Volume 693 Week 54 - Wednesday 18 September 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 693 Week 54 - Wednesday 18 September 2013[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13451. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 18 September 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Sittings of the HouseHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): In accordance with a decision of the Business Committee I seek leave for the House to suspend for the dinner break following the Hon LianneDalziel’s valedictory statement today.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.Questions to MinistersState-owned Energy Companies Shares—Instalment Scheme for Meridian Energy and Costs1.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister for State Owned Enterprises: What is the forecast cost to the Crown of the Government’s plan to allow buyers of Meridian Energy shares to pay for their shares in instalments and will the instalment scheme be open to overseas institutions?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the Meridian Energy share offer. It is on. As I advised the member in the House last month there is no forecast cost for instalment receipts because any such estimate would be affected by many factors including the final price of the shares. To the second part of his question: yes that has been known since last month when the Government announced the instalment receipt structure for investors.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table an estimate of the cost of about $61 million prepared by the Parliamentary Library.Mr SPEAKER: The source of the document is the Parliamentary Library?Dr Russel Norman: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular estimate prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dr Russel Norman: For clarity can the Minister confirm that the Government is going to make ordinary New Zealanders effectively subsidise the purchase of these shares through these interest-free loans and that these interest-free loans are going to be made available to overseas institutions such as investment banks?Hon TONY RYALL: There is no plan to have New Zealanders subsidise the sale of shares in Meridian Energy. It is quite clear that the use of instalment receipts will help drive interest and demand in these shares.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: If Meridian Energy is such a good buy why does the Government need to use a taxpayer-subsidised and uncosted—apart from a costing provided by the parliamentary librarian—“buy now pay later” scheme to entice investors to purchase Meridian Energy shares if the company is such a good long-term investment? Come on “Twinkletoes”.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Interjections like that at the end of the questions are most unhelpful.Hon TONY RYALL: As the member knows the Government is pursuing a mixed-ownership model programme. It is about freeing up our investment in a minority stake in a number of these energy companies and the proceeds that will be used are to go intothe Future Investment Fund which is earmarked for investment in important infrastructure: schools roads and hospitals. The Government has been very clear about that from the very beginning.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Government expect so-called mum and dad investors to invest in Meridian Energy when the few who invested with Mighty River Power have collectively already lost a staggering $120 million?Hon TONY RYALL: Despite the economic sabotage of the Labour Party and the Green Party 113000 investors bought shares in Mighty River Power and it has been proven very successful for the New Zealand taxpayer. We now have $1.7 billion in cash which is earmarked for important investments such as the Christchurch City hospitals. It has been a significant win for all New Zealanders.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that over the last decade Meridian Energy paid over $3 billion to the Crown in dividends; if so how on earth is he going to make up for a $1.5 billion hole in the Budget? Or to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill never has so much been stolen from so many for the benefit of so few sleazy crony mates.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again I am very tempted to rule that question out of order. I am going to let it go on this occasion but imputations like that about sleazy mates etc. do not lead to good order in this House. I leave it for the Minister to answer.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect you might draw the line on character assassination of MPs and that is fair enough. But I am referring to somebody outside the House and you have got no authority whatsoever on that matter.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have authority while I am the Speaker of this House. What I said to the member was that I was very inclined to rule the question out. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt on this occasion but if he continues to argue with the Chair then I will not give him that benefit any longer.Hon TONY RYALL: A number of those dividends that the member refers to were one-offs and they cannot be repeated because you cannot sell Southern Hydro twice. Of course the revenue and dividend flows will all be detailed in the financial accounts and the pre-investment statement that is coming out on Friday. It is disappointing that the member did not express this view about investors when he worked with me when we privatised Auckland International Airport in the late 1990s.Dr Russel Norman: Can the Minister confirm that if for example Goldman Sachs based in the United States was to buy Meridian Energy shares Goldman Sachs would be allowed to access the interest-free loans in order to buy those shares?Hon TONY RYALL: They are not interest-free loans but certainly all investors will be able to use instalment receipts. That is what the Government has been very clear on. But I do need to make this very clear to the member. It is a very very basic rule of initial public offering economics. If the instalment receipt structure lifts the price by even 1c a share the taxpayer gains millions and millions and millions of dollars from the float that we would not have otherwise received. That money can be used to invest in important social infrastructure and we do not need to print it like that member would want to.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister disagree then that given that the buyers will be given the shares and will be taking the dividends from the shares before they have to pay for them and they will not have to pay for them for 18 months how that is not an interest-free loan?Hon TONY RYALL: It is not an interest-free loan; it is instalment receipts and members should be aware of what goes on there. But the fact is that they are two different things and if I have to explain the difference to the member then I think we have got a problem. But the point that the member needs to realise is that whatever thebenefit is it does go to interest and demand for the shares and that is what gives benefit to the New Zealand taxpayers who are retaining 51 percent of this company.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister have any information as to whether the Prime Minister will be on the phone—as he was on the phone to the head of RioTinto recently—to his old friends at Merrill Lynch telling them that they can get interest-free loans to buy shares in Meridian and that the cost of the interest-free loans will be paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer?Hon TONY RYALL: That is simply not correct—the suggestions that the member has made. What I have explained to him is that instalment receipts and the benefits of such will go directly to demand and interest in the shares of Meridian Energy. For every 1c increase that we get in the value of those shares as a result of the instalment receipts there are as many millions of dollars in cash for New Zealand taxpayers. So we retain 51 percent of Meridian Energy we get an increased value for the 49 percent and that money goes into providing services and benefits for New Zealanders without our having to borrow. It is controlling debt that is fundamental to the mixed-ownership model programme.Dr Russel Norman: Can he think of a more extreme case of a Government that favours the rich and the powerful over everybody else than the example of giving interest-free loans to offshore investment banks so that they can purchase shares in what is currently a company owned by the people of New Zealand?Hon TONY RYALL: The Government has been quite clear on the reason why we have got these instalment receipts. We have also been very clear that at float this company will be owned 85 to 90 percent by New Zealanders. That is our goal. The reason why we are doing that is that it is part of our wider economic plan to help control debt and to invest in the schools roads and hospitals that New Zealanders want. That member may want to borrow the money from foreign bankers; this Government believes we can do that ourselves as New Zealanders.Economy—Reports2.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to theMinister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand economy and business growth?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): Quite a number of reports. For example the Grant Thornton Global Dynamism Index for 2013 was released today showing that New Zealand is now ranked fourth in the world in terms of the most attractive countries for enabling dynamic business growth. Our fourth placing is up from 13th last year and ahead of countries that we traditionally think of as strong and as fostering business including Singapore the US South Korea Japan and Germany. The index ranks 60 of the world’s largest economies on 22 indicators. Amongst those indicators New Zealand ranks particularly well in its policies around private enterprise and competition political stability legal and regulatory risk broadband lines per head of population and the quality of our overall financial regulatory system.John Hayes: What do the reports he has seen say about the outlook for the New Zealand economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: They are very positive. For example the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research recently produced its forecast saying that despite some risks it expects further solid growth. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research forecasts economic growth to reach 2.6 percent per year over the next 3 years although of course we are all aware that the drought earlier this year means that the June GDP figure due out tomorrow will have taken a knock. That view is supported by the $2.2 billion current account deficit figure out today for the June quarter which was a slight increase largely due to reduced earnings from dairy exports because of the drought.However the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research expects exports to grow at 2.6 percent per year once the drought’s effects have run through. Overall it reports broad-based and higher growth rates over the next 3 years.John Hayes: How are improving economic prospects being reflected in the business sector?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Very well in fact—in fact right across the business sector. A report out today by Mind Your Own Business theMYOB Business Monitor which surveys more than 1000 business owners and managers shows a significant improvement in the confidence and financial expectations of small and medium sized businesses. It is important that the survey shows that 30 percent of small and medium sized businesses reported revenue rises over the past year with 43 percent reporting stable revenues. Just 24 percent saw a fall which is fewer firms than in the previous 12 months and the 12 months before that. Interestingly it compares with only 18 percent of Australian operators seeing revenue growth in the past year according to a similar survey in Australia.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister why on earth is he still the Minister of Finance when another of his misguided decisions—this time to stop investing in the Cullen fund—has missed out on hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of global share price rises as the fund earned a stunning 25.8 percent in the 2012-13 year? Why does he not just resign?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I thought the honourable member had a better grasp of economics than that. The idea that you could borrow money to invest in the sharemarket and raise money is one of those fallacies that most families decide not to do because they realise that actually if you could borrow your way to success we would have done that in this country a long long time ago.John Hayes: What reports has the Minister of Finance seen on business confidence and jobs growth in the economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: ANZ recently released its Business Outlook survey showing that a net 43 percent of firms expect their own business activity to improve—a positive signal of investment and hiring intentions. Consistent with this the job site SEEK reports a pick-up in the Labour market with 91000 jobs advertised in the last 4 months which is an increase of 8000 over the first 4 months of this year. Last Friday ANZ released theANZ-Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence survey which showed a slight easing but remained above long-term averages. Together these reports show a consistent picture of steady growth and growing confidence. Both globally and domestically there remain real challenges which is why the Government remains committed to its programme to foster business growth in turn creating the jobs that support New Zealanders and their families.Businesses—Financial Support from Government and Prioritisation3.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Given that he disagrees with the advice of the Treasury on theTiwai smelter who advised it should not be subsidised by taxpayers because “it would result in a significant transfer of value from New Zealanders to Pacific Aluminium and RioTinto shareholders” does he then agree with theNew Zealand Herald that the $30 million dollar taxpayer subsidy paid to the RioTinto-owned smelter is “an abject piece of short sighted thinking”; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): No I do not agree with the premise of that essay. Treasury advised that there was no economic rationale for a long-term Government subsidy for theTīwai Point smelter. Treasury further advised there would be a significant transition cost in the event of any shutdown of the smelterespecially to the Southland economy and the wider electricity market. The Government agrees with that advice. In regard to the particular Treasury comment quoted by the member it was made in July 2012 and was in relation to the renegotiation of the long-term electricity price. At that time RioTinto asked for assistance worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The Government agreed with Treasury’s advice against a long-term subsidy and rejected the proposal.As to the second part of that question the Government had to make a decision. It was not a straightforward decision but the Government recognised the smelter’s role in the stability of the New Zealand electricity market and the value of certainty for 800 smelter workers and the wider Southland economy and chose to make a one-off payment to help close the negotiations. I look forward to the member maintaining that position on his next visit to Southland.Hon David Parker: If he disagrees with theNew Zealand Heraldthat the $30 million taxpayer subsidy to RioTinto is “an abject piece ofshortsighted thinking” does he agree with theNew Zealand Heraldthat the effective subsidy given to Chorus through the Government’s intervention over broadband pricing is “unfair to consumers” and “dangerous for the economy”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I do not. The reality with editorial writers is that although they are of course entitled to their views they do not actually have to live with the decisions. The Government does have to live with its decisions and it believes that it made the right decision. It is interesting that the member raises two issues in relation to interventions in the New Zealand economy and I think it is valid of him to raise those. But if you think about them for a second withTīwai Point we are talking about 800 jobs and with ultra-fast broadband we are talking about 2000 jobs. Those members also hate the convention centre which is another 1000 jobs. Their new leader was out today criticising the snapper decision which is another 1200 jobs. That is 5000 jobs they want to nail in 2 days. At this rate it will be 75000 in just a month.Hon David Parker: Why should broadband customers who cannot get fibre installed or cannot afford to connect to it effectively subsidise Chorus through higher copper broadband prices than recommended by the Commerce Commission?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is simply incorrect. The reality is that nobody is proposing to put up copper prices. The question is what the appropriate way is for valuing the value of the network for which prices are determined. There are different views as there always are in this situation particularly between the infrastructure providers on the one hand and the retailers on the other hand. The member wants to be careful that he does not get sucked into one side of the debate.Hon David Parker: Does he now agree with the comments made by theNew Zealand Heraldcolumnist Chris Barton in 2011 that the then information and communications technology Minister Steven Joyce “has missed a one in a lifetime opportunity.” in designing the ultra-fast broadband scheme in that “over the next eight and half years most of the country is going to get fairly average broadband.” and that Chorus “carries so much baggage that it will inevitably become bogged down.”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No and with the greatest respect to Mr Barton I have never seen a worse analysis of broadband in New Zealand as in that one article which I recall well from the Minister for Communications and Information Technology showing it to me back in 2011. The reality of it is simply this: the Government has actually done a very very good deal with the ultra-fast broadband. If you compare it with the Australian situation which the new Government there is now having to unravel this Government is absolutely confident in its position and is delivering ultra-fast broadband to New Zealanders along with at least 2000 jobs in delivering that programme.Hon David Parker: Why is it that when members of the public cannot afford to pay their power bill it gets cut off but when those with the money the power and the connections like RioTinto do not want to pay their bill they get a discount and a $30 million corporate welfare subsidy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member makes a mistake. He talks about it as if it is corporate welfare but the reality is that it is about jobs—jobs in Southland jobs on the ultra-fast broadband jobs on the convention centre and jobs in the snapper fishery. If the member wants to keep going down the path he is on I encourage him to do so because it will be disastrous for the Labour Party.Denis O’Rourke: Why did the Government’s largesse with theTīwai Point smelter not extend to saving New Zealand - owned productive capacity in Dunedin’s Hillside railway workshops?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The difficulty in relation to Hillside was that there was no long-term future for that organisation whereas forTīwai Point the two companies have come to an agreement that allows for the medium to long term future of the smelter. Nobody can say it is for ever but the reality is that that is the situation. The Government has to make judgments on those every day and this Government is comfortable with the decisions it has had to make.Hon David Parker: Has the Minister of Finance received any criticism from the Minister for Economic Development of theTīwai Point deal or any acknowledgment that that Minister got it wrong in the 2011 ultra-fast broadband deal; if not is it because “Mr Fix-it” still cannot see the error of his ways or is it because he is a flathead?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Steven Joyce can answer any of a number of supplementary questions.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not think the Minister for Economic Development has a flat head. You could criticise him on many levels but I do not think you could suggest he has a flat head. The reality is simply that this Government in relation to ultra-fast broadband has put together a very good deal for New Zealand. The debate here is simply between the internet service providers on the one hand which are funded and organised by an interesting gentleman whom the Labour Party seems to have recently fallen in love with and on the other hand the infrastructure provider. We will land on a price through this process that works for everyone and will involve reductions in retail prices for consumers and we will deliver ultra-fast broadband which the Labour Opposition would never have done.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the Vodafone submission in response to the Government’s intervention proposal which shows that consumers pay more than was—Mr SPEAKER: Order! You have described the document. I just need to check its availability. Is it freely available to members?Hon David Parker: Well I have got a copy.Mr SPEAKER: So it is freely available. We are not wasting any further time.Schools Partnership—Criteria for Establishing and Successful Applicants4.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister of Education: Did her statement that “Partnership Schools/Kura Hourua will play their part in meeting our target of five out of five students achieving success in education. They will be established in areas where kids are currently underserved by the existing education system” reflect any selection criteria for the first partnership schools; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes.Metiria Turei: Is Albany where the Vanguard military charter school will be established where the Education Review Office reports that the public high schoolachieves “outstanding results at all levels” currently underserved by the existing education system?Hon HEKIA PARATA: All over the country there are pockets of disadvantage and underachievement in places that are considered to be wealthier areas. In respect of Vanguard Military School which is located in Albany it already caters to over 50 percent Māori and 20 percent Pasifika.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask the Minister about whom the school serves; I asked her whether Albany was currently underserved by the—Mr SPEAKER: And the Minister adequately addressed the question by saying that there isunderservicing all over the country.Metiria Turei: What was the 2012 course completion rate for Advance Training Centres the sponsor of the profit-making Vanguard charter school?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not have to hand that particular detail but I am happy to get it for the member. My understanding is that it has had a very successful rate of completion. It has been through a very comprehensive scrutiny process in order to be selected as a partnership kura and I wish it well.Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a document I have received from the Parliamentary Library showing that the 2012 completion rate for Advance Training Centres is just 59 percent.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just seeing whether there is any objection to that. There appears to be none so that document can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon HEKIA PARATA: I seek agreement to table the full selection criteria and standard agreements for all five partnership kura.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Order! Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Metiria Turei: Has she given up then on her five out of five target for charter schools given that she has just agreed to give large sums of public money to a private charter school with a record of just three out of five?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Not at all. We are completely committed to getting achievement up to five out of five. We have provided $19 million which is the average for a decile 3 school. We have established the expectation with all five partnership kura that they must have a target of enrolling 75 percent of our priority learners which is a far more stringent standard than anywhere else in the public education system.Metiria Turei: Is the Minister at all worried about funding a military school as a solution for Māori children when the Education Review Office has criticised funnelling Māori kids into non-academic courses at the expense of academic programmes that may respond much better to Māori children’s strengths and aspirations?Hon HEKIA PARATA: For a start the premise of the member’s question is that participating in a military career does not require academic achievement when most assuredly it does. Secondly of the five partnership kura approved yesterday two are going to have 100 percent registered teachers teaching the core national curriculum or TeMarautanga o Aotearoa. The targets for these partnership kura are the same national standards in National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 and are part of theBetter Public Services targets that this Government has set to ensure we raise achievement for five out of five.Metiria Turei: Is this really the limit of the Minister’s aspirations for our Māori and Pacific kids that she would spend all of this time and vast sums of public money on the preparation of legislation and advice to give a few select kids military training with an outcome of just three out of five?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member is wilfully ignoring the facts. One of the partnership kura includes provision for military training. No parent is compelled to send their child there. The height of my aspirations for all New Zealand children Māori and Pasifika included shared by this Government is that we achieve educational success for five out of five—unlike the Opposition which spent years wringing its hands over failure but did nothing material to address its parlous record.Oil and Gas Exploration—2014 Block Offer5.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to theMinister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcement has he made about Block Offer 2014?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): Today I announced the start of the Block Offer 2014 consultation process. A total area of just under 434000 square kilometres across five offshore and three onshore areas is being consulted on with relevant iwi and councils. The mixture of proposed areas offers a range of mature and frontier acreage in order to appeal to a diverse range of operators and help promote a stable path to future oil and gas production. Feedback received will inform final decisions about the make-up of the block offer tender which I expect to open in April of next year.Jonathan Young: How was the block offer process received by industry?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: This morning I spoke to a 300-strong crowd at the second annual New Zealand Petroleum Summit.Rt Hon Winston Peters: They’re still laughing.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: They hung off every word. The summit attracted leading explorers and producers including those currently operating here and those looking to New Zealand for opportunities. Block Offer 2014 will be the third time this Government has used the competitive tender round. Grant permits and feedback from industry on the process continue to be enthusiastic. Industry like this Government wants to strategically manage and maximise the returns from our resources in an environmentally responsible and safe way.Moana Mackey: Why is he charging ahead with exploration in the exclusive economic zone when the so-called environmental protections his Government has put in place are woefully inadequate when there are serious questions over our ability to respond in the event of an emergency and when there is zero guarantee of any local benefits such as local jobs or procurement policies especially given that the blowout that led to the Deepwater Horizon disaster occurred in an exploratory well?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member asking the question is completely wrong and ignorant in what she says. But I agree with the new economic development spokesman for the Labour Party that actually the Government needs to assuage whatever anxieties might be there in the minds of employers or of future investors in Taranaki in oil and gas and that actually sustainability is as much about sustaining the livelihoods of people as it is about guarding the ecological habitat of theHochstetter’s frog.Child Youth and Family—Funding and Resources6.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to theMinister for Social Development: Is she satisfied that all relevant government departments and agencies have the funding and resources required to implement her Children’s Action Plan?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Yes. The answer to every problem is not to simply throw more money at it and hope like we have seen in the past. Resources are being committed by local agencies and there are ongoing discussions about future funding that might be required.Jacinda Ardern: Does she believe that her new reporting requirements will lead to an increase in notifications to Child Youth and Family on top of the 50 percent increase in cases that have required its response since 2008?Hon PAULA BENNETT: No and we are currently looking at those reports that are coming from the police. I just want to give a bit of an indication of that. At the moment we have a total of 70503 family violence reports referred to Child Youth and Family from the police. Of this number 12737 were actual notifications that required some form of statutory response meaning that 57766 of them did not come anywhere near the threshold for Child Youth and Family to intervene. So what you actually have is a whole lot of notifications coming that do not come anywhere—Grant Robertson: No action.Hon PAULA BENNETT: No that is what the Children’s Teams are about. One of the members said “No action.” Well that is why we are forming the Children’s Teams because what we actually have right now is a whole lot of kids who are not getting anything. Instead what we will see is them actually having somewhere to go so that they can get a response. That is what we need: a much better response that is commensurate to what the need is.Jacinda Ardern: Is Child Youth and Family adequately staffed to deal with an increase in reporting given that an area like the central North Island which she considered an area critical enough to give a Children’s Team has 60 fewer social workers now than when she came into office?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well that is not actually correct. It is the way that the member has chosen to interpret the numbers. What I want to say is that we have got 96 more social workers on the front line now than we had when we came into office. They have had a 15 percent increase in their budget. But what I want to explain to the member which is what is really important is that we have literally as I have just explained tens of thousands of notifications that are going to Child Youth and Family that get nowhere near its threshold. So if you want to actually ask the real question the question is what the threshold of statutory intervention should be. We think the threshold is about right. I actually do not want Child Youth and Family in homes where it does not need to be. That is a very serious intervention so what we need to do is have better local interventions that have the help coming on the ground through our community organisations and iwi.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister implied—well actually she said that my calculation was incorrect. I wonder whether she could table the evidence for that answer—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a legitimate use of a point of order. It is now a means by which the member is questioning the answers she has been given. If she has further supplementary questions that is the way that she should question the Minister.Jacinda Ardern: Has workload played a role in the 128 percent increase in the number of Child Youth and Family staff who have received counselling for work-related issues since 2007?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am actually thrilled that those staff are getting the support that they need in the counselling. In fact the message that I have sent out to them in the last 5 years is that there is no stigma in getting counselling and that they are dealing with some of the most complex and the most tragic cases day to day on the front line. Our Christchurch staff have received more counselling and actually I think that that is entirely appropriate. I will stand next to those staff and support them in getting it. Quite frankly I find it quite ironic that it is that member who thinks there is a problem with it.Jacinda Ardern: If caseload is not an issue for Child Youth and Family why did Howard Broad state in the report that she commissioned into Child Youth and Family that there were doubts over whether social workers were checking on children in care and that “The reason given for non-compliance is the high level of caseloads of social workers”?Hon PAULA BENNETT: As the member knows we currently have a review going on into caseloads and that threshold. If it comes to light that we do need to put more staff on then I am completely open to looking at that. But one has to see the bigger picture. That is why we have the Children’s Action Plan. We have literally tens of thousands of children notifications at the moment that are coming through that are not getting dealt with. I think we have got a much bigger picture that we need to deal with. If part of that is actually looking at the caseloads of those social workers—Jacinda Ardern: It is.Hon PAULA BENNETT: —that is what we are currently doing. Well there is a review going on. The member should wake up and get with the programme. There is already a review that is happening and the results will be made available to her.Beneficiaries—Whiteware Purchasing Agreement7.MELISSA LEE (National) to theMinister for Social Development: What announcements has she made that will get beneficiaries better deals on white ware appliances saving taxpayers money?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I am delighted. In this year’s Budget we announced that we would work to get better value for beneficiaries and for taxpayers in the way that we help people purchase fridges freezers and washing machines. I am pleased to announce that we have finalised a whiteware purchasing agreement with Fisher and Paykel Appliances which will provide a good deal for both beneficiaries and taxpayers. We saw second-hand machines that quite frankly were not up to standard and for which far too much was being paid. Now they can get a new machine and I think that is really great for them.Melissa Lee: What difference will this procurement arrangement make for beneficiaries?Hon PAULA BENNETT: At the moment they get repayable grants for whiteware. They will still get repayable grants but instead of getting second-hand machines for not far off the same price they will actually be getting a new machine with a 2-year warranty. It will be delivered to them and it will last 5 years. There are significant savings for them and significant savings for the taxpayer.Melissa Lee: What savings are anticipated as a result of this procurement arrangement?Hon PAULA BENNETT: On average beneficiaries borrow around $10.5 million a year to spend on whiteware. Conservative estimates put it that there will be $10 million in savings over 5 years but also the savings to the individual and their family are I think really considerable.Jacinda Ardern: Has the Minister noted the concerns raised by the New Zealand manufacturing community in the inquiry led by the Opposition; if so what proportion of whiteware procured by the Ministry of Social Development will be manufactured in New Zealand?Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I have said the contract is with Fisher and Paykel Appliances. Some will be made overseas; some will be manufactured here. I do not know what the proportion is and I am not particularly interested to be honest because I think—Hon Members: Oh!Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well go and tell that to all the New Zealand companies that export shall we? Well go and tell all the New Zealand companies that export their products that actually those countries overseas should not be purchasing them. This is a great initiative for New Zealanders and a great initiative for beneficiaries. The member should actually take that on board.Earthquake Commission—Security of Personal Information8.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) to theMinister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Does he stand by his statement yesterday in relation to the Earthquake Commission’s latest privacy breach “I guess when they’re dealing with that level of correspondence things can happen”?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): In the context of the nearly 3 million pieces of correspondence sent out by the Earthquake Commission yes.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that the Earthquake Commission has just breached 260 customers’ privacy following a series of breaches where 98000 claims details and 2000 cancelled cheques were released should the people of New Zealand now accept that privacy breaches are a business-as-usual practice from the commission?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What I can report to the member is that the Earthquake Commission identified a possible 263 customers who may have received incorrect information. Of 177 customers who have been corrected 11 have confirmed they have received the wrong information. That is not acceptable and I do want a better performance but in the context of 3 million pieces of correspondence being sent out by the commission I do not think this is an outrageous breach. I do think though that there was an outrageous breach earlier this week when my colleague and Associate Minister received a note inviting her to the Labour front-bench meeting with the Hon David Cunliffe.Grant Robertson: She didn’t even show up.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No she did not show up but I have got bad news for the member asking the question because he is not on the next list.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am glad he looks on these breaches with such seriousness. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! On the Government side of the House.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can the Minister confirm that the Earthquake Commission advised him on 31 March—[Interruption] Can you not hear? The Minister cannot hear.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member start his question again please.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Thank you. Can he confirm that the Earthquake Commission advised him on 31 March 2013 that the commission had identified that “170000 Excel spreadsheets”—that is approximately 141 spreadsheets per employee—“are still live some of which are located on third-party computers”; if so how can he possibly have confidence that the Earthquake Commission has the ability to protect claimants’ private and personal information?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The issue of protecting people’s privacy through the Earthquake Commission has been a challenging one from the outset. The reality is that in the early days after the earthquake that member and many of his other cronies on the other side of the House were claiming that we were not moving—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I simply asked the Minister to confirm whether he had had a set of advice from his Earthquake Commission. That is what the question was—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That was not the question. It was far more elaborate than that. I am going to ask the Minister to complete his answer.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As I said from the outset protecting people’s privacy has been an important aspect of this work. What I will say is that in the early days after the earthquake there were many people including members of the Opposition who were saying: “Get things done faster. Move more quickly. Why is it taking so long?”