Volume 652 Week 3 - Thursday 12 February 2009 
Volume 652 Week 3 - Thursday 12 February 2009 
[Volume:652;Page:1219] 
Thursday 12 February 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 17 February it is the Government’s intention to progress the Electoral Amendment Bill the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill and other first readings to be introduced next week. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 Can we have an indication from the Leader of the House whether it is the intention to take urgency next week? If not it is presumably therefore the intention to allow a members’ day to occur on Wednesday as would occur under Standing Orders. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is the Government’s intention to take urgency next week. A members’ day is unlikely. It is also likely that the House will be in urgency until around 10 p.m. next Thursday night as well. 
Questions to Ministers 
Recession—Government Actions for Economic Growth 
1. 
 CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister for Infrastructure 
: What steps has the Government recently taken to help ease the sharpest impacts of the global recession and prepare New Zealand’s economy for future growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister for Infrastructure) 
: 
 Our announcement yesterday of more than $500 million worth of quality building projects on schools roads and housing has been warmly received across the country because it will make a real difference to communities and local businesses. In addition to our infrastructure package we have already confirmed a programme of income tax cuts over the next 3 years—passed before Christmas—and sweeping changes to the cumbersome Resource Management Act launched a $480 million package of tax and regulatory measures for small and medium enterprises and are now working hard on providing better smarter public services from our departments and ministries. 
Craig Foss 
: What further measures will the Government take as part of its jobs and growth plan? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We will be announcing further infrastructure projects in coming months and we are looking forward to the Prime Minister’s job summit on 27 February where we will pick up the best ideas for creating jobs and building a more productive higher-income economy. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister tell the House what the real additional cost of his infrastructure mini-package is over and above what was in the plans already announced by the previous Labour Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: For the member’s benefit I will point out the process again. The Government has set aside an envelope of about $4.5 billion over the next 3 years—and he may remember his party criticising that aggressively back in August last year when we announced it—and yesterday took the first $500 million bite out of that $4.5 billion. We have never said it was all new spending; some of it is simply bringing forward projects that were already planned. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be silent while a point of order is heard. Thank you. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Respectful of your direction to Ministers to attempt to faithfully answer specific questions with specific replies I seek your guidance. The question asked how much was new spending. The Minister has now admitted to the House that much of it was not new spending but he has not answered the question or addressed it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister in his reply mentioned a couple of figures that give the honourable member some guidance in response to that and he will have another chance by asking further supplementary questions to seek further guidance. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member may note that I have ruled that I am not—[ 
Interruption 
] I am not going into the detail but the Minister mentioned at least two figures that I recollect in his answer which gives some guidance. The member will have the chance to pursue that further. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception to the comments made by the member opposite. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is quite correct. The member cannot imply that someone was not telling the truth. I ask him to withdraw and apologise for that. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Craig Foss 
: Has the Minister seen or heard anything that remotely resembles an alternative plan to manage New Zealand through the recession that started under the previous Labour Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have heard a number of mentions of an urgent visionary bold cross-sectoral comprehensive plan from the Opposition spokesperson on finance. He confirmed this morning that he might have something before an election but he did not say which election. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Taking just one example what proportion of the funding announced for the famous— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you know my point of order Mr Speaker. A question should be a question not a statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a perfectly good point. The Hon David Cunliffe will please comply. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What proportion of the funding announced for the now famous Kopu Bridge yesterday is actually new money and what proportion represents the new cost of bringing the date of that bridge forward by a few months or other cost increases? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If we count as new money projects that now have funding that were announced by Labour but were not funded by it then pretty well everything we are doing is with new money. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order will be heard in silence. