Volume 640 Week 49 - Thursday 19 July 2007 
Volume 640 Week 49 - Thursday 19 July 2007 
[Volume:640;Page:10539] 
Thursday 19 July 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House progress is to be made on the next stages of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill the Wills Bill and the Major Events Management Bill. Priority will also be given to the first readings of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 In response to the indication of next week’s business from the Leader of the House can he tell us when we may expect to see the electoral spending reform bill—much talked about in the media but certainly not talked about with us—coming to the floor of the House. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I cannot give the member an absolute date around that but he should be prepared for it within the near future. 
Questions to Ministers 
Finance Minister—Confidence 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Finance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: Did the Minister of Finance consult the Prime Minister before he made repeated comments in question time yesterday about having the power under section 12 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act to override the policy targets agreement; if so what was the Prime Minister’s response to her outgoing Minister of Finance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because the Minister of Finance does not need to consult the Prime Minister to find out what is in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. 
John Key 
: Why does she think the Minister of Finance made such a big deal yesterday in Parliament of drawing attention to section 12? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because in the light of leave being sought by the Rt Hon Winston Peters to introduce a member’s bill it was useful to point out to the House that the current Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act contains provisions—much to the surprise obviously of many people—other than those that people may think are in it. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Prime Minister recall the circumstances in which section 12 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act was inserted into the legislation in 1989 and has she had any discussion with the Minister of Finance about whether the rather extraordinary circumstances envisaged by that section have in fact been triggered at this time? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly section 12 was put in the Act to indicate that in certain circumstances the Governor of the Reserve Bank’s operating within the policy targets agreement would mean he was unable to fulfil other broader economic objectives. It was therefore a modification of the primary objective within the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. I recall that at that time National could not make up its mind which way to vote. It was only a threat made by Ruth Richardson to resign as finance spokesperson that led to National supporting the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. 
John Key 
: If the Minister of Finance was not trying to send a shot across the bow of Dr Alan Bollard yesterday why did he bother to come into the House and repeat comments that he had already made outside the House and knew would be publicised on television; and why did he allow leave for Winston Peters to table a bill that Dr Cullen knew was unnecessary because its provisions were already contained in section 12? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Unlike the member opposite I make a habit of saying the same thing inside the House as I say outside the House. Because the Finance and Expenditure Committee is already seized of an inquiry into monetary policy I saw no harm in the select committee also considering a bill that dealt with the same matter. I have every confidence that the majority of that select committee will determine that the current framework of the Act is correct. 
John Key 
: In what circumstances would the Government decide to invoke section 12 given that that section was meant to be used in genuine economic emergencies not just to bail out the failed policies of the Prime Minister’s Minister of Finance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those circumstances would be determined at the time. Of course the only alternative policy that I am aware of at the present time is that Mr English keeps calling for higher interest rates; he believes they should have been put up earlier and higher. 
John Key 
: When the Minister of Finance yesterday floated the idea about the powers of section 12 was that an admission that the intervention that the Reserve Bank has been undertaking—something the Minister of Finance gave the Reserve Bank the power to do—has failed; and is the Minister of Finance aware that the Reserve Bank is currently sitting on a paper loss as a result of that intervention in the order of $60 million to $80 million? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Nobody can float the idea of section 12; it is a reality. If the member goes out into the lobby and opens up the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 he will find section 12 of that Act. 
John Key 
: Was yesterday’s attempt to float section 12 just another example of what we have seen from the Prime Minister’s Minister of Finance in the last 3 or 4 months—that the Minister will get up on his feet muse about some idea that he is not really serious about have his wings clipped or his horns pulled back in and then blame Bill English? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is the first time I have been accused in this House of being horny but never mind. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister’s Government still have a bipartisan approach to monetary policy as her Government has professed time and time again; if so and if she is serious about her Government invoking the powers of section 12 could the Opposition expect to be consulted on that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is no bipartisanship over monetary policy. There is bipartisanship over the framework outlined in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. The policy targets agreement has been agreed successively between the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Reserve Bank under both Governments without any reference to the Opposition spokesperson. If there had been I would have had quite strong views in the past about the nature of the policy targets agreement that was entered into. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister expect that her Minister of Finance will eventually recognise that the reason interest rates are very high the reason New Zealand households are paying more for their mortgages and the reason New Zealand exporters are struggling under a very high exchange rate is that her Minister of Finance has made such a mess of his economic management and does she think it will be Michael Cullen who resolves that issue for New Zealanders next year or will it be Phil Goff the new Minister of Finance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Dr Cullen will remain the Minister of Finance I am sure through to the election and beyond. But what the member has to explain is that while his Opposition spokesperson on finance keeps calling for tighter fiscal policy as the answer to monetary policy problems the member keeps going around the country promising $2.5 billion a year in tax cuts and more spending in every possible area of public policy. That is called looser fiscal policy. 
Numeracy—Students 
2.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on the numeracy of New Zealand students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 It is good news. Research released today shows that the achievement of year 6 maths students has improved because of the Numeracy Professional Development Programme that was begun by the Labour-led Government in the year 2000. Schools involved in these projects have seen that two-thirds of students are either at or above the expected level in adding subtracting multiplying and dividing. The number of students at risk of underachieving in fractions decimals and percentages is down from 42 percent in 2002 to 14 percent as a result of this project. Secondary schools have been involved only since 2005 but already the proportion of secondary school students achieving no more than basic level maths has dropped by two-thirds. The results show that investments in good teacher professional development pay off in key areas like this. 
Moana Mackey 
: What else is the Government doing to support professional development for teachers? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government will invest around $120 million this year in teacher professional development along with $27 million for projects that are giving teachers the skills to lift numeracy and literacy standards for all students. As a result of this investment our evaluations are showing major improvements across the 1700 schools involved the highest improvement amongst students who were previously the lowest achievers and a lift in achievement across Maori and Pacific Island students. It is a very very good project. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister confirm the study’s disturbing conclusion that one in three kids in the sample left primary school not able to add or subtract at the expected level and although he basks in the self-congratulation that two-thirds of kids can do this is basic addition and subtraction not the very least that parents can expect from the school system after their kids have been at primary school for 6 years? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member quite rightly raises the fact that there is still work to be done. She will remember that in the year 1996 the TIMSS report reported on her own Government’s complete and utter failure to support students to reach reasonable levels of numeracy and mathematics. As a result of this work here I am sure she is applauding the fact that we are now well and truly going in the right direction. The results that she is talking about will be cured as opposed to the very very large numbers who were failing in the 1990s. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister confirm that the numeracy development project grew out of the Mathematics and Science Taskforce established in 1998 in response to the very average New Zealand results in the third international study of mathematics and science or TIMSS as it is commonly known with the task force having been initiated at the time by New Zealand First? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I can confirm that the task force grew out of work done by New Zealand First and by that member in particular. Once again that shows that even in the 1990s when the levels of failure were virtually epidemic it took New Zealand First to take the leadership on this issue from National to make a difference. 
Exchange Rate—Government Actions 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his reported statement that there is “nothing the Government could do about the exchange rate in the short term”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As I have said all along there is no silver bullet. However unlike the member I am prepared to consider ideas that may help the productive sector. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that less than 2 months ago the Minister reappointed Dr Bollard praised his stewardship of monetary policy and signed with Dr Bollard an unchanged policy targets agreement when he is now saying that he is willing to entertain new ideas; why did he not put them in the agreement then? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: First of all I have confidence in Dr Bollard’s operation. Secondly of course the policy targets agreement is within the framework of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. Given that the Finance and Expenditure Committee was just beginning to undertake an inquiry into the operation of monetary policy it seemed a particularly inappropriate time to change the policy targets agreement as the Opposition which loves to say that it wants to be consulted has the opportunity to be consulted and to participate in that select committee inquiry. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What reports has he seen on the links between the exchange rate and fiscal policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen numerous reports of Mr English suggesting that the only solution is to cut Government spending. I have also seen reports of most of his colleagues calling for greater spending on their pet projects—most recently just today from Dr Jackie Blue who called for extra spending by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. I am sure that that would be a magnificent answer to the problems of monetary policy operation! 
Heather Roy 
: What responsibility does the Minister believe that he and Dr Bollard should accept for interest rates hitting double figures for the dollar being about to breach US80c and for the Reserve Bank having blown over $100 million of taxpayers’ money in a foolish attempt to outplay the market? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the last point I make the comment that the Reserve Bank is a long-term player in the market—unlike some people—and not a short-term player and therefore it is most unlikely that it would actually lose money over the longer term. The second point I think I need to make to the member the House and the country is that the primary thing that has been happening in recent months is that the US dollar has been going down. It may come as a shock to members of this House but no operation of fiscal or monetary policy in New Zealand will lift the United States dollar. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister agree that section 12 was actually inserted as a safeguard that could be utilised when facing a particular economic crisis and given that fact would it not be preferable to avoid such a crisis by having the safeguard built into the primary function of the bank? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the problem with setting multiple targets into the primary function of the bank is that inherently the bank cannot simultaneously achieve all those primary targets. If one wishes to have accountability for the operation of monetary policy by the governor he or she has to be held accountable against an achievable target—not a multiplicity of targets which would probably mean that all would be missed simultaneously. 
Hon Bill English 
: If as Dr Cullen says one of the major influences on the high New Zealand dollar is the weakness of the US dollar just what intervention did he have in mind when yesterday he raised the possibility that he might invoke section 12 override the Governor of the Reserve Bank and take action himself? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: One always has to be very precise. I did not raise the possibility of using section 12; I did not rule out the use of section 12. That is not the same thing. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that after spending 6 months saying that monetary policy did not work and floating four unsuccessful ideas for attacking house values the Minister signed a policy target agreement with no change and reappointed the governor and then within 6 weeks of doing that came along to Parliament and said that section 12 is there and could be used and he is too scared to do anything in case the select committee does not like it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What a silly remark that last one was! On the one hand National members keep saying they want to be consulted but when there is a prospect of being consulted they say that the Minister is afraid to act. Just which leg is that member standing on? Every time he makes a statement in public or private he has two positions in a single sentence—every time. And that is why he reduced the National Party to its lowest-ever vote in 2002—because the public saw through it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Which of the ideas that the Minister has floated should the markets and the people of New Zealand take seriously: the mortgage interest levy the capital gains tax the ring-fencing of investment losses on housing the select committee inquiry or now the use of section 12 whereby he would effectively take control of monetary policy; and as he has not followed through on any of these ideas what credibility does he think he has on monetary policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Firstly I have never floated the idea of a capital gains tax. The only person in this House in recent times who has floated that idea apart from the Green Party is in fact Dr Brash who was a long-time supporter of a general capital gains tax. Secondly the mortgage interest-rate levy is ruled out. Thirdly the select committee inquiry is in fact under way. The member may have had a hissy fit thrown his toys out of the cot and stamped out of the committee room but the other people on that select committee are participating in the select committee inquiry. Fourthly the markets need to be aware as the governor keeps pointing out that in fact there are a range of mechanisms and section 12 is one of those. Finally as a number of external market commentators have pointed out the New Zealand dollar can go a long way down from where it is now. 
Hon Bill English 
: Now that Dr Cullen has raised the possibility of invoking section 12 does he now not believe he is obliged to create some certainty by either stating that he certainly will not use it or by making clear what conditions would apply that would mean he did use it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is those who are making money out of speculating on New Zealand’s currency who want certainty. It is not my job or that of the governor to create that certainty for them as the governor himself has pointed out on a number of occasions. If the member wants to come into this House and be the spokesperson for international money market speculators against the New Zealand productive sector then finally we have found common ground between Mr Key and Mr English. 
Hon Bill English 
: So is it the case now that the Minister is simply speculating about section 12 as part of his little game of trying to scare someone in the markets as he tried several times in respect of housing; and when will he learn the lesson that every time he has tried that the dollar has gone up—it has reached record levels today after his comments yesterday—so why does he not just stop and give exporters a break? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Finally we have managed to get “Mr Angry” on the side of the exporters instead of the financial market speculators for once. I will take the member through it again: section 12 exists in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. It is not an idea floated by me. It is not an idea and no Government should tell the financial market speculators when it might use such a provision. Mrs Watanabe the mythical investor a Japanese housewife needs to know that that is what the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act says. 
Oil and Gas Exploration—Royalties 
4.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Energy 
: What is the proposed Government take including rentals royalties and taxes expressed as a percentage of revenue taken from production that the Government will demand from Exxon Mobil and the OMV consortium in return for granting rights to pursue their proposed exploration and extraction activities in the Southern Ocean? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The permits awarded to Exxon Mobil Corporation and the OMV consortium in the Great South Basin are for exploration only. Accordingly the Government is not anticipating that those permit holders will generate any significant revenue from production alone under those exploration permits. The Government will however receive a total combined rental income through annual fees of $683760 per annum from the permits in that initial exploration period. The Government will also receive significant revenue from the usual company and employee taxation provisions. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When the Minister said in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 that the rate would be 45 to 50 percent was he aware that even war-ravaged Angola has been able to negotiate a 60 percent Government take from its deep-water drilling contracts with international oil companies which include Exxon Mobil and that Brazil also has a 60 percent Government take from the revenues of production; and why is New Zealand proposing to settle for less than that in a royalty regime described by him in  
the Otago Daily Times 
 as one of the cheapest in the world? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: First leaving aside the last comment which I think has not been put in context and looking at the actual issue I say that the issue of a royalty regime also has to be balanced against prospectivity the difficulties of production the remoteness from oil exploration infrastructure and so on. New Zealand’s regime will generate from the exploration activity we hope something in the order of 40 percent of net expenditure in New Zealand but that has yet to be seen. But in the production phase obviously a significant amount of revenue will come to New Zealand from the accounting profits royalty regime—20 percent of the accounting profits royalty—and also from the 5 percent ad valorum royalty. That will be substantial. But overall one has to balance not only the fiscal regime but also the prospectivity the costs of production etc. etc. We think and the international oil experts who have advised us believe that we have a very fair regime. 
