Volume 638 Week 39 - Wednesday 21 March 2007 
Volume 638 Week 39 - Wednesday 21 March 2007 
[Volume:638;Page:8173] 
Wednesday 21 March 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Republic of Poland—Speaker and Deputy Speaker; Speaker’s Delegation 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much please in informing members that His Excellency Mr BogdanBorusewicz Speaker of the Senate of the Republic of Poland and Mr JanuszDobrosz Deputy Speaker of the Sejm are within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish that they be welcomed and accorded seats. I am sure that members would also wish to welcome the members of the Speaker’s delegation who are present in the gallery. 
Mr BogdanBorusewicz and Mr JanuszDobrosz entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Questions to Ministers 
Health Minister—Confidence 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Health; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister’s mismanagement of a half-billion-dollar Labtests Auckland contract in the Auckland area serving about a third of the population has put laboratory testing services at risk; and what assurances has the Minister of Health given her that there will be high-quality laboratory testing services available through this year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister of Health is not directly involved in that contract process. The three Auckland district health boards are responsible for that contracting process. The court has found that the contract is invalid. The Minister will be doing everything he can to ensure that laboratory testing procedures are in place on 1 July. 
Hon Bill English 
: What confidence does the Prime Minister have in the Minister of Health who appointed Wayne Brown Pat Snedden and Kay McKelvie as chairs of the Auckland district health boards and appointed Ross Keenan as deputy chair of all three Auckland boards—Government appointees who participated in a process described by the High Court in terms such as “grave error” and “serious failure”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I point out to that member that two of the people he mentioned were in fact appointed originally by the previous National Government. I also point out to him that in the judge’s words the tender process was carried out in good faith and without bias. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we take it then that the Prime Minister now regards the issue as fairly minor because the court said that it was carried out in good faith; or has she read right through the judgment which outlines in great detail how some of the named members of the Auckland District Health Board in particular Wayne Brown and Ross Keenan did not carry out their duty and states that a half-billion-dollar contract was overturned because of grave error and serious failure? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I very much doubt that the Prime Minister has read the entire judgment; she is busy on other matters in the United States at present. I am equally sure she regards this as a very serious matter given that it affects something like one-third of New Zealand’s total population. However I repeat to the member that this is essentially a matter for the district health boards. On the matters he refers to my understanding is that in those respects the issue is around consultation and I am sure that even the member was somewhat surprised by the level of requirement the court placed on consultation within the district health board sector. 
Hon Bill English 
: Who does the Prime Minister regard as being accountable for the fact that the High Court overturned this half-billion-dollar contract serving one-third of the population: is it her Minister of Health; the Government appointees Wayne Brown and Ross Keenan who are named in the High Court judgment; or will we find—in what is now normal practice for Labour—that no one is accountable? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly the district health boards bear primary responsibility and accountability for what happened in this case. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we therefore expect the Prime Minister to follow the same path as she did in the case of the corrections debacles—that is to defend the Minister and the Government lackeys until public—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order please. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can I start again Madam Speaker? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please continue. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we expect the Prime Minister to follow the same path as she did in the case of a series of debacles in the Department of Corrections whereby she defends the Ministers and the Government lackeys until public opinion forces her to take some action and then calls for a review but holds no one accountable for mismanagement? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly the boards are accountable but using pejorative terms such as “Government lackeys” is rather stupid and not becoming of the member. 
Land Transport—Travel Time Costings 
2. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Why is the time of a person driving a car to work in congested traffic ($10.95 an hour) valued by Land Transport New Zealand at more than double the time of a person sitting on a bus or train travelling to work ($4.70 an hour); and is this an indication that this Government thinks that public transport is only for people of lesser value? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 These values are not set by Land Transport New Zealand; I am advised that they are set by New Zealanders themselves. Land Transport New Zealand collected the data from surveys carried out on car bus and train passengers that asked what value they placed on work and non-work travel time. I understand that these results are consistent with international findings. The massive increase in public transport investment made by this Government demonstrates that we do not place a lesser value on public transport passengers. Further the value of travel time is only one factor considered in the assessment of whether a transport project will be funded. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does this discriminatory time valuation that Land Transport New Zealand requires to be used in all economic valuations applying for funding send the message that higher-income commuters are expected to drive to work unlike in successful European cities where professional and managerial workers routinely travel by train because their Governments invest in high-quality public transport services? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I disagree with the member. This Government has shown we have a commitment to investing in public transport and I am sure that member will acknowledge that her party has had some input into that. However I would think that when people put a value on their travel time it may be that people on buses and trains believe they can use their time more valuably because they are not driving. 
Lesley Soper 
: By how much has the Government increased public transport investment? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: We recognise that building more roads is only part of the solution and therefore the Government has invested in public transport. For example we have brought back the national train network— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Buses run on roads. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is something that member did not do—his Government sold it off. Public transport was capped under a National Government at around $40 million a year. This year the Labour Government is forecast to spend $450 million. In fact we intend to spend $1.9 billion in public transport over the next 5 years. That is an unprecedented level of expenditure. 
Peter Brown 
: What is the estimated cost of road congestion to the New Zealand economy; and is it significant enough that our roading issues and problems need to be addressed in a reasonable time frame particularly as the Rugby World Cup is coming to this country in 2011? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not have the actual cost at my fingertips but we know that congestion is a cost particularly in cities like Auckland and over in the Bay of Plenty where the member comes from. Congestion is growing in Auckland because of many years in the 1990s when no investment was made in roads and public transport. I am pleased that this Government has rectified that problem. We are filling the backlog and moving forward in terms of additional funding to address those issues. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Slowly. It’s getting worse. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If anyone wants to take the blame for those issues the carping member from Nelson Dr Nick Smith ought to put his hand up. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Minister undertake to investigate the distorting effect that this valuation will have on decisions to allocate the funding package for the Wellington western corridor where those rules would overvalue the benefits from Transmission Gully or widening the coast road and severely undervalue the benefit of increasing the capacity reliability and speed of the rail system? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh that I could! If the member is one of those who believe in local people having a say locally the member would be aware that in the Wellington region the Wellington regional authorities have placed Transmission Gully as a very high priority for the region. Those views have to be taken account of when the regional land transport programme is drawn up. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is the Minister aware of any other developed country that in order to promote public transport has deliberately adopted a policy of maintaining congested and unsafe roads? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I am not. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If this valuation is supposed to reflect pay rates for different classes of worker why does it also value the time of public transport passengers cyclists and pedestrians at less than half the value of the time of motorists even when they are neither at work nor going to work but are parents taking their kids to the doctor people involved in voluntary community work or are people just going to the supermarket; and are we now living in a society that measures people’s worth by what they are paid? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: On the last part of that question there are some people who measure the value of people’s work by what they are paid—it is not something I believe in. But I need to point out also as I did in my original answer these are the values New Zealanders themselves place on their transport time. 
District Health Boards Auckland—Confidence 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he have confidence in the three Auckland regional district health boards’ chairs and why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I said to the House yesterday that my confidence in the three Auckland regional district health boards hinges on their ability to secure reliable community laboratory services for Aucklanders from 1 July 2007 and on their ability to repeat the request for proposals process—this time successfully. Today that is still my position. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What plan does the Minister have to ensure that over 1 million Aucklanders can get quality medical tests in 3 months’ time; and is he really going to rely on the people who caused this fiasco to fix it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yesterday a contract which was in place from 1 July and covering all Aucklanders was struck down by the High Court as being ultra vires. That is where the situation rests right now. There is no new contract in place now and there is no ink that has dried. I have however spoken with many people as one might expect in the last 24 hours including all of the chairs and the deputy chairs of those district health boards and assorted people within those boards and the Ministry of Health. I can advise the House that there is a strong and urgent commitment from those district health boards to ensure that services from 1 July will continue. 
Maryan Street 
: Can the Minister confirm that the savings to the Auckland region were thought to be in the order of $15 million per year and can he say what difference the reinvestment of such a sum would make to the health of Aucklanders? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is my understanding that the savings were thought to be around $15 million per year and $15 million is a lot of money. It would for example deliver an extra 20 hip replacements in the Auckland region each week. It is pretty clear that $15 million is also reminiscent of Diagnostic Medlab’s net profit for 2005 which was $16.3 million or 21 percent of its turnover. Value for money in our health system really matters. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Would the Minister agree that there must be a better way of conducting contract negotiations in the health system than relying solely on district health board officials who may be unduly influenced by budget restraints; if so can he assure New Zealanders that this situation will not occur again? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are roughly 16500 contracts in the New Zealand health system. I must admit that very few of them are as expensive or as large as this contract which is why presumably it has been a closely fought contest including in the courts. My view is that the negotiation of contracts in the New Zealand health system is generally good or better than that. I must say that this court ruling is most unfortunate and will cost a lot of time. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister regret the fact that he did not intervene earlier in the Labtests Auckland decision as he received repeated requests to do and does he acknowledge that his failure to intervene has contributed to the present fiasco which will cost taxpayers millions of dollars and potentially put the ability to deliver effective health services to Aucklanders at risk? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Of the 16500 contracts in place in the New Zealand health system I myself am involved in the negotiation of none of them. I say that it is a really important thing for our political system to deliver. The moment when a politician starts to negotiate contracts small medium or large is the time at which the possibility of a corrupt outcome exists. 
Heather Roy 
: In light of that answer just what responsibility does the Minister himself accept for this costly fiasco when he was advised of the clear conflict of interest and the improper process that the district health boards had followed throughout the tender process—or does he refuse to take responsibility for any of the failures of his health system? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is correct that assertions of a conflict of interest were made some time ago on a number of occasions by a number of interested parties. The advice I have received from district health boards and from the Ministry of Health is that the conflict of interest was being managed appropriately. The judge of the High Court yesterday found otherwise. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister agree with the Chairman of the Auckland District Health Board Wayne Brown in his statement of August last year that Dr Bierre “was not privy to any information or participated in any discussion or decisions regarding the tender.” when the High Court judgment raises questions as to how that could possibly be correct? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: My understanding of the facts of the matter is that Wayne Brown was correct when he made that point—that Dr Bierre was not involved in the tender process. However— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Oh! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Well that is the member’s question. However the judge found that Dr Bierre was mindful of the quantum of money that the Auckland district health boards had hoped to save. He dwelt on that at some length in his judgment and found that it was a contributor to his conflict of interest finding. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How can it be that Wayne Brown says that Dr Bierre was not involved when the court judgment shows that Dr Bierre was invited to a meeting with Auckland health bosses in November 2005 to specifically discuss the tendering of laboratory services when minutes show he was openly hostile about his competitor and when as a result of Dr Bierre’s attendance at that meeting a revised draft discussion document was circulated to district health board members including Dr Bierre himself? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is correct. He has got that information straight from the judgment that came out yesterday—straight from the judgment. That does not conflict with Wayne Brown’s point that Dr Bierre was involved in the tender. Clearly Dr Bierre was found to be— 
Hon Bill English 
: Nothing went wrong; no one’s to blame—same old story. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If the member would like to put a sock in it ever so briefly— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: A question has been asked. It was heard in silence. Let us hear the answer in silence. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I say to the member that Dr Bierre in a formal sense was not involved in the tender but the judge found clearly that Dr Bierre was involved in a conflict of interest. He found that very clearly; it is a very clear finding. And it is also very strongly worded. He said that the involvement of Dr Bierre as far as the district health boards were concerned was entirely inappropriate. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister recognise that the High Court declared this contract unlawful because Wayne Brown failed to deal with Dr Bierre’s conflict of interest on numerous occasions and that because of Wayne Brown’s mismanagement the health system in Auckland may face huge disruption and millions of dollars of legal claims? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If we go to paragraph 158 of the judgment I suspect that that is where the key language is to be found. The judge found that the action taken by the three Auckland district health boards to address Dr Bierre’s serious conflict of interest was “entirely inadequate”. I agree with the member. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would the Minister like to confirm that the full context of what he said from paragraph 158 states further: “From the time Mr Brown became aware of Dr Bierre’s serious conflict of interest the ADHB was obliged to address it. The action taken by the regional DHBs was entirely inadequate. Indeed apart from Dr Bierre’s abstention from voting on the 4th August resolution there was no action.”; why cannot the Minister realise that Wayne Brown’s inaction on dealing with Dr Bierre’s conflict of interest on repeated occasions is the reason why this contract is being overturned and is the reason why he should be held accountable? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The sequence of events is that a member of this House Dr Paul Hutchison received a letter from Dr Tony Bierre that invited him to support Dr Tony Bierre’s case to establish a community pathology business. Dr Hutchison in a short and carefully worded letter to Mr Wayne Brown advised him of the possibility of a conflict of interest. I thank Dr Hutchison for his contribution. On receipt of that letter Mr Wayne Brown went to Dr Bierre—it is all in the judgment—and asked what was up. Dr Bierre wrote back saying his business plans were in mothballs. What he did not tell the board or anyone else subsequently was that he was taking them out of mothballs. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the Minister been told why despite knowing that Dr Bierre was intimately involved in Labtests Auckland’s proposal and that Dr Bierre was a critical player in the thinking behind the whole tender process involving the Auckland District Health Board Wayne Brown and the other district health board chairpersons even tolerated the fact that they had received a bid from a consortium involving one of their own members who had been intimately involved in putting that whole tender out? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: For the avoidance of doubt I tell members that I absolutely accept the judge’s findings—absolutely. However within that finding— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I tell the Hon Tony Ryall that he was accorded the courtesy of asking his question in silence. This is an important matter. I ask the member please to do the same for the Minister. Would the Hon Pete Hodgson please address the question. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: A full reading of the judgment—I am sure the member has made one—will detail the steps that the district health boards took to satisfy themselves that they had addressed the conflict of interest. They did satisfy themselves; they did not however satisfy the judge. 
Police Stations—Reports 
4.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports if any has she received about recent police station developments? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 [ 
Interruption 
] Madam Speaker I think we are on to police now and not on to Gerry Brownlee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please settle and have the courtesy to allow other members to be heard. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Last Friday I officially opened the new Manukau Police Station. An investment of $13 million in stage one of a two-stage development will result in enhanced community safety for South Auckland people. It is a 24-hour hub and is centrally sited in the police district. A state-of-the-art underground prisoner-transfer tunnel has been built between the new station and the District Court. The police think this will help to make the escorting of prisoners more safe. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other reports has she seen about recent New Zealand police station developments? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I know that the member will be very interested that last Thursday I officiated at the sod turning for the new $15.4 million Gisborne Police Station. The current station was built in 1966. The new site is an improved location in the central business district. Members might be interested to know that the Manukau hub was the 31st new or refurbished police station built under this Labour-led Government. This follows the decade of the 1990s when National as usual allowed police facilities to be run down—and that was along with its plan to reduce police numbers by 500. 
Ron Mark 
: Could the Minister give the House a progress report on the Government’s plans to recruit front-line officers to fill these new police stations and how we are progressing that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The police are on track to recruit 1000 more police officers over 3 financial years in line with the confidence and supply agreement that Labour has with New Zealand First. Besides steady ongoing recruitment a factor that is greatly assisting the police is that the sworn police attrition rate is 3.9 percent—the average attrition rate for a medium to large company is around 13 percent. As of March 2007 there has been an increase in sworn staff members of 423 and that is not including recruits at the Police College. That increase was since March 2006. This equates to a 5.7 percent increase. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table two papers in relation to question No. 2. The first one is the page from Land Transport New Zealand’s manual that sets out the values that must be used in terms of travel time for different purposes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Dominion Post 
 this morning about a rail commuter who has added up the cost to rail commuters of time lost standing on a station watching full trains go past without stopping. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Design 
5.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday that “ … I think that after all the troubles we had in rolling out this system there is a way to go yet to ensure that parents—and I include employers—understand this system fully.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. As I made clear yesterday I understand that there are some concerns in the community about the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). The earlier operational difficulties have now been resolved but a number of changes in the design of NCEA are yet to happen and I am certainly committed to that further refinement taking place. The next job for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is to do more to explain NCEA to the wider public so that they can feel confident that we now have the right system for the country. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of his view that the only problem with NCEA—the only problem there ever has been with it—is that parents do not understand it has he seen the comments by the president-elect of the Secondary Principals Association that an independent review is required to restore public confidence and prevent the development of a two-tier qualification system; if so what is his response? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: To the first part of the question can I answer as I did yesterday by saying to the member that he should not begin his question by making up the answer he would have preferred to have from me—something his predecessor was doing yesterday. I now move to the second part of the question. Having talked to the leader of the Secondary Principals Association this morning I can say that he and I are I think comfortable that we are at the point now in terms of changes to NCEA where a number of design features are yet to be improved on this year and that some kind of independent inquiry would get in the way of the roll-out of those changes particularly given that numerous inquiries in 2005 resulted in a very large number of recommendations nine of which are yet to go and about 119 of which have been completed. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Why is the Minister refusing to entertain the idea of introducing a statistically moderated scholarship examination as was originally intended and instead is holding steadfastly to a standards-based approach the unreliability of which is causing schools to fall back on international examinations thus undermining the integrity of a comprehensive national assessment system? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I always listen very closely to what the member has to say because he has a lot of sensible things to say about education but as yet I have not received one single communication of any kind from the education sector requesting what he is requesting and that is why I am not considering it. 
Dianne Yates 
: Could the Minister be specific about the reviews of NCEA that have been conducted and what the outcomes of these reviews are? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I mentioned before several internal and external reviews were commissioned in 2005 including two State Services Commission reports. Those reviews set out 191 recommendations; 168 recommendations have already been addressed 14 are ongoing and nine are still being worked on. The State Services Commission report on the delivery of secondary school qualifications also found: “A clear message from the majority of schools [was] that notwithstanding difficulties with implementation NCEA is enhancing learning outcomes for students and improving teaching practice.” That I think is the central point. It is the right kind of assessment for this country. It was introduced by National and implemented by a Labour-led Government. We are on the right track. The question before us is to make sure that we get all of it exactly right. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does not the Minister tell the House that those reviews he refers to were all forced on him despite his spending months in this House pretending that there was nothing wrong with NCEA and that that is why parents do not take his reassurances seriously any more—because they believe he is more interested in politics than he is in the future of their children? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Actually they were not forced on me unless the member means “me” in the sense of the general person who occupies this particular role. The issues came about because as I have said repeatedly the roll-out of NCEA was problematic; therefore the review in 2005 was very necessary. But if anybody is playing politics here it has to be a member of a party that when in Government introduced standards-based assessment and now will not stop trying to undermine it. I know that come the election members of that party will be supporters of NCEA; as always they will flip-flop and agree with what is a sensible policy. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain to the House why some parents prefer an exam system that he has described as suitable for places like Botswana over NCEA; or does he not yet understand that every time he says the Cambridge International Examinations are bad thousands of parents decide they must be good? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the reason that some parents opt for an exam like the Cambridge one is very simple: it provides more predictability. The member will know because I think he has been to university that one of the things people often look for from assessment systems that are about ranking is predictability. One of the things that many of the schools that have been asked by parents to follow this particular line are doing is responding to parental requests for a more predictable form of assessment which all sorts of ranking exams are. I think that one of the things we have seen in the last two exam periods is that NCEA is becoming highly predictable as well. That will meet the needs of parents who are seeking a predictable exam system. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister feel just a little bit out of touch given that yesterday he told the House that all the educational professionals support NCEA and what he is doing then today the chairman-elect of the biggest group of secondary school principals in the country said that principals would like to see an independent review; does this mean that the Minister is not talking to them or that he has stopped talking to anyone who disagrees with him? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Quite the contrary; I talk to Michael Cullen all the time and now and again we disagree! As I mentioned to the member before I rang Peter Gall this morning. I am just trying to look for the exact reference but Peter did stress to me on the phone as he has stressed to journalists and as has been recorded on  
Morning Report 
 that he is a strong supporter of NCEA. His school in the past has rejected the Cambridge exam as not being appropriate for a New Zealand setting and that remains his position. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Energy—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This chipping at members across the Chamber is not helpful. [ 
Interruption 
] 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is time the member went—you have been too tolerant Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I am. If there is another interjection of this sort from either side members will be out. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will try not to provoke him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not helpful either. We will all start again. Just ask the question please.  
Wind Energy—Growth 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he agree with the New Zealand Wind Energy Association chief executive Fraser Clark who said today that: “While wind energy is growing somewhere between 25-35% per year globally our growth has been inconsistent in the last couple of years due to a lack of clear Government policy on renewable energy and climate change as well as practical issues such as consistent consenting processes”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 A decade ago wind generation was close to nil. In the quarter ending December 2006 it was 2 percent of total generation and is climbing fast. I believe that it is clear that the Government’s climate change policies have brought forward wind power development by many years. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can the Minister make such a bold claim when the quarterly energy statistics released yesterday showed that in 2006 electrical energy produced from renewable sources was 2 percent less than the 10-year average? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In the case of wind I can say very confidently that we already have 170 megawatts of wind at the moment. There is 151 megawatts of wind under construction this year. So while the rest of the world is growing wind generation at the rate of about 25 percent per annum according to the member’s primary question New Zealand’s wind generation is going up by 88 percent this year alone. That is a marvellous achievement. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Is the Minister able to inform the House exactly how much extra wind generation is in the consent process not counting the 150 megawatts of extra new wind power already under construction? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I can. An additional 1518 megawatts is currently in or has recently completed consent processes. To put that in perspective that is nine times the current wind generation capacity and it really is further proof that the Government’s climate change policies are working. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister accept the views of the Wind Energy Association a group that includes three of the four State-owned electricity generating companies which says that the slow growth of sustainable wind generation is due to a lack of clear Government policy and target setting for renewable energy or are we to believe from his answers today that he knows something that the State-owned enterprises do not? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do not agree that wind generation is growing slowly. The member’s own question stated that the international rate of growth is 25 to 30 percent per annum. New Zealand’s growth in wind generation this year is 88 percent and nine times the current generation capacity is in consent processes. That would be amongst the highest rates of progress in the world. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does the Minister remain so optimistic about a sustainable energy future when the chief executive officer of the Wind Energy Association says that the Government’s goal of being truly sustainable is a long shot if Government policy does not change and he says that at this rate it will be 20 years before our growth gets anywhere near that of the rest of the world? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Submissions are open on the New Zealand energy strategy until 30 March and I expect we will be receiving a very constructive submission from the Wind Energy Association not least because it is highly supportive of the Government policy that has brought forward the development of wind generation in New Zealand by many many— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It hasn’t. You’re behind the pace. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That is not true. We are not behind the pace. The rate of growth of wind generation in New Zealand is amongst the highest in the world. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does the Minister keep up the pretence that under his stewardship New Zealand is moving towards a more sustainable energy future when Meridian Energy’s wind energy development manager says that the establishment of a wind farm is a bit like a game of snakes and ladders—often it is one step forward but usually it is two steps back? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That is an interesting point. That is a reference to consenting processes and of course one of the ideas we floated in the New Zealand energy strategy is the idea that we might call in some wind farm applications in order to put them through single consent processes. Interestingly the Wind Energy Association notes that it does not always approve of that because it thinks that consent processes particularly for small developments are running very well and will be easier under existing processes than if we call them in. I am sure that we welcome all of these different contributions— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why don’t you reform the RMA? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I say to Dr Smith that we already have. The member should wake up. We did so 2 years ago. Despite National’s protestation that this is the reason why wind development is not proceeding we can show National members that wind generation is increasing by 88 percent this year with another 1500 megawatts in planning. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen the quote from Bernhard Voll technical director of Allco Wind Energy who stated that the Government after making the commitment to reduce greenhouse gases just kept consulting and he also stated: “This is not going to help us …”; and how can an answer like the one the Minister gave give Mr Voll or anyone else in the industry any encouragement that this Minister is committed to growing our renewable energy sources? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The draft New Zealand energy strategy proposes as a policy setting for generation the principle that all new generation capacity ought to be renewable except to the extent necessary to maintain security of supply. I can inform the House that the advice I have is that the security of supply constraint will not be upon us for some time to come. So effectively the country is able to set its sights on all new generation capacity for the foreseeable future coming from renewable sources. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I know that the Minister of Energy and Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues has repeatedly referred to the Government’s climate change policies so I seek leave to table the editorial of the  
New Zealand Herald  
that states: “New Zealand still has no climate change policy”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table three pages in relation to wind farms. The first is the list of the 170 megawatts of current wind farms the second is the list of 151 megawatts of extra capacity being built now and the last sheet is the 1518 megawatts of wind power either recently consented or in process. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Employment Relations Act—Effectiveness 
7.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Has she received any recent reports regarding the effectiveness of the Employment Relations Act 2000? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Actually I have. I have recently received a report measuring work stoppages under the Employment Relations Act compared with those under the Employment Contracts Act. It shows that the average rate of work stoppages has dropped by 20 percent under the Employment Relations Act. The average rate of working days lost has halved and wage losses have dropped by 48 percent—and that does not even take into account the fact that many more New Zealanders are employed today than in the 1990s. Those results have been achieved because the Employment Relations Act is both fair and balanced. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has she seen any other reports concerning the Employment Relations Act? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. I have seen a number of reports proposing radical changes to the Employment Relations Act that would destroy the successful balance that exists in the current legislation and take us back to the failed conflict-ridden regime of the past. Those proposals are being put up by the National Party which seems to be still in denial about the success of the Employment Relations Act. 
Housing New Zealand—House Inspections 
8.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: How often are Housing New Zealand Corporation houses routinely inspected? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Housing 
: As a responsible landlord the corporation is committed to ensuring its rental properties are looked after and kept in order. As a matter of procedure the corporation inspects properties twice a year or more frequently if required. Properties are also inspected after the end of each tenancy and before the beginning of a new one. 
Phil Heatley 
: How was a South Auckland tenant able to rent out a State house in its entirety for 4 years and live elsewhere without the scam being detected by routine inspections? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I will come back to the general question in a moment but I say to the member that if he has a particular case it is always useful to put the case down so he can have it answered particularly. But in general the subletting of State houses is not tolerated by the corporation. Where there are allegations of it they are investigated and appropriate action is taken. There are 66000 tenants. Most tenants are good tenants but occasionally there are people who do things that are abusive. For example 26 allegations of subletting are under investigation around the Panmure region at the present time but as in many cases it turns out that those will result in some being upheld; others will be the kinds of allegations that are made between neighbours who are in dispute. But the member can be reassured that it is the corporation’s business to ensure our properties are treated fairly. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How often were State houses inspected in the 1990s under National Governments? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have received reports on this matter that would— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He didn’t ask that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The answer will be heard in silence please. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is a good answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please answer the question. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That question was very clear. The member asked the Minister how often the corporation’s houses were inspected in the 1990s under a National Government. He did not ask about any report or about anything comparative. There is no ministerial responsibility for something that occurred under a previous Government last century that is not related to this Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to inform the member that there is ministerial responsibility if it is in the portfolio even if it is in the past. Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Properties were inspected twice a year. In other words the previous National Government ran a very similar regime to inspections that are carried out today. There is only one difference: National had fewer houses to inspect because it sold 13000 of them. 
