Volume 659 Week 31 - Thursday 10 December 2009 
Volume 659 Week 31 - Thursday 10 December 2009 
[Volume:659;Page:8445] 
Thursday 10 December 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next Tuesday the Government intends to make progress on bills on the Order Paper two bills that will be introduced today and notices of motion. Depending on satisfactory progress being made on the Government’s agenda it is expected that the House will lift at some point next week for the summer adjournment. I might add that it is not only the Government’s progress but perhaps the weather as well that may be a factor in this. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 First of all I offer my warm congratulations to the Leader of the House as it appears we will go through an entire sitting of Parliament without urgency. I think it worthy of strong congratulations to him on his strong respect for the parliamentary process. In that same spirit of cooperation I inform the Leader of the House of the Labour Opposition’s strong desire to see the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill pass through all its stages before Christmas. We are very keen to cooperate with the Government for that to happen so that New Zealand can be part of the first tranche of signatories to the agreement that was started off by Mr Goff as the Minister for Disarmament and Arm Control and has been ably continued by Mrs te Heuheu. We would want to see that bill passed before Christmas and we give our full cooperation to him for that to happen. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In response to that I say to the shadow Leader of the House he should not count his chickens before they have hatched. The House has certainly moved along this week at the shuffling pace that Labour may be more used to. But we appreciate the offer on the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill and I think it is worth considering. I suggest that we have a bit of a discussion offline with other whips to see if it is possible to have a second and third reading combination that would facilitate that bill passing. I quite genuinely appreciate the offer. 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill 
Procedure 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave subsequent to discussions at the Business Committee the other day and further discussion among parties for the debates on the second and third readings of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill to be taken as one debate of no more than 12 speeches with one question at the end. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Questions to Ministers 
Vulnerable Citizens—Prime Minister’s Statements 
1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his comment “this Government is not prepared to turn its back on our most vulnerable citizens”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he believe that women who have been sexually abused are vulnerable citizens; if so is he aware that women have had their accident compensation - funded treatment stopped part-way through because of recent changes made by his Government to accident compensation guidelines an action that has been described by clinicians as unethical and immoral? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The changes that the member refers to were initiated by the previous Government long before the accident compensation scheme’s financial problems were revealed. This Government agrees though that clinicians not politicians should make decisions about sensitive claims. However we have already signalled that there will be a review of the changes and we will act if the review finds that the changes are not working. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Even those of us who are sitting quite close to the Minister could not hear any of that answer because of the constant barracking from at least a dozen Labour MPs. I think it is tough for this Parliament and for the acting Leader of the Opposition to ask a question and then have her colleagues scream down the answer so that no one can hear it. I ask how that helps Parliament. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Speaking to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need further assistance on this. I accept that the members of the Opposition did not like the answer they were hearing but they must be reasonable in their interjections so that members can hear the Minister’s answer. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is he aware that both Massey University and now the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) have disowned the statement made by the Minister for ACC Nick Smith that the new accident compensation guidelines that affect victims of sexual abuse were developed by Massey University when in fact they were developed by the ACC under this Government not a Labour Government and that yesterday the guidelines were labelled by clinicians as a “rapist’s charter”; and will he now listen to the clinicians even if his Minister will not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is a very very sensitive issue that we are dealing with quite obviously and it is not at all helped by the inflammatory language used by the member in asking that question. The Prime Minister is well advised on these matters and has stated that the Government has already signalled there will be a review of the changes. We will act if the review finds that the changes are not working. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he seen the list released by clinicians yesterday which highlighted 54 individual cases of people who have been sexually abused some as young as 12 years of age who have had their treatment denied or stopped because of changes made to the scheme by his Government; and will he intervene to stop this roll call of shame growing? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am unable to answer as to whether the Prime Minister has seen that list but I repeat again that the Government has signalled there will be a review of the changes. We will act to make further changes if we find that the system is not working. It all takes time. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he believe that Bill a former railway engineer who lost his hearing from a workplace injury and who is now not eligible for a hearing aid under the changes that his Government has made to the accident compensation scheme is a vulnerable citizen; and will he have the Minister for ACC intervene in Bill’s case as he did on television recently for war veteran Eric Brady who had his dentures smashed in an assault? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I would make it very clear that this Government inherited the accident compensation scheme in a dreadful state. The Prime Minister has every confidence that the Minister for ACC the Hon Dr Nick Smith is doing a great job in ensuring that New Zealanders continue to be well treated and served by the organisation that administers the scheme. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does he believe that our elderly are vulnerable; if so why has his Government cancelled the falls prevention programme which keeps older people out of hospital and which research indicated saved $2 for every $1 spent on it? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not have the details that the member wants to put in front of us— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I tabled it. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Prime Minister does not read every scrap of paper tabled by the Opposition because that is what most of them are—scraps of rubbishy paper. The Prime Minister though has every confidence that the Hon Dr Nick Smith is doing everything that he can to ensure that ACC continues to deliver excellent service to New Zealanders. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why does his Government believe that a 12-year-old girl who was coerced into a violent sexual relationship and who was declined counselling is not vulnerable enough to qualify under the National Government’s accident compensation guidelines? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have already stated that those provisions were initiated by the previous Government. But we have said that as a result of the review should the changes that have come about be found to be in any way wanting then we will act upon that. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why is it OK for the Minister of Finance to have claimed $900 a week to keep his family together when the National Government says that rape victims from dysfunctional families should get nothing? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is simply an untrue statement. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table the list of 54 individuals who have had accident compensation claims denied or stopped under this Government’s changes to accident compensation policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member mind telling the House the source of the list. 
Hon Annette King 
: It was put together by clinicians and was released to the media yesterday but obviously not seen— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is sufficient. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Urgent Question to Minister 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to ask an additional oral question and three additional supplementary questions today to the Minister of Local Government based on new information that has become available to members since the time for submitting questions. To assist the Minister I am happy to table my questions by leave to enable him to prepare an answer to them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask an additional oral question accompanied by three further supplementary questions. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the questions so that members can see the questions that the Minister did not want to answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is seeking leave to table a document that is apparently a question. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection. 
Electricity Market—Ministerial Review Findings 
2.  
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What were the main findings of the ministerial review into the electricity market? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The ministerial review which was conducted by a six-person expert panel was a stunning indictment on the previous Government’s management of our electricity system. The review found that the rate at which residential prices had risen over the last 8 years had been excessive. It found that they were way ahead of what is required to meet new generation requirements and it found that the way in which dry years have been managed was deficient and that governance arrangements needed substantial improvement. The Government is now acting to clean up this mess. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What is the Government doing to address the problems found by the ministerial review? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government will make a suite of changes to the electricity system. The changes will improve competition in the market which should constrain future price increases. I am heartened by Consumer New Zealand’s comments this morning that the reforms will improve competition and will benefit consumers. The changes will also improve security of supply and dry-year risk. One mechanism to do that will be to require electricity companies to compensate consumers in the event of national conservation savings campaigns. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Will his proposals reduce before next winter the power bills of hard-working Kiwis already struggling to meet the increased cost of living; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Since the review of the electricity system began there has been a very dramatic flattening-out of electricity price. What we saw before that over 8 years of a Labour Government was power prices rising at three times the rate of inflation. I am confident we will not see that in the coming 12 months. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was relatively straightforward and it asked the Minister whether the proposals that he has brought to the House will reduce the power bills of hard-working Kiwis. He did not address that in any way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In answering the question the Minister said that since the review had been announced prices had flattened out. I accept the point the member is making that that was not the question. I invite the Minister to answer the question that was asked. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will give this answer. The member asked whether this will see the prices of hard-working New Zealanders fall in the next 12 months. 
Hon members 
: Power prices. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Power prices OK. I responded to him that those prices are excessively high now because his Government saw power prices rise at a rate of three times that of inflation over 8 years. I tell him that our record so far is that we are nowhere near that level. So my response is that I expect power prices to be relatively flat in the next 12 months. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Why should hard-working New Zealanders have any more confidence in his promise that more competition will lead to lower power prices than they did when the same promise was made by Max Bradford 12 years ago only to be proved spectacularly wrong? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: What is most interesting is that although the power system that we currently have was put in place in 1999 for the next 9 years we had a Labour Government administering it and it never ever got on top of it. In a short 12 months we have. 
Finance Minister—Statements 
3.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: Yes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: To the new Minister given the Reserve Bank’s projections— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is an appropriate way in this House to address a Minister and that was not it. I ask you to have the Hon David Cunliffe address Parliament appropriately and not be a smart alec. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member and to the House that I was not quick in remedying that situation. The Hon David Cunliffe will not do that again. He will ask his question correctly. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Given the Reserve Bank’s projections of a return to GDP growth will he now commit to maintaining the level of health education and accident compensation services that were built up over the last 9 years and that hard-working New Zealanders once again deserve to enjoy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: We will of course continue to invest in improved health and education services but I must point out that as a result of the very large expenditure increases made by the previous Government this Government has very strong fiscal challenges moving ahead over the next several years and will need to limit additional expenditure to $1.1 billion per annum to bring fiscal expenditure as a percent of GDP under control. 
Chris Tremain 
: By how much did core Crown expenditure increase in Labour’s last five Budgets—that is the 5 years to 2008-09? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: By over $20 billion or 49 percent. At the same time our economy grew by 15 percent. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to draw the Minister into debate on this matter but I believe that it was established yesterday in question time that those numbers include the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will sit down immediately. I say to the Hon David Cunliffe that he knows he cannot do that. It is totally outside the Standing Orders to debate an answer by way of a point of order. I invite him to just ask a supplementary question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Let me rephrase that as a supplementary question. Given that the Minister could not deny and Treasury confirmed to the Finance and Expenditure Committee only yesterday that the 49 percent number the Minister has repeated in the House today is complete nonsense because it includes the most recent Budget which was run by his Government why does the Minister persist in misrepresenting the reduction of Government spending as a percentage of GDP from 32.8 percent in 1999 to 31.8 percent in 2008? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think it is important to point out that initially in Labour’s term during a period of strong global economic growth Government expenditure did drop as a percentage of GDP. But in the latter years of Labour’s Government period it grew substantially. Not only did it grow but in the last Budget additional expenditure was appropriated and a bow wave of expenditure increases meant that this Government inherited expenditure as a percentage of GDP heading to 35 36 and 37 percent. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: When today the Reserve Bank confirmed that it is actively exploring new tools such as liquidity policy dynamic provisioning and capital policy to take pressure off the official cash rate does he still stand by his statement that nothing more can be done to assist exporters and moderate our volatile and overvalued exchange rate? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Reserve Bank is always looking to fine-tune its monetary policy framework. But I can tell members what this Government is not prepared to do and that is what Labour suggests which is to abandon 20 years of a monetary policy framework and not have anything to replace it. That would be the most vandalistic thing that we could do as a Government—to abandon it without even knowing what we were going to do next. 
John Boscawen 
: Does he agree with Treasury’s 19 August paper to him which concludes that “There is little in the current policy mix that would make a material difference in terms of closing the income gap with Australia.”; if so has he a plan to achieve the Government’s concrete goal of closing the income gap with Australia by 2025? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I cannot recall that particular paper. But I can say that the Government does have a plan. It is a very strong plan. I will not take up the House’s time at this point by going through all six pillars of economic growth but I can refer the House to this particular document that I am holding which is available and is just one of many documents about what the Government is doing to tackle economic growth and close the gap with Australia. 
Phil Twyford 
: How does he reconcile his Budget calls for more effective use of taxpayers’ money with the Minister of Local Government’s use of $100000 of taxpayers’ money for a 12-day world trip in which he spent only 13½ hours on official portfolio-related meetings and 3 whole days on a wedding and a visit to an amusement park? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House will come to order immediately. A point of order has been called. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a requirement of the Standing Orders that facts and allegations in a question be validated. A series of assertions in that question are false and the only validation that Mr Twyford has got is from Mayor Andrew Williams’ madness. I am quite happy to table the document— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no—I am on my feet. The member is not actually strictly correct; it is primary questions that must be validated. In fact for supplementary questions to be strictly within order they are not meant to contain allegations or statements of supposed fact because they cannot be validated; there is no way of validating them. As personal objection has clearly been taken to the way in which the question was asked I will invite the member to rephrase his question. Strictly questions should not contain statements of supposed fact that cannot be validated. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept that you are being generous in the circumstances but the primary question to the Minister of Finance asked whether he stood by all his recent statements. How that links to this particular question or to the intent of this question is something I think the House needs to consider. We are getting less and less relevant to the primary question as we progress through the various supplementary questions. I say Mr Speaker that that has been happening over a number of days and we have to be a bit careful about it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not see why I need to hear anything further on that point of order. The point is well made that in fact the primary question asked whether the Minister stood by all his recent statements. I accept that that is a wide primary question but in allowing Mr Twyford to restate his question I ask him to make sure he reflects on the fact that the primary question does ask the Minister whether he stood by all his recent statements and to be careful not to insert into the question where there is sensitivity an allegation of what is supposed to be fact that cannot be substantiated. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to make it clear I have consulted the acting leader of the Labour Party in the House today and the Labour Party will not object if the Minister of Local Government wants to make either a ministerial statement— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. Well that is an absolute abuse of the Standing Orders. If the Minister wishes to make a personal statement then that is his prerogative; it is not the prerogative of the Hon Trevor Mallard to make such grandiose statements under the guise of a point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn the honourable member that I will not be trifled with. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member indicated earlier to the House by way of a point of order that personal matters to do with him were incorrect— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard all I need to hear and the member will resume his seat. The Standing Orders on this matter are very clear: supplementary questions must not contain that kind of allegation. The Standing Orders are very clear on that. Often I allow it because it allows question time to flow more freely offence is not taken and it assists the good order of the House. But where a question clearly does reflect on a member of the House and contains an allegation that cannot be validated it is wise for the member to rephrase the question in a way that is more consistent with the Standing Orders. And that is the way we will proceed. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may have missed it but in the point of order that the Hon Rodney Hide raised he talked about Mayor Andrew Williams’ madness. You may not have heard it Mr Speaker. In my view for the Minister of Local Government to use a point of order to accuse the mayor of one of our largest cities of being mad is a totally unacceptable use of the point of order process and I would ask you to rule it out. That is what he said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can only apologise to the honourable member. I did not hear that at all. If the member under a point of order—[ 
Interruption 
]—I am on my feet; there will not be any comment—did make some allegation referring to someone as being mad I ask him to withdraw and apologise for that. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I apologise— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling but I suggest to you that it is wrong because it is not possible in this Parliament to have to apologise for what one might have said to someone outside and secondly I did not say— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The member is now starting to engage in a debate with the Speaker over the ruling. The simple matter is that the member said something that was clearly inappropriate under a point of order. Under a point of order one cannot abuse anyone. It is absolutely inconsistent with the Standing Orders. It does not matter who the person is; a point of order cannot be used for that. I am perfectly prepared to be told I have made a mistake and I am prepared to apologise for mistakes but I do not believe that was a mistake. I would like the House to make progress and I would like Mr Twyford to rephrase his question in a way that does not cause offence and is consistent with the Standing Orders. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he stand by his calls for fiscal restraint in light of the Minister of Local Government’s report to Cabinet released under the Official Information Act that demonstrates that on a 12-day world trip he spent only 13½ hours on official portfolio-related business and 3 whole days at a wedding and an amusement park? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Minister has no responsibility for that particular portfolio but what I will say is that the Minister of Local Government is doing a fantastic job of unifying Auckland local governance which will have a fantastic benefit to the economic growth of our largest city. The previous Government took 9 years to think about it and set up a royal commission. Labour members hate the answers the royal commission gave and would not have done anything about it even if they had been in Government. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the itinerary of my trip the report to Cabinet on the trip—all of which have been made public—plus the budget for the trip. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Was there any objection? [ 
Interruption 
] Let me put the question again. Leave is sought to table the documents outlined. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ 
Interruption 
] I apologise to the honourable member; there is objection. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the confusion arose because you had been very clear and very forceful about the ability of members to table documents that you judge are easily accessible to members. The confusion came about because Mr Hide in describing the documents said they were already public documents—they were available—and he was seeking leave to table them. I think the confusion was over trying to work out how many of the papers were publicly available. If they all were then his tabling them would breach what you had told the House—and you have been very tough on the House—about seeking leave to table documents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear what the honourable member is saying. Normally Cabinet papers are not publicly available and the member sought to table a report to Cabinet. I did not want to make a judgment on the spur of the moment about whether it was available and that is why I sought leave. An offer to table Cabinet papers or reports to Cabinet is often a useful opportunity for members. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I respectfully suggest that you may wish to ask for clarification from the member given that at the end of his leave application—and we all heard it—he said that the documents are all public. You may not have heard that Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That matter is now irrelevant. There was objection and I have ruled that the documents will not be tabled. 