Maryan Street 
: How does the Government’s take compare with that of other oil-producing countries? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: When compared in the light of New Zealand’s geographical location the perceived prospectivity and the tight nature of the international market for drilling rigs seismic vessels and indeed skilled personnel the Government’s total take which is at around 50 percent of profits compares very favourably with that of the UK at 30 to 40 percent the USA for deep-water exploration at 35 to 40 percent and Australia at 60 percent where perceived prospectivity is very much higher than it is here. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Would the imposition of any higher levels of rentals royalties or taxes than those he has outlined in his answer to the primary question have carried with it the risk that Exxon Mobil Corporation and OMV would have shied away from exploration in the Southern Ocean thus depriving New Zealand of the chance of receiving any royalties let alone the wealth that could potentially flow to this country from a major oil or gas discovery? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: That is an exceptionally good question and one that I had not expected but I think I have a pretty good answer too. Four and a half years ago when the regime was being considered I sat with my officials around the table and we debated how we could reinvigorate the oil and gas industries. One of the things we had to consider was the trade-off between exactly the points that the member makes in terms of the royalty regime—the taxation etc.—the prospectivity and the likelihood of having the very big companies that we need to tackle this prospect go to other more favourable places in terms of their likelihood of making a discovery. We think we pitched it exactly right. We were ridiculed by the Opposition for what we put forward and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have the largest oil exploration company in the world which has never been in New Zealand before here looking. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister clarify the situation from the general public’s point of view: is he confident there will be an oil and gas find of any significance and of course with the prospect of recovery; if there is will New Zealanders be expected to pay full global prices for their fuel or is there likely to be some sort of favourable discount regime as apparently there is in some other oil-rich nations? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: In those countries that have major State-owned oil exploration companies that take the risks of the billions of dollars of expenditure required to produce a field like the Great South Basin themselves—such as the Brazils of the world and so on—those countries obviously produce the oil for themselves and therefore are not subject to the international market regime. Because of our prospectivity we in New Zealand choose not to take the risk of the huge expenditure and although there is a very strong likelihood of a very good discovery in the Great South Basin there is also the absolute certainty of enormous costs. We will clip the ticket on the way by but we will pay international market prices for any oil that is discovered. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Since the Minister has given such an excellent dissertation on many aspects of this particular proposal can he enlighten the House as to how either the exploration or the discovery of significant oil reserves in the Great South Basin may contribute to the Government’s goal of carbon neutrality and sustainability? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The very simple fact is that New Zealand is a strongly oil-dependent economy in a whole variety of ways. Although the National members have proposed that by the time all of them are dead in 2050 in 43 years’ time New Zealand will be carbon neutral—should National ever be the Government and I doubt very much whether that looks to be very likely—the point that I would make very strongly to the member is that I would much rather have our existing thermal power stations fuelled by natural gas than by coal as they are at present. Our largest power station currently runs on coal largely because the National Government sat on its hands and did virtually no exploration for its entire period in office. National took no initiatives that generated extra oil and gas exploration in New Zealand which has led to the current situation. So we are in a position where we have taken definite action with definite effect. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister gave a very long answer so he obviously does want to answer. But not once in that answer did he use the words “carbon neutrality” “carbon neutral” or “sustainable”. Given that those are cornerstones of this Government’s current policy mix I wonder whether he might try to work those words into an answer for us. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Perhaps for the member’s benefit I can say that if one has an economy that stops because the electricity goes off because one does not have sufficient fuel to run it or if one is burning huge amounts of coal one is much better to have a policy that gets some way towards carbon neutrality in the short term and that gets towards a much more sustainable economy while being better for the environment in the longer term. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What environmental impact studies were done and what size of bond if any have these oil and gas companies been required to post to cover the possible environmental damage that could result from their activities in a region of highly valuable commercial fisheries and many endangered species such as southern right whales beaked whales Hector’s dolphins four species of endangered albatrosses and many other seabirds and mammals? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The exploration activity that has been undertaken by the Government to date includes seismic surveying and we took very strong regard of the advice from the Department of Conservation particularly with regard to marine mammals. We have adopted the policies—which are internationally right up there with the best practice—of a 20-minute starting cycle of low-intensity seismic work and low-intensity explosions in order to ensure that any marine mammals in the area of several kilometres around are if you like gently warned. We have also adopted a policy that where any dolphin whale or other marine mammal comes within 1 kilometre of seismic vessels work stops. However what I want to tell the member is that whales dolphins and other marine mammals are actually curious and are often attracted to seismic vessels as the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research found in the small amount of seismic work that it has done. We are taking care to look after the environment and taking the best guidelines we can and of course no project gets approval without meeting environmental requirements set out under the Maritime Transport Act. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What is the value of the seismic data obtained at taxpayer expense and given free to these companies and why are we subsidising a climate change - denier such as the Exxon Mobil Corporation to contribute to more climate change while putting our environment at risk? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: First of all I tell the member that if we have a significant gas discovery in the Great South Basin that will actually help in terms of our thermal generation and perhaps we can even supply liquefied natural gas being supplied to other countries for their generation of electricity thus lessening the amount of coal needed to be burnt on this planet which has to be an environmental benefit. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Have I understood the Minister’s answers correctly: firstly that no environmental bond will be posted against the risk of massive oil spillage in a highly valuable natural and fisheries environment; secondly that the Minister disassociates himself from this Government’s draft New Zealand Energy Strategy which says that fuel for power stations from now on should come from renewable resources—and gas is not a renewable resource—and thirdly that he does not know the value of the taxpayer-derived seismic data that is being given free to these companies— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What was the question? 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Those three questions will probably do. Can the Minister confirm that that is what he has just told the House? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind members that normally one supplementary question follows. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I think I can answer all three questions pretty quickly. First of all in terms of a bond that is not an issue because the Maritime Transport Act controls activities in our oceans. It very clearly sets out the damages requirements and the remedial requirements if there is an oil spill. Secondly in relation to seismic data I think we have spent a total so far of around $16 million on all seismic activity acquired by the Government around the country. For that we have in the Great South Basin alone something in the order of I think $10 million to achieve $1200 million of expenditure in exploration activity. I reckon that is a pretty good return for the taxpayer. Thirdly on the issue of our climate change policy etc. I do not shy away from that at all. The reason why is that currently we have thermal power stations. If we do not have fuel to run them then the power goes off. I think we need to ensure we do have adequate fuel to run them. 
Sue Bradford 
: I seek the leave of the House to table an article from the  
Otago Daily Times 
 of 14 July in which the Associate Minister of Energy makes a statement referred to— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflict of Interest 
5.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he still think of the Ministry of Health inquiry into conflicts of interest at Hawke’s Bay District Health Board “I must say I don’t expect to find anything”; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The contract at the centre of the review has already been examined by the audit committee of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Its legal advice was that Mr Hausmann’s company did not receive any particular advantage. All of that documentation is in the public arena. However disquiet and innuendo persisted to the point where Mr Hausmann wrote to me asking for a further review of the same issues that had already been examined and I agreed. I later asked the Director-General of Health to widen the terms of reference so that any stone that might need to be turned can be. I am not sure how many times I have given that answer to the House this week but it would be quite a few. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board seeking legal advice over its chief executive signing a $1.1 million contract for caregiver training with a company controlled by one of its own district health board members Mr Hausmann without a public tender process or is that just nothing? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure why the board has sought legal advice on that. It seeks legal advice on many things as do all district health boards. These are large organisations that need to be run carefully. 
Ann Hartley 
: Are the conflict of interest provisions in the law sufficient or is the Minister considering an upgrade? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Continuing the theme of Groundhog Day I can tell the member that the ministry’s advice is that the law as it stands is robust. However it has one obvious weak link which is that it requires honesty on the behalf of board members. Mr Hausmann’s declaration of interest is to my knowledge complete. Dr Bierre’s was not and as a result a contract worth many many hundreds of millions of dollars came tumbling down. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister or the Government concerned by reports that suggest that negotiations on this contract have been going on for months including Mr Hausmann’s meeting district health board staff on the matter yet Mr Hausmann did not declare his involvement in this additional company until February 2006 only days before the contract was awarded; and did the Minister not tell the House yesterday that full disclosure of conflicts was made when the Hon Annette King appointed Mr Hausmann? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I did tell the House that yesterday and I stand absolutely behind those remarks. As to the documentation that the member draws his remarks from all of it has been put into the public arena and all of it will be reviewed by the review team. However there will be some differences. The review team will review the documentation in sequence it will review it in context it will review it without prejudgment and it will review it without hissy fits or toy tossing. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If there was full transparency here why do the April 2006 board minutes of the district health board show that the Chief Executive Officer Chris Clarke and Mr Hausmann both told the board that there was a public tender process involved in the awarding of this $1.1 million contract to a company controlled by Mr Hausmann yet a month later Mr Clarke admitted to the same board that there was no public tender process at all? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: All of the documentation that the member continues to draw his questions from has been put into the public arena and will itself be reviewed by the review team. The review team I am sure will review the documentation in sequence and in context without prejudgment and without grandstanding in the House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister not realise that the reason why the public will not accept an inquiry into his appointees’ actions by another of his own appointees is the fact that Mr Hausmann has been inserted into this conflict of interest position because the Hon Annette King rushed his appointment through the process in order to avoid the cut-off period for new appointments before the election; that it was in fact her decision to rush the process that put Mr Hausmann in the position where today everybody including Mr Hausmann is calling for the Auditor-General to investigate yet the Minister is happy for his hand-picked appointees to do the job? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let us go back over it again. The appointment process that was carried out by the Hon Annette King was unexceptional or to put it another way identical processes had been used before and will be used again—identical. The Ministry of Health is adamant that the advice provided to Cabinet was accurate and sufficient. And on the matter of the Auditor-General I say that the Auditor-General is not my person; the Auditor-General is his own person and he can involve himself should he choose to. He has so far indicated that he chooses not to. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: How can the public be confident in the outcome of an inquiry into insider trading when that inquiry is to be headed by a district health board chair who as a Labour Government appointee himself has an inherent conflict of interest when called upon to investigate fellow Labour Government appointees at the next-door-neighbour district health board? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let me rise in defence of the reputation of both Syd Bradley and Ian Wilson. Let me rise in defence of their reputations. Not only were both of them appointed by National to a variety of positions but they are held as far as I am aware in high regard by both sides of the House and probably by all sides of the House. I object to this House being used by that man to variously impugn the integrity of two gentlemen this week who have provided this country with long and loyal service and who do so without fear or favour. 
Methamphetamine—Children and Clan-labs 
6.  
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is the Government concerned at the findings of the recent report of the National Drug Intelligence Bureau which shows that almost one-third of clan-labs discovered by police were found at dwellings that had children resident and would it consider legislation making criminal offending in the presence of a minor an aggravating factor at sentencing as an option to rectify this problem? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes the Government is most certainly concerned that any child should be exposed to clan-lab situations. Any measure that can protect at-risk children in such situations must of course be considered. The member I know is genuinely concerned and will therefore be pleased to know that there is already precedent for dealing with aggravating factors in criminal behaviour. I can perhaps do no better than to quote Winkelmann J in the 2005 sentencing of an offender who was involved with the manufacture of methamphetamine: “it is a considerable aggravating factor that one of these operations was in the garage at the property where you lived with your children .. you exposed your children to toxic chemicals and a dangerous environment.” I absolutely support the justice’s ruling there. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Would the Minister agree that young children are far too often the innocent parties to criminal offending by adults and that where offending endangers minors or exposes them to potentially adverse effects from that offending the sentence imposed should reflect this; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Again I can only agree with the member and I am sure he will welcome the High Court judgment that I referred to before because it establishes very clearly at law that putting children in harm’s way in such criminal behaviour situations is indeed an aggravating circumstance and should be treated as such. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is the Minister aware that several jurisdictions in the United States have passed legislation making the manufacture of methamphetamine in a residence occupied by a minor an aggravating factor at sentencing; and is he satisfied that current legislation is providing results in sentencing that properly take into account the safety of children and their exposure to such dangerous criminal practices? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the Sentencing Act 2002 certainly does provide for the provision of aggravating circumstance and section 9(4) allows the sentencing judge to take into account matters that are deemed to be appropriate. I think there is considerable provision there as I have said in the first two answers. The High Court has established common law that is useful for any future reference but certainly I am taking the opportunity to consider the report. This is the first time that we have had this particular report dealing with the direct impact on children and I am certainly taking the opportunity to look very carefully at the matter. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I seek leave to table my Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill which would make criminal offending in the presence of a minor an aggravating factor in sentencing. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
State Houses—Tenancy of Smaller Homes 
7.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Can he confirm his statement yesterday that “Already in the last year we have moved 303 tenants into smaller houses thus saving the taxpayer $300 million” later corrected to a saving of $280 million; if so how exactly does the taxpayer save $924000 on average by shifting a tenant into a smaller State home? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The member was not in the House last night when I was granted leave to correct the figures I gave during question time. I will attempt to clarify the figures for the member now. In 2006 and 2007 Housing New Zealand Corporation saved an estimated $280 million both by encouraging market rate tenants into private rental housing or homeownership and through shifting small families occupying large houses into smaller homes. In 2006 and 2007 the corporation saved an estimated $36 million by shifting those 303 tenants occupying large houses into smaller ones. This figure does not include the impact of shifting market rent tenants. This morning I have obtained cumulative figures for the last 2 years that show that we have saved over $600 million through shifting people into smaller houses and shifting people on market rents into the private sector. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. To put this question on the Order Paper this morning I had the Clerk’s Office confirm to me that the Minister’s statement last night said that he had corrected the saving made from shifting 303 tenants to “$280 million”. Consequently that is exactly what I put in the question. The Minister has not answered the question as to why shifting 303 tenants saves $280 million—the figure that the Clerk’s Office confirmed he said last night. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did give a full answer to the question but the member has a supplementary question. 
Phil Heatley 
: Does the Minister stand by the claim he made in this debating Chamber that in the last year by shifting 303 State house tenants into smaller homes he has saved the taxpayer $280 million; does he stand by that statement or not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: By a very active programme in Housing New Zealand Corporation of shifting people out of bigger houses they no longer need into smaller ones and by moving market renters into private accommodation or into buying their own homes we have saved over $600 million in the last 2 years. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What reports has the Minister seen about alternative approaches to housing policy? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Last night National’s associate housing spokesperson Bob Clarkson mesmerised this Chamber with his proposals for the Government to withdraw completely from social housing. He also suggested that mixed communities such as the one we are planning for Hobsonville would “offend” people. One can only assume he felt happier with the less-well-off living in their own areas. Perhaps “Bob the Builder” has finally revealed National’s long-awaited housing policy—no State housing and ghettos for the poor. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members wish to stay in the Chamber not only will they be seated when I rise but also they will keep quiet. The Minister made an inappropriate reference to a member so I will ask him to withdraw that comment. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I apologise for calling Mr Clarkson “Bob the Builder”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We just need a withdrawal and an apology. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. If the Government is to continue saving New Zealanders money in the housing portfolio when will it finally commit to making State housing available to confirmed New Zealand citizens? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: State house tenants must be residents or citizens of New Zealand. If the member has any information to the contrary could he please let me know. 
