive work done through the Ministry of Justice with Judge Henwood. During the time when Phil Goff was the Minister of Justice there was input from community providers who were involved in the youth justice sector and input in terms of research for outcomes in this space. That led to the establishment of Te Hurihanga a residential facility. I see Mr Paul Quinn smiling there; he would not know about it because he has not visited it. The point of this—and Te Hurihanga does some very serious work with some of the most difficult children—is that the initiative provides wrap-around services for these children and their families to ensure that while intensive casework is done with rangatahi people are actually working with the whanau out in the community. We do not want to have a scenario where we are investing in these children and then they go back to the same old situation. 
That is also why boot camps will not work. In a controlled environment it is easy to ensure the outcomes we are expecting because it is a controlled environment. But when these kids go back out into their own communities where very little has been done with their families we find that repeat offences occur. I am sure members are aware of the work that John de Silva did on Great Barrier Island with families there because Child Youth and Family did a review of that initiative. Points will have been raised that although that programme in part was showing some very good outcomes with a little bit of military-style work being done there those kids were going back into communities where the same dysfunctional issues were happening. 
But let us go back to Hamilton because just across the road from Te Hurihanga is the Kauri Centre a Child Youth and Family - funded centre where young people go for educational programmes. The workers there will tell you that this centre is at the hard edge but it provides a space just before those kids could possibly go into the criminal justice system. Members should be under no illusion whatsoever: if we are to make a real difference with those kids we need to invest in the workers who work with them and we also have to have a wrap-around support network with those children’s families because multiple dysfunctions are occurring. 
I say to members to have another look at Hamilton and they will also find Te Rongoatea a drug and alcohol service funded by the Ministry of Health through the district health board. But the greatest irony for Te Rongoatea is that many of the referrals that go there are not local to that community. So I raise the question to Paula Bennett Minister for Social Development and Employment and Minister of Youth Affairs: will she be prepared to channel some of that funding she has tagged for initiatives to fund existing services in the community that provide an integrated network of support for young people and their families? That is absolutely critical and I know that community providers in Hamilton deserve that level of support because they are doing some very good things in that space. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Boot camps do not work in and of themselves and the Minister needs to have another look at that particular issue. 
I will also comment on the new sentencing order framework in the bill. Parts of this bill I think many members across the House might generally agree with but they are already happening. So the undertaking that I am really seeking from the Minister which was not so clear when she answered a question in the House is whether the Pathways to Partnership funding will be cut in preference to funding other initiatives. It is a very important question; it is one that many community providers and Maori providers are asking throughout a number of our communities. We would hate to see a number of those really good services which provide a network of integrated services cut solely to fund parenting programmes mentoring programmes and alcohol and drug rehabilitation programmes—albeit those programmes are important but not at the expense of other critical services provided in the community and voluntary sector. 
My message is quite clear: perhaps the Minister for Social Development and Employment should talk to the Minister of Education and the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector. I know that Hone Harawira knows the same communities I know and I know his communities; we have to invest at the front end. That is the type of change that the Labour Government was driving by investing at the front end—trying to keep our kids at school longer and making the education system and their learning environment more relevant to them. I urge Paula Bennett to talk to the Minister of Education to see what can be done at the front end to stop any of our kids having to end up in residential justice places and to see what more can be done there. That will make the critical difference to turn around a whole generation so that we are not building more prisons or residential centres as the National Government wants to do. 
When Labour was in Government we certainly did not want to send out that signal. We had some very difficult times because in my own community both Te Hurihanga and Spring Hill Corrections Facility were two facilities that met with a lot of angst from our communities. We do not want to go down that track. We want to turn the tide before it is too late but that requires investment at the front end. So I challenge the Minister to go into further discussions with the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector and the Minister of Education to see how we can put greater investment at that front end. 
The last point I will make and it is pure and simple is that the Minister has not looked at the obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. If she did she would clearly find that bringing 12 and 13-year-olds into the Youth Court system to be liable for prosecution totally contradicts that convention and our report will look woeful in November when the National Government has to report on its track record of what it is doing for young people. That is sad because we know that out there in the youth development sector a whole lot of youth workers and community and voluntary sector providers are doing very good things with young people trying at the front end—the hardest end—to deal with the issue. They know that yes it is difficult but boot camps are simply not the answer. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am very pleased to take a call tonight and speak in favour of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. 
I am particularly pleased to follow my Waikato colleague Nanaia Mahuta and I thank her for the analysis she has brought of some of the problems that exist in our local area. My electorate falls entirely within the boundaries of her electorate and I respect the contribution she made. I am pleased to follow her contribution so I can acknowledge some of the comments she made about some of the intervention measures such as Te Hurihanga and the Kauri Centre in my city and to acknowledge the very good work that they are doing. But I say to the member that surely she has just explained why the measures we are introducing in this bill are a natural extension of what Labour members offer and that they are designed to put a very compassionate and effective measure around the major problem that we have in our electorate. 
I say to members opposite that they need to reflect on the comments of their own leader immediately after the election. The new Leader of the Opposition told us that Labour would listen to the people and would learn from the experience of its pretty shattering defeat not least because Labour is quite rightly perceived to be very soft on law and order issues. Yet in every debate we have had since the election Labour MPs have reverted to type. They claim to support a tough stance on law and order and they claim to support Phil Goff’s leadership but they argue against every measure that is put up. I find it incredible that every time a measure of this type comes before the House Labour members say they will support it then they speak against it and then they vote for it. They may not be voting for this one but they seem to be taking that approach most of the time. 