. The Earthquake Commission went to aniPad-based assessment system which meant that some of the 1500 engineers who were in the field did end up holding information that perhaps they should not have had. I have asked the Earthquake Commission to ensure that the privacy of people is protected. I have to say that if any system that has dealt with 3 million pieces of correspondence is looked at there will probably be privacy breaches of this type—the number being 11 so far. As I have said earlier this week—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is completely irrelevant—Mr SPEAKER: Order! And the member does not—[Interruption] Order! The member does not need to interrupt. I was standing to my feet to agree with the member.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request received on 3 September identifying that the Minister has received the advice I outlined in my question about the 170000 spreadsheets and the risks associated with them.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? No.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does the Minister recall giving a commitment to Cantabrians exactly 1 year ago today to conduct a review of the Earthquake Commission which included in its focus the “institutional structure and design of the Earthquake Commission including its roles”; if so why has virtually nothing been done to progress this review apart from it receiving a few submissions given that that review could have helped to identify solutions to protect claimants’ private and personal information?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I did and the member is wrong to assert that nothing has happened. That review is ongoing. His problem is that none of the review documents has managed to leak to him.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that the terms of reference for the review stipulated that it was to be completed “by mid-2013”—that is completion—why has so little progress been made; if there has been progress can he outline for the House exactly what that is in order to assist people and assist the commission with solutions to protect people’s privacy?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well for a start that is a review of the Earthquake Commission’s overall operation its policy and its cover. It is most focused on future cover. So we have of course had reviews into the privacy issues as the member knows and we have had 11 breaches recently against 3 million. Given that we had one this week against 34—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That part is not necessary to the answer.Public Transport Auckland—City Rail Link Commencement Date9.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to theMinister of Transport: What is the cost of deferring the construction of the Auckland City Rail Link from 2015 the preferred start date of Auckland Council to 2020 the Government’s proposed start date?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): There was never an agreed start date for the City Rail Link so there is no deferral.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table a report to the Auckland Council Transport Committee that states that the cost will be $100 million a year a total cost of half a billion dollars for the delay.Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of that document?Julie Anne Genter: It is a report from Auckland Transport to the Auckland Council Transport Committee.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am deeply concerned. If that was the verification for this question being asked then apparently that is some justification for the term “delay” being put in the question. There is no delay. There has been no agreed start.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was ruled in order. The Minister very satisfactorily answered the question. Leave was then sought to table a particular document. No objection was raised. It has been tabled. I will now look to the member for further supplementary questions.Julie Anne Genter: Given that forecasts state that by 2021 the existing rail and bus network in Auckland City centre will be at full capacity will he now prioritise the City Rail Link to reduce costs and congestion sooner and receive the benefits all across the transport network sooner?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well the first point is that the benefit-cost ratios on this rail loop in 2021 are incredibly poor. The member regularly refers to those in relation to roads but seems to want to ignore them in relation to rail. The other point would be that we have said clearly to Auckland that if the conditions that are outlined in the Auckland transport plan do start to show signs of bearing truth then we would want to move forward the project itself. That is not an unreasonable position. But to simply stand in this House and assert that we are going to be in a certain situation by 2021 knowing that the benefit-cost ratios then will be between only 0.4 and 0.9 I think is plain irresponsible.Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he believe that the Congestion Free Network proposed by Generation Zero and the Auckland Transport Blog is desirable; if so does he understand that in order for that network to be completed by 2030 components like the rail link must be prioritised now rather than deferring them to build more motorways first?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What I understand is that there are lots of organisations out there prepared to spend money on behalf of the Government. We look at what is a reasonable position to reach. We are in discussions with Auckland Transport. We have set down some conditions around the funding that the Government wants to commit to this rail loop at an appropriate time. I think that is where it should lead. I am not responding to any of these various groups that will come up with any number of fast ideas about how the Government should spend its money.Julie Anne Genter: Given that traffic volumes in Auckland have been declining steadily for 7 years now why is his Government pushing ahead with the “Holiday Highway” which is going to save only 2 minutes for most drivers on most days whiledelaying the start of the City Rail Link which will not only save up to half an hour for Auckland commuters every weekday but also take 50000 cars off Auckland’s congested roads?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: First the Government does not have a road on its programme referred to as the “Holiday Highway”. What we do have are concerns about access into the north. As for the issue around patronage we have made it very clear to Auckland Transport that if we see those patronage figures nearing the estimates then we would be prepared to look at our funding commitment sooner.Julie Anne Genter: So is the Government’s plan to wait for congestion to reach a critical point in 2021 before acting rather than getting the right infrastructure built in advance that is not only going to benefit rail users but going to provide certainty for business and benefit motorists most of all?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What the Government has said is that when we see the conditions that Auckland Transport set for itself starting to resemble the numbers that it is predicting then we will want to talk about moving forward. Other than that we are saying that business plans are starting in 2017 with construction starting in 2020.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this graph showing the Minister that traffic volumes are declining.Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the source of the document?Julie Anne Genter: The New Zealand Transport Agency but we have turned it into a graph to be more helpful to the Minister.Mr SPEAKER: If it is information available from the New Zealand Transport Agency then members can get it.Prisoners Rehabilitation and Rate of Reoffending—Training and Drug and Alcohol Treatment10.IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to theMinister of Corrections: What recent announcements has she made to reduce re-offending in prison?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): I recently launched a comprehensive prisoner education strategy that will give prisoners the skills and qualifications they need in order to find work when they are released from prison. For the first time every prisoner will have an education assessment when they enter prison which will be used to develop an individual learning and training plan. This will enable corrections to provide targeted and results-focused learning programmes to prisoners supporting them to gain qualifications. And for the first time we have set ambitious education targets to ensure that we will get the results that we need. By July 2017 85 percent of youth prisoners will be involved in National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 qualifications and 55 percent of prisoners aged 25 to 34 will receive support towards New Zealand Qualifications Framework qualifications at level 4 or above.Ian McKelvie: What role does education play in reducing reoffending?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Research has consistently shown that offenders who are in employment and have stability in their lives are less likely to reoffend. Most prisoners cannot read or write properly and if this is not addressed prisoners on release have difficulty adjusting to life on the outside have difficulty finding work and too often return to crime. So this new education strategy will ensure that prisoners are given the opportunity to gain the skills they need—Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it works inside prison why won’t it work outside? Think about it.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: —and this complements the other work we are doing in our prisons to increase drug and alcohol treatment. I am happy to give you some advice on that Mr Peters. Getting prisoners off drugs and giving them educational qualificationsand employment training will ensure we meet our Better Public Services target of reducing reoffending—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You would have heard what that member said—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I cannot hear—Rt Hon Winston Peters: You would have heard what that member said and all I want to tell her is that if she wants a free-for-all for her and her colleagues she will get it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. [Interruption] Order! If the Rt Hon Winston Peters is going to continue to bellow across the Chamber I will be asking him to leave.Le’aufa’amuliaAsenati Lole-Taylor: Is the Minister aware or does she know of the completion rate of those prisoners undertaking rehabilitation programmes to address their sexual violence offending; if not why not?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We have a number of rehabilitation interventions for offenders charged with sexual offences. I do not have the figures in front of me but I am happy to provide them to the member if she wants to put that question to me in writing. Those offenders can in fact be very successfully trained to deal with their problems and of course there are quite rigorous post-release arrangements to make sure that they do not cause more harm in the community.Prescription Co-payments Increase—Impact11.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to theMinister of Health: Does he agree that every person can afford healthcare and disability support regardless of their income health status or risk profile?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): In New Zealand we heavily subsidise primary care and have free hospital care but for some New Zealanders cost can be an issue and that is the reason we have a welfare system. For example although prescription charges have gone up by $2 an item with a 20-item cap those who have difficulty in meeting this cost can discuss their circumstances with their general practitioner and pharmacist or they can go to Work and Income New Zealand.Hon Annette King: Well in light of that answer is he concerned with reports in theDominion Post on Monday of pharmacists saying that people are not collecting their prescriptions are taking only a few days of medication at a time and are choosing some drugs over others because of the increase in prescription fees and of health professionals now saying that it is the poorer patients who are suffering; if not why not?Hon TONY RYALL: I would have to say that some people not picking up their medications for cost and other reasons is not new but the Government has made it very clear that people will be able to qualify for a pharmaceutical subsidy card after reaching 20 prescription items in a year which means that no family need pay more than an extra $40 a year as a result of the co-payment. If they do have any troubles they can go to Work and Income New Zealand. The use of the pharmaceutical subsidy card means that about one-third of prescriptions filled in New Zealand are filled without any co-payment.Hon Annette King: Well in light of that answer if it is all OK why did the Ministry of Health hold a meeting with a number of stakeholders in the past month where the ministry expressed concern at the growing number of people unable to afford to pick up their prescriptions because of the increased cost and asked the stakeholders to help them find a solution because “It could become an election issue.”?Hon TONY RYALL: I am unaware of that meeting. I would have to check the facts. It could be like the member’s claim about Timaru Hospital’s various reports withdoctored Official Information Act requests. Because I am unaware of that and it is not verifiable I cannot comment.Hon Annette King: I will verify it later. How does he decide how serious the problem is especially for poorer and older New Zealanders when he has informed me that he does not receive any regular reports from any entity on the impact on patients of his increased prescription charges when he dismisses the concerns of health professionals and when his own ministry is too scared to tell him it is worried about the growing impact of the hiked fees on patients?Hon TONY RYALL: For some people it is difficult and that is the reason Work and Income New Zealand is able to support those people and it is the reason we have the prescription subsidy card. What I can report to the member is that actually the number of prescriptions being filled in New Zealand according to all the data that I have got is increasing. The amount of money that we have made available for pharmacies is also increasing.Hon Annette King: Is he aware that hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who are eligible for an exemption card from the prescription charge miss out because they do not get their prescriptions filled at the same pharmacy; if so will he support my solution of a pharmacy card that is able to be used in any pharmacy and that records all prescriptions dispensed ensuring that when a patient does reach the 20-script limit they get the exemption they are entitled to; if not why not?Hon TONY RYALL: I am aware that each year more than 750000 people use the pharmaceutical subsidy card to maintain their medicines and the Government is working on a number of options related to new electronic support in pharmacies which will facilitate people having easier access to the issues that the member raises. What I would say to the member is that it would be helpful if when she meets anybody who is having trouble with their pharmaceutical costs she advises them that they are able to contact Work and Income New Zealand for support.Hon Annette King: Does he recall saying that pharmacists play an important role in primary health care; if so why does he not listen to their experiences of the impact of the increased prescription fees which have led to problems not only for patients but also for pharmacists themselves who say they are now carrying greater debt they are throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars of medication and they are providing prescriptions on a drip-feed basis?Hon TONY RYALL: Because I think the feedback from pharmacies is not necessarily as represented by that member. I think that many pharmacists will tell you there has not been much of a change in their area; others are having difficulty. Those people who do experience difficulty meeting pharmaceutical charges should contact Work and Income New Zealand for support. What I can advise is that this Government continues to invest very strongly in pharmacy services and in the health service as a whole. There is record funding of $500 million a year extra on average under the National Government.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter to me from Tony Ryall received on 12 August 2013 stating that he does not receive regular reports from any entity on the impact on patients of the increase in prescription fees to $5.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular letter from the Minister to the Hon Annette King. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Road Safety—Safer Journeys Strategy12.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to theAssociate Minister of Transport: What progress has been made as part of the Safer Journeys road safety strategy?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Associate Minister of Transport): In the 4 years since the Government released theSafer Journeys: discussion document there have been a number of significant policy changes to reduce the rate of death and injury on our roads and agencies are now well joined up as they work to deliver this joint goal. We have targeted drink-drivers put in place a zero alcohol limit for under-20s and recidivists lifted the driving age and made the restricted licence testing more challenging. We have got more front-line police and sustained advertising and education campaigns are in place. A lot of work has gone in to lowering our road toll and we are now seeing real results.Mike Sabin: How has the road toll and injury rate changed since the start of the Safer Journeys strategy?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The 2013 road toll currently sits at 183—the lowest year-to-date figure on record. This represents a reduction of nearly 40 percent on this time 4 years ago. The latest available year-to-date figures for crashes involving drivers aged 15 to 24 years show a 56 percent decrease in the number of fatalities and serious injuries from 2009. That means that 1122 young people have avoided death or serious injury on the road in the past 4 years since the 2009 base. In saying that we are certainly not resting on our laurels and there are more safety initiatives on the way through the Safety Journeys road safety strategy.General DebateHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I moveThat the House take note of miscellaneous business. I have previously personally congratulated the Hon David Cunliffe on his elevation to the Labour leadership and I have now got the opportunity to publicly say to David Cunliffe “Good luck for the ride you have ahead.” I say that with some reservation because within 48 hours it looks very much to us as if it is just another David another day and another step to the left as we see the disloyalty in the Labour caucus slowly beginning to foment.I was just looking across the House at the front bench and thinking “What is going to be different next Monday? What is going to change next Monday?”. First I looked at the Hon Annette King and I thought that no you cannot bring back the man ban and get rid of Annette King. That just would not be compatible. Miss Ardern falls into the same category of protection. The man ban is on; therefore they survive on the front bench. Then you go across to the other end and you look at Mr Twyford and there is quite a dilemma in trying to assess what is going to happen because we saw on TV one shot of him with Grant Robertson at his headquarters on Sunday and then miraculously moments later he was in the shot with David Cunliffe in Auckland. So he has got a fifty-fifty chance of surviving.Then there is of course the inexplicable elevation of David Parker to the deputy leadership. We know what happened. There was a call for nominations for deputy leader and there was a deathly silence. And then David looked up from inside his papers and said “What about me?” and that was it. It was declared and the job was given to him.Then there is Grant Robertson. Well he is like Shane Jones. They both performed very well. They went around for 3 weeks saying what great buddies they all were how much they appreciated each other how much they admired each other and how muchthey wanted to work with each other. So he has to stay and so does Shane. Mind you I will say this about Shane. I think that if he just holds his water all is going to be his before too long. I think the way he connected with the public was quite extraordinary—quite worrying in fact for someone on this side of the House. He is a man of extraordinary talents when it comes to communicating with ordinary New Zealanders and I think that within time quite clearly many of his colleagues many of the 28 colleagues who did not vote for him are going to come back to him.That leaves just one possibility as a dead cert to be dropped off the front bench and that is my Canterbury colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. This comes as a deeply disturbing thing for me because Clayton Cosgrove has spoken in the House 21 times since the beginning of 2012—not a bad sort of record for substantial speeches in the House. In every one of those speeches he has mentioned my name multiple times. It is almost a fixation that the poor man has. In the imprest supply debate he mentioned my name six times. In the Environment Canterbury bill debate it was five times. There are many threes there are many fours and there are many fives. I got mentioned six times in the Canterbury schools debate.But somewhat inexplicably he mentioned me five times in the debate on the State-owned energy companies and the delay of the sale of Mighty River Power—five times. Then when it came to the Mixed Ownership Model Bill in Committee I got nine mentions—nine mentions. These were 5-minute speeches and I took up most of them. In the Address in Reply debate this year he outdid himself. In the Address in Reply debate he outdid himself. It was a 10-minute speech and I got 11 mentions. That is one a minute. It is quite clear that the man thinks of nothing else but me. Clearly he is a man who does not have his eye on his policy portfolio issues and who has a certain fixation with me which is worrying because the deputy leader once had one of those as well.This is a party going to the electorate promising to raise taxes for New Zealanders promising all sorts of regulation of food price for example and regulation of taxi price and increasing tax rates on anything other than personal income tax. And then there is this extraordinary thing where Labour says that it is going to extend Part 6A the vulnerable worker provisions of the Employment Relations Act. I want to know whether Mr Cunliffe is going to extend Part 6A to his own caucus.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): It is very very interesting when the balloon rises to hear from Gerry Brownlee counting references to his good self in my colleague’s speeches just to ensure that he is being given the appropriate weighting. Where is the National front bench? He may be big but he is not that big.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You know that it is not appropriate to mention members’ absences from the House but it should come as no surprise that when that member is on a speech no one is here.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part did not help the Minister himself. The member knows full well that that is not appropriate but I am not saying that he did. He knows the rules and he will act responsibly.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. We have a point of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The fact of the matter is that Mr Cunliffe did not offend the rules of this House—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member resume his seat. [Interruption] Would the member resume his seat. That is exactly what I said when I responded to the point of order. The member was quite within his rights in the way that he referred to “Where isthe front bench?”. The member should listen before he rises to his feet. Would the Hon David Cunliffe please start his speech again.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you Mr Speaker. Well look—Labour is off and running. We have declared that the election campaign has started now and the National Party is rising to the occasion. Look at those members—such a bundle of energy!Hon Member: That’s their A-team.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That is the A-team. If the cap fits wear it. We are ready to run because this is actually a very serious debate between a Labour Party that is revved up and ready to go to protect jobs grow the pie and close the gaps. And on that side what have we got? Good old-fashioned crony capitalism.In the last week we have seen handouts to RioTinto over the top of Treasury advice personally orchestrated by the Prime Minister. We have seenSkycity where the Government has mortgaged proper process in order to protect a casino and problem gambling is on the rise. We have seen the second-biggest corporate bailout in New Zealand history with the Chorus deal at $600 million. Those members cannot have it both ways. Either they got it terribly terribly wrong and Kiwis are not hooking up to their ultra-fast broadband or they have just done another sleazy deal for their mates. The one that cops it for me is snapper. Something so humble as the mighty snapper reveals what this National Government is all about. Hail-fellow-well-met has been laundered into good-fellow-well-kept.This is not a Government focused on building a strong economy that works for Kiwi families; this is a Government focused on feathering the nests of its own big-business backers—shame! And there is Minister Bridges the helium balloon with the perpetual grin flying too high to the sun. How long will it take for the balloon to pop? He has never seen a province he could not drill. Well we are going to take the smile off his face and what about the smiling faces behind and beside him? You know I think they must be reflecting on the Government’s economic credibility. That is why they are so happy. They are reflecting on the fact that in 4 years they have never run a surplus. How many? Zero. How many deficits under Labour? None—nine straight Budget surpluses. National—four straight deficits.Here is another fact they do not like to admit. In the last 30 years economic growth and job growth have been higher under Labour Governments than under National Governments. Labour is the party to manage the economy. Around and beside me—with much more yet to be announced; there is more good news—let me draw attention to the Hon Shane Jones. He has better business networks than the entire National front bench. There is the proudly pointy-headed David Parker—Hon David Parker: Thank you.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —thank you—who knows more numbers than Bill English has had hot lunches right? And Grant Robertson is at the front of the scrum handing it out to those guys with Clayton Cosgrove Annette King and Jacinda Ardern in support. No wonder they are looking forward to the fight. No wonder they are all here brimming with enthusiasm.This is a Government that looks like a third-term Government in its second term. This is a Government on its way out. And we are a Government on the way in which is why from next week there will be a shadow Cabinet and soon a new Cabinet. Thank you.Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Māori Party—TāmakiMakaurau):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Keikoneiahau etūana. Keikoneimātou o tePāti Māori etūanai rotoi te WharePāremata ki terapuitētahi kaupapa heiwhakakotahiaiingā iwi o Aotearoa.Nā te mamae me tepōuritanga oNgāi Māorii tetāhaetanga o tetakutai moanaipupūake teririi rotoi atātou. Teriri ki teKāwanatanga teriri kitēnei WharePāremata teriri kingā turengā kawangāwhakahaere otēnei Whare epupurianai te tikangaKāwanatangamō Aotearoawhānui.Nā rotoitēnāriri katipuai te kaupapa o tePāti Māori.Nā ōmātouwhānauhapū iwi ōrātouwawatatūmanako ā-tikanga Māoriiwhakatō ki rotoi tePāti Māorihaikawe ki rotoitēnei Whare.Nā e te rangatira kotēnei tetīmatanga o tePāti Māori metōmātouhīkoi ki tewhaiingā kaupapa Māorimōtēnei WharemōtēneiKāwanatanga.Aneiahau.Aneimātou o tePāti Māori etū atuneihaimāngaimōrātouhaimāngaimō ātātoutīpuna heimāngaimō ātātou tamariki mokopunawhakatipuranga. Etū Māorianamātou.[Greetings to you Mr Speaker. I am standing here and we of the Māori Party are standing here in Parliament House looking for a forum that will unite the tribes of New Zealand. BecauseMāoridom was hurt and saddened by the theft of the foreshore fury welled up in us at the Government at this House of Parliament and at the laws protocols and procedures of this House that hold Government practice for New Zealand generally. The ideology of the Māori Party blossomed out of that indignation.Our families subtribes tribes their aspirations and expectations and wise Māori lore were planted in the Māori Party to bring these forth into this House. This then is the genesis of the Māori Party and our journey to pursue Māori matters for this House and the Government. Here I am and here we are of the Māori Party standing before you as their representatives and as representatives for our ancestors children grandchildren and the ones to come. We represent Māori.]I want to tell you something about the Māori Party. Its members are unashamedly Māori. We are unashamed to say who we are where we have come from and whom we represent. We are a small party but we are a Māori Party. We are not encumbered by a caucus that puts Māori issues in a box. For us every issue is a Māori issue. We are not encumbered by a caucus that will give lower priority to those issues in that Māori box unlike this party over here that is making that noise. And when we measure Māori issues we are not encumbered by having to consider those issues from any other viewpoint than our own Māori kaupapa.WhenRuatoki was raided by the police as mandated by the Labour Government of the day we did not have to negotiate our position with anyone else butTūhoe. We stood by them. We continue to stand by them today. When injustice is present in our justice system we do not have to ask permission to speak out; we speak out about the issues that we see. When the people ofMātaatua waka were faced with theRena disaster we were first there to voice our concerns over that issue. When ourwhānau are being disproportionately affected by the impacts of poverty we move to action. We established the Ministerial Committee on Poverty and secured $1 billion worth of support for them. When the rights of Māori are threatened we will be there. We will be there and no one can stop us from standing by their side.So I stand here today to say how proud I am to be part of a kaupapa that prioritises the aspirations tikanga and desires of the indigenous people of this land. I am proud to say that in everything we do we are Māori. I tell you this because I am sick to death of hearing people debate Māori issues in a box. Generation after generation of ourtīpuna have represented us in this House and have had their voices marginalised. I have seen this happen in every shape every sphere and every space in the political system. We had to fight the system in order to maintain our culture. We had to fight for our language. We had to fight for the Tiriti o Waitangi. We had to fight to maintain our Māori seats. This is not about fighting for fighting’s sake; this is about fighting for survival.The job of the Māori Party is clear. As members of this House we have a responsibility to support Māori issues. I want to say that the Labour Party had a hugeopportunity to move forward our journey as Māori. It was an opportunity that it misused and overlooked. Despite what Shane said to me on Twitter this morning which I put down to a basic need for my attention he is part of my community. He is Māori and he could have been the first Māori leader of the Labour Party and thus possibly the first Māori Prime Minister. That opportunity was wasted and despite my feelings about that party I am sorely sorely disappointed that Labour did not take that step for the Māori people. This is from the very party that claims to hold Māori aspirations on high.What that tells me is that the Māori Party although small still has a very important role to play in keeping Māori issues in front of minds and in front of the House because Labour cannot and will not do this for Māori.Tēnā koe.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. On the point of survival we have just heard from what must pass as the ethnic equivalent ofMāui’s dolphin—an endangered species that is nice to have but will struggle to survive. Set-net bans will not save that particular group of people.Māoridom no longer wants a gerontocracy.Māoridom does not want for example that person who currently chairs—if I can call the Māori Party Maui’s dolphins I can call the current chair of Māori Television former National Party MP Georgina te Heuheu the moa of Māori broadcasting. She must go.But on the point of going and resignations no one deserves more attention than Mr Steven Joyce the laundryman on the seventh floor of the Beehive with alaundromat that has laundered taxpayers’ largesse No. 1 to the media company of which he was a former shareholder. As if that in itself was not a sackable offence the man goes on to wear that stunt as a crowning glory. Then just to show that he does enjoy his actual appellation—i.e. that he is a slugger; focus on “slug”—he turns round today and defends a $1 billion interest-free loan to further cronies of his Chorus. But to top it off he goes to the blackjack table and hands over $400 million to the casino.Where there is a pool of liquidity that the State has ownership over you will find that parliamentarian slaking at it. That is why he deserves the moniker “The Lizard” or the “Reptile of Parliament”. He has the feature of being utterly cold-blooded. He wonders about only one thing: money. He is disdainful of the community sneers at our regions and is scornful of levels of propriety and integrity that should belong to a person in this House of such seniority in the Cabinet. That man is a confluence where personal affluence has become political effluence. Up and down this country we remind New Zealanders that in his hands if you screech loud enough or if you yell loud enough you will be paid out. That will not turn round the 154000 New Zealanders who have been left on the scrap heap or the 45000 New Zealanders each year who find that the only succour available to them is a trans-Tasman flight.I actually do think that Bill English is an old-time patrician. I can see a little bit of Holyoake a bit of Birch and a bit of Bolger in him. But in that man Steven Joyce I see the servant of Caesars Palace. He will not uphold the standards of this legislature. He is fast and loose with the most sacred of responsibilities: being a good steward of this House’s reputation and maintaining high levels of probity. He enjoys being known as the slugger of his party. Well I was probably going to give that to Gerry but given that I am quite partial to him from time to time I do not want him to think of me as regarding him as an insect when there is a far better candidate to be known as very reptilian cold-blooded and driven only by personal gain and commercial accumulation. That person I say to you has sold out the regions has sold a pup to the Māori Party—which will soon disappear—but most important shows an utter disregard for the day-to-day woes that afflict our families and our households. And somehow he wears that knowledge with a mask of pride a perpetual sneer. I look forward to the opportunity once we have settled our roles on this side of wiping that sneer off his face and wipingthe smirk off the pup ofTauranga’s face. That is the level of commitment we bring to our job. Kia oratātou.Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I watched the news on TV this morning like the rest of New Zealand and it got me thinking about Team New Zealand and Oracle Team USA. When the winds did not cooperate and the boats could not sail I immediately thought of team Labour and poor old—young old—Chris Hipkins. He is obviously very very upset to have been dumped from being chief whip to chief nobody. But can he be surprised when characteristic of the disunity on that side of the House Mr Hipkins had opined on Television One: “David Cunliffe has been working for some time now to destabilise the current leadership. He worked to destabilise the last leadership. And I think it’s time to call him out on that.” Well look what happens when you call to account the latest leader of the Labour Party. You get dumped. I guess it gives new and pungent meaning to the term “What goes around comes around”.Actually I am quite keen to get a new education spokesperson. I would like Grant Robertson but then so did the caucus apparently and it did not get him either. When Mr Cunliffe said he was not out for retribution it is a bit like Larry Ellison saying that he is really relaxed about how well Team New Zealand is doing. It should be taken with a grain of salt.Dr Megan Woods: Or like you saying: “Charter schools won’t teach creationism.”Hon HEKIA PARATA: Thanks to that member for bringing me to my next point. When we announced partnership kura yesterday we announced the facts of them. For the first time the latest Labour leader actually remarked on education “It is to use no facts whatsoever. It is to say they are unaccountable.” when in fact they are going to be reporting four times a year to the Ministry of Education which is not required of schools. They are going to be monitored not only by the Education Review Office but by the Partnership Schools/Kura Hourua Authorisation Board. The latest Labour leader said that they were going to be businesses but in fact four are charitable trusts and one is a private training establishment. The latest Labour leader said that they would not be meeting the needs of those we are targeting when in fact they are required to have 75 percent. So if that is the kind of reliability that we can expect from the latest Labour leader then I think we will continue to see the disunity of the mob opposite.On this side of the House we are focused on an education policy. Indeed my colleague the Hon Anne Tolley has indicated today that we are interested in education all over New Zealand’s system both in schools and in prisons and in how we make sure that people are skilled for the workforce and for the economy about which the latest Labour leader speaks but has no policy as to how it is actually going to be achieved. Guess what! Education policy is not about closing schools as it was under that party. You actually have to educate young people.If that Opposition would like some example of how to work together perhaps its members could look at yet another initiative of this Government called Excel Rotorua. It is an innovative approach to raising achievement that relies on a community working together—something that the Labour Opposition might need to take heed of. It puts children at the heart of the attention it encourages the leaders and the teachers to work together it engages parents and it focuses on a result and outcome which is that every young person will be successful.Sue Moroney: Then they lived happily ever after.Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well the prospects of living happily ever after under this Government are so much higher than under the approach of the disunited rabble and the latest Labour leader on that side of the House. I opened my remarks by commenting on the fact that Chris Hipkins has been removed from the whip’s role and has instead beenreplaced by greater stridency uninformed by thought. If that is the characteristic of the Opposition then we can look forward to increasing disunity.One of the things that I do want to comment on—because again on this side of the House we actually do require meritocracy and we have not had to resort to silly policies about how the Labour Opposition might increase the number of women in its party. In fact we are about to celebrate Suffrage Day tomorrow. What we will be focusing on is encouraging more qualified intelligent articulate capable and competent women of the kinds we see here on this side of the House who can win elections because they have policies. They understand that the country—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.JAN LOGIE (Green): I will change gear a little bit and I apologise to those who love the fray for not slagging anyone off in this speech. I would like to speak on the theme that was just raised by the previous speaker the Minister of Education about suffrage. This week we will be celebrating 120 years of women being able to vote for members of this House and that is a significant event for this country.I really want to honour the work of our foremothers and remind us all of their struggle to be able to improve the dignity of women in this country. There are really well-known women who were at the front of that movement—Kate SheppardMeri Te TaiMangakahia—but there were thousands of women behind them fighting for 24 years to be able to get that vote. It was 24 years after the first article that raised the possibility of women in this country getting the vote before we actually got it. There were 31 petitions brought in front of this House before we managed to get the vote. There were seven bills that were voted down before the eighth bill was finally passed. Women were ridiculed women were attacked and vilified for this work but they kept going because they believed in a woman’s right to vote and they believed that women being able to participate in this system would make our society a better place.And yet it was not until 1919 that women were actually able to be representatives in this House though I do need to acknowledge that Māori women gained the ability to be represented in the Māori Parliament much before that in 1897 and there certainly were parallel processes happening. But the first woman who was elected to our Parliament was Elizabeth McCombs in 1933. In 1949IriakaRātana was the first Māori woman elected. Then we had a big gap before Georgina Beyer the first transsexual woman was elected in 1999 and Luamanuvao Winnie Laban was also elected as the first Pacific woman. Maryan Street who is still here was the first out lesbian in this Parliament. Pansy Wong in 2006 was the first Asian woman—Melissa Lee: 1996.JAN LOGIE: —sorry 1996. Thank you. Mojo Mathers was the first deaf woman to be a representative in this Parliament in only 2011.It has been a long history in terms of getting representation and having our diversity represented and we still have a long way to go. In the early 1940s about 50 years after women first got the right to vote there had been only two women elected. When we reflected again in 1984 when the Women’s Electoral Lobby was set up there were only eight out of 92 seats in this House filled by women. The progress did not happen automatically. The struggle has continued.Thousands of women in this country have kept up the fight for improving the dignity of women and women’s representation going through that whole time and women are still fighting. They are still fighting for safety. They are still fighting for equal pay just conditions and a fair share of labour and representation. I do have to say that this Government is failing to deliver on their full human rights. It is failing to protect and promote women’s human rights on those issues.In terms of equal pay the Government has been given the opportunity to revise the legislation—and the Equal Pay Amendment Bill in my name would have done that in a very minor way—but the Government refused to do it. In terms of pay equity we know that in the case of the carers bill which would have provided for some pay equity the Government went back and changed legislation to deny that ability. It has failed to take action which has resulted in the unions having to spend some of the union fees of the lowest-paid workers in this country on trying to get equal pay for women. This country can do better. Women deserve equal rights and we will continue that struggle.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): What an extraordinary start for so-called team Cunliffe: 11 votes in support out of 34 from his caucus. That is less than 33 percent—less than 33 percent. In our two leading paper editorials from theNew Zealand Herald we had“ ‘Peace’ is clearly not breaking out as Mr Cunliffe predicted on Monday.” and theDominion Post said that Team Cunliffe shows “signs some of his crew are thinking about abandoning ship.”What a contrast. Over the last few weeks we have seen Dean Barker and his crew on Emirates Team New Zealand show a magnificent lead and wonderful teamwork Kiwis have revelled in the great win by the All Blacks over South Africa—29-15 extraordinary teamwork—and of course under the superb leadership ofTanaUmaga Counties Manukau or the Steelers have for the first time in the history of the world won the Ranfurly Shield. This Saturday when they meet Waikato every man woman and child potato carrot and onion in Pukekohe will be rooting for them. What fantastic community cohesion.So the spoiler in all this has been the circus of the three self-styled stooges David Cunliffe Grant Robertson and Shane Jones proselytising their wares up and down the length and breadth of New Zealand and out-promising each other. For the ordinary Kiwi it has been like being incessantly irritated by mutant ninja mosquitoes and not having enough powerful repellent to get rid of them. I have heard reports that the irritating sound alone has resulted in a serious syndrome known as “Labour Leader Election Fever Torment”—acronym “LLEFT”. Thank goodness it is over. But of course the nightmare scenario is that it all could happen again very soon. I am told that a full bite from one of these three results in the victim’s systematic bloodyexsanguination. There is blood everywhere and there is no evidence that it is going away.But MrCunliffe’s ultimate cunning plan however is to lurch the Labour Party so far to the left that he and his surprise deputy leader David Parker will morph with their Green comrades into “Russel Cunliffe” “David Norman” and “Metiria Parker Turei”—a frightening political mutation unable to be put down by any toxic substance known to man. As I hear from constituents up and down the country it means putting the straitjacket of unions on enterprise and productivity. It means a capital gains tax with a very imperfect inefficient design. It means profligate spending at a time when New Zealand is just coming out of a world recession.The trouble is that it gets worse and worse. One of MrCunliffe’s many promises included senior appointments for Grant Robertson and Shane Jones. Well Grant Robertson is not deputy leader any more and will Shane Jones be allowed to regulate the price in supermarkets as he promised on the hustings? I can tell you that every producer in Pukekohe had a deep shiver rattling round their spines with that thought.But the ever humble Mr Cunliffe is apparently sorting it all out—all the promises all the dissenting. He can see that if he cannot unite his caucus he must mutate with the Greens bring in Winston Peters to assist in showing him how to get in front of a mirror and distinguish the difference between “caucus” and “Chorus”. Mr Cunliffe has 70 percent of the union vote the caucus will chorus agreement the unions will chorus agreement and the Greens will chorus agreement. Team Cunliffe will leave the stationunited because the dissenters will have jumped in front of the train. They could not bear the nightmare. The deceased cannot chorus disagreement. Meanwhile the John Key National Government will get on with running the country and growing the economy.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Let us get serious about the real Chorus because when the chair of Chorus rang John Key last December to complain about the Commerce Commission’s draft decision to drop the price of copper she found a very receptive ear. And what story did she tell the Prime Minister? It was that when Chorus negotiated that deal with the Government for ultra-fast broadband it had forgotten to factor in a fall in the price of copper in what was a well-signalled Commerce Commission process that was already in Steven Joyce’s legislation. Maybe Sue Sheldon also told the Prime Minister that Chorus had got a big shock when it had worked out that the price that it had negotiated for the roll-out of fibre was not going to be enough to fulfil that contract or so it claimed and that it might have to go back to its shareholders for more capital. But then she must have put her hand out and said: “Well Mr Prime Minister you have to give us more money. It is your broadband scheme your baby. It was one of your main campaign pledges that you won the 2011 election with and unless you bail us out and keep the price of copper high so we can continue to make big profits and keep our shareholders happy your precious programme will be in big trouble.”John Key bought that line as we know because he came out of the blocks in December saying that he did not like the Commerce Commission’s draft decision to drop the wholesale price of copper from around $37 to around $9 and he would not rule out changing the law to ensure that it did not happen. That is what this Government is proposing to do: change the law or force the commission to do its bidding all to prop up Chorus a private company to protect the Government’s broadband scheme. It is crony capitalism. It is corporate welfare at its absolute worst. Government intervention can be justified when a vulnerable part of your community is disadvantaged but not when a corporate makes a phone call for a bailout.What is really extraordinary is that when John Key was asked about this last week he said that Chorus would go broke if the Government did not intervene. Well somebody is telling porkies here because the Chief Executive Officer of Chorus MarkRatcliffe said that Chorus is not going broke. It has just posted a $171 million profit—$95 million to shareholders. Is there not a requirement that if your company is in trouble then you have to disclose that to the New Zealand Exchange? This was a big deal so who is telling the truth: the Chorus chief executive officer or the Prime Minister?Then there is the gross abuse of powers in intervening in a Commerce Commission process. Amy “I’m not listening to any of you” Adams announced a review that is not actually a review. It is an extraordinary abuse of process. It is bringing forward a review that was supposed to occur in 2016 but it is going to take only one little matter that little matter of the pricing of copper and leave everything else out. It is anti-competitive and it could be illegal.And then there is the building community opposition to what the Government is doing. Ultra-fast broadband was always meant to be for 75 percent of New Zealand households but that leaves 25 percent of New Zealand those living in rural and poorer parts of the country who will never—never—get ultra-fast broadband. And this Government wants all of them to pay more for their copper broadband than they should. It is just rubbish and it is discriminatory. The coalition against the copper tax is right to push hard.What is even more interesting is the unprecedented criticism against the Government by Vodafone one of the very big telecommunications company players. It has come outwith some of the most strongly worded criticism ever heard in the industry standing up to the Government. John Key can protest all he likes. He can call everyone else wrong and all their reports wrong or call them misinformed—whatever it is that he does with everyone—but I tell you this: no one is denying that the amount that Chorus will get out of his intervention will be between $500 million and $600 million in Chorus shareholders’ pockets. The irony is that 2 years ago when Chorus bid for the broadband contract it had a fierce competitor. Vector bargained really hard and many said that it should have got that contract. Vector based its price on the assumption that the ultra-fast broadband would have to compete with a rapidly falling copper price. Vector knew what the score was. Why did Chorus not?The Commerce Commission should be allowed to get on with its job. The Telecommunications Act changes by Steven Joyce 2 years ago were done in a huge rush but carrying out a short-term review on one moving part of a whole system to fix a political problem for the Government is not a solution. There needs to be a real comprehensive review according to law and Labour will undertake that.MELISSA LEE (National): I would like to begin by acknowledging previous speakers Jan Logie and Minister Parata for mentioning the women’s suffrage celebrations. It is indeed 120 years and 120 years ago there were no members of Parliament who were women; now we have 34 percent. Sixty years ago I think it was about 5 percent of parliamentarians who were women. Now 56 percent of tertiary graduates are women; back 120 years ago I think we had only about 30 percent. So we have actually seen increases in women’s participation and I celebrate that.Earlier this year I took part in the Global Summit of Women in Kuala Lumpur. Although many in the Opposition actually talk about how badly we do in terms of pay equity and the gender pay gap it was nice to note that in a global sense New Zealand was up there with the best in the world and we were seen as a role model. So I would like just to note that.I would like just to reflect on the very public and very elaborate sort of election campaign that the Labour Party put on to choose its new leader. I begin by wishing David Shearer well. I am sure that now there are not people sharpening their knives to stab him in the back he can actually sleep better. I wish David Parker congratulations on his new leadership—oh sorry David Cunliffe. There are quite a fewDavids—sorry. I send David Cunliffe my best wishes for his leadership. It is very confusing because there are so many potential leaders out there and we do not quite know how long this one will last.I have been acquainted with Mr Cunliffe for quite a few years in my former career as a television producer meeting him at many ethnic events. I always enjoyed our conversations. I always thought of him as a pretty decent bloke. Why would he not be? He has diplomacy as one of his credentials having actually been a former diplomat. But I hope his leadership lasts longer than the one enjoyed by Mr Shearer. As I understand two-thirds of his caucus are ABCs—“Anyone But Cunliffe”—and they did not support him. To be frank I was a little surprised that he did not actually choose Mr Robertson as his deputy in a gesture of goodwill and harmony. But perhaps as Gerry Brownlee mentioned when the call went out for deputy nominations nobody actually put their hand up. Maybe Mr Parker just got it by accident. But anyway congratulations and I hope you actually last a little while longer than Mr Shearer’s leadership.One of the things that is certain is that Mr Cunliffe cannot run his own party—so far anyway. So he certainly cannot run the country. It is that simple. If you cannot control your party you cannot run the country. The New Zealand public are not simpletons. They recognise that the Labour Opposition lacks the ability through its backstabbing factionalised division within its own party which is so obvious to all of us.Having said that I was a little taken aback last Sunday. I think all of us were waiting to see who was going to be the new leader of the Labour Party. While watching the television news I was a little bit shocked—I think it was Carmel Sepuloni a former member of Parliament who went to put a lei around DavidCunliffe’s neck and he basically put up his hand to say no. I think there was also another Indian man who actually went to put a lei on him and it was very clear that he put his hand up to say no. I am not a lip reader but I could surely see him going “No”. I thought that was very very shocking. How embarrassing for those people going there to congratulate him. And they were not some strangers; they were all wearing Labour rosettes. Obviously they were party members well-known to him and he said no. I felt so bad for someone who should know diplomacy and who should be aware of cultural sensitivities. I thought that putting a lei on somebody was actually—Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: It’s an honour.MELISSA LEE: —a sign of honour a symbolism of honour and he refused that.So that is a sure sign that this is a party that does not understand cultural sensitivities and it goes to the policies it has introduced including banning foreign homebuyers. I know Opposition members have said that it does not mean New Zealanders who happen to be Asian. But it is not about Americans buying here; it is about Asian people buying here. But how are you going to tell the difference? If I walk around with a passport will you be able to tell whether I am foreign or a New Zealander? Can you not tell that I am a Kiwi? Do I have to keep on explaining that? That is the kind of xenophobic policy that Labour puts forward and then the xenophobic people the racist people will come out of the woodwork and actually make the lives of Asian New Zealanders hell in this country.Labour does not support Asian people in this country and I am ashamed that all Labour members would support a policy like that. The way that Labour behaves is actually shameful. But I congratulate the new leader. I hope he actually lasts longer than David Shearer.EUGENIE SAGE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. This week we have seen yet another example of this Government’s failure to recognise that our economy and our well-being depend on a healthy environment. The Hon Nick Smith may have a lot of experience as the Minister of Conservation but given his Government’s dig it drill it mine it irrigate it agenda which is its apology for an economic plan the Minister seems to have conveniently forgotten what both he and the Department of Conservation are required to do by law and that is to advocate for conservation and to preserve freshwater fish habitats.The Department of Conservation has eight functions in section 6 of the Conservation Act and one of them is “to advocate the conservation of natural and historic resources”. Another of those eight functions is “to preserve so far as is practicable all indigenous freshwater fisheries and protect recreational freshwater fisheries and freshwater fish habitats:”.Yet what have we seen in the Hawke’s Bay in the Tukituki catchment in relation to theRuataniwha dam scheme? We have the Tukituki River which is ranked as nationally significant for its native fish and where there are eight of the 18 native fish species in the catchment that are at risk of extinction or their populations are declining. In terms of recreational fishing the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has said that the Tukituki is one of the two most heavily fished rivers with the possible exception of the Tongariro in the North Island. It is the sixth-most popular trout-fishing river in New Zealand. It is highly valued by Hawke’s Bay anglers because of its ease of access and because of the many opportunities there.So when the Department of Conservation has a responsibility under the law for a river with these high values then it should consider the effects of the dam scheme and the proposed regional plan on those values. That is what the department was doing in relation to the Tukituki catchment and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s proposals for plan change 6. Departmental staff put in quite a lot of time and effort to prepare a substantial 32-page submission setting out their concerns on the adequacy of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s proposed water management regime and its approach to water quality. That submission expressed quite significant concern that the council was proposing to manage only one nutrient which was phosphorous; that this was a new and untested approach in New Zealand; that it was not enough to protect the values of the Tukituki and its tributaries; and that it could lead to more algal blooms which have been a major problem in that catchment in the low flows in summer.The department also identified that with the regime the council was proposing and without controlling nitrogen—a key nutrient that leads to algal blooms—there would be potentially a 300 percent to 500 percent increase in nitrogen levels compared with current levels which could have potentially unexpected ecological effects. So that submission went on and made a number of constructive recommendations that the board of inquiry that is considering the issue should seek further advice and seek an independent peer review.Yet somehow despite all the work done on the submission despite the evidence of theTukituki’s high value and despite the department’s statutory responsibilities this submission was not lodged with the board of inquiry. How and why was that decision made? It is very troubling that we see such politicisation of departmental decision making on such a major project which will affect the health of rivers and communities in the Hawke’s Bay.The Minister Nick Smith was talking nonsense yesterday when he said that because the submission was in his name the department therefore needed to be careful when making such submissions. The submission that was lodged was in the department’s name not in the Minister’s name. It was in the name of the director-general.The reason I suspect that that submission was not lodged was that this Government is not interested in good policy. It is not interested in robust debate. It is not interested in its views being challenged or its irrigation agenda being challenged. It wants to tilt the playing field in favour of development. We are seeing that with the muzzling of the department here and with the Minister’s colleague the Hon Amy Adams doing her best to gut the principles from the Resource Management Act and tilt that Act in favour of more development and away from the environment. This Government is bailing on its responsibilities to the environment.What is also troubling is that the suppression of the Department of Conservation’s draft submission has undermined potentially public confidence in the whole board of inquiry process—CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker.Tēnā koe e te Whare. Unity is about great leadership and great leadership unites a party. With this party this John Key - led National Government is united in growing the economy. This John Key - led National Government is united in delivering better public services—Sue Moroney: It’s not working.CLAUDETTE HAUITI: Oh hang on honey because you know this is all really good news and I am actually speaking in English. This John Key - led National Government is united in providing fast and more efficient health services—so I know that you are going to understand me. This John Key - led National Government is united in improving the lives of our most vulnerable children united in our efforts to raiseachievement at school to five out of five tamariki and united about great leadership. Leadership is about uniting a party.Our economic growth agenda includes all New Zealanders including Māori. The John Key - led National Government has done more for Māori than Labour did under its previous leader—the one before the last one. Under the leadership of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson we have signed—[Interruption] It is really good news here; you need to listen. We have signed 21 deeds of settlement in 3 years compared with Labour’s 16 deeds of settlement in 9 years. In 3 years we moved 33 agreements in principle compared with Labour’s 25 agreements in principle in 9 years. We currently have five settlement bills in front of the Māori Affairs Committee while theNgāiTūhoe claim is ready for its first reading. We have provided increased funding for the Office of Treaty Settlements and this Government has directed considerable resources towards claimants so that iwi can hit the ground running.We know that Treaty settlements provide economic stimulus which boosts local investments creates jobs and lays foundations for future economic success. We know this to be true becauseNgāiTahu transferred its 1998 settlement of $130 million into locally owned asset portfolios of tourism property fisheries and investments worth over $600 million. This John Key - led National Government is maintaining the momentum by ensuring high-level political leadership kanohi ki te kanohi with rangatira a iwi.Labour would take New Zealand backwards. Labour would render Māori shackled to the dependent ū of the Crown. Labour’s record between 1999 and 2008 waspōhara. Labour stalled investment settlements averaging less than 1.8 deeds of settlement a year. Labour would not have resolved outstanding settlements until past 2020 if at all stymying economic growth and paralysing Māori aspirations.This Government is united under a strong leadership focused on economic growth. That is why this John Key - led Government will be the Government again in 2014. Kia ora.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate David Cunliffe on his election to the Labour Party leadership. He has his work cut out because most New Zealanders do not support Labour and he appears to seek to turn Labour more to the left but of course in doing so risks it moving away from the centre. National on the other hand is becoming more and more right wing with its asset sales programme charter schools anti-worker and anti-unions legislation pro - big business policies laissez-faire immigration policy and conservative economic policy. Neither party has a genuine plan to take New Zealand forward in the 21st century. New Zealand has underperformed over the last 30 years and more compared with similar countries because of a succession of underperforming National and Labour Governments.As the political pendulum has swung from left to right many times so too have New Zealand’s fortunes and progress has been blunted rather than enhanced. Only when New Zealand First has been present has there been anything done to stop the rot.We have seen National’s Think Big era under which the National Development Act was to be the Think Big saviour. In fact it was used only once and in fact Think Big was never really implemented at all. So much for its strategic approach to things—just another National Party election stunt. It has no genuine strategy other than to slash services sell assets and rely on the windfall of the Christchurch rebuild.We have also seen a Labour Government’s massive multimillion-dollar sell-off of public strategic assets some of which a later Labour Government had to buy back including New Zealand Rail and Air New Zealand. Labour implicitly acknowledges the mistake and now opposes more asset sales—for now. National wants to repeat themistake with another round of shonky strategic asset sales which will lose money for investors as share prices fail to meet expectations.This is typical of the short-term non-strategic thinking by both major parties. There are so many areas of poor governance by both parties that I would need several speeches to do justice to them all. Neither party seems able to formulate a strategic plan for New Zealand’s development in the 21st century. With National retreating to the right in its desperation to retain the Treasury benches and with Labour moving in the opposite direction I think there is no real hope that New Zealand will see the magnitude of positive change that it now needs as proposed by New Zealand First. This change is in social development with special reference to education; in economic development with special reference to regional development; and in sustainable development so that we can turn round the disgraceful rate of degradation of our environment and learn to live and live well in the New Zealand that we should see as our heritage and not just as a place to plunder and flog off natural resources to mates overseas.It is time New Zealanders took a long hard look at the country we now are and also took a long hard look at whether the two main parties are really capable of delivering what New Zealand needs. Their past records do not bode well for the future. Posing posturing party leaders are not a good enough reason to choose either National or Labour. This is not the “John and Dave Show” and it is not about doing deals in foreign boardrooms or trades halls.New Zealanders need to look elsewhere to get the positive change they need. We are the only party that stands by the virtue of a society in which everyone gets a fair go. Ordinary people look at this place and shudder. They wonder who is actually on their side. Every day jobs go. Every day more land is sold to foreign buyers. House prices rocket. People wonder what they will be hit with next. People want some good news. We are the only party that can bring it.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) BillFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 17 September.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I have said that I agree that provided the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill incorporates the key standards and safeguards necessary for a civil committal regime it will be compliant with civil rights. Whether the bill as introduced includes adequate safeguards is what the Justice and Electoral Committee must closely examine.In doing so it will be necessary to ensure that the detailed provisions of the bill will observe the principles as stated in it. Firstly is that of not punishing persons. The previous commission of an offence is to be only one of several factors that are relevant to assessing whether there is a very high risk of imminent sexual or violent offending. Secondly a protection order should be imposed only if the magnitude of the risk posed by the respondent justifies it. Thirdly a protection order should not be imposed on a person who is eligible to be detained under mental health legislation. Fourthly persons who are detained in a residence should have as much autonomy and quality of life as possible. Those are the principles that the select committee needs to keep in mind when reviewing this bill.The threshold for an order requires that the person is a prisoner under a determinate sentence for a serious sexual or violent offence is to be released from detention not later than 6 months after the date of the application and is a prisoner under the Parole Act orsubject to a protective supervision order. This threshold appears to us to be appropriate and an order should be needed only rarely.The bill requires a robust assessment of whether a subject poses a high risk of serious sexual or violent offending. It requires the application to be supported by at least two reports one of which must be by a registered psychologist and the other by either a psychiatrist or another psychologist. The court may call for a report by a health assessor and the respondent to the application can also request such a report. So those are good safeguards.This of course is the crux of the main issue—that there must be proof of whether an order is necessary. That is most important. In addition the court must not find that there is a very high risk of further offending unless it is satisfied that the respondent exhibits a severe disturbance in behavioural functioning established by evidence of specified characteristics to a high level. I think that is also a very important safeguard. The review provisions will also need to be examined by the select committee. Whether those review provisions are adequate is something that we really need to have a close look at.A person may be detained in a prison or in a residence if the person is subject to a protection order but not to a prison detention order. A residence is a building located in prison precincts. A resident has the rights of a person of full capacity who is not subject to a protection order. Specific rights of residents include retention of earnings from permitted employment and the right to vote to get newspapers to have internet access to use written communications and to receive permitted visitors. So these are not persons without rights. They will have their freedom severely limited but it is not like being in prison. There is a good balance there I believe.The bill provides for inspections of residences at least twice a year and an inspector can in fact arrive unannounced and make an inspection at any time. The bill confers jurisdiction on the court to order that a person be detained in a prison instead of a residence if the court is satisfied that if detained in a residence the person would pose an unacceptably high risk to themselves or to others.New Zealand First welcomes the bill which it thinks is needed to fill a gap in the law a gap that the public sees and believes should be filled. The gap allows dangerous prisoners who are not mentally ill to be released with great risk to the public. We have seen some evidence of that in the past. Against this of course we must not allow unnecessary or arbitrary detention and therefore New Zealand First will take great interest in the detail of the bill at the select committee consideration to ensure that the balance of which I have spoken—personal rights versus public protection—is adequately achieved.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to stand and make a small contribution in support of the first reading of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. We have heard that this bill empowers the High Court to issue those public protection orders that allow for the detention of a person in a secure facility.This bill is for the worst of the worst offenders—those who actually should not be allowed out who should not be endangering our community. It is part of our programme to build a safer New Zealand to protect our communities to prevent crime and to put victims first. It is aimed at that high end of high-risk offenders—those offenders who pose a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent reoffending. That threshold is high and so it should be. Only a small number of people are likely to be subject to a public protection order but they are the very worst of the worst and they should not be inflicted on our community.This bill does strike the right balance between the rights of New Zealanders to be safe in their own communities with the rights of offenders who have served theirsentences. I look forward to hearing the submissions on this bill during the select committee process for this bill. I commend this bill to the House.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Talohani Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. Following the member Kate Wilkinson who has just resumed her seat and in contrast to our stance on a bill that we spoke on last night I do rise and agree with most of what she has said in her speech because we do have to make sure that the public are protected as she said from the worst of the worst of these offenders who are very soon about to be released from prison but who will still in the eyes of the High Court pose a very high risk of sexual or violent reoffending.One of the fundamental functions of this Parliament is to keep public safety and good order within our society and within our communities. A vast number of pieces of legislation deals with that in a very broad sense such as when we deal with police or any kind of corrections bills. But as the previous speaker said this piece of legislation applies to only a very small number of people. It does pose on them a heavy degree of restriction even though they are entitled to be released after having served a sentence in prison for offending seriously. But because of the nature of their offending and because of the nature of their personalities and any I guess condition that they might have they do pose a very serious risk of reoffending and we need to protect the safety of the public in terms of that.I guess one of the things that Andrew Little mentioned in his speech—as he has just joined us—was the notion of getting the balance right between protecting public safety when you do have very serious criminals being released who do pose serious risk to the public and the kinds of restrictions that we put on them even though they are entitled to be released. Some of the restrictions that have already been mentioned are the monitoring of their communications via both their letters and also their phone calls. I guess that is one of the reasons why we want to make sure that we get that balance right. We are supporting this piece of legislation’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee so that we can ask some of those questions about getting that balance right because we do want to make sure that public safety is preserved while also preserving some pretty fundamental principles around criminal justice. That is why we will be supporting the referral of this piece of legislation as it stands now to the Justice and Electoral Committee for closer examination.Just for those who may not be familiar with the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill and what it does—and this has already been mentioned—the bill allows the chief executive of the Department of Corrections to ask the High Court for an order in relation to prisoners who meet a number of very tight circumstances. The first is that the prisoner will have been convicted of a serious sexual or serious violent offence the chief executive at the time considers that that prisoner poses a risk of imminent sexual or violent offending if they are released out into communities and the prisoner has been subject to a sentence and that sentence is close to being or has been completed.If a public protection order is granted the court will be able to grant that order if it is satisfied that there is indeed a risk of imminent offending and that risk is to be assessed on the basis of reports from at least two psychologists or reports from a psychiatrist and a psychologist. I think that is a very important safeguard that has been put into this piece of legislation. The detention of the person who is the subject of the protection order will be on prison grounds which is necessary for the safety of both the prisoner and the community and the prisoner is not to be suffering any other mental health condition that would qualify him or her for detention in a mental health facility.I guess that was a good point that Andrew Little made in his speech last night: what happened to these people in the past before this type of measure could be taken? Hewas very concerned that some of these people might have been in some of our mental institutions or they might be falling through the cracks at the moment and we have not really had an ideal way of looking after them. So we think that this could certainly be one way of making sure that we protect the safety of the public and that we also protect the rights of the people who are subject to these public protection orders.Of course there is a bit of politics involved in this because it is 18 September 2013 and 12 months ago Charles Chauvel a former colleague of ours who was our justice spokesperson at the time was concerned about a lack of scrutiny or about a lack of—I guess the word we could use here is “communication”—communication from that side of the House over to here and—Andrew Little: Consultation.KRIS FAAFOI: —consultation on this bill. It was exactly 1 year ago that he was concerned about that.Andrew Little: I thought this date reminded me of something.KRIS FAAFOI: That is right—exactly 1 year ago. The consultation has not continued and 1 year later—it has taken a whole year to get to the first reading of this bill. It has taken exactly 1 year for us to get to the first reading of this bill. But as we have said we are going to support this bill’s referral to the select committee because we do think that it is worthy of closer examination and to make sure that we get the balance right.I just want to look at some of the details of the bill including some of the safeguards that are built into the bill that the select committee will look at. Clause 14 is one that I want to look at—as I put this Post-it note over there—and it says that there will be a review panel which will review public protection orders annually. I think given the nature of some of these protection orders and the seriousness of the restrictions on the subjects and also the nature of the offenders—or I guess they are not offenders at that stage; they are formally convicted. Is that right? But because of that we want to make sure that those protection orders are reviewed and clause 14 by way of an annual review certainly gives the ability for us to make sure that those public protection orders—Andrew Little: Detainees.KRIS FAAFOI: —are looked at and that they are still appropriate for the person.There are also some question marks that we have on this side and questions that we will certainly be asking around the communications of the detainees. This piece of legislation gives the right for the Department of Corrections to monitor telephone calls. It also gives the ability for the department to monitor the internet use of the detainees. I think given some of our concerns around that we will certainly be asking some questions about that in the select committee process.The balance is what we are looking for in this piece of legislation. There could have been greater balance if there had been more consultation from the Minister of Justice with the Labour side of the House maybe a year ago or even a year before that when this piece of legislation was introduced. So we do have a number of concerns about that but we do believe that the select committee process will address some of those. We do believe that there are some concerns around the basics of criminal justice principles but we believe that with questioning from the Labour side of the House we can certainly address some of those issues. Thank you.KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill in its first reading today. I believe the debate on this bill has been very considered and measured—by most members in the House—over the last 2 days while it has been debated. I think it is interesting the debate that we have had and I think everybody has talked about the similar themes of how important it isthat we get the balance right between justice and giving people the tools to keep New Zealand safe and the civil rights of prisoners as well once they have served their time and they are up for release and how to get that balance so you can get it absolutely right.I think that at the end of the day it comes down to keeping New Zealanders safe in their homes. That is what we are here to do and as legislators it is very important that we get that right. This is one more tool. It adds to the tools that are already in place in the justice sector like preventive detention like extended supervision orders. What this tool does is basically say that if you have done your time but you are in imminent risk of violent or sexual reoffending then this tool can be put in place—this public protection order—that means you have to stay on the grounds of the prison. That is what the condition is all about. Only a High Court can give that order. It does actually impinge on prisoners’ rights once they have served their time that that can be applied but at the end of the day it is about getting that balance right for New Zealand and keeping us safe.I think it is also really important that we have got pathways for these detainees—pathways so they can work towards being released at some stage if that is an option for them. Each individual will have a management plan that identifies goals that could contribute to their eventual release. An annual review will be performed on each of these public protection orders. The High Court will look at each case every 5 years as well so that will be in place.I am looking forward when we get into the Justice and Electoral Committee to the debate which we have had in this House today and yesterday as well and to debate on the issues that some of the Labour members have raised about how they would put more balance in this bill. I will be interested in the select committee process to see what that balance will look like actually. I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I understand this is a split call.Sue Moroney: No I do not believe it is.