Phil Heatley 
: If the Minister is really saying he can save almost a million dollars by shifting a tenant into a smaller State house or save a million dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars by shifting on market renters why does he not just pay these thousands of tenants and boarders half a million bucks each upfront to buy their own home free up the State house for a needy family on the waiting list and pocket the other half-million dollars for the Housing New Zealand Corporation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Perhaps finally we are hearing the National Party’s housing policy. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister stood because he wanted to answer the question but that answer surely cannot be considered as addressing the question. He is the one who has put the figures into the arena. He is the one who has told us today about his achievements. Now here is a simple question: why on earth would the Government spend so much moving people around when it could just give them a house in the first place? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the Minister would like to add to his answer. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am pleased to report as I have already in the House today that we have saved the taxpayer over $600 million in the last 2 years by moving people around. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister confirm his answer to question for written answer No. 2998 where he says that there are 1578 underutilised houses with two or more spare bedrooms and that they have been underutilised for 5 years now; if so why has he moved only 303 of those 1500 tenants into smaller houses in the past 5 years when apparently he could have saved the taxpayer billions of dollars? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It has never been Labour Party policy to throw people out of their homes nor has it been its policy to sell State houses—unlike the previous National Government which sold 13000 State houses. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table an answer to a parliamentary question that states that there are 1500 houses with spare bedrooms. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table an answer to a parliamentary question that states that there are 7000 houses with spare bedrooms and boarders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table an answer to a parliamentary question that states that only 46 of these 8500 tenants have been moved on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a statement from the Minister that only 303 of these 8500 tenants have— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I seek leave to table a parliamentary question that shows that Mr Heatley yesterday rounded out a figure of 6931 tenants to 6000 tenants. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Question No. 4 to Minister—Amended Answer 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 In answer to a supplementary question to question No. 4 I told the House that around $10 million was spent on the acquisition of seismic data by the Government in the Great South Basin to achieve an exploration expenditure of $1200 million. In fact I overstated it. The correct figure is $5.3 million. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave to ask the Minister an extra supplementary question given his revelations this afternoon. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Kyoto Protocol—Costs 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What cost is there to the New Zealand taxpayer from increased levels of deforestation and New Zealand’s obligation under the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 That will depend entirely upon the levels of deforestation during the period 2008 to 2012. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the reason the Government has hidden away on page 788 of the Budget a whopping $85 million deforestation expense to the taxpayer—with no mention of it in the trends no mention of it in the objectives and no press release or explanation—that a massive stuff-up occurred between the Climate Change Office and the Office of Treaty Settlements over the Kyoto Protocol liabilities for the forests involved in the Te Arawa settlement? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What recent reports if any has the Minister received on emission-reduction opportunities being developed in New Zealand that could reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions and our future Kyoto Protocol liability? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The  
Independent Financial Review 
 yesterday reported on its front page that Air New Zealand and plane manufacturer Boeing are working with the Blenheim-based biofuel developer Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation to create the world’s first environmentally friendly aviation fuel. This will be made of biofuel extracted from the algae that grow naturally on sewage oxidation ponds. While Dr Smith misleads the House about coal New Zealand is answering the Prime Minister’s call and advancing sustainably towards carbon neutrality. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does he reconcile the $85 million expense to the Crown in the Budget for preventing Kyoto Protocol deforestation liabilities on the settlement lands made available to Te Arawa with the Government’s statement on 8 August last year on that settlement: “The total cost to the Crown is $36 million.”; and does he now accept that the cost to the taxpayer is not $36 million but $121 million? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member is incorrect to characterise the full amount of the write-down as being attributable to the Kyoto Protocol. The promises that were made by the recipients of that land included restrictions on future land use that go far beyond the first commitment period in the Kyoto Protocol and adjustments to valuation for reasons also beyond just forestry. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was about the Government telling the public last year that the cost was $36 million and the Budget having an allocation of $85 million on top of that $36 million. My simple question to the Minister was whether he now accepts that the cost to the taxpayer is $121 million not $36 million. I got some complex explanation around the different periods associated with the Kyoto Protocol. What I want to know is what the cost to the Crown of that settlement is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I think the Minister did actually address the question. As the member knows one cannot require a yes or no answer from the Minister but the Minister did address the substance of the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister accept that this $85 million debacle between the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Climate Change Office arises because between the agreement in principle in September 2005 and the final deed of settlement his Government’s climate change polices were all over the paddock leading to confusion over those Kyoto Protocol liabilities and does he accept that taxpayers are now having to foot a bill of $85 million because of this Government’s incompetence? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No and no. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister recall Helen Clark and Pete Hodgson telling New Zealanders that the people of New Zealand stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars from forestry under the Kyoto Protocol; and now that taxpayers are having to fork out the first $85 million of real money does he think it is time that the Labour Government apologised to the people of New Zealand for misleading them and for its failed Kyoto Protocol policies which are leading to record levels of deforestation and these huge bills for the normal taxpayer? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: An emission is an emission and emissions from deforestation are greenhouse gas emissions. We do want to curb our emissions growth and an important part of that will be implementing a cap on deforestation which was first announced in 2002. I would also say that emissions trading if it is introduced will cost-effectively and substantially reduce deforestation even further below that. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Did the Minister recommend to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that he disclose the nature of obligations expected under the Kyoto Protocol when entering into settlement discussions with Te Pumau-tanga o Te Arawa and would he agree that the failure to disclose such significant obligations breaches good-faith negotiations; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In respect of the settlement referred to by Dr Smith I am sure there was full disclosure and full knowledge on the part of both parties as to what they were negotiating about. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting the Minister’s answer that there was full disclosure I seek the leave of the House to table the initial deed of settlement which states that the total cost to the Crown would be $36 million. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table page 788 of the Budget which shows that not $36 million but— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table two documents the first of which is the  
Energy Data File 
 which shows the amount of coal burned to produce— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The second is the article in the  
Independent Financial Review 
 that reports the efforts made by the Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister not agree that given the number of cross-claimants in the central North Island claims that are not currently being settled any arrangements that lock those lands into a restrictive development regime that limits land use to forestry should be disclosed to those cross-claimants to allow them to have meaningful input into those decisions? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am sure that those issues would be appropriately taken into account in negotiations by the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. 
Land Transport—Funding 
9.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What recent announcements has she made to assist local government that provide greater flexibility for land transport funding? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced at the Local Government New Zealand Conference that regionally distributed funding also known as R funding will now be available for renewal projects such as rebuilding and replacing roads and other land transport infrastructure. R funding was first made available in 2005 to assist local government with priority infrastructure projects. It is distributed on a regional basis. Unfortunately some local authorities were unable to take full advantage of R funding because originally it could be applied only for capital projects. Now areas like Southland for example will be able to access funding for renewals. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what the reaction was to this announcement at the Local Government New Zealand Conference? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There was a very enthusiastic reaction particularly from rural and provincial New Zealanders whose needs they know were neglected in the 1990s by the previous National Government. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister therefore tell the House how much money will be made available for renewal? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Of the $2 billion available for land transport infrastructure projects approximately $510 million has been set aside for local road projects depending on what regions regard as their land transport priorities. Some of this funding will be available for renewals. It will be very much up to the regions themselves. 
Police College—Graduates 
10.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she stand by her statement that “Over the past 18 months since I became Police Minister I have regularly received verbal assurances and updates from the police administration that the standard of police graduating from the college is being maintained”; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. I have regularly received updates because I want to see continuing high standards for graduates. 
Chester Borrows 
: How can she be so well informed when she did not receive the report by police college instructor and psychologist Iain Saunders criticising the low mental ability of some recruits until Monday 25 June which was after the story broke in Saturday’s newspaper and months after it was submitted? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because as a Minister I do not rely on one report from police headquarters; I receive a report regularly. In fact I receive a report on recruitment into the New Zealand Police every week. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister aware of the comments by Chester Borrows that there should be some leeway when considering applicants with offences? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I have seen comments by Chester Borrows that there is a place for a case by case approach to people who have committed offences. I wonder whether the following case would be one of the ones we should take a case by case approach to as it is one that Chester Borrows criticised. It was a case of an applicant who had committed an assault offence. An investigation showed that the applicant was 20 at the time. He was 31 when recruited. The applicant had confronted an offender who had burgled his house three times. He hit the offender while waiting for the police to arrive after the offender had laughed at him when he asked for his personal belongings back. 
Chester Borrows 
: What reasons has the Minister been given for not immediately seeing a report that describes a recruit as having to form letters inside bubble shapes like a 5-year-old; that describes an intelligence standard that allows recruits only in the 23rd percentile to progress; and emphatically states that the public and the future of the police are at significant risk—all of which was known to the office of the Commissioner of Police? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: When I was informed of this report I asked for it. I then found that we had a number of reports that were conflicting and as members of this House know I sought an independent assessment of the training standards. It will be available at the end of September. 
Chester Borrows 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question specifically asked what reason she had been given for not immediately seeing the report. She did not give any reasons and did not address that specific question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think she did but I think the Minister wishes to add to her answer. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: All I am going to say is that the report itself was an internal report done for debate. I did not necessarily need to see it. What I need to know is that standards are being maintained. I receive a report every week from headquarters. I have no reason to doubt the integrity of those who are reporting to me. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister aware of any other information that places the circumstances of offences committed by serving police officers in context? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes and I think this was a very unfortunate issue that was raised by Chester Borrows for a headline. He never looked behind the issue but he did make the point that maybe we should look at these things on a case by case basis. If he asked for that information he would know that many of those offences—in fact most of them—happened when people when were young that they were much older when recruited and that the offences were at the minor end. I can give another example which involves an offence of theft. The applicant was a university student at the time of the offence and was 30 when recruited. The applicant took an ornamental pot plant from outside a house while walking home from a night drinking in town. 
Chester Borrows 
: Has the Minister now got a response to comments from Senior Sergeant Saunders that “Some of our staff are in a very vulnerable position and some of the public are probably being placed at risk or offered very poor service.” and that “The police … are at risk of claims of negligent hiring because we know these things.” or does she still protest that these are operational matters and have nothing to do with her as Minister? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I take all those issues seriously. That is why I sought an independent assessment which will be available to all members of the House and to the public of New Zealand so they can look at those issues. But I would hope that the member who is a former police officer would stop beating up on the police. They have frankly had a gutsful of it. There are many good men and women out there who work hard for the public of New Zealand and they put up with that tripe day after day. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister aware of any further information that places the circumstances of offences committed by police recruits in context? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have many examples but I think the House deserves one more. There was an example of wilful damage. The applicant was 16 at the time of the offence and 41 when recruited. The applicant had broken off a car aerial. 
Women’s Affairs Ministry—Future 
11.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: Has she received any reports on the future of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: Yes. The Minister has received a report that states that the ministry is “a sexist relic” that the National Party “will extinguish” and another report stating that it would be preferable for the ministry’s funding to be increased and for it to be given “more teeth”. The first report is from National’s Judith Collins and second is from National’s Jackie Blue. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has she received any reports from the ministry on policies that benefit women? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes actually I have. The ministry has provided valuable input into policies that benefit women and families such as paid parental leave Working for Families pay and employment equity and 20 hours’ free early childhood education. Those are all policies that National has opposed. National can say for political reasons that it supports the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the work that it does but it is obvious that it does not support women’s issues. Its true attitude is shown in John Key’s statement last month: “We don’t have enough women in our caucus so we’ve had to start cross-dressing.” or Bob Clarkson informing us: “All guys should get married—we should all suffer the same amount.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members to wish to remain in the Chamber they will be quiet. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not hear the last part of the answer because of all the noise. Could the Minister repeat it please. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I will ask the Minister to summarise her answer. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am happy to— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. Would both members please be seated. The Minister was asked for reports. As members know those reports can in fact be given in the House. However Ministers cannot comment on the internal matters of a political party. But the reports if they are in the arena are able to be included in the answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. They may be able to be received but they have to be reports that relate surely in this case to matters pertaining to the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. I think that the Minister took considerable licence in straying away from that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think we will hear whether the Minister did stray this time. Hon Ruth Dyson please summarise the answer. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The final report I quoted was from Bob Clarkson National member of Parliament who informed us: “All guys should get married—we should all suffer the same amount.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do think that was not actually directly related to the Ministry of Women’s Affairs so I accept the point of order. 
Student Loans—Incentives 
12.  
PANSY WONG (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Does he stand by his statement in respect of 13 providers currently being reinvestigated for allegedly offering cash kickbacks to senior students through the student loan system that “None of the 13 providers have qualifications programmes that are currently eligible for funding. New students commencing unfunded qualifications from January 2007 are not eligible for access to student loans and allowances.”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Yes but I note that in the light of continuing allegations the situation is being investigated by relevant Government agencies and I thank the member for her assistance in those inquiries both past and forthcoming. 
Pansy Wong 
: How can the Kingsland Institute of New Zealand the International College of Auckland and Oxford International Academy three of the 13 providers under investigation advertise throughout June and July this year that they will arrange student loans and allowances for senior students who enrol in their English classes free of charge? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There are only two circumstances in which that could legitimately happen—that is if they come in before 17 January or were legitimately grandparented. From the nature of the advertisements neither of those circumstances would seem to apply. Therefore the prospect arises perhaps of their illegitimately backdating the start date for their programmes of study or using other manipulative means. I know that the member is going to assist the Tertiary Education Commission and StudyLink in arranging interviews on 29 July with students of institutions who have made complaints and I thank her again for that assistance. 
Pansy Wong 
: Is the Minister aware that those advertisements are not for grandparented students but for new students; and what measures does the Tertiary Education Commission take to police this policy which was supposed to start in January 2007 given that the Minister has claimed that it does not rely solely upon complaints to take action and does the Minister think those other forms of action are working? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said to the member there were two circumstances neither of which seems to apply—the member is not quite listening—to the advertisements that she has outlined. That is I think why further investigations are occurring. The fact is that people will continue to sin and we will continue to chase them up in that respect. 
Pansy Wong 
: Why should the public have confidence in the Minister or the Tertiary Education Commission to police this policy when these providers are in such open contempt of their authority and openly defy the Tertiary Education Commission? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can assure the member that investigations are under way and I will be happy to brief her outside the House on the nature of some of those investigations. I do not think it is in the public interest for me to refer to them publicly. 
Pansy Wong 
: I seek leave to table a copy of an advertisement for the Kingsland Institute of New Zealand dated 29 June. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Pansy Wong 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of an advertisement for the International College of Auckland dated 16 June 2007. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Pansy Wong 
: I seek leave to table a copy of an advertisement for the Oxford International Academy. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Pansy Wong 
: I seek leave to table a copy of an advertisement for the Kingsland Institute dated 10 July 2007. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I seek leave to table another document in relation to question No. 8. It is the Vote Lands estimates review of the select committee— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Points of Order 
Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment  Bill—Leave to Introduce  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down for first reading as a members’ order of the day despite Standing Orders 276(1) and 277(1). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Criminal Justice Reform Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 18 July. 
Part 2 Amendments to Acts relating to Criminal Justice  
(continued) 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to take the Committee back to 1999. The public made it perfectly clear through the Norm Withers referendum that they wanted tougher sentences. What was the response of this Government? Its response was to introduce law that allowed a rapist sentenced to 9 years in jail to be released in 3 years. The Government went up and down this country trumpeting that as its response to the referendum of 1999. Well the public saw through that sham and on this side of the House we pointed out to the Government time and time again the deficiency in its legislation. At best at that time the Government only tweaked the legislation. It did not deal with the core problem. It has taken until now 5 years later for the Government to recognise in clause 120 of this Criminal Justice Reform Bill that the two-thirds parole rule had some common sense—the very rule in fact that the Government repealed in its 2002 legislation. 
This Government is always going on about how it is tough on law and order. This Minister Mark Burton says so. But in 2002 it actually weakened the sentencing laws of this country when it substituted a two-thirds parole system—which actually the public said was not good enough—with a one-third parole system. That was a total betrayal of public trust. It is no wonder the public were disgusted with the Government on this particular issue. Frankly I am surprised that it has taken so long for the Government to return to what was at the very minimum a common-sense position. 
I want to make absolutely clear that National is committed to the policy that violent repeat offenders shall have no parole rights. The public has made it perfectly clear that people like that who represent an immense danger to society should not earn entitlements for early release and that when the judge has heard all the evidence and assessed the circumstances of the crime the criminal should serve the sentence that he or she was given by the judge. That is what the public wanted in 1999. This Government betrayed them in 2002. It has made a modest rectification in clause 120. But we are very clear on the National side of the Chamber that we have heard that concern and that—as we said in 2005 and will say for the next election—violent repeat offenders will not be eligible for parole under National. 
I ask this Government why it does not listen properly to the people of New Zealand. For that matter why does it not listen to its support partner New Zealand First? Members of New Zealand First do not believe in parole either yet I imagine they will vote for this measure today. It makes one wonder where New Zealand First’s ability to influence the Government is. People who are part of that particular class of criminal—the violent and repeat offenders—have used up their chances. The public needs proper protection from them and they ought to be serving a proper sentence. 
I want to put that very clearly on the record so that it is absolutely clear to New Zealanders where Labour stands—a weak vacillating Government—and where National stands. National is determined that the violent offenders who are such a scourge in our country will not be eligible for parole. That choice will be clearly put before the people of New Zealand in 2008. My colleagues have been speaking at length about the Sentencing Council and we put in a minority report about that. We are concerned that the Sentencing Council does— 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will take one final call as we come to the close of this part. After considerable debate the member Wayne Mapp wandered back to Part 1 so I think he has clearly concluded his Part 2 contribution. But I think if members translate what he said it seems that he pretty much supports overwhelmingly the measures the Government is advancing in Part 2. The member—clearly from the comments he has made and the comments his colleagues have made—overwhelmingly supports the general provisions of this bill. 
I can assure the member of numerous examples of measures both in speeches and more important perhaps in legislative measures that this Government has advanced so that serious repeat violent offenders will be dealt with harshly—and they should be. The safety of the community must be first and foremost. 