I am very proud to be part of a Government that is listening to the electorate. I am very proud to be a member of a Government that is delivering on its election promises because whatever members opposite may think about the issue the public of New Zealand voted for this measure. I am very proud to be part of a Government that is keeping its word and keeping faith with the electorate which put us here to do exactly what we are doing in this measure and in all other aspects of our 100-day plan. 
Nathan Guy 
: Very busy. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: We are a very very busy Government indeed. 
This is a bill and a measure that will be warmly welcomed wherever there is a problem with recidivist young offenders and I invite members to tell me which part of New Zealand does not have that problem. Sadly as Nanaia Mahuta has already pointed out we probably have more than our fair share of such problems in Hamilton West. As a new member who knocked on many doors and got the feeling of the electorate time after time at meeting after meeting I know that this issue really resonates with my electorate where people are demanding some action. My constituents are fed up with the soft approach to such issues which has quite clearly failed to deal with the problem of recidivist young offenders for far too long. 
Jacinda Ardern another Waikato member asked us where the evidence is to support this bill. I say to her that the first evidence is the policies followed by her party while it was in Government over 9 years that were such an abject failure. If one can see that something clearly has not worked why on earth would one keep arguing to go on doing it? I suggest very very clearly that we do young offenders a great disservice if we do not make a serious attempt to intervene and turn their lives around. I am determined not to give up on the young offenders in my electorate but that is why I will not give in to them. Secondly there is very clear evidence that our 1000 or so most serious young offenders require more time and more intensive intervention if they are to turn their lives around. We need to improve the measures that are there at the moment. That is what we must commit to doing and that is what we are committing to doing with this legislation. 
I say to members opposite that the research that they have asked for shows that longer intervention programmes give young people essential ongoing support and treatment to be able to make a long-term positive change. There is research to show that intensive programmes for young offenders such as what we are proposing to implement here will work if they address the underlying causes of offending. That is a point of common ground right across the House so let us focus on those underlying causes of offending and incorporate therapeutic and educational interventions. They are provided for in these measures. When members opposite use that fairly derogatory phrase “boot camps” to try to avoid the harder issues and the more important aspects of the bill they actually do a great disservice to the people who would benefit most from the measures. That is why next year we will give the courts the option of a highly specialised residential programme centred on military-style discipline which will have mentoring drug and alcohol literacy and numeracy modules all attached—a thorough wraparound programme and service. 
We on this side of the House know that there is a small core of young offenders whose crimes have seriously impacted on the lives of their victims and continue to do so and who pose a real threat to our communities. If we do not do something about the young offenders of tomorrow they become adult offenders; they are destined for a long period of incarceration. Surely no one opposite wants that—particularly I would have thought not the Maori members of Parliament—and we must not forget that if that happens there will be a long legacy of victims in their wake. I will do everything that I can as a member of Parliament to support measures that will prevent more people becoming the victims of serious crime. This Government believes that these young people need a fresh start and we will do it for them. 
This is just one of the 100 days of commitments; we have made a whole package of measures. Let us not see this measure in isolation; let us recognise that it is part of a major programme that is designed to recognise the real problems we have inherited. We can throw blame back and forth across the House and I believe that a lot of blame rests with the approach of the previous Government but I am even more concerned about doing something about it. By cracking down on these issues and by giving some real teeth to the system of dealing with young offenders we can make a difference for young people. We are keeping our word and we are delivering on what the electorate has asked us to do. My constituents asked me for this measure time and time again during last year’s campaign. At every meeting I attended law and order seemed to be one of the major concerns. At every meeting I attended speaker after speaker asked why we allow young people to go off the tracks and then just condemn them to a hopeless future. 
I commend the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett for her initiative; I commend the Minister of Justice Simon Power for the measures that he has taken; I commend this Government for having the courage to say we can do something about it; and I ask the House to say that if the system has not worked for so long and if young people have been cast adrift for so long then we can we should and this Government will do something about it. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 For me personally it is a sobering experience to be in this Parliament addressing an issue that really has bedevilled if you like a part of my life and my professional role in working with families and children since the 1970s. It is really with a sense of sadness that I see that in debating the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill we are doing one of the very things that we as practitioners criticised. We tried to work with the laws that Parliament passed and at times wondered what real understanding the people had who had passed the legislation. We wondered whether those people took advice whether they listened to those who knew the situation much better than them and whether it would not have been more helpful and productive if they in addressing the problems that we were coping with took all of that knowledge into account. 
In the 1970s I was a senior social worker in west Auckland. I worked in Otahuhu Mangere Otara Papatoetoe and Manurewa. We had a very very punitive regime in operation. We took young people often people with brown faces—and I recognise and identify immediately with what Hone Harawira talked about earlier—and we designed around these young people who yes had transgressed the most punitive negative and unhelpful series of responses possible. We gave them a chance at first; they would get a warning. They went to the children’s court and were put on supervision. We were not able to work with them because we just did not have the resources. We then sent them off to—and some members will recall these institutions—Kohitere Hokio Beach School Kingslea Residential Centre and places like that. 