Te Reo Maori Examinations—Standards 
4.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: : Kei te tautoko a ia i ta Nga Kura-a-Iwi o Aotearoa korero e pa ana ki nga manukanuka mo nga whakamatautau Reo Maori “E he ana te punaha takirua e hoatu nei i te mana orite ki te akonga whai reo Maori ahakoa ko tona reo taketake ko tona reo tuarua ranei tana reo Maori”; ara ka aha ia ki te whakatika i tenei “he kino”? 
[ 
Does she agree with Nga Kura a Iwi o Aotearoa’s concerns about te reo Maori exams that “A double standard prevails one for te reo Maori pathway pupils for whom English is their first language and another for te reo rangatira pathway pupils for whom Maori is their first language”; and what actions will she take to correct what they suggest is a “horrendous wrong”? 
] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen Mr Bird’s claims which he released on Tuesday and I have asked the New Zealand Qualifications Authority for some advice on the claims that he makes. Until I have this advice it would be premature to comment on the validity of his claims and any actions that would be taken. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: He aha te whakamaherehere kua whiwhi i a ia mai i nga ropu matanga o te reo rangatira pera i a Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori mo te whakapae a Nga Kura a-Iwi na te whakamatautau National Certificate of Educational Achievement o Te Reo Maori a New Zealand Qualifications Authority i takahi te mana o Te Reo Maori? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
What advice has she received from Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori and any other specialist advisers in te reo rangatira about the claims from Nga Kura-a-Iwi that the mana of te reo Maori has been seriously undermined by the New Zealand Qualification Authority’s treatment of National Certificate of Educational Achievement te reo Maori? 
] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have not received advice from the Maori Language Commission on this matter. As I have said I have asked the New Zealand Qualifications Authority for some advice on the claims that Mr Bird makes. Until I have this advice it would be premature to comment on the validity of his claims or any actions that would be taken. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In light of the responses from the Minister the Maori Party has one supplementary question in hand and unfortunately they all go to the same issue in respect of the ability of the Minister to answer the question. I seek leave of the House that one supplementary question be available to us in question time on Tuesday of next week in which to follow up on these issues if that is OK. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to have a supplementary question availability today deferred until next Tuesday. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: He aha te putake o ta Bali Haque korero kia rua nga momo whakamatautau mo Te Reo Maori. Na mena kei te pera kei te whakaae atu ia ki te whakapae “he nui noa atu te mana” o Te Reo Pakeha ki tera o Te Reo Maori? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
What is the rationale that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority deputy chief executive Bali Haque refers to when justifying the need for two sets of exams and would she not agree that pitching the exams at the “lowest common denominator” in fact devalues the more sophisticated understanding required of students taking up the te reo rangatira pathway? 
] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As I said to the member I have asked for some advice and I am sure that that advice will cover the rationale for the current situation. Once I have received that advice I will be very happy to discuss the issue with the member. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Does the Minister agree that a double standard also prevails in that the national standards for Maori immersion schools are not due out until 3 years after the mainstream national standards creating an anomaly and uncertainty for Maori immersion classes in mainstream schools? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I say to that member that that assertion is not correct. 
Kelvin Davis 
: If over the next 3 years achievement in Maori immersion schools without national standards keeps pace with or exceeds the achievement of mainstream schools that have national standards will the Minister be prepared to concede that national standards were unsuccessful? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: National standards will be in Maori medium schools from next year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that the question was hypothetical but hypothetical questions are within the Standing Orders and the answer did not bear any relationship at all to the question asked. For certainty I invite Kelvin Davis to repeat his question. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The primary question asked about the way in which the New Zealand Qualifications Authority treats Maori language examinations or tests. It has nothing to do in this case with the specific content of the question asked by Kelvin Davis. I think the Minister’s answer has to be reasonable in that circumstance. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I accept the point Mr Brownlee makes except that the previous supplementary question asked by Mr Davis did link the primary question with the issue of national standards in Maori medium schools. His second supplementary question following on from the Minister’s earlier answer is a continuation of that line of questioning. I think he has followed a logical order. There was no politics in what he said. He has followed a logical order about the standards in schools and what that means with regard to examinations for Maori students who are taught in te reo. 
Hekia Parata 
: I think you will find Mr Speaker that the second supplementary question asked by the member was prefaced on the possibility that the national standards would not be in place in Maori medium schools. The Minister replied that they would be. Therefore it logically follows that the question should not be answered. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK I have allowed considerable contribution by way of point of order because what I was about to rule was challenged. I must say having listened to the points made that I will accept that it was obviously very much questionable whether the supplementary question relates directly to the primary question and given the Minister’s answer that she disputed the assertion in the member’s first question that the standards would not be in place then I guess I cannot expect the Minister to give a precise answer to the second question because she has already disputed the point made in the first supplementary question. On that basis I think I do have to accept that the Minister has responded adequately to the question. 
Accident Compensation—Proposed Increase in Levies 
5.  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: How much has it been necessary to increase ACC levies and how do these compare to those recommended by the ACC board? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Today I have announced levy increases for workers for employers and for motorists to help alongside cost-saving initiatives to address the accident compensation scheme’s financial difficulties. The earners levy will rise from $1.70 to $2 per $100 of earnings; the employers’ levy increases from an average of $1.31 to $1.47 per $100 of earnings; the accident compensation levy on vehicle registration for a standard petrol car will increase by $30; and the petrol levy is to remain unchanged at 9.9c per litre. The board of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) recommended larger increases but given the cost impacts on families and businesses of the recession which New Zealand is just starting to recover from Cabinet decided that these lower rates were appropriate. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What decisions has the Government taken on motorcycle levies and on steps to reverse the trend of increasing motorcycle accidents? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The accident compensation levies on registration fees will rise to $129 for mopeds or scooters under 50cc to $328 for motorcycles under 600cc and to $427 for motorbikes over 600cc. Of this $30 will be ring-fenced for a new $3 million per annum dedicated motorcycle injury prevention fund. This will be modelled on the Victorian scheme where motorcycle clubs in partnership with the Transport Accident Commission have successfully reduced motorcycle fatalities by over 20 percent. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does the Minister not accept the view of motorcycle riders that the disproportionate increase in levies for some bikes represents a policy change by the current Government? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There is very clear evidence that the cost of motorcycle accidents for those very large bikes does go up significantly; it is about double in terms of the cost per bike. The levy announcements made today provide for about a 35 percent extra premium. I note that it was a decision of the previous Labour Government to introduce higher fees for motorcycles back in 2002. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has the Minister seen on claim-cost inflation in the last 4 years compared with general inflation and what steps has the Government taken to contain costs so that the full burden of fixing accident compensation does not fall on levy payers? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Claim costs have risen 57 percent in the past 4 years—five times the rate of inflation. The Government is working with the ACC to better manage these costs. We have initiatives under way covering physiotherapists high-tech imaging hearing self-harm rehabilitation and criminal entitlements that will save over $100 million per year. The Government’s approach is a fair balance of levy increases and cost savings so that we can get the scheme’s finances back into proper shape. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why has it taken the Minister 6 months to acknowledge that his levy increases never needed to be as extreme as the figures he caused to be used earlier? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The books that were signed off by the previous Government last year showed a loss of $2.4 billion. This year’s audit accounts for the accident compensation scheme show a loss of $4.8 billion. It is a huge challenge for this Government both to get costs under control and to provide for modest levy increases so that we can secure the future of our unique 24/7 accident compensation scheme. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold this question over to another day when the Attorney-General is present. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to defer this question. Is there any objection to the course of action? There is objection. 
Foreshore and Seabed Act—Threshold Tests Establishing Customary Interest 
6.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Will the threshold tests for the establishment of customary interest in the foreshore or seabed be altered from those which currently apply under the current Foreshore and Seabed Act; if so will those new thresholds be defined in statute or left to the courts? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
on behalf of the  
Attorney-General 
: Cabinet has not made a decision on these matters. The Government is taking a thorough consultative approach to its review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act and Cabinet will make final decisions on these issues next year after that consultation has been completed not before. In respect of the second part of the question whether threshold tests are defined in statute or left to the courts is also yet to be determined. 
Hon David Parker 
: If the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 is amended or repealed to allow a customary title to be sought for areas of seabed or foreshore is legislation likely to be needed to prevent the conversion of such customary titles to alienable freehold titles? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: As I said in answer to the primary question decisions by Cabinet have not yet been taken on this matter and whether any consequent decisions will need to be made by way of statute or otherwise also remains to be determined by Cabinet. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did representatives of Ngati Porou ask the National-led Government to honour the foreshore and seabed agreement they reached under the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act with the previous Government and to proceed with the resulting Nga Rohe Moana o Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou Bill? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The member will be aware that there would be no need for such a request because the Crown and Ngati Porou have a binding agreement that can only be varied by the agreement of both parties. National’s 2008 election policy undertook to honour agreements already reached under the Foreshore and Seabed Act. This Government keeps its promises. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether representatives of Ngati Porou requested that the Government continue with that agreement. The question was not answered. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: With respect I thought the Minister said there was no need for such a request because of certain agreements. By that answer I thought he had answered the member’s question. 
Hon David Parker 
: Will the new arrangements reopen claims to oil and gas royalties or revenue for oil and gas under the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The advice we have to hand is that they will not. 
Summer School Holiday Programmes—Progress 
7.  
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What progress has been made on the Government’s summer school holiday programmes? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 We have announced the 26 community organisations that have been selected to run school holiday programmes as part of the Break Away package. These holiday programmes are free and target young people who would not otherwise have this opportunity. We have places for 15000 11 to 17-year-olds. This Government is sending a clear message to our young people that we are willing to invest in their long-term potential. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Will Break Away reach those young people who can benefit the most from it? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes it will. Today 100 young people will get a letter from the Prime Minister congratulating them on being nominated for his youth programme in January. These young people have histories of low-level offending but have made a real effort to turn their lives round. We know the Government does not have all the answers and we do not pretend to. It is about working together. I want to say thank you for the strong support we have had from philanthropic groups corporates and high-profile New Zealanders who are giving their time and resources. 
Question Time 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to Jeanette Fitzsimons. I am raising it about the requirement for Ministers to answer questions. Obviously when Ministers are outside Wellington or outside the parliamentary complex another Minister answers on behalf of the absent Minister. We saw that with Mr Power answering for Mr Finlayson. But two questions are set down for the Prime Minister one of which is about to be asked. The Prime Minister is in Copperfields having a cup of coffee not in the debating chamber― 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down immediately. The member knows he cannot by way of a point of order make any reference to a member’s absence from the House. It is simply not acceptable practice at all and I ask him not to do that sort of thing. The member knows better than to do that. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet and someone will be leaving this Chamber very soon unless there is some silence. 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—International Targets 
8.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Which specific countries was he referring to in the House yesterday when he said in response to my question “countries that will find it easier than us” should do better than 40 percent in order to offset New Zealand’s “failure to act” on climate change? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister was not referring to any specific country. It is for individual countries to set their emissions targets and I do not propose to comment on what those specific targets should be. Independent assessments have reported New Zealand’s target to be credible and in line with our commitment to New Zealand doing its fair share. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question. I asked: “Which specific countries”. The Prime Minister volunteered yesterday that there were countries that could do more. I asked which ones they were. He has had that question for several hours. If there are any countries surely he should be able to name them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear further on this. The Prime Minister does not have to name them at all because I think the answer was very clear that he did not have any particular country in mind. It is a perfectly acceptable answer to the question. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister saying that he cannot name a single country that could pick up the slack for New Zealand doing 10-20 percent rather than 25-40 percent as he suggested yesterday? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government does not accept that the target New Zealand has set out is anything less than New Zealand’s fair share. I draw the member’s attention to some of the very comprehensive economic analysis showing that a 10-20 percent target for New Zealand is a very big ask if we take into account 50 percent coming from agriculture the very large increase in emissions since 1990 of 24 percent― 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Oh shame! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Members opposite say shame and I say shame too. It is a shame that during the course of the last Labour Government emissions in New Zealand grew by record amounts. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to both colleagues. I do not think the question was addressed. The first question was inviting the Prime Minister to name specific countries and you ruled that he need not. That is fair enough. Then the question was asked whether that meant that the Prime Minister cannot name any country and that question was not addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need anything further on this point whatsoever. The questioner asked why the Prime Minister could not name the countries that were needed to take up the slack. The Minister challenged that assertion in the second part of the question. The Minister challenged the fact that there was an allegation made that slack needed to be taken up. As I heard it the argument was that there was not. That was a perfectly fair answer to the question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have heard several points of order today which have been ruled out on the content of Ministers’ answers. If we went back over question time we would appreciate that the problem lies with the questions that are being asked and not the answers. I ask members through you to reflect on the fact that they are not listening to the answers. They are asking questions and when they do not get the answer they want they raise points of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the point the honourable member makes. I am sure members will learn that if they want to get good answers the quality of the question does matter. That is something I have been trying to encourage all year. 
Hon David Parker 
: On what basis does the Prime Minister believe it is realistic to expect other countries to do more than New Zealand when in New Zealand his Government has legislated to allow the agricultural sector responsible for half of New Zealand’s emissions to increase its emissions at the cost of taxpayers? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: On the issue of agricultural emissions New Zealand has shown very considerable leadership. We are the very first country in the world to propose the inclusion of agriculture at all in an emissions trading scheme. I challenge the member to name a single country that is proposing to include agriculture. The second point is that the global alliance that the Prime Minister has advocated in respect of agricultural emissions is a very constructive contribution to this complex issue. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Which countries does he think will find it easier than New Zealand to improve the fuel efficiency of their car fleets given that New Zealand’s car fleet uses much more fuel per hundred kilometres than those of the EU Japan or even of China? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first point is that there have been a number of comprehensive economic analyses that show that in terms of reducing emissions the cost for New Zealand is considerably larger. In respect of transport New Zealand is quite a thinly populated country that has less opportunity for public transport than some of the very intensely populated countries in Europe. In respect of vehicles new standards are coming into place in respect of their emissions. The Government has taken the initiative of providing for no road-user charge to encourage the development of electric cars. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Which countries does the Minister think will find it easier than New Zealand to plant new forests on unproductive land given that the Green New Deal package released by the Greens last week shows how easily we could accumulate 33.6 million tonnes of carbon from forests before 2020? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister for Climate Change Issues has tabled a report from the Ministry for the Environment on the viability of the Green Party’s plan. That report is quite critical and states that it is unrealistic. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Greens Party’s plan was launched last week and that report preceded it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat right now. She cannot litigate an answer by way of point of order. She has further supplementary questions if she believes that the Minister has given incorrect information. She can drill down into that with her further supplementary questions. I am sure the House would welcome it. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Which other countries have renewable energy opportunities as good as ours in geothermal and wind plus a dirty old coal-powered station just waiting to be closed? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: New Zealand’s position in having 70 percent of our electricity already being renewable actually makes the challenge for us of reducing emissions considerably more challenging than those countries many of whom in the OECD or the developed countries have less than 10 percent of their electricity coming from renewable sources. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does he stand by the statement to the House yesterday stating that although Cabinet had given him flexibility to negotiate our target above 20 percent he had already ruled out doing so regardless of the efforts of other countries? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The premise on which the member bases her question is incorrect. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister saying that if Barack Obama goes to Copenhagen saying “Yes we can do much more.” the Prime Minister will reply “No we can’t but can I still have a photo op?” 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that the target set and tabled by the United States is a 3 percent reduction in emissions on 1990 levels compared with a 10 to 20 percent that New Zealand is proposing. I invite that member who said she is going to Copenhagen with a sign saying she is ashamed to be a New Zealander to reconsider. 