Secondly the member made reference to the influence of other parties. Well I have to say to the member that the best way to have influence is to engage and to cooperate. I want to acknowledge that this bill is the better for the engagement and cooperation of New Zealand First and of Mr Mark in particular who worked very closely on the development of the front-end home detention. I think that is a progressive measure that will significantly enhance sentencing options for the bench and provide an option that I think the bench and the community will welcome along with the resources to make sure that it can indeed work. 
I acknowledge the various contributions members have made and I look forward to wide support from the Committee for Part 2. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I just want to make a few comments about Subpart 3 of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill which deals with amendments to the Parole Act. These amendments were canvassed by the Justice and Electoral Committee at some length. They deal with the situation where there is an urgent application to the Parole Board for a confidentiality order. As can be seen by clause 83B which proposes to insert new section 13AA in the Parole Act 2002 applications may be made by the Commissioner of Police or the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and applications have to be supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant—they are not applications in these extreme situations that would be served on either the offender or the offender’s lawyer. 
The important point I want to make is that when a confidentiality order is made that information may not be disclosed or published to either the offender which makes sense given the nature of the information that has been disclosed pursuant to the confidentiality order or to the offender’s counsel. Now there were a number of us on the select committee who had to think long and hard about whether that was appropriate because normally safeguards can be entered into to ensure that information can be given to the offender’s counsel in circumstances where one relies upon his or her professional obligations as an officer of the court. But it was decided that because of the nature of the information and the special circumstances that may cause the Commissioner of Police or the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to make such an application given the nature of the information it would not necessarily be forthcoming if the offender’s counsel was to be given copies of it. So I want just to emphasise that that is a very extreme measure and I hope such applications will be made in good faith because I note there is no requirement as there is with applications of a similar nature made in a civil context that they be certified to be true and correct. I would hope that such applications are going to be very rare indeed and will be made in good faith by those persons. 
The point is that solicitors and barristers have obligations to the court and it should only be in very special circumstances that they should not be entitled to receive that information. The only other precedent I know of and maybe Mr Fairbrother will be able to comment on it if he speaks is under the Terrorism Suppression Act where certain types of applications can be made under sections 35 or 55 of that Act and in very special circumstances the Attorney-General can make an application to the court that it is desirable to protect the classified security information and that the information not be given to either the entity that it is sought to designate under the Terrorism Suppression Act or any barrister or solicitor representing that entity. One can certainly understand in a terrorism context why one would not want to part with highly sensitive classified information. This is another step along the way and I want to assure the Committee that great care has been taken by me and others on the select committee to satisfy ourselves that such an application could result in an order whereby information may not be disclosed to the offender’s counsel. But it is a slippery slope and I would hope that we would not be making that kind of legislative change very frequently at all. 
The second point I want to make in this Part 2 speech deals with my proposed amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 126 to Subpart 2 which deals with amendments to the Sentencing Act. Yesterday in response to the statements that I made about my Supplementary Order Paper and the requirement that when a court was dealing with sentencing guidelines it should have regard to any sentencing guidelines rather than adhere to them as the proposed clause 40 inserting new section 21A suggests Mr Chauvel commented that one should read on a little further and go to the subordinate clause of new section 21A—namely “unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.” But that is with respect a rather superficial response because it is clear that the subordinate clause set out in new section 21A is to be the exception rather than the rule. Given the realities of sentencing practices as I have explained that subordinate clause will be the rule rather than the exception. The principal clause is going to be simply a redundancy because—I ask the Committee—how can one impose consistency when there is more than one guideline? 
I explained last night that the only guidelines the National Party has seen are the guidelines that were given to me when I was in England. No one from the Law Commission or from the Minister’s office has condescended to provide them for us although we know they are in existence in draft form. But we have a number of Sentencing Council guidelines. For example a judge sentencing a person may have to consider a reduction in a sentence for a guilty plea. A judge may also have to consider a guideline entitled “new sentences” or one concerning seriousness. If one is dealing with multiple guidelines provided by the council the only sensible thing one can do is to have regard to them and that reflects the reality of sentencing. What I have proposed is utterly consistent with the English statute. Section 172 of the Criminal Justice Act provides that every court must have regard to a relevant guideline. 
When one is sentencing one cannot simply rely on the provision at the end of new section 21A if it is enacted—namely that it can be applied because the court would be satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice not to do so—and ignore in reality the first part of the section. If we are to be diligent parliamentarians the section should be drafted in accordance with the reality of sentencing practice and that reality is reflected in the proposals I have set out on my Supplementary Order Paper. 
I come back to the point that as drafted the provision is redundant in reality and I am also sure that as drafted it will be a recipe for meaningless appeals because there will be constant challenges to decisions made on sentencing with possibly both parties arguing that the sentence imposed is not consistent with guidelines. I think that if the provision is enacted we will have a recipe for confusion and unnecessary litigation. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I wish to take just a short call to allay some of the concerns expressed by Dr Wayne Mapp. Yes it is true that although New Zealand First is supporting the passage of this legislation through the House we do have concerns about parole. Mr Mapp has informed members that the National Party now has a policy that it will repeal parole and there will not be parole for—I think he said—violent offenders. That is quite a turn of events because in the 11 years I have been in Parliament this is the first time that the National Party has had such a policy. 
Judith Collins 
: It was at the last election Ron. 
RON MARK 
: I say to Judith Collins that it had it at the last election; it did not have it at the election before that or at the one before that. 
Judith Collins 
: It was at the last election Ron. 
RON MARK 
: There she goes catcalling across the Chamber. She is on her horse racing it—here comes Judith Collins with her interjections. We all love and value them do we not? I say to Judith Collins that the National Party did not have that policy in 1993 when it was in Government it did not have it in 1996 when it was in Government and it did not have it in 1999 when it was thrown out of Government. It did not have it in 2002 but it finally had it in 2005. 
Mr David Bennett can shake his head all he likes. I know that it is a sorry story that the National Party of which he is a member should only then have finally come to New Zealand First’s position. But we are not surprised about that because in  
The Hollow Men 
 we all found out that the best research National got was from the New Zealand First website so there are no surprises there. 
New Zealand First has been consistent in its view on parole. We do not like parole and when we are in Government we will repeal the parole legislation. So I am looking forward—if history should deal the nation a New Zealand First - National Government arrangement—to discussions with National Party people about repealing parole completely. The National Party policy is not about repealing parole completely; it is about repealing it only for violent offenders. So I welcome Dr Mapp’s sensible—as always—contribution. I welcome the change and the shift in National Party policy. As always it was a little late but it is finally there. 
The question is: why are we in New Zealand First supporting this legislation and these amendments? It is simply because this is better than nothing. We cannot get everything we want. We did not get everything we wanted when we were in a formal coalition Government with National. Although we are unhappy that this does not fit in totally with our policy at least we are making some progress on the parole conditions to address the situation we were left in with regard to Mr Burton and the Kuchenbecker murder. I do not think either the National Party or New Zealand First were happy with that outcome. Simon Power and I have had some interesting discussions. 
Mr Bennett is still such a new member that he is shaking his head and pulling a face at everybody. He needs to know that Simon Power has told me privately that he supports the bill. He supports every clause in it except for the Sentencing Council portion. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s actually in the minority report. 
RON MARK 
: Dr Wayne Mapp can interject all he likes from the sidelines as he strolls his way through to his seat but I can only tell Mr Mapp what Mr Power told me. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Read the minority report; it’s quite explicit. 
RON MARK 
: I do not care what the minority report says. I can only tell Mr Mapp again what Mr Power told me. Mr Power told me that his primary concern was about the Sentencing Council and that it was on that basis—and on the basis of the Government’s refusal to split the bill into two which would have allowed National to vote against the Sentencing Council—that it is voting against this particular portion. 
David Bennett 
: Go out of the Chamber as you should. 
RON MARK 
: The very junior member Mr Bennett should understand that a lot of what I have heard from the National Party is like the shedding of crocodile tears. Mr Bennett is now smiling so he knows I am right. I thank Mr Bennett. Deep down National members agree that the bill needs to go through although they are not happy with all parts of it and we agree and concur with that. 
So I am looking forward to an opportunity in the future to work with some like-minded and similar-minded people who might seek to redress a couple of these things. The difference we have is on the Sentencing Council. New Zealand First likes it; National does not. On the issue of parole New Zealand First would go further than National and therein is where the differences lie. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I have not heard from the ACT party yet. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was just a little concerned that in the course of Mr Mark’s speech he referred to Dr Mapp when I think he was referring to me. He certainly did so on one occasion. I think he did it inadvertently. Although I am flattered to be known as Dr Mapp it could be appropriate that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order Dr Worth. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I have put forward some amendments that I would like to bring to the attention of the various parties in this Committee. They are fairly simple in their nature and they are all around the subject of victims’ rights and the ability of victims to present to the Parole Board. I would like to have subclause (3) omitted from clause 96 subclause (1) omitted from clause 97 subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of new section 45(7)(b) omitted from clause 98 clause 101 omitted and also clauses 102 and 104 omitted. 
The reason I want those amendments made by this Committee is simple. Although the ACT party was not represented on the Justice and Electoral Committee I understand that the committee heard a large number of submissions from victims but these have largely been ignored in the committee’s report. In fact the victims of various crimes are feeling quite aggrieved—firstly about that but secondly about what they perceive as a lack of ability to be heard now before a Parole Board except under exceptional circumstances. I would like to call on Parliament to cut out the provisions of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill that remove the victims’ right to be heard by this board on whether criminals should be let out of prison. 
This bill currently before us in the Committee stage should take victims’ rights into consideration. I believe that this debate should be halted until the Government has lodged a Supplementary Order Paper to remove these provisions but in the absence of the likelihood of this happening I have put forward these amendments myself. 
When the select committee reported on the bill none of the members on the committee bothered to comment on victims’ submissions which begged them—and the victims were begging because they felt personally aggrieved—to remove this right. Labour National and the Green members on the committee spent a lot of time looking at the confidentiality of evidence of prisoners’ wrongdoing. They worried a lot about the rights of criminals but the victims of a large number of crimes felt that their voice would not be heard at all. They feel really that no apology for the biggest impact of the bill on victims will be heard and that provisions to shut victims out of Parole Board hearings will happen if this legislation is passed and these amendments are not made. 
The committee did manage to spare a paragraph to endorse some meaningless words which were put in to pretend that parole is a privilege not a right. But it did not even note that the attendance of victims at hearings will now be a privilege not a right. The Parole Board will grant the privilege only if victims agree to confine themselves to discussing the “risk to the safety of the community” posed by the criminal’s release and “ways of managing any risks …”. No longer will they be able to protest about the simple injustice of a criminal’s early release and the hurt that it does to victims who have already suffered far too much. So board members by locking the door can now protect their delicate ears against the demands that a meaningful part of a sentence be served. They need not hear these protests against the board’s conversion of a sentence into a trivial price for what very often are vicious crimes. 
Parliament it seems is ganging up with those in the justice establishment who are contemptuous of the public demand for real penalties for crime. Time and time again communities and citizens of New Zealand have voiced their very loud concerns about real penalties not being served for crimes and the rights of victims not being heard and certainly not being listened to. Victims are seeing the scandalous parole process put back behind doors that are firmly closed to them. That is surely not fair and at worse is quite scandalous in itself. I would like the other parties in this Committee when considering this stage of the legislation to think very carefully about the amendments I have put before it and to support them. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make two contributions in response to matters already raised by other members in this Committee stage. [ 
Interruption 
] I am glad that Dr Mapp is so keen to hear those contributions. It is always good to have an appreciative audience. The first comment I want to make relates to the matter raised by Mr Finlayson as to the additional protections inserted by the Justice and Electoral Committee in Subpart 3 which relates to the provisions concerning secret witnesses—so-called—before Parole Board hearings. The situation as the member set out is that we have sought to enhance the due process protections that exist when this scenario arises—that is when an application is made for evidence effectively to be heard in a manner that will not be disclosed to the person applying for parole. 
It will be recalled that Mr Finlayson spoke of the protection inserted whereby the select committee felt it was appropriate to require the grounds for making an application of this nature to be set out in an affidavit on oath or by affirmation by the statutory officer applying for the order. So it will be necessary for that person to depose as to the reasons why this extraordinary breach of the normal principle—that a person should know the evidence against him or her—should occur. 
The other protection which I do not think Mr Finlayson mentioned but which is worthy of recording is that we have set out in the committee report and in the bill that these powers ought not to be delegable. It is a departure from the usual rule in the laws relating to the State sector that a chief executive may delegate functions to his or her employees. In this case the power must be exercised only by the Commissioner of Police himself or herself or by the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections. Again this is a token of how seriously the select committee took the provisions in order to try to make sure that they should not be able to be exercised except in the rarest of cases. 
The other matter to which I want to refer relates to the contribution from Heather Roy. I have just looked over her proposed amendments. It seems to me that one of the difficulties with what is suggested is that all provisions in the legislation relate to Law Commission proposals to remove the right of victims to make oral submissions to the Parole Board. There is no change as far as I can see to the ability to make written submissions to the Parole Board. The omission of these provisions would simply maintain the status quo where certain victims have a right to make submissions. I suspect this would not really be desirable because parole decisions are after all supposed to be based on an assessment of risk and victim submissions are relevant to that only in extremely rare cases: where the victim can provide information relating to the offender’s risk of reoffending. 
In my view—and this was a matter raised in the select committee—to go down the path that the amendments suggest would be to hold out false hope to victims of crime by suggesting that somehow their views will be taken into account in circumstances where the statue simply provides that they cannot be because they are not grounds that the Parole Board can legitimately take into account when it assess risk which is after all its job. Thank you Mr Chair. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Those who have read the commentary from the Justice and Electoral Committee will see that the Green Party was particularly concerned about the confidentiality orders whereby information would be provided to the Parole Board on a confidential basis. We then have under Part 2 in clause 83B subsection (4) of section 13AB: “To avoid doubt anything that may not be disclosed or published under a confidentiality order may not be disclosed—(a) to the offender; or (b) to the offender’s counsel or other representative of the offender.” It is very hard to get any justice in such a situation and to stop people from giving false information if even the lawyer of the person is not able to know the information. That would only encourage people to give prejudiced biased false etc. information to the Parole Board so I think it is a very dangerous way to go. 
It was the National member Mr Finlayson who recently drew a parallel with the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 saying that the Act has a whole section about classified information not being given to the person or group accused of being terrorist. It is very hard to defend oneself in judicial proceedings against accusations if one is not aware of the information available. There is some provision in the Terrorism Suppression Act for possibly—it is not obligatory—a summary of the classified evidence to be provided to the lawyers for the accused. 
One of the things that worries members of the Green Party is that hiding from people and their lawyers information that is part of accusations made against those people that could be very detrimental to their future has now crept from the Terrorism Suppression Act into our criminal legislation. We see it in the Ahmed Zaoui hearing proceeding in Auckland. There are two stages to the hearing around his security risk certificate. The first stage is public source material and unfortunately there is secrecy around that in that the media are not allowed to cover those proceedings even though they concern material completely in the public domain. I have written to the Commonwealth Press Union about that and I hope the media will make great play of their being excluded from a hearing that has publicly available material as the only content of it. 
The second stage—which will start later—of the hearing in relation to Mr Zaoui’s security risk certificate concerns the classified information which will be completely withheld from Mr Zaoui and his counsel. The special advocates appointed by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Stuart Grieve and Chris Morris will be prevented from even talking to Mr Zaoui’s counsel after receiving that classified information and assessing it. They somehow have to act on Mr Zaoui’s behalf at some distance without communicating with Mr Zaoui and his lawyers even though they were appointed by the inspector-general. 