Pita Paraone 
: Notwithstanding the state of repair of houses under the responsibility of the Housing New Zealand Corporation does the Minister believe that the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s needs-based allocation policy should look after the needs of New Zealand citizens first and foremost; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes it should look after the needs of New Zealanders first with one exception. We agreed to take people into the country who arrive as refugees from places like camps across the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We agreed to take those people and settle them and they reside in State houses. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Why was another South Auckland tenant able to rent out an entire State house for a full 2 years and a Hutt Valley tenant able to rent out a State house for well over a year without being detected by the inspectors? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Particular cases like that of course are investigated. I give the answer again that subletting of houses is not tolerated by the corporation. There are 66000 tenants. They are routinely investigated and where we have complaints the Housing New Zealand Corporation ensures that there is not the abuse of public property that subletting would imply. 
Phil Heatley 
: For what reason did the Housing New Zealand Corporation decide that the tenant who illegally rented out a State house for 4 years was allowed to reoccupy the house following the discovery of the scam? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In the case of people who are in need of housing—I do not know the exact circumstances of this case—when I was the Minister of Housing I was often placed in a position where those people simply have nowhere else to go. I am sure Mr Heatley will know from reading the law that the Housing New Zealand Corporation is the only agency required to house people who have nowhere else to go. That may be the explanation. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister tried to weave himself out of the question by referring to when he was the Minister of Housing. Of course this person was subletting for 4 years. That was way back when the Minister was the Minister of Housing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. 
Phil Heatley 
: Does the Minister expect the public to believe his statement in this Chamber last year that such subletting scams were “extremely rare” given that we now know that 23 recent subletting scams were happening right under the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s nose and that routine inspections were not even picking them up so he would not have a clue whether these cases were rare? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am sure the Minister of Housing would stand by that statement. As I mentioned before there are 66000 tenants. No one tolerates subletting. Where we find it those tenants are dealt with as they ought to be. What I mentioned before is worth Mr Heatley taking into account. Allegations are often raised but not necessarily proven because people are in dispute. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table an admission of the Housing New Zealand Corporation to the Social Services Committee about 23 proven subletting scams that have occurred recently—most rorts spanning well over 6 months. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Overseas Investment Office—Sales after 2005 
9.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How does the total value of deals approved and the amount of land approved for sale by the Overseas Investment Office since the overseas investment legislation changed in 2005 compare with the total value of deals approved and amount of land approved for sale in the 18 months prior to the change in legislation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The total value of deals has increased from approximately $4.7 billion to $7.2 billion. The net amount of land approved has increased from 58000 hectares to 300000 hectares. This apparently extremely large increase is almost entirely—99 percent—due to a single transaction the sale of Carter Holt Harvey’s forestry interests offshore. Those interests had until recently been owned offshore anyway before Graeme Hart bought them with clearly the intention of reselling them subsequently. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister believe that the current legislation which places minimal restrictions on foreigners or non-residents buying residential property is contributing to the property price boom; if so why is the Government doing very little—or some might say nothing—about addressing this issue especially given that it claims that access to quality affordable housing is one of its policies? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I know there are often articles about that usually in the  
Listener 
 but I do not agree that it is one of the major drivers of the increase in housing costs. The increase in house prices has occurred across almost the entire country often in areas of previously quite low housing value and still relatively poor housing areas. Even an area such as Ohai-Nightcaps has seen significant increases in property values. It is hard to believe that that is due to foreign owners coming in. 
Shane Jones 
: What reports has he seen from the real estate sector on the impact of the legislation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a report entitled  
Overseas Investment Guidelines Working 
 which quotes a real estate agent suggesting that the new legislation was “scaring off potential overseas buyers who did not meet its requirements”. Although we welcome applications that meet the requirements of the Act which are in fact quite strict I am glad to see that the legislation is fulfilling its purpose of acknowledging that it is a privilege for overseas persons to own or control sensitive New Zealand assets. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister think it is fair that foreign property speculators earning higher incomes in stronger currencies face no restrictions on buying residential property whilst New Zealanders earning an average income are being priced out of the residential market; if he does not think that is fair will he tell us what he proposes to do to level the playing field and give New Zealanders—particularly young New Zealanders—a fairer go? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The issue of course is that restrictions on urban land tend to be quite a lot fewer than those on rural land or sensitive land that abuts reserves etc. As I said I do not believe there is strong evidence that it is overseas buyers who are pushing up property prices in urban areas. That is due to a combination firstly of strong employment growth; secondly of income growth; and thirdly of population growth. These are the real factors that have been driving the growth in property values within New Zealand. The other point I would make is that the level of the dollar being quite high at this point means that for an offshore owner it is relatively expensive rather than cheap to buy a New Zealand property. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Earlier in question time I raised with you a point of order about the appropriateness of Russell Fairbrother’s supplementary question about the National Party and its housing policy and you said that the question was in order. I refer you to Speaker’s rulings 139/6 and 139/7. Speaker’s ruling 139/6 states: “The Government can answer only for its own intentions and has no responsibility for the Opposition.” Speaker’s ruling 139/7 states: “A question which does nothing more than request information about a party document as opposed to seeking information about Government policy is out of order.” Madam Speaker if you look at Speaker’s rulings 139/6 and 139/7 you will see that Mr Fairbrother’s question was indeed out of order. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There is a very important point here. One has to draw a very clear distinction between responsibility for policy issues—clearly a Government Minister is not responsible for National Party policy—and merely eliciting information about what a Government did at some point in the past. Otherwise theoretically under that situation even if it was a Minister in a previous Government of the same political hue who did something the current Minister could claim that he or she is not responsible because there is now a different Minister—could hide behind that fact. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising the issue. I took it that the question was not asking about National Party policy but was in fact within the area of ministerial responsibility for housing—and that responsibility is not time limited in that sense. But I thank the member for raising the question. In future I will remind members of that ruling—that they are not responsible for each other’s policies. 
Child Youth and Family—Confidence 
10.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does she have confidence in Child Youth and Family Services; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Anne Tolley 
: What does it say about your management— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That member is the senior whip for the Opposition and she should know not to address questions to you. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes that is true. The whip did actually use the term “you”; I am sure that was an oversight. I would however remind members that if they just asked their question instead of making statements we would not have these difficulties. Would the member just ask the question please. 
Anne Tolley 
: What does it say about the management of Child Youth and Family when even the Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft is slamming Child Youth and Family for ignoring its responsibilities in youth justice and for breaching all statutory requirements in the case of a young offender calling that “woeful and concerning”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In the case in question I am advised that this was one example—out of over 250 cases per month that are seen by the Youth Court—where the standards expected and in fact required by the department were not met. The social worker in question did not meet the expected performance standards. Both the social worker and his supervisor will have their future performances specifically monitored. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What are the key pieces of work that Child Youth and Family is engaged in that contribute to the well-being of New Zealand children? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: A great deal of good work is under way—too much to list here. It includes helping to raise awareness in the community about caring for our children and preventing abuse and neglect implementing the differential model in order to ensure families receive the right support from the right agency in a timely way responding to increased notifications faster and completing investigations in a timely way increasing the number of social workers—in particular the number of registered social workers—and increasing workforce training in and the capacity of the youth justice services. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why is that almost 12 months after the damning youth justice capability review was released youth offenders are still without social workers and social workers are still handing in late deficient and grossly unacceptable reports to the judiciary; and what are you doing about it? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind the member to please address the Minister and not the Chair. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why is that almost 12 months after the damning youth justice capability review was released youth offenders are still without social workers and social workers are still handing in late deficient and grossly unacceptable reports to the judiciary; and what is the Minister doing about it? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member has made the same mistake in her question as she did in her question last week when she made an accusation about Child Youth and Family as if it was a fact and on investigation it turned out to be completely wrong. In her last question the member implied that social workers up and down the country are doing this. I advised her in my answer to the primary question that this is a one-off example. The social worker did not meet the expected performance standards; this is not indicative of a systemic failure. The member would be better off if she supported the good and very difficult work that competent social workers do rather than using a one-off example to fail the whole department. 
Anne Tolley 
: Is it not true that nothing has changed in the last 7 years of this Government and that on the Minister’s watch young criminals are being left to grow up into more experienced and more violent criminals? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No that is not true at all. What is true is that nothing has changed in the member’s constant undermining of social workers in our country. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister concerned about a possible increase in complaints about her department from parents who may feel that the department is misusing its statutory power if the current proposed amendment of section 59 of the Crimes Act is successful; if so does the Minister see an intensified need to have in place an independent complaints authority for Child Youth and Family? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is critical even in a time of increasing notifications that the department is resourced to be able to deal with those notifications in an appropriate way—particularly in a timely way. The facts that we now have fewer than 800 unallocated cases and no urgent or critical cases are an indication of the department’s ability to respond to notifications. With regard to the latter part of the member’s question as the House is aware I am looking at an improved complaints procedure so that we can have better public confidence in the operation of Child Youth and Family. 
Anne Tolley 
: What is being done to address the serious concerns of Judge Becroft; and why should we believe the promises when 7 years ago this Government promised to do better but has dismally failed yet again? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I attempted to explain to the member in my answers to the primary question and previous supplementary questions one case out of over 250 cases per month is not an indication of a systemic failure. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the oral judgment of Judge Becroft dated 8 February 2007 in which he says he has no confidence that anything has changed at the coalface in Child Youth and Family. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the youth justice capability review released in February 2006 which details “a lack of skills and inconsistent practice across the country”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the  
First Principles Baseline Review 
 from September 2003 which states: “No one has clear accountability for youth justice.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table a news story from Television New Zealand entitled “Major changes needed at CYF” from November 2003. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the report of the Ministerial Task Force on Youth Offending from April 2002 which states that youth justice is underfunded and under-resourced. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the Youth Offending Strategy from 2002 which states that it is clear that current practice needs to improve. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Climate Change—Contributions to Debate 
11.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Has he received any recent reports of outstanding contributions to the climate change policy debate? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Yes. Contact Energy has released a web-based carbon calculator that assists New Zealanders to calculate their own carbon footprint. This helps families concerned about their world and future generations to identify sensible actions they can take to make a difference. I applaud this initiative. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Can the Minister please tell the House about further reports of outstanding New Zealand contributions to combating climate change? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I will mention two from a growing list. The Bank of New Zealand has set itself on the path to carbon neutrality by 2010 and Prue Taylor from the University of Auckland has been awarded a World Conservation Union award as one of 20 outstanding women identified across the world as making a difference on climate change and other sustainability issues. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister name any area of public policy that is in as big a mess as that of climate change when his Government said that New Zealand stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars from the Kyoto Protocol but then admitted it was out by $1 billion; when it has done U-turns on the “fart tax” and on the carbon tax and is about to do a U-turn on the deforestation tax; when despite the Prime Minister’s rhetoric of promising carbon neutrality our emissions are growing faster than those of any other country within the OECD; and when after this Government has been in office for 7 years and has spent $28 million on policy advice a  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial states: “New Zealand still has no climate change policy”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I will not repeat the fact that wind generation is growing 88 percent this year. That seems to be pretty good progress—and it does not count Gerry Brownlee’s or Nick Smith’s! I am very confident that the wide range of policies we are proposing in the documents that are out for consultation until 30 March are a very good policy platform. I have no doubt that New Zealand will continue to do its part and lead the way in the southern hemisphere in relation to climate change mitigation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the special feature in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on climate change policies that states that the Government’s discussion documents lack equity clarity and coherence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table a document from again the  
New Zealand Herald 
 stating that Government assurances that it made no such promises to the forest industry bear comparison with Bill Clinton’s statements about Monica Lewinsky. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Office of Treaty Settlements—Confidence 
12.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Does he have confidence in the Office of Treaty Settlements; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes because it is my experience that the staff of the office are hard-working and conscientious. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Why has the Office of Treaty Settlements neglected or refused to talk to seven claimant groups with historical ties to lands claimed by NgatiWhatua? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I do not accept that the member’s assertion is correct but it is clearly the case that in advancing to negotiation with a group that is ready it is not always possible and indeed the tribunal itself has in the past advised that delays should not be visited upon those who are ready to negotiate whilst waiting for those who are not yet ready. 
Dave Hereora 
: How many groups is the Crown currently working with towards Treaty settlements? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Crown is currently working with over 20 groups all dealing with multiple claims. Both the number of groups in negotiation and the number of claims they cover is higher now than in the last decade. Almost two-thirds of these groups have entered into negotiations since November 1999. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. Has the Minister been advised that at the Te Arawa mandate hearing held on 9 March the Crown witness when asked whether within the Office of Treaty Settlements it is a discretionary matter to advise the Minister of Waitangi Tribunal recommendations and their significance the witness responded that “It is possibly regrettable that some matters were not put before the Minister.” and can he advise now what matters were not put before him that might mitigate against any decisions made by the Waitangi Tribunal on issues of mandate and cross-claims? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is my understanding that that exchange related to a specific matter in relation to advice the tribunal had given that there should be provision for hapu/iwi to enter into and withdraw from the mandated process. Whilst that specific item was not referred directly to my attention none the less in a broader sense it was covered by numerous briefings. In fact on a number of occasions during the course of that negotiation I agreed to both the inclusion and withdrawal of hapu/iwi from the process. So it had no material effect at all. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Does the Minister agree with the reported statement of the Prime Minister that the Office of Treaty Settlements had conducted “exhaustive consultation” around treaty claims in Tamaki; if so is it his position that “exhaustive consultation” now includes a refusal to talk with claimants? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No but I suspect that the member is being very selective in her quotation and information. It is clear that my negotiations and those of my officials first and foremost focus on mandated negotiators. Secondly an increasing number of discussions take place pre-negotiation with a wide range of groups. But at any given time a finite number of groups can be engaged with. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Why did the Office of Treaty Settlements tell the Waitangi Tribunal last week that NgatiWhatua was the only Auckland tribe willing to enter into negotiations with the Crown when the Office of Treaty Settlements itself had earlier refused to enter into negotiations with other claimant groups such as Marutuahu? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am not aware that the Office of Treaty Settlements made that statement precisely. But I am happy to receive a transcript and I will get back to the member on the detail of her question. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora anotatou. What advice did the Office of Treaty Settlements give to the Minister about the sale by Landcorp of 1.8 million Fonterra shares worth $11.7 million from the Ngatea farm prior to any consideration of its being set aside for Hauraki Treaty settlements and does he agree that this is just a continuation of the strategy of selling the Crown jewels; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I do not generally get advice on the sale of Fonterra shares in relation to any matter. I am not the Minister for State Owned Enterprises but in any event at the time in which we will be engaged in mandated negotiations with Hauraki detailed briefings around those matters that are relevant and pertinent to the negotiations will be forthcoming. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Tony Ryall seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the High Court’s judgment on the contract for community laboratory services in Auckland. The particular case here is the High Court judgment. It is well established that a judgment of a court does not give grounds for a debate under Standing Order 380 as there is no ministerial responsibility for it—members can see Speakers’ rulings 162/3 for an example. The application is therefore declined. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This has to be an extraordinary ruling on your part. Although you may well say that it is a result of a ruling by a court the fact is that there is at least the very significant potential for tens of thousands of New Zealanders to have their health care disrupted because of this particular situation. There is ministerial responsibility here because the district health boards report to the Minister. The district health boards are not themselves allowed to have a public view if it is inconsistent with what the Minister would want them to say. We have been through that many times in this House. In this case I think that the people of Auckland—the overwhelming majority of the people in this population—deserve to have Parliament express a view on what is most certainly a debacle as far as the management of their health care is concerned. I ask you Madam Speaker—and you must accept that we do not do this in normal circumstances; we normally do accept your rulings—to reconsider some of the advice that you have clearly been given on this matter. This is of huge public importance. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that the actual issue in relation to the narrow technicality is quite clear in terms of declining the ruling. But of course even in so doing this does not prevent the House from debating the matter as we are about to enter upon a general debate and it would not at all surprise me if members opposite choose to debate that issue as part of the general debate. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 If this particular issue is to be classified as “miscellaneous” material which is the subject of the general debate according to our Standing Orders—a general debate is held each Wednesday on “miscellaneous” matters—it seems to me hardly to be one of those in a range of matters that might ordinarily come up in a general debate. This is a matter of extreme public importance and I seek leave for this House to debate this matter according to the letter set out by the Hon Tony Ryall immediately. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to ask you to consider giving us say a considered ruling on this matter because I accept as you have indicated to the House that court decisions do not generally trigger a debate of themselves. But here we have a decision of the court that cancels a contract of half a billion dollars that has been written with public money and that has involved public officials. It seems to me that some issues arise around that situation and it would assist members if you would be prepared to consider addressing it in a considered ruling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I thank members for their comments. I have given this serious consideration and I have had an opportunity to do so for some time as the matter was raised yesterday when leave was given for an urgent question. However the fact remains that it is not a matter of ministerial responsibility. As Speaker I am governed by the Standing Orders as well as Speakers’ rulings and I try to follow them so that it provides certainty in the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. I have ruled on this matter and I am not taking any further debate and discussion. I have given it full consideration. I have ruled consistent with the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It has to be a different one Mr Brownlee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The point is simply this. To suggest that the Speaker of the House is constrained by the Standing Orders or by previous Speakers’ rulings is an utter nonsense. The Speaker’s role is to claim privilege for this House and the Speaker regularly brings down new rulings that relate to the conduct of this House and the progress of the work that it undertakes. I do not think it is fair that on an issue of such considerable public importance a ruling is brought down based on the tightest interpretation of the Standing Orders that could be argued or for that matter on previous Speakers’ rulings. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member is clearly relitigating your decision despite your warning and is therefore putting himself in some danger it seems to me. But furthermore it is an extraordinary statement—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the member want to stay in the House? We are talking on a point of order here. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It seem to me extraordinary Madam Speaker that the member also argued that you are not constrained by the Standing Orders. I would have thought it absolutely clear that the Speaker is constrained by the Standing Orders; that is the very nature of the job. When it comes to Speakers’ rulings at some times Speakers may determine that previous Speakers’ rulings should not be followed. It is extraordinarily rare that that happens. Speakers like judges very naturally tend to follow precedent in these matters and are very loathe to overturn precedent in such matters—for good reason. Otherwise we would simply enter into a phase of capricious decision-making rather than orderly decision-making based on precedent. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Dr Cullen makes mention of precedent. I would like to remind you of the precedent regarding your ruling about a snap debate in respect of the Whangamata marina—an issue that involved a $10 million project when on this issue we are talking about a $650 million contract. I further point out to you Madam Speaker that on the issue of ministerial responsibility a decision was made by Ministers in 2003 to delegate the decision on lab testing away from central government and the Ministry of Health to the district health boards which led immediately not just in Auckland but throughout the country to the tendering of lab services. For you to now rule that such decisions of district health boards are beyond the purview of this House to be able to debate is an extraordinary ruling involving a very large portion of public expenditure and the proper accountability of this Parliament for it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Your decision is being relitigated but of course it is not beyond the competence of this House to debate the matter. Firstly the member had the right to and did seek leave and that was declined but more important there is now a general debate. I have to point out to Mr Brownlee that the word “miscellaneous” does not mean necessarily “minor” or “unimportant”. It just means that various matters can be raised under that particular provision. In the case of Whangamata it related to a specific ministerial decision around Whangamata. If one wanted to debate the decision to delegate that should have been done in 2003 when it was made. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contributions and for the further comments they have made on my ruling. I would also note that yes it was a matter of ministerial responsibility in the case that the member referred to. 
General Debate 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Is it not incredible that we can have the unprecedented step of the High Court striking down a health contract of almost half a billion dollars and this Government says no one is accountable? It says no one is accountable. 
We have seen the remarkable performance of the Minister of Health Pete Hodgson who started his answer today by saying he did not want politicians involved in contracts. Then when we have this very case where a health board politician is involved in a contract he is prepared to defend that and he is prepared to defend the appalling performance of his hand-picked district health board flunkeys in Auckland who are part of this appalling situation. In their eagerness to do the deal they have broken their own rules and the Minister stands up in this House and his attitude is that the district health boards are right and the judge is wrong. 
In respect of the performance of the hand-picked district health board chairman and deputy chairman in Auckland a judge said very clearly that they broke all the rules when it came to dealing with the conflict of interest of Dr Bierre in this laboratory contract. They are the people who approved a half-billion-dollar contract to a man who was a member of the board that resolved to let out the contracts a man who the High Court said was intimately involved in setting the rules for the contract and a man who only weeks before the tender documents went out—when there were discussions about the tender—was personally invited to a meeting with these hand-picked Government appointees to advise them on how this whole process should be run. 
Those people have missed the opportunity time and time again to deal with the conflict of interest of Dr Bierre so much so that the High Court has made it clear that the Auckland district health boards should have dismissed any deal involving Dr Bierre—that is what the High Court said. The High Court said there is no principled way that a contract or an offer should have been accepted from a deal that involved a member of the board who had intimate involvement in setting up the terms of putting this deal out to contract who was involved with the discussions of putting this deal out to contract and who was briefing health bosses only weeks before the contract documents went out. There was no way that that sort of person should have been allowed to participate in a health contract but this Government says there is. This Government says that because no one is being held accountable. 
 Over the next few weeks in question time in this House we will go through each of the points where the High Court has pointed the finger at Wayne Brown Ross Keenan and the rest of the Government’s hand-appointed flunkeys in Auckland who are participants in this appalling decision. The High Court has made it absolutely clear that in no way should a contract have been given to a district health board member who was so heavily involved in setting the terms and conditions of this contract. Even the High Court has noticed that Dr Bierre had intimate experience with the key decision makers of the regional district health boards. He knew what their thinking was he knew what they wanted and he had been intimately involved in the development of the district health boards’ plans. I cannot envisage that such a deal would be accepted in the commercial world. Yet with public money our representatives the people who are supposed to represent the taxpayers on this district health board have been involved in a deal that the High Court has said is unlawful. 
I urge members to read the decision. The judge said that Wayne Brown should have checked with Dr Bierre that he had abandoned his attempts that Wayne Brown should have been aware of these conflicts and was advised to address them—but there was no action on that front—and that the district health boards should have dismissed any bid involving Dr Bierre. But they simply did not do that. That is appalling. That is simply appalling. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am sorry to observe that the member who has just resumed his seat Tony Ryall has only one line when anything goes wrong. It is to find a scapegoat—never a solution never a new idea just a scapegoat. This member makes his living by demanding that others be sacked. Whatever the problem that is his one line. Members should contrast his actions with those of his predecessor and colleague Dr Paul Hutchison. They should go to paragraph 91 of the judgment where Justice Asher describes the letter Dr Hutchison received from Dr Bierre that asked for a letter of support and see how in response Dr Hutchison alerted Mr Brown for the first time to the fact that Dr Bierre was commercially active. He said that Mr Brown did nothing which tells me that he has not read the court judgment. 
First and foremost my attention and the attention of the three Auckland district health boards must be on ensuring that a contract is in place to deliver reliable community laboratory services to the people of Auckland from 1 July 2007. My confidence in the three Auckland district health boards hinges on their ability to secure such a service. 
I have of course spoken to many people in the 25 or 26 hours since the decision came out. I am happy to advise that right now there is a strong and cogent commitment from three district health boards and from others to ensuring that the 1 July services will continue. There is no contract as we speak so no assurance can be given. But I assure the House and the people of Auckland that I am committed to getting the services running beyond 1 July—as is as far as I am aware everyone who is working with or for the Auckland district health boards. That is our first job. That is where the focus must be. All other matters are less important—all of them. This matter the reliable delivery of community laboratory services for the people of Auckland from 1 July comes first. There are plenty of politics in this. I will leave those politics to one side. My colleagues may pick them up later in this debate. But I will say that that is where my focus lies. 
The judgment is instructive. It is the first of its type under the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2000 which is now 6 or 7 years old. Although the plaintiff failed on a number of counts the plaintiff won on two clear counts—one of consultation and the other of conflict of interest. 
On the issue of consultation there are lessons to be learnt. Over time these lessons will need to be assimilated and if appropriate tested or perhaps codified. These are matters for the future because they are matters that require reflection. On the issue of the conflict of interest the judge found in paragraph 158 that the actions taken by the three Auckland district health boards to address Dr Bierre’s serious conflict of interest were “entirely inadequate”. Those are strong words. That is a clear finding. The judge has considered the conflict of interest issue at length. He said that all of those involved in the three district health boards and on the evaluation panel acted in good faith and he found no bias. He detailed the measures that the three district health boards took in order to avoid the conflict of interest including the legal advice they received and he said they were OK. However the judge having listened to the evidence found that the conflict of interest did exist and he found so clearly. 
The judge went on to describe as I just have the role of many people in this saga including that of Dr Paul Hutchison. What we now know is that after receiving Dr Hutchison’s letter Mr Brown went to Dr Bierre and demanded to know whether a conflict of interest existed. In response Dr Bierre said that his commercial interests had been mothballed. It was not clear until later that this mothballing was temporary that he took them out of mothballs and that at that point he left the Auckland District Health Board. By the time he resigned however the judge found that the conflict of interest was already material. 
Paragraphs 197 and 198 of the judgment remind me of an earlier time and an earlier gentleman who used the words “first mover advantage” and we know what happened there. Let me quote paragraph 197 where Dr Bierre describes himself to his business colleagues as being in a position to provide “excellent lines of communication by information; and being a major influence in the restructuring model for pathology services provision.” It is no particular surprise that the judge therefore found a conflict of interest now that all of this has come out. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 It has always struck me as deeply ironic that our Prime Minister should choose as the Minister to superintend the health services for 4 million New Zealanders a person who in his former life was a vet. Over the next few weeks we will see that that Minister will have some very difficult answers to provide because he now has a very serious problem. From 1 July the people who live in my electorate and over a million other New Zealanders will have no certainty available to them as to the provision of diagnostic laboratory services and they are looking to the Minister to give them some assurance on that. This is not a minor issue. Justice Asher in his judgment yesterday repeated the assertion of the chief executive of the Harbour Primary Health Organisation that community-referred diagnostic testing is at the very heart of primary medicine. That is true. But we now find ourselves in a situation where for one-third of the New Zealand public there is no certainty as from 1 July as to the availability of those services which lie at the heart of primary medicine. 