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is not. In that case I call the honourable member Sue Moroney.SUE MORONEY (Labour): Tomorrow is Women’s Suffrage Day. The reason I put that on the record at the beginning of my contribution to the debate on this particular bill the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill is that all too often the public whom we will be protecting with this bill will be the women of New Zealand sadly in far too many instances. That is because the public protection orders are designed to be used for the worst sexual and violent offences and the offenders who commit those and—not always but mainly—we do find that those offenders are men and that their victims are women.So it is important that on the eve of Women’s Suffrage Day we reflect on how much more we still need to do in this area. In my view and in the view of my Labour colleagues we cannot say that we have made fantastic progress on women’s issues until women can feel safe in their communities can feel safe in their homes—can feel safe in their communities. Until that very basic fundamental human right is afforded to every New Zealand citizen including women then we really cannot pretend that we have made the sort of progress that we need to make.I would much rather be standing here speaking on a bill that actually stops these offences from taking place in the first place. Sadly by the time we are talking about these public protection orders far too many women children and others who are vulnerable in our society will have already been hurt by the offenders to whom we are applying the public protection orders. It does actually worry me that we spend a lot oftime under the term of this Government debating ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approaches to addressing violence and sexual violence in our community.I cannot remember the last time I was on my feet debating a bill put forward by this Government that was actually designed for and had the purpose of getting in front of all of that and actually putting in some legislative and policy measures that would actually stop the hurt from happening in the first place. So that is my wish on the eve of Women’s Suffrage Day—that this Parliament and this Government would focus more on stopping the hurt from happening in the first place than on spending the many many hours that we do spend debating the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff that we are going to put in place to actually keep punishing people who have already hurt far too many people in our society.So I guess that that is really the context in which I debate this bill. Labour is however supporting this bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. This is the first reading and Labour members want to have the opportunity to engage—as we have not been able to so far—in the design of a bill like this which is aiming I think at between five and 12 of the most serious offenders in this regard.It is of concern to me that the Government went out and campaigned on this bill during the election as it is wont to do. It wants to sound like it is tough on crime; that makes it feel better somehow. I would rather that we actually stopped the crime from happening in the first place but this Government is focused on dealing with the aftermath and the effects of crimes after they have happened. That is really where it comes from on this.But since it campaigned in the 2011 election to take this very measure one of those offenders whom this bill is actually aimed at has finished his jail term and this measure will not apply to him. I am referring to Stewart Murray Wilson. This measure was not available for that case because this Government has taken its sweet time to actually even start the first reading of this bill. I do think that is worrying. This bill does have the support of many parties in this House and it could have proceeded an awful lot faster had the Government had the will to do so. But it does not seem that that will has been there until quite recently.So here we are at the first reading. Labour will support the bill going to the select committee but we do so with a warning to the Government. We know from past experience with bills like this that we can make an awful lot more progress if parties are consulted on the drafting of the bill before it actually hits the House. We could actually fast track and proceed in a better way with this type of legislation—Hon Judith Collins: I haven’t got Andy’s phone number.SUE MORONEY: —and I know that the Minister of Justice does not agree. She does not like the idea of cross-party support for any of these measures but where it does exist the Minister should actually take advantage of that. If she was a good Minister she would have taken advantage of that and actually made sure that we had a bill come into the House that had the goodwill and support of the parties that do want to support it. I think we would then have much better select committee processes in place.But it will be very interesting to see what submitters do have to say on this bill because I think that the fact that it has not had wide consultation will mean that there will be issues that will need to be addressed. Of course that is what the select committee process is for. However a better Government a more open Government and a more accessible Government would actually do better consultation at the outset. That is certainly the history that the Labour Party brings to this particular issue.So what does the bill do? Well the bill empowers the High Court to issue a public protection order that would allow for detention of a person in a secure facility for a potentially indefinite time frame. So these are very serious issues that we are addressingin this bill. There are fundamental issues around human rights and around making sure that indefinite time frames are used appropriately albeit in an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach to this issue.The bill is a proportionate balance and that is why it would have been a good idea for parties to have had some input into this before it hit the debating chamber. There is a proportionate balance between the State’s legitimate objective of protecting citizens—which is an important function of this House—from almost certain serious sexual or violent harm and the right of those on a public protection order to be subject to the least restrictive form of detention to achieve that objective. So that is the balance that we must strike here. That is the balance that we must strike and I feel we would have been better prepared for that had there been that consultation.Although it is possible that detainees will never be released from a public protection order there are however some pathways for their release. Those pathways will include a management plan—as others have already said—rehabilitation treatment regular and early review of status and post-release supervision.But would it not be good if we did not have to debate these issues at all in this Parliament? Would it not be great if instead we got at the front end of it? If we were doing that properly—at the front end—we would not have had the New Zealand Police actually stop reporting the incidence of domestic and family violence in its annual report last year. All of the literature on this issue Minister tells us that the more we know about domestic violence and its impacts what causes it and how we get to that point the more able we will be to address it as a society and to stop it in its path.Those are the sorts of measures that we ought to be taking in this Parliament. Instead that Government is busy actually stopping information from being made known at the outset. If we do not know if we sweep it under the carpet and try to look the other way—as the annual report of the New Zealand Police is attempting to do—instead of getting to grips with this very ugly black problem that we do have in New Zealand then we will continue to be debating these ambulance at the bottom of the cliff bills. Instead of getting in front of the issue instead of stopping the harm instead of stopping the hurt we will continue to deal with the aftermath.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): It is my pleasure to take a brief call in the first reading of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill introduced by our very hard-working and very fine Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins. I would like to welcome the fact that Opposition parties are supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I will look forward to hearing views from a range of people and a range of submitters including whoever the Labour Opposition spokesperson on justice happens to be next week.I will be listening very carefully in the select committee stage to submitters on this bill because I think that this sort of legislation has to be very carefully devised. It has to be very carefully balanced between protecting the civil liberties of those who have been convicted of an offence and who have served the time and served the sentence that the court has given them and the right of every New Zealander to feel safe in their home and the right of every New Zealander to be protected from the very worst offenders because we are talking here about the most dangerous violent and sexual attackers predators and offenders that this country has. So I think that this will be an important piece of legislation.It actually brings us into line with some overseas jurisdictions. For instance criminal sentencing legislation in the United Kingdom was clarified and updated in 2000 permitting people to be held at Her Majesty’s pleasure when they represented a very grave risk to society.This is welcome legislation. This is an important tool as others on the Government side have said. This is another weapon in the armoury of the justice system to make sure that ordinary Kiwis can feel safe in their homes and communities. So I welcome it and I commend it to the House.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes14Green Party 13; Mana 1.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.Family Court Proceedings Reform BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 3 September.Part 2 Amendments to Domestic Violence Act 1995(continued)Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):Thank you for the opportunity to complete the call that I started a few weeks ago. Part 2 of this bill the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill now clarifies that the Ministry of Justice has responsibility for the approval of providers of the non-violence programmes. The legislation needs to be sufficiently flexible for the future to ensure that appropriate providers can deliver safe and effective programmes to the people who need them. If they are required regulations can be made to prescribe the approval process as well as the criteria for making these decisions. Overall the amendments to the Domestic Violence Act will give effect to the Government’s aim of ensuring ongoing safety and protection for children and for vulnerable people. The changes will improve the Family Court’s responsiveness to domestic violence ensuring that it is more focused on safety.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): The issues in Part 2 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill are not extensive. It is a very important rewrite of crucial parts of the Domestic Violence Act and in principle there can be no objection to that. This part of the bill and the changes that it makes to the Domestic Violence Act include—which the Minister of Justice seems to have omitted in her comments—an amendment to the definition of “domestic violence” to now include “financial or economic abuse” as a new form of domestic violence. I think there is justification for that addition or at least for a clarification of what constitutes a form of violence.The redrafted provisions make a distinction between safety programmes that are programmes for victims of domestic violence and the part also provides for what are called non-violence programmes for alleged abusers or those who commit violence or domestic violence. As the Minister correctly pointed out there is now a registration process for service providers.The reason I wanted to take this call was to just make this point. This is not to detract from these elements of the bill but to say that there is a real risk under the redrafted provisions—as in fact there is today—of the credibility of these provisions being undermined if the District Court is not properly resourced to exercise its jurisdiction not only in granting protection orders and making orders in relation to safety programmesbut also in its safety valve role in ensuring that objections to the granting of protection orders can be properly heard.I simply want to relate the facts of a case that is known in New Zealand—and is in fact known to the Minister—where a man who was the subject of a protection order following an altercation between him and a former partner was then under police investigation for assault. He was the subject of an application for a protection order without notice which was granted. He was ordered to attend a non-violence programme. There was a 10-day objection period but because this was around Christmas time he missed the 10-day cut-off. He said that it was partly because of bad advice but in any event he missed it. It was then 4 months before he could have his objection heard. By that time the police had concluded the investigation into the alleged assault and found that not only was no assault committed but in fact the antagonist was the former partner who was held responsible for the altercation that occurred.By the time his objection was heard he was part-way through the non-violence programme having been told that if he failed to attend he would be subject to arrest. He is still to this day waiting for the court’s decision on whether or not the protection order was properly granted and whether he was required to attend a non-violence programme.I might add that he has completed the programme. He is a supporter of the Domestic Violence Act. He is a supporter of protection orders and the orders contained in the Act. But he has been dealt an unfair deal and been given a dirty blow because of the lack of resourcing of the courts and this Minister as the Minister of Justice is responsible for that. She has to understand that if the courts are not properly resourced then this sort of legislation which she sponsors will not be regarded with any great credibility. The credibility will be undermined. She needs the confidence and the support of the community for these sorts of measures to be properly supported and to work.I simply ask the Minister to please give us an assurance that when these sorts of applications are being provided for—when people’s liberties have the potential to be constrained—let us have the judicial safety valves in place properly resourced and able to deal with those sorts of objections. At the moment clearly there are people who are being treated unfairly and who are victims of injustice if those resources are not there in place. This provision of the bill these redrafts of these parts of the Domestic Violence Act will be given scorn and derision if those safety valves are not put in place. I simply ask the Minister to give us an assurance that people will not be treated unfairly when they are faced with these orders—these very important orders that are about securing people’s safety—if indeed the resources are not there.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The amendments to the Domestic Violence Act 1995 in Part 2 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill are generally appropriate in my view looking at the evidence but I want to talk about the general point of how the Government has gone about putting this part together because when I read the bill I see that there are no less than 20 pages of deletions in the—Tim Macindoe: No fewer.Hon PHIL GOFF: No fewer if you like—no fewer. There are probably more actually—more than 20 pages of deletions in the bill that the Minister of Justice brought to the House. Any bill that a Minister brings where one part is almost entirely deleted and has to be replaced is a suggestion Minister that it was ill-drafted ill-prepared and ill-researched.There is no better authority for those accusations than your own regulatory impact statement which you delivered late to the House—after in fact the first reading of the bill had taken place. It said that although there had been some research done the research was limited. You looked at other countries—the United Kingdom andAustralia—despite the differences in the systems. The regulatory impact statement then said: “There is insufficient historical fiscal and statistical data to accurately predict the average costs of performing some of the tasks associated with … processes. There was insufficient time for piloting proposed processes or for undertaking an historical file review … to obtain further data”. It also said: “because of the time frame there has been limited opportunity to discuss the final proposals with stakeholders.” All of those criticisms Minister are from your own Ministry of Justice. When you bring a bill to this House where Part 2 of the bill is almost entirely deleted and rewritten that suggests poor preparation on your part. It suggests a bill that is half-baked in this part and unfortunately even more so in some of the other parts of the bill that we most object to.The other worry I have is that the previous Minister of Justice set up an expert reference group to give advice on this. Its members were people who on average had done 20 to 30 years either as Family Court lawyers or as psychologists. These were people who were enormously experienced in this area and the report from the Minister’s ministry says that it followed the advice of the expert reference group. Well the expert reference group was highly offended at that statement in the report and said that in key areas of that report in fact you Minister entirely ignored their advice. This is what its submission says about domestic violence—the very part of the bill that we are looking at. It said: “The hidden dynamics of domestic violence and abuse will mean that many women will be at risk from a new family justice system”—that is the system the Minister is introducing in this bill—“which creates barriers of costs rights to representation and legal aid and early intervention in cases by Judges.”—barriers in terms of costs barriers in terms of rights to representation barriers in terms of more restricted legal aid and barriers in terms of the judges being able to intervene before the dispute becomes nastier and more difficult to resolve.It also says: “It is the two tier justice system created by this Bill which significantly increases the risk for victims of violence.” So according to the experts appointed by your predecessor the effect of this part of the bill which purports to actually improve the situation for victims of domestic violence and the overall effect of the bill are to worsen the impact of violence to increase the risk to victims whatever happens in terms of the technical changes in this part of the bill. It is almost without precedent that a Minister sets up an expert advisory group that group is ignored and then that group says that the bill will do exactly the opposite of what the Minister comes to the House and purports that it will do. We are very concerned about whether the overall effect of the bill on domestic violence will be helpful.I want to look at the specific provisions of this part. The current legislation in terms of domestic violence allows for the issue of protection orders and the respondent under those orders is generally required to attend a domestic violence programme. The difficulty with the status quo—and this is where I do agree with the detail of this part of the bill—is that the programmes are heavily prescribed in regulation and the attendance by the other party which is not the violent party but the respondent is also very low. That suggests that the nature of the programmes that are being run for both the perpetrators and the victims of domestic violence needs to change. Many respondents do not complete the programme and the answer to that including in this part of the bill is simply to increase the penalty that applies. It goes I think from 2 years of imprisonment up to 3 years if I recall that rightly. Well I do not think that imprisonment because you failed to attend a programme is actually the effective answer. A more effective answer in this part of the bill would be if the programmes were designed to actually meet the real needs both of the respondents and of the perpetrators of the violence.So I think it is a good thing that we will improve the format and delivery of the stopping violence programmes. You need to assess it and that is provided for in this part of the bill. The assessment is a good idea. You need to tailor the services to more effective responses. I think that is good. The risk Minister—and perhaps you would like to comment on that—is that with the greater variety of programmes you may well have some inconsistency in programme delivery. I would like to know from the Minister what she intends to do to ensure that while you have diversity of programmes you also have a consistency in terms of the outcomes of those programmes that are sought.The second thing that occurs in this section of the bill as I have mentioned is increasing the sentence for breach of the protection order. The difficulty with doing that is that in many cases increasing the penalty could make victims actually more hesitant to report breaches of the protection orders. That again would have the perverse effect of achieving precisely the opposite of what you want to do in this section of the bill.The final thing I just want to comment on briefly is clause 35 of the bill which changes the definition of domestic violence adding financial or economic abuse to psychological abuse. The sort of thing that I guess we are trying to get at in this part of the bill is where one partner denies or limits access to financial resources or prevents or restricts employment opportunities for the other party. I think it is important that those things are taken into account as reflective of the sort of psychological abuse that can happen in a relationship and that part of the bill is helpful.So in summary the detail of Part 2 is actually quite good. I think it is responsive to a particular need and we are not opposing that part of the bill. But if you look at the wider impact of the bill because of the denial of access of people to proper justice procedures to resolve family disputes it will be as the expert advisory committee said to probably increase the risk of violence not reduce it.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I will take just aquickish call on Part 2 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. I want to start off where the Hon Phil Goff finished and that is on clause 35 which extends the meaning of domestic violence. I am taking the opportunity here to pose a question to the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice. For the benefit of those watching I say that this bill changes the meaning of domestic violence to include “financial or economic abuse (for example denying or limiting access to financial resources or preventing or restricting employment opportunities or access to education);”. I am pretty sure that a number of us in this Chamber may have had constituents come to our offices about this. I think this kind of thing is happening more and more—I guess more in the case of denying or limiting access to financial resources. We are seeing much much more of that. It is more common in my experience with women where their former partners are not giving them access to the money they had together or any other kind of property and they find themselves in a situation where they are trying to get access to that.Although we on this side of the Chamber think that it is generally a good thing to be able to include that meaning of domestic violence within this bill when you couple that with other things that happen in this bill we do have some serious concerns about the ability of those people to get access to some of those financial resources. I have had someone come into my office who is in the situation of trying to get access to money from a relationship she had and if she had to represent herself which is one of the options available to her within this bill she would be at a considerable disadvantage. So a question that I would like to put to the Minister in the chair is how we can help people like that out there who are trying to get their hands on money who do not have the money to be able to fight to get that money and who are going to be forced to represent themselves and may not have the knowledge of the systems within the courtproceedings to be able to do a decent job of that or a job that might be able to get them access to what they think they are rightfully owed.We do have concerns around the resourcing as Andrew Little said and the cost cutting that is going on in this situation because in another area where there is the ability to self-represent in the aspect of care of children there looks to be a saving of about $41.3 million over 3 years according to the numbers here in the regulatory impact statement which I have before me. If the Government wants to set out to save money in this area around self-representation I think a fair enough question to ask the Minister in the chair is whether we are going to expand the definition of what family violence is and that includes financial abuse and denying financial resources. I think we are going to find predominantly women in the situation of trying to get their hands on that financial resource. They are going to come from a very low financial basis. They are trying to get hold of that money. How are they going to effectively represent themselves to be able to get their hands on those resources for which the definition in clause 35 expands the meaning of domestic violence? I know there are certainly some people whom I have met who would be in that situation so if the Minister sees fit and is able to respond to that question I would appreciate it.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I will take just a brief call on this part to add a little bit more to what my colleagues have just spoken about. Certainly I am particularly pleased to see in clause 35 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill financial or economic abuse being added to the definition of psychological violence because indeed as we go around in our constituencies and in our own communities we see this hidden aspect of violence where on the face of it much is fine and there is a home and other resources but when it comes to taking away from a person the ability to be financially independent to the extent possible that is something that has very caustic effects on psychological well-being. It is a hidden type of abuse and sometimes difficult to prove as well. Some people are quite happy to provide the physical resources but when it comes to finance and the independence that comes with it that becomes a major difficulty. So my first point is that I am glad to see that in the definition and it is something to be supported.But this part of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is like the rest of the bill. It is like the curate’s egg: some parts of it are very good and other parts of it are not. The second point that I do appreciate is Part 2A inserted by clause 52A—the codification if you like of domestic violence programmes. I think it is a good piece of work where indeed a lot of thought has gone into setting out the definitions of family violence programmes the codification of how they are to work. I particularly like the expectations as to how those programmes are to work.Indeed there are any number of programmes where you can refer somebody to a programme not knowing and not having any idea of what is to happen when that person who is to receive assistance gets there. It is quite frustrating because if the expectation is not clear the service is not provided properly and what is needed to address the violent behaviour is not provided in the end a very good opportunity is lost. The person can sign off and say “Yes I’ve gone into this programme and have experienced it.” but indeed nothing much changes. So it is good to see the kinds of expectations that are laid out in new Part 2A. It is quite satisfying for me personally.How referrals are to be made is also much better clarified. Finally judges maintaining a watching brief is also quite important and that is something that we see in the Family Courts already. So those aspects of this part are quite good.But I do want to also add my weight to what my colleague Andrew Little was saying: that if the courts are to provide these services in what is a difficult area of relationships then they also have to be serviced particularly when protection orders are grantedand—probably as important—when an appeal against them takes place. So Part 2 is good in parts and I am really pleased to see those two parts of it but I certainly have a caution that resources also need to be provided. Thank you.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes60New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Part 3 Family dispute resolutionANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Part 3 really is not so much the meat of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill as the meat and potatoes of it. It is a crucial section that establishes a whole new regime of dispute resolution in the family jurisdiction. Aside from the MarjorieProops rendition we had when we had the Committee stage of Part 1 where the Minister of Justice admonished every couple in New Zealand and told them to pull their socks up behave themselves and sort out their difficult affairs this is the part of the bill that is apparently meant to deliver this whole new outbreak of peace in family circles particularly for those families who are having difficulty keeping their relationships together. And if MarjorieProops is going to be our guide when it comes to resolving family disputes then we had better get it right.The problem with the regime that is set up now is that there are very few safeguards for couples who have difficulty understanding the magnitude of the decisions they are being called upon to make particularly in relation to the care of children who are the subject of a marital dissolution or a marital dispute. This regime depends upon couples acting like very comfortable middle class rational sensible people who have got their emotions under control have got their sense of grief under control and can make perfectly sensible decisions. Pollyanna would have difficulty finding those couples when they are going through a marital dissolution. MarjorieProops would as well. We will now have a regime that was no doubt drafted by well-meaning officials and a well-meaning Minister in the comfort of leather-bound and leather-clad chairs but it is a regime that actually bears very little relation to the reality of marital dispute and that is the disappointing thing about it.So going through some of the key aspects let us look at clause 60 of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 349. Clause 60 requires the facilitators who are to be appointed to conduct these dispute resolution procedures to be accredited by the Ministry of Justice and no doubt they have to meet criteria. But when you have a look at clause 60(3) you see that any appointment can be made on any conditions whatsoever. There is no oversight by the Minister—no oversight at all—and therefore no grounds for accountability. So the question to the Minister is this: what accountability is there going to be when it comes to appointing people who will be playing this crucial role of assisting separating couples to deal with their outstanding issues? What accountability is there going to be? How do we know that these people are going to be fit for and suited to the task?How can couples who are going through this emotional turmoil be assured by those who give them advice whether informal or formal if they can afford it that the people who are going to be entering the most intimate and delicate parts of their lives are fit and up to the task? They can be appointed on any terms and conditions that the Secretary for Justice thinks fit. I simply say that that is not good enough. A Minister who was giving proper thought to the drafting of this bill would not allow a power to be given against which there can be no accountability. We do not want lazy drafting from lazy Ministers. We do not need the MarjorieProops view of the world that we all just pull up our socks and behave ourselves. We actually need proper accountability.We come to the crucial part which is clause 60B but before we get to that I just want to make this point—and a hard-working Minister would have picked this up. It is the drafting in clause 60A that provides the indefinite article before the abbreviated term FDR. It should be the proper indefinite article “A” not “An”. It should not be “An FDR”. That is the oral version—that is what you say when you are reading it out. If it was properly drafted we would have “A FDR provider” referred to there not “An FDR provider”.But I want to come to clause 60B(5) because this is really where the rubber meets the road. This allows the family dispute resolution provider—this person who is accredited by the Secretary for Justice on no conditions at all that we are ever going to know about because there will be no accountability—to terminate a facilitated or mediated session if they decide that the dispute cannot be resolved within a reasonable time. I just wonder what that really will mean in practice.It will mean that once the family dispute resolution provider having been paid their $900 out of the pockets of the couple in dispute—they have to pick up that cost; there is no assistance for that—is satisfied that their $900 worth of value has been exhausted what are they going to do? They have no interest in carrying it on because remember these facilitators are all private providers. They get their 900 bucks up front and what are they going to do?Well it is very clear what they are going to do. When it gets just too hard and time runs out that is it. They are “outski”. They are off. They will write to the Family Court and say: “That’s it. I’ve done my bit. These are too hard for me. Look these are people with real emotions. They want me to deal with that. These are people with children who actually need to know that they are being given a proper resolution. It is all too hard and I have given $900 worth of my time and I’m out of here.” That is what that will mean. That is what that will do.This is not about resolving family disputes in the spirit of proper mediation and resolution and conciliation—even reconciliation if possible. This is an economic transaction. Couples will be forced into it because this is mandatory and there will be no way out. It is the facilitator who can decide when they have had enough—when they have had $900 worth. That is the insidious thing about it and it goes on of course in clause 60B(9). That clause says “An FDR provider”—once again the indefinite article wrong; it should be “A”—“cannot be required to attend court to explain” their opinion about why it should all come to an end. So they have absolute carte blanche control and they are not called to account. There is no accountability around the appointment of them. There is no accountability around their decision to terminate a mediation process.What sort of process is this? It is a moneymaking scheme for those who get accredited by the Secretary for Justice and unfortunately the track record of this Government in looking after its mates when it comes to these sorts of things gives me no reassurance at all that we are going to have a quality system of family dispute resolution. This is the shameful part of it—this is the shameful part of it.We are concerned about this process. This is a process that will be compulsory for couples. There is very little accountability around it. They are expected according to our MarjorieProops Minister to be totally rational to be totally sensible to be in full grip of their faculties and to resolve the most difficult and the most emotional dispute that any couple any person would ever get into—the separation of their marriage or their partnership. That is an impossible ask. And then we are going to put in place these people who are not equipped to give legal advice but will be asking couples to make decisions that will have a significant legal effect and a huge impact not only on them but on any children of the partnership or the marriage. And couples are expected to do that in a process in which those mediators those facilitators have no accountability at all—and they are expected to stump up $900 to boot.Part of the process of agreement can be that a mediator if they do get to the end of resolving the dispute can order how much of that $900 can be apportioned between the couple. This is not a recipe for finding a resolution. This is a recipe for disaster. This is the distressing thing about it. Actually what I predict we will see is that more couples will find a reason to get before a judge because people want to know that they are dealing with somebody who is not only independent dispassionate and understands these things and has a background in it but also understands the legal impact of what they are doing—because the facilitators will not have that.The Minister’s regime under this bill is to deprive people of legal advice. Those who need legal aid—and we will come on to that in a later section of this bill because that is being whittled back as well—will get very little legal aid and assistance before they get into this process and none while they are in it. This is setting us up for a regime of failure despondency despair and I would say more use of the Family Court and judicial resources than we have ever seen before. That is the failure of this bill. It is a disgrace and that is why we are opposed to it.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Far be it from me to sit back and be lectured on peace breaking out by a member of the Labour Party. Andrew Little by the way has used his 10 minutes to do nothing other than to insult to insinuate and to show why he is likely now to be the second justice spokesperson about to be followed by the third in the Labour Party whom I have had to deal with in the last 2 years. Let us just give him some facts. It is not at all abnormal Mr Little for people involved in matrimonial disputes or family disputes to reach agreement regarding their children without going to court. If we listen to Mr Little we will hear that it is absolutely ridiculous—and he went on to call me all sorts of insulting names—to think that people should put their children first. Actually that is just not true. Only 20-odd years’ experience in the real world in legal practice tells me that it is absolutely normal and usual for people to arrange these situations and resolve them themselves. What is abnormal is rushing into court to talk about where a child is going to spend Christmas or a weekend. That is abnormal. But if you listen to Mr Little you would think that that is the normal behaviour and what is abnormal is expecting loving parents to put their child first. That is a very very dim view of the world that Mr Little has and I have to say that if I was sitting on the backbenches of the Labour Party at the moment I would be feeling a bit dim too. But there you go. Mr Little does so I forgive him those awful insults because I am that sort of a person. But I am sure he knows that he will get it back double one day.Chris Auchinvole: Forgiving.