These places were miles away from their own homes and there young people were taught to keep their elbows off the table to eat with their mouths closed to brush their teeth in the morning to comb their hair and to exercise only to return later to their homes where nothing had changed. Very quickly these young people were on their way to the adult justice system and they became problems down the track. 
When we worked with those cases and realised that was happening I promised myself that if ever there was an opportunity to reflect on those experiences and to at least have my say alongside people with the same views as we on this side of the House have then I would speak and speak clearly. I am trying to do that tonight. Having realised what we were doing to young people who transgressed I have spent my life since then trying to find solutions by examining social problems by looking at the evidence in my own and other people’s research and by searching the world for the ideas that work—those ideas that at least have the best chance of helping to design solutions that will address the very problems we are looking at again today. 
We realised very quickly that we could not resolve the complex issues that occur in the adolescent period of young people’s lives by addressing a single aspect of those problems because those solutions simply become single acts of conscience. Nothing changes and somebody else has to come back and fix the problems a few years or a decade later. We realised that we had to look at the multiple systems that affected that situation. Much of what we have done since then has been due to realising that. More recently when I worked in the Families Commission we looked at what makes families successful. What did 4000 New Zealand families tell us? Again they told us not to address just one single aspect of what was in their interests. They asked us to talk to them about how they might live better lives but also to talk about their communities the institutions that service them the policies that they benefit from and indeed the values of the society in which they live. 
If we have that realisation I ask what we are doing now to address the current problem. Let us see how we have got to this particular bill. We have got to it through a very widely publicised set of cases and yes like members opposite we on the Opposition benches are concerned about those cases. We are concerned that we should address them constructively so that those lives are put back together again those families are put back on pathways to positive growth and those communities are made strong again. 
But we have in a sense fed the public’s desire for blood if you like. It has become a blood sport. I say that advisedly and not in a manner designed to attack what my colleagues opposite have said. I say that as sincerely as I can. This must not become a blood sport yet it is becoming one. People have the opportunity at election time and at other times to tell us about the very things that concern them and maybe even about some of the solutions they might propose. That does not mean that in discharging our role in this Chamber we should simply take that on board and deliver it. That might earn us some brownie points in the short term and a few more votes perhaps but I ask members whether they want to look back 40 years from now and say that they had an opportunity to change something and did not. 
I come here after 40 years of practice so this is my opportunity to say let us change the things that bothered us fundamentally as practitioners and that bothered our families. I say that I will listen to what our communities tell us and to the worries that people have. But we must also engage with them about those ideas that will achieve positive change. I say to the ladies and gentlemen opposite that nowhere do we have evidence that Draconian measures actually work in addressing these social issues. I challenge anybody to show me where they work. 
Craig Foss 
: Singapore. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I am sorry but the member needs to go and study Singapore again. I am really trying to make a point— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Oh come on! Make it practical. All your theories. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Well the Minister says “Make it practical.” You will know Minister what practical means. You have worked with these people— 
Hon Member 
: You gonna let him do “you”? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: My apologies. As the member knows— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: It’s time for action. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: It is time for action. I say to the Minister that we are lucky to have an opportunity as members of this Parliament to really take some action. But that does not mean we should take ill-advised actions so that her next successor whomever he or she may be will have to fix it up. If we as parliamentarians want to address this issue fundamentally— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Not interested in the Google-Boogle theories. Action. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: You were trained well Minister. You know how to do this and this is not the way. My apologies again.  
Nathan Guy 
: Talking about sheep again? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: That is OK; I will get used to it. I say that there are other ways of doing this. Let us bring together the best brains in this country and the best evidence from around the world to address these issues. I say to members opposite that we will get a reputation for using in New Zealand solutions that have failed elsewhere. We did so with national testing. 
Todd McClay 
: But you have a reputation for that. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I ask the member to listen to the argument and he will soon follow it. 
I ask the member to look at the evidence about boot camps. Let us take just one aspect of this issue. Where have boot camps worked? International evidence demonstrates that military-style courses at best have no impact in reducing offending and at worst increase offending rates. That is the evidence. There is case after case from all around the world that tell us that. Overseas countries are now closing boot camps down. We can look at Florida which has closed its boot camps. It did so because a young person died from the terrible treatment that person received in a boot camp which used some outmoded ideas about military discipline. This issue is not about military discipline it is about giving to young people the kind of discipline that will help them to put their lives together in the context of their families and their communities. The Government can be as punitive as it likes but I guarantee—and I will put money on it—that the Government will be redesigning these solutions in a very short space of time. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I have to say to you Mr Assistant Speaker that having sat here for the last hour and a half listening to this debate I—along with much of the rest of the country for almost the whole of last year—have almost lost the will to breathe. All we have heard from the other side of the House is exactly where those members left off at the election last year. It has been about excuses. It has been about all the things they might have done all the things they could have done and now that they are on the other side of the House on the Opposition benches they have got all the examples of how to fix things. They think that they have all the answers. 
It gives me great pleasure to rise tonight to speak on the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. In doing so I start as most other speeches given in this House by Government members have started by saying that this is a Government that is meeting the commitments it made during the election campaign to deliver for New Zealanders in its first 100 days. I can see why the Opposition would be concerned about that. If I were sitting on the Opposition benches I would be concerned about a Government that has done so much in such a short period of time—100 days. The people emailing us calling us and writing the letters to the editor are people who like action and they have seen a lot of it here. 