Members can see the complications that are being introduced into our legal system in its various aspects: the Terrorism Suppression Act the security risk certificate procedure and now the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. We do not want to go too far down this track because it gives the State in effect greater powers to determine the future of a person without judicial constraint. In this case it is not just the State we are talking about; people who might be prejudiced against a particular prisoner or whomever can operate in secrecy and get away with providing information that is not tested. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 No one else has spoken about Supplementary Order Paper 127. I am glad the Minister the Hon Mark Burton is in the chair because I believe it would be helpful if he could offer a short explanation as to why that Supplementary Order Paper in his name lies before us. I know what its purpose is but the question is why this is being done. What it is about is amending the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005. That legislation was due to expire on 30 June 2007 and the plan is to extend that date to 1 July 2010 in this particular and critical part of the bill. 
Members of the House who were in Parliament in 2004 will remember that legislation. It was highly controversial and it culminated in the passage of the Prisoners’ and Victims Claims Act in 2005. That legislation was about setting up a code to enable prisoners who believed they had been abused to make claims against the prison authorities. There was then to be established a compensation fund from which to provide payments if they were successful in those claims and a priority was established for paying out any money that the prisoner got in compensation. If it was not possible to trace the victims the prisoner got it all. 
There was huge concern about that legislation on both sides of the Chamber it is fair to say. A number of deeply philosophical and troubling questions arose from it. For example if there was a fund how was that fund to be allocated when there was more than one victim? Should the money go to the first victim should it be spread equally should a person who was more scarred get more money than a person who was less scarred and issues such as that? It was made clear that because of the concern that Parliament had about this legislation it should expire with the close of 30 June 2007. That is made very clear in Part 2 of the principal Act. 
Now we have by a side wind a Supplementary Order Paper that seeks to perpetuate what is clearly an unsatisfactory circumstance. No one doubts that prisoners should be safe; that is not the argument. Where excesses occur action should be taken. But I believe that the action that should be taken in respect— 
Darren Hughes 
: What kind of action? 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: —I will come to that—of excesses by prison staff is disciplinary action. Those prison staff should be punished. They perhaps should be charged. They perhaps should lose their jobs. There is a range of possible penalties. It was wrong in principle to create a special compensation fund. 
So why I ask the Minister are we perpetuating that legislation when it was clearly the wish of the Parliament that come 30 June 2007—19 days ago—that legislation should have ceased to exist? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed his seat raises perfectly reasonable and considered questions. I perhaps would take him to task just a little on his final assertion. I do not think it is fair to assume that the House by a majority wanted the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act to expire. What it is fair to assume is that it certainly wanted it to run until 30 June. We find ourselves in a position that I think I could best summarise by saying this: the conditions that led to the creation of a short-term provision—as it was; around a 3-year provision—assumed that some other measures would be able to be completed within that time relating on the one hand to the victims of crime and on the other hand to the whole process of the structures procedures and provisions around the oversight of complaints made by prisoners and compliance with rules of conduct around the oversight of prisoners. 
As it happens perhaps the most important measure that has not been concluded has to do with the rights of victims. As the member will know a significant select committee inquiry is still in progress and it will be an important part of advising the Government and the House on appropriate measures that will have some direct bearing. So that is the first thing. The second point is that work is well advanced but not yet complete on issues around the oversight of complaints procedures for prisoners. 
Both those matters are best served by the extension of this provision. That is essentially what Supplementary Order Paper 127 seeks to do. It is a further extension to preserve what is not a perfect provision at all I readily admit for the victims of crime but is certainly better than the removal of it until those other matters that I have now discussed are completed. So what the Supplementary Order Paper seeks to do is to maintain for the time being until 2010 the right of access for the victims of crime in the circumstances—and I will not repeat them all because the member has given a good overview of that and I have previously too. Its purpose is to maintain for the victims of crime access to compensation payments should they become available in the way that is prescribed in the original 3-year provision. 
It is on that basis that this Supplementary Order Paper is introduced. Of course as the member has rightly pointed out it replaces Supplementary Order Paper 121 as a result of a matter of timing because we did not get Part 2 completed in the Committee stage in the last sitting block of Parliament. So the technical changes around timing were required; thus Supplementary Order Paper 127 was put in to replace Supplementary Order Paper 121. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I rise to take a call firstly to support the Minister in what I believe was a very sound explanation of the consideration being given to victims and of Supplementary Order Paper 127 in his name relating to the sunset clause. I also want to speak in opposition to the amendments in the name of Heather Roy relating to the reported right of victims to make oral submissions to the Parole Board. 
Certainly there was considerable discussion with the advisers from the Law Commission in terms of the admission of the provisions that maintain the status quo. It was argued that for victims to give an oral submission would serve to re-victimise the victims if I can use that term. Parole decisions are based not on the crime but on information relating to the risk posed if the offender was again put within the community. Of course victims can make written submissions but there is the expectation of their going to the Parole Board and relitigating and reliving the pain and the trauma that they have experienced. In some instances the belief that recounting the crime would have quite an influence on the Parole Board’s decision really raises false expectations. It certainly was the view of the Justice and Electoral Committee that that would be a disservice to victims. It would not give them a right but really it would raise expectations about what they believed their right to be. 
So based on the information and the advice that the committee was given the decision was not to hear oral submissions at the Parole Board but that written submissions could certainly be forwarded to it. That would mean that the process was fairer and did not raise victims’ expectations. The Parole Board would consider parole on the basis of the risk posed by the offender should he or she be put back into the community. 
I would also add that the committee is currently carrying out an inquiry into victims’ rights. Very much of what we have heard and of what is in our minds—and I speak on behalf of all the committee members at this point in time—is a concern about victims during the process and about how they are supported. There should be transparency and integrity in the process whether during the prosecution of the offender or at the parole end. We want to provide clarity and certainty for victims. Raising their expectations about the impact of an oral submission on the effect the crime has had on their life does them no service at all; it does them more of a disservice. That is why I stand and say I do not support the amendments proposed by Heather Roy. Thank you. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have taken some advice on the amendment that Heather Roy has put forward. I have also listened to my colleague on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think Heather Roy’s amendment is well intentioned. I have no question at all that her concern is genuine as I think it is for every party in the House that in advancing this bill we should be advancing the interests of the victims of crime first and foremost. I think we could have had considerable debate and had we had the luxury of time we could also have gone away and everyone could have taken advice consulted widely around the community and reached an informed view as to whether this particular amendment adds in any meaningful way to the value of this legislation for victims in terms of their participation in the parole process and in particular the Parole Board hearing process. 
The problem we have is a practical one. The Committee is reaching the very very end of the debate on Part 2 and it has to make a decision on whether the amendment the member has put forward is to be supported. If it is not supported then it will be lost. If it is supported and comes in it may prove to make little effective change. But I have reached the conclusion and I have discussed this with officials that it does little harm if any. I have concluded as the Minister responsible for the bill that I will support Heather Roy’s amendment. I think it basically reflects reasonably the views genuinely held by members around the Chamber that we can make progress on the bill in a sensible way and take it on good faith that the intent is positive. The advice I can give members is that the officials’ advice is that whether or not it does great good certainly it will do little harm. I thought it would be useful to members to give an indication that I am prepared to support this amendment on behalf of the Government. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I just want to rise and thank Heather Roy for bringing that matter to the Committee and placing an amendment before us. I have to say that eleventh-hour advice from her friend Stephen Franks a man whom I consider a colleague is often better if it is received well before the eleventh hour. I have no doubt that Heather will take that very firm advice and guidance back to Stephen Franks to ensure that we are more timely in our submissions and in expressing concern over issues in future. 
I thank the Minister. New Zealand First stands with victims—it always has and it always will do. We strongly criticise the Victims’ Rights Act the Labour Government passed last term because we do not think it goes anywhere near far enough. We are a party that believes that if it is OK to give inmates compensation then we should be giving compensation to the inmates’ victims for the actions that resulted in those inmates becoming inmates in the first place. 
That leads us to the other issue which is the amendment to deal with the sunset clause. Suffice to say that we will be supporting the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 127 reluctantly and on the condition—which the Minister has accepted from New Zealand First—that this Supplementary Order Paper will give the Government time to readdress this issue once and for all and finally. 
We have a fundamental difference from National and Labour on this issue. It is very simple and this is how it goes. If I am prosecuted for assaulting the Minister and I go to jail then the Minister gets absolutely no compensation for that whatsoever. He gets the satisfaction of knowing that justice has been done. If while I am in prison I am being guarded by Mr Simon Power and I as an inmate am assaulted by prison officer Power then how is it that I an inmate get compensation for Mr Power’s common assault on me as an inmate? It does not make sense to New Zealand First members. New Zealand First members believe that what should happen is simply that Mr Power should be treated in exactly the same way that I was when I assaulted the Minister. He should be charged he should be tried and if he should be found guilty then he should be sentenced. If he ends up in the cell with me then that is it—end of story. There is no compensation for the Minister when I assault him and there should be no compensation for me when Mr Power assaults me when I am an inmate. It is pretty simple. No one should get compensation for that act. 
The fact is that we now have a system where that compensation is being paid out so the Government has at least tried to mitigate that circumstance by making the compensatory payments available to the victims in the first place. 
Simon Power 
: But you voted against it. 
RON MARK 
: Well if we vote against the amendment I say to Mr Power we end up with the first situation which is what we had at the outset—that is inmates would continue to get the $300000 or $400000 worth of compensation—but the difference is that they get to keep it. New Zealand First will not be party to allowing inmates to keep compensation. 
Simon Power 
: You were opposed to the bill. 
RON MARK 
: Yes I tell Mr Power we were opposed to it then and we are opposed to it now. But if we do not— 
Simon Power 
: Well then why are you voting for it? 
RON MARK 
: I would ask Mr Power to please listen. Our view is that if we do not extend this then tomorrow the member will see inmates getting compensation and keeping that compensation. So the member should not play games with me. 
We understand the reality but we will not accept a further extension of this sunset clause again. We expect that there might well be an election before then and some like-minded people might be able to sit down and put some sensible law in place. We would welcome that opportunity but we are supporting this extension only. That is how we see it in New Zealand First. We see it under the firm understanding—and the Minister has a clear understanding—of what we want. We will not support a further extension of this same clause. We have 12 months in which to sort it out I think. When does the sunset clause kick in—again? Well let us sort it out because the current situation is a nonsense. It denies the original victims true justice and we agree with fixing that situation. So let us get beyond this point and do some work after this legislation is passed because we will not be extending it again. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 126 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 40 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We now have some further amendments. They are all in the name of the member the honourable Heather Roy. The first is to clause 96. It is an amendment to omit subclause (3). 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave for the amendments in Heather Roy’s name to be taken together unless any member has objections because they basically all relate to the same part of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that? There is none. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Heather Roy to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (3) of clause 96; 
to omit subclause (1) of clause 97; 
to omit subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) from new section 45(7)(b) in clause 98; 
to omit clause 101; 
to omit clause 102; and 
to omit clause 104 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 and 122 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that Part 2 as amended stand part. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would just like to correct the Green vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member seeking leave to do that? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member but I think some confusion has arisen because of the replacement of Supplementary Order Papers between I think 122 and 127. Because you are following the numbers and not the clauses I just want to make clear and check with you Mr Chairman for the benefit of the Committee that Supplementary Order Paper 127 is the one from the Minister that would extend the sunset clause on victims’ and prisoners’ compensation. That is correct is it not? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I actually did say it was the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 127 and 122. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the point the member is trying to make though is that Supplementary Order Paper 127 replaced Supplementary Order Paper 121 and the last time the member was a party to the debate he may have been expecting 121 to be the number before him and it is now 127. So I am sure the member was just confused by the change in the Supplementary Order Paper numbers. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think all the Committee needs to know is that if the Chairman would take the time to just make sure that the Committee is aware of the content of Supplementary Order Paper 127. The Minister is confirming it by nodding. But perhaps it would help the Green Party if the chairman gave us a brief description of what is in that Supplementary Order Paper. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just suggest to the member that the Supplementary Order Paper has been on the Table for some time and any member is free to look at it. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to correct the Green Party vote on Supplementary Order Paper 127. We would like to cast a vote against that particular Supplementary Order Paper. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: So the member wants his vote reversed—to vote against? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that the voting on the Supplementary Order Paper was done as a bloc. The vote cannot be split. The vote for the two Supplementary Order Papers cannot be split. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: The Green Party will vote against both those Supplementary Order Papers. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Green Party is voting against both? Thank you. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can you please clarify for me that the member is seeking leave to have those votes changed but the votes have already been tallied and the result of that vote announced therefore— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member can do that under Speaker’s ruling 68/5. The member sought leave and it has been granted. The question now is that Part 2 as amended stand part. 
A party vote was called for on the question that Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Before you took the vote on the question that Part 2 as amended stand part I am not sure whether you gave the Committee the result of the previous vote on Supplementary Order Paper 127. If I am wrong I apologise but if I am not I would not mind hearing the result please. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. The member is absolutely right. The vote in that part particular case on the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 127 and 122 is: Ayes 64 Noes 57. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is precisely what my previous point of order was. I wanted to know whether the result of the vote had been announced. You said it had and that leave had been given. The reason I asked that question is that the Standing Orders require leave to be sought— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Mark please I am on my feet. There is no need to relitigate this. The issue has been voted on. It has been agreed to by the Committee and we need to move on. 
RON MARK 
: Can I finish my point of order Mr Chairperson? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes. 
RON MARK 
: I might not have given leave from New Zealand First had you answered my question. Mr Power has just clarified exactly what I thought to be the case. You sat me down and said that the vote had been counted. Clearly it had not. New Zealand first might not have allowed that leave at that point in time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that I was under the impression that leave had been granted for the vote to be changed. That can be done under Speaker’s ruling 68/5 and also Standing Order 153(2). Leave was put. There was no disagreement. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is an amendment to schedule 1 in the name of the honourable member Chris Finlayson set out on Supplementary Order Paper 126. I have to tell the member that I have ruled that amendment out of order as a direct negation of the question. It is an indication that the member intends to vote against the schedule standing part. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The same applies to schedule 2. The amendment in the name of Chris Finlayson set out on Supplementary Order Paper 126 to omit this schedule is also out of order as a direct negation. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 3 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 122 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Well what an interesting 30 minutes we have just had on the Criminal Justice Reform Bill the title of which is now the subject of the debate as is the commencement date. The interesting thing about the commencement date is that what is about to commence is quite different from what was going to commence 25 minutes ago. 
Yesterday when the National Party raised issues with the Minister over the rights of victims of crimes to appear before the Parole Board in a very limited and narrow fashion—only at the invitation of the Parole Board and only on certain limited matters such as public safety and the like—the Minister purred cooed checked with the officials and told us that everything was all right. I said at the time that I was worried about the ambiguous nature of these particular clauses and I was worried that the victims of crimes throughout New Zealand would consider it to be a loss rather than a win to have victims’ rights heard on what otherwise could be seen as a bill concerned only with offenders’ rights. The interesting thing of course is that this very point was raised by Victim Support at the Justice and Electoral Committee when the bill was before that committee. 
Then the most curious series of events occurred. As Heather Roy tabled her amendments to the bill National looked at them quickly and was supportive of them. Ron Mark on behalf of New Zealand First quickly made an assessment that the amendments were worthwhile and decided to support them. All the while Lynne Pillay and Charles Chauvel were put in the odd position of standing up and rejecting the amendments for various reasons which I am sure they believed to be right and proper—which they were not. 