We find ourselves in that situation because of three reasons as I read the judgment. First it is because the prime mover behind Labtests Auckland winning the half-billion-dollar contract was instrumental in both the district health boards’ framing of the terms of that contract and in shaping the successful bid and in doing so had a huge conflict of interest as identified by Justice Asher. The district health boards according to the learned judge failed in their responsibility on numerous occasions to protect themselves against that conflict of interest. That is the first reason. 
Second the High Court has also found that that same Auckland District Health Board member improperly used inside information which he had acquired in the course of being a member of that board for the purpose of securing the half-billion-dollar contract. The boards which had an obligation under law to refuse to accept a bid from such a person not only received such a bid and processed it but also awarded the contract for half a billion dollars of public money to that insider. For that reason the contract has been struck down. 
Third the High Court also found that a process set out by law requires health boards to consult with members of the public—whose money they are spending—as they seek to reshape the health services in their region. Health boards have an obligation to consult with those who will be affected. The High Court judge has found in this case that the information provided to members of the public was not honest and accurate. The health boards failed to tell the public in Auckland what they intended to do to the diagnostic laboratory services that were supposed to serve the public. That is serious not just for the boards but for the Minister. The Minister must have known given the controversy that surrounded the awarding of the contract that there was an issue around the $20 million or $15 million of savings. He was on notice. He had a duty to inquire; he must have inquired. If he had inquired he would know that that $15 million worth of savings was not in fact from efficiency gains but from cutbacks to services and cost shifting that would take place as a result of the contract. The Minister wished to hide that from the public of Auckland and the district health boards also intended to hide it from the public of Auckland. 
The High Court judge yesterday found that the district health boards were in breach of their statutory obligations in hiding that information. Although the Minister was not in the dock he equally is able to accept that same finding from the judge—that he tried to hide that information from the New Zealand public. The district health boards and the Minister tried to hide the fact that the boards intended to cut staff numbers from 750 to 473. That is in the court documents. The number of pathologists was to be cut from 25 to 17. We were to see 50 percent of the samples be supplied by general practitioners who had not been consulted about that process and we were to see the routine turn-round time go from 12 hours under the old contract to 48 hours. Aucklanders were not told that about the contract. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker tenatatou katoa. Just a month ago the world’s largest private mining corporation Rio Tinto purchased a 60 percent interest in the iron ore prospecting licence to explore seabed mining possibilities offshore from Taranaki. This is a company that won a “Dirty Digger Award” for its continued use of tailings disposal in the Asia-Pacific pouring millions of tonnes of toxic mine wastes into the ocean and smothering vital organisms on the seabed. At about the same time Seafield Resources was granted a mining licence covering about 10000 square kilometres off the South Island’s West Coast between Karamea and Jackson Head in water depths of up to 125 metres. 
The pigeons are coming home to roost. Since the enactment of the Foreshore and Seabed Act the Government by way of the Crown Minerals agency has auctioned areas of the seabed for mineral and petroleum exploration—or more accurately exploitation. The Act has given the Crown a clear mandate or so it thinks to sell off all coastal resources including the sand to foreign interests. It is a question of justice law equality public access and property rights all tied up in one. 
This House may recall the months in which thousands upon thousands of New Zealanders asserted their mana rangatira over the coast and surrounding areas by marching on Parliament to protect their customary ownership of the foreshore and seabed. The Government reaction to the NgatiApa case had been swift and violent extinguishing Maori ownership through the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Yet here we have another appropriation secretly and silently being conducted under the ignorant gaze of all New Zealanders who are unaware that the so-called public access and public resources are being transferred to overseas interests. 
The pervasive policy talk of the Foreshore and Seabed Act was that taonga tuku iho of tangata whenua would instead be vested in public ownership. The bitter irony for New Zealand is in our now seeing that what happened to Maori with the foreshore and seabed is now happening to all the peoples of this nation. Remember the principle of access—that the foreshore and seabed should be public domain with open access for all New Zealanders? It is another Tui truism from this Government—yeah right! The Government is denying due process exploiting our natural resources and selling offshore yet it is packaging the deal as being in the best interests of the nation. 
In Jared Diamond’s  
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed 
 we are told that societies fail when the most prosaic elements of the Earth’s ecosystem—soil trees and water—are mismanaged. The Government may pump up the profit of having a short-term economic gain but it is being blind to the fact that participating in the world economy brings with it significant costs to those environmental factors identified in the book. 
We can think of the Maui’s dolphins and of how they will fare—or not—from the ironsand prospecting off the North Island and the gold prospecting off the South Island. Exploiting the seabed for ironsand remote surveying sampling and analysis can have and has had a disastrous impact on the endangered Maui’s dolphin other marine animals and marine ecosystems. Yet Crown Minerals continues to grant permits to mining corporations to prospect and potentially mine the seabed off the West Coast of Aotearoa. These small coastal communities are now gearing up to fight yet again as they oppose the third application in 2 years to gain prospecting licences from Crown Minerals. 
Rather than protect the public interest the Foreshore and Seabed Act has instead empowered the Government to flog off the seabed for economic gain weakening the ability of any New Zealander to protect the marine environment. As for section 4 of the Crown Minerals Act wherein the Government is obliged to consult with mana whenua: well as with Landcorp’s decisions to sell up the Whenuakite and Rangiputa Stations or with the Ministry of Education’s decision to sell off schools that were theoretically land banked so too is Crown Minerals content just to relax and let the land go—overseas that is. Kia ora. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Nothing grates more in politics than blatant hypocrisy whether it is hypocrisy by a politician a political party the media or the public. It could be the politician who makes pronouncements on a moral issue while undertaking in private the very sort of moral behaviour he or she rails about in public. It could be the politician who votes against legislation to curry favour with some voters but secretly supports it. It could be members of the media who get too close to politicians and use that closeness to push a party line in their publications. It could be a caller to a talkback show who criticises politicians but never lifts a hand to do anything constructive in his or her own community. 
The latest example comes from Tony Ryall the National Party health spokesperson and the occasional member Murray McCully. In a full blast of sound and fury Mr Ryall has spread around as much muck as he can. But I have to tell him that there is some coming back his way. He talked about lackeys—and I will talk a little more about that later. The issue of pathology services in Auckland is too important to be turned into a show pony display by Tony Ryall and Murray McCully. The provision of quality services is at stake here—the delivery of affordable reliable pathology services for a third of New Zealanders. 
I will make no comment about the services that could have been provided by either company. However I will declare an interest. I opened the new Diagnostic Medlab laboratory in Auckland when I was the Minister of Health. I was impressed by the technology it used and the dedication of its staff. But given what Tony Ryall has said about someone being held accountable I believe that New Zealanders need to know what the National Party’s involvement in this contract has been from the beginning. I believe that an investigation is needed to see what action any National Party member—whether in Parliament now or before entering Parliament—took in support of Dr Tony Bierre the principal of Labtests Auckland the company that won the contract but that has now lost the court case. 
First I found it interesting to learn that Dr Tony Bierre stood on the Citizens and Ratepayers ticket. As everyone knows that is the National Party. He is a National Party lackey well known in Auckland as a National Party stooge. He was not some appointed member to the board as was being claimed today by the National Party; Dr Bierre is a National Party stooge. He stood alongside Dr Jackie Blue who is now a member of this House for Citizens and Ratepayers—“Cits and Rats”. She is now a National Party list member of Parliament and a very very close friend of Dr Bierre. 
It is even more fascinating to read in paragraph 91 of the judgment that Dr Bierre solicited help from the then National Party shadow spokesperson on health Dr Paul Hutchison to press his company’s case. On 24 June according to the report Dr Bierre wrote to Dr Hutchison claiming that his company could provide a valuable alternative to what he described as the current monopoly service. Dr Bierre asked Dr Hutchison to send a letter of support. Dr Hutchison wrote to the chair of the board on 27 June 3 days later and attached Dr Bierre’s letter. Dr Hutchison did acknowledge that there was a clear conflict of interest. He then suggested that Dr Bierre’s letter should be considered. Dr Hutchison must explain why given the conflict of interest he still wanted the district health board to consider Dr Bierre’s letter. 
Dr Jackie Blue also needs to explain what she knew of the conflict of interest and what action she took to alert the board to the potential risks of her close friend’s plans. I also want to know when Dr Hutchison informed the current health spokesperson of the conflict of interest and of the dangers to the National Party of being tarnished by the association with Dr Bierre. I also think it is important that Dr Jackie Blue who is now associate health spokesperson and who sat on that board until her election to Parliament tell this House what action she took to alert the board to Dr Bierre’s conflict of interest. After all she was a very close friend of Dr Bierre’s. Did she brief Mr Ryall? These are questions that need be answered. We have heard nothing from the National Party about Dr Bierre today—and rightly so from the perspective of those members. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 That was a classic Labour Minister performance—the attempt to cover everything in teflon. Everyone else is to blame for this situation it is the fault of National members and nothing can be nailed down to the Labour Government! Well is that not typical! But there is one thing I would agree with that member on. The provision of quality services is at stake and it is an extremely important issue. The Minister is correct on that. So it is disappointing that she did not discuss that once in her speech. But what is really disturbing is that when the Minister of Health got up to speak not 10 minutes ago he told the House that he could give no assurance that Auckland laboratory services will be up and running on 1 July. That is just great! That is really reassuring for the people of Auckland because that has been the issue throughout the whole debacle over the past year. Will the Minister assure the public that on 1 July they will have a laboratory service? Now he says that actually he cannot give that assurance. He is responsible. This is a case where “responsible but not to blame” will not be good enough. 
But when one thinks about it if a Government Minister will not take responsibility for the faults of the Department of Corrections in failing to protect the public against a cold-blooded killer like Graeme Burton and if the Minister of Corrections is not prepared to accept responsibility for putting a 17-year-old boy Liam Ashley in the back of a prison van chained to a cold-blooded killer is it any surprise that the Minister of Health will not take responsibility for this situation? The reality is that his handprints are all over this decision. He was repeatedly warned that things were wrong in the tender process for this contract. It goes right back to July 2005 when Paul Hutchison warned the Auckland District Health Board that Tony Bierre had a potential serious conflict of interest. The chairman of that board Wayne Brown and the chairman of the Waitemata District Health Board Kay McKelvie are Labour Party appointees. As Tony Ryall said they are Labour Party lackeys. They knew what was going on. 
The Minister has a direct line to them. He has been warned repeatedly and now he has to take responsibility for what is to happen. That Minister got up in the House today and had the gall to tell the people of Auckland that no sorry he cannot give any assurance that on 1 July there will be a laboratory service. The real question is how bad things have to get in that portfolio after $4 billion of extra money being spent total mismanagement and total failure to take responsibility—I ask how bad it will get before Michael Cullen has to take over the Minister’s portfolio. It cannot be far away. I would say that 1 July could very well be the date on which that happens. 
But it is good to note that the hapless Damien O’Connor has already taken responsibility on behalf of the Minister for this debacle. When he was speaking in the House on 26 July last year on behalf of the Minister he was asked by myself: “Does the Minister accept that he bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring there is no disruption to the provision of community laboratory services for the 1.3 million Aucklanders potentially affected by this change of service provider?”. Damien O’Connor on behalf of Minister Hodgson said: “I think Ministers full well understand that the ultimate responsibility for a public health system lies with the Minister. We uphold that responsibility with the utmost integrity and we are sure that this contract will continue to deliver services for the Auckland region.” 
So Minister Hodgson is responsible. He has owned up to it and he has to take the blame for what has happened. As we read in Justice Asher’s judgment there was repeated warning to the chairman of the Auckland District Health Board that a conflict of interest existed. The chairman of the district health board did absolutely nothing. In the words of Justice Asher: “From the time Mr Brown became aware of Dr Bierre’s serious conflict of interest the ADHB was obliged to address it. The action taken by the ARDHBs was entirely inadequate.” It was entirely inadequate. So the Minister has known of the problems about the tender situation all along. He knew there was a conflict. He has said so repeatedly. He said it in question time today. He said it in his own address. It has been flagged repeatedly today and he is still saying that his confidence in the district health board hinges on its ability to deliver lab services on 1 July. But the real problem is that he will rely on the same people who caused this mess in the first place to now fix the problem. I say to people who live in the Auckland regional district health boards’ catchment area that they can have no confidence that on 1 July there will be a laboratory service for them. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 That member should of course know that wherever there is smoke there is not always fire. That is the point we should take in this debate. 
Hon Member 
: Let’s debate the issue. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Let us debate the issue. We will debate the issue. The foray of the “Associate Health Minister” into cigar smoking will be a subject of debate as I go along. 
I want to talk about something that is really really important. That is the new hip cool National Party’s “40 Below” party. This is something that everybody needs to know because the National Party is going to get down and dirty and is going to yo bro with a whole pile of young people led by the person who is now affectionately known throughout Auckland as the “Keyster”. The “Keyster” will be yo bro-ing jive talkin’ and high-fiving. He will have a funky new handshake which he will give to all the new homies who will be at this do. 
So Labour is having a sweepstake on what the “Keyster” will have on his T-shirt. As the “Keyster” walks into the new groovy party with the National Party members what will be on his T-shirt? Here are a few slogans we have suggested. What about “Flip Freddy’s Flop”? That lines up with the flip-flops that the National leader is undergoing. What about “Goldenhouse” to represent that fabulous apartment that the member seems to live in from time to time—although sometimes he lives somewhere else and cannot quite make it out? What about “RMC” not OMC—the Remuera Millionaires Club rather than the Otara Millionaires Club. Of course on the back there could always be P-Money. What about Fur Patrol? This is the sort of thing the coat-check guy does at National Party conferences just to make sure that people are not bringing in anything untoward. Then of course there is all this pretension of “The Holiday-takers”. Remember what members opposite were going to do to 4 weeks’ leave? 
But who is going to be there from the National Party? Who are the new hip funky cool guys the groove guys within the National Party? Well apart from the “Keyster”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have been listening to the member for a while and I draw his attention to Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7 which state that members cannot be referred to by a nickname and must be addressed by their full name or title. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I absolutely agree Mr Assistant Speaker. I cannot work out why you did not pick me up sooner. Bill English will be there. Remember the calendars he put out? He will be signing calendars but people will have to be quick if they want one because there are only 14 boxes to go! He will be there standing in a corner. Then there is Gerry Brownlee. The thing is that young people will be safe because Gerry Brownlee chucks only old people down the stairs. Simon Power has just had a new haircut. He has shaved off all his hair because he is getting ready to go. Jacqui Dean will be there. She will tell students not to worry about their student loans because National will get rid of them. They can borrow the money from overseas. So she is OK. Jonathan Coleman will be there with the cigars but people should be very very careful and not stand too close to him when he is blowing smoke into their face. If people are there with someone big I suggest that they take the action that was done to him in the box. Lindsay Tisch is going to be there. I do not know whether he will be in three-quarter pants. He could be in three-quarter pants but it could be of course that they are just Simon Power’s shorts. We never know. Of course the one who will be advising on how to really party will be Mark Blumsky—“Party Party Blumsky”. Mark Blumsky will be advising people on how to get home at night and not remember a thing about it. 
We can see that this is going to be a fabulous do. It is going to be a ripper. Do members know what it is called? It is called “Grooving with National into the future”. The word “grooving” kind of reminds one of a few decades ago. 
Darren Hughes 
: The Fonz. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Fonz. It will all be high-fives and “Hey yo bro!” and “How you getting down there man?”. It is all going to be absolutely fantastic. Perhaps the next National speaker will be able to tell us what slogan those members will be wearing on their T-shirts given the fact that we have now suggested a few lines. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to take part in today’s general debate but not overly happy about the subject we find ourselves debating—or were debating—because the member who has just sat down the Hon Paul Swain has indicated that Government members have nothing to offer in explanation. We have seen from that member an attempt at a diversion tactic. His efforts are really an indication of a Government that has given up on the hard issues. 
Today a letter had been put in requesting an urgent debate straight after question time. The Speaker indicated that the general debate would be the opportunity for members to participate in raising the questions on that matter. We expected there would be at least some kind of interchange but the effort put in by the Hon Paul Swain is as I said a clear indication that the Government has given up. It has given up not just on the issue of Medlab and the provision of laboratory services but on a whole range of things. You see the public at large have an expectation that I do not believe is inappropriate. People expect Ministers who carry a warrant who get to ride around in chauffer-driven cars who have privileges and who are paid much better than most other people in this country to give governance. That is their expectation and that expectation is not unreasonable from a public who elect a Government and want Ministers to take responsibility. 
But we do not have governance; we have a shambles. We have Ministers who are very good on mitigation but not very good on management. Yes they can give explanations of when things go wrong but the public wants the shambles to stop. They want some assurance. Members of the public are now are saying that they have no confidence in this Government to resolve the hard issues. We have a Government that has fed us a number of slogans. One slogan probably worth considering right now was used in the lead-up to the 1999 election. It is: “Labour will bring a new standard of governance.” Did we know that it would be so much worse? There has been no governance. Then we were told: “In the next 3 years we will be in the top half of the OECD.” A current slogan is: “We will be carbon neutral.” These are aspirations. If the Government cannot handle the day-to-day stuff then what confidence can we have that the expectations of every New Zealander will be met—expectations that their health needs can be met that they can be safe in their homes and that their kids get an opportunity to learn at school? 
Today some of my colleagues have mentioned some illustrations of the shambles out there. I too am particularly concerned that we have a Government that has not really taken responsibility in a range of areas. As my colleague Jonathan Coleman mentioned we have had a total breakdown in the areas of corrections and justice. There was the issue of Liam Ashley being murdered by a killer in the back of a truck. At that point we expected the Minister responsible to put in place provisions to stop anything similar from happening. Yet we have a dialogue of illustrations including the Graeme Burton case where the alarm bells were ringing and the Department of Corrections was doing absolutely nothing. It was in denial. The basic Anglo-Saxon response to a crisis is to ignore and deny. That is not why Ministers hold warrants. It is not why they are elected to govern. But in this particular case the Minister has not even stood up to give us an adequate response. He has not said: “Yes I take responsibility for this.” We had the head of the Parole Board set a standard that could not be matched by a Minister carrying a warrant and being driven around in a chauffer-driven car. 
Then there is the issue of education. As I said New Zealanders expect their kids to be able to have the kind of education that actually gets them through the process of learning. In this last week or two we have had illustration after illustration from schools that are saying: “Hang on we just don’t trust the NCEA any more. Let’s go out there and look at getting an alternate standard put in place so that at least we can offer students a qualification that has some substance to it.” Is the Minister of Education doing anything to correct that? Again no. That is just another illustration of the shambles out there. 
Then there was the breaking news yesterday about the contract put in place with Diagnostic Medlab being overruled by the court with the tender process being shown in a whole lot of ways to be inappropriate and suspect. We have a situation now where about a third of New Zealanders who rely on those laboratory services have questions about whether those services can be delivered. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I am rising on behalf of New Zealand First to contribute to this afternoon’s debate and after listening to the team that describes itself as the Opposition—and that is another archaic term that needs to be got rid of because in our MMP Parliament these days no party can claim to be “the Opposition”—I say I cannot help but conclude that there is much ado about doing nothing on that side of the House. In fact methinks members opposite protest too much—far too much given their track record—when they want to talk about corrections. 
Let us just look at the difference between National and New Zealand First. On the National side of the House people are prone to criticise and chastise everybody for failures in the Department of Corrections. I have here a huge wad of documents. This is the  
Report for the State Services Commissioner into the Department of Corrections Canterbury Emergency Response Unit (CERU) 
 written by Ailsa Duffy QC and dated 16 December 2004. That whole debacle started under whose responsibility—under whose watch? Many of the recommendations made in that document and the failures described in it are actually symptomatic of what we are seeing today. And who was responsible? Oh there is no comment now! It was the National Government of the day. We do not have to look very far in order to see that. If we turn to page 253 what is the date that we see for the establishment of the infamous emergency response unit? It was 19 May 1999. Who denied successive requests for an inquiry into the activities of that “goon squad”? There is silence. We are talking about the Department of Corrections we are talking about corruption and we are talking about incompetence and the National Party members have suddenly gone deathly silent. Most of the problems that we witness today within the Department of Corrections come from National’s term of governance and the changes it made. I will get on to that. 
Whilst the National members protest strut and carry on what is the difference between them and the New Zealand First members? We are simply getting on and doing things. I want to mention a couple of things. For a start members should look at what is happening with regard to the police. The Minister made an announcement today. Mr Power and the National Party have been screaming out that we will never recruit 1000 additional police let alone 1250. What is the result? The Minister is announcing today that not only do we have 423 more sworn staff members not including recruits under training than there were at the equivalent time last year—that is over and above the establishment in 2006 which equates to a 5.7 percent increase in police staffing numbers—but also we are well on track to achieving our 1000 extra uniformed front-line police. 
One of the other predictions New Zealand First made was that attrition would fall away and it has dropped to a resounding 3.9 percent. New Zealand First members said that attrition would fall away as policemen and policewomen saw tangible evidence of new officers coming on stream and the workloads and pressures decreasing and that once they saw physical evidence that the Government and New Zealand First were serious about resourcing the police then more police officers would stay. That is precisely what is happening. But that is not what the National Party members predicted—all doom and gloom and scaremongering that we would never achieve that. The reason I suspect they have always said that is that they never ever had any intention of resourcing the police in the way that New Zealand First has done. 
But it does not stop with the police; members should look at what we have done for seniors. What is the difference for seniors? There is an increase to 66 percent of the net average wage for our seniors. That means that on 1 April this year married couples will be receiving an increase of $20 a week because of New Zealand First. 
Pita Paraone 
: How much? 
RON MARK 
: They will be receiving $20 a week extra because of New Zealand First. We are not bleating whining whingeing or carping; we are getting on doing the work making a difference and delivering on the things we promised we would deliver. In line behind that we have increasing the minimum wage to $12 an hour fast on track. In superannuation single people will get between $12 and $13 a week— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How much? 
RON MARK 
: They will get between $12 and $13 a week more than previously depending on their living circumstances. Those are real gains achieved by the only party that is truly committed to our seniors. 
Our commitment does not stop there. In August we will see the launch of the SuperGold card for seniors. We promised it; we are delivering it. That will be a huge step forward in terms of improving the lives of our seniors. Not only will Government subsidies and discounts be available on the card but also a significant number of negotiated commercial discounts will be available. New Zealand First is delivering. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to contribute to the general debate this afternoon. I begin by referring to one of the activities that members engage in when we are not in the Chamber and that is moving around the electorates within which we work. On Monday afternoon I was driving to Kaipara College to talk to the principal there and visit the school as one does. As I drove through Kumeu I was very amused to see—and I thought it needed reporting because it was a traffic hazard—the jandals the flip-flops that were on top of the office of the Leader of the Opposition. It was absolutely extraordinary. Of course the first thing that came to mind is “flip-flop”. I do not want to labour that point particularly because it stands for itself; I really want to commend the people of Kumeu and Huapai for the fair they are having—the Jaffa and jandals fair. It is fantastic; there are jandals lined up against all sorts of letterboxes and businesses through that area. It really does bring a smile to one’s face when driving through to see that degree of humour and the promotion of a laid-back kind of lifestyle that the Kumeu and Huapai people enjoy. 
The smile on my face—because I was enjoying that whole message—turned into riotous laughter when I got past the constituency office of the Leader of the Opposition. I commend him for joining in the fun of the fair. I think it is a very good thing and humour against oneself is also a very admirable thing. But for a public relations company not to spot the lead-in this would give in respect of the “King of Flip-Flops” is beyond belief. I kept my hands on the wheel and remained on the road but I had to go back and see it a second time when driving back just to make sure I had not made a mistake. There they were bigger than anybody else’s! Other people have jandals attached to their businesses that are reasonably discreet but these were gigantic—these two blue and white flip-flops on top of the Leader of the Opposition’s constituency office. They really were worth remarking on. 
There is a more serious thing that I wish to address in the context of this debate—but it is not unrelated. The issue is to do with whether the member—who with all good humour may have attached some flip-flops to his roof—is trying to present himself as a credible alternative Prime Minister when there are so many flip-flops in his policies. This also needs to be drawn to the attention of not only the House but also the general public. It does not matter whether it is  
Agenda 
 on Saturday morning and newly made up housing policy a sudden recanting on the position of sending troops to Iraq or another item. This leader cannot and does not have it seems any wellspring of philosophical political commitment from which he can draw. He is constantly looking for the right answer for the audience. 
When he was asked by a student radio station what his view was on the Springbok Tour in 1981 he could not even bring himself to think up an honest answer. He could not bring himself to simply say he was for it or against it. He said he did not remember. He is the only person in this country I can recall who cannot remember which side of the argument he was on in 1981. The veneer that this leader—this would-be Prime Minister; this never-be Prime Minister—is trying to create is easily seen through by the people of New Zealand. It is easily seen through because the man has not kicked around long enough in political circles. Frequently we are accused of being Labour Party hacks or political hacks. There is something to be said for experience in this House and in politics. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 It is a privilege to rise in the House and to close the debate on behalf of the National Party which all New Zealanders now recognise is the Government-in-waiting. I must say however that it is quite hard to get motivated and speak when following what was probably one of the poorest speeches to be delivered in this House in a long time—particularly when the people of Auckland face such a critical issue as the one that landed on them yesterday. Before I turn to that subject though I would like to make reference to the speech made by the Hon Paul Swain and to say how disappointed I was with it. I know I am a humble backbencher who is normally hidden in the back corners of the House but he might at least have noted that I have had a haircut. All it will take is a bit of product and on Friday night I will be ready to rumble with the best of them. 
The Auckland High Court lab testing decision and how the Government is handling it is just one more example of the ineptitude of this Government and another example of Cabinet Ministers performing poorly. This mess has the potential to cost New Zealand taxpayers millions and millions of dollars in compensation and court costs. It is therefore of direct relevance to this House. One of the things that taxpayers do is to place their trust in Cabinet Ministers to protect their interests and protect their money. That trust has been clearly misplaced in this House this afternoon. What confidence can the people of Tamaki covered by the Auckland District Health Board now have that there will be diagnostic testing services available to them after 1 July? One-third of New Zealanders now have hanging over them the shadow of that uncertainty. 