We started this debate today with a Minister for Social Development and Employment who cares. We started with a Minister who stood up and said that we have got to do something about the appalling record of youth crime. It is a legacy that has grown over 9 years. I am glad to support the Minister Paula Bennett in the measures she has brought forward today. On 2 March last year during the campaign one could have picked up the newspapers and read about how levels of child crime youth crime and violence were rocketing under the Labour Government. One can go back find the newspapers and read them. Simon Power National’s justice and corrections spokesman at the time said that Labour continued to fail dismally in the fight against violent crime. At least Labour is consistent. At least the message it was delivering to New Zealanders last year and the year before that and the year before that is the very same message that it is delivering from the other side of the House today. Labour is saying that everything is all right in New Zealand and everything is OK. It is saying that nothing else needs to change and it is happy with its record. Well New Zealanders got to cast their vote and their opinion on that. They had quite a different idea. 
We have heard from the other side of the House: “Where is your evidence?” Let us have little look at this. [ 
Interruption 
] The member is right; I gave him the courtesy of being quiet. I ask the same from him. The 2007 crime figures show that since Labour came to power in 1999 violence by youth offenders aged 14 to 16 rose by 47 percent—47 percent. Everybody on that side of the House would have to take off their shoes and socks to be able to count to 47—47 percent is far too high. That is 4766 offences by young people of that age. That is amazing and alarming. Perhaps what is more alarming is that in just one year—in 2007—violence by children aged 10 to 13 years increased by a massive 30 percent—1201 offences. 
Tonight members on the other side of the House said that “It is OK and everything is all right. We did all the work that we had to.” That is far too much crime and that is far too many children whom Labour let down. Finally we have a Minister who is willing to work hard to help families and to help young people so that they will not go on to be criminals in the adult justice system. Labour will question these figures—and I expect nothing more—but I bet nobody on that side of the House can tell me how many young people get in trouble with the courts and then continue to get into trouble as adults. The figures are not there. The moment young people got to an age where they were adults Labour said that the problem was solved and somebody else could deal with it. That is not what this Government is about. 
Let me go back to the 14 to 16-year-olds in 2007. Robberies by 14 to 16-year-olds were up by 94 percent. Intimidation and threats were up by 69 percent. These are 14 to 16-year-olds; some of them would be taller than the members opposite but that is intimidation and threats. Grievous assault was up by 122 percent. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who wrote that joke for you? 
TODD McCLAY 
: I am glad the member is proud of that—122 percent. Minor assaults were up by 20 percent. That is not good enough. I ask members what we should do about it. Should we wait until these children reach the age of consent give up on them and let them go to jail forever; or should we work with them and their families to ensure they realise that there is another choice and that for every choice there is a consequence? We can help them to get back on the straight and narrow. 
Do members know what this debate is about? It is about owning up taking responsibility and supporting the bill. It is as easy as that for members on the other side of the House—it is a matter of owning up and taking responsibility for the failure of the Labour Government over 9 years and of supporting this bill. 
I have heard others in the House speak tonight. I will not waste my breath or my words talking about the Green Party. I say that Green Party members are too busy jumping at shadows to realise we have a big problem in this House; for them it is about waking up. I listened very carefully to some members in this House who represent the Maori constituencies in New Zealand. I have great respect for the Maori Party and I listened very carefully and very closely to the things Hone Harawira said. Mr Harawira spoke with strength and passion and he spoke of strong families and strong family values. I recognise what he said and I support him in this. I will work closely with Te Ururoa Flavell in Rotorua Kawarau Murupara and all the other parts of my electorate to help build and reinforce strong families. But sometimes it takes a sharp shock. Sometimes it takes intervention. Sometimes it takes outside help for families and children to get back on the right track and that is what this legislation is about. 
I said earlier that there is a consequence for every action and equally there is a consequence for every inaction. When we look at the statistics today we see the appalling record of failure created over 9 years by the other side—the previous Labour Government—and the consequence of far too many young people who are in trouble. I heard another member on the opposite side of the House say that 12 and 13-year-olds are children. I agree—they are children. But the sad fact of the society we live in today is that the very children whom members opposite purport to be so concerned about are committing serious grown-up crimes. In 2007 and 2008 alone eight 14 to 16-year-olds were apprehended for homicide including five for murder one for manslaughter and two for attempted murder. Those young people are children but the crimes they are committing are not the crimes of children. It is important that we have intervention that we take responsibility as a society and that we take responsibility as a Government and own up to some of these things. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Talk about mentoring. 
TODD McCLAY 
: Mentoring is a very important thing. 
Let us think about military-style camps to help some of the worst of the young children who are getting into the most trouble. I am talking about young kids without help who will go on to fill up our prisons when they become adults. Maybe for the first time in their lives someone will treat them with a little bit of respect and in turn they will earn respect. Perhaps those young kids will then realise that they can respect themselves and respect others around them. 
The $35 million that this Government is committing to support these young people is a very small amount of money compared with the great cost to society and compared with the cost of all the reports to sort out the problems that we have heard about over the last 9 years. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s enough. 
TODD McCLAY 
: No we are just getting started. 
National campaigned on this issue. We spoke widely on it. One of my colleagues opposite mentioned something about blood sports. I thought he was going to give us a bit of insight into the problem of youth crime but he said that society has the ability to tell us what it thinks at election time. Well guess what? Society did. At the last election we campaigned widely on this issue. We said we have to do more on this. Every single thing members see in this bill is something we spoke about widely and received support for. New Zealand society said it liked that and wanted a bit more of it. Society wants us to help our young people. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Social Services Committee. 
Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill be now read a second and a third time 
. This bill seeks to ensure that all Government Superannuation Fund annuitants’ benefits are adjusted based on 100 percent of the changes in the CPI with effect from 1 April 2009. I acknowledge at the outset the bill’s widespread support across the House and the work of the previous Minister of Finance the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. 
The Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill seeks to ensure that all Government Superannuation Fund annuitants’ benefits are adjusted based on 100 percent of the changes in the consumer price index with effect from 1 April 2009. It also corrects an error made in the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Act 1990. Currently there is inconsistent treatment of annual cost of living adjustments to Government Superannuation Fund and National Provident Fund annuitants’ benefits. Certain groups of annuitants already receive 100 percent annual cost of living adjustments including contributors under new Government Superannuation Fund schemes and those whose contributory service commenced after 15 June 1969. Those groups are unaffected by this bill. There is no backdating whatsoever and I need to point out that the increased payments will be made only from 1 April 2009 onwards. 
The previous Labour Government announced in Budget 2008 that all Government Superannuation Fund and National Provident Fund annuitants’— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Just table it if you like. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No it is important that Ms Dyson understands. The previous Labour Government announced in Budget 2008 that all Government Superannuation Fund and National Provident Fund annuitants’ benefits would be annually adjusted based on 100 percent of the changes in the consumer price index at a cost of $33.2 million for 2009-10 only. The changes will also—and this is important for members to understand—increase the value of the Government Superannuation Fund’s unfunded liability. The previous Labour Government in its 2005 Budget gave all Government Superannuation Fund annuitants at least 90 percent indexation and made permanent changes to how Government Superannuation Fund spousal annuities were calculated. 
Until this bill is passed people on fixed incomes such as those receiving annuities from the Government Superannuation Fund and National Provident Fund are missing out. The changes in this bill will ensure that all groups of annuitants receive a 100 percent adjustment based on CPI adjustments. That seems to me to be eminently fair and appropriate as this particular sector of the community—indeed together with everyone else in our community—is certainly feeling the effects of these extraordinarily hard times. 
I welcome the measures contained in this bill and I look forward to the bill receiving widespread support in the House this evening. I look forward to the alignment of benefit adjustments with consumer price index adjustments and to the clarification of a historical drafting anomaly. It is interesting of course that this particular drafting anomaly has only just been brought to the attention of the Government. 
In addition to the changes we are talking about tonight National’s tax cuts will result in a rise in New Zealand superannuation from 2011. That could well occur from 2010 if the floor in wage adjustment is reached as a result of wage growth in the economy—because of course New Zealand superannuation is currently linked to 60 percent of the net average wage. That is just another means by which National is determined to lift the incomes and living standards of all New Zealanders not only those in the workforce but also those on fixed superannuation incomes for whom the current times present quite a crisis situation. 
National will deliver on its election promises. We are absolutely committed in our determination to lift the income and living standards of all New Zealanders. Although Labour mischievously argues time and time again that tax cuts will be only for the rich this is a very good indication of how tax cuts will affect the net average wage of all New Zealanders and consequently will lift the incomes of this particular group of superannuitants in our community. 
I commend this legislation to the House this evening. I acknowledge the fine work of the Hon Bill English the Minister of Finance. Among the challenges of the world economic crisis and recession and of shepherding through this House all the legislation that we were determined to pass within 100 days we have found time also to progress this quite significant and very important legislation. I commend this bill to the House this evening. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 One would scarcely have thought from listening to the last part of that speech that the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill was actually introduced by the previous Labour Government. [ 
Interruption 
] The member mentioned it earlier in his speech but by the time he had gone through his ritual brown-nosing exercise in the last few minutes of his speech I think he had rather lost the plot. 
He also seemed to depart from his very carefully prepared speech notes in the last few minutes because I have to tell him that the net average wage has absolutely nothing to do with the defined benefits received by people under the Government Superannuation Fund scheme. The average wage determines the payment of New Zealand superannuation and Government superannuation is entirely different from New Zealand superannuation. New Zealand superannuation is based upon a 65 to 72.5 percent ratio of the net average ordinary-time weekly wage for a married couple. It is a taxable benefit-style payment. 
Government superannuation is a partially contributory superannuation scheme. When people have paid in a proportion of their income through their working lives as public servants they receive a defined-benefits scheme payment upon retirement. That scheme was closed off in 1992 and those particular defined-benefits schemes no longer exist for new entrants but it will be many years before people have finally retired out of the old defined-benefit Government superannuation scheme. Indeed if somebody joined the scheme in 1992 at say age 16 theoretically it could be as late as about 2080 before the last person in a defined-benefits Government superannuation scheme retires. 
This bill applies to those people who retired from Government service before 1986. The standard provision before 1986 was 80 percent indexation. Those people who have retired since 1986 have received 100 percent indexation. In 2005 the then Labour Government lifted that 80 percent indexation to 90 percent indexation at an estimated total cost over the life of that cohort of people of $10 million. The cost of raising indexation from 90 percent to 100 percent for the remaining cohort which is smaller than it was in 2005 because a number of people have died—remember that we are talking about people with an average age of 60 in 1986 so they are well into their eighties now and many are well into their nineties—is estimated at $33 million. I have to say as the previous Minister of Finance that I found it slightly baffling that a smaller group of people moving from 90 to 100 percent indexation which is a one-ninth increase cost three times the amount of money estimated to move a one-eighth increase for a larger group of people in 2005. 