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The Minister’s reply neither addressed the Kopu Bridge—and could not have done because that was funded—nor mentioned how much which was the point of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister in answering the question said it was not funded. I cannot adjudicate on whether that is correct. The member will have further supplementary questions to pursue that particular issue. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I take it from that ruling that you are telling this House—and of course your rulings on these matters must be taken as the gospel truth—that the statement that something was not funded is not a factual statement a point about which you can rule. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point I was making for the honourable member’s sake is that the Hon David Cunliffe raised the issue of whether what the Minister had said was correct. That is not a valid point of order; I cannot adjudicate on that issue. If the member is not happy with the answer he can pursue it further. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take from what you are saying that when the Government says something is not funded it really means an appropriation has not yet been passed which of course has not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that is not a point of order under any of our Standing Orders. He is most knowledgeable on the Standing Orders of this House and that is not a point of order. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Tena koe Mr Speaker. Maybe two nights ago I reiterated on behalf of the Maori Party the standard we took last year in respect of the pronunciation of Maori words. Unfortunately some members were not in the House at that time but the Speaker in the Chair at the time did ask all members to consider the pronunciation of Maori words. In light of the fact that I did talk with my colleague Mr Garrett that night about the pronunciation of Maori words I ask that you give a general recollection of that discussion for the benefit of all members of the House today. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: First of all it seems to me that if someone is going to raise that point of order there must be a specific objection to a specific mispronunciation and no such objection was raised. The second point is that we must allow for people making an honest attempt. I frequently hear English Scottish and Welsh place names mispronounced not only in this House but even on television. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Following Dr Cullen’s objection I say that I attempted to call a point of order at the time of the mispronunciation but unfortunately others were ahead of me. That is point number one. Point number two is that the specific reference is to the Kopu Bridge. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member. Obviously all members will do their best to pronounce both languages to the best of their ability and none of us are perfect in that matter. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Can the Minister advise the House how the removal of $700 million from the special account for the New Zealand Fast Forward research and development fund and its placement back into the consolidated fund will help to prepare New Zealand’s economy for future growth; and can the Minister advise what has happened to the $700 million thus returned? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We felt that an arrangement whereby the Government borrowed $700 million to put into an account which it would then use to buy Government bonds off the Government itself was probably a waste of time. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Is the Minister telling the House that the steps he has taken so far are likely to raise productivity from the miserable 1 percent growth that we had under the Labour Government to the 3 percent that we had during the 1990s; if not will he tell us what extra steps he plans to take? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Some of the steps we have taken are directly focused on improving productivity. There is no single silver bullet but the following are some of the measures I can quote to the member: the legislation for reductions in income taxation—which I know he favours—that we passed before Christmas; the small business package which significantly reduces compliance costs; the legislation on the introduction of the 90-day probationary period which we passed before Christmas; and the very significant revision of the Resource Management Act which will be introduced to this House in the next few weeks. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why does the Minister and indeed John Key continue to claim that New Zealand’s stimulus package is larger on a per capita basis than that of Australia when Brian Gaynor points out that in fact Australia’s package is 67 percent larger per capita than New Zealand’s; and does he agree with Mr Gaynor’s statement that historically Australia’s bold and strong approach has been found to be far more effective than the “cautious and conservative” approach—his words—that the National Government is following? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I am pleased the member asked that question because Brian Gaynor is wrong. In fact I will send the member a copy of an analysis that has been completed in the last week or so and shows that the extent of the stimulus to the New Zealand economy over the next couple of years is about the same size as that proposed by Australia. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What scope for increased infrastructure spending would the Minister have had if the previous Government had followed his advice and spent the surpluses in the good years rather than investing them to pass on to his Government one of the lowest Crown debt levels in the Western World? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The previous Government did spend the surpluses. That is why in the 2008 Budget it had to go out and borrow $13 billion—because of cash deficits. The other problem it created is that the whole area of infrastructure became so clogged up with regulation and misguided policy that it is hard to get decisive action. 