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: And forgiving. I can see Phil Goff wants to be forgiving too.The other issue that Mr Little raised was the issue of accountability. He said that the Secretary for Justice could appoint anybody whom he wanted to have the role of a family dispute resolution service provider. He went on to say essentially that I as the Minister should be making those appointments—that I should be accountable for that. He said that on that basis then I could appoint anybody I like. But what he has failed to recognise—and if he only turned up to the Justice and Electoral Committee a bit more often he might know this—is that there is in fact a select committee process around the estimates around the financial review where the Secretary for Justice is in fact absolutely accountable to members of Parliament and to members on that select committee and can in fact be questioned about that. At the same time there is this thing called written questions where Mr Little could write to me about this issue if he was so concerned about the appointment of a provider. And there is this other thing which he is not allowed to use at the moment and that is oral questions to me about this issue if he is so concerned about someone being provided with a contract that they should not have. Well quite clearly we want to be able to leave the Secretary for Justice the ability to use his or her discretion to get the best providers of this service. The last thing that I want to see as the Minister is to have the Secretary for Justice tied up in judicial review from disappointed providers of services who do not get what they want. I want all the money in this area going to the people who need it the people trying to use the services.There is another thing that Mr Little could use and that is this thing called an Official Information Act request. He could use that too but it is not for me to tell him how to do that. He should get advice from his new senior whip who I am sure will be able to help him. She is doing a much better job in ACC these days than he ever did.But anyway the critical element in family dispute resolution is something that actually says: “Let us create a system that provides a faster less adversarial resolution of parenting issues.” because for most people this is what they want. Most people do not want to spend years in court going in and out of court regarding their children’s issues. But Mr Little has also said that some people will not be able to access this because of various reasons. I think it is very important to note that under the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill—and the question that was asked in the previous part by Mr Faafoi was about violence and how people would be able to access the courts and I would suggest that he reads the bill too—if there is an accusation of violence or any evidence of violence which of course also involves the economic violence that we have now brought into the definition of domestic violence then this issue will be fast tracked. Mr Little has also raised an issue that people will claim domestic violence or might make claims on this to get into court before a judge. Well under the bill as amended in Supplementary Order Paper 349 a judge will be able to if they see any evidence of the courts being misused in this way get that matter back into the family dispute resolution service.I believe it is absolutely crucial that we enable people to make good decisions. It is all very well to say that people are upset and yes they are—yes they are—but ultimately most people already resolve these issues themselves the vast majority. But I have certainly seen instances where people have been encouraged in a family dispute issue into court when the best thing for both of those people and their children is for them to be able to sit down with somebody who is absolutely neutral to help them to resolve the issues. That is where people’s focus and their attention should be—on their children and how to resolve these issues.Only people appointed as family dispute resolution providers by an approved dispute resolution organisation or the Secretary for Justice will be able to provide family disputeresolution. So it is not the Secretary for Justice just sitting there deciding this person and that person; it is actually an approved provider. The Government Supplementary Order Paper 349 sets out what will happen to family dispute resolution providers when their dispute resolution organisation’s approval is suspended or cancelled. Where a dispute resolution organisation is suspended the organisation will continue to be responsible for its current family dispute resolution providers and the family dispute resolution providers will continue to be recognised.Part 3 defines the duties of a family dispute resolution provider. Part 3 also provides for a number of regulation-making powers. Dispute resolution organisations will be approved in accordance with criteria which Mr Little has forgotten set out in regulations that still need to come into force. So it is not that there will not be criteria but the criteria will be in regulations. I think that is a very sensible thing because we know it takes a long time for legislation to come through the House and it may be that the criteria need to be changed more quickly to better suit the circumstances of what we have found. So there will be criteria. It is not willy-nilly as Mr Little says. But if he was at the select committee a bit more often he would know. In fact they will be set in regulations and if he wants me to let him know what they are I am sure I will because I am just that sort of person really.The suspension or cancellation of approval must also be in line with grounds set out in those regulations and likewise regulations will outline the qualification and competency requirements for family dispute resolution providers and the matters that disqualify a person from being appointed as a family dispute resolution provider. So all of the talk that we have heard this afternoon about how it is just going to the Secretary for Justice willy-nilly appointing anybody whom he wants with no accountability is utter rubbish Mr Little. Read the bill. Read the amendments.Andrew Little: Thank you MarjorieProops.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Where the family dispute resolution provider—well Mr Little wants to call me whom? Marjorie somebody? No my name is Judith Collins Mr Little. But anyway having said that he is into insults. Where the family dispute resolution provider determines it is inappropriate to start or continue family dispute resolution it will provide the parties with a form stating its opinion as to why family dispute resolution is inappropriate. It may be inappropriate because the parties are unable to take part effectively or because at least one party or the child has been subjected to domestic violence by the other party. Family dispute resolution may also be inappropriate because one party refused to attend or continue family dispute resolution and that is absolutely crucial. We cannot have one party holding up the other or holding up resolution of these matters for their children. Thank you.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Thank you Minister of Justice for another friendly engagement! I really find it outrageous though that the Minister would claim that it is inappropriate for an Opposition spokesperson to use the Committee stage to ask questions of the Minister in the chair. That is the purpose of this stage of proceedings yet the Minister instead chose to stand up and rattle off all of the other ways that the Opposition spokesperson could ask questions of the Minister. That is why the Minister is here at this point of the proceedings. I would have hoped that we would have an answer to the really reasonable questions that the spokesperson Andrew Little asked of the Minister in the chair. I do not feel that she fully addressed those questions. I am likely to raise them again because the notion that simply asking a question of the Minister through written questions will produce an answer is also a bit of a misnomer. I have asked questions of that Minister in writing. It is rare that you get anything otherthan a sarcastic response back. To get anything of substance is quite a challenge as the Minister has once again proved from the chair.I think we have lost sight of the fact that Part 3 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is not just about setting out a new dispute resolution process. Part 3 is a fundamental shift away from the notion that the State does play a role in assisting people to resolve disputes when they reach a certain point. The Minister seemed to imply that every couple with children that has a dispute ends up in the Family Court and that that is what she is trying to prevent. Of course they do not—of course they do not. But there are a number of situations where things escalate to a point where they are unable to be resolved even through the kinds of mechanisms that she is proposing as a first stage. But they are not really a first stage; they are a blockage to resolution—a costly costly barrier to access to justice to access to a service that previously the State has always acknowledged that it plays a role in.The Minister’s implication that anyone who ends up in the Family Court somehow does not have the best interests of their child at heart does not seem to acknowledge the fact that that is why they have a dispute. They have differing views about what is in the best interests of the child. That is often why they end up there.Rather than actually enforcing the one voice that should be stronger the voice of the child that voice in this process is actually weakened. We have seen a change in the way that lawyer for child is used in this process and yet my understanding is that many of the submissions pointed out that the best advocate through this process often was that voice or indeed the voice of the child. I want to reflect on that as I go through some of the elements of Part 3 and the way that the dispute resolution organisations are structured which ultimately undermines that voice. As I have said this is a departure from the practice we have already had in New Zealand. We had a specialist Family Court established more than 30 years ago for the purpose of addressing that there are some disputes that simply cannot be resolved effectively without it.Of course there will be changes over time and it is important that we reflect on whether or not our court is working efficiently and effectively. It is fair to say that PeterBoshier for instance has talked about some of the delays in the Family Court. In fact when the Justice and Electoral Committee carried out a review—I believe it was last term—into child offending it found that one of the causes of significant delay is often the role of Child Youth and Family in the Family Court. Constant change of practitioners and not fulfilling the requirements set down by the Family Court on behalf of Child Youth and Family are the kinds of things that actually are causing the delays in the Family Court. Instead the Minister has decided to upset this part of the process. It seems that some of the causes of delay have not been fully explored. There has not been enough evidence and advice sitting around that. Instead we have gone straight to this part of the Family Court process.One of the issues that we in Labour have raised of course is that bringing in this family dispute resolution process is not necessarily going to improve access to justice—in fact there is a $900 cost. I would not mind hearing more discussion about this because I was not a member of the select committee. Is it a confirmed cost? Is it likely that that cost would change? It strikes me as something that could escalate quite easily. Are there any regulations to set down that that can be capped? Will the Regulations Review Committee have any role in overseeing the levy that is set or will that be set by the Secretary for Justice? Are there parameters around the way that levy is set?I would not mind hearing from the Minister in the chair as to the parameters that sit around that compulsory fee for the private process to resolve disputes. The Minister raised that she sees cases where for instance there are issues around where a child willspend Christmas being escalated to the Family Court. There are some parents who certainly can use orders as a bit of a weapon in that way. Are you sure Minister that they will not use every time as an alternative form of weapon the fact that this cost will be prohibitive for the other partner to access this dispute resolution? That therefore needs to be resolved. I certainly know of parents who will not be able to afford this process—not just once but the multiple times they would potentially be required to go through it. That is something I would like to hear the Minister’s view on—the clear access to justice issues.I want to come specifically to subclauses 56(a) and (b) which set out the requirements for the family dispute resolution process and the provider. It says that their two primary purposes are “(a) assisting parties to a family dispute to resolve the dispute without having to pursue court proceedings; and (b) ensuring that the parties’ first and paramount consideration in reaching a resolution is the welfare and best interests of the children”. I want to know from the Minister if it is up to the Secretary for Justice to define who will undertake these services what requirements there will be for those services to have an understanding of child well-being to have a background in this kind of resolution process and specifically to have the kind of expertise and specialist knowledge that parents were previously accessing through this process. The Minister shakes her head but I think it is a fair question to ask. If it is in almost a purpose clause how will the Minister ensure that that is being enacted when she refuses to give us any criteria around what these providers will look like or any detail whatsoever on what her expectations are for what will become the very very critical service that sits in front of the Family Court process? Also what right of review will there be if there is an unfavourable process and people feel that the provider has not acted in a way that is appropriate or provided the kind of service that it is expected to provide for the $900 that a parent is paying for that service? Is there any alternative system that they can access to raise those concerns?I also want to come to subclause 60B(5). It says: “Subsection (6) applies when a family dispute resolution provider decides that a family dispute with which the provider is dealing is unable to be resolved within a reasonable time.” So of course that is setting out the parameters when you might see an escalation of that family dispute process when it might move on from being dealt with by that private provider. I would like to know whether or not the select committee or indeed the Minister has a view on what a reasonable time is. If indeed as the Minister claims this is all about resolving disputes in a timely fashion earlier and with less cost to the Crown—because it is not about less cost to families that is for sure—then what is a reasonable amount of time? What is considered to be reasonable in that context? Did the committee discuss parameters? Will those providers be contracted to provide the service within that reasonable amount of time? Because this is also about access I wonder what the time limits for those waiting lists might look like for those private providers how quickly they might need to move through those just what the expectation of the Minister is generally and whether she believes that this will improve the system. Surely she has in her own mind some expectations over what that would look like.I would invite the Minister in the chair to answer what I think are some reasonable questions rather than delaying our ability to have a full debate on this topic by instead asking members to access a process that she knows full well she does not respond to properly.ALFRED NGARO (National): I am happy to take a call on this Part 3 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill especially in particular where Miss Ardern talked about wanting to be informed as she was not part of the Justice and ElectoralCommittee. Those of us who were heard submissions and I can talk about the family dispute resolution process. In particular I want to acknowledge the Hon Lianne Dalziel who was part of that. We had a good working relationship. I think we worked well in hearing the submissions and working through and I think we actually came to a good resolution here.I want to talk in particular about how Miss Ardern talked about the voice of the children. Well in actual fact if she had read the back part of the story and if she had been part of the select committee she would have known that Parenting through Separation which is the parenting programme absolutely focuses in particular on ensuring that the voice of the children is heard. But I also want to remind her that she may not have read the back part of the story and I can understand that because she is only reading off the speech notes that she has been given. She was not part of the select committee.So here is the thing. I just want to inform her that in response to serious concerns raised by the court users which included the public the judges the lawyers and counsellors Cabinet directed a review of the court in 2011. Here are some of the key issues that were found. The review found that in addition to the concerns about rapidly rising costs the court lacked sufficient focus on meeting the needs of children and on achieving sustainable durable outcomes for families. This in particular Miss Ardern is the focus of the bill. It found that the court was adversarial placing additional stress on already strained relationships. It was negative for children and not focused enough on the serious cases spent too much time on simple matters and was too complex and this is the essence of this review and in particular this bill as well.I want to focus on the family dispute resolution process. What I think in particular is that this bill establishes a family dispute resolution process that particularly focuses the family justice system towards supporting people to resolve their disputes. It has been unfair—the concerns that have been raised that there is a lack of concern for the needs of the children. In fact this bill does that. It talks about this.I want to pick up on the point around the providers. Mr Little made I think some unfair comments when he was actually there at the select committee. We heard from providers. We had a New Zealand mediation services association come. It talked about its experience its expertise and said that good mediation truly does make a difference. Again all the evidence shows us that in this case we can ensure that families do not need to go through this and as we are saying in this bill it is not for all people. But where there are some who can actually move out of the court process then absolutely the family dispute resolution process can be very beneficial to them as well. We are hearing from officials that there are around about 4000 court applications and roughly around about 2000 children in particular who could benefit from this.I want to also pick up some comments around the issue for family dispute resolution providers. The family dispute resolution providers are very clear that they will be expected to screen parties for safety risks. I know from the Green members that there was some concern about the issue around family violence. We want to ensure that the power imbalances or inability to participate due to illness or disability will be screened and will be picked up as well. Where the family dispute resolution is unsuitable or unsuccessful for people they will still be able to access the court system to resolve their disputes.I also want to pick up that the family dispute resolution will be subsidised for those who meet the financial eligibility threshold. There was some concern that they would not be able to access this. That is not true at all. In fact it is really clear that where they are unable to meet the financial eligibility threshold they will be subsidised in thisconcern as well. For others the cost of the family dispute resolution is likely to be lower than the cost of employing a lawyer and making an application to the court.We think that the family dispute resolution process is a good process. We think that it is not only a process that will help support children and families but in particular this process will be beneficial for the Family Court system.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members the Committee of the whole House is suspended for the valedictory speech. The Committee will resume at 7.30 p.m.Debate interrupted.House resumed.Valedictory StatementsHon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): Erau rangatiramātēnā koutoutēnā koutoutēnārātātou katoa. It is exactly 23 years ago today that the meeting that saw me selected to run as the Labour candidate for Christchurch Central began. A hotly contested selection saw the result delivered after midnight so I was actually selected on Women’s Suffrage Day. It is 120 years tomorrow since New Zealand led the world with universal suffrage. It took a further 40 years for a woman to be elected to Parliament from the Lyttelton seat in Christchurch and it took the change to MMP to see women take up a third of the seats in Parliament. The Chinese have a saying: “Women hold up half the sky.” All thebloggers who mocked the Labour Party’s attempt to debate how we ensure that women can do so in this place do an injustice to the importance of the debate. I encourage all parties to explore every option to ensure women’s participation. It does matter that young girls see this Parliament as a place they can aspire to serve and they must not find that they are staring through a glass ceiling.I had wanted to give my valedictory 2 weeks ago on 4 September that being the third anniversary of the earthquake that shook our world in Canterbury in more ways than one. I was looking for closure. I would not be leaving Parliament now if it had not been for the earthquake and all that has happened since. But today has meaning too. Twenty-three years ago I was preparing myself for the meeting that would lead me here. It had been a whirlwind 3 weeks since Mike Moore had become the Prime Minister and Geoffrey Palmer had announced he was retiring from Parliament at the election which was just over a month away. Preparing the selection speech brings back great memories and I offer my best wishes to each of the six candidates who are now busy preparing their own selection speeches to contest the selection to replace me.It is hard to squeeze 23 years into the 15 minutes we are allotted. When I first arrived we had 20 minutes for maiden speeches and valedictories. That was also the case for second reading speeches. I remember saying to our senior whip the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt: “What happens if I get to the end of my notes and I still have time left?”. He said: “Start again at the beginning. No one will notice.”I was elected in the biggest defeat Labour had suffered for a long time. Labour had 29 seats to National’s 67 and Jim Anderton held theSydenham seat for the New Labour Party which was to form the basis of The Alliance. There were only seven first-time Labour MPs to National’s 25. My new colleagues made a formidable team: Pete Hodgson John Blincoe Steve Maharey George Hawkins Paul Swain and of course the person who was to become one of my closest friends Judith Tizard. We were collectively known as the backbench seven. With the exception of John Blincoe who did not survive the switch to MMP all of us served as Ministers in the three terms of Government led by the Rt Hon Helen Clark. It remains an honour and a privilege to have served the country at that level.On the other side of the House 1990 saw the arrival of the likes of Bill English Tony Ryall and Nick Smith all members of the brat pack and now all highly ranked Ministers with huge importance to the city of Christchurch. I will be in touch. The year 1990 was a good year to arrive. Opposition is a great place to learn the ropes. I have always encouraged new colleagues to take calls. It helps build confidence which is actually what this place is all about. A Government falls on the loss of confidence. Before Christmas the employment equity law had been repealed and the Employment Contracts Bill had been introduced along with the first of a number of social security bills this one bringing in the benefit cuts. The first Budget that I listened to sitting in the House as an MP was the 1991 Budget. The Minister of Finance had herself labelled it as the “mother of all Budgets” and it was. I remember describing it as the dismantling of the very foundations of the welfare State.The passing of the Employment Contracts Act remains a low point for me. The claim that individuals would have the freedom to negotiate with their employers was the mantra designed to disguise that the only bargaining strength many employees had was being stripped away. Collective bargaining and national awards which guaranteed industry rates of pay above the minimum wage were replaced with individual employment contracts. Many conditions that people took for granted like tea breaks had no legislative backstop and suddenly became unenforceable when national awards disappeared. In my maiden speech I said: “Unfortunately the reality of the proposals for flexibility will mean cutting real wages—cutting the lowest wages the most and that will hurt women—breaking up national negotiation procedures attacking employment legislation making it easier to sack people increasing job insecurity attacking the social welfare system and reducing health and safety and environment protection. The reality is that none of those measures is a recipe for achieving economic growth higher living standards and an improved quality of life.”A hidden cost that the Employment Contracts Act imposed on the nation most recently felt in Christchurch was the expansion of the personal grievance provisions to people in management positions above a certain salary bar. I regret that we did not reverse this when we were in office and I make a plea for it to be addressed. Reinstate for them the tort of wrongful dismissal—a much higher threshold—and let them argue their cases in the High Court.I began advocating for constituents straight away. I remember going to see the then Minister of Education the Hon Lockwood Smith about the impacts on young people who had been caught by some changes to the rules for student allowance. He listened and amendments were made. I also remember going to see the Hon Doug Graham in his role as Minister of Justice. A constituent wanted to register his son’s death on the New Zealand register but because his son had died in Australia he could not. The Minister said that his officials were opposed to the amendments because of the cost. I said that the cost could be recovered in the fee. To cut a long story short my passionate plea in the House during the Committee stage of the bill saw the Minister instruct officials to write an amendment overnight and my constituent got the closure he was looking for. I always use this as an example to show that Opposition MPs can be effective in this place. To all the people who have trusted me with their personal stories I say thank you.I had a number of portfolios in Opposition. Being the ACC spokesperson at the time that the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Bill was going through Parliament reinforced my firm belief that this is a precious scheme the principles of which should be entrenched in law: community responsibility comprehensive entitlement complete rehabilitation real compensation and administrative efficiency. The good thing about the passage of the legislation was my discovery that the Regulations Review Committee was one of the most important select committees in thisplace. Anyone who wants to be a Cabinet Minister should serve on it. It is chaired by an Opposition member and it is Parliament’s watchdog on the power of the executive. I cannot emphasise enough how important it is that this committee is not politicised. It now has only three National MPs and two Labour MPs one of whom is the chair. That is simply insufficient for the quality of scrutiny that this House is entitled to.I became Labour’s spokesperson on health at one of the most controversial times in the history of our health system. The introduction of the competitive market model the funder/provider split with regional health authorities and Crown health enterprises and the introduction of means-tested part charges in our hospitals were major challenges. As I was closing my electorate office for the Christmas holidays at the end of 1996 I was left a copy of a report:Patients Are Dying. The report showed that a number of patients had died at Christchurch Hospital in circumstances where their deaths were preventable. Warnings were given warnings were ignored and people died—that is what the report said. People who were close to me know how much I invested in getting to the bottom of what had occurred. Most people do not know that this included standing alongside the families as they went through the coroners’ inquests. Everyone had lawyers except the families of the people who had died. That is wrong. Families need to be represented so that the right questions are asked and representation should not be subject to legal aid means testing. It is the public interest in getting to the truth of the matter that is the client in such a case. There was a lawyer who said something that has remained with me. He said that the coroner’s court was not a court of blame; it was a court of understanding. That phrase remains with me today as I seek to ensure that we understand all that has happened in Christchurch not to attribute blame but to learn lessons. The Stent report as the Health and Disability Commissioner’s report became known was an indictment on a managerially focused health system oriented predominantly as it was on issues of efficiency funding and financial performance. They are important but not at the expense of public safety.It is true that I hit the wall. The explanation I offer as I leave this place is that the core of my inner being was rocked by discovering that the same ethical approach that guides clinicians and health professionals in their work did not apply to those managing the public health system in such an environment. I may have crashed but as I have found out what does not kill you makes you stronger. The silver lining was getting to know people likeStu and SusieGowland Phil and SueBagshaw and Gary and Liz Nicholls. I know there were others but they helped me understand what truly matters in this world. Of course Murray Gardiner whose brother Brian was one of the patients who died at Christchurch Hospital has sent a text to say that he will be watching. So hello Murray.The year 1999 saw Labour in Government with The Alliance and I was elected to Cabinet. I loved the immigration portfolio. To this day I have people who rush up to me to thank me for their residence in New Zealand. I did not have an Associate Minister in the first term so I made all the individual decisions as well. This meant that the policy and operations officials from immigration met together in my office for my weekly briefing. That is where I learnt that policy and operations are strengthened if they are informed by each other. While I have been here I have seen Government departments split apart to separate policy and operations—for example the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Justice. It is like separating the head from the hands. The senior public servants whom I worked with in immigration were outstanding. I know that I will embarrass them if I name them in my valedictory speech. Some of them are here tonight and I thank them for their commitment to public service.There were many highlights including establishing the New Zealand Immigration Programme improving New Zealand’s refugee determination process creating a focuson settlement outcomes—the New Kiwis website was the first partnership with the Auckland chamber of commerce—and the introduction of the talent visa. It is theTampa incident however that will always stand out for me as an important milestone in our nation’s history and a symbol of the role that a small country can play when called upon to do so. It is just over 12 years since we made the decision to bring some of those asylum seekers to New Zealand to determine their claims. I am proud of what so many of them have achieved here in New Zealand as well as grateful for their loyalty and commitment to the country that offered them refuge when others had turned them away.There were many times when I relived in my mind the sequence of events that ended in my resignation from Cabinet on Friday 20 February 2004. I did not have to look up the date. My personal integrity is very much about who I am. So for the record I had nothing to do with the case. It was a decision for my Associate Minister and he made the right decision. I was sent a copy of a document from an electorate office that received it as part of the lobbying process. The document confirmed that a media campaign was going to be mounted if all the lobbying failed. I made a copy available to a journalist. I believed that the journalist did not want it known that I was the source. That is why I was fudging the issue. I accepted full responsibility for my actions and I resigned.I was reinstated after the 2005 election which leads me to reflect briefly on the commerce portfolio. I remember that when I was first given the role in 2002 a consultant who may be here sent out a message to his clients describing the new Cabinet. He had a warning about me: probably the worst of Helen Clark’s appointments a left-wing trade unionist who knew nothing about business. He sent me a photograph a year later with him taking a bite out of a large slice of pie that had the word “humble” written upon it. That would have to be the best apology I have ever received.There are too many reforms in this area to mention them all—Part 4 of the Commerce Act the Building Act review the review of financial products and providers the quality regulation review. The list goes on. Regulatory frameworks are important but they must be right-sized they must be fit for purpose and they must remain fit for purpose. I gave a speech last week that expressed my sense of regret that we did not fully regulate the finance companies sooner. For me the lesson learnt was the lack of a helicopter view. The Reserve Bank was reporting on one aspect of the risk the Securities Commission on another and market participants were expressing concerns but no one was joining the dots. Mum and dad investors lost a lot of their hard-earned money without ever knowing the degree of risk they were exposed to. I really valued working collaboratively with Simon Power first as a spokesperson and then as Minister as we across Government set about rectifying what was wrong. Again as a parting comment can I urge the Government to keep that set of regulatory frameworks under review. We should relax rules for sophisticated investors who can take care of themselves but we must remain vigilant on behalf of those who are at the mercy of those who play on their lack of financial literacy.I cannot leave this place without reflecting on a place called Aranui a place that has truly come into its own sparked off by two significant Labour Government initiatives led by visionary Ministers—the Aranui Community Renewal led by former Minister of Housing Mark Gosche and the Strengthening Communities Fund led by former Minister for Social Development Steve Maharey. Let me be clear. The Government did not make what happened in Aranui happen. The Government was the facilitator or the enabler for the community which led the way. A memorandum of understanding was signed by the Government the council and the community which paved the way for true partnership. The approach is very much based on the community’s strengths. Iencourage the Government to continue to work with the Aranui Community Trust Incorporated Society on this basis.When we look at deficits in a community we end up defining its needs. If we do that in designing the new school for example there will be a desire to put health and social services on the site. But if we look at the assets those kids take into that school every day—their talent their culture their artistic creativity their sporting prowess their acting ability their song and dance—then we would want to build a business school a centre for innovation an art gallery and a performing arts centre so that they can transform their talent into a future for themselves and their families. If we look at the strong base that Aranui built on the back of the housing and social development initiatives maybe it is time to start thinking about how it could become its own landlord as a community providing income for its own community development and providing a source of local work.As I said at the outset there is insufficient time to cover all my portfolios the lessons I have learnt and the highs and the lows especially because I was not quite ready to leave here. At the beginning of the year I still believed I had more to offer this place. So before speaking to why I am leaving may I take the time to thank everyone who has supported me and helped me along the way. I am not going to name everyone so I apologise in advance. I will start with my husband Rob who deserves to be at the top of the list. Thank you for believing in me. The Rt Hon Helen Clark has been a mentor but more important she entrusted me with ministerial roles that have prepared me for whatever lies ahead. She set exacting standards and rightly so. To the Christchurch Central and Christchurch East Labour Party members who have kept me focused—thank you David Deon Marie Angela and Graeme for representing them all here. There are probably others I have missed. To the Labour Party from Ruth Dyson Labour Party president when I was elected to MoiraCoatsworth today through you I thank all members. I would not have been elected to Parliament if I had not been the Labour candidate. To my family—my father died just after the 2008 election but I know he would have flown over from Sydney and he would have been sitting in the gallery today—thank youRoanna and Beverley for representing the whole family who are here in spirit. Thank you to all my friends—Trish Tony DaveKaine. There are too many to name but I thank you all. Those are the ones who paid for me to mention their names. I thank you for tolerating an appalling lack of proactive work on my part at keeping our relationships going. To my electorate parliamentary and ministerial staff over the past 23 years—I started withAne Jane and Chris and then in my ministerial officeBev andJuli and ending with Raewyn Kath Heather and Laura. Thank you for being here for me tonight and thank you for being there for me throughout.To my colleagues past and present—I have learnt so much from you all and wish you well. A special thankyou goes to Judith Tizard. People say that you do not make friends here but our friendship proves that that is not the case. I wish my former colleague Charles Chauvel was still here. I know that lawyers are not well regarded. Starting a speech with “I’m a lawyer and a politician. You can trust me.” always manages to get a laugh. But we do need lawyers in this place. I want to mention two colleagues who have passed away. They are David Lange and Larry Sutherland. Both were very special to me. I want to mention the Hon Tariana Turia. You will never know how meaningful your description of why you could not support the foreshore and seabed legislation was to me in terms of helping me understand Te Ao Māori and I thank you. To everyone who makes this place tick: the gallery staff security Hansard Office of the Clerk including select committee staff people who make me long blacks every day and of course the VIP Transport Service—I had hoped to make it back for one more ride butit was not to be—please accept my heartfelt thanks for your good humour and unstinting service.Finally I come to why I am leaving. I have been on a journey of