In reality that is a balance sheet impact. The impact in terms of annual flow of annual cash on the Government accounts is more like $2.5 million or so a year and that is a more realistic picture of the generosity that Mr David Carter was bravely claiming on behalf of the Minister of Finance. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Because he read very slowly. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It was because he read very slowly but I think he got himself rather thoroughly confused at the end of the day. 
There is another part of the bill that I found somewhat amusing when it was brought to my attention when I was Minister of Finance. From 1990 right through to the present day the good people of the Government Superannuation Fund who applied for a cash payment on surrender of a proportion of their annuity have been paid more than they should have been. 
In the 1990 legislation of course all superannuation schemes were adjusted as we moved from a taxable superannuation scheme—taxable on payment—to a “taxed/taxed/exempt” provision. That led to a one-off adjustment across the board of superannuation schemes. The gross was lowered but the net was increased in the initial move. It was something like a billion-dollar windfall for retired public servants at that time. 
In order to reflect that change it was intended that where people surrendered a portion of their annuity—and up to a quarter was available in the case of most Government superannuitants—then the cash payout would be raised from nine times the annual cash payout to 10.8 times that amount reflecting the fact that there had been a change in the taxation arrangement. Legislation published by many authorities since then has indicated that in fact that occurred and the Government Superannuation Fund has continued to pay out on a 10.8 times basis. In fact a mistake was made in the legislation and it still remains at 9 percent. The Labour Government in its great generosity and followed by the National Government decided not to claw back from those to whom the money was paid the excess in terms of the legal payment and quite rightly so of course. 
This rectifies that rather extraordinary error. It does make one wonder how many technical errors of that sort lie hidden in legislation and yet to be discovered until some bright spark somewhere suddenly wakes up looks up the Act and realises that something that has been done for donkey’s years should not have been done according to the legislation itself. This will put all Government superannuitants who are on the old Government Superannuation Fund defined-benefits scheme on the same basis for indexation. 
I have to raise one other area where I am afraid I have been “Mr Meanie” and continue to believe we have to be “Mr Meanie”. The Government Superannuitants Association an organisation that if the media are to be believed I will qualify to join within the not too distant future— 
Nathan Guy 
: How long? When? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —it depends on the offer—continues to make a case that there should be regular adjustments to Government Superannuation Fund payouts on the basis of any change in taxation. It argues that when tax rates are lowered there should be an increased payout in terms of the benefit paid to people receiving Government superannuation. 
Of course that is a double-edged weapon. What happens if a Government increases taxation rates in some form? Would the Government Superannuitants Association accept that at that point there should be a reduction in the payment to Government superannuitants? I have a strong suspicion that it would be inclined to take a one-sided bet in that regard. 
I believe it is important that while it is a hard thing to say to the association the Government needs to hold its nerve on this one and say that the 1990 adjustment was a one-off adjustment and was not purely related to the tax rates that applied at the time. Indeed the adjustment should have been significantly lower if it actually reflected the current tax rates at that point. It would be very hard to make a readjustment according to any changes in the tax rates because of course the amount of money that each Government superannuitant receives is enormously different. 
There are current chief executives within the public sector—and I can think of one who is probably thinking about these matters at the present time except he is probably not part of this scheme—who are in line to receive extremely large payments from the Government Superannuation Fund. I am thinking of people who currently receive salaries of $400000 or more a year and who are probably still on the old defined-benefits scheme because they joined it long before all of this happened. They will qualify for a payout of $200000 to $250000 a year annually adjusted for inflation thereafter and tax-free and that is by no means an insignificant pension in anybody’s language. On the other hand there are people in the scheme now who are retired who were lower-paid public servants who perhaps received only 80 percent indexation from 1986 to 2005 who are receiving perhaps well under $10000 a year in superannuation. So how do we adjust at that point reflecting the current tax rates in any case? 
I think that is one area where the association is barking up a tree that is not a fair one. I might say I am relying in part on the very strong advice I always receive from my initial adviser Peter Harris who was a Public Service Association worker and therefore deeply involved in superannuation matters. 
This is a good bill. It is not hugely expensive in terms of its cash impact on the Budget each year. It will help a lot of people who are now on quite limited pensions in addition to their New Zealand superannuation. Most of the people we are talking about who are covered by this bill are not on large pensions at all. We wish them well and in these times no doubt it is helpful if they are able to have a little bit more money to spend. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: This will be better than David Carter’s speech. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: It may be better than the speech made by the previous speaker. I would like to acknowledge Dr Michael Cullen. The speech we have just heard actually summed up the issues very very well. I acknowledge in particular the points made about the very contentious issue of moving from “exempt/taxed/taxed” status to “taxed/taxed/exempt” status. If members want to learn about that they should go back and look at the particular  
Hansard 
 because in this case it is exactly that argument as well. No doubt that will be coming before various members as the year progresses. 
I am speaking on the combined second and third readings of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker noted this is the Government Superannuation Fund which is not to be confused with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund or New Zealand superannuation which are entirely different matters. Again the member explained quite well why people are in this scheme and how it works as opposed to New Zealand superannuation. I thank the member for that. 