Then the Minister stood up and took a call and in one of the most glaringly obvious and clever understandings of MMP that we have seen in this Chamber for some time he realised after doing the maths on his fingers and toes that these particular amendments would pass whether or not the Government supported them. This meant that the rights of victims to appear before the Parole Board would remain as they are today and that the issues National had raised in the Committee yesterday—and that were put on paper by Heather Roy on behalf of the ACT party—would stand forever inscribed as the Government being opposed to any lack of ambiguity around a victim’s right to appear before the Parole Board. 
Not only were Charles Chauvel and Lynne Pillay completely sideswiped and had their legs knocked out from under them having stood in the Committee to speak against Heather Roy’s amendments but the Minister—who is a Minister because he is able to do numbers unlike his two colleagues—realised it was all going to turn to custard. All of a sudden the ambiguity that National had referred to yesterday became a problem for Labour and it was suddenly a problem for the Minister of Justice who stood in a reasonably chastened way and said: “Well we don’t want any ambiguity on this; let’s just make it all crystal clear.” He talked to the officials who shook their heads. But the Minister who takes political responsibility for the numbers game in this House worked it out and the Government supported ACT’s amendments the contents of which were pointed out to the Government yesterday by National—then there was not a problem; today there was a problem. The Government has finally realised the mistake of its ways because of Victim Support because of National because of ACT and because of other organisations outside the House that have strong views on these issues and it was forced to back down despite sending its loyal troops Lynne Pillay and Charles Chauvel in to argue the contrary. 
This is a good day for MMP because a common-sense result occurred despite the Government giving assurances yesterday that there would not be a problem. Today it has recognised that there was a big problem. It was a big problem because if the Committee had voted on this the Government would have— 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to assure Mr Power that my socks remain firmly on my feet. I did not require my toes for counting! I want to repeat what I said before. I think we arrived at a point at which members had seriously raised concerns. I think the points my colleagues were making were entirely valid. I am not convinced that the amendments that Heather Roy has brought forward will in a material way advantage victims. But on balance in a situation where the intent I believe was genuine and where it appears no harm could be done it did no harm for members of Parliament to simply support a measure that clearly—overwhelmingly—parliamentarians would want to support and that is the notion of looking after the rights of victims. So I do not regard it either way as a particularly big deal. 
One way or another these are not significant changes. They will have limits. They may or may not have any meaningful impact but on the balance of it it was simply time to find a positive way of moving forward. Indeed as Simon Power says this is MMP and MMP requires accommodation. From time to time it requires that all of us listen consider an argument that is made sensibly and fairly and respond to it. So the amendment has become part of a much larger measure which we are now seeing move forward. 
I welcome the introduction of what are very significant changes to New Zealand’s criminal justice system. We are seeing the movement towards the introduction of the Sentencing Council. We are seeing a raft of community-based sentences which will significantly enhance the range of choices available to judges and to the community in terms of appropriate sentencing. Of course we want to see where necessary the use of appropriate custodial sentences. But this legislation will enable a raft of non-custodial alternatives where they are the best option with the appropriate support and conditions around them that can give the bench—and perhaps most important the wider community—the confidence that they indeed represent significant advantages for the wider community both in terms of safety and in terms of the way these options deal with those who have offended against society. 
In the end it is in the best interest of every member of our community that those who have offended ultimately do the time or pay their debt to society but rehabilitation is an important part of the total Effective Interventions package which this legislation is part of moving forward. It is absolutely in all our interests that effective rehabilitation treatment programmes and so on are available in order that those who have offended can ultimately be rehabilitated rejoin the community—which the vast majority of them do—and become contributing members of the community. 
So I say to members that I think this is a positive day for Parliament. We have seen MMP busily at work but perhaps more important we are seeing major legislative change that will significantly improve New Zealand’s criminal justice system. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It was interesting listening to my friend and colleague Simon Power’s speech but Simon did leave out a couple of small steps in the chain of events that occurred. In actual fact after New Zealand First had consulted with Heather Roy and received our email from our former colleague Stephen Franks we consulted the Minister Mark Burton. As was typical of the Minister throughout this whole process he did something I have found it difficult to have achieved from other quarters in this Chamber. That is he listened; he did listen. I find it interesting that Simon Power and other National Party members should now be trumpeting a success on their part in claims and statements that they always wanted this amendment to occur. I am reading pages 16 and 17 of the bill right now which contain National’s minority report. And guess what? It makes no mention of the clauses that Heather Roy has now amended. It says: “National members are also concerned about proposed amendments to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act. We oppose moves to extend the Act beyond 30 June 2007.” But that issue relates to Supplementary Order Paper 127. It does not deal in any way shape or form with clauses 96 97 98 101 102 or 104. 
Mr Power did make a speech on those clauses. But National has been accused by the Sensible Sentencing Trust and by Stephen Franks of paying lip service to victims’ rights. In that the issue is not included at all in National’s minority report it would appear that Mr Franks is quite correct. National is dare I say grandstanding on that issue. The fact of the matter is that there is a lesson to be learnt here. One should look to Heather Roy as an example and look to the Minister as an example. 
New Zealand First was challenged severely in the debate last night by Mr Henare who said: “What are you going to do about it? What have you done?”. I say to Mr Henare that here is a perfect example of what can be done if one wishes to work constructively as Ms Roy the Minister and I—now supported by National—have done. Yes this is a fine example of MMP at work but it requires for a start a Minister who is prepared to listen. We have had that. I do not particularly want to see some of the former Ministers of Justice from National reappearing on the front benches of a Government because they did not listen did they? Tony Ryall is a perfect example. Tony Ryall knows everything he knows what is best for everybody and he is the first to tell anyone that. So I do not expect to see any changes in MMP with that man as the Minister of Justice in a new Government should that ever eventuate. 
New Zealand First wants to put it on the record that we do believe that effective rehabilitation is not only important but essential moving forward. But our serious belief is that the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Justice over the past—God knows how long—decade or 15 years have been running rehabilitation programmes that simply are not effective. We think that the changes to home detention in particular are a good move forward but we would have to say that New Zealand First is putting the justice sector on notice—on notice. Our confidence in home detention has been severely undermined. We are happy that back-end home detention has been removed. We are very happy that home detention has now become a sentence in its own right which will be given by the presiding judge who has heard the case immediately at sentencing. We believe that that is a very definite positive step forward. But we still have grave reservations as to the way in which home detention is administered. We view with a high degree of scepticism the claims by Ministry of Justice officials and Department of Corrections officials that home detention is well administered and that the number of breaches is minimal and very low. 
We know from our sources inside the departments and the industries concerned that many of the breaches of home detention are never recorded because people consider them to be of minimal concern. Well we do not agree with that. So we say that with the passing of this bill—and everyone is on notice from our chair—home detention is still up for further observation and further monitoring and if we do not see severe progress being made in respect of the administration of home detention we will be first to the front looking to see it repealed. We would say that the Government is on notice again. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 This bill at this stage is in fact a victory for MMP—and a very sweet one I have to say—because it is not about who changed their mind at the last minute and who said this and who said that; it is about the rights of victims. I am delighted that as a member of a party with just two members—and after the next election that will not be the case any longer—our amendments had the support of the Committee of the whole House as common sense. That is in fact very very good and New Zealanders can be proud of the way Parliament has operated this afternoon. 
I thank the Minister for his comments about my amendments. I thank the National Party for its support and I thank New Zealand First for looking very quickly at those amendments when they came forward at the last minute as indeed they did. But I would like to spend a moment just contemplating what might have happened had these amendments not been supported because the Minister says he is not sure what effect they will have. I think they will have a very profound effect for victims in the future. Victims’ rights are very often set aside when crimes particularly crimes of a very vicious and brutal nature are committed. Very often the rights and the privileges accorded to criminals are not in fact accorded to the victims of crime and that reflects a very very sad part of our society. 
The select committee I notice in its commentary that came back to the House after the select committee process was worked through did not bother to comment on the victims’ submissions and there were many I know. I think that is very regrettable. There was no mention of that from any of the parties on the select committee. I think this shows how our parliamentary process works in that these issues can be raised again in the Committee of the whole House so that the right result can be arrived at. Victims now will have the same ability they have at the moment to present to parole boards and that should and will remain a right. It will not be a privilege. They will not have to be invited to come before parole boards; they will have the right to do so as was previously done. That is exactly as things should be. 
I will focus only on this matter in my speech. Of course this bill is about a wide range of issues and the ACT party does not support many parts of the bill but in fact it is very very pleasing that the amendments that came forward to the Committee in my name this afternoon have been supported by the Committee as a whole. I hope that victims listening to this debate are able to have some degree of satisfaction at that point. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 We have definitely seen MMP in action and we have seen something else that will surprise many commentators on Parliament. We have seen a fleet-footed agile Minister of Justice manoeuvring around MMP and the votes and being rolled. That was what was about to happen to Labour. The Minister of Justice has like a mountain goat negotiated those tricky passes. He has come right through them. I have never been as impressed with him as I am now and I congratulate him on being able to count. The counting would have told him he was about to be rolled and in fact victims were going to retain the right to be able to attend a parole hearing in their own right rather than simply if they were asked. It took Mrs Roy and her work to get that through. I congratulate her on that because I have always seen her as an extremely good member of Parliament. “Good on Mrs Roy.” I say. 
One of the things that I think we should look at in this bill is that it is actually about keeping people out of prison. It is about getting the prison numbers down. Part of that little plan was stopping victims from being able to turn up at parole hearings and actually say what they wanted to say. I see Mr Mark is nodding and agreeing with me so I do not understand why he is in fact voting for this bill in its entirety. I say that because this bill has other provisions that are also about keeping criminals out of jail and out in the community. 
One of those is the idea of a Sentencing Council and sentencing guidelines. The Sentencing Council is all about replacing the power of a judge who currently has such discretion with a council that will tell judges pretty much what to do. Judges already look at precedent. They already have guidelines and they work to those guidelines. But they also have the ability—a much greater ability at the moment—to look at the evidence look at who is saying what make some judgment calls look at the age of the person look at the whole background look at someone’s previous history and make a call as to the sentence. That is the role of a judge. 
So why do we need a Sentencing Council to come in on top of judges all of whom are highly experienced people and tell them how they need to do that work? We already have sentencing guidelines. They already take into account precedents in relation to sentencing and they already take into account the facts. Instead this measure is some sort of attempt to get a whole pack of limp-wristed sociologists from Steve Maharey’s next workplace at Massey University to come along and tell judges what to do. That is who will be on that council—a whole pack of limp-wristed sociologists all about to tell everybody why a person is a mass murderer or why a person happens to have 16 convictions for attacking people and the last lot are for rape and murder. That is the sort of nonsense we will get from a Sentencing Council. 
 I am particularly concerned too about the sentencing guidelines which some of my colleagues have referred to today. We are not allowed to know about those guidelines but apparently the Government has sent them all around the country to various other people whom it wants to agree with it. But yet again those guidelines are all about cutting down the time that prisoners spend in jail. On the one hand the Government says that it will resile from its previous position and say that people cannot get parole until they have served two-thirds of their sentence—in other words the National Party’s policy and that is fine; we can share it with the Government—but on the other hand the Government is to make it easier for people to serve much shorter sentences in the first place. That is one of my concerns. I know that is why the Government wanted to keep victims out of parole hearings. It did not want victims like Mrs Croskery from my electorate and many others turning up and saying it is not fair to grant parole because people who have done the crime should do the time. 
We say there should be no parole for recurrent violent offenders. They should not be getting parole in the first place. Victims and their families should not be hauled in to come and tell the Parole Board what has happened to them. They should not have to relive that every single year and when there are multiple offenders on multiple occasions. Victims and their families should be able to get on with their lives as much as they can knowing that thankfully the perpetrators of crime are locked away in jail and should stay there. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 As I indicated earlier National notes that the Government has finally recognised the errors in the 2002 legislation when it introduced what was frankly one of the most outrageous law and order policies this country has ever seen. The reason I say that—for the benefit of the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton—is that the Government was warned repeatedly at the discussion phase through the select committee process by the public and by parties informally that to introduce a policy that would allow the worst offenders in the country to get out of prison after serving one-third of their sentences was a betrayal of public expectation. 
The public had given the clearest possible indication to the entire House by an overwhelming majority that it wanted serious violent criminals to be more severely dealt with not more leniently dealt with as the Government delivered up. Yes the Government did make some amendments in the Committee stage in recognition of that but they were belated and feeble and the public saw that at the time. It has taken another 5 years for the Government to finally recognise its mistake and it has now restored the two-thirds parole provision. 
Of course it is all too late really because the public has moved on. Political parties across this House have moved on. The Government says: “Oh well it might be just knee-jerk responses by parties.” but it is actually a thought-through proposition. We have not said: “No parole for anyone at all.” We have been quite selective actually. We said there should be no parole for violent repeat offenders. That is a narrow class of people. In truth it is quite a lot of people and they make up a large percentage of people in prisons. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes they do. The Minister may not believe that but if he knew the figures he would know that those people make up a large percentage of people in prisons. 
Violent repeat offenders are the people whom the public wants to be protected from. They are the people who should not be getting parole. They should be serving the full length of their sentence and in fact that really means we should trust the judges to get their sentences right. Judges hear all the evidence they hear from the victims and in the courtroom they have information about particular offenders that we in this Parliament by and large do not have other than what we read in the papers. They decide what the sentence should be and the public ought to be able to trust that sentence. The public should be able to trust that when a violent repeat offender gets 9 years as a deterrent and to protect the public that person will serve 9 years. Clearly it is recognised that that person will ultimately get out and there needs to be post-sentence supervision and I know the Government has looked at that. But to wait 5 years for belated recognition that the two-thirds provision should be restored is actually missing the boat because things have moved on I say to the Minister and violent repeat offenders should not get parole. 
We say to the Government and to the public of New Zealand that in 2008 there will be a choice. People will be able to decide on the Government’s response which is parole for violent repeat offenders. This Government will give violent repeat offenders parole. It is in the legislation that it is attempting to pass in this House. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Oh that’s nonsense. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: On our side we are saying that those people will not get parole. It is a clear choice. I have just heard the Minister say that that is nonsense. That says it all. The Minister simply does not understand the public mood. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I really enjoyed the spectacle that occurred about half an hour ago when after devastating contributions by Charles Chauvel and Lynne Pillay the Minister Mark Burton changed his mind from opposition to support. I was kind of hoping that those two members would reappear in the Chamber to make devastating speeches in favour of the Sentencing Council because I was holding my breath in the hope that the Minister would then stand up and say: “Well actually I oppose it.” 
The Sentencing Council is a vile creature. Parliament has given birth to a body that the public and the judges will react very strongly against. It is unconstitutional. It seeks to press-gang judges into the executive for wholly illegitimate purposes. Time and time again during the Part 1 debate I came back to clauses 9 and 10 and asked honourable members to focus on what exactly was being proposed. Really what was being created was a body that for example would facilitate the provision of information to enable penal resources to be effectively managed. When one looks at the functions of the council one sees that it is a body that is being created essentially to control the prison population or prison muster. So judges as part of this creature are required to provide information on the likely effect of the guidelines on the prison muster. 
That is not the function of the judiciary and I am deeply sorry that this Parliament has created such an unconstitutional creature. I believe that what has happened here is for the first time in the history of this Parliament the melding of the executive and the judiciary. I believe that this Parliament will have cause to regret that. It is a major constitutional outrage and I am very disappointed that good lawyers and members of Parliament like Mr Fairbrother did not stand up and oppose it. Mr Fairbrother was remarkably quiet during the debate because as a criminal lawyer he knows exactly what the function of the judge is in a criminal trial. He knows that a judge is not expected to be a mere automaton and simply apply sentencing guidelines but that the judge has a very complex task to perform— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: They would take part. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well I would take Mr Fairbrother back to one of the many trials he has participated in as counsel for the defence. He knows that when the sentencing part of the trial takes place the judge is required to undertake a delicate balancing act in looking at the particular circumstances—looking for example at the seriousness of the offence and looking at whether the defendant has pleaded guilty thus obviating the necessity for a long trial. All those sorts of things are brought into the mix and then the judge makes a sentencing decision. Can that member honestly and sincerely stand up and tell this Committee that with the new Sentencing Council and with judges being press-ganged into obeying guidelines—as though they are organising timetables for German trains—we will see justice? 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Yes. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: And can the member honestly say when focusing on new section 21A inserted by clause 40—these are rhetorical questions for which he is answering yes because I suppose he has to—that justice will be served when a judge is told that he or she “must adhere” to particular guidelines rather than take them into account or have regard for them? 