Education National Standards—Professor John Hattie’s Views 
9.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: When she named Professor John Hattie yesterday as an academic who supported both national standards and the Government’s implementation methods did she take into account the views he expressed to her with other academics in their letter of 25 November 2009? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I took into account discussions that I have had with Professor Hattie and of course his many writings. One very apt comment he has made is: “National standards offers the most wonderful opportunities for refreshing and reinvigorating an already top of the world system”. But to correct the basis of the member’s question I stated yesterday of Professor Hattie that he “invented them so he should support them.” We may need to introduce listening standards for members opposite. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did she take into account Professor Hattie’s statement that “There are many successful New Zealanders with unexceptional school records who would not have succeeded had they been constantly labelled as failures during their childhood. A better form of assessment and reporting would focus on the progress that children are making and we believe that this is the approach that should be being used.” before she gave his name in response to a question yesterday that asked her to name an academic who supported both the national standards and the Government’s implementation methods? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I do not understand why Labour and that member are so against national standards which will identify and support children in our schools who are struggling to learn to read write and do maths. Professor Hattie has said many things. I have just given one quote. In another quote he said that standards if implemented well can make a huge difference. I say to that member that we are on the side of children and lifting academic standards. I do not know why Labour members do not come on board. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you probably know what it is. I quoted a very specific statement and asked the Minister whether she had taken it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I can save the member some time. In fairness I say that the member asked a very specific question that related directly to the primary question and the answer is not very difficult I would have thought. It was a very specific question about whether the Minister took into account that particular statement of Professor Hattie. I think it is fair enough that the House should receive an answer to that particular question. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did she take into account Professor Hattie’s statement that “reporting of results at each year level will distort and impoverish the culture of teaching and learning and assessment within schools. It will undermine the new curriculum …” before she gave his name in response to a question yesterday that asked her to name an academic who supported both the national standards and the Government’s implementation methods? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes and I also took into account his statement “we cannot defend a system with one in ten schools deemed failing”. 
Allan Peachey 
: What reports has the Minister seen that call for a discussion about national standards other than the views of unions which have always been opposed to them? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have received this comment from a school principal about national standards: “I have found it difficult to get rational discourse when I disagree with those strongly opposed. However I do know other principals who share the same view I have. I have decided to just get on with it which I am able to do with teachers who also view the standards positively.” I share that principal’s desire for rational discussion and I wish the Opposition would come on board to lift the achievement of students and to back parents getting good information. Let us make a big change to education in this country. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did she take into account Professor John Hattie’s statement that “the flaws in the new system are so serious that full implementation of the intended national standards system over the next three years is unlikely to be successful. It will not achieve intended goals and is likely to lead to dangerous side effects.” before she gave his name in response to a question yesterday that asked her to name an academic who supported both the national standards and the Government’s implementation methods? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes and I also took into account the fact that Professor John Hattie wrote  
Directions for Assessment in New Zealand 
 which recommended that standards be developed for both achievement levels and rates of progress. I also took into account that Professor Hattie is a member of the New Zealand Assessment Academy whose members I met yesterday. They are working with the Ministry of Education on implementation methods and are continuing to be extremely helpful and supportive in ensuring that we address the gaps in education by lifting the rates of reading writing and maths of those one in five children who are failing currently. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document pertaining to question No. 8 and which was referred to by Jeanette Fitzsimons. The document is called  
Green New Deal: Forestry Pest Control and Wilding Conifers—Investing in a Permanent Future. 
 The document was released last week not in May which reflects a misunderstanding on the part of the Minister for Climate Change Issues. This is a new document that was released last week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the source of the document? 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: The source of the document is the Green Party and it is entitled  
Green New Deal 
— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Education National Standards—Plain English Reports for Parents 
10.  
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: When will parents receive plain English reports against the national standards and why? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This Government has heard the calls from parents for school reports in plain language that they can understand and for school reports that tell them how they can help their children to do better. That is why schools next year will report to parents in plain language at least twice a year on how their kids are doing and how the parents can help. That was a very clear message that we got from parents throughout both the election campaign and the consultation on national standards. That is what parents want and that is what we will make sure they get. 
Louise Upston 
: What reports has she seen of parents being concerned about the school reports that they currently receive and why? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Parents strongly supported getting good information from schools about their child’s progress against the national standards and we are delivering that for them. In the consultation round one parent said that schools need to provide “honesty plain language and no surprises.” Another parent said: “Honest reporting; tell me how he is really doing. I want reality—the good the bad and the ugly”. We are very happy to be delivering that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In taking into account the development of plain English reporting did she take into account Professor Hattie’s statement: “We advise that the descriptions and examples of the Standards are not sufficient at this stage to allow them to be applied consistently. Teachers will be forced to report to parents and principals to their Boards in ways that could not be trusted to be sufficiently consistent from teacher to teacher or school to school.”? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes and I say to the member that we trust parents with the information about how well or not their children are doing. Parents want the information they have a right to the information and we will make sure that they get the information. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that this is slightly technical but I am sure you will understand. I asked a question about the quality of the information that is to go to parents not a question about the trust of the parents. The question was about trust in the standards. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need to hear any further on the matter. The member asked whether the Minister had taken into account that statement from Professor Hattie and the Minister said: “Yes”. That is an answer to the question. 
Legal Aid—Review Report 
11.  
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he have any evidence to support the hearsay reported by Dame Margaret Bazley in her final report on the legal aid review that “up to 80 percent of the lawyers practising in the Manukau District Court could be gaming the system”; if not will he apologise for any damage to their reputations this has caused? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No because Dame Margaret was clear in her report that although her findings were partially based on anecdotal evidence it was the prevalence of these claims right across the court system that led her to conclude that widespread reform is required. Since the release of the report a number of people have supplied my office with a range of allegations of improper practice across the court system. I will be writing back to those complainants to invite them to pass the information on to the Law Society which will take whatever action it deems to be appropriate. In response to the second part of the question that the member raises the answer is no. I am interested in the findings of the report and will not limit my attention to one line in a report of 120 pages. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Will the Minister meet with members of the Manukau legal profession who have had their reputations damaged as a result of the statement that up to 80 percent of them have been involved in “gaming the system”; and since when did the prevalence of unsubstantiated claims make an unsubstantiated claim more substantiated? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: In respect of the question as to whether I will meet with the Manukau criminal Bar sure. I have met with different members of the Manukau criminal Bar three times this year. In addition when I visited the Manukau District Court I spoke with a number of lawyers about their work there. Since the release of Dame Margaret’s report I am advised that I have received no requests for meetings from the Manukau criminal Bar although I understand those lawyers met with the member and her colleague yesterday. I would be happy to meet with them. 
David Garrett 
: Has the Minister considered providing lawyers who work within the legal aid system with an indemnity of some kind so that the honest legal aid lawyers can provide information on crooked colleagues to the appropriate authorities without fear of litigation; if not why not? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No; because that was not part of the recommendations in Dame Margaret’s report it is not something that is immediately on my work programme in response to Dame Margaret’s report. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Did the report address the role of the Legal Services Agency risk management committee in overseeing the legal aid system; if not was it of concern to him that Dame Margaret Bazley was a member of that committee between 2005 and 2008? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I cannot remember off the top of my head whether it was referenced exactly but I have great faith in the independence of Dame Margaret—as the last Government did when putting her in charge of a number of inquiries. I will work my way through those recommendations with some degree of consistency and speed. I note that the member opposite has offered on behalf of the Labour Party to work with this Government so that the legal aid system and the justice system in New Zealand get the credibility integrity and value for taxpayers’ money that this country deserves. 
Prisoners—Employment Opportunities and Training 
12.  
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What advice has she received recently about the work that is under way to expand employment opportunities and training for prisoners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Following the launch of the Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy in October a large programme of work is under way to provide additional job training to prisoners. Twelve new workshops are currently being built nationally and I am advised that they will be fully operational by July next year. At Rimutaka Prison alone new training is currently being planned in partnership with WelTec in automotive engineering bricklaying and distribution. 
Melissa Lee 
: What further initiatives are planned by the Department of Corrections to improve the employability of prisoners following their release? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am advised that over the coming year training will be expanded in motor mechanics painting and decorating horticulture distribution catering and building construction and allied trades. Training in bricklaying and plumbing is also being introduced. These initiatives will boost the chances of prisoners finding jobs on their release. We know that those who find employment are less likely to reoffend. This will contribute to making our communities safer. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given the link between prisoner training and employment and prisoner rehabilitation does she stand by her statement to this House: “We in the National Party are not foolish enough to think that prisons … ever rehabilitate.”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Unless the member can verify that statement with a document I really could not take him at his word. Frankly he has made so many statements in this House. Just this week he told us that a dog handler’s van had been sold when the person who was using the van did not even have a dog. 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill 
Second Reading 
Third Reading 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a second and third time 
. This bill confirms and validates 20 Orders in Council and one set of regulations made under nine separate Acts. The bill must be enacted by 31 December 2009 to avoid the subordinate legislation lapsing. The bill was introduced on 23 September 2009 and referred to the Regulations Review Committee on 20 October 2009. The select committee asked the seven relevant Government agencies responsible for administering the legislation to explain why confirmation or validation of orders was warranted. It should be self-evident. For example we want those who are in receipt of State benefits to be able to continue to be in receipt of such. The select committee was satisfied with the responses it received and presented its report on 20 November recommending that the bill be passed without amendment. On that basis I thank the select committee for its expeditious consideration of this bill and I look forward to its passage this evening. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 Labour will be supporting the motion moved by the Leader of the House who enthusiastically expounded to the country the virtues of this short but perfectly formed legislation. Subordinate legislation of this type confirms and validates other decisions that flow from other legislation. It is very much a procedural bill. In fact this particular one affects very few Acts as the Leader of the House has just outlined: the Animal Products Act the Commodity Levies Act the Customs and Excise Act the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act the Social Security Act changes to road-user charges the Tariff Act the War Pensions Act and the Wine Act. It has been fully considered by the Regulations Review Committee. Those are the only comments Labour has to make about it. The select committee has done a very credible job in its consideration of this legislation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to members that there is a lot of noise in the House today. Could those members who are standing up and conducting noisy conversations please depart for the lobbies. I mean all those members who are standing up and conducting noisy conversations—please depart for the lobbies. There is a lot of noise in this Chamber. 
Bill read a second and a third time. 
Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: This is important legislation that is designed to determine the future of polytechnics in New Zealand. I am delighted to support the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You’ve got to move it: “I move it get a second reading.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Order! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
:  
I move that the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is wonderful to be able to get up and support the Minister of Education Anne Tolley in her moving of the second reading of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill especially in terms of the way that she was so well supported and the depth of understanding that was apparent in the speech that she left for Minister Gerry Brownlee who was acting on her behalf. I am not referring to the absence from the House of the Minister of Education but I say that her lack of making a speech is I think indicative of her level of understanding of this particular legislation. 
In fact if we want to give credit where credit is due this legislation is owned by one member in this House. Only one member in this House supports the bill as it has been reported back in this particular shape and that member is the Hon Roger Douglas. The point that we got to on this legislation was one of stalemate. 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I note that the Minister of Education was in the House. I am quite happy to give leave for her to take the rest of the time for her speech and to follow her when she has made it properly. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. The member will carry on with his speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Is it not? Oh I am allowed to seek leave— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Can I just say that the member knows full well that he cannot seek leave for another member. If members want leave they seek leave for themselves. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: OK I will do it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has the call and I ask the member to continue with his speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I seek leave to interrupt my speech and complete it upon the completion of the speech of the Minister of Education. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well I will put the leave. Leave is sought for the member to discontinue his speech until the Minister of Education has completed her speech. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We give Government members a chance and what do they do? They run away; they are chicken they are scared. They come into the House; they run away they go into the lobbies. Why can we not have a Minister of Education who at least knows what day of the week it is and the fact that she should be in the House. What a dopey dopey dope! She comes into the House looking like a wasp— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have called for order. The House will be silent. We will hear the point of order in silence. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: I am sure you understand my point of order—that we do not refer to the absence of members from the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is quite correct. The member speaking was making reference to members being in the lobbies which is not in the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Minister of Education came into this Chamber. She came through that door. She is not here now—I cannot say that she is in the lobby but I cannot see her at the moment— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I say that the member is trifling with the Speaker. That is about the third reference now that we have had and I ask you to take appropriate action. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member makes a fair point. The member speaking is not entitled to construct circumstances to try to circumvent the general understanding of this House that members are not to make reference to the absence of another member. I tell the member—I warn him—that this is the second time objection has been taken to that. If a third infraction occurs I will discontinue his speech. The member is invited to continue to speak on the bill as it is before the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I express my disappointment at the quality of the speech that was given by the Leader of the House on behalf of the Minister of Education. I express my disappointment that when the Minister of Education came into the House she chose not to make a speech. 
It is very sad that we do not have a Minister of Education who is prepared to make a speech supporting her own legislation. But then again we should not be particularly surprised at that fact because we know that in the end the Minister of Education had her arm broken by Sir Roger Douglas through negotiations with Allan Peachey who said: “Minister you have one of two ways of doing this bill. You could do it reasonably and you could have Maori representation as was promoted by the Labour Party in the select committee or you could have no Maori representation and go with the ACT point of view.” That is the position we are in. ACT has taken out the chief executive the student representative the staff representative and another representative—but I have forgotten which—from polytechnic councils. It has taken out four representatives. 
What the Government has done is accept that there will be no Maori representation on those bodies. I know the view of the Maori Party; I will be very surprised if those members support this legislation because all the representations made to them have made it clear that this measure is not a matter of going forward for Maori representation; it is a matter of going backwards. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s right—stand up for Maori after that sort of speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Frankly I would be surprised if Tau Henare could be talked into supporting this legislation. It will be interesting to see whether Tau Henare will vote for legislation that wipes out tangata whenua representation on polytechnic councils. That is what this legislation does: it wipes out that representation. It is not a matter of not putting it in; this legislation takes it out. We want to know whether Tau Henare will support Pita Sharples when Pita Sharples makes it clear that the Maori Party will not support this legislation because of what it does to Maori representation. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh whatever! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No it is a question. I do not know whether Tau Henare’s oft-stated principles will override his party loyalty or how comfortable he feels about being led along by Rodney Hide and his friends in this particular area. 
This legislation is also very bad news for regional New Zealand. By the way the bill is constructed it means that there is a possibility that no one from a local area where an institution is based will be on its council. There is no requirement for local representation at all. 
I say to the Minister—no I cannot say that. I ask whoever is in charge of the bill in the House at the moment—probably Allan Peachey—whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper when this bill comes back to the House next week. I am listening; there is no response no denial. We think that even the Government members know that they have got it wrong. We think that even Allan Peachey knows that they have it wrong and that he will promote with the Minister a Supplementary Order Paper especially about the timing of ministerial appointments. Frankly under this system it is weird. The old councils will nominate four people but without any knowledge of who the four ministerial appointments will be. It is topsy-turvy upside-down incoherent and illogical. To be absolutely fair even Roger Douglas knows that the legislation is wrong. I ask Sir Roger whether he is aware that there will be a Supplementary Order Paper. No he is not aware of it either. 
It is very very sad that the Government is so unprepared for its legislation that it does not have a Minister of Education who is prepared to back it at the second reading. The Associate Minister of Education was sitting in the House and he did not stand up to move the second reading motion. There is no one here with a coherent understanding of the legislation. 
To be fair there is one Government member with a good understanding of this legislation and that is Allan Peachey. He knows what the bill is about. He does not totally agree with its shape and he made that pretty clear in the sessions at the select committee. He could have put together something that is coherent. I think that if Allan Peachey had had his way he would have been able to construct something that would be ongoing. A number of us accept that a reduction in the size of the councils is something that could and should have been done and there could have been a reasonable compromise. I would trust Allan Peachey to broker that sort of compromise. He tried. He worked hard. He ran back and forth to the Minister. He took proposals up and down but in the end the woman was not for moving. She will stick her head in here occasionally. She will stick her head in through the door but when it comes to serious debate she will not front up. 
I think it is particularly sad that this a case not of the Minister knowing best but of Bill English pulling a few strings. It is a case of Bill English saying: “Let us do things this way. It does not really matter that everyone objects to it.” 
I will make one point from the select committee. There were two or three—and I am not absolutely sure about the third one—council chairs who are active members of the National Party and who came to the select committee and made representations. Not one of them supported the changes in the bill—not one of them. Not a single chair supported the changes. I think that is very very sad. 
I do not expect National to listen to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions the tangata whenua representations or the Maori students. No one expects Anne Tolley to listen to any of those representations but I would have thought that the Government would listen when two or three National Party activists who have had a lot of experience in running polytechnics come to a select committee and say that the system the Government is promoting is wrong. They said that it will not work it is inappropriate it will not fit their communities and it will reduce the quality of decision making in polytechnics. I think this bodes ill for a Minister who says: “I know best. I do not care what you National Party activists are saying. You can get stuffed. I will do what I want.” 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand in support of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill in the name of Minister Tolley at its second reading. We on this side of the House recognise that education is vital to the economy of this country. That is why education was one of our major planks in an election where we were overwhelmingly supported by the country. 
Polytechnics are extremely important to local communities and our national economy. This sector has indicated that the way polytechs are currently governed is inefficient. What we need as a country in terms of making our economy stronger is institutions that are strong sound in terms of their financial management and responsive to the needs of their local communities. This includes meeting the changing needs of employers communities iwi and others who need high-quality vocational education. 