A few thanks are needed here if the House would bear with me for a moment. First of all I acknowledge the previous Minister of Finance for getting this measure off the ground in the last Budget. It seemed to disappear around election time. It is a tribute to all members involved that this bill managed to cross the election cycle and a change of Government but all parties did pick up on the importance of particularly the 1 April kick-off date in the bill here and also on the fairness of the issue. Mr David Thorp and the Government Superannuitants Association have been avid campaigners for this particular issue. I acknowledge the work that Mr Thorp and his board have done. I also acknowledge their suggestions in various forms at their annual conference where I spoke last year. I think the previous speaker spoke at the conference last year as well. I am quite sure that various members will be invited to speak there again this year. The main issues are raised at the association’s annual conference—in particular the one the previous speaker alluded to. That is the association’s biggie and it is an ongoing issue. But is very good to have the issue that this bill addresses satisfied. 
Prior to the election National committed itself to following on the intent of this bill and we are here in the Chamber tonight not only following that intent but enacting the bill. I acknowledge all of those involved. I acknowledge the officials for helping to get this bill to this point. I particularly acknowledge the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This bill went through the committee relatively quickly but that was driven by the urgency to put the matter into place and for no other reason than that. I acknowledge for the public record for  
Hansard 
 the full and total cooperation of all members of that committee from all parties in the House in getting this bill to the point it is at here tonight in the second and third readings. I also acknowledge the various officials who got us to this point. It would have been very easy for this bill to get lost but those people pushed the right buttons to make sure that it came to this point. I acknowledge all members across the House for their cooperation—perhaps we could see more of it. 
A particular point was alluded to by the previous speaker. I think I might have mentioned it in my first reading speech on this bill but I cannot quite remember. He pointed out that the CPI adjustment for a certain group—he and members of other parties said this—had moved from 80 percent to 90 percent in 2005 and that a move from 90 percent to 100 percent was announced in 2008. Those happened to be election years. When the various speakers went to the association’s annual conferences in between the election years that measure did not seem to be announced or changed but it was delivered. Having said that I am not a cynical chap and I say this measure is good and fair. The total—the quantum—here is about $34 million. That is over the life as well as the liability of the fund in the future. This measure is all very good. We are moving to 100 percent on 1 April 2009 with the will of the House if this bill goes through its third reading tonight. 
I have one final thankyou. The House gave leave for the second and third readings of the bill to be combined so I acknowledge and thank the House for that. Many many pressing matters are facing New Zealand—there is the standard politics of course—but the House saw the urgency fairness and necessity of getting this bill through. Again I acknowledge the other members across the House and previous Ministers. I thank them very much. 
Another reason this bill is here is that the original report-back date for the bill crossed—or came very close to—1 April. The problem for members of the fund was that they are sent a mail-out of what they will receive: a schedule of payments etc. I think it is mailed out in March; it is about to go out. That mail-out costs about $30000. If this bill is not passed in time by the House then another mail-out will have to go to members costing the taxpayer and the fund another $30000. So there is a dollar reason to put beside the fairness and eminent common sense of getting this bill through. I acknowledge all those concerned. 
Another issue is of interest to the members of the fund and Mr Thorp and his board raise it occasionally. Perhaps they will raise it again when this bill goes through. They talk about the timing of their payments—the actual timing of the new index payment. That is a component of inflation; it is indexation. We all understand that. To be fair with inflation being quite aggressive for in particular the last 6-odd years that has been quite an issue for the members of the fund. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The last year or so; not the last 6-odd years. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: The member says the last year or so. Well let us say the previous 4 or 5 years but inflation is currently heading south. It has been an issue for them; it still is an issue for them. But the cost of that for them is going down as inflation heads down. As the National Government has come in and as inflation is heading towards below 3 percent—back inside the range set for the Reserve Bank which is wonderful for these people and for all of New Zealand—inflation is not quite the issue that it was when the rate was 4.5 or 5 percent. I think it was heading towards 6 percent actually—I stand to be corrected—in one forecast I saw along the way. That rate is important to those who are receiving annuities; as the previous speaker noted some people are on quite low incomes from their annuities from the fund. 
I will just put the issue in context. What used to happen is that the December quarter’s CPI was published sometime in March and the adjusted annuities were paid in April. As information exchanges have become better and as the Reserve Bank and Statistics New Zealand have measured inflation quicker and been able to report back faster the December quarter’s CPI is known about in mid to late January but members of the fund are still paid the adjusted rate in April. Some of the members thought that that was an issue and they should have gained their payment a month or so earlier when the report on inflation came out. On the face of it maybe that is a fair issue and maybe there needs to be a little more work done on it. But if one looks at the numbers—unless I am mistaken—one sees that the difference in those 2 months is really only the annual CPI divided by 12 months times 2 for the 2 extra months times the interest rate—the funding rate—which is 7 percent or something like that. Although on the face of it that could be significant and maybe seems unfair actually when the numbers are crunched on that part of the payment and indexation I do not think it is very significant. 
I will touch on the drafting error that the bill corrects because again the previous speaker raised it. It is very curious and somewhat worrying to be honest that the error sat on the books for about 19 years. Yes payments were made as intended. Yes other documentation under the legislation was made available as intended. But still for 19 years the statutes of this House were wrong. That is a very good case I guess for introducing the ongoing testing of various pieces of legislation and particularly of older legislation with perhaps some kind of warrant of fitness 15 or 20 years after its enactment. For goodness’ sake—this error was there for 19 years! 