The whole situation is most unsatisfactory and what I find so disappointing about the Labour Party—and I have said it before in this place—is that 20 years ago we had in that party plenty of lawyers who would have stood up— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Robust! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —in a very robust way as Dr Mapp says and complained most vehemently about this constitutional outrage. Sir Geoffrey Palmer would have been purple with rage and there would have been Frank O’Flynn—the well-known Wellington QC—Richard Prebble David Caygill—any number of them. But the apparatchiks on the other side have lost all sensitivity for constitutional matters. The end really does justify the means and if the executive and the judiciary are illegitimately melded that is just too bad. This is totally unsatisfactory. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Members on this side of the Chamber have repeatedly urged on the Government that this measure should not be passed. But with politics being all about numbers it seems that the Government does have the numbers on this occasion to pass this legislation. 
Mr Finlayson has just sat down after making a number of comments about the separation of powers and about how inappropriate it is to involve the judiciary in the executive function. That is a concept that should be obvious to members opposite just as the constitutional affront should be similarly obvious. It is interesting to reflect that in other jurisdictions there are Sentencing Council equivalents. For example in the United Kingdom there is a Sentencing Advisory Panel and there is a raft of legislation around that. But those structures are not in the same form as the structures proposed in this bill. 
One of the worst provisions I would suggest is this new provision in section 21A inserted by clause 40 “Court must adhere to sentencing guidelines”. There is something very odd— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Read the rest of it. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Yes I will; I will read the whole provision so that the Minister will not be embarrassed and he will have an opportunity to comment. Guidelines are guidelines; they are not mandatory instructions. But these guidelines are cast in mandatory terms. Why do I say that? The Minister invites me to read the provision and I will: “When sentencing an offender a court must impose a sentence that is consistent with any sentencing guidelines that are relevant in the offender’s case unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.” That is why Mr Finlayson myself Dr Mapp and others urge on members of this Committee the realisation that judges are being reduced substantially to the role of automatons. 
We know why this is being done. It is being done under a guise that there is significant inconsistency in the sentencing process. That is despite the fact that judges already have guidelines—in books they refer to and in cases that have been decided—that indicate what the approach should be in particular classes of criminal offence as to the appropriate penalty. I say that that is the guise under which this legislation is being launched because as others have said a key purpose in this legislation is to control the prison muster. The reality may be that in New Zealand there is an overrepresentation of people in prison. We do not come of course anywhere near the American standards but what—curiously I think—we have come to accept in New Zealand is the fact that prisoners must be housed in their separate cells. It is quite a rarity for prisoners in New Zealand to be sharing cells. In fact I understand that there are only about 1850 prisoners who are doing so. 
I reflect for a moment on my life in the navy as an ordinary seaman where on the mess deck for example of HMNZS  
Kaniere 
 my colleagues and I had—and I illustrate this in imperial terms—space of about 18 inches in which we swung our hammocks. On the particular mess deck that I shared as an ordinary seaman there were about 30 of us and we lived in highly cramped and rat-like conditions. The incentive to be commissioned and move to the officer corps was very compelling if only for that particular reason. This was the case in the army too. The army personnel in their barracks were often in bunkhouses of 20 people. But we have this curious idea that we have to have separate cells for each prisoner. 
What is driving all this is one of the numerical consequences of prisoner musters being measured in terms of the costs of building jails and we know that the cost of building jails is fantastic. If members think I am being over-imaginative on this issue they need only to look at clause 15 of the bill and the draft guidelines relating to prison musters. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I thank members for their various contributions. It has been an interesting afternoon in Parliament and generally the debate around what are important matters to do with the organisation of the criminal justice system has been worthy of Parliament. 
I say to the member who has just resumed his seat Dr Richard Worth that I do not for a moment agree with him that the Sentencing Council and sentencing guidelines in any way reduce the requirement of a high level of judgment and indeed wisdom on the part of judges. Of course the guidelines provide ranges for judges to operate within but it is interesting that the concept enjoys its highest level of support among the judiciary among those who make the most judgments— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: That’s not right! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is entirely correct. 
One member commented earlier that somehow the Sentencing Council was going to be made up of appointees of the Government—that was clearly the inference that was suggested. Well I remind that member that the person who will have the single most influence over the composition of the membership of the Sentencing Council will be the Chief Justice and that 50 percent of the membership of the council will be judges. I think that the comments made by at least one member a little earlier on—not Dr Worth—cast rather unfortunate aspersions on the character of judges when we consider that they will play a very significant role on the Sentencing Council. 
I conclude by saying that although it is certainly the case that there are a raft of provisions in this legislation for community-based sentences to broaden the range of non-custodial sentences there is no question that this Government remains firmly committed to the policy that those serious repeat violent offenders who are incarcerated will need to continue to be so. There is no question of that. The issue is that equally through some of the measures in this legislation and elsewhere in the effective interventions package the community knows that better rehabilitation and better dealing with mental health and addiction issues are being addressed in the criminal justice system and in the corrections environment and that is equally important. 
Let me finish with this challenge to members: is there any member in this Parliament who can hand on heart take any joy in the notion that New Zealand has one of the highest levels of incarceration in the OECD in the developed world? Why would any member want to see an increase in the number of New Zealanders imprisoned? 
Our objective as a Parliament should surely be to protect society first and foremost through early intervention and crime prevention. I suggest to members opposite that that is by far the most effective form of intervention. It is certainly the best way to avoid victims becoming victims in the first place. So the package of interventions which is about early intervention about prevention and about rehabilitation is critically important because the interventions address the overwhelming majority I tell Dr Mapp of those who are in fact involved in the criminal justice system. As for the small minority in total who are indeed serious repeat violent offenders the community of course must be protected from them and it will be. This legislation addresses itself to the overwhelming majority for whom we simply must do better and I say to the Committee that the advancing of this legislation will enable us to do just that. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on this matter because the Minister has set out a challenge. He has referred to the membership of the Sentencing Council and I think he alluded to some comments that I might have made where I referred to the pinko sociologists of Steve Maharey’s friendship who will be appointed to this council. Actually I stand by those comments. 
When I look at clause 11(1) of the bill I see that the council will consist of “(a) 1 Judge of the Court of Appeal … (b) 1 Judge of the High Court … (c) 2 District Court Judges … (d) the chairperson of the Parole Board: (e) 5 members”—that is five members—“who are not Judges appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives.” That is the same House of Representatives that will go ahead today to put forward this bill and pass it—in other words the Government and its mates. 
 Frankly when we have five members of the council who are not judges how can we not infer that the point here is to get a whole pack of sociologists who will be Steve Maharey’s mates when he is back at Massey University? I stand by those comments. 
The Minister today effectively alluded to the fact that this Government is trying to cut down the number of people in jail. This bill is about many things but primarily it is about cutting the prison muster. We do not want people in prison but then again we do not want people to commit crimes. But if they commit the crimes they have to do the time. 
It is a nonsense to put these five members in charge of the judges who hear the cases and who sit on the bench every day and understand what is going on. The Government will put them in with a whole pack of people—like all the Labour MPs who have just announced their retirement. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Sentencing Council Bill the Bail Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill  
divided into Sentencing Council Bill Bail Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper128. 
Report adopted. 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 21 June. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. I recall quite clearly the last time the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill came before the House. Although there were a number of members in the House members from particularly the major parties were reluctant to take a call because it was too close to 6 o’clock. I suspect that the people I addressed that particular afternoon are the same people who are still locked in the gridlock of Auckland roads while making their way home at this time. I say to them that they can always rely on New Zealand First to ensure that the business of Parliament carries on particularly in this case. 
I come back to the bill. I want to again make the point that this amendment is required because a couple of court cases have shown that the intent of the parent Act has been lost. The Minister for Building and Construction on advice from his officials and I suspect from a number of people within the industry has introduced this amendment. It is a remedies bill not a repairs bill. I think it should be incumbent on members in this House to lend support for it. Those people who have been affected by this terrible problem in terms of the weathertightness of their homes ought to be considered. 
The fact that the Minister has taken the time to introduce this bill ought to have the support of all sides of the House. I know that people in the industry are appreciative of the fact that this Government has introduced this bill in order to ensure that the intent of the Act is met. A couple of court decisions quite clearly have flown in the face of the intent of the Act. I know that some members in this House have been critical of the Minister suggesting that the original Act was introduced and passed in haste and now we are seeing the consequences of that haste. Be that as it may I think it is important that this House recognises that if this amendment does correct the consequences of haste then we should lend support to it. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I say we are delighted to be able to stand in this House to lend our support to this bill. Kia ora. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. I will start with a quote which will come up a bit later in my speech: “If this was a White middle-class community there would be hell to pay.” 
The Maori Party welcomes this move to change the law so that the Weathertight Homes Tribunal can make awards to those families who have suffered mental distress as a result of the leaky homes saga of the past few years. It is appropriate that this bill is coming up now because of the trauma and distress that are being suffered by the victims of the recent storms and floods that have hit Te Tai Tokerau Whitianga Kahungunu and Taranaki over the past few weeks. It is really sad that this bill ain’t going to help any of them at all. This current proposal came out of a court decision that noted that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act did not allow for awards to be made for mental distress and anxiety. This bill will allow such awards to be made which will be a big relief for those with claims relating to weathertight deficiencies. Mind you it would be better if people could get decent affordable good-quality housing first rather than have to try to claw back compensation for shoddy construction later. 
Although the Maori Party acknowledges the genuine distress caused by the deficiencies damage destruction and loss of value that this bill deals with we also want to widen the debate to deal with housing stress more broadly. Of course we support any move that acknowledges the stress of having a home and then losing it. Like the Law Society we see this bill as being forward-looking and in the best interests of those who have suffered mental distress and anxiety caused by damage and loss of value. But we are also aware that since 2002 the Government has spent nearly $76 million on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service and then the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. We wonder when the Government will get around to funding a “Substandard Homes Resolution Service” to respond to the desperate needs of those people who live in homes where there is no bathroom where the long drop toilet is hidden behind a shabby wooden door where the wind whistles through paper-thin walls and ill-fitting doors and windows where there is no heating or protection from the cold and damp where there is no hot-water cylinder and where the only tap that works is the cold one. 
If members think I have made that up they should just ask John Carter Parekura Horomia or Pita Paraone himself. They will tell them that what I have said is true. There are way too many of those instances for the Government to continue to ignore the situation. Indeed all members will be aware of quotes such as this one from a regional health strategy recently: “Hospitalisation for preventable diseases among Maori is high along with health issues associated with poverty and poor housing.” That confirms an ongoing reality of housing stress for Maori a reality that includes overcrowding substandard housing and poor heating further impacting on Maori health. 
So it is hard to think about this weathertight homes bill separately from the impact of wider housing policy on Maori. The facts are that up until World War II Maori were specifically excluded from mainstream State housing and that in a study completed just last year by the Family Centre social policy research unit and by the Massey University research centre for Maori health and development we find that the same problems are still there: It states: “Local councils and government departments are reported to have struggled to meet changing housing demands for Maori.” This was just last year. It seems to me that if legislation can be fast-tracked through to allow for awards for mental distress for leaky home victims then there is no reason why legislation cannot be fast-tracked to cater for Maori housing needs. The research has already been done into housing discrimination and there is a whole host of recommendations for affordable homeownership communal housing designs and innovative rental deals. 
If I might be so bold I would ask this House to think about the societal status of those New Zealand families who are affected by this bill and to ask whether there are certain suburbs certain income brackets and certain socio-economic categories that mostly benefit from the work of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. I dare not ask this House to think about the communities in my own electorate for example—the northern territory—where poverty often determines people’s housing choice and where people live in houses built from polyurethaned “Weet-bix” where septic tanks have been put in below the level of the water table where sewage runs over the sections where poor workmanship is grossly evident and where one senior Pakeha policy analyst was so shocked and disgusted at the conditions she saw that she was moved to say: “If this was a White middle-class community there would be hell to pay.” That was not a quote from me but from a senior Pakeha policy analyst who was shocked at the housing conditions she had seen in Te Tai Tokerau. 
Then of course a few years ago the middle class went into shock over the leaky homes saga and to no one’s surprise—bang bang bang—we have this legislation. It is different treatment for two groups of people: one brown rural and on a low income and the other white more affluent and in a higher income bracket. Perhaps the criticism of my comments about John Howard was right: maybe I should have been firing my bullets a lot closer to home than I did. Why indeed has this Government treated those two groups of people so very very differently? 
We know from the leaky homes saga that deregulation of the building industry led to cowboy operators and a lowering of standards but what about those Maori houses that were built before then? They are houses built on swamp land because the whanau had been moved off their original papakainga houses approved by the Housing Corporation over the past 20 years that have already been condemned and houses that whanau cannot sell because they were built of inferior materials. But none of the owners of those houses are eligible for the Weathertight Homes Tribunal compensation that those other folks are to receive. We know too from the  
Social Report 2006 
 that there are parts of this country where household overcrowding is rife: places like Manukau Opotiki Porirua Wairoa Kawerau and places in the far north where 25 percent of all homes need more bedrooms and where to no one’s surprise the populations are primarily Maori and Pasifika. 
This bill to allow for awards for mental distress for those who are suffering the effects of the leaky homes saga is a good idea—there is no question about that. But let us not be so blinded by this saga that we do not see a real crisis that has been rotting in our country for generations: a crisis of shoddy homes a crisis of people in desperate need and a crisis of a Government in denial. Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the second reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. The weathertight homes legislation was initially drafted simply because leaky homes had been built and homeowners needed some sort of protection. My understanding of the situation is that approximately 15000 homes have been identified in effect as having leaky home syndrome. 
I understand that a leaky home is caused by moisture leaking into the home which cannot dry due to a lack of air movement. All homes leak moisture but they leak it to different degrees. While I was looking at this issue I learnt that brick homes leak 18 percent strut-frame homes leak 2 percent and Hardiflex homes leak 7 percent. They all leak moisture. When there is air movement that moisture is dried up. Therefore those houses are not considered to be leaky homes—because they do not leak. The problems arise when there is no air movement and the moisture then rots the timbers and walls. That is when we have leaky homes. 
The change in products that the industry uses has in some instances caused those leaks. For example Hardiflex was being used instead of weatherboards thus stopping any air movement; mitre joints and windows were leaking and had no still trays to capture any leaks; and battens that would have allowed for air circulation were not being used between the outer and inner walls. The list goes on but those are just some of the reasons why homes started to leak. Unfortunately builders built homes with those faults but the Building Industry Authority had told them how to build homes and what cladding materials were suitable. The authority got it wrong. 
The new bill has been introduced to allow awards for mental distress and anxiety in order to remedy some of these claims. So far 4600 homes have been registered as being leaky. This number grows weekly and the scary fact is that leaky homes are still being built today. That has been confirmed by Katrina Bach chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing. This figure will grow each year as the years pass. 
The amendment to the legislation basically makes clear what remedies can be claimed. My colleague Bob Clarkson has made the very valid point that if we could just fix the leaky homes then their owners would not need this legislation to begin with as they would not have stress and anxiety about their leaky homes. Those homes would simply be fixed to begin with. 