If any member of this House has reason to take that personally it is myself. Although I will not enter into debating the merits of either side of the case I want to say that I like thousands of Aucklanders am incredibly grateful for the diagnostic testing the services of pathologists and the nurses that take the samples. I am grateful to them for the work they do. They do not deserve and Aucklanders do not deserve the uncertainty that now hangs over a very important part of the health provision. This Government has failed in one of its key tests and the Minister is behaving as though he has no idea what to do next. 
The Minister cannot escape responsibility for what has happened. In 2003 this Government made the decision to delegate responsibility for the letting of contracts for diagnostic services to the district health boards. At the very time when Aucklanders need the Minister to show leadership and to show there is a way forward he is floundering he is lost and he does not know what to do. Let me help the Minister. He has to do only one thing: to have the decency to resign. If that resignation is not forthcoming it will be just one more example of the “no one is responsible” approach that this Government takes to matters that are of vital importance to the lives of everyday New Zealanders. 
One has to ask whether Cabinet is undergoing systematic professional training in how to avoid ministerial responsibility. One would have to think so and it obviously working because Ministers do that so well. In fact when the term of this Government is over—and that is only months away—all it will have to show for its years in office is the fact that its members have set a standard for accepting ministerial responsibility that is well below the standard that New Zealanders expect. It is well below the standard that New Zealanders expect from the people elected to represent them in this House. 
One has to ask another question: has the Minister of Health simply been following the example of the Minister of Corrections? 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker tenatatoui te Whare. It is interesting to follow the speaker who preceded me Allan Peachey. He came from the education area and I fear for the parents of the students who suffered his orations or presentations. For the few New Zealanders listening and still awake after that— 
Allan Peachey 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In no way do I think it is appropriate or consistent with the Standing Orders for that member to bring my previous career the previous school that I worked at and the pupils who attended it into this debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that that is a matter for debate. The honourable member’s time will start again. 
SHANE JONES 
: If we ever needed evidence of the correctness of what I just said we witnessed it there. We have just seen a brilliant time in New Zealand in relation to two signal events that advanced the quality of race relations in Aotearoa. Firstly we saw the results of the fantastic efforts of the Prime Minister Mr Goff and a host of other senior Labour politicians in securing recognition from the British Crown for the bravery— 
Pita Paraone 
: And New Zealand First. 
SHANE JONES 
: And New Zealand First—in particular my colleagues here. In fact I must acknowledge that at Rotorua to celebrate with the HaaneManahiwhanau was Mr Ron Mark who has had a distinguished career in the military. But more important the kaumatuaTamati Paraone from Ngati Hine was there the surviving old warhorse of the Maori Battalion. For how many years did Te Arawa go cap in hand requesting almost begging the National Government to stand up against the prejudices and the very difficult attitudes that persist in England as to how it would reward this fine brave man and his whanau? It took the qualities of leadership from the Prime Minister Mr Goff and a host of other people associated with Labour and their friends to do this. Long may they be friends. 
At least with these friends—the Maori in the New Zealand First Party—we can predict what they will do. As I said recently I enjoyed some kohanga reo fun with Dr Pita Sharples on Television One. We cannot predict what the other Maori in the Maori Party will do. They make it up as they go along. They are hoping they will be able to cuddle up and restore the fortunes they are losing because they tried to get a deal with National for the seabed and foreshore. The party was created supposedly on the problems to do with the seabed and foreshore. Its proposal was to restore all the seabed and foreshore back to the Crown and that proposal died at the feet of the very people it has been trying to cuddle—John Key and Gerry. Well nui te tinana a lot to cuddle there! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will use the member’s full name. 
SHANE JONES 
: Gerry Brownlee. I will give an appropriate translation. The Maori Party has sought solace in both of those individuals. It is going nowhere. But let me continue. A brilliant announcement was made today. Whenuakite—the land that is now visible. Rangiputa emerging from a divine source. Two very important blocks of land located on the coastline of huge iconic importance to both Maori and Pakeha are not for sale—there is deferment which is a success for the brilliant lobbying of the Maori members of the Government. This is despite all the parroting and wandering around of our colleagues and whanaunga in the Maori Party who are wasting their parliamentary salaries and perching themselves in Rangiputa Hauraki and Te Tai Tokerau. The issue came back to the Government and caucus and we now have a very successful outcome. In fact I cannot wait to go back—hopefully with some colleagues from New Zealand First and Te Tai Tokerau—and tell the hapu and our old warhorse up there Sir Graham Latimer the great leader that he is that the land they feared might be lost will not be lost. It now lies available for utilisation in the Treaty of Waitangi estate. 
To show that we are very diverse in our view and approach the land also lies available to settle the problems relating to garden variety Kiwis wanting to celebrate that great New Zealand tradition of the summer holiday recreation and boating. Of course should the opportunity ever present itself for members on the other side of the House to control the process of what State-owned enterprises are to do with their assets there will be no coastline left; there will be nothing. The only accessible places left available would be those with the hapu and the whanau and they are fast diminishing. However this one will be restored back to a place of pride in the public estate—a brilliant decision today. 
So there are two things that show there has been great progress on the broad front of Treaty relations and race relations. No. 1 is the decision to defer the sale of these two sites thereby enabling us to address the concerns of our garden variety Kiwi voters who fear they cannot go on holiday during the summer because the access to the coast is no longer available. No. 2 is the brilliant leadership shown and the joy and the pleasure was evident on television. I am not talking now about the interview with Pita Sharples and Shane Jones; I am talking about the very brilliant account that was given for the whanau of HaaneManahi and Te Arawa iwi. 
 Of course Te Arawa do not want to hear much from the Maori Party. Te Arawa made the very hard decision to stand by their mandate and one of their own people comes to this House every day to undermine the decisions of his own kaumatua. That will come back to haunt them. The election will roll around very soon. One cannot hide behind arcane parliamentary procedure; at some point one must stand on the marae and give an account of why when one is meant to be the member for Waiariki and of Te Arawa one spends most of one’s time undermining the efforts of his kaumatua. Haere ra! Kia ora tatou. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill 
Minimum Wage Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I move  
That the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. These bills ensure that disabled New Zealand workers have access to the same employment conditions rights and entitlements as all other New Zealanders. Repealing the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act 1960 is an important step in ensuring that the abilities potential contributions and rights of all New Zealanders are recognised. For 47 years disabled people have not had the same employment rights or protections as other New Zealand citizens; the Act is out of step with New Zealand and international human rights law. 
Repealing the Act reflects the Government’s approach to disability issues as set out in the New Zealand Disability Strategy. Disabled people have told us that they want a fully inclusive society where they have the same opportunities as other New Zealanders. Those include participating in training and employment and receiving fair remuneration for the work they do. I would have expected all members of Parliament and New Zealand society to share those expectations. 
Repealing this outdated legislation is part of a package of wider changes aimed at ensuring that the voice of disabled people in New Zealand is heard and acted upon. We have undertaken extensive consultation with disabled people with their families and with service providers over the wider package of reforms. Nearly 100 submissions were received on the 2000 vocational services review alone. These bills were prepared reflecting the findings of the vocational services review and were referred to the Social Services Committee on 26 May 2004. The committee received and considered 16 submissions on the legislation four supplementary submissions and 13 oral submissions. 
All submissions on the legislation supported the intent of the repeal although some submissions expressed concerns about its implementation. Some submitters were worried that the move to paying the minimum wage would force some sheltered workshops to close. The intention of the repeal is not to close sheltered workshops; that has never been its aim. But yes the legislation will mean change. It does not mean that sheltered workshops will close and it certainly does not mean that people will be sent home with nothing meaningful to do. The repeal will mean that all sheltered workshops will have to pay everyone they employ at least the minimum wage—unless an individual worker has an exemption. It will also mean that all people who work in sheltered workshops will have access to holiday and sick leave entitlements—all the conditions that every other New Zealand worker enjoys. By repealing the Act disabled New Zealanders will finally be valued for what they can do rather than be defined by the place in which they work. 
This legislation also amends the Minimum Wage Act 1983 to make the system for considering minimum wage exemption permits more focused and transparent. Minimum wage exemption permits are not new; they have existed for some time under the Minimum Wage Act as under-rate workers’ permits. We are now extending this option to sheltered workshops and changing the name to minimum wage exemption permits. These permits are a pragmatic straightforward option that ensures that real paid employment opportunities exist for as many people as possible. 
Workers who are significantly and demonstrably limited in their work can be issued with a minimum wage exemption permit but unlike the blanket exemptions that exist now these permits will reflect the individual contribution of workers. Before considering whether an exemption is appropriate the employer must have made reasonable accommodations to facilitate people carrying out the requirements of the job. Labour inspectors will give someone an exemption permit only if the worker and employer agree there is a good reason why such a permit should be granted. Throughout the process labour inspectors will ensure that the interests of employees are protected. 
This legislation is part of a package of wider changes aimed at improving employment opportunities for disabled people. Our Government has committed significant increased funding to ensure that sheltered workshops and disabled workers are supported in making these changes which include increasing the supports to help people to work in the open labour market providing wider access to supported employment services and developing further the transition from school services. 
Some providers may move out of sheltered work. Should a provider wish to do that the Ministry of Social Development will work with the provider and its clients to ensure that disabled people continue to have appropriate options—including access to open paid employment—available to them. I am pleased to say that our wider changes have resulted in over 9000 disabled people gaining jobs compared with an estimated 3000 being in employment in 2001—a trebling of the number. I am also heartened by the attitude of many sheltered workshop operators who have already started making changes in anticipation of the repeal. Operators are making their organisations more commercially viable so that they can pay their employees proper wages. Some employers are already paying the minimum wage and more. 
Recently the New Zealand Federation of Vocational and Support Services launched its document  
Principles of Excellence for Employment Support 
. Those principles of excellence were developed with the specific intention of assisting organisations in their transition from providing sheltered work to providing employment services in line with the Pathways to Inclusion strategy. The support from vocational and support services is further evidence of the timeliness in repealing this outdated and discriminatory legislation. Many organisations no longer want to be known as sheltered workshops recognising that this designation is now inaccurate and disparaging. Disabled people have told us that they want a range of options for participating in the labour market; a modern economy should be able to provide that for all citizens. This legislation ensures that the disabled worker is no longer underpaid for the value of his or her work. 
I wish to acknowledge the efforts made by all those organisations parents families and employers who made submissions to the Social Services Committee and I acknowledge the time and thought that the members of the select committee expended in deliberating on this bill. I also acknowledge the excellent work of officials over many years in working on this repeal. 
I commend these bills to members as important legislation that will finally ensure that disabled people are recognised for what they can do not for what they cannot do. This legislation has been a long time coming. The repeal was first signalled in 2000 with the launch of the vocational services review. This repeal is necessary to reflect our Government’s approach to disability issues as set out in the New Zealand Disability Strategy. It is time we realised that it is now 2007 not 1960 and that disabled people deserve to have the same employment rights and obligations as all other New Zealanders. I commend these bills to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members of the gallery that there is to be no applause. The debate is in the House it is not with them. If it happens again they will be asked by the Serjeant-at-Arms to leave. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the third readings of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. The National Opposition does want to see disabled people enabled so that they have a real choice in what they can do like anyone else according to their ability and capacity. We agree with the general philosophy behind the New Zealand Disability Strategy and Pathways to Inclusion. We agree that disabled people should not be patronised by central or local government. I was surprised when I heard the Minister say that this legislation ensures that disabled workers are no longer underpaid for their work because unfortunately it does nothing of the sort. It is this practical reality that the Minister refuses to acknowledge. 
However I would like to acknowledge Minister Dyson because I know that she has been working on this bill for many years right back to 2000. I acknowledge that she has been very sincere in her endeavours but I remain deeply concerned that successive Labour Governments tend to bring in changes without carefully ensuring that the practical details are attended to. In this legislation that has very clearly happened both to the detriment of disabled people’s aspirations as well as to the detriment of the workshops they work in. 
The Minister said that the disability community would like to take that name away but we already know that former sheltered workshops have renamed themselves such as the Abilities Group on the North Shore and Workforce Auckland in Mangere. Both organisations carry out altruistic inspiring very important and very well-organised work for disabled people. They provide the reality of choice for those people. Unfortunately the machinery the Minister has put in place to ensure the continuity of that has been put at jeopardy because of her lack of attention to detail. 
It is worthwhile having a little bit of a recap of the situation as it was seen by Carolldu Chateau who recently reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. She said: “The argument has been raging since 2001 when Disabilities Minister Ruth Dyson introduced ‘Pathways to Inclusion’—an ideologically driven strategy that contends that even the 
most intellectually disabled should be integrated into the wider community. They should also be paid the minimum wage.” Of course they should be integrated into the wider community if that is practical and feasible. There is no question about it. Indeed they should also be paid the minimum wage if that is a reality. But they should not be given false hopes if it is not a reality. The  
New Zealand Herald  
article continues: “The repeal of the Act means that minimum wage legislation will now include the intellectually handicapped who will only be allowed to opt out through individual exemptions issued by the Department of Labour.” As has been said by quite a few of those who run workshops this will almost certainly double the wage bill while incrementally increasing some workers’ salaries and lowering others. Despite the protestations from the Minister she has not done her homework in that respect. I accept that most of the workers will have minor marginal increases in wages. Others will not. 
The problem I have been concerned about all along is that the Government has not given attention to the detail of the abatement regimes as people come off their benefits and go on to a minimum wage. Nor has it given attention to the details of the support it might give to employers at sheltered workshops. This has just not happened despite 6 to 7 years of flagging this legislation through. So as I said before although we are quite in harmony with the basic philosophy behind it we are deeply concerned at the lack of ability of the Labour Government and the lack of attention it has paid to the details. 
We were also told that the Labour Party supported a funded move out of workshops and into the community participation scheme. With the effort of doing that a dramatic thing happened to the work and the choice of work in sheltered workshops. Although 3 years ago 4000 people were working in sheltered workshops there are only 1000 or even fewer than that now. It has decreased from 4000 people to 1000 people in 3 years. [ 
Interruption 
] There is a slightly ominous aspect in regard to that. The Minister called out a slight expletive. I will not repeat it on the air but it was a four-lettered one. 
The reality is that she put considerable pressure on organisations like IHC New Zealand and we have the evidence to show that in a letter from the chief executive officer of IHC to the parents of a disabled person in which the chief executive said in response to the question of whether IHC has become too politically correct in some areas: “Yes by being a service provider we have bought into the Government’s expectation standards and policies. The $140 million comes with a cost.” And the cost was that IHC would close down every one of its sheltered workshops—every one of them—which meant that something like 2000 disabled people were out of a job. 
What did those people go into? They went into community participation. Although in some aspects that has been a very good thing and I applaud it it has been a mixed bag. The problem is that although we have these grand gestures by the Labour Government of community participation what has happened to some of those people is that they have moved from a situation where they had a job that was very meaningful to them into a situation that does not suit them at all. It is worthwhile quoting someone whom I do know Jane Watts who has an intellectually handicapped son Lee. What did she have to say about community participation in her case? She was very scathing about the new strategy. She said: “The idea’s lovely but the reality’s absolute rubbish. You cannot put Lee in outside employment. He couldn’t do it. No one would pay him $500-$600 a week. We tried to take him down to the supermarket and he scratched a car …”. She went on to say in relation to community participation replacing work: “It’s a waste of money. We do those things—take him to the library swimming bowling—on weekends. If the government wants to spend more money they should provide more caregivers at”—places like—“Abilities”. 
It is important to point out that what the Labour Government has put in place is not all clear. The situation as we see it now is certainly not clear. The workshops have said that they consider there to be serious flaws that are unlikely to be remedied in the next 3 to 4 months. I introduced a significant amendment in the Committee stage and unfortunately it was rejected by the Labour Government. It was a serious attempt to be practical. It allowed the Government an extension time of 2 years so that it could sort out the flaws. 
Peter Brown 
: Far too long. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It enabled the Government to have this legislation enacted immediately if it sorted out the flaws in time but it rejected it. Unfortunately New Zealand First buckled but at least we had a compromise situation where the enactment date was extended to 30 November. That was only because of pressure from the National Party which at least has ensured a little bit of a reality check to allow time so that machinery is put in place in order to iron out the flaws that were so concerning to sheltered workshops and that were indeed a reality. It means that disabled people will have a real choice. I finish by saying that I continue to be amazed and appalled that the Labour Government does not pay attention to detail when it puts legislation such as this into the House. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the third readings of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill and I am very proud to do so. For 47 years disabled people in this country have not had the same employment rights or protections as other New Zealanders. One of those workers is a family member of mine. She deserves a fair go as do all her fellow disabled workers. Disabled people need to be heard and they need to have what they are saying acted on. They have told the Labour-led Government that they want a fully inclusive society where they are accorded the same opportunities as other New Zealanders. That means participating in training and employment and receiving fair remuneration for work. 
It is a nonsense for the member on the other side to tell us inaccurately that the numbers in sheltered workshops have reduced from 4000 to 1000. He knows that the difference in those numbers represents the numbers who are not actual employees in those workshops. The fact of the matter is that the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act 1960—a Victorian-attitude piece of legislation to people with disabilities—does not allow for employment fairness. It treats people—workers whom we respect—unfairly by giving sheltered workshops a blanket exemption from minimum wage and holiday provisions for their workers. In my own area there is a sheltered workshop and yes there have been some concerns that the move to paying the minimum wage and proper holiday entitlements will force some sheltered workshops to close. The intention of the repeal is not to close sheltered workshops; it never has been. Yes the legislation will mean some changes for sheltered workshops and yes those sheltered workshop providers will need to look at the financial aspects of their operations. But the legislation does not mean that sheltered workshops will be left to close down and it does not mean that people will be sent home with nothing meaningful to do. 
The repeal simply means that there will be fairness. Sheltered workshops will have to pay everyone they employ at least the minimum wage—everyone they employ unless individual workers have an exemption. There are strict criteria around those exemptions. The legislation will mean that all people who work in sheltered workshops will have access to the fairness that all of us as workers expect—to holiday and sick leave entitlements and to a decent pay rate. Those are all the other conditions that every other New Zealand worker takes for granted. By repealing the Act disabled New Zealanders will finally be valued for what they can do rather than be defined by the place they work in and by their disability. 
The Act we are intending to repeal today as I said is a Victorian piece of legislation. It demonstrates Victorian attitudes to workers who have earned respect by many many years of their work. It is out of step with New Zealand and international human rights law. There has been very extensive consultation with disabled people and their families and with service providers over the proposal. 
The passing of this legislation will be an occasion of joy to the disabilities community. I am very proud to take part in that and yes it may be that some providers will ultimately decide to move out of sheltered work. It is not the intention of the repeal to cause that but some providers may make that choice. Should a provider choose to move out of sheltered work then the Ministry for Social Development and Employment will work with that provider and its clients and employees to ensure that people with disabilities continue to have fair and open options as every other worker in this country has. 
The passing of this legislation is about setting in place a better future for disabled people. It means that we can say there will be the continuation of sheltered workshop providers being able to offer both community participation activities and employment. They will have to meet all employment obligations for any individuals they employ—and that is fair and right. Those obligations include the standard employment conditions and entitlements that we all expect. This legislation is very a good thing; I am proud to be speaking as part of its passing into law. Thank you. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to commend my most excellent colleague Dr Paul Hutchison for a very good précis of the time he spent on the original bill the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill. I recall the time that I was involved with that bill some years ago. At that time in actual fact the political parties opposing the bill were United Future and New Zealand First as well as National. I am really quite surprised. I know even Sue Bradford had some misgivings earlier in the piece and one of the comments she made was that in the end this is a political and ideological issue. 
In some respects she is actually quite right. Why was this legislation brought into being in the first place? We are told that it was because not paying these people the minimum wage in a work environment was contrary to the Human Rights Act and that they needed to be treated in the same way as every other worker in the workforce and at least paid the minimum wage. That is fine except that while the Government is looking at bringing in the minimum wage for all these people in sheltered workshops it may find that they may not have jobs and they may be assessed as being exempt from the requirements of the minimum wage. I do not know of any other work environment where workers are actually given an exemption from any form of work payment yet this is happening in this legislation. So on the one hand the Government wants to bring workshops into line with every other workplace environment but on the other hand it is not doing that because it is providing wage exemptions which does not happen in any other workplace environment. 
The whole issue is about how that will affect the viability of sheltered workshops. They provide a workplace opportunity for these people when the only other option for them is community participation. Sheltered workshops—which actually wanted to be called business services—may no longer be able to afford to pay a range of people the minimum wage as well as accommodate and provide for them in their workplaces even though they might be on an exemption. They will not be able to afford to do that in terms of the time and effort required for all of the services they provide to these people. They do not provide just a work opportunity even though it might be for only a few hours a day if that; they provide a whole lot more than that. They provide support in a whole range of fields—budgeting friendship health and even hygiene and just general life skills—and they provide timeout for the family. There is a raft of services and supports provided by people who come under the “sheltered workshop” classification. We are talking about the Abilities Group on the North Shore Southland Enterprises and a whole lot of other places that provide those services. 
So what were the concerns about the legislation? There was no impact study on the effects of it on those who will no longer be employed or have the opportunity to go into a workplace environment like Abilities on the North Shore in Auckland which we classify as a sheltered workshop. There was absolutely no calculation of the additional costs in the event of closures. So what will community participation add to these people’s experiences? Instead of being valued as workers as they perceive it they are going to go out of that workplace environment into what we call community participation. All they do there are activities that we would do on a weekend. That is not being valued as people who are making valid working contributions. They thought they were making valid working contributions when they could rock up to Abilities Group and feel like they were contributing and doing something. Whether they were is immaterial; it is how they felt about that. It gave them self-worth and a feeling of belonging and involvement. It gave them the mana if you like of being classed as workers even though they might not have been paid for that instead just getting an extra allowance topping up their benefits. That top-up was always handy but they will not get that under community participation. Instead they are denied the opportunity of having that type of work environment and of feeling like they are valued workers. 
They are put into community participation and what do they do? They might go to the movies they might do a bit of painting they might sit in front of the television—all of those things that other workers in every other workplace do in their time off and on weekends. There was no assessment of the effects on caregivers and families if there is no other option and the individual cannot remain with his or her current provider. There was no assessment of the effects on caregivers and families. In fact families were constantly complaining about the fact that there was inadequate consultation with them and with those people of whom they were guardians. 
There was an assumption that there would be no increase in the number of labour inspectors. As I read the legislation I understand that the labour inspectors will rely upon the workplaces to do their assessments. Labour inspectors are going to come along and say: “Yes that’s OK.” or “That’s not OK.” We now see that under a new amendment to the Act the inspectors will have the ability to revoke exemption at will so that is a bit of a concern and will certainly be a concern for all parties to that situation. I wonder after an assessment how the result is conveyed to a person who has been assessed. I cannot imagine the situation when someone is assessed and told: “I’m sorry you’re not eligible for the minimum wage.” How do you give that sort of message to somebody who has a limited level of understanding? Imagine rocking up to someone in the environment of this House and saying: “I’m sorry but you are just not up to snuff. We’ve given you an assessment and we have found you wanting so we don’t want you in this environment any more.” That assessment is done by a third party; it is not done by electors. 
Providers of community participation have no long-term certainty. People have no guarantee that they will always be able to go to community participation and that it will operate 5 days a week and take up all of the time in which they were going along to somewhere like Abilities Group. There was no calculation of the additional costs if community participation further increases the demands on caregivers. That is a very real aspect of this legislation. What normally happens is that people go along to sheltered workshops like Abilities Group—I keep mentioning Abilities Group because it is the one I have the most experience with—and they love it. Abilities Group took on board the cost of extra caregivers and the cost of extra people there to provide the additional supports that were needed outside of the sort of work that they might be doing in that environment. The sheltered workshops also organised trips etc. and time off. So the workers had a social club as well. 
We are very concerned that none of those aspects were considered that the consultation with families and the individuals who will be directly affected was inadequate and that the calculation of the impacts of costs was also totally inadequate. National supports the aim of any disabled person who can work in supported employment in the community being able to do so. We are just concerned that those people will not have the ability to choose that for themselves that they will not have the work environments that they have been enjoying up until now and that community participation will take the place of what they used to think of as their jobs. To me that is a crying shame. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 One day we will come down to this House and deal with a bill that deals with the working life of New Zealanders at large and the National Party will be absolutely positive about it—and I do not think we will be able to stomach it over here. I have listened to Dr Hutchison and Sandra Goudie and I have never heard such negativism in all the time I have been here. They were totally—absolutely totally—negative. Let me tell National members over there that the sector and the industry want rid of the 1960 Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act. They want to get rid of it but the members over there have not got the message. They are totally and utterly negative. Why could they not find something positive to say? They could still vote the legislation down but say something positive about it. 
Let me say again that the industry—the sector—wants the repeal of the 1960 Act done and dusted right now. Well we cannot do it right now and one criticism of the Government is that it has taken far too long. I have read  
Hansard 
 and I might also correct National members on the fact that New Zealand First supported this legislation at its first reading in quite glowing terms as I see. I acknowledged the statement of the Minister Ruth Dyson when she said that it was better to pay people according to the work they did rather than the place they were employed. I complimented her when she said that. It is a belief New Zealand First shares. It is better to pay people according to the work they do rather than the place they are employed. We are 100 percent behind that. But it has taken an extremely long time to come to terms with this issue and that has caused us some frustration. 
When the legislation came back the other day we found that the sector was not happy with the time frame. The only word I can use is that we were “lobbied” by the sector. In fairness to the Minister we made those views known to her. We made the views known that 30 June 2007 just does not give enough time to bring everything into fruition. After quite some discussion checking and analysis of things the Minister came back and we reached agreement on a date of 30 November. That is 9 months hence and we are quite confident that by 30 November if not by 30 October we will have all the ducks in a row so that this legislation will operate properly and fairly in the interests of everyone. 
A second issue was raised by the sector and that concerned guidelines. Again we raised it with the Minister and again she looked positively on it. Apparently some guidelines are being written by the Department of Labour. I have not seen them but the Minister gave her assurance to us—New Zealand First—that they are being worked on and will be made available to the sector in the not too distant future. So in a very practical manner that will get the system going. 