I make one final point. The previous speaker alluded to and pointed out correctly the difference between the superannuation schemes but he kind of shied away—his colours showed through again there—from saying National’s ongoing programme of personal tax cuts will help those who are on New Zealand superannuation. Many of the people in the Government Superannuation Fund are probably or most likely also on New Zealand superannuation so as the ongoing programme of tax cuts kicks in their incomes will increase. As the superannuation rate is 66 percent of the average wage the married couple’s superannuation payment rate will actually increase. Perhaps the previous speaker’s true colours are coming through and that tax cut denial is still coming through—I am not quite sure whether that is the case. Having said that I do not want to finish on a note like that. Again as I started I thank the member. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank Mr Foss for that very enlightening speech. It is also time I think to thank the previous Minister of Finance Dr Cullen for a very illustrious speech about some of the financial implications of this legislation of the Government Superannuation Fund and of any amendments that are required through this bill. 
Government superannuation is always a bit of a flogged horse for the public in some regards in the sense that politicians are seen as getting superannuation schemes of some note that are too generous. That is often something that comes up in the public eye. The advent of MMP removed that kind of issue from the reality of the lifestyle but it is something that is still in the public eye and public perception. 
The previous Minister made a very good point about the public sector. He was talking about public sector executives who are on substantial salaries at this time but who will also get substantial annuities over the time of their retirement. That may seem like a very substantial payback for those public servants but it is also somewhat of a reward I guess for public service. To get to the stage of actually being at that level of the Public Service executives would probably have had to have gone through a lifetime within that service of taking lower wages than they would have earned in the private sector. It is also a measure of their contribution to their country through those years of service that there is some reward at that time. 
Let us look at the issue of salaries which is very topical in the current world environment where we see that top executives around the world are earning million-dollar salaries. When we look at salaries we see that public servants run businesses that are the size of some corporates yet those public servants working in the Public Service do not get those kinds of corporate salaries. So the kind of return they are getting from their annuities is actually a reflection of the income they have lost out on through their income-earning life. 
It is important that as a Government we reward and recognise the contribution that the Public Service makes to our country. It is not on if a Government passes legislation that technically tries to reward those services but does not provide a fair return because of drafting mistakes made some 19 years ago—and we have been made very much aware of that by the great contribution of Mr Foss. 
So with that said I think we need to look at the policy behind this legislation and at why it is important that we have a sense of the contribution the public sector makes. You know I think we often look at public sector work as not being as sexy as some of the private sector jobs. When we come to the situation we have now where people are looking at job security as their big issue we know that the Public Service is becoming more and more relevant. Professions such as teaching nursing and policing those professions in the Public Service that provide front-end service levels are the jobs that will stay in the community whereas some of the private sector jobs which have been a bit more flashy and more highly paid over the last couple of years may not be still there in a year’s time as we go through these tougher economic times. 
Another aspect of the Public Service and the payment of public servants is job security in some of those front-end services. It is very important and it is part of the nature of those careers. Those careers often entail a lot of training and a lot of contribution but they do not give a lot of options for changing one’s career halfway through. In modern times people change their careers every 7 or 8 years and move on to something else but a teacher or a nurse—people in those kinds of fields—typically spends 30 or 40 years working in his or her community. Those people make an investment in that career and in that public service for our community. So it is quite right that we as the Government of the day carry out that fair treatment and make sure that the legislation matches what public servants expect. This legislation does do that. 
Essentially this bill is to cover off a few drafting errors and a few mistakes that were made in previous times. It is somewhat complicated I guess for the naked eye to look at it because it is the result of mistakes made in 1990. But the reality is that just quite a simple amendment is required here today to bring us to a situation where we have the fairness and equity that we would expect for public servants in this situation. 
I want to draw attention to another issue that the previous Minister raised and that is that the effect of this bill will mainly be felt by former public servants who are not earning huge annuities. Former public servants on fixed incomes who are struggling or will struggle in an environment that is very difficult are the ones for whom the Government is trying to provide the best environment to get through these tough times. 
We want a situation where they can have a top-up of their normal superannuation payment to reflect their services. They will have given many years of long service in jobs that did not pay very much and they deserve to get the full amount that the Government is intending to pay and this legislation does that through the CPI adjustment. 
We also have to look at the nature of what is happening to those superannuitants. A lot of those superannuitants are finding it very difficult to live because their savings which have been invested in banks for example are at very low interest rates at the moment. They are finding that it is a real struggle to achieve the standard of living they would expect. They are looking at every dollar that comes their way and when superannuitants are in that position they want to make sure that they get their full contributions. They do not have that discretion in their disposable income. Senior citizens and especially those who have given to our community through the Public Service require and demand that they get that fairness that the National Government is now giving to them in this legislation. 
The National Party is based on fairness and that is one of the things the Government is pushing and wants to see happen. This bill has cross-party support in terms of fairness in the sense that the Labour Government set up this legislation and we have carried it on and are passing it. We look forward to the progression of this bill 
Bill read a second and a third time. 
Sittings of the House 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made very good progress this afternoon and this evening and I seek leave for the House to rise a little bit earlier this evening. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
The House adjourned at 9.47 p.m.