Ministers—Confidence 
2.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes and I am surprised to see the Leader of the Opposition questioning the confidence in the Ministers in the House but when our Ministers are out of the House he tries to gatecrash their photo opportunities because it is the only way he can get in the paper. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why should the Prime Minister or the country have any confidence in the Minister of Housing who in yesterday’s so-called stimulus package claimed to be adding 69 extra to an existing 450 State housing starts when in fact if the Minister looks at the 2008/09 appropriations he will see the appropriation granted was for 650 houses a figure that shows that the Minister is actually slashing State housing starts compared with the Budget appropriation by 131 and how does he justify such deliberate deceit? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last part of that question was very marginal. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The country showed that it had no confidence in a Government that announced that it was going to complete 650 houses when all the way through it knew that it would never get to that target. This Government is being honest about how many houses can be completed. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table the 2008-09 estimates document which shows that the Cabinet decision— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How many did you build? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I think it is against the Standing Orders for somebody to interject on a point of order and that member has done it quite frequently. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition is not helping. He is meant to be making his point of order. I have silenced the House. He should please make his point of order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table the 2008-09 estimates which show that the Cabinet’s decision for the 2008-09 year was for a net increase of 650 State housing units; that shows that the Minister is actually slashing the number of State houses being built or acquired. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether this is a good opportunity to ask you to consider this. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to table documents that have long been tabled. He should know that the appropriations and the Budget are tabled each year. What is the point of taking up the House’s time tabling something that has already been tabled? Does the Leader of the Opposition not realise that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a very good point. The purpose of tabling documents is to make available material that is not otherwise available to members. Of course that document was available. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the statement of intent which came out several months after that Cabinet decision from Housing New Zealand requesting that the Labour Government cut its target to 530 net State houses because it did not have the funding to acquire them. That is an official document— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was very tolerant in how long I allowed the Minister to describe that document—having just responded to a point of order by his ministerial colleague the Hon Rodney Hide—and the Minister should know that that document is already a parliamentary document and is readily available. I am not prepared to put the question for leave. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I just be clear on this? You refused to allow the member to seek leave. I thought he was seeking leave to table a document that shows that even under the Housing New Zealand Corporation more housing starts were planned under Labour than the total announced yesterday. We would be very happy for that document to be tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The reason I am not prepared to put that seeking of leave to the House is that under the Standing Orders that kind of document is not meant to be tabled in the House because it is already available to members. That is why I did not accept the member’s seeking of leave for that purpose. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to be pedantic but I thought you were obligated when a member—probably especially when a Minister—seeks leave to table a document to put that leave to the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The previous report of the Standing Orders Committee drew this matter to the attention of members and strongly recommended that members should refrain from seeking to table things like answers to oral questions or written questions etc. which used to happen some dozens of times a day under the previous Government from the then Opposition. I think it would be helpful if members followed that advice. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the points made by both honourable members. I will take advice on that issue and if in fact I have erred today I will make it clear to the House that although members can seek leave when they should not if they do seek leave then I should put that to the House. In fact I will reverse my position; I will put to the House the member’s seeking of leave. Is there any objection to the document described by the Minister of Housing being tabled? There is no objection. Thank you. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm that the document that has just been tabled shows that the number of houses to be built under the Budget was higher than the number of houses the Minister claims he is increasing housing starts to and that this in fact constitutes not a stimulus for job growth but a reduction in housing starts for the Housing New Zealand Corporation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If the member spent more time doing his homework and less time trying to get into the reflected glory of our successful Cabinet Ministers and their photo opportunities then he would know that the previous Government actually funded only 450 new houses despite the fact that it announced 650. That is why we had to announce yesterday a further sum of tens of millions of dollars in order to lift the number of State houses that will be completed this year. There is a difference between an announcement and doing it. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why would the country have confidence in the Minister for Infrastructure when he discloses that the entire infrastructure package announced yesterday might keep 2000 people in their jobs when 10000 jobs have been lost in the previous 3 months alone and when Treasury estimates demonstrate that under existing Government policy settings New Zealand will lose 1000 jobs a week—each and every week this year? Does that not show that this infrastructure package is hopelessly inadequate to address that problem? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister does have confidence in the Minister for Infrastructure as can this country because this country and the Prime Minister know there will be more announcements and more infrastructure projects coming online over the next 2 or 3 years. They will be focused on productive investment that is designed to lift our long-term economic capacity. We do not believe that any Government programme will be able to prevent a significant rise in unemployment. That member should know that because under the previous Government unemployment started rising. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was that an admission by the Prime Minister that he has given up and that he accepts that those Treasury estimates are right and we will see unemployment—already 9.6 percent for Maori workers—at around 7 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government hopes that unemployment will not reach those levels but it understands that it cannot turn back the tide of a recession. We need to do two things: protect people from the sharpest edges of recession and prepare this economy to grow again. The only thing that will help people who lose their jobs in the next few months will be enough confidence among businesses to invest in new jobs to replace the ones that are lost. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why should the country have confidence in the Minister of Finance when his action before Christmas in stripping three-quarters of a billion dollars out of the pockets of low and middle income families when they were promised those tax cuts in legislation is totally against the advice given by the chief economist of Moody’s Mark Zandi who said that those sorts of tax cuts are exactly the sorts of cost-effective measures needed to stimulate the economy and job growth rather than the policies that this National Government has pursued instead? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The country showed its confidence in the National Government and its Cabinet by voting us in in the last election on a tax package we campaigned on. People can look forward to tax cuts on 1 April particularly the people on low and middle incomes who will benefit most from the package. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why should the country have confidence in the Prime Minister when his policy of drip-feeding minor announcements in response to the economic crisis is exactly the opposite of what the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund is in fact recommending and is contradicted by the United States Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner who said this week: “We believe that the policy response has to be comprehensive and forceful. There is more risk and greater cost in gradualism than in aggressive action.”; clearly we are getting gradualism caution and great conservatism? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are two reasons why the country can have confidence. The first is that in New Zealand fortunately we are not trying to deal with a collapsing financial system which Secretary Geithner is trying to deal with—and I must say a bit unsuccessfully it looks at the moment— 
Hon Member 
: He’s got a Yale PhD. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: He has a John F Kennedy School of Government diploma. The second reason the country can have confidence is that as I have explained to the House a number of times New Zealand has significant fiscal stimulus in place now comparable to Australia and the US. That is one reason why people feel they have more cash in their pockets and they are wondering when the recession is going to hit them. They have low interest rates tax cuts and lower petrol prices putting cash in their pockets. 
Justice—Access for All 
3.  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement in this House on Tuesday 10 February 2009 that “This Government is committed to access to justice for all not just for those privileged few”; and if he does stand by this statement why? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; access to justice is important for all—none more so than the less privileged in society. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Did the Minister’s own Ministry of Justice provide advice that the Government’s proposed changes to the Resource Management Act would present an obstacle to people with legitimate cases but not enough money taking a case to the Environment Court; and is that “justice for all”? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: As I am sure the member is aware I am not responsible for the planned amendments to the Resource Management Act. However I am advised that the Ministry of Justice was consulted on the proposed bill and in the course of the consultation it was satisfied that the issues around access to justice had been addressed. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was asking about a specific piece of advice from the Minister’s ministry. I am seeking to find out whether his ministry provided a specific piece of advice. I would ask the Minister to address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has further supplementary questions; I think he is asking a bit much there. I invite the member to ask a further supplementary question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Did the Minister’s own Ministry of Justice also advise that limiting appeal rights under the Resource Management Act would take away a fundamental right of New Zealanders and how is taking away a fundamental legal right to appeal district plans to the Environment Court consistent with his commitment to “justice for all”? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Advice was provided in respect of the bill and I am advised that the ministry is satisfied that any issues that that member is raising have been addressed. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister agree with his ministry that when a cost is imposed on people’s access to justice there is a group in our society who will no longer ever have their day in court and that group is ordinary New Zealanders trying to fight corporate developers—whose legal costs are actually tax-deductible? Does he agree with his ministry that when costs are imposed access to justice is restricted? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I agree that costs and their relationship to access to justice have to be measured carefully to ensure that the justice system provides open access for as many people as possible and that is why I am confident that the resource management bill that will be tabled in this House at some stage in the next few days reflects those concerns in a proper and appropriate manner. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware of the key findings of the 2006 Te Puni Kokiri report  