Finally the third issue is funding. I have listened to National members over the last few days and weeks when they have been debating this legislation. They have been saying that there is no funding that all the workshops will be closed down holus bolus and that people will be virtually kicked out on to the streets. That will not happen. It was never intended that that would happen and it will not happen. Everybody knows that and it was really alarmist for National members to go around the country—or wherever they went—saying those sorts of things. It not only disturbed the individuals in these workshops but really upset their families. In National members’ hearts if they had given one iota of thought to it they would have realised that that was not going to occur. 
The biggest problem if the funding is not adequate—and I am quite convinced it will be—is that workshops will not be able to take people in at the level at which they should be taking them in and that will be disturbing. We have a Budget coming up and I am quite convinced that the Minister has spoken to the Minister of Finance and that there will be adequate funding to handle all that is required for this legislation to come into fruition by 30 November at the latest. 
 This is a good bill for decent individuals who really need us to speak for them. I cannot think of anybody else who really needs us in Parliament to speak on their behalf. I cannot think of a greater sector of the community that needs us to represent them and say: “Hey you’re not getting a fair deal and we’re determined to address it.” I stand here on behalf of my New Zealand First colleagues feeling very proud that we dealt with the Minister and came to some arrangement to progress this bill in a positive manner. On that note I say that New Zealand First is proud to address the issues of the sheltered workshops and the people they look after and care for and to ensure that those people get a fairer deal that they are currently getting. The sooner that this legislation is passed into law that the transition period goes through and that it takes place the better it will be for everybody. New Zealand First supports this bill with quite some pride. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports this legislation and has done so from the beginning. I want to say just a few words as my colleague Sue Bradford who spoke on the first reading of this legislation and who has supported it through all its stages is unable to be here. 
This legislation is a critical turning point in how our society treats and values people with impairments—people with disabilities. Sheltered workshops have certainly performed a useful role in our society and have had some function particularly in the sense of trying to find a way to encourage and enable participation in community activities—work being one of those activities. But they have been built out of a very paternalistic view that treats people with disabilities as if they are children and as unfortunates who need to be or should be grateful for a charity model of the provision of services. I know that the National Party in particular is quite keen on the charity model. John Key has talked about this quite a bit in the last few months. But the fact is that all people of all abilities should be able to access the labour market and do so in accordance with human rights. All people of all abilities are entitled to an adequate income and protection in the labour market. 
The history of sheltered workshops suggests an acceptance that some people will never be able to participate fully or equally in value in the labour market and that disabled workers should at heart simply be grateful for what others deign to give them. In fact today in a select committee considering another piece of legislation a submitter dealt with this issue at heart and suggested that disabled workers were simply a burden on the business community that they undermine the efficiency of business and that they should effectively be confined to dependence on the social security system and presumably whatever charity would be made available to them. 
We are very pleased to see that this legislation specifically and rightly attacks the heart of that attitude. All workers are entitled to the same legal protections as other workers. There should be no discrimination between workers on that basis. The legal protections that we provide in this country for most workers should be applied to all workers and we consider that this legislation is an important step towards that. I have visited community organisations industries and places that are similar to sheltered workshops where the workforce is largely made up of disabled workers and where those people are treated with respect. They are given jobs that are not rubbish jobs but are jobs that help to build their confidence in their skills. They are amazing places where the disabilities of those workers have added to the competitive advantage of the business and their ability if you like is in part what makes that business so profitable and able to maintain its business and get new business. That is a very exciting way of looking at how the different kinds of abilities of lots of different people can contribute to the economy to particular business and industry and to the community as a whole. People with disabilities or people with different kinds of abilities are an asset to our communities not a burden. 
This legislation makes sure that the law provides employment protection for these workers. It is a further step in our view towards eliminating legal discrimination from the labour market. We look forward to other legislation that hopefully will come back to the House this year that does something similar for young workers because in the end if a person is working and doing his or her job that person is entitled to the same legal protections as everyone else. We are very pleased to see this legislation coming through to its final stages in the House and look forward to voting for it at its third reading. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatouiteneiahiahi. As I was doing some research to try to find a lead into this particular legislation I came across a statement made by the president of the New Zealand Wheelchair Tennis team—a lady by the name of Marilyn Stratford—who wrote recently about her life experiences in a way that I believe informs the intent and provisions of the two bills before us this afternoon the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. She said: “If I ask myself did my own disability shape my life I would have to say yes it probably did. Not because I have a problem with it but because other people do. It’s very much that visual thing: they see the disability before they see me.” 
This legislation enables people with disabilities who are employed in sheltered workshops to be seen as employees who have the same conditions rights and entitlements as other people at a comparable level of productivity. They are to be seen as workers rather than as disabled people. The Maori Party believes that in matters of hauora—our health and well-being—it is all about creating the optimum conditions for our full potential to be realised. Given this wider context we are firmly committed to a focus on the determinants of health and well-being including poverty housing income discrimination and the environment. It is a matter of rights and of well-being and a responsibility of good government that opportunities should be provided for disabled people to work in the labour market and to earn and maintain an adequate income. We are therefore happy to support this legislation to repeal the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act of 1960. 
During the course of this legislation we have heard from many sheltered workshops. My colleagues Hone Harawira and Tariana Turia have visited the Abilities Group which takes as its mission the goal of enriching the lives of people with disabilities through meaningful employment. Hone Harawira has also visited Access Ability a private sheltered workshop. We have met with People First DPA IHC Advocacy and New Zealand CCS. We have heard from Te RoopuWaiora Trust a kaupapa Maori disability support group and from Te RoopuTaurima o Manukau the largest residential provider for whanau with learning disabilities. 
In my electorate I know of Te Whare Manaaki i te HungaHaua in Te Teko which was the first kaupapa Maori home providing a base for our disabled people to live an ordinary life in their own community. I know of the work of Te PouWhakaaro in Whakatane which has over 70 percent Maori service users. A centre opened in Kawerau as well which supports our whanau in contributing to their communities through paid work and voluntary work. 
I am sure we all have within our whanau the experience of whanau members living with disability. My own sister Hine lives with us in my home town of Rotorua. She has suffered three strokes over recent years. On a daily basis we admire her as she faces the difficulties of things like memory loss and physical challenge. My sister spent some time in a residential home as she adjusted to the impact of the strokes on her health but as a whanau we were always keen for her to be able to come home and live an ordinary life. It is a worthwhile goal as the National Health Committee report declared to have an ordinary life—kia whaioranganoa. It is a simple wish but the desire for an ordinary life it seems is not one that everyone understands to be such a priority. 
For much of the history of this country people thought that the best way to care for people with disabilities was in institutions separated from their communities and focused on their disabilities with their opportunities defined and restricted by the services they could access. For disabled Maori the marginalisation of being disabled as well as being Maori saw them surrounded by a whole host of professionals but segregated from their marae and whanau and from their right to find real work for real pay. Yet we know the value of whakawhanaungatanga and that the continuation of vital relationships and connections with whanau hapu and iwi provide the ultimate safeguard to our health and well-being. 
Disability rates for Maori adults are higher than disability rates nationally. We know that one-third of Maori aged between 45 and 64 years report a disability compared with one-quarter of the total population in that age group. So there are more of us yet despite having higher rates Maori access disability support services less than any other population group in New Zealand. 
So what do we do with all of this? I like the momentum behind the whakatauaki “He manako te koura e kore ai.”—“Wishful thinking will not get you the crayfish.” We need to have the wish and the vision but we also need to take action to make it happen. So we support the intention to remove provisions in existing legislation that have been regarded by disabled persons as improper and abusive of their human rights. We believe that disabled persons have the right to work and that the repeal of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act is a way of expressing manaakitanga of including disabled persons and their whanau in being able to participate in the community and to be seen as valued and contributing members and of ensuring that the services are aligned to whanau needs rather than driven by the preferences of service providers and policy makers. Supporting the repeal of the Act is in line with our commitment to rangatiratanga—a means to ensure that disabled persons and their whanau are their own experts who should be supported by organisations that employ care and develop them in ways that enhance their lives. 
We know that the requirement for workshops to be commercially viable will create additional pressures that may mitigate against their capacity to be community minded. It is for this reason that we supported the amendment by Dr Paul Hutchison to see whether it was possible to extend the time frame within which the legislation was to be established. We had hoped that with more time all parties could give due consideration to the ways and means of protecting the needs of both those providing the service and those directly affected by this legislation namely the whanau. 
The key issue for us however is how disabled persons and their whanau are able to take up their right to work and to benefit from their due entitlements covered by the Minimum Wage Act 1983 and the Holidays Act 2003. So when the question is put as to whether we support initiatives that can honour minimum wage and holiday provisions we will say we remain fully in support. 
We are pleased that those whose productivity is not sufficient to earn the minimum wage can apply for and be granted a minimum wage exemption permit. We also know from our talks with disabled persons that so many whanau are happy with what we might see as crumbs based on the rationale that if there are no alternatives to the value of work for the sake of work it may mean that individuals put up with conditions that are less than ideal. We know that most of the work obtained by sheltered workshops is of low value with low profit margins and that a comprehensive funding model is essential if we are to transform these workshops into social enterprises that can comply with legislative requirements. So we remind this House that under the existing Act people with a disability are the only people in Aotearoa to whom sweatshop rates can be paid without breaching the law. The low pay has been justified purely and simply on account of their disability—“they see the disability before they see me”—and it has nothing to do with productivity. 
Finally I leave the last word to Carole Williams who has lived with epilepsy and cerebral palsy since having an injury as a baby. She said: “Just being Maori is a good thing which I’m lucky to have … all my whanau around me I love that. I wouldn’t want to be without them. There’s not much I’d swap. I’d swap my body—to have a body that would let me do things—but I wouldn’t ever swap who I am.” This legislation in repealing the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act 1960 enables people like Carole to continue to enjoy being Maori to continue to enjoy her whanau and to continue to enjoy who she is. For those opportunities the Maori Party would not swap anything. Kia ora tatou. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise to support the third readings of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill acknowledging that United Future has not supported every stage of these bills. Our support now is not as someone recently suggested to me because the Government is short of numbers—we are very aware that there is already substantial support for the bills. Our support is because we are now convinced that our earlier concerns have been addressed and that support is morally the right thing to do. 
Our concerns were informed by two groups. Firstly there was lobbying by parents who feared the closure of sheltered workshops and secondly there was concern that there would be a reduction in the number of employers prepared to offer work and opportunities to disabled people. 
I thank the staff and clients at what was the sheltered workshop in my home town of Whakatane. They helped to shape my views so that I could make a clear representation to the United Future caucus on their behalf. I also thank officials from the Minister for Disability Issues Ruth Dyson’s office who have taken time on a number of occasions to answer our questions and concerns. 
We did give serious consideration to an approach by the National Party to support an amendment seeking to delay the commencement of this legislation—I noted that if the starting date was all that could be found at fault with this legislation it was probably all right. We decided not to support the amendment having received assurances from both the Minister’s office and from some providers we talked to that they were already geared up for the changes. 
Clients at the Whakatane centre are enthusiastic about the new directions their lives are already taking. The centre has nearly doubled its client base since the move towards supported employment and participation. New clients stated very passionately to me that the sheltered workshop ethos had stripped them of dignity and gave them no credit for the difference they were well able to make. Now they are supported into mainstream work and community activities and the centre still provides support for those currently requiring more intensive support. 
In Whakatane we had a well-known character called Kura. Kura had an intellectual disability but he would not be part of the sheltered workshop culture. He believed he was capable of more than was on offer so he became our town’s professional busker. He was a colourful character who knew everyone by name and he was no respecter of person or position. Whether a small child or the local mayor Kura was everybody’s friend. He was a talented musician who did very nicely thank you from the proceeds of his busking. When he died several years ago we all mourned his passing. 
Kura was a forerunner for the kind of thinking that this bill enshrines. He did not wait for a change in the law—which was just as well as he did not live long enough to benefit from it. But let me say a word to those who still fear this change. I acknowledge that the thought of having current comfortable arrangements for family members changed is understandably daunting and it is not helpful for those fears to be trivialised by others. The great hope that this bill offers is that future New Zealanders who have additional challenges to overcome can enjoy meaningful employment and participation. I challenge the Minister to ensure that those needing to embrace change are given all the support they need in that transition process. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to speak to the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. As ACT has done from the very beginning of this debate we will oppose this legislation for a number of reasons which I will go into. 
I will start by saying oh for a perfect world where everyone is born equal. Would it not be great if we were all born able-bodied and intelligent and if everybody was able to fill the potential that all parents when their child is first born would love to see. Unfortunately this is not the case. We do not live in a world that is totally fair and much as we would like that to be the case the provisions in this legislation will not address the things that those in favour of it say it will. 
As a physiotherapist in a former life I was quite heavily involved with sheltered workshops. During my training I frequently visited sheltered workshops and as a qualified physiotherapist I was responsible for sometimes going to sheltered workshops and treating people in the course of their daily life there. I visited many times also. Since this legislation was introduced I have also visited many sheltered workshops around the country such as Abilities Group and the workshop that I presume Ms Soper was referring to in her speech Southland Enterprises. They are doing a great deal of very good work. When we look at them very closely and sum them up I think the differences in this legislation as coming from the two sides of the House are that one group of us considers sheltered workshops to be workplaces only—somewhere where people go to conduct business and to work for their employer—but the National Party and the ACT party consider them to be not only that but also organisations that are philanthropic. They provide a service to their communities and also to the families they support. So in this imperfect world where life certainly is not fair I think it is important to consider just what it is that sheltered workshops have done for the disabled people in this country the role they have fulfilled and how in fact they started in the first place and have arrived at the point where they are now. 
Sadly I fear that as a result of the passing of this legislation—and it seems that the numbers are there to pass it—some if not many of these workshops will fold. They do have to run as businesses so that they can continue to operate. Businesses in order to be viable must be able to make ends meet and forcing the minimum wage on to sheltered workshops for their workers will in too many cases force them out of business. 
From both my working experiences and my visiting sheltered workshops I would like to tell the House a bit about what I see when I visit these workers. I see a workforce that is happy that has a purpose for being that has a sense of purpose and that has a real sense of pride. The disabled workers I see at these workshops—which obviously are very different from some that I have just heard described to me—consider themselves to lead an ordinary life. From Monday to Friday they wake up they get themselves out of bed—sometimes with assistance from their family members—they have breakfast and they get dressed for work. They travel to work and for the most part they are excited to be doing that every morning of the week. They look forward to their weekends off because they go about their lives and pursue their recreational activities with their families. But they love getting up every working day Monday to Friday and going off to work. 
The families I have met are also very happy with the current situation. They are pleased because they feel they do have support. We like many other parties have been lobbied hard by the families of these workers—these disabled people. We have been lobbied because they do not want to see a change in the current system. They think it is important that their family members are supported elsewhere not just by themselves and they are happy that they have work to go to. They feel particularly aggrieved that the consultation as they see it was quite clearly inadequate with regard to this legislation. They think that their concerns were listened to far too infrequently and that when they were listened to they were not given serious consideration. 
This legislation is about money. Those on the left of this House for want of a better term frequently accuse other members particularly National and ACT members of considering only money. In this case it is the other side of the House that is considering only money. There is all this talk about a minimum wage and about it not being right that somebody might be on a benefit and be topped up. Those people cannot actually hold down normal jobs; that is the truth of the matter. Their families know this and in many cases the disabled people themselves know this. Productivity is not something that can be turned on and off if someone is disabled. If someone has only one arm that person cannot do the jobs that somebody with two arms can do. These people deserve the right to work as does every other person in a community. They do deserve that and that is what sheltered workshops provide for them. 
This legislation is being discussed in terms of money—in terms of the minimum wage—and it does not address the other things that make up work such as the mental well-being of these disabled people their sense of well-being their happiness and their sense of pride. So what we will have is community participation on this side and work on that side. Which would each and every one of us choose if we were forced to deal with that? For the most part we would choose work and that is what these disabled people and their families want to be able to choose for themselves. 
It is all very well assuming that every single sheltered workshop around the country exploits its workers. They do not. That assumption is quite simply a very sad reflection on society. To compare sheltered workshops as I have heard in this debate and in the previous debate to sweatshops is wrong and very very unfair. No one forces anyone to go a sheltered workshop. It is a matter of choice and it is a matter of choice because the people who go there like the sense of purpose that it provides them with. They like the fact that they enjoy going to work. They like the fact that they are proud of their work and when we visit them they will very proudly show us exactly what it is they do. So ACT opposes the legislation for these very reasons. 
The sad fact is that many of these sheltered workshops will not be able to sustain what they are able to provide to society at the moment. We will see workshops going out of business and folding because it will not be sustainable for them to stay in business. As a result many of these disabled people will not want to be community participants in the way the Minister envisages community participation will help. They want to be workers in a world that provides them with a sense of well-being and a sense of purpose. Sadly I feel that the passing of this legislation tonight in Parliament will achieve none of that. What we will see instead is disabled people who are relegated to a life at home within four walls with very little offered to them. We oppose this legislation on those grounds. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise with the important task of representing along with my colleagues the views of National members in opposing the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. 
The gestation of this legislation has been long and arduous—since 2000 in fact. The philosophy of the Minister in promoting this legislation is sound and well meaning but enactment of the bills may be far from perfect. I desperately want to hope that all the unintended consequences that we fear will not come to pass. I want that hope for the sake of the vulnerable disabled people who will be caught in the crossfire should these unintended consequences come to pass. 
I can understand the impatience of Peter Brown who spoke previously with the process. He wants to get the bill done and dusted. But that may be because he does not share our nervousness about what the implementation of the legislation will mean. I commend Heather Roy’s contribution to the debate mainly because she has real experience to offer. In opposing the legislation she can say that it is because of what she knows and what she has seen. She described happy people with a sense of purpose and pride. You know I want to think that those same people will remain happy and will have that purpose and pride but I am concerned that maybe that will not be the case. 
If the legislation truly intends to achieve a fully inclusive society for disabled people what work has been done to determine conclusively that the unintended consequences will in fact not mean the very opposite—exclusion from society because the legislation is simply unrealistic in its objectives? What work has been done to make sure that more disabled people do not find themselves at home and out of the environment they have come to love and trust? It is telling indeed that the Social Services Committee having examined the legislation was unable to reach agreement or find ways to make it more acceptable through amendments. In my short time as an MP I have not seen a report back from the select committee with so many minority views expressed. 
I have read a time line of the progress of this legislation and it is a sorry tale of stutters along the path. Concerns have been expressed all along by those affected by this legislation. And how many people are affected by the legislation? There are varying estimates but about 3500 individuals are currently in sheltered workshops and there are 43 providers and people who administer them Although the productivity of many of the disabled people is impaired they live for their work in the sheltered workshops. For these people their very self-esteem along with their psychological and physical health is connected to a sense of well-being and belonging. Their work is something that gives their lives meaning and their own particular productivity is about self-worth and self-esteem. 
National believes that the legislation does not give enough consideration to the real threat of closures of sheltered workshops and that no consideration is being given to the costs of community participation. For a number of people the inability to continue to participate in a sheltered workshop or in supported employment will be devastating. I sincerely hope that that will not be the outcome of this legislation because sheltered workshops as I have already said are not just a place of work; rather they provide a caring environment with a range of activities social opportunities educational and creative opportunities and support. These are very very important supports in these people’s lives. 
Those places are not designed to pay all participating people the individual minimum wage. Last night in this debate I was distressed to hear repeated calls from the other side of the House that it is about the minimum wage—that it is about wages and conditions. No it is not; it is about people. What are the associated costs? Well the Government is well used to what the explanatory note describes as transition and management costs. Scores of people are being added to the New Zealand State sector’s burgeoning growth to handle such eventualities. Here we go again. 
Of less importance it seems is the cost to the providers who apparently are wholeheartedly ripping off disabled people. We have heard that these same providers are supposedly undermining and demeaning disabled people. I find that very hard to believe in the majority of cases. Providers will also face some compliance costs the explanatory note tells us. Well MPs on this side of the House are very used to small print that reads like that. We are therefore unsure of the real risks these compliance costs represent to disabled people in the long run and to those who provide for them. 
My colleague Dr Paul Hutchison made some important points that I wish to reiterate. He said that the devil was in the detail and so often that is the case. The length of time this legislation has taken to progress—I formerly described it as a long gestation—is a symptom of the uncertainty about its implementation. Thank goodness the Minister has in part recognised this difficulty by putting out the date of commencement to November this year. Dr Hutchison described to us the inspirational work at Workforce Auckland. The personnel at Workforce Auckland are right to be alarmed. There is still much uncertainty around policy guidelines and the meeting of costs associated with compliance versus implementation. Then we heard about the Abilities Group. The vision of the Abilities Group is to enrich the lives of people with disabilities through meaningful employment. I believe that the people in these groups when they say they are concerned about the legislation are in the right place to express that concern. The extra cost to the Abilities Group has been calculated at $140400 but only $56160 will go to disabled people. Why would that be? Well wait for it: the rest is going to the Inland Revenue Department. 
My colleague Dr Paul Hutchison put out a press release on 28 February and it was interesting to see what resulted from that. He said that there was poor and impractical preparation by the Labour Government which meant there would be difficult times ahead for disabled workers in sheltered workshops. And what happened after he put out that press release? In response Marion Miller said in a press release that parents of people with intellectual disabilities around New Zealand are already feeling the impacts of the proposed legislation. She told us that an obvious disadvantage appearing already is reduced hours of work for disabled people in sheltered employment and more time at home. These people love their time at work but they are spending more time at home. She said that another disadvantage closer to home is her son having to have two productivity assessments in the last 10 months which is a requirement of the legislation. Her own personal belief is that that is an infringement of his rights. 
The Abilities Group responded to Dr Hutchison’s press release as well. It said it supported the intent of the legislation but that the effect of increased wages on invalids benefits on sickness benefits on accommodation allowances and on other entitlements for the disabled had not been adequately researched nor had the necessary additional funding been provided to ensure sheltered workshops could continue to offer jobs to people with disabilities. 
In conclusion I refer to the time line from 2000 to 2007. All along the way concerns have been expressed by the very people who are right in the thick of this—the very people whose family members attend sheltered workshops. I reiterate that it is not the philosophy of not treating disabled people with respect that we are opposing here; it is the potential that the very inclusiveness intended by this legislation will result in these people being excluded from the opportunity it hopes to achieve for them. 
In summary I ask that we record our very real concerns about the unintended consequences resulting in disabled people not gaining what they hope to gain from this legislation. I thank you for hearing me tonight. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to take a short call in support of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. First I want to say that the previous two speakers made it sound as though it was all doom and gloom. I think we need to inject some positivity into this debate because it is not about doom and gloom. I recall quite clearly that leading up to the 1999 election one of our flagship policies was to ensure we supported people with disabilities to participate in mainstream employment wherever possible. I suppose it is to that end that it is fortunate that since the end of 1999 we have had a Government—and in particular in Ruth Dyson a Minister—that is committed to dealing with some of the more difficult issues that people with disabilities face particularly within today’s society. 
I refer to a couple of comments that were made earlier by previous speakers. I note that one of those comments was about us not living in a perfect world. I suppose that that comment was in support of justifying the speaker’s position in opposing this legislation. Well I agree. We do not live in a perfect world and that is even more reason why we should make sure we make this world fair. This legislation attempts to achieve that in two ways. Firstly it attempts to achieve it by ensuring that disabled people are not disadvantaged in the amount of money they get paid for the work they do which basically means that they should be paid no differently from anybody else. The current legislation denies them that right. Secondly—and I think this is the other part of the equation that is quite important—currently they are not entitled to holiday entitlements. That primarily says that if they are not entitled to holiday entitlements then they are not entitled to have a break from work. It is timely that this new legislation in bringing about this change is also offering them the same entitlement as everybody else. 
So I agree that we do not live in a perfect world but it is up to us. It is our responsibility to ensure that people particularly disabled people are able to enjoy the same if not better terms and conditions as we do. 
 The other point the member made was referring to a disabled person’s job meaning that it was not a normal job. How do we measure whether a disabled person does the same job as a normal person? I ask the member whether she considered that her time in the army—6 weeks—should have been part of her normal job. The point I raise is that if the member is willing to give a measure to what a normal job for a disabled person is then that member should expect some criticism in relation to whether she is doing a normal job as an MP. 
It is timely that the legislation we are about to vote on is here for us to do that. It is important that we have that and that we take on the responsibility to ensure that although it is not a perfect world in this case we are making it better for those who are disabled. Kia ora. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time. 
Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of this Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). Part 1 is a substantial part of the bill which the Government has introduced and the National Party is supporting because it is there to encourage New Zealand students overseas to come home. But I must say there are some concerns about it. 
Clearly one of the issues of concern is the database issue. I think that everybody is in agreement that the database is worthwhile and that must be done if we are even to identify the number of students with loans. At the end of last year I understand the ministry had identified only a few thousand students but it had concerns that something like 40000 students were studying overseas. Because of the interest-free loans available to students living here it was not in those students’ interest to declare they were overseas because they would have lost their interest-free status. 
Of course this brings in the whole dilemma of New Zealand’s having introduced a very expensive interest-free loan scheme which costs $1.5 billion a year. The savings on bringing in this bill amount to about $9 million in the first year—2007-08—and I think $24 million the next year. But that amount is dwarfed in comparison with the $1.5 billion that the scheme is actually costing per year. 
I want to spend some time going over the clauses in Part 1 relating to the collection of repayments from overseas-based borrowers and those who are entitled to the 3-year repayment holiday. There are some concerns relating to the signals that such a system sends to the students themselves. These concerns were pointed out by representatives from Business New Zealand who said that the concept of a repayment holiday raises fundamental questions of fairness. Why should borrowers who have left the country effectively be rewarded when those who stay home in New Zealand who are meeting their repayment obligations and making an economic contribution to the country are not rewarded? [ 
Interruption 
] I am not too sure what the Green Party member MetiriaTurei is saying but we are talking about fundamental fairness and systems. 
I think I mentioned last night the point that we here in New Zealand are sorting out a very complex situation that has been imposed by the Government. We can compare ourselves to Singapore for instance. The Singapore Government has just invested $1 billion or more into encouraging elite young science graduates to go overseas to places like Harvard Johns Hopkins University Cambridge University and Oxford University. That Government will require the students to be bonded and if they do not come back to Singapore then they have to pay back their $1 million each. 