discovery for the past 3 years since that wake-up call on 4 September 2010 at 4.35 a.m. Although I began my time here when the Government was dismantling the underpinnings of the welfare State I leave here in the firm belief that the answer to that is not to continue to reinstate what cannot survive the turning of a political tide. It is debilitating to any Government to have to spend its first term in office fixing what has been done. The solution is to build a resilient nation a nation of communities that are resilient to the ebb and flow of political change by becoming more self-reliant and self-sufficient but also resilient to the emergent challenges that we can no longer predict with any certainty. From welfare State to resilient nation is how I describe my journey of discovery. I have learnt what liquefaction and lateral spread are. I now know that it is wrong to buildunreinforced concrete slab foundations alongside wetlands that are susceptible to both. I now know the true meaning of words like “community” “leadership” and “resilience”. Community is not the co-location of houses—that is a suburb—it is the relationship between the people in those houses and their relationship as a group with the decision makers. That is community. Leadership is not a position you hold; it is a mark of your character. And resilience is not strength in the face of adversity—that is stoicism—it is the capacity to plan and prepare for absorb recover from and adapt to the consequences of an adverse event. It is also about the capacity to co-create a new normal. I now know that disaster risk reduction climate change adaptation and sustainable community development are all interconnected.There are people whom I have met in Christchurch and around the world over the past 3 years who have changed my life for ever. You know who you are when I say thank you for helping me learn about post-disaster recovery especially the geotechnical engineer who made time so I could understand what had happened to the land. Many people know what I have been through but very few know what it has meant for me personally to face my fear and take on my next challenge. I am not the same person I was 3 years ago; my priorities have changed. This place no longer seems as relevant as it was even at the beginning of the year. But I will leave a final message to you all. Please be kind to each other. I found last year very difficult as some of you know. Vigorous debates are an important feature of this place but we are human. And although we come from different perspectives we all come with a desire to make New Zealand a better place.That being said I am very much looking forward to what lies ahead. If the people of Christchurch elect me as their mayor I will commit 100 percent of my energy to building strong relationships with the Government the other councils Environment Canterbury the Canterbury District Health BoardNgāiTahu business and the diverse communities that make up the city where I was born and have lived all my life. We are building the newest city in the world and it is exciting.When an MP makes their maiden speech they often include lofty ideals upon which they reflect in their valedictory. I remember that 23 years ago fresh from representing low-paid workers in the service sector I said I wanted to be the face of the people who could not be seen and the voice of the people who could not be heard. And for a magic moment in time in the silt-sodden streets of the east of Christchurch I truly felt that I had lived up to what I entered Parliament to do.Nō reiratēnā koutoutēnā koutoutēnārātātou katoa.Sitting suspended from 6.08 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Family Court Proceedings Reform BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 3 Family dispute resolution(continued)Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Part 3 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill as introduced was the amendment to the Family Courts Act 1980 which becomes the Family Dispute Resolution Act or some such thing.Just before I start on Part 3 of the bill could I acknowledge the valedictory speech from the Hon Lianne Dalziel which I thought was a very fine speech. Our loss will be Christchurch’s gain if she is successful in her bid for the mayoralty. I thought it was a very fine speech and we will miss her expertise particularly in the area that we are talking about now which is the area of the law.Coming back to Part 3 of the bill I want to pick up some of the comments that the Minister of Justice has made. The Minister boasted that this is all going to be fine because she has 20 years as a practising lawyer. I think she was comparing herself with my colleague the Labour spokesperson on justice. I wonder whether she would compare herself with the people whom her predecessor the Hon Simon Power put on the expert reference group. I look at the people who have made submissions on this bill and are particularly opposed to this part of the bill—people like Professor Fred Seymour and Dr Suzanne Blackwell. They have both been clinical psychologists for over 30 years dealing with Family Court matters. You hadAntony Mahon—again a barrister working in family law and an expert in the area with 30 years’ experience. There is Allan Cooke another barrister working in South Auckland with 30 years’ experience andSharynŌtene a family law barrister with 17 years’ experience in the Family Court.Why I raise that is that four of those five people were appointed by Simon Power on the basis of their expertise in the law in family law and in Family Court matters. When you appoint an expert reference group you expect the Minister to listen to what that expert group says. Well Minister you have not listened but listen now because this is what that group said in its submission on this bill. It said that the proposed reforms “are not based on empirical evidence”—not based on empirical evidence. I would like the Minister to take the next call and point to the empirical evidence on which this bill is based.The submission said that this bill is “... contrary to extensive existing evidence of best outcomes for families and children;”. Let me say that again to you Minister: it is contrary to extensive existing evidence of best outcomes for families and children. I would really like this Minister to take a call and explain why she is imposing a piece of legislation on this Committee that the experts in the area—acknowledged as experts because they were appointed by her predecessor—are saying is not based on facts is not based on evidence and they say worse than that again.The submission says that this “... will create a two-tiered family justice system ... [where] (i) the more vulnerable members of society will have limited access ... to assist them in the resolution of family disputes.” So it is not based on fact it is not based on evidence and it is going to create an unfair justice system when it comes to resolving disputes that have a huge impact on the lives of the children who are tied into it through no fault of their own.The submission also says further that “it is entirely foreseeable that inequalities arising from gender socio-economic status and ethnicity will become entrenched”. I thought the idea of the justice system was that everybody was equal under the law and it did not matter whether you were rich or you were poor because you had the sameaccess to the services of justice and you could expect the same outcomes. And this your own expert reference group is saying that exactly the opposite will be the case.I also heard the Minister in her address talking about this being about children. Minister your own regulatory impact statement denies that this is about children because that regulatory impact statement—let me recall this for you too—produced by your department says: “Given the overall”—this is the introductory paragraph—“Given the overall fiscal situation urgent steps must be taken to lower the cost of the current justice system ...”. That is what this bill is about. It is about lowering the fiscal costs regardless of the social and justice costs that that imposes on the children and the families who may be denied the services of this system.And this is what the expert reference group says. It backs up what the regulatory impact statement says. It says: “The overriding fiscal imperative is evident throughout the Bill.” It goes on to say: “Such savings cannot be to an extent where the fundamental purpose of the Family Court is severely compromised.” So Minister I would like to hear from you as to why these people with much more experience in a section of the law that you have only touched upon are so fundamentally critical of every basic premise in this bill.What worries me most of all is that this new family dispute resolution service which will be compulsory for everybody is going to be at a cost to the families of $900—$897 I am sorry. I am exaggerating. It is $897. I want you to tell us Minister how a family on a lowish income—but not so pathetically low that they are eligible for legal aid—is going to afford that cost when they are already going through the financial stress of a maritalbreakup where they are probably living in two homes now and having to spread the cost of that across the income that previously paid for one home because that is going to produce financial hardship. But not for people on the Minister’s salary. She could manage it very readily. Maybe for the people at the very bottom you know with one child if your income is under $32000 you will not have to pay. But people who are the normal average family battlers who will be on low to middle incomes will be struggling with the cost.What worries me most of all Minister is that your own regulatory impact statement says that after they have been through this process five-sixths of them will then have to go to the Family Court anyway. They will have to meet the cost of this service at $900 and then they will have to pay the cost—minus the legal aid that you have taken away from so many of them—to go to the Family Court as well. So they are being hit twice.The Minister’s other point was: “Oh most people can just sort this out for themselves.” Well you know it is true that for a lot of people there will be an out-of-court resolution. That is there now. Minister you must know that right now under section 9 of the Family Proceedings Act 85 percent of the parties reach a direct agreement by themselves or with counselling under section 9. The people who can sort their problems out are sorting their problems out now without the extra costs that you are imposing on them. But the other 15 percent are the 15 percent where the problems are deeply entrenched. What the experts say on this is that your proposal will make the situation worse and will make it harder for those families. They will not be represented before the family dispute resolution service and they will not be represented in the Family Court when they get there either. So if you have got an unequal relationship between the two partners that will be exaggerated because the partner who is not equal in strength and resources to the other partner will be at a huge disadvantage.What the expert reference group says here Minister—you have not read it obviously so I will repeat it to you—is: “This fails to recognise that out of court resolution already occurs for the vast number of parents who separate whether by direct agreement between the parties or with the assistance of the section 9 counselling.”Those cases do not go to the Family Court but it says: “The availability of the affordable and accessible pre-court dispute resolution process with section 9 counselling already provides the very tools to parents which are claimed to result from these reforms.” They have the mechanism to do so now if the matter can be sorted out without the cost being imposed on the parties because part of the role of the legal system is to provide justice whether it is in employment law judicial law family law or civil cases. That is what our—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Judicial law!Hon PHIL GOFF: The family cases. Let the Attorney-General if he is so smart take a call and explain why these people who know far more than either the Attorney-General or the Minister of Justice are wrong when they say that this legislation is fundamentally bad.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Part 3 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. I do want to point straight to clause 60A of the bill which sets out the duties of family dispute resolution providers. In subclause (2) of clause 60A it says “… the family dispute resolution provider must … (a) identify the matters in issue between the parties; and (b) facilitate discussion between the parties in respect of those matters; and (c) assist the parties to reach an agreement on the resolution of those matters that best serves the welfare and best interests of all children involved in the dispute.” On the face of it you cannot have too much of a problem with that but as always with the National Party the devil is in the detail.To get to family dispute resolution you have to pay as Mr Goff says $897. That is going to be very restrictive to many many families and certainly to a lot of families in my constituency of Mana. I just want to commend a number of the family law specialist lawyers who came to me almost instantly because of their concern around access to justice for families who could not afford it when they found out that this piece of legislation was going to be introduced to this House. Those lawyers believe that this fee of close to $900 to go through this family dispute resolution service will be prohibitive for many families in Porirua and that it will cause a lot of families who cannot afford to go through family dispute resolution to actually have more problems between the two parties involved—the issue being that if you cannot afford to go through family dispute resolution the issues between those two parties will be left to fester and then things between those two parties could actually get worse. Those lawyers did point out that the system that is currently in place gives the two parties the ability to go to six court-funded counselling sessions. That was very very valuable to those parties in making sure that they could hopefully come to some agreement before they get to the serious stages of negotiation around separation.As Phil Goff mentioned in his speech it is not necessarily the case that this Government wants to help families who are separating by introducing this piece of legislation. It is actually looking at cutting costs within the court system to make sure that it can meet its needs. To look at some of the savings that the Government will find by moving to these family dispute resolution services and changing the system within Family Court proceedings you only have to go to the regulatory impact statement where it does quantify some of the savings that will come about by introducing family dispute resolution services. On page 9 of the regulatory impact statement one of the options that the advisers look at is repealing the existing obligations and replacing them with a focus on the court carrying out its primary function in a way that produces the best outcomes for children and vulnerable people. This is a recommended option from the advisers who put the regulatory impact statement together. It is revealed in that document that this will create a saving of close to $10 million based on the 2010 and2011 expenditure for all court-funded counselling. In black and white that is what the real motivation of these changes is. As it says in clause 60A family dispute resolutions may be being introduced for what would seem to be a good purpose but the real motivation for setting up the family dispute resolution service is to cut costs. Another measure that will save costs as pointed out in the regulatory impact statement is to limit the number of those counselling sessions that I mentioned before which currently is set at six to—it says here in the regulatory impact statement—an option of one or three. That will save up to $4 million based on current expenditure over the next 2 years.We are very concerned about this family dispute resolution service and about the cost that it has set up because it does create a situation where the have-nots cannot access a fair justice system when it comes to resolving family disputes. They cannot do that. That was a concern that was also held by the New Zealand Law Society. That is a society the opinion of which this Government does not seem to care about any more because a lot of pieces of legislation have been through the House and the Law Society has given its frank opinion on that legislation but this Government seems hell-bent on ignoring it. In a submission that the Law Society made on this bill when it was introduced it had two very major concerns when it came to the family dispute resolution service. If I can just read from its submission: “Firstly imposing a large fee puts a big barrier in front of those who want to resolve issues that they are unable to resolve themselves. Access to justice is a fundamental mark of a democratic and fair society. That access will be impeded in New Zealand by the fee.” So we do have the Law Society very concerned along with the Labour Party that this fee will restrict the access to justice of a lot of families who are not only going through financial hardship but also going through very tough times within their own families themselves.The second concern that the Law Society had and I am quoting again is that “… requiring the parties to split the fee provides one party with the power to delay matters control or even prevent the process by refusing to pay their half. FDR needs to be encouraged. Its strength is in early negotiated settlement. Giving one party the ability to stifle the process by simply refusing to pay a fee is to deny the other the opportunity of resolving matters in a timely child focused way.” So the fee that you need to pay to access the family dispute resolution service could actually be used as something against one party in a dispute within a family. I think that I would like to hear from the Minister of Justice about that concern that the Law Society has and certainly as to whether this could have the effect of making things worse within families. Certainly I know that the local family lawyers in my area have concerns over that because they are going to be in plenty of situations where families will be accessing this service. As I said in a previous debate on another part of this legislation where there is financial abuse going on in a situation this concern from the Law Society could certainly come to fruition.I do want to note some of the ardent opposition in Porirua to this bill.Catriona Doyle a family lawyer in Porirua moved very quickly to make sure that the Law Society locally and nationally spoke out very strongly against the changes that are in this bill because they will restrict access to justice for families who cannot afford to access justice. We do not believe that is a good thing. As Mr Goff said it is fine for people who can afford it but it certainly does hamper the process for families who are not in a financial position to be able to access justice and the family dispute resolution service. On the face of it clause 60A points out some very good things that family dispute resolution sets out to do but in this legislation this Government is not really seeking to make things easier for families who cannot afford to access justice. At the moment they can do so and it is cheap or free and they do have access to six free counselling sessions but under this legislation it makes access to justice much muchharder. It imposes close to a $900 fee on those families who want to enter into the family dispute resolution service and it is my submission and also a submission of the Law Society—and I would like to hear from the Minister in the chair on this—that the fee to enter the family dispute resolution process could actually be making things worse for families not better.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I moveThat the question be now put.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I am pleased to take a short call on this part Part 3 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. The argument of the Minister of Justice around Part 3 of the bill is based on this premise: that people should work out their problems themselves when it comes to separation and disputes around children. They should be able to do it themselves. In order to force that to happen the Minister has come up with what really is a Draconian set of rules and changes to the current rules.In fact it has already been shown that there is a fundamental flaw in the Minister’s basic argument. Most people do work it out themselves. That is a fact. Any practitioner will tell you that and most lawyers will tell you that. When separation occurs and when disputes occur they actually work it out. So who are the ones Minister who end up in court? They are the ones where their cases are much more difficult they are much more complex and they require a lot more assistance which is why they come to court. They do not come to court just for the hell of it; they come because they require the assistance of the court.To take away the provisions that are there at the moment which Part 3 does is actually denying a fundamental right to our citizens and that is to access justice. So at that point it becomes an access to justice question. It is a bit like many other areas where this Government has made it much more difficult for a section of our population to access services. Whether it is in social development or in a whole range of areas a number of punitive laws have been passed by this Government that are punishing the most vulnerable and the Government couches it in language that it is strengthening our families. Well it is not. This will actually make it worse.There is any amount of evidence that has been presented to the Justice and Electoral Committee and in the documents that my colleagues have talked about to show that this is a mistake and yet the Minister has got it in her head that this is the only way to do this. One wonders why. One wonders why it is. What has the Minister got against her own former profession which actually does want to provide and enable services to be offered to our most vulnerable?Not only that but it is actually taking away from our most vulnerable the responsibility of the State to provide some assistance—in the end it will probably be cheaper to do it that way—and imposing in its place an $875 cost to families to access counselling to access the family dispute resolution service. What is the logic behind that? This becomes cheque-book access to services for those who are the most vulnerable. Why is the Minister doing it that way? Why is this Government so heartless in doing it in this particular way and then going even further—making it a mandatory requirement? Before you can go any further you actually have to go and access the service at your own cost.The Minister has not explained to us the question proposed by this side of how the family dispute resolution service is going to decide that a case cannot be resolved in a short period of time or within a reasonable period of time. That is not defined either. This is all designed to make it a lot more difficult and perhaps designed to save some money and the figures have been quoted by my colleague Kris Faafoi.Why is the Minister so heartless? Why is the Minister making it—[Interruption] Well Minister it is. The Minister should get up and say how some of these families aregoing to find $875 to get this service. And when it does not work out they will have to go to court and there is no access to legal aid at that point. They are on their own and of those who separate this is the most vulnerable group—the most difficult cases—and through these provisions the Minister is making it much more difficult for them to do so. It is not just my word; it is the words of all those who have presented. There have been no explanations from the Minister as to why it is being done in this particular way. Perhaps the Minister is simply trying to promote access to private family dispute resolution services. In a way the prices are guaranteed. They have to use those; otherwise they cannot go any further.There is a lot with this series of provisions in Part 3 of the bill that fundamentally this side of the House is opposed to because there is a better way of doing it. There are much better ways of accepting this responsibility and providing a better service. What are the difficulties in this particular area if it is not just costs? What has the Minister identified as a major problem in this particular area? It is only that ideology that people should care for themselves and that if you separate you must go and find solutions yourself.What kind of solution is that? The Minister does not drive that and the Government does not drive that in other areas of problems whether it is in the economy or whether it is in business etc. The Government is very very willing to use large dollops of public moneys.Tīwai Point is a case in point. And yet when it comes to our most vulnerable families this Minister and the Minister for Social Development are making it much more difficult for our most vulnerable. Why is it Minister? Is it because this group does not vote for that side of the House? Is it that? Or is it just some perverse—Andrew Little: Pleasure.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: —pleasure that the Minister takes as an ex-lawyer. There is no logic. The Minister has not explained the logic.We can conclude then at the end of it and alongside a whole series of other laws that have been passed by this Government over the past 4½ years that although the Government pretends to be pro-family it is actually anti-family. Many many laws have been passed by this Government that are actually anti-family anti - keeping the family together and anti - trying to give families assistance. The Government is simply saying: “The State has no responsibility. We’ve got to cut the welfare budget. We’ve got to cut Government spending.” And yet the other side of the equation is that others are advantaged.This is what creates the unbalanced society that Labour Governments have to come and fix up and we will. When in Government this side will fix up these kinds of problems. Anybody who works in this field—any practitioner counsellor lawyer and perhaps judge as well if they are asked—will tell you that this particular set of provisions is not likely to work. Those whom I have spoken to say that this will simply make it worse. And yet here is a Minister who sits there and simply says that we have got it all wrong that everybody is wrong and that the Minister is right. Well this side will not be supporting this bill and when the time comes we will make the adjustments that need to be made. Thank you.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): I moveThat the question be now put.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that a closure motion must be put precisely and I believe that that member started to take a call.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I found the manner in which the motion was put to be acceptable.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the motion be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 52.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 3 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 3 as amended agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 56.Part 4 Amendments to Legal Services Act 2011ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Part 4 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is a very brief part but it is actually very powerful in its impact. I think that it is very important to draw the Committee’s attention to just what is going on here. This part severely limits access to legal aid for parties to Family Court proceedings. It is interesting to note the advice that was received about this matter—both the officials’ advice that was received and the advice from the expert reference group which talked about this as well. By denying legal aid to parties who are required to participate in the mandatory family dispute resolution process it effectively means that the parties at least those who cannot afford their own counsel will be unrepresented. They will be unrepresented.I will come to submissions about legal aid shortly but it is interesting to see what the advice of the regulatory impact statement was about the impact of this particular provision—the expectation of it. It was that by making legal aid unavailable to this sort of process it will reduce the cost of legal aid for care of children cases which are the bulk of those for which legal aid is granted to the tune of $41.3 million over 3 years. Over $10 million a year will be saved in legal aid. I am sure there will be some Cabinet Ministers who would rub their hands together with glee thinking they can save that sort of money. But the cost as we would expect is likely to be picked up elsewhere.It is interesting to see what the expert reference group said about this lack of legal representation for both the partners who are in dispute and any children involved. The group talks about Family Court cases involving high stress for parties and that for a wide variety of reasons parties struggle to advocate for themselves which is why they typically and traditionally have access to legal counsel throughout the process. This is not about the small amount of advice they can get access to before the mandatory family dispute resolution process but actually about having advice throughout the process. When you are participating—whether it is in a mediation-type or facilitated-type process or in formal court proceedings—you are taking part in something that will have significant legal implications for you and if you have got children for your children for some time to come. So people rightly approach it cautiously and because they want advice on the implications for them and their children.The expert reference group talked about the impact of this measure which effectively denies legal advice when they need it most and that is that there will be other direct and indirect costs to the public purse. It is likely that an additional administrative resource will be required because if people are not sure about the agreements they are entering into or the points they are being asked to agree to and they cannot get advice their best option is to kick it to the court and hope the court can fix it up and sort it out for them. There is going to be a greater call on the facilitators who are expected to be engaged in this process to start providing advice. They will be clear that they cannot provide legal advice but they will be prevailed upon to do so and that is going to bog things down as well.But there is something else going on that I think is even more insidious and that is what is happening to legal aid. Earlier this year this House passed amendments to the legal services legislation including the Legal Services Amendment Act which allowed the Legal Services Commissioner to impose interest on legal aid debt. That has not happened until now. Indeed in many cases where legal aid has been given at least in civil matters there has been a charge or a caveat put on people’s real property but now the Legal Services Commissioner has the power to impose interest on it.And the Committee might like to know that the Legal Services Commissioner has been busily going around imposing interest on legal aid debt particularly historical legal aid debt in just the last couple of weeks. Letters have gone out to a large number of people telling them that they now owe money on their legal aid debt. People who have had a legal aid debt in some cases for 12 years and have never received a single piece of correspondence about it are now being told they have to pay interest on it.This will continue to be an issue under this legislation. This will continue to be an issue under this legislation because if people cannot get advice in this mandatory process they have to kick it off to have a judge sort it out and that is the only basis on which they will get access to legal advice. They will have an incentive to do it but they will now be subject to a further burden. Many people who have an existing legal aid debt are now being chased for it and what is worse they are being charged the usurious and extortionate rate of 8 percent. That is 8 percent interest on a grant of assistance to impecunious people poor people who need legal assistance at a time of great distress and difficulty for them. This Government now comes after them and says: “You’re going to pay a rate of interest that is several times the rate of inflation that is more than you would pay on a first mortgage rate and that is more than the 90-day bill rate.”This is a way that the Government through the Ministry of Justice can fleece poor people and make money. That is what it is about. It will happen to people under this Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill if this bill is passed in this form. Legal aid will be required because more people will seek to have their family disputes kicked off into a court process because that is the only way they are going to get access to legal advicein order to understand the legal implications of the agreement they are being asked to agree to. The Minister of Justice might like to answer just what her expectations are of the demand for legal aid and the cost to people now with this dreadful and insidious interest rate that is now being imposed on it. There is no reassurance in this bill that people are going to be treated fairly and properly over it. This change the limiting of access to legal assistance and legal aid for this important process a very important event in someone’s life is I think an absolute shocker.The expert advisory group went on to talk about depriving children tied up in these matters of counsel and legal advice because that is what this bill does as well. Children will not even be represented in the family dispute resolution process. Previously they would be and there would be assistance for them to do that. There will be no legal aid for children to get access to advice on the implications of any agreement for them and that is a more horrifying prospect. It is in my view as I have already said in this House a breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and it goes against the advice of the expert reference group. The very high-powered highly qualified highly experienced expert reference group has also lamented the bill for denying legal advice to children tied up in these events.The group thinks that it is going to put children at risk because the court will not have independent information on the views of the child. The group points out that it is usually only after a lawyer has been appointed for a child that underlying issues things that affect the children are notified for the first time to the court. The truth is that the parents who are trying to do the best they can in their situation are focused on getting their situation sorted and their emotion stabilised. Of course they will want the best for their children or child but their view about what that is will differ from the review of the other parent and indeed possibly of the children themselves.So it is a bad day for this Committee if we go ahead and pass this provision that denies legal aid. Clause 71 of this bill denies legal aid not only to the parents of children going through a dissolution in this context but also to children themselves. It is a bad day for this Committee that we should be considering legislation like this. That is why we are opposed to it and we are opposed to what is happening to legal aid generally.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Part 4 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is amendments to the Legal Services Act 2011 and the bill makes it very clear what the effect of this is. The effect of new section 7(3A) and (3B) in clause 71 is to limit the availability of legal aid in proceedings under the Care of Children Act 2004 in the Family Court. This is part of the guts of the bill which says that we are going to stop lower-income people who cannot afford to be represented from getting justice in court. That is what this bill means.It is really interesting reading what the regulatory impact statement says about this bill. Actually my favourite sentence is this. You have got to listen to this Minister—you will really appreciate it. It is: “This option only affects those parties who because of their low income are eligible for legal aid.” Yes. Is that not obvious Minister? This part of the bill affects only those on low incomes who cannot afford legal representation. If this Minister on $250000—a quarter of a million dollars—needs help she will not need to worry about it. People who are really well off will do just fine but the families who are struggling to have representation will be denied representation by this bill and by other pieces of legislation that you Minister have passed.You know it says here that the real justification for this is that family legal aid went up by 93 percent between 2006-07 and 2010-11. Do you know why it went up Minister? Because for the first time in 20 years the rates of payment for legal aid were adjusted to bring them into line with the rate of inflation over the intervening period.Legal aid is about ensuring justice for people who need to be represented and this Minister says no. Why does she say no? It says why in the regulatory impact statement: “The fiscal constraints faced by government mean that there is not currently sufficient … funding”. Well Minister there was sufficient funding to pay the costs of RioTinto—$30 million. That was not a problem. Corporate welfare—no problem at all. Warner Bros—“Come in yeah. Add another $16 million to the $40 million or $50 million you’re already getting in subsidies. No problem at all.”Corporate welfare is OK apparently but allowing people to have the funds to have justice for themselves and their kids is the first target. Do you know why they are a target Minister? Because they are vulnerable because they cannot fight back and because they cannot articulate their case. They cannot stand up for themselves. But RioTinto? RioTinto—yeah well it says: “Well look OK. We’ll keep on going just until you can sell Meridian Energy and then we’ll pull out anyway and the jobs will be gone. But in the meantime yes we’ll take $30 million of the taxpayer’s funds.”That is not all Minister is it? You do not have the money you say in this document to fund legal aid for kids—you do not have the money. But you did have the money to give yourself a fat tax cut and the Prime Minister probably walked away with $150000 a year in tax cuts. There was no problem with the money there. No the money was available but if you get some struggling mum with her kids trying to get justice in the Family Court—oh no that is not a priority. That approach I think is absolutely appalling. It stinks. It stinks that we cannot provide justice for our kids but we can provide tax cuts for the wealthiest people in New Zealand. Well maybe they did not get quite that much because most of them are not paying their share of taxes anyway.It is about priorities. Politics is the language of priorities and what you are telling the Committee Minister is that you do not have money to give legal aid to those who need it but you do have money to look after the fat cats. It is as simple as that.Look your own regulatory impact statement made those comments. OK it said that the opposing party may have a lawyer as opposed to the party that cannot afford a lawyer: “This could lead to the represented party’s view being put more strongly and create or exacerbate power imbalances between the parties.” So the party who has got money will be able to push their case hard and effectively and the party who is already disadvantaged because they do not have the resources will be pushed into a position where their case is not heard on equal terms. Everybody in the Chamber—you can tell from the National backbenchers with their heads down—knows that this is wrong. They know that this is fundamentally inequitable. It is unfair it is unjust and this National Government is doing it because it does not care about the people who cannot afford representation. It does not care about the kids already in emotional turmoil because their family has broken up and where their case cannot be put because there has been a cut in legal aid.What this regulatory impact statement said was: “With no legal assistance for applying some cases may not be considered by the Court that should be.” Minister your own regulatory impact statement said that cases that should be considered by the court will not be considered because there will be nobody there to raise those cases to point out the injustice and to ensure that a fair deal is done. That is not right.It also said: “Some lawyers may not continue as legal aid providers reducing the pool and quality of those available for other legal aid work.” We were worried Minister about the quality of legal aid work. There were reports on the quality of legal aid work and by taking away the funding the help that is available to people will be of an even lesser standard.Let us have a look at what the Minister’s expert advisory committee said the risks of this would be: “Most Family Court cases involve high stress to parties and for a widevariety of reasons parties struggle to advocate for themselves in the legal process. The risk to vulnerable adults and children from a limited right to legal representation will be significant because in the absence of legal representation:” and then it runs through about eight different factors. So again the expert group was telling you and your own department was telling you that this will result in injustice and Minister you do not care do you? You do not care. You will not even take a call to justify your action. Well I think that you should do that because this bill is about Robin Hood in reverse: taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich.David Bennett: You would know about Robin Hood.Hon PHIL GOFF: David Bennett knows that. David Bennett knows how much of a tax cut he got on his income albeit as an insignificant backbencher. He got thousands but the people who need the money are being denied it.It says here in the expert advisory committee’s response that there are “ ‘hidden’ risks in what may appear to otherwise be a straightforward case [that will not be identified]; … cases will be more rather than less adversarial;”. Minister you were telling the Committee earlier this evening that this bill is about helping families. The experts have told you that by taking away legal representation there will be a more adversarial rather than a less adversarial position. The expert advisory committee said: “It will be more difficult to focus on the relevant factual and legal issues in cases and where there is risk for adults and children;”—more difficult to focus on the key things that should be before the court so that justice can be done a fair settlement can be reached and people can move on in their lives. This bill stands in the way of that.It repeats: “The power imbalance between parties which [permeates] cases under this Act is more entrenched if parties do not have legal representation;”. What is it about that Minister that you simply do not understand? You increase the power imbalance in the cases where you are trying to find justice and justice will be denied. “There will be great direct and indirect costs to the public purse”—the experts said—“and also to society generally if there is a restriction on the right of a party to legal representation (and with it to a grant to legal aid for that representation) …” and the legal aid of course is being taken away.The expert advisory committee said: “There will be additional administrative resource required in Court registries to deal with enquiries by parties by phone and in person;”. So you will take away justice but you will actually add to the cost of the courts. So despite the many savings—the $12 million a year of savings that you are lauding with the price being kids getting a decent settlement because their parents can sort out their differences—those costs will be there anyway.The expert advisory committee said: “Family Court Judges will need to spend longer on each case to identify the issues risks and optimum outcomes;”. This will not speed up the court process; this will slow down the court process and that will cost more money. We are spending more money but not getting justice. Why not just give them justice and allow the case to proceed in a swifter more effective and more efficient way?The committee said: “There will be more final hearings because parties will not have had the assistance of a lawyer to assist in negotiation of a resolution;”. Everything about this bill is bad—Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I have to say I do not think that effort of abuse from the former leader of the Labour Party who took them to their historically lowest defeat Mr Goff is going to impress David Cunliffe one bit.Hon Phil Goff: Just stick to the issues.