In terms of areas of change there are many proposals in the bill. I did not hear the member who has just resumed his seat Trevor Mallard speak much about them at all. I do not know that he necessarily understood the bill because I did not hear him talk about it very much. The bill proposes that polytech councils be reduced in size from 20 to eight members. These eight include the four ministerial appointees. There were 56 submissions and submitters had a range of views about the members and who should make up the council. I thought it would be useful to share some of their thoughts rather than some of the ranting of the previous speaker. Waiariki Institute of Technology is in the Taupo electorate. It currently has a strong co-governance model and it wanted to see that any ministerial appointments were balanced by an equal number of appointments by the iwi authority. The change the Education and Science Committee has come up with in terms of those four members appointed by the council would allow them to do that. It gives them the flexibility to choose a model that will work for their polytech and that is what this bill is about. It is about improving governance and making sure that the communities are able to choose a council structure that works for them. 
Ngai Tahu also said they wanted a 50:50 model. One of their comments was that they agreed that the chief executive officer did not necessarily have to be a member of the council. In the second reading version of the bill councils can choose for themselves. This is important and I think the previous speaker completely ignored or perhaps did not understand that the bill gives polytechnic councils the choice of those four members. Councils of course are in partnership with the Crown so there will be four ministerial appointees and four appointed by the council and the council can choose how it is made up to best suit its needs. This Government recognises that not all polytechs are the same so we are allowing that degree of flexibility. 
I will give members a couple of other examples. Tai Poutini Polytechnic agreed that the academic board and student representative were not necessary and that the focus should be on skill. A couple of other submitters were strongly in favour of strong governance and the need to improve governance skills on the council. Unitec was another polytechnic that was supportive of the change from a representative model and Wintec was also supportive not believing that—as the Opposition might try to tell us—the changes would limit academic freedom. They were supportive of these changes. We also heard about some of the other polytechs like the Universal College of Learning that use a governance matrix when they are recruiting and selecting members to make sure that the balance of skills is appropriate so that it makes the council as strong as possible going forward. 
Another area that this bill addresses—which was not discussed at all by the previous speaker so I wonder whether he remembers the bill at all—concerns flexible interventions. The bill proposes a gradually escalating series of responses to the risks that polytechs may face such as financial or educational problems. I think it is important to remember that the focus of this bill is making sure that we have the best polytechs and the strongest polytechs in terms of both financial and educational outcomes. The select committee recommended some additions to the terms and conditions and they were taken into consideration. A number of changes were incorporated as a result of the feedback that submitters gave us which is an important part of the select committee process. That is an important point to note. 
Another key change was the option for the Minister for Tertiary Education to combine the councils of two or more polytechs if they have themselves recommended that they be combined and if the Minister is satisfied that their communities have been consulted. Again this is another level of choice for the polytech councils involved. It reinforces choice for the councils themselves which is something members on this side of the House encourage so that we can allow the polytechs to have a bit of flexibility to make choices for themselves. 
Another key highlight which is a significant part that was supported by all of the submitters was the setting up of the tertiary high school in South Auckland which basically will be up and running at the Manukau Institute of Technology by the beginning of 2010. I am delighted to speak in support of the second reading of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. Thank you. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 The Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill represents nothing but bad news for the students of polytechnics for the staff of polytechnics and for the regional communities of New Zealand. It is essentially a power grab by the Minister of Education. Certainly this bill will allow the Government to intervene more rapidly when polytechnics have issues with financial or educational performance but the Minister will not stop there. The bill will allow the Government to intervene in the affairs of polytechnics that are performing as well as of the ones that are not performing. In order for that to happen local communities staff and students will be denied a say in the governance of their institutions and to Labour that is unacceptable. 
The bill reduces the size of polytechnic councils ostensibly to improve their effectiveness and capability. In practice it means that councils of 12 to 20 members will be reduced to just eight members four of whom are ministerial appointees. Those appointees will include the chairperson and the deputy chairperson. Representatives of anyone other than the Minister are not so welcome on the proposed new councils. There will be one academic board member appointed by the council a community member appointed by the council one student representative and the chief executive officer. On the proposed new councils what the Minister says goes. We keep hearing from members on the other side of the House that this Government is about choice about personal choice and individual responsibility and is not about telling people what to do and then what does it do here? It gives all the power to the Minister and says she has the final say and is the only one who can determine what goes on. 
The decisions of a polytechnic council primarily affect the staff and the students of that polytechnic. Why then does the Minister believe that staff and students do not deserve to have guaranteed adequate representation on that council? We should be preserving their right to be heard in the decision-making process rather than adopting the attitude of “this Minister knows best”. There will be some representation for staff and students but it will not be enough. The Government claims these changes will increase the efficiency of the councils. In reality the Government is stripping the councils of legitimacy as it denies key stakeholders the right to make their voices heard. 
For many New Zealanders community polytechnics provide a vital service. They are right in the heart of their community. Why then is there no guaranteed place under this bill for a community representative? Why does the community not deserve to have a say in the governance of its local polytechnic? Under the proposed new form of the councils there is no room for community representatives should a polytechnic serve more than one community as many polytechnics do. Which community will be represented on the council of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology? Who will miss out? I guess that is entirely up to the Minister to decide. 
In this bill the Government notes that it is desirable in principle for a council to include Maori representatives and to reflect socio-economic and ethnic diversity within the community. However it makes no effort whatsoever to guarantee either. We see in this bill as we have seen in the Auckland super-city legislation an example of the National Government’s attitude towards Maori representation. National shows a complete disregard for the rights of Maori to be represented and for the value that this representation would bring. 
The Labour Party supports some provisions in this bill which we believe will make a positive difference. We have consistently supported the establishment of the tertiary education high school at the Manukau Institute of Technology and we will continue to do so. Ensuring that high school students who would otherwise be likely to leave school without qualifications will be provided with other opportunities to gain qualifications is important to us. Labour is committed to making sure that at-risk students do not fall through the gaps and initiatives such as this one are important steps towards achieving this goal. 
Having said that I say the other provisions of this bill make it impossible for Labour to support it. We do not support restricting the right of Maori of students of staff and of communities to participate in the decision-making processes of their local polytechnics. These polytechnics belong to their communities. The right of members of the community to be represented on the council of their local polytechnic should not be disregarded. Why does the Government want to restrict Maori student staff and community representation? Why does it want to slash these representative bodies to half their current size? Although this bill targets only polytechnics I cannot help but wonder what the Minister will do next. What else does she have in her sights? Will universities or wananga be next in line to get this treatment and for what purpose? 
The provisions in this bill send a clear message to New Zealand’s regional communities which highly value the skills and training that their local polytechnics provide. The Government obviously does not trust those communities to be decision makers when it comes to the governance of their polytechnics. The Government obviously does not respect their input. That attitude is simply wrong. In this case the Minister does not know best—I do not know whether there are any cases where she does know best—and Labour will not be supporting this bill. 
Unfortunately I am not on the Education and Science Committee but I have heard from many of our select committee members about what went on there and about their views regarding this legislation. The Labour members of the committee had grave concerns about the passage of this legislation with the exception of as I said the provisions that will enable secondary school students to attend tertiary high school at the Manukau Institute of Technology. That is the one measure in this bill that we support. The concerns of the Labour members of the select committee were firstly that there has been no adequate explanation of why this legislation is necessary for the polytechnic sector alone out of the whole tertiary education sector. Members on the Labour side of the House believe that either the Minister is operating on the basis of outdated information regarding the polytechnic sector or she has intentions for this part of the sector that she does not have for other parts of the tertiary education sector—and quite frankly we would find that to be rather bizarre. The purpose of such limiting provisions which hand considerable power in respect of the running of institutions over to the Minister and restrict community representation is ultimately unclear. 
Next I say we oppose the absolute reduction in council numbers from 14 to 20 members down to eight. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned this restricts the number of community representatives able to be appointed to polytechnic councils and that limits the perspectives able to be brought to the education that a polytechnic might offer to its region. That potentially impoverishes the educational opportunities available in the regions in our view. There is no clear purpose for this provision given that the operating cost of the councils is not large or excessive. The only purpose that can be divined is for the Minister to be able to exercise more control over polytechs. The ultimate purpose for that however is still unclear as I mentioned earlier. 
A particular concern for us regarding the reduction in the number of council members relates to situations where a polytechnic serves more than one community—for example the University College of Learning which serves Palmerston North Wanganui and the Wairarapa district. There is no guarantee that those diverse communities with differing educational needs will have their needs represented at the council level. This was the subject of submissions from mayors in various areas an unusual occurrence in itself and one that reflected the level of their concern about these provisions. 
We will not be supporting this bill. Thank you. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koutou katoa. I would love to get up and support a great educational bill that would advance the kaupapa of tertiary education which is a sector dear to the hearts and minds of my party where several of us have worked over many years and for which we feel a strong solidarity and a desire to see improvement for the benefit of the students of Aotearoa New Zealand. But this bill is not it. The Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill is not supported by the Green Party. Throughout the select committee process Metiria and I could never discover why it was so important to the Government for evidence that there was widespread governance failure across the country’s polytechnics was never established by anyone. This bill is thoroughly interventionist and contradicts the endless ideological bleating about the nanny State by the Government and the ACT Party which are supporting it. It shows little faith in polytechnics nor yet in the ability of communities to sensibly govern those institutions which are of great importance to the educational opportunities of many communities especially for second-chance learning and in regional areas. 
With reference to the underlying drivers for the bill as the Tertiary Education Union said to us in its submission this is a traditional private sector model based on false crisis assumptions. As the Human Rights Commission submission said there are serious concerns about ministerial powers. Of course the Green Party supports the proper management and governance of polytechnics and the good use of public money to that end but we are not convinced those issues are seriously addressed in this bill. 
We have a number of very serious concerns which are described in our minority view in the commentary on the bill and were outlined in the first reading speech that Metiria Turei made. Those concerns are based on listening carefully to the submitters. On the substantive issue of the reduced size and make-up of the polytechnic councils the submitters to the select committee were many and varied but the majority were extremely concerned about the reduction in the number of council members. Many were prepared to accept that 12 to 20 members were too many but few of them thought that eight was by any means adequate in terms of numbers. The fact that four members will be appointed by the Minister will severely reduce councils’ ability to represent communities and to involve key groups such as tangata whenua staff representation student representation chief executive officers as well as those diverse communities—not to mention union or employer representation which is vital in a vibrant tertiary institution. If there are to be eight council members with four appointed by the Minister there is already a strong opportunity for bias and control and we can add to that a reduction in opportunity for various community voices. 
The first and fundamental issue is Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was shameful that Ngai Tahu and other tangata whenua had to come and explain to the select committee that as mana whenua of Aoraki they were accustomed to operating effective Treaty-based relationships as of right with local learning institutions such as Aoraki Polytechnic. In this bill they are now being treated as a stakeholder in the community and may or may not have representation on polytechnics depending on the whim of a council as to whether it feels it is appropriate to choose such representatives. Their views were echoed by many other submitters who thought we were past arguing about the status of the Treaty in this kind of context. The new section 222AC(1) could be seen as a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi when it states that when appointing members of a polytechnic it is “desirable in principle” to include Maori and ethnic minorities. “Desirable in principle” means if they feel like it if it seems like a good idea—but where is the te Tiriti recognition? That is retrogressive in the extreme. It is worsened by the fact that only four positions are available to the community. Of course one of the ministerial appointments might be tangata whenua but “desirable in principle” does not reflect in any way the obligations of kawanatanga under te Tiriti to recognise the rangatiratanga. It is “desirable” but then so is world peace. It will not be required under this law. 
During the process the Government apparently listened to submitters and came back with a modification of section 222AA(1) which was allegedly a response to concerns. This is when things started to get very surreal. The response to concerns was that the four members appointed by the Minister would be set in concrete and then it would be up to councils as to who they appointed from the other sectors and community candidates. There would be no prescribed positions. Like much other ghastly and Draconian legislation it was masquerading under the guise of more choice. Choice for whom? The “choice” mantra means that there will be no requirement for student union representation unless it is chosen over community representation. It is all up to the councils and the lack of representation of the key vitally engaged parties is not seen as a problem. It will be councils’ choice in fact which sector they ignore. 
I will quote from submitters on the issue of numbers. Whitireia Community Polytechnic said to us that academic freedom is a serious issue and one place must be reserved for mana whenua. They said that a one-size-fits-all approach causes problems because it is not reality. They were prepared to see changes from 10 to 20 members down to 12 members but not a cap at eight members. The Palmerston North mayor stated that to reduce the number to eight is “impossible for adequate representation”. This issue was also restated by the Eastern Institute of Technology the Manukau Institute of Technology the Wairarapa Rural Education Activities Programme the National Council of Women Waiariki Polytechnic The Open Polytechnic Unitec the Waikato Institute of Technology etc. etc. Nobody denied that we might not need 20 but most people overwhelmingly said that eight could not do the job given the way in which the ministerial appointments had been constructed and the way in which the community and other appointments would have to compete. The Green Party agrees with the Labour Party’s minority view in the commentary on the bill on all matters pertaining to the reduction in polytech council members and the combined boards. 
We do support one part of the bill and there was a consensus on the select committee. We support clause 17 in Part 1 which relates to enabling Manukau Institute of Technology to provide for tertiary high school students. This is a good practical idea and it reflects the needs of the community. 
But this is a bad bill. We sat there listening to submitter after submitter wondering whether it was going to change anything only to find that it did not. When the submitters were so clear about what they wanted out of this legislation—they were extremely clear—it is very disappointing that they were totally ignored. In fact the position is now worse than it was originally before the first reading of the bill because now under the mantra of “choice” polytechnics have to choose whether they will include a student on their boards or whether they will include someone from the community. That is no choice at all for many of our communities who desperately need to have both at the table if they are to have an effective polytechnic that truly represents the diversity of their students. As for the issue of Maori representation this bill is just a disgrace. Quite apart from the issue of the Treaty if members look at the make-up of the student body at many of these polytechnics members will see that they are Maori and Pasifika and they want to see their boards reflect their communities from a perspective of knowledge and experience. 
So this is a bad bill. It was very disheartening for me as a new member to sit through a select committee process which is supposed to be an opportunity for improving a bill only to see it get worse. It made the process feel like token consultation as opposed to an opportunity to improve the responsibility we have for seriously making our educational institutions work for students. The Green Party will be opposing this bill all the way. Kia ora. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 I will be brief. The Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill is all about governance of local polytech institutions. We started with the knowledge that the sector was not functioning particularly well and there was a desire to look at why that was occurring. The truth is that any board of 14 to 20 members will not function particularly well and we found that basically that was why the sector was in such a mess. The question became how many people should be on a board of this nature. I think the Minister for Tertiary Education was quite right in deciding that eight members was the maximum number if the board were to function in an appropriate way. 
It then became a question of who should be on that board of eight. The first issue was that the Minister given that the Government is providing the bulk of the money would make the decision in terms of four members including the appointment of the chairperson and the deputy chairperson. I must say that in terms of governance of these organisations in my view the most important decision that will be made is the decision of the Minister as to who will be the chair and the deputy chair of each organisation. If we get right the chair and the deputy chair then appropriate governance will follow. So we have four members appointed by the Minister. 
The next question was who should occupy the other four positions. It was suggested that the chief executive officer should be on the board. I was indifferent about that personally. I did not think it was necessary for the chief executive officer to be on the board because if the chief executive officer cannot influence the board then the chief executive officer probably should not be in that position. It was also suggested that one of the representatives should be a student and one should be a staff member. I actually think that is bad governance. It is not appropriate frankly for students or for staff to be on a board of eight members or even a board of 20 members. I do not think that is appropriate governance. In any case any board worth its salt will consult the academic board and the students association. I personally do not believe that staff or students should be represented on the board. 
We were faced with a situation where possibly only one community member would be on the board. I think that was insufficient. We now have a position where up to four community members could be appointed. It is a question of whether we prefer four people from the community as opposed to a student the chief executive officer and a staff member. 
It seems to me that what we have now is an appropriate balance. Four members are appointed by the Minister and as I said the most important job the Minister has is to get the right chairperson and hopefully a competent deputy chair possibly with skills that the chairperson does not necessarily have so that they are complementary. If we have that we are on our way. We also have four members drawn from the community at large. As I said it is not particularly effective to have a staff member or student on the board nor is it necessary to have the chief executive officer on it because the chief executive officer will be at the board meetings anyway. Frankly if he or she cannot influence the board he or she is not going to make it. To me we got the right balance. 