The Singapore Government’s reason for doing that is that it is extremely concerned that there be clear rules around whether those students come back. One must be concerned that here this has been a policy very much made on the hoof by the Labour Government to win an election. Now it has to put in machinery that is fair to those students who have gone ahead and paid off their loans here in New Zealand and fair to those students who have gone overseas and been caught up with the problem of repaying the loans. Some of the loans as everybody admits are very onerous to young students at a stage in their lives when hopefully they would be getting on to having jobs forming relationships and maybe later on wanting to save for a house etc. 
So there are a whole lot of conflicting issues here and I think Business New Zealand is absolutely right in saying that from a fundamental fairness point of view and in terms of getting the New Zealand economy going it is very important to be concerned about repayment holiday issues. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I have not yet spoken in this debate on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) during either its first or its second reading. But I suppose I have more than a passing interest in it because I was the original architect of the student loan scheme. We have seen that scheme screwed up and manipulated by politicians over the years since it was first established. 
It makes me think back to the days when I was Minister of Education. Serious international educationalists used to say to me that one of the great tragedies for education was that preschool children do not vote. A very very well known educationalist said that is the great tragedy of education. If we wanted to direct resources to improving New Zealand’s education system directing resources to small children is how we would have by far the most profound impact. The human being among all mammalian species is kind of fascinating in that among all vertebrates it is the only one born with an immature brain. We might have all of the brain cells we will ever have but the connections between them do not exist at that stage. Other vertebrates are born with mature brains. So it is in the early years of a human being’s life that education can have the most profound impact but small children do not vote. Children of the age of 3 do not vote and they do not get the resources. 
Parliament keeps delivering more and more resources to the people on whom education has the least impact—the oldest ones whose brains have been predetermined long before the resources are delivered to them. But these older people vote. So at the last election we saw this massive bribe from Labour; it offered $1.5 billion to buy the student vote. 
Today we work on this legislation to try to make sure that it does not have too many anomalies in it. National supports this bill because we believe that it is important to try to make sure there are no barriers preventing educated New Zealanders from coming back to our country. 
I want to ask the Minister of Revenue a couple of serious things about Part 1 and particularly about new sections 89 through to 91 in Part 8—the “fresh start for certain borrowers”. Why was it decided to treat those who are honest about the fact they were overseas in exactly the same way as those who are dishonest about that fact? As I look at the examples given following new section 91 of Lenore and Keith it seems that one of those people was honest about being off overseas and the other one was not. Yet with this legislation we are treating them in exactly the same way. I am interested in why we would choose to treat those who are honest about being overseas in the same way as those who are dishonest. 
More important perhaps is the latest information I have on the borrowers who registered under the amnesty to take advantage of some of these provisions. As of 27 November last year of the 40000 New Zealand graduates believed to be offshore 765 had taken advantage of the amnesty. Presumably there is an update on that figure. Each year we are losing to Australia over 22000 New Zealand residents many of whom are graduates. That massive exodus of New Zealanders to Australia is something that should be troubling us as well. Although we hope this legislation will have significant impact as of the end of last year it appeared that only a few hundred New Zealand graduates offshore were registering to take advantage of that amnesty. 
National members are supporting the legislation but it would be interesting for the Committee to know from the Minister in the chair the answers to those questions. Why was it decided to treat the honest and the dishonest in the same way? Even more important than that what is the latest update on the 40000 graduates believed to be offshore at the moment? We were advised that 765 people had taken advantage of the amnesty as at 27 November last year. Now about 4 months later presumably there is an updated figure on that. It would help us to know how effective this legislation will be. I understand that the legislation now extends the amnesty for a further 12 months to try to give the chance for it to be more effective. It would be worthwhile hearing from the Minister just how effective it is proving to be because 765 is less than 1 percent of the total opportunity out there. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is an honour to follow such a learned member as the Hon Lockwood Smith the architect of the student loan scheme who gave us those expressions of experience. 
In dealing with Part 1 of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) I will concentrate on a range of things: the repayment obligations from the point of view of an overseas-based borrower; the clarification of what the term “charities” refers to; the extension of exemptions as far as overseas education goes; the reduction in the penalty rates which were 2 percent and have now been reduced to 1.5 percent; the adjustments in respect of the collection of small amounts of money or “trivial” amounts as they are referred to; the circumstances for appealing to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue on the grounds of hardship; the responsibility of someone who has received exemption because of hardship to report when those circumstances change; and the situation where one sets up an arrangement but breaches the amnesty and the effects of that. 
What will probably draw most people’s attention to Part 1 is the holiday provision. From a pretty basic point of view this provision was required to allow the organisations involved to get the process into order. In actual fact the process has been running for some period of time. Now there will be an extension which will no doubt allow more people to try to get their house in order and set about repaying their student loan. 
I take this opportunity while we are referring to Part 1 to say to the member from the Green Party who constantly refers to people having their educations paid for them that from my position in life many many thousands of people in New Zealand left school and started working for a living paid a lot of money to do that and did not have the benefit of being able to access a student loan to get higher-level training. 
I strongly urge members of the public if they are listening at the moment to think very seriously about just which stream of education they take so that they do not end up having spent enormous amounts of money—which absolutely shocks me at times—for very little value. If there is one step that I would like us to take in terms of student loans it is to get better information to parents and children so that they can make better decisions. 
There are a lot of technical changes in Part 1 which I have referred to. Probably the most important change would be the repayment obligations of an overseas-based borrower. We see in new section 34(4) in Part 1 that if $15000 is owed the repayment obligation is $1000 “for each full tax year during which the borrower is overseas”. It goes up from there. There is no perfect model; as soon as someone is a bit over that $15000 the sum is $2000 and as soon as someone is over $30000 the sum goes up to $3000. I have no argument with that. I think it is clear and understandable; it needs just to be picked up and run with. 
I believe that it is very very important in the whole context of things that there is information sharing and that the Inland Revenue Department can receive information from the Customs Service because as has been pointed out a lot of people have been overseas. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I do not think that we want to spend a great deal of time going over all the detail in this legislation; it has been traversed. But I think it is an opportunity to explain some of the issues that this bill brings to bear. 
I start off by talking about the charities part of the legislation in the new section 38AEA inserted by clause 12 which the previous speaker Mr Colin King talked about. What the bill does—in fact this was inserted through the select committee process—is to actually apply the criteria that were adopted in 1978 by Cabinet about what charitable donee status is. So in other words if somebody goes overseas the interest-free loan still applies to that person if he or she is working in a charitable organisation. But unfortunately that included for example people working as proselytisers or preachers going out and trying to get adherents for a particular religion—as distinct from somebody who for example was working as a teacher in a Seventh-Day Adventist school overseas or working on a project to build a hall or classrooms etc. So this bill clarifies that if someone is doing one of the latter then he or she falls into the charitable donee status and therefore he or she has an interest-free loan while he or she is overseas doing those things. But people donning a white shirt and tie running around the roads and knocking on doors with a Bible under their arms unfortunately do not fall into that status. The Education and Science Committee and certainly New Zealand First totally agree with that. 
This part brings in the 3-year repayment holiday. That really is the crux of the whole issue because even prior to the interest-free loans there was a real problem with people going overseas and not understanding their obligations. They go to come back and whoops-a-daisy find that not only interest but a whole lot of penalty payments have been put on top of their loans as well. With the interest-free loans that applies only to people who stay in New Zealand not to people who go off overseas with the exception of the charitable donees. So people believe that they can go off overseas and they do not have to pay interest. The problem is that not only do they have to pay interest—I think it was one-fifteenth but it has now changed to the figures mentioned before—but they then get clobbered with the penalties. So when it comes time to come back their loans are much much larger because of that and there is a disincentive to return to New Zealand. 
So this says that people can go off overseas and that there will be interest on their loans but they will not be required to make any repayments. People picking fruit in North Viet Nam for example and earning 1000 dong per day will not be able to make repayments as was required under the past system—however they are getting a great deal of experience etc. They will not have to make repayments but the interest will be accruing. That really is the crux of it because as New Zealand First has said time and time again the best immigrant is a New Zealander returning home. We want those young people to come back home with the experience that they have gained while they were overseas. 
Paul Hutchison talked about Business New Zealand. It asked why we made it different—the changes really create an incentive to go off overseas. I think it failed to understand the difference between those who go off overseas who still have to pay some sort of interest rate and those who stay behind who do not. So in fact the incentives are really to stay in New Zealand under the system that exists. Also there was another proposal that we should have an income-related formula that depends upon where people work. I ask members whether they can imagine 140 or 150 different countries trying to gain information as to what people earned in those countries and then relating them to income limits back here in New Zealand. It would be completely and utterly unworkable so New Zealand First does not support that. 
The only other issue was really the interest-free loans for borrowers studying full-time overseas at an undergraduate level. A number of the submitters to the bill got the idea that if they went across and did postgraduate level study they could utilise the New Zealand loan scheme. In fact they were wrong. Last night I praised the officials because the officials I believe went out of their way and made the effort to go out and meet up with those people and groups in order to ensure that they actually fully understood. So I take my hat off to the officials because I think they went beyond the call of duty. 
Finally the last thing is that the application of care and management is a fundamental Inland Revenue Department principle; it does not apply to students. When the Inland Revenue Department has mucked up and got the thing wrong there should not be a penalty against the student who carries a loan. That principle is now to be applied to students under student loans and that is a good thing. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 National is supporting this bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) but that is not to say that National members do not have some reservations about it or points that we would like to make. It is very important that the incentive is there for our young graduates to return to New Zealand—that is a point that has been made by speaker after speaker—but let us be very very clear about what this legislation is all about. 
I must say that it is better legislation for the work that was done in the select committee under Mr Donnelly’s leadership. The legislation is quite complex and the work that the select committee did has improved this bill considerably. Let us be very clear that what we are dealing with is a tidying-up of a bit of a mess which came about not because the policy of interest-free student loans was carefully considered and thought through—and a judgment was reached that this was actually something that New Zealand would want to do should do and needed to do—but because it was a policy rushed out 2 weeks or 10 days before an election in order to buy votes. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Just before your tax cuts. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I listened to the interjection from the member of New Zealand First Brian Donnelly and I will reflect for a moment on a meeting I had the other day in my electorate of Tamaki with half a dozen mums and dads who between them—each family—are working three or four low-paid jobs just to keep their heads above water get their children to school get them school uniforms and that sort of thing. The point that these people made to me was very simple; they said they were taxpayers and they did not wish to be dependants of the State but they were finding that the more they worked and took on extra jobs to help their kids—yet they knew they were not because it meant they were away from them so much more—the more heavily they were penalised by tax. Their plea to me was to advocate for a flat tax rate—and these are some of the lowest-paid workers in New Zealand! 
I want to express the wish that those borrowers who benefit now from the holiday on repayment and that sort of thing will actually take a moment to respect that this comes at a cost and that other New Zealanders—many of them who are not in a position to do so and many of them who would like to take more responsibility for their families than they can—are actually paying taxes so that this can work. I come to the repayment holiday period for people who are overseas and if I could send a message to those graduates it would be that they should respect what this House is doing to assist them and realise that it is in their best interests to pay back the money. If they borrow money then they should pay it back; they do not earn a lot of respect from their fellow New Zealanders by taking the money and then seeking ways of avoiding paying it back. I would urge those young New Zealanders who are considering taking the holiday to contemplate whether it would not be better for them and better for their fellow New Zealanders if they made every effort to continue paying back their loans. 
We hear a lot from young people today about the hardships of loans and of going to university. I have four young adult children all of whom are either at university or have gone through university and graduated so I understand as well as anybody the challenges and the difficulties. But it was actually no easier in my time. In actual fact I would have had more options available to me had a student loan – type scheme been operating. So it is important to keep this sort of thing in context. 
National supports this bill but National members are a little bit uncomfortable about having to tidy up what we think is untidy legislation. We want young New Zealanders to come back but we also want borrowers to respect the contribution that their fellow New Zealanders—taxpayers—are making. Borrowers should bear in mind that there is a group of New Zealanders out there who really struggle to make ends meet who pay their taxes honestly who do not want to live off the State and who want to get a fair break for their children. The taxes that those New Zealanders are paying—some of which will contribute towards this measure—will actually mitigate against their ability to do that. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to speak again on Part 1 which is the major part of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). I certainly reiterate the point made by Allan Peachey. It is very important to make sure that young people understand the basic signals and disciplines required to get on in life. It was interesting to hear Brian Donnelly say that a lot of students went off overseas and did not understand their obligations. The technical term for that is denial—selective denial. Certainly I was aware of friends and relatives of mine and my children who slipped off overseas and had a great old time but they were in denial of the very serious obligations they had. 
When we think about what the student loan scheme was initiated for it was all about giving more New Zealanders the opportunity of a university or tertiary education. That is a great privilege and it carries with it a variety of obligations. Of course during the decade from the 1990s until now we have more than doubled the number of New Zealanders who participate in tertiary education. That is a great and wonderful thing and it has been right across the board in terms of all socio-economic areas and ethnicities. I think that is tremendous. 
When I was at Otago University I was told that fewer than 0.05 percent of the students down there were Maori. As I understand it the figure is now about 7 to 8 percent which is a wonderful thing. Hopefully that will be doubled in the next 10 or 15 years which will bring it up to about proportion and it may treble over the next 10 years. If we could have afforded as a country to allow a completely free tertiary education system that would be great but this is one of the ways we have got there. 
The thing we have to balance of course is the very point that in Australia where many of our young students go to work the average wage was 22 percent greater than New Zealand’s in 1999 and now 7 years later after a Labour Government the average wage in Australia is 35 percent higher than it is in New Zealand. The quid pro quo of this bill as pointed out by some of my colleagues and by Business New Zealand is that we have to inculcate disciplines and appropriate realisations that there are obligations to go with this wonderful privilege of access to tertiary education. 
One of the points that Lockwood Smith made was the difficulty of the signal between someone who declared themselves as non-resident and someone who said: “Oh well I’ll just nip over there and hope the hang that the IRD don’t find me.” One of the unfortunate realities of the amnesty situation is that in the end the person who is honest does not get any greater benefit than the person who is dishonest. Hopefully the Government will go to a great deal of effort to make sure that from when this legislation comes into place people are much more aware of their obligations and the extent to which their loans can build up so rapidly once they get on to penalties. 
I note again that the Government is changing the penalty rate from 2 percent down to 1.5 percent. Indeed 2 percent is a pretty hefty amount but it is what those out there in the commercial world have to pay—for example it is what the young sharemilker who was being talked about earlier on has to pay for his herd if he gets behind in his repayments. It is pretty hefty. One would think that a university student would hopefully have the nous to be able to find out what the consequences are of not paying back a penalty regime. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 First I thank the members who have contributed to the debate so far. They have raised a number of interesting points and I want to respond to as many of them as I can in the time available to me. 
The first point of substance raised related to the question of why the bill penalises the honest. I think Dr Hutchison answered that question in his last contribution when he referred to the “unfortunate realities” of this bill. That is the truth. Wherever we draw the line there will be people who fall either side of it. 
The reality we face and what drove this legislation was the recognition that significant numbers of young New Zealanders were living overseas for a variety of reasons. Some were on their classic OE some had a fear of returning and some had no intention of returning. But for a number of them the meter was ticking in regard to their student loan indebtedness. The reality they all faced was a very massive debt upon their return to New Zealand which in some cases would be enough for them to make the decision not to come home at all and our country would be the loser. 
We needed to take a pragmatic way through this and being someone who places great virtue on pragmatism it struck me that the logical course of action was to derive the solution that we have: to extend the holiday period for 3 years recognising the fact that young New Zealanders take that extended period overseas; to have better tracking at the border of where people actually are through the procedures contained in the bill to match immigration data and student loan data; and to rule that in that 3-year period when interest will accrue to their accounts the penalties that hitherto have applied will not apply so that when they come back to New Zealand they start paying their loan plus accumulated interest. 
A question was raised earlier about how many people we are talking about. It has certainly been estimated that potentially around 40000 students are living overseas at the moment. Reference was made to the fact that some 765 people had entered into voluntary arrangements. That figure was given at the end of last year. I am not in a position to update that figure for this simple reason: we never actively pursued those people. So the people who declared themselves in this category did it out of the goodness of their own hearts and their own sense of integrity and conscience. 
Through the mechanisms contained in this bill we will now be in a position to pursue much more actively those students who are overseas. We will certainly be making contact with their parents and with their flatmates at their last known points of abode in New Zealand to make sure that we can send information to these students about what this bill means for them and the responsibilities it imposes upon them. 
One or two speakers have referred to the issue of students working overseas for charitable organisations. We have applied the same definition of charitable organisation and charitable status as applies generally in regard to donee status. It is quite a tight test and I should tell the Committee that whenever an organisation is recommended it is actually considered by the Inland Revenue Department and a formal process that goes right through to Cabinet approval of those organisations ensues. We are always trying to make sure that the genuine get through. Once the registration process of charities under the Charities Act is completed—which is a separate issue—the process will be all that much more rigorous. 
The final point that a number of speakers have commented on is the issue of obligations. There are obligations here. I think it is absolutely correct to say to students that this is not a free lunch that although they are being given the opportunity to have that traditional overseas experience for a New Zealander for up to 3 years they will still be incurring some obligations. They need to know what those obligations are and that we expect them to meet them. 
This bill is designed to strike a fair balance between the obligations and the overseas experience. The situation we have at the moment of students simply finding it easier to escape and become refugees is clearly unacceptable. This bill strikes a reasonable balance and I am grateful for the support that members have shown on that point this evening. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to other enactments 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of this Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). This part deals in particular with the issues around data matching and the disclosure of arrival and departure information for the purposes of the Student Loan Scheme Act 1992. 
I note that efforts have indeed been made to ensure that the amount of information given to customs officers is limited. New section 280H(4) which is inserted by clause 36 states: “If the Customs has arrival or departure information relating to a borrower the Chief Executive may for the purpose of this section supply to the Commissioner any of the following … (a) the borrower’s name: (b) the borrower’s date of birth: (c) the borrower’s tax file number: (d) the time and date on which the borrower arrived in or as the case may be departed from New Zealand.” But the provision goes on to state in new section 280I(3): “In accessing a database for the purpose of this section the Commissioner—(a) may only search for arrival or departure information relating to pre-selected borrowers who are of interest to the Commissioner; and (b) must not search for—(i) any information other than arrival or departure information; or (ii) any information about a person who is not a borrower.” 
In looking through the submissions on this bill from the New Zealand Law Society I noted that although on the one hand the society commented that this was a very complex bill and that the complexity of the repayment holiday and amnesty provisions was extremely difficult to follow and put into practice on the other hand with regard to data matching the society said that the bill did indeed allow only limited data to be shared between the Inland Revenue Department and the New Zealand Customs Service. It said that it was desirable to allow the Inland Revenue Department access to immigration records—in and out of New Zealand by borrowers—and that it was also desirable to have a limited form of data match to ensure as best as possible that the correct individuals were identified. 
The Law Society went on to say that the provisions around data matching are certainly appropriate. That can be reassuring to those civil libertarians who may be concerned that other inappropriate data is being checked up on at the same time. It is certainly reassuring to students who might have fears that they will be set upon by a border guard or dog and taken into custody or something similar. No such thing will happen— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: That’s our next one. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Oh that is the next one is it—the trained beagles that then go on to something more sinister? Certainly students can be reassured that this provision is only for the purposes of identification and to ensure that the loan system works as well as possible. 
We have only to reiterate that the initial reason for this legislation was that there were incentives for borrowers to go overseas and not to declare that they had an interest-free loan. They would not be charged interest if they went overseas and did not declare it but if they did declare it they would be charged interest. It seems as if all the 15 submitters and pretty well all the parties in Parliament are comfortable with this data-matching system. 
I guess the area we feel somewhat uncomfortable about is the fact that on the one hand the Government is saying that this might save us $24 million a year but on the other hand there is a real basic cost of this scheme to New Zealand in terms of its priorities. Of course that was identified by the OECD report into tertiary education in New Zealand. OECD officials described much of our system as being wonderful and having its own unique features. But in terms of prioritising when there was a limited amount of money to spend on education they questioned whether having this scheme was the right thing to do. Of course one has to be sceptical about the Labour Government putting this in as an election bribe. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is nice to speak to Part 2 of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). Yes following on from my highly valued colleague Dr Paul Hutchison I agree that this part is about the data match and how the mechanisms are consistent so as to be able to make this scheme work. I found it very interesting that such a low number had taken advantage of the provision to come clean and acknowledge their responsibilities. The Minister stood up and acknowledged that barely 800-odd people last year had done that. I will certainly be looking forward to a lot more of them doing that. Again speaking for those people who have not had the privilege of going to university and having to pay for everything I take quite seriously some of the ramifications that could arise. So when we look at what is proposed in Part 2 we see that it is quite concise and clear again. However there will have to be an education programme because I am sure that although we are aware of where we are at this stage and time in this Chamber a lot of people are still beavering about their business totally unaware of what we are trying to achieve here—that is the best of both worlds and a balance of what is fair and reasonable. So let us hope we do get some traction around people signing up. We can say that we are talking about thousands of people. I am sure that those people who are overseas enjoying that 3-year holiday will continue to do so as is the tradition. 
When looking at Part 2 we can see that it does impact on a number of other Acts of Parliament. There is of course the Customs and Excise Act of 1996. Well it had to be that Act because we need to have that data match and we have to have some structure so that there will be some comfort that the information being shared is fit for purpose that the situation is not being abused and that there is clear understanding that the information being handed over is appropriate. We can see that specified in new section 280H of the Customs and Excise Act inserted by clause 36. Effectively the information covers the name the date of birth the tax file number and the time and date on which the borrower arrives in or as the case may be departs from New Zealand. There has to be a written agreement that that information has been requested. 
However there is a lot more to the part than just that. There are also some levels of delegated authority and information as to where that delegated authority is required—because the old commissioner would be run off his legs would he not with the thousands of people who are going to register and come clean with the money they owe? The commissioner is able to delegate that authority although the record must be kept and the person who accesses that information must use a register. The register will carry the name of the person the reason for accessing the database and the identity of the persons who access the database and their reasons why. 
I must admit that generally speaking I am very satisfied with the process. I must say to the Committee that it was a pleasure to deal with the Inland Revenue Department because it saw clear lines of accountability. It was not mixed up with some of that fuzzy thinking that comes out of “those people should get this” or “should get that”. It seemed to relate quite well to an old shearer who got paid only for what he did. If he owed some money he paid his bills. 
 I turn back to the consideration of the Chairperson and his thought about the best way forward for this bill. I would like to draw to the attention of members on the Government side of the Chamber that other steps have been taken to wipe off the penalties on childcare payments. It concerns me hugely that we could be taking another step towards that ultimate outcome and I would be very very disappointed if in actual fact we got to the stage of offering to young people the grandest of opportunities of going to the most highly esteemed learning institutions in our country and we have to wipe off those student loans. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 There is a slightly unfortunate assumption that all of these students who are going off overseas are university graduates but of course that is not the case. Many of these students going off are at the other end of the tertiary education spectrum. They may be people for example who have dropped out of year 12 of their schooling because they are not having great success there and they have gone off to their local polytech and done an acting course or something have not necessarily completed it and have ended up with a $10000 student loan. We have to recognise that people with student loans are not all professional graduates who can possibly go across to England and get some pretty good money. That is the first thing. 
This part is the second part of the quinella and it actually makes the whole thing work. It works for all parties; it works for the Government the taxpayers and the Inland Revenue Department. It ensures that we do not have people taking off overseas with no one knowing they are there so they are not paying any interest because it is assumed that they are still in New Zealand. It is fair on the taxpayer that the provisions for those who go off overseas are in fact applied to those people who go off overseas. But the provisions are also an advantage to those who go off overseas and inadvertently do not realise that they are leaving obligations behind them. We had a submission through the Education and Science Committee from someone who had done exactly that and who thought that the income limits that applied in New Zealand also applied when someone was off overseas. Unfortunately that person came back to a very hefty loan. 
So New Zealand First believes that data matching is essential and certainly through the select committee process we questioned very very hard to make sure that it was to be used for only the purpose it should be used for. The provision for data matching is very tight and I think everyone recognises that it is tight and that there is no opportunity for the information to be used for a variety of other reasons. In fact the select committee went so far as to check out what would happen with the information once a person was back in New Zealand and had paid off his or her loan. There was an expectation and a principle explained to us that the records would then be destroyed. Certainly New Zealand First members believe it is only fair and reasonable that information used for the purpose it is needed to be used for should then no longer be kept and be open to misuse. However we believe it is necessary to have this particular measure if we want to have the whole system to operate. Therefore we believe as I say that it is the second part of the quinella and without this part we do not get the big prize that we are aiming for out of this legislation. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). This is the part of the bill that as the previous speaker said makes it work. We are under no illusions about this at all; what we are dealing with here is an election bribe. I want to pick up on an interjection that Mr Donnelly of New Zealand First made when my colleague Paul Hutchison was speaking. There is no way that attention can be diverted from the actual intent that the Labour Government had with this legislation by describing a tax cut as a bribe. One cannot and does not bribe people with their own money. If there are people in this Chamber who have that view then I would very very strongly suggest that they think about the nature of representative government and the purpose of taxation and consider very very carefully the morality and the integrity of a Government that collects huge sums of money off hard-working New Zealanders to keep in the fighting chest to buy an election. 
The bill will not work without Part 2. It is important to deal with the issue of data matching. It is important to be able to match details of departures from New Zealand with arrivals. It is important that those people with student loan obligations get the message from Part 2 that the House is serious and that there is a determination to make this work. There are all the protections that are needed to protect the privacy and rights of individuals because access to the data is limited and for a specific purpose. It is fair and the protections are reassuring. Again I think Part 2 reflects the excellent work done by the Education and Science Committee in preparing the bill to come back to the House. 
In that regard I would like to join my colleague Colin King in paying tribute to the officials of the Inland Revenue Department. On the Education and Science Committee we deal with so much woolly stuff particularly in the education sector—less so in the science sector—and it is very very frustrating to sit there week after week trying to get to the nub of an issue and trying to get officials to get straight to the point and get rid of the “if onlys” the “buts” and “on the other hands” and all the rest of it. To be working with officials who got straight to the point were clear precise exact and unequivocal was certainly—for me—most refreshing. If that sort of culture and attitude could be inculcated in some of the other ministries we find ourselves dealing with on that select committee that would be refreshing as well. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I will begin by thanking members who have expressed admiration for the contribution of officials. I work with these officials on a daily basis and I thoroughly concur with the sentiments that have been expressed. We are very well served by our Inland Revenue Department policy people and their ability to go to the heart of complex issues and provide relatively clear solutions is I think unparalleled. So I appreciate the support that members from around the Chamber have given to them this evening. 