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: He calls out to me to just stick to the issues. Well I have just endured 10 minutes of unmitigated personal abuse from that man and he tells me tostick to the issues. Well for goodness’ sake. I am so sick of listening to that sanctimonious rubbish that he has been speaking for 10 years when he was the worst Minister of Justice in 20 years. He is the man who oversaw the increase in the prison population from 5000 when he came into office to 8500 only 9 years later. It is an appalling record for a man who wants to now suddenly put himself on his white horse and say he is there for justice. No he is not. He is hopeless. He always was; he still is.Having said that—I think it is important to actually let him know what we all think about him—let us look at this Part 4. He has talked a lot tonight about the regulatory impact statement. Well that is a good thing to talk about except of course that was done before all of the changes that were put in by the Justice and Electoral Committee—all of the changes that the Government has agreed to. He talks about submissions from the expert panel the advisory group. Actually of course that was before all of the changes that came through. Of course what we now have is a bill the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill that is very sensible that goes right down the medium track and that puts children first. Despite that member I do not believe that we are here in Parliament to feather the nests of professionals; actually we are here to help professionals do the right thing for people when needed.Let us just look at what is happening in legal aid all around the world. I went and had a look at what is happening in family law in California. They have mediation. They have all matters going through mediation even matters relating to domestic violence which I just did not believe we should do. Having said that they said to me that they have no legal aid assistance—no legal aid assistance—for family law matters. I actually do not think that is right.Hon Phil Goff: Oh it’s the American model now is it?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Mr Goff now says that that means I think that is a good idea—I have just said Mr Goff if you would only open your silly ears and listen to it man. We now look at the UK. It has severely cut access to legal aid in Family Court matters because just like us it has seen what has happened to legal aid. That man Mr Goff oversaw a 70 percent increase in legal aid. This was he said all about adjusting fees. Actually what it did do Mr Goff is it meant that a lot of people got hauled through court by their former partner because that partner now had something a stick to hit and beat that other partner with. That is not acceptable.When he talks about the great legal issues well let me just ask him this: what great legal issues? Family Court law and the care of children are not great legal questions that need to be debated for hours and hours.Hon Phil Goff: The experts are wrong and the Minister is right again. Typical arrogance.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: What needs to be debated in every single case is what is in the best interests of the child—the best interests of the child. Mr Goff you have had your say. I sat back and I listened to that abuse from you. Why do you not just take some facts for a change? But of course he cannot because Phil Goff is a failed Labour Party leader the worst Labour Party leader it ever had and frankly I would have thought Phil Goff—Hon Phil Goff: What a hypocrite. Talking about personal abuse and dishing it out.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh you big girl’s blouse honestly! I say this to Phil Goff. Phil Goff you could do with a bit of mediation in your Labour Party family at the moment. It might be helpful.Having said that let us stick to what the facts really are. Part 4 amends the Legal Services Act 2011 to redefine when eligible parties may apply for legal aid. What it does do is provide that parties can still apply for legal aid. I would like people to notremember anything Mr Goff said because he was wrong. People still can have legal aid for a lawyer to act for them in international child abduction applications. They can also apply for legal aid when a court directs that. An application can be heard in conjunction with an application under another Act. An application proceeds to a hearing—oh he did not tell us that did he. Parties may be represented at a settlement conference. So yes legal aid is available for those who need it.Eligible parties will be able to apply for legal aid for most without notice applications. If Mr Goff would only read the bill that he is so busy talking about—actually mostly he was talking about me frankly to be perfectly fair—he would see that those are matters relating to violence those are matters relating to urgency and those are matters relating to issues where a child is at risk. They are all without notice applications and for those applications legal aid will be available. Some without notice applications will not be eligible for legal aid but the vast majority of them will. The ones where they are not eligible for legal aid are where only one applicant is affected—no one else is affected—where the matters are merely routine or where the other party is dead or cannot be found. That seems pretty fair to me. It is pretty difficult to sue a dead person over care of children issues. Legal aid will also be available where a judge directs an application commenced on notice is to be proceeded without notice. Eligible parties will still be able to apply for legal aid when they want to consent to orders at a settlement conference. So they will in fact get the legal advice that we have been told tonight by the Labour Party they will not get before they agree to all sorts of things at the settlement conference. Yes they will and they have been advised by a judge to obtain the legal advice.Finally the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 349 amends clause 71 to clarify that eligible parties cannot apply for legal aid for legal advice and assistance where they are proposing to commence or respond to Care of Children Act 2004 proceedings. The Government will be funding the legal support prior to the Care of Children Act proceedings outside of the legal aid budget. So they will still be funded.Thank you very much for the opportunity to correct some of those matters—Andrew Little: One hour of advice.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Mr Little says “One hour of advice.” Actually Mr Little you talked about Parenting through Separation. You know this. You were on the select committee most of the time. Parenting through Separation—you have got the family dispute resolution service which is a service that was absolutely widely promoted by the expert advisory panel. That is a point that has been completely ignored by the Labour Party tonight. Of course there is also legal aid where it is needed. Judges will have far more authority and ability to deal with issues in a finite way so that people are not consistently going back into court and relitigating the same issues time and time again all to the detriment not only of themselves but of their children.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I am very happy that the other side is very happy that I am taking a call on Part 4 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. Just to respond to some of the performance from the Minister of Justice because that is all it was—it was just a performance. Do not believe the hype from that Minister when she says that this bill is about the care and protection of kids. It is not about kids; it is about cutting costs—pure and simple. That is what this bill is about. The Minister said in her contribution that this bill is about kids and that there will be fair representation for them but the Christchurch Family Court judges in their submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee did not think so.I would like to quote from their submission to the select committee about the representation of children. I quote from the Family Court lawyers representing children:“In fact those lawyers representing children are the single most effective agency in the entire Court system in achieving solutions for children. They are mobile intervene rapidly are well trained and experienced in the field gather information give directive advice to parents and have earned the confidence of parents.” The judges go on to say at the end of their submission: “They are the machinery which enable us to make safe and appropriate decisions for children. They are the eyes and ears of the Court. Without full participation when needed of the child’s lawyers Judges will not be confident they can make decisions which keep children safe.” That is a submission from Family Court lawyers in Christchurch.This bill is not primarily about the care of children; this is about the cutting of costs. As a number of my colleagues have already alluded to in the regulatory impact statement which the Minister referred to in her contribution on page 11 on the financial implications of restricting the legal aid available to Family Court proceedings it says that it will reduce “the cost of legal aid in care of children cases by $41.3 million over 3 years.” This will save $41.3 million over 3 years by restricting legal aid not to those who are rich but as the regulatory impact statement says this option affects only those parties who because of their low income are eligible for legal aid. That regulatory impact statement goes on to say about the impacts of this policy a couple of sentences later: “This could lead to the represented party’s view being put more strongly and create or exacerbate power imbalances between the parties.” So basically it is saying that there will be an imbalance in the representation between the parties in care of children cases and family dispute cases. I do not think that is a very good thing and certainly the family lawyers in my patch do not think that is a good thing either.Another practical impact that the officials whom the Minister asked to give her advice said is a very simple thing is that “Some people may have difficulty completing the forms [when they are representing themselves] proceedings may take longer and a judge may feel he or she needs to see the parties in court more often.” So what we are having here is that although the Government says it wants to save $41.3 million over 3 years we are going to have a false economy because the cases that come before the judges are going to be much more protracted and much more complicated the Family Court system is going to get caught up in itself and things are actually going to be more expensive by this Government wanting to cut costs.There has been a lot of talk about self-representation and the inability of some parents to do it in an informed way. The Family Court judges from Christchurch had more to say on that. They say: “Many of our litigants are disempowered in their relationships highly anxious suffer personality disorders are not fluent in English or are consumed by anger or frustration in the context of the breakdown of their relationships. We are concerned that without the benefit of the moderating effects of their lawyers there may well be an increase in violent behaviour by frustrated litigants.” I think I have made this point already in a debate on an earlier part. What is going to happen is that by leaving parties to their own devices and not giving them the same access to legal aid that they may have or the counselling services that they may have the issues between those parties end up getting worse.I want to quote from that submission again: “We are concerned that without the benefit of the moderating effects of their lawyers there may well be an increase in violent behaviour by frustrated litigants.” So here we are with Christchurch Family Court judges warning the MPs on the select committee that if they leave this as it is things may actually get worse in the homes of Kiwis out there. For the Minister to sit there in the chair and to take a call and say that this is actually going to make things easier or better for families is a complete farce because we have got people who dealwith this on a daily basis—they see the families; they know the issues—and they are warning us that if we leave this as it is if we have people representing themselves if we do not give them the fair access to legal aid that they have had in the past if we are not going to give children the representation that they have had in the past things could get worse. I do not think that we want to have that on our heads as parliamentarians.Can I also look at some of the other options that officials looked at and gave advice to the Minister on around the restriction of legal aid. On page 12 of the very helpful regulatory impact statement in the impacts they also said and this echoes what the judges in Christchurch said about self-representation: “Judges are likely to spend more time on proceedings in which parties are not represented including managing any power imbalances between the parties.” Again we have got the officials who are advising the Minister and we have got judges who are dealing with these issues on a daily basis warning us that if we do not do something about this and the changes that this Government is going to introduce to cut costs—not to make the Family Court process any more effective or efficient but wanting to cut costs—things are actually going to get worse for the day-to-day running of the courts.OK that may make things worse for the day-to-day running of the courts but what impact does that have in the homes in the families of the people who are involved here? We have got separations a very difficult time for families. Tempers are high. We may have as was mentioned in Part 2 some kind of financial abuse some kind of physical abuse that is also in the mix here. We have obviously got children and when you do not have a level of representation that we have had in the past that could make things much much worse as the judges and the officials have warned the Minister of.I just want to make this final point because the Minister in her submission in her last contribution to this bill said that this was not about cutting costs; this was about the care of children. To the Minister—all the people who are giving us advice and have submitted to the select committee say the complete opposite thing. They are saying that what you are trying to do is siloed is about only cutting costs and is going to make life much worse for families and the kids in those families if you go down this path. Not only will it make life more difficult for those families but you are going to exacerbate problems that already exist in the Family Court. Things are going to be much more protracted cases are going to be much more protracted and those cases are going to be much more complex.So in essence what they are saying is that you are creating a bigger mess than you are trying to clean up. I would hope that the Minister might take that message other than just cutting costs and think about the families that are in play here think about the access to justice that is in play here and maybe she might want to make a contribution. Probably not. Maybe someone from the other side of the Chamber might want to make a contribution and tell us how that plays out for Kiwi families because at the moment we have got a Minister in the chair who is saying that this is all about the care and protection of children but all the evidence even from the judges who are dealing with this daily and her own officials say this is about cutting costs. That is what this bill is about—cutting costs—not making life any easier for those families who are going through this very very difficult time.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 4 as amended agreed to.Part 5 Amendments to other ActsANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I do not want to unduly delay the Committee and dwell unnecessarily on parts of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. These are largely technical provisions here. I think what is clear from the provisions and what they illustrate is the continuing transfer of the cost of the administration of family justice to the participants themselves. It reflects a flavour that is going right through this bill—and it has been commented on already in the debate on the bill today—and that is the departure from the principle that the State has a stake in the effective administration of family disputes and that the State has an interest in ensuring that family disputes are resolved to the best degree possible in a way that preserves and protects the interests of children and in a way that preserves the dignity of the parents or the separating couple.This bill is all about transferring cost. In all the pieces of legislation referred to in Part 5 which is all about applications relating to aspects of a family separation—so that is the Child Support Act for example and other aspects of the Family Courts Act—any time the interests of a party particularly children need to be represented and there is the power to appoint counsel to assist there is now an accompanying provision to effectively transfer or at the very least share the cost of that. That is the whole flavour of this bill.So when my colleagues said in their contributions much to the chagrin of the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice that this bill is about cutting costs to the State and about transferring costs and transferring risk this part of the bill bears that out. That is exactly what this piece of legislation is all about. It is about the State saying irrespective of the increase in the costs of family dispute resolution that it does not want to take responsibility any more. It is not good enough for the Minister to say “Oh there’s been the huge blowout in costs.” without explaining actually what has happened. There are more parties to family disputes and separations participating actively in that process.Once upon a time even 10 years ago very few men actually actively participated in a lot of these proceedings and exercised their rights of representation whereas now that is happening. There is a fathers’ rights movement a men’s movement that has become more active—some would say more aggressive—in ensuring that men as partners in dissolving relationships start to get heard in some cases make a fuss and in some cases which I think is what the Minister was adverting to in her comments make what somemight describe as an unnecessary fuss or to at least be litigious. Whatever the reason—and it is not for us gainsay the motives of people who are asserting their legal rights want to have an active role to play in their children’s lives and are taking steps to ensure that that happens—that largely explains what has been happening in the Family Court jurisdiction over the last 10 years and why the cost has blown out.That is why this legislation is passed with this kind of headline motivation which is “We’ve got to cut costs.” without actually looking at what those costs have been going into. It has seen more family separations resolved in the interests of both parents and of the children and that is the difference. This part deals with ensuring that the cost of any other application under any other piece of legislation that involves representation of the children now be shared. So impecunious parents who might otherwise rely upon legal aid at least for their own representation may now find themselves saddled with the cost or the share of it for counsel for the child or even counsel assisting the court. There is that right if the court is concerned that any party is unrepresented and the court needs assistance or if the issues are complex.I know the Minister said that the issues of family law are not that complex. But actually the legislation says yes there are complex issues and the court might need assistance which is why a lawyer might be appointed to assist the court. Well this says that that cost will be apportioned between the parties as well. This part of the legislation Part 5 is all about demonstrating that whole thing about transferring the cost to the parties. I do not know what the Minister is doing whether she is playingAngry Birds orgoogling MarjorieProops or what it is but she might listen to hear—Hon Judith Collins: That’s insulting. I don’t do that.ANDREW LITTLE: I am not quite sure what the insult is in playingAngry Birds. I am sure at least half the members of the Committee probably do it at some stage if they were honest with themselves. If the Minister admitted to playingAngry Birds she would go down at least with some part of the population as hip and with it. But if she does not want that that is all right. If she wants to present a different image that is entirely up to her.Dr Rajen Prasad: What’s the image?ANDREW LITTLE: Well I can have a guess as to what the image is. I want to say this about MarjorieProops because I do not want her name insulted. I do not want MarjorieProops’ name insulted in this Committee. She was a long-standing—over many decades—contributor to theDaily Mail. I do not think it wasThe Daily Telegraph; I think it was theDaily Mail. She dispensed advice to couples and to others for many many years and was highly regarded at least in the United Kingdom. I do not think anybody should take her name in vain nor should anybody who is likened to her think that that should be regarded as an insult.Hon Ruth Dyson: Was someone doing that? Was someone taking her name in vain?ANDREW LITTLE: Her name was mentioned and somebody took offence. I think that was a problem.Hon Ruth Dyson: How could you take offence?ANDREW LITTLE: I do not know how you could possibly take offence at being compared with dear old MarjorieProops. But that gets off the point—only a little bit but it does get off the point.The point that I wish to make is this. Part 5 is really the culminating aspect of the entire bill. It is all about cutting costs. It is about transferring costs to the families at a time when they are distressed when they are in emotional trauma and when they need assistance the most. They need a court that does not just know the law but is empathetic and sympathetic to those who are coming before it. That is what defines the Family Court. That is why it has been a good court for the last 30 years and why the measuresin this legislation which are about gutting the important role of the court and transferring the costs to parties who are facing the trauma of a dissolved relationship mean that life is just going to get much harder. That is why we are deeply distressed at the provisions in this bill why we are opposed to it and why we will continue to oppose it. It is disappointing that the Minister in spite of all the good advice she has received including from the expert reference group and indeed from members of this side of the Chamber persists with a piece of legislation that is going to be bad for families and bad for New Zealand as a whole.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Talohani Mr Chairperson. Thank you very much for the chance to take a very quick call on Part 5 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill because I do not want to delay the proceedings of the Committee too much. That would be unfortunate. Just looking at Part 5 it does refer to the appointment of lawyers to represent children in proceedings. I thought that it would be a shame to have a part in this bill where the Labour Party does not refer to the regulatory impact statement because it has been a very important document to prove our argument that this bill is not necessarily about making life easier for Kiwi families but is actually around the cutting of costs. Page 13 quite helpfully helps us illustrate that because it does talk about the targeted use of lawyers for children. In a very kind of bureaucratic way—I do not mean to say that to the detriment of any bureaucrats—it talks about changing “the way the Court appoints lawyer for child”. Moving along from the description of what they are trying to do and going straight to the financial implications because that is what this is all really about for the Government at least the statement says that the estimated cost savings for changing the way that the court appoints lawyers for our children is $12.4 million per year based on 2010-11 expenditure. So there you have it—another big whack of cash that the Government has saved. I guess if you think about the motivation for the Government and for the Minister of Justice it has done its job because $12.4 million has been saved by cutting children’s access to legal representation.We have already heard from the submission of the Christchurch Family Court judges in the previous part but I did want to just take another part of their submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee because I think it is very telling what these judges were saying about the changes that are contained in this bill. I am quoting from their submission now where they said: “Although the Bill contains reasonable powers for a Judge to appoint a lawyer to represent children our concern is that control of their role and remuneration is transferred from the Family Court to the Legal Services Agency. We foresee they will be confined by regulations which are not part of this Bill but which would be enabled by it.” I just want to repeat what they said about the role of children’s lawyers in Family Court disputes. They said that the lawyers are “the machinery which enable us to make safe and appropriate decisions for children. They are the eyes and the ears of the Court. Without full participation when needed of the child’s lawyers Judges will not be confident they can make the decisions which keep children safe.”One of the more crass things that I have heard from the Minister this night is an attack on lawyers—about this being some kind of gravy train for them. When this piece of legislation was introduced lawyers in my patch in Porirua were very very fast to come to me and say: “We have grave concerns about what is in this piece of legislation.” not because they thought their incomes were going to be affected but because they knew that the changes within this bill would adversely affect the people that the law is meant to help: Kiwi families. They knew that the fee of $900 for the family dispute resolution service would be restrictive and would stop people accessing justice at one of the most vulnerable times of their lives. They knew that restricting thesituations where children can have lawyers appointed for them would also take away the children’s voice in these disputes.I did just want to—if I can find it in time—take a quote from a story that was in the media when this bill was first introduced. It is a very quick quote from Professor MarkHenaghan from Otago University. He said around reducing the access to lawyers for children: “If we take their representation out [then] we doom them not to be heard.”—then we doom them not to be heard. I think that is a very telling statement from someone in the legal profession who has got a lot of credibility about what this Government is doing for the voice of children in the legal process. The Government knows that children will not necessarily have a voice in this place. They will not necessarily turn up to make a submission to the select committee so the Government is quite happy to take away their legal representation to save per year $12.4 million to meet the requirements of the Government’s motivation around this piece of legislation. I say to that Government: shame on it. If it is quite happy to take away the voice of the children—[Bell rung]—I said it was going to be short—in the Family Court proceedings then I say the Government should front up to the Law Society and to those people who have submitted against this bill say why it is quite happy to do that and say why it is quite happy to take away their representation and doom their children not to be heard.Again—I want to stress this point because the Minister has made this point a number of times when she has made contributions to this debate—she says that this bill is about the care and protection of children. Well I am not buying that. A lot of people who have submitted to the Justice and Electoral Committee are not buying that. This bill is not about kids. It is about cutting costs. It is about cuttings costs and $12.4 million has been cut from the bill to make sure that there is legal representation for the kids by making these changes. We are very concerned about the access to justice for those kids and their families because this Government seems to think it is OK to take money away from low-income families as the regulatory impact statement has said who need to access justice and it is quite happy to give it to big business when it suits it with the likes of RioTinto and with the likes ofSkycity and to also hock off our State-owned assets. It is all fun and games when there are millions concerned and it is bringing the money in but for the little people out there who need some help in tough times this Government does not care about them. It is quite happy to penny-pinch when it is people who are vulnerable and in difficult times going through separations but when it is big business it is quite happy to write out the big cheques.That is the kind of Government we have right now. That is the kind of Government we have right now. It will quite happily nip and tuck at people who are in vulnerable situations who are on low incomes—[Interruption]—sorry I will take that back—who are in Family Court disputes but when it comes to big business and that comes knocking the Government will quite happily write out the cheques. Mr Tau Henare probably is not happy about this privately. He is not happy about it privately but he is going to have to go along with the flow because he knows that the people that he represents as a list MP in West Auckland will come to him and say: “Tau this is not on. This is not on.”Hon Tau Henare: Oh that subtle put-down eh? That subtle put-down.KRIS FAAFOI: Oh just being factual. They know—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member must use the honourable member’s full name.KRIS FAAFOI: Mr Tau Henare will know that he will have people coming to his office saying: “Tau why can’t my kids access legal representation in this situation?” and Tau will have to front up and say: “Because we are cutting costs.” They will say:“But we read the paper and Judith Collins said this is about caring for kids.” Well the truth of the matter is that it is not. It is about cutting costs not caring for Kiwi families. I think that is borne out by the fact that this Government seems to care more about corporates than it does about Kiwis. Thank you very much.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 5 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 5 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 5 as amended agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Well I think this debate and this day will go down as a day of great disappointment for this House—that we have allowed to pass through even to this very humble stage a piece of legislation the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill that has as its sole purpose the cutting of the State’s responsibility for fair family dispute resolution and the dispensation of justice in the family arena.Everything about this legislation—the failure of the Minister of Justice to heed the advice of the expert reference group and the failure to hear the myriad of submissions that raised concerns raised issues and pointed out the risks associated with it—in spite all of that we still have a piece of legislation that is going to deny a proper voice to those who need it most when they are at their most vulnerable: couples who are separating particularly poor couples and children of any couple with children being the most vulnerable in these circumstances.This legislation says that the State no longer regards itself as having responsibility in the interests of harmony family peace and community stability. We no longer have the responsibility to assist families to resolve their difficult issues and ensure that any separation and any dissolution of a marriage is done so in a dignified and sensible way that respects the rights of all parties.This legislation is a giant leap that departs from that principle that we have had in place for the last 30 years with a specialist court and a specialist jurisdiction that we have developed. That is the sad thing about it. So a more appropriate name a name that more correctly reflects the objects or the real intent behind this bill might be the “Family Justice Destruction Bill” because that is what it is.The Family Court will be there. It will be there in name only. There will be judges there and they will struggle to ensure that justice is done. They will rise to the occasion to their professional standards and their professional calling but they know—and this iswhy they came to the select committee—that measures such as putting in place a process that denies parties the right of representation and that denies those who cannot afford legal representation the right of access to legal aid can be only destructive. It is a process that denies children the right of a voice to be heard in that process. They know that that can be only destructive when it comes to dispensing justice in the family jurisdiction. That is what this legislation will do. No matter how we slice it or dice it no matter how we cut it there is no question about it the fears that we have expressed and the fears that others have expressed before the Justice and Electoral Committee and more publicly are very real. They are very real.When it comes to dealing with family disputes we need a court and a system and a process that is sensitive and sympathetic and we have had that. It might not have been perfect. The Minister is right and I agree with her about this: there have been delays. There are some people who appear before the court who because of their personality or for whatever reason have made a real fist of it and have drawn proceedings out making it difficult for their partner and perhaps for any children involved—we know that. But they are few and far between. There are very few cases that are that bad and that extreme. But we are for the sake of changing the baby tossing out the bathwater—I have completely mangled that metaphor. That is the disappointing thing about this bill.I know that members opposite—members like Tau Henare and Jonathan Young from New Plymouth who has dealt with families in difficult situations—know this bill is wrong. They sit there and look and they know that this is wrong but so far they have voted for it. That is the disappointing thing—that we know that the fears that have been expressed are very real.This is not a good bill. The bill is wrongly titled. It needs a different title. The “Family Harmony Destruction Bill” might be an even better title than the first one I suggested. This bill will be very disappointing. We will come back and we will thrash this out to the bitter end. But let the record show that we spoke for families and for couples. We spoke for children and we spoke for justice because that is more important than anything.