What I am hearing from the Labour Party is that those members believe that a board of 14-20 people is appropriate. That is simply― 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no! 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: Yes that member’s colleagues have been saying that they are quite happy with 14 or more members but that is totally inappropriate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No! 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: I tell that member to listen to what his colleagues are saying. That is why Trevor Mallard got this sector into a mess when he was the Minister; he put too many people on the boards and he put people on them who were inappropriate. They were committed to representing a narrow particular view rather than looking at the interests of the polytechs overall. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Kia ora tatou katoa i tenei ahiahi. I do not think it would be any surprise to the House that for the Maori Party the crux of the issue in the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill is the whole notion of the value of Maori representation on tertiary governance bodies including mana whenua and Maori student representation as well. I suppose it becomes more relevant in terms of some of the discussions that have been put before the House today on in particular the feedback from the Education and Science Committee. It amended the bill by deleting the four positions for representatives from the academic board the students and the community and for the chief executive officer. There can be no doubt that by providing for only one community member the chance of Maori representation on any polytechnic council is pretty slim. For us that is a real concern. 
The next question is why Maori representation is such a significant issue. Well it is pretty simple. Some members have already set it out. It is about a Treaty right. To give that some context the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System said: “the Treaty of Waitangi marked the beginning of constitutional government in New Zealand. Under the terms of the Treaty the Crown formally recognised the existing rights of Maori and undertook to protect them. It is in this sense that Maori people have a special constitutional status.” That is one part of the argument—a Treaty right. Although the bill has a requirement that it is “desirable” that the council of an institution should reflect so far as is reasonably practicable the ethnic and socio-economic diversity of the communities served by the institution I have to say that it is a pretty toothless provision that disregards the constitutional significance of the Crown’s relationship to Maori. 
I also have to say that the failure of successive Governments to recognise and give effect to the Treaty as a basis of constitutional Government in New Zealand does not grant consent for subsequent Governments to perpetuate the failure. I need to tell this Parliament that the Maori Party will continue to keep the notion of Treaty rights at the forefront of discussions about our nationhood which are basically reflected in the relationship between Maori and Pakeha in this land. I also have to say that the Maori Party gained a lot of confidence from our relationship agreement with the National Party which said: “Both the National Party and the Maori Party will act in accordance with te Tiriti o Waitangi the Treaty of Waitangi” That of course will be an ongoing discussion. All of that context simply tells us that Maori representation is a Treaty right that is appropriate in the context of our history and our understanding of tangata whenua rights. 
The main concern about the bill is as I said the lack of Maori or iwi Treaty partnerships reflected in the arrangements and I would expect the Minister for Tertiary Education to be working with iwi entities at least to ensure that proper representation is enabled. We spoke about this matter in the first reading. Maori representation on polytech boards stems from our status as mana whenua—the mana of the land. We have been the guardians of the land the seas and the harbours of the regions for centuries. To put it into context Maori welcomed and gave a place to the settlers expecting to live alongside them in a respectful relationship. We all need to recognise that relationship today if we want to move into a positive future based on peaceful relationships between people and the land. 
To wrap it all up the unique status of Maori also requires that our values norms and ways of doing things should be reflected in all of our key institutions. It is about giving space to Maori culture and that is what we have been asking for not only with this bill but also with the whole question about the Auckland super-city proposal. It is important because giving space to Maori culture is about our survival and about our ability to flourish in the only place in the world where that is possible: Aotearoa our home. 
Many would not be aware that last Friday a hui was called at Te Noho Kotahitanga Marae at Unitec in Auckland. It was attended by representatives of iwi hapu whanau marae and tangata Tiriti from throughout the whole country. At that hui known as Te Hui o te Kotahitanga the participants pledged ongoing support for dedicated seats on Auckland’s super-city council for the mana whenua. A report from that hui concluded that it had reinforced the determination of Maori to support the legitimate right of mana whenua of Tamaki to have reserved seats as recommended by the royal commission and as supported by 80 percent of the public’s submissions on the super-city. The report concluded that a genuine Treaty relationship would reflect equal fifty-fifty representation of tangata whenua and tauiwi at governance level. However as a very minimum there should be three guaranteed seats for Maori representation and more important mana whenua representation as recommended by the royal commission. In that regard this discussion is not just about polytechs; it is in fact about the bigger picture and the whole notion of Treaty rights. 
How does all this discussion relate back to a bill on polytechnics? I am proud to speak to a bicultural partnership governance model for polytechnics put together by the Waiariki Institute of Technology—Te Whare Takiura o te Waiariki. As the local member I am pleased to support the proposal. The proposal has been approved and strongly supported by the Maori Party and we have referred it to the Minister for Tertiary Education for consideration. The model proposes an equal number of council appointments for Crown and Maori with community appointments filling the balance of the required council positions. The model has a bicultural focus and proposes an active demonstration of Treaty commitments. The paper describes those commitments as the Treaty relationship of partnership the Crown’s duty of active protection and the duty to act reasonably and in good faith by meaningful participation including the obligation to consult. The special relationship would be endorsed by formal recognition of representative tertiary education iwi authorities as legislated bodies. 
We are talking about allowing iwi to have space to formalise agreements with the Crown that basically allow iwi to set up their own forums and present proposals to these sorts of bodies. I suppose in a sense they are legitimised by a rubber stamp from the Crown as well. Once the iwi authority is established by the iwi in the rohe it would elect members for appointment to the polytechnic council. If members did not know a number of polytechnics throughout the country already follow this particular model. The recommendation is that the council then would comprise a minimum of nine and a maximum of 12 members three of whom would be appointed by the Minister after council input three appointed by the representative tertiary education iwi authority and up to four appointed by the people living in the community served by the polytechnic. 
I was pretty impressed by the model as was the Minister of Maori Affairs. The Maori Party will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper at the appropriate time and I look forward to support for it from in particular Labour and the other parties. I take on the words of Ranginui Walker who commented earlier this year: “The Waiariki Institute of Technology is a surrogate of the Crown. It has accommodated the tino rangatiratanga of Te Arawa and other tribes in the institution’s catchment area by committing to a partnership with tangata whenua.” That should set the scene. It has been operating in this way since the year 2000 and in its structure Te Mana Matauranga 
of the Waiariki trust represents the people of Te Arawa Mataatua and Tainui waka including Ngati Raukawa Ngati Awa Tuwharetoa and other iwi whose ancestral homelands lie within this area. The structure involves a joint committee of five council members and five from Te Mana Matauranga. It is a unique bicultural model in a mainstream setting—the best of both worlds. In a practical sense it aims to indigenise the curriculum and produce graduates who are culturally competent. 
So in conclusion there are other models of Maori representation such as those of Tairawhiti Polytechnic and Whitireia Community Polytechnic that reflect the quality of the relationship with local iwi relationships that are formally recognised through direct council representation. The Tairawhiti Polytechnic council for instance has four community places held by Te Runanga o Ngati Porou Te Runanga o Turanganui-a-Kiwa the Wairoa Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board and the Maori Women’s Welfare League. If the community viewpoint including mana whenua through its representatives is removed the focus of governance decision-making under this bill will quite quickly become central government based rather than regionally based. It is more important for central government to respond to community needs than it is for regions to respond to centralised requests. 
Maori representation is a Treaty right. It is critical for robust decision-making and institutional success over the long term. It is critical for our capacity as a Parliament to act in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi. So we will at this point be supporting this bill. We will be introducing an Supplementary Order Paper and we will reassess the bill at the appropriate time in the third reading. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on this very important Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. This bill needs to be enacted very very quickly. On this side of the House we believe that good governance means having good polytechs. We certainly do need to have good polytechs. We were informed that as we speak here seven polytechs are at risk and we do not want them to fail. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What about the universities that are at a much bigger risk? 
COLIN KING 
: Although we can hear the noise coming from a former Minister there is total denial from members on the Opposition side of the House. In fact there is a legacy of waste and failure of rorts of soft money and of poor governance from the previous Labour administration. That has to stop. 
This bill is long overdue and we need to have it passed. We need to have a greater expanded more flexible intervention process with at least two more steps. We are also encouraging the formation of other sorts of advisory committees. What we heard around the Education and Science Committee was that people all wanted to have their feet under the table and all wanted to have their say. This legislation is about delivering quality education and quality skills training and that is what the National Party stands for in Government. We look forward to this bill being progressed speedily and we look forward to the Committee stage in order to be able to identify the detail and the reason for it. On that basis I have pleasure in recommending this bill to the House. Thank you. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to follow the speech of the member from Kaikoura on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. Once again he is failing to acknowledge what the impacts of this bill will be on his electorate of Kaikoura particularly in his home base in Marlborough. If he has not yet worked it out—and he should have done so by now—this bill will disenfranchise Marlborough from representation on the council of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. That member should be defending his electorate and its rights to be represented. Instead he gave a short speech that simply referred to this being a great bill without acknowledging that he is seeing the disenfranchisement of his community of Marlborough from representation on the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology council. That is a disgrace. He should have the guts to defend his electorate and not be a puppet to a bill that does away with the representation that his electorate should have. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Even with my limited knowledge of the Standing Orders I heard the member breach them twice there—firstly by alleging that the previous speaker was gutless; and secondly by alleging that he was beholden to interests outside this House. Both of those suggestions are contrary to the Standing Orders. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Speaking to the point of order I made no such reference to interests outside the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry I was preoccupied with another matter and I did not hear what was said. But the member must know that members cannot do that. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I ask Mr King what the future of the Blenheim campus of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology is. Will he defend it? Will this bill be used as an attempt to downgrade the Blenheim campus of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology? We know that the financial situation of polytechnics is under some threat. I do not know how the interests of that community and of that polytechnic will be served by gutting the membership and representation of the council. I served for 8 years on that council. It was a strong and representative council. I did 8 years of service and the council served that community of Marlborough very very well. 
I pick up on the comments of Te Ururoa Flavell. I am still not sure what the Maori Party’s position will be on this bill because it seems to me that the Supplementary Order Paper he will be tabling proposed in fact a continuation of the sort of representation that was available prior to the introduction and possible passage of this bill. In the case of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology there were three Maori representatives: one from the Marlborough iwi one from the Nelson iwi and one from Te Maata Waka. The council was well represented. Under the model proposed by this bill I think we will see Maori treated with contempt. We have to ask where the supposed agreement is with the National Government which he has confidence in when he is forced to table a Supplementary Order Paper in the vain hope that there might still be the guarantee of some Maori representation on polytechnic councils across the country. I suggest that Pita Sharples as the Associate Minister of Education might like to take a call on this bill as well and tell us where the mana-enhancing status of the Maori Party is as represented by this bill when this bill is doing away with the right that Maori currently have to be involved at the table for decisions around polytechnic councils. 
The fact is that the Maori Party is being treated with contempt by the Government over this bill. What hope therefore can it really have for substantial progress on issues like foreshore and seabed? This is a repeat of what happened to the Maori Party with its proposals and wishes over the Auckland super-city. It is reduced to hoping that there might be some de facto recognition of Maori aspirations and rights and that it might be able to get a Supplementary Order Paper supported. It will not get it supported by the Government I wager. I would like to know where Tau Henare and Georgina te Hoho are on this bill as Maori members. And I ask why Paula Bennett if she is here to speak for Maori aspirations and rights is not giving this bill the thumbs down that it so deserves—that it absolutely deserves. This bill is reprehensible in its impact on Maori and others. 
I pick up on the comments of Sir Roger Douglas who suggested that 14 or 20 members was too many and eight was about right. Let us apply that to Cabinet perhaps and ask which Ministers we would do away with under that principle—maybe Georgina te Hoho because they will not need her in Cabinet to put a Maori voice in place. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I first came into this House in 1993. Many of the people on the other side of the House have continued to mispronounce my name and I take great offence. I take great offence especially at the mispronunciation of the name of my colleague Georgina te Heuheu. To pronounce it as “te Hoho” is an absolute disgrace. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that point of order. We had a case yesterday on pronunciation. I ask the member to be more careful in pronouncing names. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: If I indeed mispronounced a member’s name I apologise. 
I go back to the point about Sir Roger Douglas. Who would he like to take out of the Cabinet? Maybe he would take out Anne Tolley as the Minister supposedly presenting this bill or Gerry Brownlee who has shown his command of procedures in this House yet again this afternoon not only on this bill but on the one preceding it. I pick up also on the comments of Louise Upston the MP for Taupo who said this was a way to run inefficient polytechnics and to make them more responsive to communities. How on earth can they be more responsive to communities when effectively we are saying to the councils of polytechnics that they have “Sophie’s choice”? They will have four members appointed and they will then be able to choose whether there will be the chief executive officer a staff representative a student representative a Maori representative an employer representative a union representative or a community representative. Those are the choices faced by polytechnic councils under this bill. It is an absolute disgrace that it has been introduced to Parliament. 
The reason we need polytechnics is that they are the engine room of growth in our economy. They train the people who make our economy tick. They have always been treated as poor cousins in the tertiary sector; this bill now makes them powerless poor cousins. We have to ask the Minister in charge of the bill why she is not doing the same to university councils. Is it because they are more powerful and privileged than polytechnic councils? There is no signal or sign from the Minister that she will apply this swingeing axe to university councils because they have some clout. 
I acknowledge in this speech the contribution that Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology provides in my electorate of Christchurch Central. We have a debate currently in our city about the future of a proposal for a music school on the site of the Arts Centre of Christchurch; it would be a coalition between the university council and the city council. The debate neglects the fact that there are 300 music students at the polytechnic; the proposal is to assist 120 students of the university’s music school. Again it rubber stamps and treats the polytechnic as the poor cousin in the relationship despite the fact that 10000 polytechnic students filter through our city and enrich and add value to it. They do not get any real recognition whatsoever. 
There is indeed—and Sir Roger Douglas raised this question—a case for possible reductions in polytechnic councils. Twenty members is probably too many so there is the case for some reduction. I am sure that the Labour Party would have given this consideration if the bill had suggested some other reductions. A reduction to 12 or 14 may be feasible. Certainly the polytechnic council that I served on had 14 members and that worked extraordinarily well. But there is one problem as far as the Minister is concerned which is that that reduction would not give her the ministerial control that is so essential to her. That is the reason behind this bill. What is the agenda? Are we en route to the forced sale of some of our polytechnics to private tertiary education establishments? 
Nicky Wagner 
: That’s scaremongering. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Just in the past week the Minister has suggested using the private sector to build our schools. So we are not that far removed from what is possible under this Government. The Minister has also put in place cuts across adult and community education. 
One has to ask what is next. Will there be forced mergers between polytechnics as a result of this bill? The Minister will have control: she will appoint four of the eight and one of the other four is likely to be an ally of those four no matter how they are appointed by the council. So that gives the Minister effective control of the polytechnics and that is exactly the agenda behind this bill. I again ask what this will mean for polytechnics especially those that cover more than one community. I think of polytechnics like the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology which covers Nelson and Marlborough; and the Universal College of Learning in Palmerston North which represents people from the Manuwatu the Wairarapa and Wanganui. How on earth can we expect there to be community representation when three communities are being served by appointment? 
I come back to saying that this bill is reprehensible legislation. It is gutting the representation of communities in their polytechnic sector. It will gut the iwi representation on those councils. I challenge the Maori Party to find the courage to stand and take a position against this bill rather than hoping and praying that a Supplementary Order Paper that simply maintains the status quo gets the support of the Opposition. The Maori Party has the opportunity it is in coalition with the Government and it should be opposing this bill fiercely and representing the people it is here to represent. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call Allan Peachey. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Here comes the ministerial speech! 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I think the member does jest. I want to make some largely general comments on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. In one very very good way it is a step back to the past. There is a provision in the bill—a bill that is widely supported around the House—that will allow the Manukau Institute of Technology to establish a technical high school. 
There was a time in New Zealand when technical high schools had a proud and successful role to play. I think of my father’s own school Wanganui Technical College; I think also of Seddon Technical College in Auckland Hutt Valley Memorial Technical College King Edward Technical College in Dunedin and so on. These were fine schools that gave generations of New Zealanders a very solid grounding in a technical education. Is it not a tragedy to look back over 30 or 40 years and think about the bright sparks who decided that these schools should be closed down and that a different form of education should be available to those with a bent in technology in the technical areas in the trades? 
So we have come full circle and I think one of the great things that this Government is doing is re-establishing the role and importance of technical education. We know that the future of this country will depend as much on the technicians and the technologists whom we have available as it will on other groups in the community. 
I want to try to put the governance provisions for the polytech sector into a wider context and in a more logical context than for example the previous speaker with his speculation chose to do. It is important to acknowledge that the polytech sector plays an important role as part of one of the components that make up an effective tertiary sector. We should never ever underestimate the importance or the potential importance that the polytech sector has as part of a well-based broad tertiary education sector. Any lack of prestige any lack of quality and any lack of performance in the polytech sector undermine the ability of this country to meet the demands for skilled labour. That is one area in which in recent years this country has not been performing as well as it needs to. We can argue about having 20 or 14 or eight members on polytech councils but to me that is a largely irrelevant argument. The argument has to be around what governance structures will be the most favourable in terms of encouraging strategic thinking vision innovation and flexibility and will allow the polytechs to progress. 