I also acknowledge the work that the Education and Science Committee did—in particular the Hon Brian Donnelly as chair—in dealing with an issue that by its own admission was a little bit outside the norm. I think the committee has done a good job and I am very grateful for the amendments that it has written into the bill. 
I want to pick up on the question that has been raised by some speakers about the disclosure regime in the bill—the data matching and the very tight way in which it has been drawn. That is highly deliberate. The Tax Administration Act and the Income Tax Act have very tight provisions about access to taxpayer information and most of that power resides in the commissioner. As Minister I have very limited ability to access anyone’s tax details and that is entirely as it should be. So when this provision was being drafted it was critical that it was described in such a way that the information being collected about individuals was relevant only to the issue at hand and did not allow people to go on a wider fishing expedition to see what else those individuals had lurking in the background. 
I think Mr King made reference to the child support scheme. I should just foreshadow that we are looking at a similar data-matching arrangement in respect of child support to help us better match some of those people who are overseas with obligations that are outstanding—people whom we are not getting our hands on at the moment. I stop the analogy at that point because Mr King did express a concern that we might end up writing off large amounts of student loan debt in the way we are alleged to be doing in regard to child support. I tell members that in the area of child support we are saying that if people enter into arrangements to repay we will look to writing off a portion of the penalty provision of their debt rather than their actual principal. What we are saying here in regard to student loans is that we want people to enter into a voluntary arrangement with us to disclose and we want them to take the holiday. At that point they will then become absolved of penalties for that 3-year period but the interest payments will still apply to the loan and will need to be repaid once they return to New Zealand. So it is a different arrangement from the child support regime but it does have the similarity of putting the onus on to in this case the borrower—and in that case the liable parent—to meet his or her responsibilities. 
This picks up a theme mentioned by speakers in the earlier debate. There is a balance between rights and responsibilities in this whole area. We do acknowledge the ability and the wish of young people to be able to travel and not be encumbered by debt. At the same time we expect them to recognise their responsibilities. The mechanisms here with regard to the data match in particular will make it easier for us to track where they are so that they simply do not escape the coop altogether—as they are doing in too many numbers today. Again as I said at the beginning it is a pragmatic outcome it is one that will work and I am grateful for the support members have given it tonight. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak on the title and commencement of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). We have heard that all the major parties of Parliament are in agreement that it is appropriate to get this bill through the House. We have heard that the Education and Science Committee members worked well together under the chairmanship of the Hon Brian Donnelly and we have also heard that the Inland Revenue Department has been very forthcoming in being open and helpful towards fixing this very very complex tangle that the Labour Government has got itself into with regard to having brought in interest-free student loans. 
One might ask what other names we could we call this bill. Maybe we could call it the “Labour Government (Let Us Dream up Another Complex Bureaucratic Fix to Our Election Bribe) Bill” or maybe we could call it the “When You Sin by Bribing It Will Come Back to Bite You Bill”. There is no doubt that the title “Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2)” does not convey the complexity of the bill. I think it is worthwhile to again point out the complexity created by the Labour Government’s machinations in order to get into power. 
What did the Law Society say? Its submission has a section headed “Complexity of the Repayment Holiday and Amnesty Provisions”. In it the society states: “The provisions of the bill that provide for a borrower’s entitlement to a 3-year holiday and in particular the way the amnesty eligibility ties in with that entitlement are unnecessarily complex.” The society goes on to state: “A review of the provisions proposed for Part 9 of the Act shows that borrowers who are wishing to ascertain their amnesty and/or repayment holiday entitlement will be required to work their way through a series of cross-referenced and complex provisions in the Act.” It notes further: “…this complexity may be a barrier to borrowers being able to simply and with certainty ascertain their entitlement to amnesty and/or a repayment holiday.” 
So it certainly seems as though the Labour Government true to form has once again woven a tangled web of highly complex bureaucratic arrangements. I hope that the Minister Peter Dunne will take a call later on and explain to the Committee what he intends to do to ensure that the amnesty arrangements and the provisions for extension are clearly made public and clearly made understandable to future student borrowers. 
We have this major problem in New Zealand of a diaspora of 1 million and for a population of 4 million that is fairly extensive. I understand that perhaps even more serious is the fact that our diaspora of postgraduates is something like 10 times the number of Australian postgraduates who are overseas. That is the reason National is supporting this bill. Despite its complexity and the machinations of the Labour Government to stay in power etc. we are concerned about our students. We want our brightest and best to come back to New Zealand to live and to have highly productive lives here rather than live overseas. There is no doubt that the basic thrust of this legislation is indeed to encourage our students who have gone overseas to come back here to New Zealand. 
But I think we must not forget that this bill is the result of consequences of actions taken by the Labour Government to stay in power. Organisations like Business New Zealand have pointed out as well that this bill certainly is not perfect in any way. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 In speaking to the title I say that the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) could be called quite a number of things. As my most valuable colleague Dr Paul Hutchison has alluded it could be called the “Database Matching Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill” or it could be the “Evidence-based Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill”. It could even be the “Poor Choice of Education Student Loan Amendment Bill” or the “Poorly Supported Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill”. I certainly hope the bill is not given that last title because we do want to see a strong uptake on this. As citizens of New Zealand we want to see the thousands of people who have student loans take up this scheme. 
As my learned colleague and chair of the Education and Science Committee has corrected me—and I stand corrected—a number of shearers did theatrical training with student component funding and I can say that it did help their footwork; they were very good. But it did make the instructor scratch his head at times and think on what planet was the person who advised the young adult to take it up and spend that money. I would like to think that there has been a lot more maturing of thinking around the value of tertiary education in the last 10 years and that in actual fact people are making better choices today. I think that another title we could probably give to the bill is the “Final Solution Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill”. On that basis I want to say how much of a pleasure it has been to work with the select committee on this bill. 
It is interesting to note that those people who have an obligation to repay a student loan and who have been overseas since the provision for interest-free loans was rolled out by the Labour Government—as my colleague Dr Hutchison has so accurately informed me it was an election bribe—have cost the country $143 million. This is from the time when it was signalled that there was to be an interest-free loan provision providing one stayed at home and committed oneself to this nation. There could be another title and it is possibly the foundations of a policy that I might take from New Zealand First—the “Best Immigrant Who Ever Comes Home is a New Zealand Citizen Bill”. It could also be called the “New Zealand Citizen (Return Home) Bill”. 
However whatever it is called I hope it does not become the beginning of a very long and drawn-out saga of disappointments and utter failure. I am quite confident it will not because what I have seen around this student loan scheme stuff is that $1 billion has been written off in bad debts. With the way it is going by 2014 or 2015 we will have something like $12.7 billion of debt. So I would not like to see that included in the title in any way. 
In fact student debt is growing at an alarming rate of $66 million a year. When we look at the total outstanding loan balance—which would not be a very nice title for the bill—we see that it is forecast to increase at an average of 5 percent a year. That 5 percent a year on the total is $526 million a year. In terms of the title of this bill there is an enormous amount of expectation from those of us who have been fortunate enough not to have to go to university and suffer some of the failures of education. We hope that those students who avail themselves of a 3-year repayment holiday do so fully informed. As they learn to access all the in-depth research process and structure around getting a PhD in something we hope that they know how to pay their loan back. 
I do not have a lot more to add but I have been very blessed with the privilege of being able to have my say on behalf of those without student loans who are doing their utmost to be successful and to pay our taxes. I am sure as my information tells me that for those with loans the fact that they have a loan does not stop them from doing an awful lot regardless of what they owe. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand up and talk on the title of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). Any bill that contains the words “student loan scheme” followed by the word “amendment” in the title will under a Labour-led Government be a good bill. This bill is absolutely no exception. 
We have heard some interesting contributions on the title. Maybe we could call this bill the “Student Loan (Does Anyone on the Other Side of the Chamber Remember It Was Actually the National Party that Brought in this Scheme) Bill” the “Student Loan (Continuing to Clean up the Muck-ups of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith) Bill” the “Student Loan (Labour Government Continues to Improve the Onus on Student Loan Borrowers) Bill” or anything like that. I very distinctly have the impression that a lot of new National members have forgotten the history of their own party the role it played in the student loan scheme and the incredibly unfair conditions it placed on the young graduates of New Zealand. Apart from the fact that we now no longer know whether National members support this bill maybe we could call the bill the “Student Loan (Will the National Party Keep Labour’s Policy of Interest-free Student Loans?) Bill”. There is silence absolute silence. There was raucous debate then suddenly there is silence when we ask National members what their policy actually is on this bill. 
This is a very good bill and the title accurately reflects that. I agree that this bill should be brought through the House quickly so that we can get the benefit from it as soon as possible and we can make sure that our graduates who are overseas for 3 years will be able to have a repayment holiday while they are there. That will give them the incentive to let the Inland Revenue Department know that they are going overseas. Overall this is the kind of bill that will bring our graduates home to New Zealand. 
National members are all getting very raucous now. Once again I ask them whether they will keep Labour’s policy of interest-free student loans. Will they keep Labour’s policy of interest-free student loans? No. The National members say that it was a bribe but that their policy of spending $7 billion on tax cuts was not a bribe. They say that no that was fine because it was giving people their money back. Of course the National Party records and measures everything in terms of money and wealth. If one is rich one is worth something and if one is not then one is not. We in the Labour Party and in those parties that are supporting this bill believe that policies like this do the entire country good. Policies like this help our families our graduates— 
Simon Power 
: The Labour Party knows what’s best for everybody. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well this is great. I look forward to Simon Power turning up at the university he went to and paying back the 75 percent that the Government paid for him to go to university. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Despite the member’s lack of humility she might be interested to know that I was the first member of Parliament to arrive in this House with a student loan—to the sum of $27000. So she cannot tell me that I am unaware of what is going on and should be repaying my loan. She can be assured that I paid back my loan in full with interest. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: As the member well knows that was not a point of order. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: In true Simon Power style he did not actually listen to what I said which was not that he did not have a student loan or did not pay it back but was that the Government actually provided a large proportion of his tuition fees. I was inviting Simon Power who had suggested that maybe the Government should not be involved to go ahead and repay the money the Government had paid— 
Simon Power 
: Where did the member go skiing when she was at university? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I have never been skiing. I invite the member to pay back that money if he thinks that no tax should be taken and that tax is not worthy in this country. He can pay that money back. I am sure the Hon Dr Michael Cullen will be happy to receive his cheque. 
The member also brought up another very interesting National Party attitude towards students which is that they all take out their student loans so that they can go on ski holidays. It might surprise Simon Power to know that a large number of students actually use their student loans to pay for fees rent and the cost of living. Although I suspect that it is National-supporting students and Young Nats who take out all that money to pay for such things as ski holidays I can assure him that the very serious studious and worthy Labour-supporting students who take out student loans do so because they need to in order to attend university. I understand that it is sometimes hard for parties like the National Party to understand that some people cannot afford things that their families cannot pay for everything or that their families may not be able to pay back money on behalf of the students themselves. But Labour is interested in passing policy and bills that represent all New Zealanders—not just those who can afford to pay for university themselves or to pay their loans back quickly but all New Zealanders. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Speak fast think fast. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Maurice Williamson—what can one say really? He is an intellectual stalwart of the National Party. He was around at the time this scheme was introduced; he was a great fan of it. This scheme has brought a lot of damage to our country. It is funny that National members rant and rave about this bill but are voting for it. This is another flip-flop. In conclusion I suggest that this bill be called the “Student Loan Scheme (Another National Party Flip-Flop) Bill”. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I just reflect upon the fact that this debate was going along in a very decorous fashion. It was being advanced but then Moana Mackey came into the Chamber and made one contribution and within the first 30 seconds caused all hell to break loose. One has to ask oneself what is going on here: like mother like daughter. Those people who know  
Les Misérables 
 will know that wonderful tune “Bring Him Home” and possibly this bill could be called the “Bring Them Home Bill”. 
First I will reflect upon a statement I made that seems to have touched a nerve. The members of the Opposition were continuing to claim that the interest-free loans policy was an election bribe. I said that yes it was just before they got in with their tax cuts bribe. It seems I touched a nerve. I have to let those members know that I believe that the interest-free loans policy was an election bribe and that New Zealand First does not agree with interest-free loans. We believe that what is happening under those circumstances is that the Government is giving away money to people who are going off to tertiary institutions. By the time they pay a loan back they will never have paid back what they initially received because of the very nature of inflation etc. Allan Peachey made a very valuable contribution when he talked about the fact that people have to pay taxes and make that contribution in order to enable the interest-free loan scheme to operate. 
New Zealand First says that at the very least interest on the loans should be charged at the rate of the increase in the consumer price index if not more. It certainly should not be charged at the 7 percent rate which was fairly punitive. At the same time we have to say that anybody who does not believe that the tax cuts policy was an election bribe should read  
The Hollow Men 
. We do not want people to be painting too hallowed a picture of themselves under these circumstances. 
Let us go back to the objectives of this bill. Some of the issues around the bill may have been created by the interest-free loans policy but the objectives of the bill are to ensure that those of our young people—and older people—who have student loans do not stay overseas indefinitely. It creates incentives for them to come back. What we really have to ask ourselves is whether this legislation will do what it sets out to do. That is why there is universal support for it around the Chamber. Although we can play games and argue up hill and down dale I think everyone agrees that the bill will in fact achieve its purpose of reducing the disincentives for people to return home and increasing the incentives for them to do so. Therefore New Zealand First has provided support for it all the way through because once again we have always said that the best immigrant is a New Zealander who is returning home. I have to publicly congratulate Peter Dunne on the work he has done in order to get a bill that when it passes into law will achieve the purpose of bringing more and more of our young people back home enriched by their overseas experiences. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to make possibly the final contribution to this debate and to speak to the title and commencement of the bill. For a little while I thought we would have a bit of fun with the title for 5 minutes but then the Labour speaker came in and raised a couple of interesting issues. I realise that I am a new member of this House and I understand that the Standing Orders do not allow me to refer to the absence of members from the Chamber. So somehow I need to say to the Labour member that had she participated in the debate earlier on she might well have had cause to reflect a little on some of the things she had to say. 
Let us look at the title for a moment. The bill is the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). It is appropriately named for a couple of reasons. It amends a principal Act called the Student Loan Scheme Act 1992. It may just be wise to remind the Committee that in 1992 when that Act was passed New Zealand was in the middle of a major economic crisis. The country had been brought to its knees by the policy of a Labour Government in which the current Prime Minister was Deputy Prime Minister during the 1989-1990 period. So if the Labour member wishes to give the Committee history lessons I suggest she get her history right. Let us look at the title a little more closely. What does “No 2” tell us? It tells us that the Government got the No. 1 bill wrong. What does “No 1” tell us? It tells us the Government got the original legislation wrong. Let us not lose sight of that. 
Before I refer to the commencement I come back to two things that I have referred to already when I spoke tonight which obviously escaped the Labour member who spoke earlier. The first was the reminder that I gave to borrowers to respect the fact that the money comes from other New Zealanders. I remind the Labour member of the time that I spent with half a dozen mums and dads who between them share three and four jobs each all lowly paid just to feed their kids and get them to school and pay the rent. Their plea to me was that they should just be allowed to keep some more of their own money. Let us just talk about taxation and bribery for a moment. I repeat for the benefit of the socialists over there on the Government benches that to give people their own money back is not bribery. People cannot be bribed with their own money. It is difficult for me to hide the contempt I feel for politicians who do not understand the nature of representative government and government by consent. It would be a good idea if the Labour members opposite who are screaming and shouting would just pause to think a little about the nature of representative democracy and whom they are accountable to when they sit in this Chamber. 
In terms of the commencement dates I think clause 2 sums up the complexity of the bill. Again I come back to the great work done by the Education and Science Committee and the Inland Revenue Department officials in guiding us through all of that. The great bulk of the bill is due to come into force on 1 April 2007. I guess I could use up a bit of time by talking about April Fool’s Day and all the rest of it but that is kind of obvious because everybody knows what the Labour Government has done with regard to this bill. This is not good sound thought-out logical policy. It is a bribe to buy an election—nothing more. So maybe 1 April is appropriate. Other sections come into effect on 1 October 2007 and others on 1 April 2008. Gosh there is that date again—1 April! How many weeks will it be until Labour members lose office? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I have listened with interest to the very creative suggestions made by a number of members about the title of the bill. I have thought seriously about whether we should adopt some of those titles but I say to the Committee that with respect I decline to accept any of that advice. I think the title set out here the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) is probably the most accurate title. It does really say it all. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It says it all. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am comforted in the choice of that title by the support of Mr Williamson. I take the view that on this issue at least what he says goes. He is happy with the title being the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) and I will go along with that more than happily. 
In the midst of all the frivolity that passed for the debate on the last couple of clauses one or two members raised questions about what will be done to let students know that this bill has been passed. There are a couple of things. There will be a publicity programme— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Free wine! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It would be a nice thought but I do not think so. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: For Moana. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Members can provide their own wine if they like. There will be a publicity programme that will draw to the attention of borrowers the provisions of the new scheme. We will certainly be doing what we can to make contact with borrowers through the records we have and through the records obtained through the data match. Already since the bill was introduced we have been indicating to a number of people particularly parents who have written on behalf of students overseas to inquire about students’ indebtedness the changes that are likely and the steps they will need to take in order to draw to the attention of their son or daughter the provisions that will apply. So there will be a concerted effort to draw to the attention of those up to 40000 students what the changes are how they will be affected and the steps they need to take. 
I do not think there is much more that I need to say on that other than to acknowledge the support that all members have given to this bill and to thank them for the comparatively speedy time in which we have been able to consider it this evening. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
Criminal Procedure Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 20 March. 
Part 1 Crimes Act 1961 ( 
continued 
)  
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 This bill displays an element of jurisprudential ignorance. To be honest to say that we are absolutely convinced of its merits would be somewhat of an exaggeration but we will assist the bill past the Committee stage. 
In continuing my address regarding Part 1 as I have explained I will be moving a Supplementary Order Paper in relation to the two exceptions provided for in the bill being exceptions against the rule of double jeopardy. It is well understood that a person should not be tried for the same crime more than once. The State should not be able to have a go at getting a conviction fail and then have another go and another go. That is not justice. The State should not be allowed to get lazy by not doing its investigation not doing its prosecution properly and then just trying the case again. 
The two exceptions proposed in this bill relate to tainted acquittal—for example that obtained through perjury—and to the new and compelling evidence exception. My amendment will omit the tainted acquittal rule in its entirety and it should be so removed. Also it will narrow down the new and compelling evidence exception to that obtained only through DNA technology—a very narrow exception indeed. 
I am concerned that the exceptions to the rule of double jeopardy proposed by this bill arise because of one solitary case—that of Mr Moore who as I explained previously was charged and acquitted of murder. He persuaded a witness to give false evidence leading to that acquittal and was later charged and sentenced for perverting the course of justice. It is commonly said and is well known by most in this Chamber that a law change made on the basis of one case makes for bad law and this bill in this regard is bad law. Why not for example merely increase the penalty for perverting the course of justice rather than destroy such a well-established enshrined principle of our justice system? If the punishment is the equivalent of the avoided criminal conviction then the result is the same without attempting to change a well-established principle of law. 
We all know that it is better that 10 guilty people escape than one innocent person suffers. I was pleased to hear the same quote endorsed by Mr Chauvel just yesterday in relation to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I wouldn’t take any notice of him. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: He was right in that case. He was right. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The member goes too far! 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Perhaps. This is not about protecting criminals; this is about protecting the victims who have been accused of a crime. There is a presumption of innocence and no one who has been finally acquitted or pardoned of an offence should be tried or punished for it again. 
The Law and Order Committee report notes that discovering new and compelling evidence after a trial has become more likely with the development of technology. That is why I am suggesting the very narrow exception of that obtained through DNA technology only. That report also suggested two exceptions to double jeopardy—that of tainted acquittal and new and compelling evidence. Although we are not happy that there be any exceptions we do want to record particular caution about any proposals for such exceptions. 
As I have said penalties for perverting the course of justice can easily be expanded thereby preserving the principle of double jeopardy at least in relation to any tainted acquittal. In relation to new and compelling evidence we believe that additional specificity is needed as to the nature of such evidence and that is why Supplementary Order Paper 51 in my name specifically restricts any new and compelling evidence to that obtained by DNA technology. To quote from Judith Ablett-Kerr QC in her submission on the bill— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: A very good lady. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: She is a great lady. She said in her submission: “The New Zealand criminal justice system has been built upon certain fundamental principles several of which are challenged by this bill amongst them the tenet that it is preferable for a guilty person to be wrongly acquitted than an innocent person to be wrongly convicted. It is an inevitable corollary of maintaining the fundamental rights of accused persons that occasionally the guilty will escape but the risks involved in eroding such rights clearly outweigh any benefits proposed by the bill.” I urge the Committee to vote for the amendment on the Supplementary Order Paper that I have proposed. It is sensible and it is pragmatic. It is not perfect but it is more perfect than the bill itself. 
Speaking generally to Part 1 however I say we should reflect on what the purpose of the bill actually is. The bill is all about areas of criminal procedure. It is about maximising efficiency and fairness in the criminal justice system. The key areas of reform focused on in this bill are: trial by judge alone in exceptional circumstances; two exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy which we are opposing and which I have already mentioned; majority verdicts of juries—11 to one and not the unanimous 12 to none; the codification of criminal disclosure a convoluted four-stage regime that I hope to address in a call on the relevant part; and the partial abolition of preliminary hearings commonly known as depositions which we will also be opposing and to which my very learned colleague on my left Mr Chester Borrows has proposed a very wise amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 50. 
However what this bill does not do which has been noted and I quote from a senior lecturer in evidence in criminal procedure at the University of Auckland School of Law a Mr Scott Optican who should know is “address some of the real issues in criminal procedure upon which attention should be focussed such as trial delays”—and those have not been addressed in all the time since I have been in Parliament—“making sure criminal defendants’ lawyers have adequate resources to defend their cases and source expert witnesses better training for judges prosecutors and lawyers in the increasing use of science and technology in trials dealing with complex scientific evidence and sorting out some of the common law under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.” 
This bill does not inspire confidence in dealing with any of those outstanding criminal procedure issues. It tries to amend five Acts and attempts to codify requirements that have been described as: “What we are seeing in this bill is the ascendancy of a crime control model of criminal procedure dedicated to making it easier to win convictions over an adjudicative process model dedicated to principles of fair treatment and natural justice.” In other words natural justice should not be sacrificed for easier convictions. I will seek a call on that provision at a later time but in an attempt at being fair I will allow other members of the Committee to take a call on Part 1. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Criminal Procedure Bill and I am appalled at the tripe that has been trotted out by the previous speaker Kate Wilkinson—a member who has in fact had the privilege of being admitted to the Bar. 
The double jeopardy rule is an age-old rule that was created prior even to the discovery of fingerprint evidence. The age-old double jeopardy rule has survived the creation of fingerprint evidence photographic evidence DNA evidence and  
Simpson v Attorney-General 
 which led to the rules of disclosure we now have in New Zealand. Mike Bungay QC said at the time of the Court of Appeal decision which entitled the defence to access the police file that this was the first step towards requiring defence disclosure. Mike Bungay QC was quite right on that. 
I remember the day when the defence first got access to police files. In fact I was conducting a murder trial in Gisborne at the time and the trial was adjourned while we got access to the policeman’s notebook. We found therein that he had made an offer to my client that if my client was to make certain statements he would be given certain benefits. That had not been disclosed to the court. Upon that being disclosed my client was acquitted on the charge of murder and was allowed to go on his merry way home where he has lived safely ever since—as has the community around him. 
The point I am making is simply that the rules have changed and changed rapidly since the double jeopardy rule was created. The double jeopardy rule is a reflection of the English development of the common criminal law whereby the State was reflected in the landowning gentry and the people commonly charged with criminal offences were the servants or effectively the slaves of that landowning gentry. So a number of protections were brought into our criminal law that balanced that imbalance of power. Since those days we have had a great levelling of the playing field and we are moving away from the game of justice to the pursuit of truth and anybody who can stand in this Chamber and say that the pursuit of truth is not a worthy ideal in a courtroom is someone who should reassess his or her values and the content of what he or she is saying. 
No longer should we have our criminal law inhibited by rules that no one can justify because they have long passed their relevance. No longer should we have our juries sitting and hearing evidence that is artificially distorted because some historical rule requires some evidence to be withheld from them. This House just a few months ago moved away from that by introducing the new Evidence Act which enables the court to offer effectively what is the best evidence. That was a move forward in the right direction and was heralded by every speaker in this House. Every speaker in this House thought it was time the new Evidence Act came into force. Of course the corollary of that is the Criminal Procedure Bill. Life in the courtroom in 2007 is very different from life in the courtroom in 1987 more different from life in the courtroom in 1957 and fundamentally different from life in the courtroom in 1907. Today we have a facility where the defence have access to all the material—except that of opinion—that has been amassed by the police and have a chance to peruse it and advance against the high standard of proof the prospect of a reasonable doubt based on the same material that the police bring before the court. 
This is a new playing field. It is a playing field that redefines our criminal law. Such a playing field requires the re-examination of some old bastions that have slowly become shibboleths and otiose in the present day. The double jeopardy rule is one of those rules that no layperson can understand. If one explains to one’s neighbour what goes on in a trial—that jurors hear some horrific evidence apply their earnest efforts to it and a verdict results—the neighbour says it is just a bit of a game because there are rules that protect justice and the truth from coming out. It is a totally disillusioning process and it is no wonder we have TV shows newspaper articles and books published that all cast doubt on verdicts in major trials in this country. The writers of those TV shows newspapers and books know they are on good ground. They know they are talking about a game of justice rather than the pursuit of truth. 
The double jeopardy rule is under attack by the Criminal Procedure Bill—and in a very timid way I have to say and perhaps a regrettably timid way but progress is always slow—but that merely recognises the criminal law in 2007. The double jeopardy rule is a rule that the layperson will not understand. That should be our measure in this Committee when we consider what is right in criminal law. What will the layperson understand when we erode the double jeopardy rule? Will he or she understand that we are continuing with this tripe that it is better that 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person be convicted? That is a phrase I have never understood. It justifies nothing; it is a mere excuse and an apology for the game of justice. It proves absolutely nothing. 