The original legislation the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act was introduced in 2002 and was passed very quickly. It has subsequently proved to be an extremely flawed Act. In 2006 the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill was once again a rushed job. Six months later we are again looking to amend this legislation. 
Interestingly enough the section in the Act that is to be amended was also the subject of the National Party minority report. Our minority report reflected why this amendment is now necessary. It stated: “National is appalled at the lack of progress in resolving the plight of thousands of owners of leaky homes and is unconvinced this bill will provide a workable solution. 
National does not agree with the majority decision on homeowners being unable to claim legal costs. It is quite unrealistic to expect the average homeowner when confronted at adjudication by up to a dozen lawyers to represent themselves. The bill should make provision for reasonable legal costs as per any other jurisdiction. 
There is a real dilemma created by the Government’s decision in 2002 not to disclose publicly applications to the WHRS for resolution. Many homeowners made claims on the basis that it would not be disclosed but this bill now retrospectively forces disclosure. This concern must be balanced against the rights of new owners to know whether there has previously been a weathertight homes claim. 
National is further concerned at the juggling of the WHRS between departments. The service started as part of the Department of Internal Affairs was then transferred to the Department of Building and Housing and is now proposed to be transferred to Justice. It appears to be a game of pass-the-parcel with the losers being the owners of leaky homes. 
National views the whole Government response to leaky homes as inadequate and failing homeowners. A more substantive reform that puts the focus on fixing the homes rather than spending tens of millions on reports and process is required. 
 In summary National supports most of the bill as a small improvement but in no way a solution to the billion-dollar problem of leaky homes.” 
Maybe if the last amendment to the Act had not been rushed it might have been drafted correctly and we would not be standing here now debating yet another amendment. 
This amendment makes it clear that remedies that can be claimed under the Act can include general damages for mental stress and anxiety. This amendment was introduced due to a recent decision in the High Court and in fact reverses the effects of the decision made on 29 March 2007 in the case of  
Hartley v Balemi and others 
. The High Court case highlighted the fact that general damages could not be awarded as compensation for any mental stress or anxiety. The judgment sets a precedent that impacts on existing adjudication started under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 and the administration of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Act 2006. 
So what will the 2007 amendment do? It will clarify that the Weathertight Homes Tribunal can make any order that a court of competent jurisdiction could make in relation to a claim according with principles of law. That order may include an award of general damages including those for mental anxiety or stress. 
What does this amendment impact upon? Firstly it impacts upon the 4600 leaky home owners identified. These people have incurred leaky homes through faulty building or products and in many instances through a combination of both. Secondly after a period of 4 years only 10 percent of claims have been resolved. They have been resolved in the court/tribunal system but not necessarily paid out. Many homeowners are still either out of pocket or living in homes that leak like sieves. 
It is people like the elderly who built their last home for their retirement and have no additional money to pay for repairs for whom I feel the most sorry. In many instances compensation will never be received even though it has been awarded through the courts. In reality the money will never change hands. What will those elderly people do? How will they fix their homes? How will they sell their homes? How will they afford to go into a retirement village if they choose to? 
On 1 June 2007 Local Government New Zealand raised the issue in a letter to the Social Services Committee. It said: “The explanation for the bill states that it will return the law to what was intended by Parliament and the Government. We note that there are several aspects of the current Act that do not seem to consistent with what Parliament and the Government intended. It is unfortunate that the Government has moved first to fix the matter of current profile in respect of claimants and cost awards when there are other fundamental matters where the Act does not perform as intended. For example we have previously submitted to the select committee that the Act needs amending to ensure that homes are actually getting fixed at the conclusion of the resolution process. We would agree that getting homes fixed is the intention of the Act and yet this matter was not addressed in the latest amendments to the Act. We have also previously submitted on cost-sharing and liability issues that we believe the implementation of the Act in practice is not as intended by Parliament.” 
It is no wonder that the level of frustration amongst homeowners is extreme. As with the 2006 amendment these changes are tinkering and will not solve the problem but they represent an opportunity to debate this issue. The Government is being incredibly optimistic that the Weathertight Homes Tribunal should substantially cease around 2021. At this rate it will take 7 years just to clear existing claims. A recent Cabinet paper quoted 15000 affected homes which would take at least 32 years to clear. 
The Weathertight Homes Tribunal will not be able to recapture claimants’ trust given this latest failure given the previous embarrassing gaffe from Helen Clark in 2002 that: “The seriousness of the situation appears to be a fraction of what the beat-up in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 implies.” and given this statement in that same month from Jim Anderton: “I am aware that while leaky building syndrome or weathertightness is a serious issue for those affected the numbers involved are not great.” He should tell that to the 15000 I mentioned. 
I will highlight one more adjustment that has been made to this bill. It is small but I believe that it will impact later. I refer to a change in clause 9 “Interpretation” and it concerns the term “relevant mental distress”. The word “claimant” has now been replaced with the word “claim”. This I believe will mean that a relative or any person who is not the principal claimant could also claim for damages in relation to stress and mental anxiety. The amendment made in this bill will mean that existing claimants can amend their claims so that they can take advantage of the new clauses. Therefore the amendment will cover all active claims and all claims coming after the amendment. However listeners must be aware that anything decided to date cannot be changed. 
Bill read a second time. 
Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. In speaking to the second reading debate I wish to congratulate the Health Committee on its sterling work in considering submissions on the bill and in reporting back to the House late last month. I am mindful that although there were relatively few submissions on the bill for many of those making submissions very strong and heartfelt emotions were in evidence. I am sympathetic to the proposed amendment to clause 6 which makes it clear that the commission is not precluded from reporting to me at any time. I also want to acknowledge the views of those who expressed support for the bill and of those who expressed opposition to the bill. 
The Mental Health Commission was originally established in September 1996 as a ministerial committee and was later established as a Crown entity under the Mental Health Commission Act 1998 with a term of 5 years. The mental health sector has changed considerably since the establishment of the commission. The Government has committed considerable funding and effort to ensure improved levels and quality of mental heath services. The sector is more stable and is not subject to the service difficulties that characterised the period that led to the Mason inquiry. The Government recognises the commission’s important role in supporting the implementation of the national mental health strategy and the development of the mental health sector. One of the commission’s key contributions has been to express the needs and the wishes of mental health service users. 
 Many challenges lie ahead for the mental health sector. I consider that retaining the commission would assist the sector to address these challenges provide a voice and support for stakeholders and help the sector achieve the goals set out in Te Tahahu—Improving Mental Health the new national mental health strategy released in 2005 and in the associated action plan Te Kokiri released last year. 
Te Tahahu signifies a new era for mental health and addiction policy and for the first time describes the outcomes the Government expects from its ongoing investment in mental health and addiction services. Te Kokiri focuses directly on implementing Te Tahahu and sets the programme of action to be achieved so that we meet the outcomes that we all want for mental health and addiction service users and their families and whanau. This is an important and considerable task. A key role for the Ministry of Health will be to exercise leadership over and drive the implementation of Te Tahahu and Te Kokiri during the next 10 years. In order to achieve the goals and objectives of Te Kokiri the ministry will need to work closely with all sector stakeholders including the Mental Health Commission. However if the term of the commission was to expire in 2007 the sector would lose an important vehicle for raising issues of substance and encouraging public debate on mental health during the period of the implementation of Te Tahahu and Te Kokiri. 
The policy behind the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill was informed by a review of the Mental Health Commission conducted by the Ministry of Health earlier this year. The ministry’s review included public consultation. The vast majority of people who participated in the consultation were very positive about the commission’s contribution to the mental health sector during the past 10 years. Specific achievements noted by submitters included successfully developing the 1998 blueprint on mental health services which detailed the elements required for comprehensive mental health services in New Zealand; successfully articulating the needs of mental health service users in a way that had not occurred before the commission’s inception; challenging traditional models of care for the mentally ill; and promoting public awareness of mental illness. 
Many submitters commented that the development of the mental health sector needs to continue apace and that allowing the term of the commission to expire would slow progress and reduce the amount of support available to the sector. Some submitters raised questions about the scope of the commission’s role and the nature of the debate it facilitated. 
The Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill extends the term of the Mental Health Commission until 2015 and brings the commissioner’s terms of office into line with the Crown Entities Act of 2004. Because the mental health sector has changed considerably during the past 10 years the bill revises the commission’s current functions to ensure that the commission is well placed to assist the sector from 2007 onwards. This includes new advocacy functions designed to ensure the views of all stakeholders are represented and changes to the commission’s monitoring functions to ensure clarity around agency accountabilities and to minimise the duplication of effort across agencies. 
These revisions recognise that the mental health sector has changed for the better during the past decade. They are intended to address the concerns raised by submitters to the consultation process and those raised in submissions to the committee. I commend the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill to the House. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 We have just heard a pretty low-key address from the Minister of Health. To be honest it was not very convincing at all. It was obviously a prepared speech written by the officials. 
Judith Collins 
: It wasn’t his most passionate speech. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: It was not really his most passionate speech. The Minister described a long list of reports and different groups that had informed strategy and it all sounded very sort of officialese. He did not actually tell us what is really happening in mental health in this country. 
The problem is that this Government has actually increased spending on mental health by two-thirds compared with the amount that was being spent when it came to power. It is now spending almost $1 billion a year and we have to ask whether the outcomes in mental health are any better than when Labour came to power. Frankly the Minister knows they are not. We had a report last year that stated that now in any one year one in five New Zealanders suffers from mental illness symptoms. We have had reports saying that 16 percent of New Zealanders have suicidal ideation during the course of their life. [ 
Interruption 
] I can tell those members who think this is funny that the Labour Government’s frivolous attitude towards this issue is noted out there in the community. 
National supports the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill although we have some reservations. A lot of people came before the Health Committee; a lot of families came before the Health Committee. National is concerned that the voice of families be heard in the area of mental health because 0.3 percent of the really seriously ill mental health patients will never get any better and a big part of the burden of their care falls back on their families. It is fair to say that a lot of families have felt excluded; they have felt excluded from some of the decision-making processes. We are concerned that those voices be heard because that is where a lot of the burden comes back to; it comes back to the family. 
In the Committee stage of this bill National will table a Supplementary Order Paper to prolong the life of the Mental Health Commission for a period of 3 years from the date of the Royal assent. That is not because we do not see a need for the commission. There is a real need for this sort of commission and a real need for the functions that it performs. But we think that one has constantly to review what a commission like this is doing. One of the things we want it to do is to play a greater part in holding the Government to account for those mental health outcomes and outputs. We know there are a lot of problems in mental health in terms of services. We know that this Government despite spending that $1 billion a year has failed to adequately address the workforce crisis has failed to make inroads into suicide rates amongst young women and has failed to address some key areas of illness. So we say that if the Government is spending a billion dollars a year on a range of programmes there has to be some accountability. We reckon a key role for the commission is to press the Government on a lot of these issues. 
The annual report of the Ministry of Health last year showed that the Government is not delivering in terms of mental health for Pacific Islanders and it is not delivering for Maori. Young people are not getting access to services and older people are not getting access to services. The Government’s response has been very much driven by media headlines so a lot of effort has gone into forensic services and providing services for adults but some of the less headline-grabbing areas of mental health have not had the same attention. You know mental health issues occur across the whole period of a person’s lifetime—or they can do—and a lot of work needs to be done with young people. Some of the specialist areas like eating disorders are grossly underfunded in this country. But there is a lot of money in the system. 
So one has to ask: if the spending has gone up to a billion dollars yet some really needed services are underfunded what is the problem? The problem is the management of the system. The person who is responsible for the management of the system is the Minister of Health himself. So although the Minister talks a lot about all these reports on mental health and he can say the spending has gone up the actual fact is that he has not made any inroads into the rates of mental illness. We want to see a good vigorous Mental Health Commission that holds the Government to account and puts a lot more pressure on Minister Hodgson than he has been subject to so far because we think he has to be accountable for that $1 billion of spending. 
I think that Maori and Pacific Island people old people and very young people need to be getting a greater share of that service. The Government says that the workforce is an issue; it says that it cannot get the staff. But if the spending is going up like that why does the Government not just direct some of that spending into the areas where it is needed? The real travesty in all this is that a lot of district health boards are not actually spending the allocation ring-fenced for mental health. Last year mental health funding was underspent by $18 million. So members can clearly see that it is a problem of mismanagement of the funding. 
I think the Minister needs to get up at some stage and take another call to address this issue. He cannot just get up with some speech that has been prepared by the officials and rattle off all this stuff about reports that have been done. They all sound very impressive and it sounds like the Government is doing something. Well I will tell members what the Government is doing. It is spending a lot of money and it is spending it on mental health but the outcomes are not getting any better. 
 To summarise the National Party supports the passage of this bill but we think there are some things in it that really need to be addressed. We are very keen to table the Supplementary Order Paper and I am hoping the Maori Party the Greens and New Zealand First will support it because one cannot just give a commission a blank cheque to have another 8 years of life and have it be totally unaccountable. This commission is pretty independent and it is important that it actually delivers some results in mental health. 
One has to look hard at this Government and I know that at the end of his term as Minister of Health which could end sooner than one thinks Mr Hodgson will be looking hard at himself in order to ask what he has actually delivered in mental health apart from an increase in the budget. What has he actually done to improve the situation to improve the lot of mental health patients in New Zealand? 
I know one thing that the Government will be doing. It will be honouring its pledge to the second-round claimants in the Lake Alice Hospital case who saw their money secretly lopped by a Cabinet decision—$3 million of it: $35000 each. As I said the other night in the House I know that Cabinet is committed to making sure that those people—frankly some of the most vulnerable people in New Zealand society—get that money which was awarded to them by Sir Rodney Gallen. That money is legally theirs and they must get it. But we know what happened to the second-round claimants in that case. They had some money secretly withheld—$35000 each. Many of those people have been severely damaged by some of the past abuses in our psychiatric institutions. For those people that is a heck of a lot of money. They will never be able to get that amount of money together in their lives. Frankly it was purely by chance that the Cabinet decision was discovered. I know that the Minister is an honourable Minister and I know that he will want to see that addressed sooner rather than later. 
But the key point for the House to remember is that before we pour more and more money into mental health we have to make sure that we are actually doing something about getting results. It is not good enough just to say that we are spending more. And this Government is spending more and more. It is spending nearly $12 billion this year whereas in 1999 the whole health budget was $6 billion. That is a heck of a lot of money. A lot of money is being spent on health. What is lacking is management. What is lacking is the desire to make sure that outcomes are delivered. 
I along with Wayne Mapp am holding a public meeting for my constituents in Northcote tomorrow at the North Harbour netball courts. It is a meeting about what has been going on at North Shore Hospital. That has parallels to what has happened in mental health. We are going to have a couple of hundred people at the meeting and they want answers about what is happening with the money being spent by the Waitemata District Health Board. 
What has been happening in the mental health arena I think really reflects the problems we have in health full stop. There is a lot of money but the Government really has not been delivering for people. I can tell members that the people out there who are listening and watching know that is true. Those people have family members whom they have tried to get into facilities and it just does not happen. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I take great pleasure in rising to speak to the second reading of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill in part because it is important that somebody rebuts some of the unfounded assertions that we have just heard coming from the Opposition speaker Dr Jonathan Coleman. 
I use as an example a visit I made recently in the Waitemata District Health Board area to the opening of a new acute unit for mental health patients at Waitakere Hospital. There are two acute units in the Waitemata District Health Board area one on the North Shore site and one at Waitakere Hospital. Te Atarau was one of those acute units that was expanded and it has now become Waiatarau. It has 24 beds and it is one of the examples of the effect that money going into the mental health sector has had. There have been expanded services and facilities. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.