The significant aspect of this bill which certainly the Opposition I think has either lost sight of or chosen not to acknowledge is a very very important shift away from governance arrangements that are pretty much solely based on representation to governance arrangements that are based on expertise on vision and on an ability to provide a rigorous governance structure for the polytechs to develop. I endorse entirely the comments of Sir Roger Douglas about the absolute importance of the quality of the chairperson and the deputy chairperson but I want to add another dimension and that is the quality of the chief executive. Get those appointments right and the polytechs will function to the standard and the level that the economy of this country and its future require. 
In terms of chief executives I am neutral as to whether the chief executives sit on the council. What I am not neutral about is the qualities that a chief executive needs to lead a polytech: understanding the nature of learning understanding the nature of a technical education—an education in technology—understanding what happens and what needs to happen in the lecture theatres the seminar rooms the laboratories and the workshop. That is a far greater test of whether a polytech will be successful than who sits on the governing council. Thank you. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 That last speech was rather telling. The member who has just resumed his seat Allan Peachey is the chairperson of the Education and Science Committee whose job it is to defend to the hilt the Government’s proposal in this regard. We have all just witnessed that over half the member’s speech was dedicated to an area of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill that is not contentious at all. I believe that that is because the chairperson has considerable difficulty defending and justifying the very contentious parts of this bill which takes community representation and the community voice out of polytechnics. I think that speech was very telling. 
I am proud to stand and oppose this bill. Labour opposes this bill unlike the Maori Party. We have heard a speech from Te Ururoa Flavell that would lead one to assume that the Maori Party opposes this bill because there is no dedicated Maori representation any more on polytechnic councils. Mr Flavell spent almost all his time telling us why the bill is wrong and why it needs a provision for dedicated Maori representation. Then at the very end of his speech he said that the Maori Party will vote in favour of the second reading. I think that is a disgrace and I see that that is exactly what the Maori Party does out in the electorate. 
Members of the Maori Party make speeches that lead people to believe that they opposed to what the Government is doing. They strongly criticise what the Government is doing but then they come down to Wellington and vote in favour of the National Government. They uphold the things the Government is doing. The National Government is dumbing down Maori participation. The Maori Party upholds those things that the National Government is doing that are wrecking hard-working families’ lives. That is the Maori Party that we see today. It is a very sad shadow of its former self. 
The reason I and my party strongly oppose this bill is that it is built on a false premise. The false premise is that the polytechnic sector in New Zealand is in crisis. There is no crisis in the sector. I did not hear any of the Government speakers actually outline to us the problem that needs fixing. Where is the crisis in the polytechnic sector? There is no issue to fix up. 
Of course there is a bit of strife currently in the polytechnic sector. It has nothing to do with governance and it has nothing to do with the size of the councils or who is on those councils. But as we speak polytechnic staff are taking strike action some of them for the very first time. They certainly never had to do that under the previous Labour Government. Many of those staff are for the first time taking strike action because the National Government has put a wage freeze on them. It is now pitching them against their employers and their employers have no choice but to say no to a well-deserved wage increase for those staff. 
If there is any crisis at all in the polytechnic sector it is because of the decision of this Government to impose a wage freeze. It has nothing to do with bad governance and it has nothing to do with the size of the councils. It certainly has nothing to do with specifying Maori representation on those councils—which is what the Government would have us believe. The Government would have us believe that firstly the polytechnic sector is in crisis; and secondly that the reason it is in crisis is that we currently require Maori representation on those councils. That is a disgraceful link to make. I believe that the Government is absolutely wrong in doing that. 
So what is the real agenda here? It is certainly not the cost of the polytechnic councils. We asked questions at the Education and Science Committee to find out how much people on those councils get paid and it is a tiny amount particularly for the hours they put in. In fact it is almost a community service. So it is certainly not cost that is driving this change in the law. 
This bill is not about improving representation. It is certainly not about that because it actually reduces community representation. It specifically sets out to decrease community representation. The real agenda is certainly not about improving governance because as I think the last Government speaker Allan Peachey pointed out governance has nothing to do with whether polytechnics work well; it is actually about the quality of the chief executive officer. So by the Government’s own admission this bill is not about improving governance. 
The bill will considerably increase ministerial control because half the council will be appointed by the Minister of Education. The other thing the bill will do is shut down the voice of students. I think that the very strong support coming from Sir Roger Douglas is very interesting. He of course has a member’s bill—it has been drawn from the ballot—that seeks to make student union membership voluntary. The Government of course supports that bill because it will dumb down the student voice. 
Government members cannot wait to dumb down the student voice. They will do so with the bill for voluntary student union membership and insidiously they are also doing so with this bill because this bill does not allow for a seat at the table to be dedicated to student representation. Actually the bill did allow for that at the first reading stage. When the bill was referred to the Education and Science Committee it actually had a provision that allowed for student representation at the council table. But guess what? The Government members on that select committee decided to “improve” it by removing the requirement for student representation around the table. 
Viewers watching this debate need to join up the dots. This bill is about dumbing down the voice of the community. It is particularly about dumbing down the voice of Maori. It is also particularly about dumbing down the voice of students. So what exactly is the Minister afraid of? Why is it that she is so desperate to shut down the student voice? I think those are very worrying signs for the future and not just for the future of the polytechnic sector of course but for the future of the university sector as well. Everyone can wait and see—the university sector will be next. It had better start to get its arguments together now because clearly this Government is after dumbing down the student voice and community representation. 
Listening to the submissions at the select committee was very enlightening because significant themes came through particularly from the polytechnic sector itself. Those themes were these: polytechnics all argued that having the ability to have only four community representatives was not enough and that they had complex and diverse communities that needed representation. Polytechnics were asking for more representatives. The other main theme was that eight representatives were too few in total. Many of the polytechnics came forward and suggested that they could live with 12 on their councils but that eight was far too few. The third significant theme from submitters was that they did not need or want that amount of ministerial control. They were worried about the sheer amount of ministerial control that this bill will give to the Minister to control what goes on at their polytechnics yet at the same time to take away the community voice. So they were worried about more ministerial control and a dumbing down of the community voice. 
I make particular reference to the very very good submission from Wintec the polytechnic in Hamilton. The chair Gordon Chesterman made a very very good representation to the select committee and pointed out for example that Wintec’s very good deputy chairperson Clint Baddeley had been appointed to that polytechnic council as a New Zealand Council of Trade Unions representative. That is another area of representation that this bill seeks to take away; it seeks to take away industry representation. 
In my remaining minute I will raise the issue of gender. We heard from submitters that most of the representation of women on these councils has come from staff representatives and student representatives. But because of this bill they will be gone. I want to know what the Minister of Women’s Affairs is doing about that. What questions has she asked about the gender implications of decreasing the representation on polytechnic councils to eight representatives? What questions has she asked about ensuring that another Minister appoints four of those representatives and about making sure there are no dedicated positions there for staff and student representatives who actually predominate now in relation to gender issues and balance throughout the country? I think there are very serious questions to be answered on this bill and I feel proud to be from a party that has the courage to stand up and oppose it. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to take the last call on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill and I do so with great pleasure because it is time we corrected the record. First of all the Education and Science Committee did listen and there have been significant changes to the bill that reflect the views of the submitters. I went back to my own polytech and I asked them whether it agreed with the changes the select committee members had made. Would having four opportunities to choose local representatives from the community from the staff and from the students give the polytech what it wants? In fact its representatives said to me: “Yes; you have listened.” There are significant changes in amendments to this bill which shows we have listened. 
It is very apparent that the way in which Labour conducted its affairs in the previous Government—throwing money at polytechs that were turning bad—is the way that Labour would like to continue. But those surpluses are gone and this Government wants to get the governance of polytechs correct. They are important institutions to this Government and good governance is what it takes. I support this bill and the amendments to it wholeheartedly. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Education and Science Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill 
Procedure 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Subject to discussions that have been held across the House I seek leave for the second and third readings on the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill to be taken simultaneously as one debate of 12 10-minute speeches with one question to be put at the end. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Second Reading 
Third Reading 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) 
: 
 I move  
That the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill be now read a second and a third time 
. This bill implements New Zealand’s obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions which requires legislation. The convention establishes a wide-ranging prohibition on the use of cluster munitions which cause unacceptable human harm. The convention is a significant development in international humanitarian measures and therefore its implementation is a key disarmament priority for this Government. Cluster munitions pose a particular threat to civilians. They have a wide area effect and they very often leave behind a large number of unexploded devices. Decades after their use the tragedy of lost lives and horrific injuries is still apparent. 
The legacy of unexploded cluster munitions endangers civilian lives in the same way that landmines do. In early December I was pleased to attend the global landmine summit at Cartagena in Columbia. There I was privileged to visit a small village in the jungle to view at first hand the sobering challenges facing communities affected by munitions of any kind. New Zealand has played its part in the fight against the effects of cluster munitions. Through NZAID we have contributed to clearance operations and we have given support to assist victims. Our Defence Force has helped clear unexploded cluster munitions around the world most recently in southern Lebanon. These experiences have brought home to New Zealanders the horrible cost paid by the victims of cluster munitions. The time has come for us to act to help stop others from falling victim to cluster munitions. I am proud that New Zealand played a leading role in the process toward the Convention on Cluster Munitions. We were a member of the small core group of States that drove the convention and in the process we hosted a crucial meeting in Wellington last year. This bill will enable New Zealand to meet its obligations under the convention. 
I would like to put on record my thanks for the work done by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. The bill has emerged from the committee in an improved form with amendments that take on board many of the proposals made in submissions. Some of these are aimed at reflecting the convention more faithfully and a few are of a technical nature. There are however several more substantive amendments that I will mention briefly. Submissions raised two issues relating to the scope of the offences. The first was that the offences contained in clause 11 might inadvertently criminalise New Zealanders who are involved in legitimate cluster munitions clearance activities overseas. This was not of course the intention and subclause (4A) has been inserted in clause 12 in order to make this clear. The bill now provides a further procedural check by requiring the Attorney-General’s consent for prosecutions under clause 11. 
The second issue was whether the prohibition on assistance provided sufficient indication that it applied to those who invest in cluster munitions. The select committee recommended making the prohibition against investment more explicit. Accordingly new subclause (1A) in clause 11 makes it an offence to deliberately set out to provide funds for or to invest in cluster munitions production or development. This offence is similar to some existing offences and it makes it clear that in order to be convicted the perpetrator must either intend for the funds to be used or know that they will be used in the development or production of cluster munitions. Therefore the offence is not directed at those who unwittingly invest in a company with some connection with cluster munitions. Rather it is directed at those who knowingly invest in a company manufacturing cluster munitions. Although this new offence spells out that a specific mental element is required it is not intended to suggest that there is no mental element for the other clause 11 offences.  
These offences have been drafted using the wording in the convention and the approach in similar existing legislation such as the Anti-Personnel Mines Prohibition Act 1998. All the offences outlined in clause 11 carry the same maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine of up to $500000 or both which indicates that all these offences are aimed at offending at the serious end of the scale. One of the most contentious issues in the negotiation of the convention was that of interoperability which is the term used to describe the circumstances in which a State’s parties and their military personnel or citizens may engage in military operations with States that are not party to the convention. This is addressed in article 21. The relevant aspects of that article are implemented in clauses 11(2) and 12(5). Other aspects of article 21 do not need legislative implementation. Rather they will be implemented through mechanisms such as diplomatic representation. There was also some concern in the submissions that the bill permits the importation of cluster munitions for training purposes. There is no present intention to bring any cluster munitions into New Zealand. However the bill does not rule out that possibility as new types of cluster munitions may be developed and New Zealand Defence Force personnel may need appropriate training to continue our ongoing humanitarian assistance. 
Before I conclude I would like to pay tribute to the non-governmental organisations that have had an active role in the negotiation of the convention. In particular I should mention the importance of the global and local Cluster Munition Coalition. Its commitment has been essential in getting us to this point. Non-governmental organisations will also have a crucial role when the convention enters into force. New Zealand was one of 94 States to sign the convention at a ceremony in Oslo on 3 December 2008. There are now 103 signatories and 24 States have ratified with the convention requiring 30 ratifications to bring it into force. 
Our work will not end there. The more States that commit to the convention the stronger the norm against cluster munitions will become. New Zealand will be a strong advocate for the convention. Through diplomatic channels we have pressed upon other States the importance of the convention and we have encouraged the ratification of it. I urge all States that have not already done so to sign and ratify the convention as soon as possible. I hope that our legislation will be useful to other countries as they strive to implement the convention themselves. Efforts to universalise the convention are key to creating a sense of moral repugnancy and to rid the world of these hideous weapons. New Zealand has a profile on disarmament and arms control issues far above our size or place in the world. We have long taken a strong position on the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions and we have taken a central role in the development of the convention. I am extremely pleased to continue that tradition with this bill. I am proud that New Zealand is truly committed to a world without cluster munitions and that I stand to represent the Government and the people of New Zealand in making that stand. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to say we support the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill and do so with a sense of ownership of it. My departed colleague the previous member for Wellington Central the Hon Marian Hobbs was a passionate advocate for this legislation. Indeed she introduced it into the House. She was a tireless international worker in this area. I have to say that the Labour Party leader Phil Goff in his previous role as foreign Minister was also a tireless advocate for this legislation. As the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control has just acknowledged in her presentation New Zealand took a leadership role in the world and we can be very proud of that. The passage of this legislation today with the support of all parties in the House is something that all New Zealanders can feel satisfaction and pride in. 
As the Minister said cluster munitions have caused enormous harm around the world. Indeed one of the contributions from the Labour side this afternoon will be from David Shearer the Labour member for Mt Albert—one of our newest MPs—who has worked in the Lebanon Afghanistan and Iraq. He will no doubt talk about the effects of cluster munitions that he has seen and about their long-lasting impact on civilian populations particularly children. I know that as a result of the conflict that took place in the Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel many children in the Lebanon have suffered horrific injuries from playing with these small and shiny objects which are found scattered across their country. Those children have not been alone in being the victims of these evil and insidious munitions. 
I remember that last year when I visited Cambodia in my role as the then education Minister I saw firsthand the effects of landmines on young children. They had lost limbs. At this point I want to compliment Mr Chhour a Cambodian refugee who came to New Zealand in the 1970s and who has been extraordinarily generous in providing artificial limbs for many of these children. Cluster munitions cause the same problems as landmines. In a way they are even more dangerous than landmines because they look so innocent. At least a minefield can be cleared. Finding these small shiny objects which are often very attractive to children can be extraordinarily difficult in places. We have over 20 countries and territories where these weapons have been used and where they lie in wait for the unwary—most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan and I am sure Mr Shearer will talk about that. 
Why was this legislation not dealt with through the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons? New Zealand is one of the countries that became very frustrated with that slow and bureaucratic process. I know that another of my Labour colleagues the new member for Wellington Central Grant Robertson who was a New Zealand representative at the UN may well talk in his presentation and I do not want to pre-empt his speech about why New Zealand and six other countries including Norway Austria the Holy See and Ireland—a gang of seven if you like—got together and thought we had to move things along. We thought they were going so slowly we would never get there—that we never going to get an international treaty that prohibited the use of cluster munitions. So New Zealand working with those other six countries set up what was called the Oslo process which set an objective of having legislation like the legislation that we will pass today adopted globally. We then went on to two more conferences in Lima and Vienna. Finally last year here in Wellington we had a conference where I think 82 countries were represented and over 400 delegates came. Mr Goff in his role as foreign Minister opened the conference. Out of that conference came this legislation. It makes me really proud as a New Zealander to be a part of a process that sees this legislation which was worked on across the parties passed in this Parliament to make the world a safer place. Thank you. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I think that the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill is among the most important that we will put through Parliament this year. It was a pleasure to have this issue before our Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and to have members from all parties totally united in preparing the report back to the House. I am just looking back through  
Hansard 
 and I notice that the bill first came to our attention in late July of this year so in parliamentary terms we have done quite well. I commend the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control Georgina te Heuheu for pushing so hard to make sure that we got the legislation through in this calendar year. I should also like to commend the Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff for his stewardship of this issue in his term in Government and my colleague Don MacKay in the ministry who was our lead negotiator on the legislation. 
There are a couple of points in the report back to the House that I would like to quickly address—on issues that had caused the committee to make some recommendations. One of the issues was that we were concerned that the application of the bill could inadvertently criminalise New Zealanders who work for humanitarian or commercial organisations that legitimately work to clear the sites of cluster munitions in other countries. We understand that this was not the intent of the bill and we recommended amending clause 12 by making it very clear that people engaged in this work did not commit an offence when they undertook cluster munitions clearance activities in a way that was in accordance with the convention. 