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Labour spokesperson on justice Andrew Little is quite right that the title of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill simply does not reflect what this bill does. “Reform” suggests in the very use of that word that you take something with major problems and you improve it so that you get better outcomes. This bill is fundamentally dishonest in its claim and so is the Minister of Justice in her claim that this is about making the justice system better for families.The honest title of this bill would be the “Slash Justice to Make Savings Bill”. It is about cost cutting. The regulatory impact statement said that it is about cost cutting. The submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee said that it is about cost cutting. The Minister got up and on one hand said: “It was all out of control and they were spending too much but we’re not doing anything to harm the system.” Minister you are cutting millions of dollars out of this system and as the regulatory impact statement in its honesty says the only impact this bill will have is on those people who cannot afford to pay for their legal representation. That is the impact of it. The people who will be disadvantaged by this bill are those who will be denied legal aid—who will be denied legal representation in the process when they need it to create a balance that would not otherwise exist between them and the party they may be in conflict with.This bill is about cutting representation for children. The amount of time that there will be representation of the child’s interest in court by counsel for the child will be cut back. This is about cutbacks for the most vulnerable—our children and those people who lack resources to represent themselves.If the Minister was honest about this bill she would acknowledge that the expert reference group that her predecessor set up was absolutely right when it summed up this about the bill: “If this Bill proceeds … the very fabric of the New Zealand family justice system will be destroyed.” Let me say that again for you Minister: the very fabric of the New Zealand family justice system will be destroyed. Who said that? The expert reference group set up by National’s previous Minister of Justice who perhaps had some sense of what the word “justice” means. This Minister does not.This Minister is prepared to subordinate the principles the goals of justice to cutting money because she says that the Government does not have the money to spend. But as this debate has proceeded we have seen that the Government had money to spend when it came to subsidising RioTinto. It was no problem to give $30 million away to RioTinto so that you could get a bit more money for Meridian Energy if it does indeed get a bit more money. It was no problem to give it to Warner Bros. Give it another $16 million. It was no problem to give tax cuts to the wealthy. But it is a problem for this Government to provide the funding that will ensure justice for the vulnerable.I want to know from the Minister how she can call this a reform bill when it makes the system worse. I want to know how the Minister can call this a reform bill when as her regulatory impact statement shows this was not based on proper evidence. It was not based on data. It was not based on piloting the system. Indeed it was not even based on consulting with the very group that her predecessor set up to make sure they got it right. The ministry paper says that the bill aligns with the views of the expert reference group. The group is appalled at that statement. It says it was not consulted on the outcomes for the Family Court. This bill does not align with the group’s thinking. The people who have spent a lifetime on this the people who were appointed to the reference group because they were the acknowledged experts and the pre-eminent people in the area of family law say that this is a bad piece of legislation. The Minister gets up and crows that this is a reform bill. That is what the title says: “Reform”. There is a new meaning for the word “reform” in National’s lexicon. It means to make worse. That is what National means by “reform”.The expert reference group says that this is not based on empirical evidence. It says that it is contrary to extensive existing evidence of the best outcomes for families and children. It says that it will create an unjust situation a two-tiered family justice system where the most vulnerable members of society have limited access to the services they need to assist them in the resolution of family disputes.The bill is even going to cut out the psychological reports that will assist the court to find the best outcome for the children. That will save you money in the short term Minister but it will cost us in the long term because those children affected by the breakdown of their family life will go through the next 10 or 20 years carrying the wounds and the scars and the traumas of that experience. But you think it is more important to save money so that you can give tax cuts to the rich. That is not reform Minister; that is a step backwards. That is a denial of justice. That is wrong in anybody’s understanding and anybody’s language.What it says in the expert reference group’s submission is that the bill will “prevent the resolution of unsatisfactory and unsafe domestic arrangements for parties and most significantly for children;”. This bill will not reform the system to make it better; it will “prevent the resolution of unsatisfactory and unsafe domestic arrangements” most significantly for the children.The group says that it will “create injustice and unfairness in the resolution of family disputes;”. What is a justice system about? It is meant to be about creating fairness about seeing justice done yet the experts say that this bill will create injustice will create unfairness and it will not remedy it. This is not a bill that will make the FamilyCourt and the family justice system better; it is a bill that will make it worse and make it worse for the people who are already the underdogs who are already the most vulnerable who are already likely to come out of this second-best—and the Minister proudly sits in the chair to ensure that that will happen. Shame on you Minister.This will not save money for the system. It will on the surface. It will save $12 million that you take out of the pockets of the hard-working battlers and strugglers who are trying to see a fair outcome from the breakdown of the family relationship. It will take the money out of their pockets to pay for legal assistance and it will leave them without it.The Law Society and the expert reference group say that it will “significantly increase costs for the Family Court.” It does not save time when you do not have legal representation for people who do not understand the legal system; it takes longer. The judges will be taking longer struggling to try to see justice done without a professional there to represent the parties in the dispute and without professional advice on what impact any outcome may have on the well-being of the children. That again is a disgrace.It will create risks for parents by requiring parents to deal directly with ex-partners. We are not talking about the 85 percent who can resolve the situation themselves. They can do it under existing processes—85 percent of them do it. We are talking about the 15 percent where the differences are entrenched and where the damage is going to be greatest unless you can help reconcile or bring those parties to an agreed settlement so that they can move on in their lives. The limits on the rights to legal representation will mean that people will have to deal with ex-partners with whom they are in fundamental conflict without assistance negotiate the Family Court processes and represent themselves. The judges and the lawyers say that that is unrealistic. It will have a detrimental effect on the parents on the children and on the efficient functioning of this court.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The honourable member Christopher Faafoi.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Talohani. Thank you very much. It sounds like my mother telling me off.The debate on clauses 1 and 2 when bills are debated in this Committee is an opportunity from time to time for members of Parliament to have fun with the title of a bill. But I am not going to do that tonight because this bill the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is simply not funny. It is not funny that this Government under the guise of making life easier for Kiwi families and protecting kids is slashing millions of dollars out of the Family Court budget and has claimed it is going to make things better. It is simply not going to make things better. As my colleagues have said it is going to make things much worse—not for those people who have plenty of money who might find themselves in the situation but as the officials in their regulatory impact statement said it is going to make life much worse for those low-income families who find themselves in the tricky position of separating.As the regulatory impact statement says on page 11 under the heading of reducing legal aid: “This option only affects those parties who because of their low income are eligible for legal aid.” So not everyone is going to be affected by this—not those who have lots. Those who have a bit will not be affected by this but it is the people on low incomes who are very vulnerable in these situations who are going to be the ones most adversely affected. We are going to find ourselves in a situation where those people who probably are not well-equipped to represent themselves in the Family Court are going to be asked to do that. We have already been told by many submitters and hadadvice from the officials that this could make things much worse and in fact could make situations within those families much much more dangerous.I have quoted almost ad nauseam from the submission from the Christchurch Family Court judges but I just want to point this out to the Minister in the chair—and to those on the other side of the Chamber who have taken zero calls in this debate because they are so proud of this bill—“We are concerned that without the benefit of the moderating effects of the lawyers in these situations there may well be an increase in violent behaviour by frustrated litigants.” So we have got ourselves into a situation here that those people who deal with these families every day who deal with the issues that they see with these families who are breaking up are saying that if you remove the legal representation that these people have available to them at the moment and the legal representation that they have for their children the violence in the families could actually get worse.Is this what this Government is after with these reforms in this legislation? I am not sure that it is—I am not sure that it is. What it is after though is cutting costs—it is after cutting costs. And I guess you could say that the Minister has achieved that but to what effect? The representation of the families is shot. We no longer have effective representation of children in our Family Court and the access to justice for families who are in these situations is much much harder.Part of this bill refers to family dispute resolution. Much has been made of the cost that it is now going to impose upon families to access that. It is $897. To parliamentarians that might not be a lot of money—Andrew Little: Hey?KRIS FAAFOI: —to some parliamentarians. But those families out there who are struggling on low incomes whom the officials have talked about are really going to struggle to get across that first hurdle. That cost is very restrictive for those low-income families. I have many low-income families in my electorate and that is why I praise the efforts of the family lawyers who came to me almost instantly when this was mooted. It is going to be very restrictive on those families to access what in the past has been a service that has helped them get through a pretty tricky situation.In the past they have had access to six free counselling sessions so that it could prevent them from getting to the point where they may have to go to the court. They could sort things out before they got to that situation but under this legislation that has gone. What they have to do is stump up close to $900 to get their foot in the door to start resolving their dispute.As the Law Commission said in its submission or its opinion on this bill when it was introduced: “Imposing a large fee puts a big barrier in front of those who want to resolve issues that they are unable to resolve themselves. Access to justice is a fundamental mark of a democratic and fair society.” And by introducing this fee: “That access will be impeded in New Zealand ...”. So there we have it. The Law Commission is saying that those people who cannot afford this fee to start a family dispute resolution are going to be seriously impacted in terms of their access to justice.The regulatory impact statement—I think it is the third or the fourth sentence—sets out that the Government wants to reduce costs and have a much more efficient and effective Family Court process. Well you are certainly going to reduce the costs but is it going to be more efficient and more effective? On this side of the Chamber we do not think so.The Law Commission asked itself the question of what should really happen then and we agree with this statement wholeheartedly. It went on to say that “New Zealand families will benefit from the introduction of Family Dispute Resolution if it ispresented as an accessible and equal opportunity. Charging people a large fee is a huge barrier.”So as I said at the beginning I am not going to try to make up some funny title for this bill because this simply is not a funny issue. This is going to impact on the daily lives of children and parents who are going through a pretty tough time and who are probably on low incomes. It is all right if you have got money in your back pocket but it is not going to be all right if you do not. It is not going to be OK if you do not.I think the reason we have had no calls from the other side of the Chamber is that those members want this bill to go through very quickly and for no one to notice. Well it is going to get noticed OK because there are family lawyers out in every community in New Zealand who hate this legislation. It is not because as was proposed by the Minister their legal bills or their salaries are going to go down. Some of these lawyers or most of these lawyers actually care about the families that they represent. They know that in many cases there are kids involved and that what this Government is planning to introduce with this legislation will make their lives worse—not for everybody but probably disproportionately for people who do not have enough money.If that Government is OK with that then pass the legislation. But we in the Opposition are going to fight this tooth and nail because we care about those people whom this Government has forgotten. It is quite happy to give money to big corporates to the likes of RioTinto the likes of Warner Bros—give them tens of millions of dollars. But it is going to nickel-and-dime people with kids who are going through relationshipbreakups to save money in the Family Court. If you are OK with that vote for it. But we are not OK with it on this side of the Chamber. In the communities where lots of these people cannot afford to access justice this bill is going to make things worse for them. There is almost silence from the other side of the Chamber.Hon Member: He’s repeating himself. Repetitious.KRIS FAAFOI: Oh now they start up. There is almost silence from that side. Not only do they know but they have been advised that this is going to make things worse. They have been advised that this is going to make things worse.Those Family Court judges from Christchurch—[Interruption] Oh those members on the Government side think it is funny. They think it is funny. Just put it inHansard that they think this is funny. They think that reducing representation for families that are going through tough times—low-income families—is a funny issue. Put that inHansard. There is no laughing now. But let it be known that we on this side of the Chamber fought this and there will be a price to be paid. When things go haywire when costs go up when things get worse as predicted by the Family Court judges and Kiwi families that Government is responsible—that Government is responsible not the Opposition. That Government is responsible. It has been warned that costs are going to go up and things will get worse with violence in families and this Government has done it.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Committee divide the bill into the Care of Children Amendment Bill (No 2) the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) the Family Dispute Resolution Bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 3) the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 2) the Family Courts Amendment Bill the Family Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 350.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the motion be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment BillSecond ReadingHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration)on behalf of theMinister of Commerce: I moveThat the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I want to thank the Commerce Committee and its chair the hard-working Jonathan Young for its timely consideration of this bill. The select committee received 10 submissions on the bill including four accompanied by oral submissions. The bill proposes to amend the Copyright Act 1994 by reinstating the ban on parallel importation of films for commercial purposes.The ban is important to support New Zealand’s cinemas in the final stages of transition to digital exhibition technology. The Government strongly supports the transition to digital exhibition as it reduces the need for delays in film exhibition giving consumers earlier access to films. In its report the select committee noted that the ban allows cinemas flexibility in scheduling films particularly for school holiday audiences creating better financial viability which enables more movies to be available at times when wanted by consumers. I also acknowledge the select committee’s comments that as consumer viewing technology develops it expects that this will force cinemas to develop new revenue streams to meet consumers’ expectations rather than relying on past business models.The bill reduces the period of the ban from 9 months to 5 months. This reflects the changes in film distribution practices recognising that New Zealanders now often receive films at the same time as international viewers. The bill also imposes a sunset clause so that the bill will expire in 3 years on 31 October 2016. The 3-year time frame will give cinemas that have not yet converted enough time to transition to digital exhibition technology.The Commerce Committee reported the bill back to the House with no amendments. I support the decision of the committee. Many films are released on DVD between 3 and 4 months after their cinematic debut. The 5-month ban will effectively give cinemas a further 1 to 2 months to exclusively screen films without competition. The shortened period will allow retailers to parallel import copies of films earlier and encourage authorised distributors to provide consumers with earlier access to films. I commend this bill to the House.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I thank the Minister of Immigration Michael Woodhouse for his contribution—Hon Members: Short contribution.JACINDA ARDERN: —on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. I guess to give the Minister his due this is quite a small bill just a mere two pages but—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Short does not necessarily mean bad.JACINDA ARDERN: As the Minister said short does not mean that there is not quality contained within. There is controversy within this bill however and I want to be very upfront about that. It has not been an easy decision for the Labour Party on where it would go on this particular piece of legislation. There has been much debate within the caucus and between caucus members. It is fair to say that some probably would have preferred to fall on the other side of the debate but ultimately what we reached was what I would describe as a time-limited compromise and a very strong message to the industry that this is it.We have been in this place before. In fact the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Act 2003 placed a partial ban a time-limited partial ban on the parallel imports of movies including VHS—because people were still using them—and DVDs into New Zealand based on two—Hon Michael Woodhouse: The member wouldn’t remember VHS.JACINDA ARDERN: I do remember VHS. I remember my parents saving up a significant amount of money to purchase the first VCR we ever had and I had an Amstrad computer at that time as well just to date me a little further.There were two reasons that the ban was put in place and at that time it was articulated and viewed—these were the reasons—that distributors would release fewer films in New Zealand for theatre. Distributors would if possible have to release films earlier in conjunction with or closely following the international release date and therefore would no longer have access to second-hand prints. There was a view that itwould increase costs which could result in increased ticket prices and would create disincentives to make films available for theatrical release in New Zealand. The second reason for the ban was that rural and smaller communities could face a loss of movie exhibition facilities as a result of fewer films being available for exhibition in smaller theatres and audiences would have to wait longer for a smaller number of films to become available.The response to those two concerns was to put in place a 9-month parallel importation ban to try to allow that element of the theatre industry to have the ability to continue to have the right to thrive. The view was that that was necessary. It was “sunsetted” though. We are at a point where Parliament has the ability to consider whether or not that ban should continue whether it should lapse or whether or not it should be amended. The position that this Parliament has reached and certainly some parties across the House have reached is that that window should become smaller moving from 9 months after a film’s international release to 5 months and that the time at which that parallel import window should lapse should be 31 October 2016.Some have raised the question of what happens if we come to that point and the industry again comes to seek another extension. Well our strong message from this side of the House is that we will not support any further extension of a parallel importation ban because the time has come for this industry—in fact the time is already here for this industry—to start adapting to the new digital environment we find ourselves in. Other industries have been forced to do that. I think the music industry in New Zealand in particular has tried to move at a commendable pace particularly since the copyright debate to try to offer consumers a greater range of options. This falls again into the realm of the arguments of why this industry needs to do exactly the same. We need to move to a more accessible environment but as I have said we chose to move to a time-limited compromise because we are not clear in our minds that the industry took the last expiration date as an end point or that it has prepared itself adequately.There are arguments to be made that as a consequence there would be a considerable jolt for some aspects of the industry—in particular regional provincial cinemas where we cannot deny that there would be consequences certainly based on reports like those prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers that indicate that we would see job losses as a result and a loss of facilities which offer a different kind of consequence for families. We weighed that up of course against the consequence to families of potentially increased ticketing prices and a loss of access via DVDs or live streaming that they currently face. So we ask—we implore—the industry: “We have given you this brief window. Do not abuse it. Move forward with greater pace because there is an inevitability to this expiration.”But in the meantime the industry must find a way to cushion the potential loss of jobs and as the Minister has said to finish converting as soon as possible to digital exhibition technology. In the interim we know that there was a potential for—some estimated—in the upper band of up to 165 fulltime-equivalent jobs lost through the industry through the loss of potential revenue and release in New Zealand if the ban was not continued. But like I say there is an absolute inevitability in this and it is time that the industry moved on. It is time that we see an end point to this window. We are flagging it clearly in theHansard today that that is what Labour expects will happen by October 2016. We encourage though in the interim greater pace by the industry and greater options for consumers and we send this message that from our perspective this is certainly the last time.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I do think it is important to acknowledge that as the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern has said losing 165 fulltime-equivalent jobs is what PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that completelyremoving this temporary ban would have as an effect. We know through the Commerce Committee’s consideration of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill that 57 percent of theatres in the country have converted to digital format and principally all of those are in the major metropolitan areas. Little towns like Huntly probably have not converted yet and little towns likeHāwera where I was born probably have not converted yet. The reason is that it costs $100000 to convert from a 35 millimetre format to a digital format and that is what the industry told us. The reason why the previous Labour Government in 2003 instituted this legislation was to give time for that transition to take place knowing that it was going to cost a considerable amount of money. Of course in 2008 it renewed that for another 5 years through a Supplementary Order Paper when it was considering a copyright bill.The pending lapse of the temporary ban on 31 October 2013 is a trigger to assess whether the original rationale for the ban justifies its continuation. It has been an interesting process through the select committee as we have looked at all the pros and cons of what this temporary ban has provided. One of the things is that we saw that arguably if the ban was not extended those revenue decreases because of the transition and then the transition costs of $100000 per theatre would be too large an expense to make digital conversion viable. That would simply put many many theatres out of business which is where those 165 fulltime-equivalent job losses would occur. For small towns in New Zealand—even for small cities in New Zealand—the closures of these theatres would see those estimated 165 job losses. Added to that it would also see the closure of a significant number of theatres that are places of entertainment and of social value for those small towns and cities. So it was quite a complex discussion looking at all of these things.I felt through the discussion of the committee and hearing the different submitters that could see validation in extending the temporary ban. Of course not for 5 years only for 3; not for 9 months but for 5—certainly a reduction. The report of the committee to the industry said that there was an obvious change in digital technology and the way that people are accessing movies so our words to the industry were to make this 3-year period this window they have been given the window that they certainly choose to take advantage of this period of time to do the transition and to complete it.I also acknowledge the argument put forward by the distribution and exhibition industry for the extension of this temporary ban to ensure that the general public have access to a wider variety of movies particularly family movies at times when they want to see them. In fact some said that they desired the ban to actually be permanent not temporary. However the bill did not present that option nor was there an appetite in the committee to do that.Essentially the ban on parallel importation of films until 5 months after the release date—most often in the USA—is principally focused on family films. To explain this weekTheSmurfs 2 will be launched in New Zealand. One could be forgiven for thinking that this is talking about the cartoon of the Labour Party and that “Smurf 2” is a code name for its intrepid leader “David 2”. I can imagine his chief of staff saying to the Diplomatic Protection Squad: “ ‘Smurf 2’ is on the way.” The New Zealand audience has been enthralled by watching “Smurf 1” for the last little while and we are ready for the sequel “Smurf 2” to be released in a theatre near you. But I think New Zealand is looking forward to seeing “Smurf 3”: David David and David.However coming back toThe Smurfs 2 it was released on 31 July in the USA which is in the middle of its summer holidays. But for us on this side of the world in the different hemisphere 31 July was the first week of term 3. So although it is great to release the film over there here it does not work because it is just not the right time. Asa parent I am not going to be sending my kid—and other parents are not going to be sending their children—out to the movies in the first week of term 3. It is time for settling down to school work is it not? This is the problem that the industry is identifying—that you just cannot do global release dates not for family movies. They are best to be released in the school holiday time and this is what this bill is all about. It is about staggering the release dates so they work for the population according to the seasons of their holidays.The decision of the committee was to support the bill in that we have this extension of a temporary ban not for 5 years but for 3 not for 9 months but for 5. We believe that that is the right window and we want to see the industry transition and to see entertainment available for New Zealanders. Thank you.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I am not aSmurfs fan I have to say—Monsters Inc. I reckon;Monsters Inc. There are a few of them on the other side of the House. Look there has to be a circuit-breaker on copyright and intellectual property in New Zealand on the laws and on the whole of the policy regime that surrounds that. There has to be a circuit-breaker for that. The Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill is not that circuit-breaker. I have got a bit more to say on that but this bill is not that circuit-breaker. It is a temporary measure. Yes it is a bit vexed and yes as I think you might have gathered there is grudging support for it—grudging support for it—on this side of the House after a lot of thought and discussion. But there has to be a circuit-breaker on copyright and intellectual property in this country and there has to be a wider debate on what needs to happen next. This bill is the continuation of a temporary measure.There is a bit of a difference between the Opposition parties here tonight on which side we came down on. But ultimately one of the best things about the process that this bill has shown evidence of is that around the Commerce Committee in which it was debated there was pretty much unanimous support in terms of the actual issues that we are addressing. I think that if anything good has come out of this process it is that there is now an acknowledgment of the influence of the digital environment in the copyright area and of the fact that the movie industry has to change.We have got a time-limited bill in front of us. Labour has pretty much come down on the position as in fact our minority report states that the time period—when it should expire—should actually be earlier than what the bill says. But there is a time limit. There has been a very very clear message given to the industry that if it comes before the select committee again it is not going to get any truck because it has to change. That is the fact of the matter.Ultimately for our creative and internet industries we have to have a review of copyright laws. There was supposed to be a review of the gamut of copyright laws in this country this year but that side of the House the Government decided that that was not the direction it was going to go in. Ultimately it said that that was because of the process of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement which is a shame. It is a shame for our country. The Government has abandoned that commitment to hold a review this year. We say that it should have undertaken a review and that what we will do when we are elected next year is immediately undertake such a review. It is so important that we try to address the wider issues that are involved in copyright and how people are accessing content in this country and around the world the impact that that has on our laws and why it is so important that we get this right.We consider—and our minority report said—that New Zealanders should be able to access media in the same time frame as others in different countries. I have to say that the argument used on that side of the House that one of the reasons for supporting this bill is around movies being watched in the school holidays is actually a spuriousargument in this day and age. There was very dubious evidence provided to the select committee on that particular matter.The main reason why Labour is supporting this bill grudgingly as I have said is the impact on smaller cinemas around the country and their transition to the digital exhibition technology. We take the view very strongly that those communities should not be disadvantaged. That is the significant reason why we have come down on the side of supporting this bill for this limited amount of time. We supported the shortening of the ban from 9 months to 5 months within that limited time frame until what we say should be the end of 2015 rather than towards the end of 2016 because we think that the technology involved in changing from the current system to digital exhibition technology should have occurred by then. It should have occurred by now but there are lots of communities in New Zealand—inHāwera as Jonathan Young has talked about tonight; I do not know aboutHāwera but I certainly know that Palmerston North is one—where they have struggled to make that transition. We think it is important that they have the ability to do that without being penalised. But ultimately that is the only reason why.We believe that if there is a push from the movie industry to come back to Parliament in 3 years’ time and say “Oh no no no we haven’t managed to make the transition. We need another extension.” they will get no truck. It is absolutely important that that is made very clear today. This is the last chance for the industry to make that transition and ultimately that is all this bill is meant to do.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is a real privilege to rise to speak on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. Copyright is an incredibly important issue. It has moved from the arcane and sort of dusty world of law libraries of maybe 10 years ago to something literally changing global politics. The front pages of our newspapers will say that the Kim Dotcom case is changing the representation of the nature of Parliaments all around the world with new political ideas coming in new business models and new jobs being built. It is good to be debating it in our Parliament but not in the context of this bill which is a bill that the Green Party will be opposing. It is disappointing that both the Labour Party and the National Party will be supporting it. When we heard the submissions and the arguments in the Commerce Committee I think there was a very compelling argument not to support this bill. But oh well the Greens will be opposing it.What this bill does is reinstate the ban on parallel importing of films for 5 months following the film’s first release to the public in New Zealand. The rationale is to give distributors and cinemas sufficient time to have the films screened to make money out of it without the risk of competition. This ban will be in place for 3 years until 2016. Of course it comes on the back of a 10-year ban which we are just about at the edge of now. No one in this Parliament thinks that we should have this parallel importing ban post-2016. What the Green Party says is: “Let’s deal with the issues now. Let’s not disadvantage new competitors new business models emerging in New Zealand. Let’s do it now in 2013 not 2016.” which every party in this Parliament agrees with.I first want to touch on the process. What we have seen is an incredibly poor process. As I said we have had 10 years’ warning. We have had a 10-year parallel importing ban that is soon to expire. We have had 10 years’ warning yet the Government still introduces this legislation under urgency. In fact the Green Party was considering a letter from Minister Foss in our caucus meeting inviting us to share our opinions and that afternoon this legislation was slammed down on the parliamentary Table introduced under urgency. It is not a good process at all because what we should have had is a robust consideration of the issues. We were willing to engage with the Ministerof Commerce and we would have liked to hear from officials but when you ram through a bill under urgency it is an incredibly poor process. Something like this where we have had 10 years’ warning is surely not adequate to be debated under urgency. That is why the Green Party abstained in the first reading. We did not have time to talk to submitters. We did not have time to talk to the public and experts so that is why we abstained.I would like to acknowledge the people who were involved in the select committee process. We had only a handful of submitters but I would like to acknowledge them. I would like to acknowledge and thank the select committee members and the chair. In the select committee we heard the arguments we heard the submissions we weighed up the evidence and that is where the Green Party reached its position to oppose this bill.So when you look at the advice the Commerce Committee received and see the advice the Minister received in the regulatory impact statement even the officials are not clear that this bill is a good idea. In fact the officials were advising against this legislation as I pointed out in my first reading speech. There is just no justification to treat cinemas as a special case. I find it rather ironic that the two older parties apparently talking about free markets and neo-liberal economics railed against examples of say margarine being prohibited versus butter.Dr David Clark: What about community facilities? What about the community facilities? Destroying communities.GARETH HUGHES: I will get to that point in a minute. But the analogy like this bill is that in the 1970s New Zealand protected its butter industry by blocking out competitors in statute. It is exactly the same case. It is like how we stopped margarine. This bill is about using a statute to protect a temporary monopoly to block out competitors. I find it deeply ironic—and the members on the select committee know this because of the arguments we had on the select committee—that it is the two old parties that support this bill. It is just like blocking out margarine to protect the butter industry. We have heard about the digitalisation of cinemas argument. The fact is that they have had 10 years to prepare as we know. If the cinemas cannot do it now they are still going to struggle in 2016 with the release of say children’s films which is what we heard on the select committee. If they have trouble now it is going to be difficult to see success there.I want to touch on the member’s point which is that the Green Party loves cinemas. I personally love cinemas. There are some fantastic cinemas around New Zealand. They compete not because they have a statutory monopoly of the rights to material disadvantaging competitors; they do it because they have got good-quality facilities and because they provide a great service. They do not compete because they have lawmakers and the ability to lobby to try to get a temporary statutory protection of the material disadvantaging their competitors. So what we see is just another example of this Government doing special deals for its mates.We have seen this Government put aside its so-called principles when it comes to economics. When it came toTīwai Point we saw the Prime Minister literally pick up the phone and give $30 million when we hadTīwai Point bend the Government over a barrel because of the asset sale. We saw the Government pick up the phone and give $30 million to protect it because of the asset sale agenda. We have seen it with Chorus—$600 million in excess costs being paid by New Zealand consumers. We have seen it withSkycity. We have seen it with Warner Bros. And here we are seeing it again.The fact is that this bill is very much a temporary solution. It is a transitory measure. It stifles competition and new business models where I want to see new jobs being created. It ironically encourages piracy online copyright infringement. People in saythe disability community—and this is what we heard on the select committee Miss Martin—for whom the only way they can see a film is in a cinema say a Westfield Group cinema and perhaps cannot actually visit a cinema because of their disability are going turn totorrenting or file-sharing sites.It stifles current cultural participation because it says that this is the only way you can see this content for 5 months. Of course it is occurring in isolation because the Government has delayed the much anticipated copyright review ostensibly because of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But I find it deeply ironic that we cannot review our much-out-of-date copyright laws because of the Trans-Pacific Partnership but we can rush through legislation like this Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill through a rushed process in Parliament.Canada Australia and the United Kingdom are all going through copyright reviews despite two of the countries having Trans-Pacific Partnership involvement. The fact is that we need to update our copyright laws. They were written in a pre-internet age. They are not fit for purpose. They are not protecting New Zealand jobs or New Zealand industries promoting innovation. We have got the ironic situation that you can legally copy a CD to your iPod—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Honourable members the time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.