Every trial is self-contained and every trial must be a pursuit of the truth. If a person has been wrongfully acquitted and if correct evidence emerges that shows it was a wrongful acquittal then there is no common-sense or legal reason why that person should not be retried. The days have long gone when trials were conducted on opinionated evidence when Alfred Hanlon of Dunedin could rail forth with his Marshall Hall type of address that was high on rhetoric high on emotion and low on fact persuading illiterate jurors that the way to go was to protect the innocent client because the police had no substantial evidence. Courts these days become venues for the examination of scientific inquiry and evidence where the defence give a careful measured response. There is no fear that people who are wrongfully acquitted will be oppressed by the State because to bring a new charge based on fresh evidence or based on the tainted evidence rule requires very careful steady steps that require the approval of a court before the matter can proceed. 
We have a precedent for that. We have a precedent in corruption charges under our Crimes Act which requires the High Court to approve the laying of charges. No one carps at that; no one says it is an infringement on anybody’s liberty. I simply say to those who carp on with the old-fashioned unthinking quotes that were created two centuries ago that this is the time when we should forge forward with a criminal law that reflects New Zealand. 
That takes me to the second issue which is the question of depositions. I am not sure whether that is in the part I am talking about now or in a new part. 
Simon Power 
: No we’re not. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: We are not dealing with that. Well I will save my valuable words on it for the next part. 
I simply conclude on the argument that the double jeopardy rule has some mystical magical quality. We got rid of witchcraft as a common practice. Witchcraft now lives in the realm of the cosmic and irrelevant. So too will the double jeopardy rule. The sooner it goes the sooner we will have the pursuit of truth in our courtroom and we will abolish this expensive time-consuming stress-creating game of justice. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased that Russell Fairbrother introduced the phrase “the pursuit of truth” in respect of the justice system. It reminds me very much of an often quoted dictum from Judge Andrew Becroft whom I often quote late at night. As a new prosecutor in the Hawera District Court and trying to struggle with the rules of evidence—as a police officer does from time to time—I pleaded to the judge: “If we are pursuing the truth here—”. Judge Becroft told me to sit down and reminded me that we are not pursuing the truth in court. He said: “If we were pursuing the truth we would have the rack back Mr Borrows.” 
In actual fact we have a set of rules of law that a lot of people do not understand. A lot of rules from time to time appear to be unusual and to be running against the pursuit of truth. But they are there for particularly important reasons. I find it really unusual too that my friend over yonder Russell Fairbrother decided to talk about the double jeopardy rules and how they were there long before things like fingerprints. It is interesting in the Kevin Moore case that the reason why Moore concocted evidence was to try to explain why his fingerprints were found in the home of the person he murdered. He got his mate to come along and say they had gone to the house to do a drug deal which explained the presence of Moore’s fingerprints. 
Another interesting or amazing situation is that this Government decided to introduce a law in respect of double jeopardy in spite of the myriad of jailhouse confessions—or supposed confessions—that come after a number of trials have been tossed out because those jailhouse confessions have proved to be unsafe. In fact if we look at our  
R v Moore 
 case we see that none of it had anything to do with changes in technology. It was solely around someone getting up in court and telling lies which is the whole reason why the double jeopardy law was introduced in the first place. 
It is this Government’s proposition that we should institute a double jeopardy law to enable people to be tried for a second time for the same crime. That proposition is on the basis of a one-off incident that occurred in New Plymouth with a Black Power gang member who was convicted on the basis of his mate getting up in court and telling lies. The National Party has decided that it will support the double jeopardy provision only around DNA evidence in the Criminal Procedure Bill and will not support anything else in relation to double jeopardy. I have to accept that changes in technology that now enable us to obtain DNA from material that we could not obtain DNA from 10 years ago are leading to convictions today and overturning injustices that have occurred. 
In Part 1 of this bill the first proposal is that a judge can order a judge-alone trial for complex cases and for cases where there is intimidation of juries or where there is a real threat of intimidation of juries. I can certainly see the logic of that. To take 12 good men and true—to use a sexist quote from times gone by—put them on a jury select them by dubious measures and then subject them for instance to a 5-week complicated fraud case seems to be me to be absolutely ridiculous and completely ripe for a judge-alone matter. 
 When we look at the way that barristers and solicitors have traditionally selected juries we see that if someone does not want to be on a jury the best way not to be selected is to turn up in a suit with a briefcase—whether the person is a male or female. That person will not be selected because he or she will look smart enough to see through whatever the defence counsel will throw up. I can say that having been defence counsel in at least one jury trial in my short career. 
To address what bothers me though I turn the Minister’s eye to new section 378C of the new Crimes Act “Consent of Solicitor-General required in certain circumstances …”. I have a number of questions that I wish to put to the Minister over the course of this Committee stage because this new section appears to do some incredibly interesting things for which there does not appear to be any sort of precedent whatever. New section 378C(1) provides that where a member of the police has good cause to suspect that there has been a tainted acquittal of a previously convicted defendant he or she may seek permission from the Solicitor-General to investigate. New section 378C(2) allows that to happen. If the police provide that evidence to the Solicitor-General the Solicitor-General will give them permission to investigate. Well that is great. 
Then we get to new section 378C(3) and see that for some reason as soon as the police are given the power to investigate they have all sorts of unwarranted powers that do not seem to be replicated anywhere else within the law. New section 378(3)(a) for instance allows for questioning the acquitted person or any other person. So I ask the Minister to advise us as to who in this country can be safe from unreasonable questioning. That paragraph states: “questioning the acquitted person or any other person:”—any other person at all. I assume then because the paragraph does not state anything different from this that the police have the power to detain people for the purpose of questioning. 
New section 378C(3)(b) refers to “searching the acquitted person or any other person:”. That paragraph does not say “with a warrant” or “without warrant”; it just states that the police can search an acquitted person or any other person and it allows a huge wide-ranging power that is not replicated anywhere else in the law. New section 378C(3)(c) provides for the same search without warrant to “any premises or vehicles:”. I do not see where that provision is replicated anywhere else in the law and the provision does not seem to be covered by the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report on this legislation—it does not seem to be covered anywhere. 
I cannot understand then the following paragraph (d) which states that “any thing” can be seized. What the hell is that supposed to mean? If we look for instance at the powers of search under section 202B of the Crimes Act which relates to searching for offensive weapons and substances we see that the specific power states: “Where any constable has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is committing an offence against section 202A(4)(a) he may—(a) stop and search that person and any package or receptacle he has with him that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing contains any knife offensive weapon or disabling substance and may detain that person for as long as is reasonably necessary to conduct that search;” The section does not talk about requiring a warrant to do that and the reason for that is that it is a power of search without warrant. I say to the Minister that if we look back at the bill we see that it does not provide any of the provisions that section 202B of the Crimes Act does; it is just completely open-ended and I wonder where on earth that came from. 
Given that the power under paragraph (b) provides for searching the acquitted person or any other person my next question is how any New Zealander knows that he or she will not be subject to a search pursuant to this legislation without warrant at any time anywhere. In respect of the provision that goes on to offer the same unwarranted powers to search premises or vehicles how do New Zealanders know they will not be searched in their own home or vehicle as they are driving down the street? This does not just apply to the acquitted person; it applies to any person. I want to know how that happened and why that is not covered in the report of the Attorney-General in respect of the powers under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That Act protects for instance our freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. But we know for instance from the case of  
R v Shaheed 
 that even if the search is unlawful it may still be reasonable so that evidence may well be admitted. But there is no reference to that in any of the material that we have here. 
I find it incredible that we should have these circumstances. There seems to me to be a gaping hole that will allow all sorts of activities to go on as soon as the police have the ability to investigate as given to them by the Attorney-General. But the thing seems to be completely fraught with holes that will catch New Zealanders. Somebody may say that the provision is only for crimes that are punishable by 14 years of imprisonment or longer but the whole substance of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is that it applies to anybody in this country—the most holy and the most despicable. That is the whole purpose of having such an Act: to protect the most vulnerable in our community. What assurance can the Minister give us then that these provisions will not be used unreasonably against the average Joe Blow who walks the street at any time of the day or night in this country? This appears to be a “storm trooper” provision that would come straight out of Nazi Germany and maybe the member who suggested that we look at our history should look at her own. 
If we look at page 12 of the Law and Order Committee’s report under the heading “Encouraging inadequate investigations” we note that the report stated the following: “We note concerns that the exception may encourage sloppy police work. Most of us consider that the strict guidelines surrounding the provision will insure against any such effect. The requirements that the evidence must be new and that it could not have been given in the first proceedings have particular relevance.” I say to the Minister that it is my contention that what this bill does is to encourage exactly the sort of behaviour that the select committee was warned about. In spite of that warning the Government has gone on to attempt to enact a provision that allows unwarranted search unwarranted questioning and detention for the purpose of questioning and unwarranted search not only of vehicles that may be travelling on the street or may be parked at a premises but also of any premises whatever anywhere and at any time—and no limitations are placed on that. 
The police also have the power to seize any thing—funnily enough “thing” is not defined within the provisions of the bill. I find it incredible that the select committee ever envisaged that that provision would come before this Committee and I find it equally incredible that it was allowed to come before the Committee without those matters being addressed. I note that the provisions of the Crimes Act in relation to unwarranted search and seizure under section 202B and also under the Misuse of Drugs Act require the police executing their powers in respect of these matters to provide identification of themselves as police officers and to quote the provisions they are exercising at the time—the Act and the section. None of that is provided for within this bill either. 
The bill appears to me to run completely foul of the rule of law in this country and I really wonder where the advisers came from in allowing that to proceed. I note from scanning the bill that there is no provision that requires a reference to or application for a search warrant under section 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act and no affidavit. But as soon as the police have the authority of the Solicitor-General to continue with the investigation—and no doubt that would require some level of evidence—they can go about these unwarranted activities. But if we look at the case that this is introduced on which is  
R v Moore 
 we see given the genesis of where that case came from that the only evidence the police could have given in that case was the sworn affidavit of the person who had given false evidence in court and who then went over and became a police witness. 
My last point is that I fail to understand how this legislation which transgresses so many fundamental rules of law in this country went before the Law and Order Committee. Why did the bill not go before the Justice and Electoral Committee where there would be some scrutiny by the members of that committee? I think it is unfair that legislation that contravenes so fundamentally things that are so dear to us should be allowed to transgress in this way. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to pick up on the member’s last point first. I think that if indeed as he seemed to be suggesting the provisions that he was concerned about in section 378C(3)(a) (b) (c) and (d) inserted by clause 7 of the Criminal Procedure Bill—he referred at length to each of those—existed in glorious isolation from other provisions then the concerns that he has raised would be valid. But one of the other principles that is perhaps equally important is that one reads the entire provision. If he had referred to section 378C(1) and (2) which of course will need to be satisfied as a prerequisite to any of the provisions in section 378C(3)(a) (b) (c) and (d)—[ 
Interruption 
] I did not interrupt the member. I am trying to answer the questions he has raised in the spirit of cooperation. The fact is if the member reads those parts they make very clear that the police need to have good cause to suspect that information obtained will implicate an acquitted person and then the police have to get the Solicitor-General’s consent. Those provisions which the member conveniently neglected to mention are an enormous additional hurdle—and quite rightly so. So I think that the concerns that the member has raised are in fact without real merit. 
I acknowledge the fine contribution from my colleague Russell Fairbrother. It was one of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions I have heard in my 13 years in this House. I think he raises a fair challenge to the comments from both Kate Wilkinson and Chester Borrows in terms of the issue of double jeopardy. Frankly I think that Mr Fairbrother is probably right. The small steps in this bill are timid in this regard; perhaps it is appropriate that they be so and that we take such steps carefully. But I remind members that these are small steps that deal with two exceptional circumstances. The first circumstance is in terms of a tainted acquittal gained with an administration of justice defence. The second is where there is new and compelling evidence. If one goes back to the test that Mr Fairbrother put before members—that is how one could explain not using the advantages of information from technologies now available which were never conceived of when double jeopardy had its origins—then I think one sees that that test is a fair one to apply and is one that we should apply. 
So I think that the small tentative steps taken in this legislation are well justified and are backed by enormous changes in the quality of evidence available to support those steps being taken. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 That was an atrocious contribution from the Minister Mark Burton—and indeed Mr Fairbrother’s modernist contribution to this debate was nothing short of atrocious. It illustrated an absolutely cavalier approach to the rule of law and to the fundamental rights of people who are charged with serious crimes. Indeed the Minister should heed the words of the ancient prophet Micah who said that we must adapt to changing times while holding fast to unchanging principles—and double jeopardy is one such fundamental principle of our criminal law. It is an ancient principle and it has been a key aspect of New Zealand’s criminal law as inherited from England from time immemorial. New Zealand law has always provided that a person acquitted of a crime can never be prosecuted again for the same offence. It is a basic safeguard of civil liberties in every legal system comparable with our own. I have not studied criminal procedure since Miss Alice taught me criminal procedure in 1976 but I have had a good look at this legislation and I find the more one looks at this legislation the more concerned one becomes. 
It is timely to remind members of this Committee of the main purposes of and the importance of the rule against double jeopardy. The first purpose is to prevent harassment. It is a fundamental purpose of the rule—which terminates criminal litigation—that it prevents harassment of an accused person by repeated prosecution for the same matter. I refer the Committee to what Justice Black said in the Supreme Court of the United States in  
Green v United States 
 in 1957: “The underlying idea—” [ 
Interruption 
] It is a fundamental principle but I notice that Mr Fairbrother scoffs. He should listen to this: “The underlying idea one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense thereby subjecting him to embarrassment expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.” 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s 50 years ago! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I point out to the Minister of Commerce those very important words “the State with all its resources and power”—as against the individual who is charged with a crime. We know that that imbalance is getting worse because of the failure of this crummy Government to do anything about legal aid so that people are adequately legally represented—and I will say more about that in the near future. But why should the State with all the resources and power at its disposal be allowed to make a repeated attempt to convict an individual? That is the fundamental reason why we have double jeopardy. 
The second reason is to avoid inconsistency and to secure the finality of verdicts. A consequence of the rule against double jeopardy is the protection of the administration of justice itself. The rule promotes confidence in court proceedings and in the finality of verdicts. As the Law Commission report in 2001 stated: “A clear corollary of the rule is that occasionally the guilty will escape punishment but that is inevitable in any system of justice that must accommodate conflicting interests and finite resources.” Mr Fairbrother as the most experienced criminal lawyer in this Committee knows that principle only too well because of all of the people he has represented over the years. 
The third point which is a fundamental principle is that the rule against double jeopardy promotes efficient investigation. The promotion of efficient investigation preceding prosecution of the original trial I would have thought was a principle that had considerable force. Giving the Crown an opportunity to revisit its case after an acquittal would provide perverse disincentives to investigating efficiently right at the outset. I am sure that Mr Fairbrother in the course of his career would say “Amen to that!”. There will be many instances where the Crown did not investigate properly so why should it be given the opportunity essentially to persecute a defendant so that it can get it right the second time? 
This is wholly unsatisfactory legislation and as Mr Borrows has said the law exists not just for the great and the good but for some of the most despicable members of our society because they are entitled to the protection of the law and not to be rounded up and disposed of—as happened in Nazi Germany for example. Some members of the Committee may have seen an excellent film which was on shortly before Christmas called  
Sophie Scholl 
. It was an excellent illustration of what happened when some young people tried to stand up to Hitler in Munich. We are entitled to the basic protections of the law—all people all New Zealanders are. 
So let us take a look at this legislation. As Kate Wilkinson has said section 378A in clause 7 is odious and we reject that section in its entirety—I certainly support what Kate Wilkinson has said about that. Section 378B in clause 7 will I understand be the subject of an amendment proffered by Kate Wilkinson in Supplementary Order Paper 51. The amendment makes a lot of sense because subsection (2) is tightened by the addition of a paragraph (c) requiring the obtaining of new evidence by DNA technology. So if the evidence is to be regarded as new firstly it must not have been given in the proceedings that resulted in the acquittal secondly it could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence have been given at those proceedings and thirdly it has been obtained by DNA technology. I consider that that tightens up that provision and I will come to section 378D shortly. 
As Mr Borrows said—and the Minister did not adequately answer this—section 378C in clause 7 really is quite troubling. Let us look at some of the things the police can do if the consent of the Solicitor-General is obtained. It beggars belief that in a liberal democracy like New Zealand’s consent could be granted to permit the police to question the acquitted person to search the acquitted person or any other person to search any premises or vehicles or seize any thing to take fingerprints or samples or to permit the conducting or commissioning of forensic tests and analyses. That really is very heavy-handed stuff and I am not satisfied that the safeguards the Minister referred to in section 378C are adequate. I agree with Mr Borrows that it is real storm trooper stuff. 
Finally I refer to section 378D in clause 7. As Kate Wilkinson said there need to be some safeguards if that section is to operate. She has very cleverly I think provided for those safeguards in her Supplementary Order Paper by tightening up section 378B(2). 
So there we have it. The National Party is very concerned about this legislation. I have some real concerns about clause 5 for example which changes the rules relating to jury trials but we are prepared to go along with that given the very limited nature of the changes proposed. We will be looking very carefully at that in practice. But there is a line beyond which one cannot go and the double jeopardy proposals here constitute that line. As I said this is odious legislation. It is unacceptable in any liberal democracy. It goes completely against an ancient principle the justification of which has time and time again in court case after court case been emphasised. That is why we will not support it and it is why we have proposed through Kate Wilkinson Supplementary Order Paper 51. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I think many people have had reason when looking at the principles around double jeopardy to question the value of it. I certainly did—for the first time really—when I read the court transcripts of the trial of Luke Donnelly for the killing of Chris Campbell. Members may remember that Chris Campbell was a leader of the Rastafarians in Ruatoria. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: A good man too. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Thank you Mr Fairbrother. Chris Campbell was killed by Mr Donnelly. During a perhaps heated verbal interaction Luke Donnelly pulled out a shotgun and shot him. Chris Campbell fell to the ground and while he lay there wounded Luke Donnelly having used up the shotgun shells previously on his car and the like picked up a rifle and shot him again. Chris Campbell subsequently died from those wounds. Luke Donnelly was acquitted on all charges by a jury in I think the Hawke’s Bay. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Gisborne. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: In Gisborne. When I read the transcripts of the case I was convinced that Chris Campbell was killed in cold blood and that Luke Donnelly should have to go on trial again. This bill would not cover that case because it was not a question of tainted evidence nor was it a question of new evidence—so this bill would not apply. But on further reflection I had to come to the conclusion that it should not apply and that the law should allow the rule against double jeopardy. Regardless of my strong personal belief that Chris Campbell was murdered in cold blood I think it is enormously dangerous for us to allow the State to keep prosecuting a person with all of the powers of the State being used against the limited resources of an individual member of society. 
I thank Mr Borrows for his contribution to the debate because I think he outlined the concerns exceptionally well in relation to tainted acquittals and new and compelling evidence. I want to touch a little more on the subject of new and compelling evidence. It was interesting to read in the report of the Law and Order Committee: “The Attorney-General’s section 7 report says that the new and compelling evidence exception is a  
prima facie 
 breach of section 26 of the Bill of Rights Act; and that it can not be justified under section 5 …”. 
My principal objection to the new and compelling evidence provisions is that I am just not sure that I can see any constraint on what kind of evidence might be allowed. The select committee’s report indicates that other evidence besides physical evidence that meets the requirement such as a confession will also be covered by this provision. That interested me. Does that apply to a jailhouse confession? Like other members perhaps I have been enormously concerned about some of the cases where jailhouse confessions have been crucial parts of the evidence. I particularly refer to the Scott Watson case where it was a crucial element in his conviction. It left me as someone who was not present at the trial but who was a spectator through the media enormously concerned about the effects of that evidence. It left me with continuing disquiet about his conviction. 
The police in this country have been criticised more than once for a tendency in serious homicide cases to decide who the main suspects are then look for evidence to convict them. I think there is something in that criticism. We also know that there have been cases in this country where those kinds of conditions of investigation have applied where evidence has been fabricated to secure a conviction. I have just to mention Arthur Allan Thomas to remind members about that. 
So I have to ask what the real protection is from a disgruntled member of the police who is certain that he or she knows who did it but has failed to secure a conviction proceeding to fabricate evidence in order to have another go. I do not think there is much protection actually and that leaves me with an ongoing concern about this legislation. 
I thought Mr Fairbrother’s contribution was a powerful one—and I think Mr Finlayson was perhaps slightly uncharitable in his comments—and there was much in the argument to take seriously. Nevertheless on reflection I remain concerned about the danger of opening up the double jeopardy rule. For that reason among others the Greens will be voting against this bill. But in order to tighten some of those exceptions we intend to support Kate Wilkinson’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Kia ora tatou te Whare. I have been in the unique situation probably among those in this Chamber of having defended myself on criminal charges on a number of occasions—and successfully so. One of those was on charges arising from the  
Patu! 
 trials of 1981 which went for 2 years. They did not finish until December 1983. That was a particularly difficult time for me because the charges added up to a term of something like 96 years. 
I know for a fact that I just did not have the resources to mount the kind of defence that the prosecution was able to mount. They had police officers for miles they had police photographers they subpoenaed records and photographs and photographers from mainstream media including television. They had the Crown Law Office supporting their whole case. Essentially they had the power of the State lined up against those of us in the  
Patu! 
 court cases. In the end we did not have anything. 
You know it worries me to think that with all of that power the Government is now suggesting that it can do it again. And if it can do it again what is to stop it from then passing another piece of legislation to do it again and again until it gets a conviction? Once we breach this dam—it is kind of like the criminal proceeds legislation we were talking about last night—the whole lahar will go. The whole thing will go not just a trickle. The whole thing will break. 
I am actually quite ashamed of Russell Fairbrother for what he said about double jeopardy—that maybe it is OK to charge somebody twice. He more than anybody else in this Parliament ought to know that if the prosecution has not put together a case to convict then maybe they should not have taken the case in the first place. If they think they do have a case and they take it all the way through and lose that is the end of it. I know that in the case of the  
Patu! 
 court trials it was not our great defence that won it; it was the fact that I was able to call a witness who really just won the case for us. So after 2 years we won that case on the basis of Bishop Desmond Tutu taking the stand to speak in our defence. Because of that the jury was blown away. When he came into the courtroom to give evidence for me all the police stood up all the prison wardens stood up and all the public stood up. The prosecutor stood up and even the jury stood up. I know that at the end of the day that is the reason why we all got off. We had Bishop Desmond Tutu speaking on our behalf. 
The fact of the matter is that it took 2 years before we got to the end of that case. I would be desperately concerned to think that with all of the resources the Crown had behind it if it could not get a conviction after that time it should have had the opportunity to drag it on again and again. I am particularly concerned to think that if we allow it once we allow it again and again. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 51 in the name of Kate Wilkinson to omit new section 378A from clause 7 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 51 in the name of Kate Wilkinson to new section 378B in clause 7 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 51 in the name of Kate Wilkinson to omit clause 8 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Criminal Disclosure 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The question now is that Part 2 clauses 17 to 57 which includes debate on schedules 1 and 2 stand part. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I want to deal with the criminal disclosure requirements that are provided in Part 2 of the Criminal Procedure Bill. It is useful to remember the overall goal of the bill which is to maximise efficiency and fairness in the criminal justice system. Part 2 deals with criminal disclosure and establishes a fourfold disclosure regime. I would like the Minister to take a call on this when I have finished as to whether we really need such a detailed codified disclosure regime. The New Zealand Law Society does not believe that there is problem with the current disclosure regime. While largely uncodified the principles of disclosure are well established at common law and also under the Official Information Act and the Privacy Act legislation. Will this new fourfold disclosure regime provide speedier justice in accordance with the goal of the bill? Again I would be interested in the Minister’s response to that and in the Minister taking a call. As the New Zealand Law Society has submitted if the disclosure provisions are to be enacted they should be simplified using straightforward and sensible principles. 
This disclosure regime is so complicated that it needs a two-page diagram in the bill to illustrate how it might work. We now have initial disclosure then full disclosure by the prosecution then disclosure of certain information by the defence and fourthly we have disclosure in certain circumstances by third parties. One would have thought that when dealing with criminal procedure the submission of the New Zealand Law Society might be regarded and regarded well. Lawyers are the ones who deal with the laws we make on a day-to-day basis. The New Zealand Law Society submission suggested that the only codification of disclosure that might be required was firstly timetabling of disclosure; secondly enforcement of disclosure obligations; and thirdly third-party disclosure. 
But it states: “The proposed disclosure code creates an expensive and abstruse infrastructure of potential interlocutories that would have the potential to require a great deal more judge time. While the stated motivation is to replace depositions with this formal regime the bill’s disclosure provisions will apply equally to summary offences of which there are a much greater volume. Consequently there would be potential greatly to increase delays and cost with immense implications for legal aid. The criminal disclosure process as it currently stands works effectively. There is no need to amend disclosure principles and procedures. The level and scope of disclosure under the proposed legislation is potentially significantly less than currently available. This cannot be conducive to the interests of justice.” 
Clause 28 provides for full disclosure by the prosecutor to the defendant of certain standard information. But this is available only after the defendant has pleaded not guilty or has elected trial by jury or if the information has been laid indictably. This means that lawyers cannot effectively advise their clients on how to plead until this information has been obtained and therefore clients will all enter “not guilty” pleas on all charges at the initial appearance just so full disclosure can be obtained. This will logjam the courts and is not at all conducive to the initial principle of speedy justice and maximising efficiency. 
We have heard on several occasions of the backlogs that already exist in our jury court system. For example in the Auckland District Court the median waiting time for District Court jury trials has ballooned from 251 median waiting days in 2004 to 321. By comparison Greymouth has gone from 199 waiting days to 343 days. Although efficiency and speedy justice are certainly the aims of this bill it is certainly doubtful whether this overkill of disclosure will meet them. 
Clause 28 essentially codifies the disclosure requirements. It is significantly less than the disclosure currently provided. Copies of exhibits are currently provided. Now lists only of those exhibits are noted not copies. 
The submission from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research was particularly interesting bearing in mind that it deals with forensic services. It stated that it had “major concerns over the potential implications of the time frames”. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) without amendment and progress on the Criminal Procedure Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.