The second area that caused the committee a lot of deliberation over a period of several weeks was the question of investment in a company engaged in the manufacture of cluster munitions or in one that had some other involvement in cluster munitions production although in some cases that may not have been the primary focus of the activities of those companies and investors may not be aware that such activities were part of the business. An example of that would be Lockheed Martin. In 2008 the New Zealand Superannuation Fund for example divested from Lockheed Martin as part of its exclusion of cluster munitions - involved companies from its investment portfolio. 
The wording of the offence is not directed at investors who unknowingly find themselves with an investment in a company involved in cluster munitions production but there would however be a reasonable expectation that fund managers and investors would investigate the full portfolio of a company before investing in case prohibited activities were involved. Under clause 11(1A) a person can be convicted of an offence but only if that person had made the investment intending that it would result in cluster munitions development or production or knowing it would do so. For the average investor the mental element would have to be clearly established—that is the investor invested in that company knowing that it developed or produced cluster munitions. That provision may also be interpreted by the courts to include retaining an investment after the discovery of its involvement in cluster munitions development or production. Because of the extraterritorial provision of the bill both domestic and offshore investment is covered. 
With those few comments I commend this legislation to the House. I particularly thank Jacqui Dean who chaired the committee for a period of several weeks in my absence. I also thank all my colleagues on the committee for the great work they did in preparing this report and bringing it back to the House. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 This is a special moment. I agree with the comments of my colleagues who have spoken before me that this is one of the rare times when peace breaks out in the House. The reason is that this legislation is unequivocally good law and it is something we can all agree on. 
This bill is the latest important development in the evolving international humanitarian law going right back to the creation of the Geneva conventions the outlawing of biological and chemical weapons and in more recent times the Ottawa treaty banning landmines and the development of the International Criminal Court. These are some of the hallmarks of the progress of our civilisation over the last century and this law which prohibits or bans cluster munitions is a useful addition to international law. So it is truly gratifying to be here in the House taking part in the passage of this law. 
The treaty will come into effect after 30 countries have ratified it. I think it has already been commented that some 28 countries have already passed the law and 24 have ratified. It may well be that New Zealand by passing this law now will be in time to become one of the first 30 countries to ratify and bring the convention to life. 
Why is this bill important? It is important because cluster munitions like landmines are indiscriminate. Their legacy as a weapon lies in the soil for years afterwards and in the last 40 years they have caused thousands and thousands of unnecessary deaths of civilians. I think it is appropriate that the genesis of this convention and this law lies with the success of the Ottawa treaty to ban landmines. In my 15 years with Oxfam one of the most gratifying experiences was the contribution that Oxfam as a non-governmental organisation made both in New Zealand and globally to the Ottawa treaty and the international campaign to ban landmines. In this Parliament in 1996 we gathered and dumped thousands of single shoes on the floor of Parliament as a symbolic protest against the indiscriminate carnage imposed on civilians all over the world by landmines. Shortly after that a group of all the leaders of opposition parties in Parliament at that time convinced the National Government of the day to become an early adopter of the Ottawa treaty and to change New Zealand’s policy and support an absolute ban on landmines. 
One of the things I wanted to say in these comments is that the success of the Ottawa treaty and the success of the international campaign to ban cluster munitions offers a model for the engagement of Governments and international organisations with civil society. It shows us the possibility for Governments to work hand in hand with non-governmental organisations and people of conscience all around the world confronting the obscene logic of military and industrial interests that for years have manufactured sold and used indiscriminate weapons like cluster munitions to the detriment of thousands and thousands of innocent civilians. 
It is important to note that New Zealand has made a special contribution in the development of the convention. Under the leadership of Phil Goff former Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control New Zealand was an early and strong backer of the convention. Norway led the process but New Zealand was one of seven countries in the core group that drove the process through a series of negotiating conferences. The New Zealand Government hosted the penultimate conference in February 2008 where 160 countries were represented. Ambassador MacKay and Phil Goff ran a very successful process although it was a difficult one. In that process New Zealand had to stare down a number of recalcitrant nations among which were some of our normally closest friends and allies that wanted to water down the text. If they had been allowed to succeed at that time we would be looking at a grossly inferior convention. I think there is a really important lesson there. Two months later in Dublin a comprehensive text was approved by the international community which saw the cluster munitions convention really come to life. 
The willingness of Governments to take risks to show courage and to show leadership on enormously powerful and important issues like this one is something that we should not lose sight of. I challenge the Government in the area of disarmament and I challenge the Minister to bring the same kind of persistence determination and courage to other issues like the international arms trade treaty on conventional weapons and the growing movement internationally that has been inspired in recent months by the election of President Obama. I challenge the Minister to confront the need to work towards a world without nuclear weapons. It will not be easy and there are enormously powerful vested interests political and military that we have to confront. But I urge the Government to show the same willingness to work with civil society and to take a tough stand and confront people in the interests of doing what is right. 
I will comment briefly on the issue of divestment. We had a very constructive non-partisan discussion in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and I commend the chairmanship of John Hayes. It is good to see the member back in the House today. We discussed a number of largely technical amendments to the draft bill that came to the committee. We benefited greatly as a committee from the advice from the Aotearoa New Zealand Cluster Munition Coalition and we worked through in a very productive and constructive way the submissions that that non-governmental organisation made. Two previous speakers from the Government commented on a number of those things and I will not repeat what they said. But I will comment on the issue of worldwide investments in cluster munitions because it is the area where the select committee really added value to the bill. 
The convention does not explicitly prohibit investment in cluster munitions. One could say that there is a double standard if countries are willing to sign up to the convention but are not willing to outlaw investment. I am very glad to say that members of the committee from all parties accepted the argument that our legislation should explicitly prohibit investment in cluster munitions. To date only three countries—Belgium Ireland and Luxembourg—have legislated to explicitly outlaw investment. I want to point the House to a report that came out recently by a couple of groups—Pax Christi and Netwerk Vlaanderen from the Netherlands—that did some analysis on the 138 financial institutions that have been the main financial backers of cluster munitions over the last couple of years. I want to read the names of this hall of shame. These institutions include Goldman Sachs Merrill Lynch J P Morgan Chase Deutsche Bank and Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Together they provided $2.5 billion of banking services to the eight companies that produce cluster munitions. The Bank of America Citigroup Barclays Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan Chase provided another $2 billion in loans to the producers of cluster munitions. 
I am really proud that this legislation explicitly outlaws investment in cluster munitions and in that respect I am confident that it will be one of the best pieces of legislation putting into practice the objectives of the Cluster Munition Coalition. I also acknowledge the people who have played a really important role in bringing the legislation to this point: Phil Goff the former Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control Marian Hobbs Don McKay and Mary Wareham the New Zealand coordinator of the Aotearoa New Zealand Cluster Munition Coalition who is sitting in the gallery today. She has played an extraordinary role and deserves credit too. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to speak in support of the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill. The committee took some time to work very closely together to deliver a good bill for the House. Like all members I believe that the sooner we get this into law the better. Thank you. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I am most grateful to follow Mr McClay because I think I will not be able to beat him in his record. I do not plan to spend a long time but I want to rise and I take pleasure in doing so to express the Green Party’s support for the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill as we have expressed support from the beginning in the first reading and during the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee’s consideration of the bill. To us as has been identified the bill is a very encouraging example of cross-party cooperation in the committee. I would like to pay tribute again to John Hayes and Jacqui Dean for their chairmanship and for that matter to officials who gave us a lot of support and advice. 
I think we can take particular pride in achieving with good accord the final outcome of the clause relating to divestment in cluster munitions. It was not the easiest thing to do and I want to pay tribute to Maryan Street for her leadership in that respect and to Todd McClay for his constructive comments as well. 
That said as has been noted I think it is almost a love fest tonight. Peace is breaking out around the House. I do not think we should get too carried away by this. Peace has not broken out around the world and I do not think we want to engage in over-self-congratulations on this either in the House or elsewhere. There are a couple of comments I make in passing. I touched on one or two in the first reading and I will very quickly repeat them. Firstly in the future when it comes to issues pertaining to the use of force or of banned weaponry we need to look at the role of the Attorney-General to whom is given the empowerment to give consent to any prosecution. We do not have much time and I do not wish to pursue this issue too far because I was mindful of the time constraints and the political objective of getting a quick ratification here but I think it is a fundamental constitutional issue that we need to explore if not ideally in a generic sense then in a committee pertaining to another treaty. 
Secondly as I mentioned there is the whole question of the withdrawal clause that members will find in the convention itself I think in article 20. I believe that in the current age it is an outmoded notion that States entering this kind of treaty banning weapons that violate such fundamental notions of human rights should be seen as ius cogens and peremptory norm. There should be no withdrawal from those. But that said we are happy to support it. I have heard some comment that we in New Zealand are leading the way in this. Again I think it is a form of moderate self-delusion to think that we have it perfect in our foreign policy around the world. It is one thing to be in a group that is leading on this issue but let us recognise that all we are doing here is something that we do elsewhere; that is to find that the international community has created new forms of weaponry and then in a fit of contrition find they are so inhumane that we proceed to ban them. That is not a massive step forward in the broader sweep of human history. It is simply a form of clearing away problems that we create for ourselves. 
So we do not need to get too carried away by that. Without wanting to strike too sour a note I think we need to be a little more sober about where we fit in the world in terms of our contribution to international security. We created a nuclear weapon-free-zone yet in certain votes we continue to support nuclear deterrents at the United Nations. We endorse the International Criminal Court and look at the issue of aggression coming down the track in the court but we are not prepared to take a leadership role in importing it into our national legislation in advance or possibly even at all. We commit ourselves to an aid target of 0.7 percent but after 30 years we are battling to achieve half of that target. We commit to the International Criminal Court by way of universal jurisdiction to apply to any person on the planet who has violated laws by way of war crimes or crimes against humanity but if one of the suspects sets foot in New Zealand we tend to get cold feet in terms of how we proceed in that respect. 
I am not wishing to unduly put down this nation or our foreign policy; I think we can be decently proud of it. I do take issue with pretending we punch above our weight and that we are a model United Nations citizen that everyone else aspires to be because that is patently not the case. I do not intend it to be a sour note at this point of adopting the resolution; I just think we need to be a little bit more sober about our own self-appreciation of our foreign policy. With those self-admonitory comments I certainly reiterate the support of the Green Party to adopt this legislation. Thank you. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and make a brief contribution to the debate on the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill. It makes me feel primarily very proud to be a New Zealander today. New Zealand’s leadership in the cause of peace and disarmament in the world is well known to everybody in the House and this is another significant step. When we stand up on the world stage and say how proud we are of our nuclear-free status and how important it is to our sense of nationhood we can also add to that the Convention on Cluster Munitions and this legislation. 
I pay particular tribute to the officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade some of whom are in the gallery today. Don MacKay’s leadership in this area has already been noted by John Hayes. Don was my boss at one point when I was working at the United Nations in New York. 
John Hayes 
: Pity he didn’t teach you something. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I tell Mr Hayes that even he could not pull me into line. He played a significant leadership role in this area and I think New Zealanders can be very proud of him in the role he played as well as of the other officials. I particularly mention Jillian Dempster who I know had many sleepless nights trying to pull together the meeting in 2008. That was obviously a critical point in the process of finalising the convention and we can all be very proud of that work. I also pay tribute to the Ministers who have overseen our work on this particularly Phil Goff; my predecessor in Wellington Central Marian Hobbs—who I know should she be awake in the UK now will be watching and listening to this debate and will be very proud—and also Minister te Heuheu who has lead us through to this stage today. 
My colleague Phil Twyford has already mentioned that this bill really represents another stage in terms of international law and a comprehensive set of arrangements that start to deal to some of the humanitarian crises we see around the world. New Zealand’s role in de-mining in places like Mozambique Cambodia and so on is very well known. I hope that as we move through we can continue to play that role in terms of cluster munitions. As has been noted 24 countries have ratified this convention. Timing is everything in comedy and politics and it will be interesting to see whether we are close to being the 30th nation that will allow this convention to enter into force. It would be a great thing for New Zealand if that were the case given the leadership role that New Zealand has played in this issue. 
Other speakers have spoken about the horror that is cluster munitions. I think it is important to note that their use goes as far back as 1965 in Viet Nam and has continued through the decades. That is a great tragedy for the world. It is an enormous tragedy for the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been lost and the many thousands of people who have been maimed as a result of cluster munitions. Cluster munitions are indiscriminate weapons. They largely affect civilians. Research has shown that 98 percent of the victims of cluster munitions are in fact civilians. So these are insidious weapons that have made enormous impacts on the lives of innocent people. They create de facto minefields that people often have to move through simply to go about their daily business. Again research has shown that the victims are often people simply trying to make sure that they can continue their livelihoods and that they can go to places where they need to go in order to support their economic lives. So it is vitally important that we are able to address this problem. As has already been mentioned—my colleague David Shearer will speak shortly and I am sure he will refer to Lebanon—in 2006 there were a million unexploded bomblets from cluster munitions in Lebanon. Thousands of hectares of land are covered with these dangerous weapons which ordinary everyday citizens were unfortunately encountering in their lives. That is why a convention such as the one we are debating today is so important. 
It will be clear when people look at the countries that have signed this convention and the countries that have ratified this convention that some big names are missing. The United States and Russia are two of the biggest names of all. But that does not diminish the importance of this convention because through acting together in this way the international community can apply pressure on those large nations to acknowledge that they should not continue with the use of cluster munitions. It is important to remember that this is why New Zealand should involve itself in multilateral action. This is where a small country like New Zealand can make a huge difference to the world by involving ourselves at the multilateral level taking a leadership role and changing the world for the better. That is why I believe that even though those large countries have not signed this convention it is still an incredibly important instrument. 
I acknowledge too the role of non-governmental organisations internationally and here in New Zealand in terms of how this convention has come about. Along with my colleague Phil Twyford I congratulate Mary Wareham and the group in New Zealand who have led the charge in terms of this issue. It is a great example of Governments and non-governmental organisations working together. It is a great example of how international action can lead us forward. 
I close my brief contribution to this debate by talking about the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and acknowledging the excellent work that was done there under John Hayes’ and Jacqui Dean’s leadership. I also acknowledge my colleague Maryan Street who is not here today who really led the way in terms of the divestment provisions that have now been included within the bill. I think that is very important. Maryan Street also led the way in the previous Parliament in terms of helping New Zealand to move towards more ethical investment of the funds we invest. I think it is important to note that as part of this process the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has divested itself of the assets involved in the manufacture of cluster munitions. That is a great start and in fact there may be some other areas where we can look towards more ethical investment. It is another example of the practical way in which New Zealand can take a leadership role on these issues. 
I commend this bill to the House. This is a very proud day for New Zealand. I am pleased that we are able to get it through in the cooperative way we have today and that New Zealand once again can stand up on the world stage and say that we have played our role in making this world a safer place. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 It is a great privilege and pleasure for me to stand today to take a call on the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill. I thank my colleagues for allowing me to do this because I was not involved in the select committee process but for me this issue is rather personal. In July 2006 during the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict I was appointed the humanitarian coordinator in charge of coordinating the relief effort and rehabilitation particularly the relief effort in southern Lebanon. About a million Lebanese had to flee from the south when Hezbollah fired off rockets into Israel and Israel responded by effectively flattening and destroying most of the towns in southern Lebanon. As I said a million people left the area. 
Israel used cluster weapons in that war and perhaps most appallingly it used them at the end of the war once we had an agreement. As humanitarian coordinator I remember holding a press conference in Beirut and stating the outrageous fact that nearly all of those munitions were fired in the last 3 to 4 days of the war. It was outrageous because by that stage the conflict had been largely resolved in the form of the UN Security Council Resolution 1701. That resolution halted the war but it did not stop millions of cluster bombs being fired into the southern part of Lebanon just as those one million people were returning to their homes as Grant Robertson has mentioned. The people returned to their homes at a time when cluster weapons literally littered the countryside. 
I remember driving through the southern part of Lebanon and having to go round the cluster munitions. They were just small canisters with ribbons on the end and they floated down. On many occasions they landed unexploded. It is estimated that 30 to 40 percent of the cluster munitions that were fired came down and did not explode. They littered the ground. They littered the hospitals the playgrounds the schoolyards and the residential areas of the people of southern Lebanon. 
At the time a colleague of mine an Israeli reporter who was in contact with me and who wanted to know about it found some of the soldiers who had been responsible for firing off some of those bombs. One of the battalion commanders who estimated that he had fired about 1800 cluster bombs containing 1.2 million cluster bomblets stated: “What we did was insane and monstrous we covered entire towns in cluster bombs.” These were soldiers whose consciences spoke to them and they spoke out publicly at the end of the war about what they had done. So for me it is a very proud moment to be involved in this legislation during its passage through the House. 
When I left the war in Israel was claiming either the life or limbs of about three people a day; it has now killed about 20 people and maimed or injured about 170 others. Overwhelmingly as Grant Robertson said more than 90 percent of those people are civilians. A lot of them are children because children go out pick up the bomblets and play with them and the bomblets explode in their hands. Cluster bombs have polluted and continue to pollute the agricultural land of south Lebanon on which 70 percent of the population rely. Those people cannot go back into their fields because of the threat of cluster munitions. If they do go back then there is the threat that those unexploded munitions can go off. 
I join with others in the House in congratulating the people who have championed this legislation in both this Parliament and in the previous Parliament. Phil Goff Marian Hobbs Georgina te Heuheu John Hayes and the members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee have brought this legislation through. Again I pay tribute to the non-governmental organisations and the civil society groups that have in a sense paved the way and been in the vanguard of making sure that New Zealand is at the front and that the two Governments involved have been able to follow through with the knowledge and certainty that this is the right way to go forward. 
As my colleague Phil Twyford mentioned this bill is one of the strongest pieces of legislation globally to ban cluster munitions. The divestment provisions in particular are to be applauded. This legislation means that we back up our talk with actions. As I say it is a very proud moment for New Zealand and it is something that I am very pleased to close the circle on from a moment in Lebanon in July 2006 to being here in December 2009. Thank you. 
Bill read a second and a third time. 
Name changed to Cluster Munitions Prohibition Bill. 
Legal Services Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Legal Services Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The Legal Services Amendment Bill marks an important step in the Government’s treatment of the needs of victims. From the outset I acknowledge that the bill was originally introduced by Annette King towards the final months of the previous Government’s endeavours in what was a particularly difficult public situation. The then Minister moved as quickly as she was able in the circumstances but the matter has now made substantial progress with the assistance of both sides of the House. 
This bill will mean that victims of crime can access legal aid for coronial inquests and Parole Board hearings without facing a financial means test or the possibility of having to make any repayments. This bill improves administrative practice by enabling the Legal Services Agency to decide not to recover legal aid debt at any time during the process. This will alleviate distress for applicants with circumstances where a repayment requirement is inappropriate. The agency will now be able to let victims of crime know as early as possible that they will not be required to make repayments. 
The bill also introduces a regulation-making power in the event that it is necessary to exempt particular classes of persons or proceedings from the financial eligibility tests and repayment conditions. A regulation-making power will enable a swift response to future situations such as those that prompted this bill when they arise. We are all aware of the dreadful circumstances that led to this bill being introduced. This bill reflects the desire of all parties to prevent unnecessarily inflexible legislation from re-victimising victims of crime. In those rare cases where victims of crime need legal representation at coronial inquests and Parole Board hearings they should not have to deal with the stress of the possibility of repayments being required. 
Submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee raised a number of other possible changes that could be made to support the needs of victims through either the legal aid system or the justice system. I am pleased to say that the Government can address these wider issues relating to the role of victims in the justice system through other pieces of work such as the legal aid review which will continue to attract further attention by way of further reform and the review of the Victims’ Rights Act. This bill provides a focused amendment to a specific problem in the Legal Services Act and provides the flexibility to more efficiently remedy any similar problems in the future. It reinforces the Government’s priority on rebalancing the justice system for victims of crime. I would like to thank all members of the House and all of those who have been involved in this important legislation and the work the select committee undertook. I commend this bill to the House. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of Labour on this important bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill. I would like firstly to thank the Minister of Justice for acknowledging the work that Labour had already done on this bill prior to the election. In the same vein I acknowledge in particular the Hon Annette King who was the first member of this House to progress this bill in her capacity as the then Minister. I also acknowledge the work of Chester Borrows as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee who took the bill through the select committee phase. I acknowledge the officials who serviced the select committee and provided very good advice. I also acknowledge the submitters who choose to come forward and speak to this bill. Many of them or their families had been the victims of a crime. They provided heartfelt submissions not only on the substance of the bill but on the wider issue of victims’ representation in the criminal justice system. A lot of what they said to the committee resonated quite strongly with members on all sides. Of course we were limited as to what we could address within the scope of this bill which is reasonably narrow. 
In this third reading or final stage of the bill I will cover off what this legislation attempts to do. I will highlight the changes that the committee made to the bill and also the wider context of victims’ rights in the criminal justice system. I think we have some way to go in what is a shifting environment in terms of victims’ rights and I will touch on that issue later. 
Firstly it is interesting to reflect on the context of the Legal Services Act which this bill amends. The purpose of the Legal Services Agency is to promote access to justice. There are three quite key principles. The first is to provide a legal aid scheme that assists people of insufficient means to pay for legal services—to none the less have access to them. Legal aid has become a matter of great controversy recently and it is an issue that I am sure the House will debate further in the future. The second key principle is to provide other means of legal assistance. The third is to support community legal services by funding community law centres education and research. The continuing instability of funding for community law centres is a fraught area and this House has already dealt with that this year. I am pleased that there is a good working relationship on both sides of the House via Minister Power to make sure that community law centres continue to be well funded. But they are quite key areas that the Legal Services Agency deals with and they have become quite politically fraught recently. 
This bill is however one that has had support from all sides of the House and I think that is because it responds to an issue of natural justice. Everyone will recall the outrage from the public when it dawned on people that we had a system that would allow quite unjustly victims to be hit with a significant bill for just taking part in legal proceedings that involved the death of a loved one. It is quite right that the amendments made in this bill have been done in such a swift way. 
The purpose of the bill has already been touched on by the Minister but I will highlight it again. The bill ensures that the victims of crime are able to attend stages of justice proceedings such as Parole Board hearings or coronial inquests and are not subject to financial eligibility tests—not necessarily in all cases. It enables the Legal Services Agency to write off legal debt at any time during legal proceedings rather than only when proceedings are concluded. That is something I touched on in the Committee stage. Of course as we are all aware in this House going through the full process of perhaps even appeals etc. could mean that the family of a victim would be waiting a considerable amount of time before they were aware of what kind of legal aid debt might be pursued by the Legal Services Agency. If it is clear from the outset that that is not something the Legal Services Agency is likely to do it is best that that is known up front. Of course as a preventive measure—and I think this is a smart move by the House—a new regulation-making power is given to the Minister to enable extra classes of people to be added in terms of the financial eligibility test and repayment conditions at any time. That means that we will not go through a full parliamentary process to add any extra categories of people; it will be done through a regulations review process. I think that is fitting. 
In my speech in the Committee stage I touched on the amendments that the select committee had made and I think they were useful amendments. They might be considered to be somewhat technical but they clarified that our intention in this House was to allow victims to have this measure apply to them through all stages of a criminal justice process where they had the right to be a part of proceedings. That includes Parole Board hearings and of course there was the discussion around coronial inquests as well. 
I come back to the issue that I very briefly touched on at the beginning of my speech which is the changing context in which we have been debating this measure over the past years—right back to from my recollection as early as 2002. The environment in which we now debate victims’ rights in New Zealand has changed. It was in 2003 I believe that I had the privilege of working for the Hon Phil Goff when he was Minister of Justice and I recall that at that time the Sensible Sentencing Trust was just beginning to emerge as an advocacy body in New Zealand. Since that body has begun to grow it has highlighted for me an issue that I believe all of us in this House should be concerned about. All of us should be champions on behalf of victims. We should also be champions on behalf of a fair and equitable justice system. I fear that in this country at present there is exploitation going on of victims. I do think it is the role of parliamentarians to ensure that if there are concerns—and there still are of course—in our criminal justice system about the way that victims are treated as they come through that system then those concerns should be addressed. But I think that victims at present are being used as part of a lobby for something quite different from that and that it will be to the detriment of this place and of our justice system. We must keep that in mind as we continue to debate additional provisions to enhance the role of victims in our criminal justice system. 
I highlight again that members on both sides of this House hold these issues very dear to our hearts. I think it is unfair that sometimes we hear consideration of these issues as though there is almost a hierarchy of parties with some regarded as being more adequate than others to deal with such issues. I think that is grossly unfair. Although this bill may have been a response to a very specific case we have seen many pieces of legislation during the 9 years of the previous Labour Government that were proactive rather than reactive. I have named some of them before: the Sentencing Act 2002 which introduced the presumption in favour of reparation and resulted in that sentence being used much more frequently and which was something we heard about when we discussed the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005. They were not just pieces of legislation; they were policies that were intended to give a greater footing for victims and a greater awareness of the place of victims in our criminal justice system. We should be proud of those policies. 
But I highlight again that there is always a balance to be struck and I fear that at present a lobby is exploiting victims in this country rather than making sure that we have policies in place to genuinely assist those who find themselves in the horrid and unfortunate situation of being a victim in New Zealand. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 This is an extraordinarily apt time to be considering the affect of the legislation that governs our legal services. The Government is of course at this stage involved in a consultation process to improve Government agencies’ responses to victims of crime. The point of that process is to find solutions about how to enhance the rights and role of victims in criminal justice processes. This consultation process itself comes hot on the heels of the release of the legal aid review. The report  
Transforming the Legal Aid System 
 states as one of its basic premises that an efficient and effective court system is central to effective access to justice and within that having a more satisfactory process for victims and witnesses is critical. But there is a statement in that report that is particularly relevant to this bill today. In the section on customer services the report notes that the court system tends to focus on the perpetrators of crime and only to a lesser extent on victims. The families of perpetrators of crime however are generally ignored. This is part of the tragic context of a justice system that insists on defining and separating out people as victims as perpetrators as children but rarely as members of a family. The shame of that approach is that the potential for families to live better lives and to wrap loving arms around an offender so as to avoid patterns of offending into the future is effectively neglected. 
The Legal Services Amendment Bill introduces a new definition of victim. A victim now also includes a parent or a legal guardian of a child or young person or a member of the immediate family of a person who has died or is rendered incapable by an offence. This is very significant in that it is moving towards a justice system that reflects and responds to the community rather than isolates out individual offenders. All of us will know someone who has had a brush with the law. Indeed in the life of this Parliament there have been members who have had various encounters with the police the courts or the corrections system. And so all of us also have the potential to empathise with the families and loved ones of offenders. We understand the traumatic impact of incarceration upon a family; we know the toll taken. The Maori Party knows also the heavy burden borne by far too many of our people. Maori have a higher risk of victimisation across all offence types and this is especially so for Maori women. Maori are also far more likely to be victimised multiple times. The risk of victimisation for Maori is particularly high for serious offences such as sexual violence and violence by partners. One of the most staggering statistics to my mind is that 18 percent of Maori women who had a partner were victimised at least once compared to 5 percent of all non-Maori. These results are too disturbing to table in this House without doing all that we can to address them. 
Faced then with this situation we are now looking at legislation that is to respond to the situation of victims facing additional stress when fronting up to the justice sector. The bill will ensure that victims of crime attending a Parole Board hearing or coronial inquest will not be subject to financial eligibility testing. It stipulates also that any grants made will not have repayment conditions attached. Another factor of this bill is that the Legal Services Agency will write off legal aid debt where the individual circumstances of persons who have received legal aid make it inequitable to seek recovery. Again I think about the disproportionate numbers of Maori who are seeking legal aid and who are struggling to make their way through seemingly insurmountable barriers. Maori and Pasifika persons feature strongly amongst those most likely to experience problems in accessing legal assistance. In Dame Margaret Bazley’s opinion if the legal system fails Maori it fails altogether. One of the key recommendations in her report is that the legal system needs to focus on the legal needs of Maori and Pasifika peoples and the barriers they face in accessing legal aid with a view to enhancing their access over time. I will add to that: let us in this House make sure that it is in quick time not in time that is dragging on for decades to come. I refer again to the report I spoke about yesterday written by my father and Dr Oliver Sutherland in 1973 which concluded that there were two standards of justice in the courts of New Zealand. It was their analysis that Maori offenders were at a disadvantage in the courts and in the main did not receive just and fair treatment. I quote from the report: “the administrators of justice in New Zealand will have to recognise that in this regard they themselves rather than the Maori offenders are the problem”. 
Thirty-six years later then what are we doing to properly address the difficulties that many Maori applicants for legal aid still face? In the  
Report on the 2006 National Survey of Unmet Legal Needs and Access to Services  
the results for Maori revealed that the perceived costs of lawyers’ fees prevented a significant number of Maori from seeking help—more so than New Zealanders on average. Over a third of Maori with problems felt that perceived costs had stopped them from approaching a lawyer to help them with their problem or to see whether they could get legal aid. The problem area where cost was the greatest barrier to accessing such services from a lawyer was in whanau or relationship breakdowns. For consumer-related problems a category where Maori were least likely to seek help cost was also a relatively significant issue. 
This bill in itself will not magically address longstanding issues dating back over decades about the inequitable treatment of Maori within the justice system. It is also a bill that is being debated in the context of considerable upheaval within the sector and particularly in relation to the Legal Services Agency. The Maori Party will support this bill as it is an important step in seeking a direction for the justice system. Of course we will always support any attempt to ensure that people gain adequate access to justice. However there are many other issues that we want to see addressed including the aspiration of a justice system strategy based on kaupapa Maori and within the context of Maori cultural values. These are issues that my colleague the Hon Dr Pita Sharples is pursuing in the Drivers of Crime work programme and in the context of the future work ahead the Maori Party is delighted to support this bill as a move in the right direction. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I will take just a short call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill and I will make just three points. 
The first is a point I made during the Committee stage which is that I hope the Government will take an early opportunity to look at the question of representation in coroners’ hearings. Such a hearing is not like a court in the normal run of events and not everyone is eligible to hire a lawyer to appear for them in a coroner’s hearing. As one of the lawyers who has appeared in that situation quite frequently said to me once it is a court of understanding. That is its objective: to get to a point of understanding of what went wrong and to gain learnings from it so that the risks are reduced in terms of those events occurring again. I was very much involved in the loss of life that occurred at Christchurch Hospital in 1996 and I attended coroners’ hearings and observed that everyone—doctors nurses hospitals—in the room was represented by lawyers except the families. I have felt for a long time that this is a gap in our system and I say to the Government that we would certainly be very happy to work with it on extending the eligibility for representation in coroners’ hearings as part of the legal aid review; I think it would fit very well with it. 
That moves me on to the second point which is that victims are not just those who are victims of serious crime. I have just come to the House from the Commerce Committee’s hearings into finance company failures. There are people out there who have lost a lot of money. They have not been the victims of crime; they have not been mugged in the street. But they certainly have been mugged in terms of the amount of money they have lost through the investments they made. So it is all a matter of degree and perspective. A lot of people would in fact like to see their access to justice facilitated by greater access to financial support to take on these cases—in some cases those people are directors trustees or auditors—and to enable a more class action approach so that groupings can get together and drive the legal work that needs to be done in order to hold to account the people who ought to be held to account. 
I acknowledge the Minister of Justice—this is my first chance to do so since question time—for agreeing to meet with the Manukau lawyers. I met with them yesterday and what I got out of that meeting—which I think the Minister will too—is that most of Dame Margaret’s recommendations are really worthy and it is worthwhile getting on with them. I understand his desire to get on with them quickly and I support him in that. But some recommendations are silly and will not work and he needs to meet with the lawyers and understand why. One of the recommendations sounds really really good—mind you I laughed when it was put to me—and that is the recommendation about meeting with the duty solicitor 2 days before the hearing. It is just not possible. The summary of facts is not available from the police until the day so there are issues around processes. We think that some focus on the processes particularly in the Manukau District Court might actually solve a lot of the problems that are happening there. I respectfully disagree with the Minister about the need to right the wrong of the assumptions that have been created about 80 percent of the people who work there. But I will leave the Minister to hear what they have to say and if he is able to address that issue I think it will help everyone move on and back the changes that have to be made. 
The final point I make is to back Jacinda Ardern’s comments. I believe there are groups out there who are using the victims of serious violent crime to prevent a broader debate about the drivers of crime. I make it absolutely clear that identifying drivers of crime is not a process of making excuses for criminal behaviour. It is not about excuses; it is about opportunities to intervene so that we can reduce crime. I think the Government is absolutely on the right track with this and we want to back it on that as well. After all that backing of the Government I think I will call my speech to a close. 
Bill read a third time. 
Sittings of the House 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 As the House has made such excellent progress this afternoon I seek leave for the House to rise early. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There being no opposition the House will rise. 
The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.