Maori and Council Engagement under the Resource Management Act 1991 
 that there is low-quality Maori participation in Resource Management Act processes that most Maori groups cannot compete with professional planners and lawyers and that basic costs stand in the way of Maori access; and how does he expect Maori to engage with the Environment Court process if in addition they have to lodge a bond just to get a foot in the courtroom door? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No I am not aware of that Te Puni Kokiri report. But I can assure the member that any issue relating to security for costs to which I believe the member is referring is a matter for the discretion of the court and that at the point that those orders or requirements are made genuine cases where a plaintiff has limited means are considered. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister aware that before the power to award security for costs was removed from the Act powerful applicants were using that provision to intimidate community groups and were threatening to bankrupt them if they exercised their legal and democratic rights to object; and how does putting back security for costs improve access to justice? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: In answer to the second part of that question I am advised there are adequate safeguards such as fee waiver provisions and the discretion of the court not to require security for costs. I believe that issue addresses the member’s question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why will the Minister not simply admit that what his officials have advised him is true which is that the changes National plans to make to the Resource Management Act will limit access to justice for those with limited money; and that if people do not have the money even to get through the door of the courtroom they will never get access to justice in Aotearoa New Zealand under a National-led Government? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I will admit no such thing. I will restate what I said earlier: I am satisfied that those issues of access to the Environment Court are met through mechanisms around discretion of security for costs and through the new structure for filing fees which will probably make the application of those fees and daily hearing costs cheaper than the District Court and High Court provisions as they currently stand. Those are sufficient as is the advice that has been put into issues around the new Resource Management Act legislation to ensure that issues of access to justice have been addressed. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table a page from the Te Puni Kokiri report I referred to earlier that sets out the key findings and shows that Maori are restricted in their access to resource management processes primarily due to financial restrictions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Social Services—Savings 
4.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What savings if any have been made in her portfolio since she became Minister in light of the Government’s aim to improve the value for money of the Public Service? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: This Government has an unrelenting focus on delivering better outcomes for taxpayers. The Minister is working with chief executives to achieve greater efficiencies within her ministries and expects that savings may be made in the process of the Budget round. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is one of the savings under consideration the delaying or freezing of the roll-out of full funding to non-governmental organisations over the next 3 years which was part of the Pathways to Partnership programme brought in by Labour and funded over those 3 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I understand that the department is in discussion with non-governmental organisations over a range of issues particularly the problem arising for many non-governmental organisations where private sources of funding are drying up. 
Hon Annette King 
: I will take that as a yes and ask the Minister: how can this Government which campaigned on public-private partnerships be believed if the first casualty of its razor gang will be the non-governmental organisation sector—a sector that already provides services to New Zealanders in a partnership arrangement at bargain-basement cost to taxpayers yet will be squeezed first even though the Government can find money to give to business? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member should start her questions with a question word instead of a statement. The Government is—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member did not start the question with a question word and should be asked to ask it again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In this place the member well knows that things go tit for tat. The Minister did not exactly answer the question the member asked and therefore she assumed an answer. The Minister then in answering a further supplementary question invited interjection because of the way he started to answer the question. I think it is about all square and I invite the Minister to answer the question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has sent a clear signal that taxpayers’ money should be spent effectively and that spending will be restrained over coming years. We are working in constructive partnership with a whole range of groups that will be affected by the change in the external environment and they are all being much more constructive than the Opposition. 
Todd McClay 
: What programmes has the Minister seen that demonstrate the previous Government’s approach to delivering value for money? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can inform the member that the Minister recently visited a programme set up under the last Government where children were taken out of school for 6 hours a week to pat dogs in the animal shelter providing animal therapy—whether to the children or the dogs I am not sure. The parents and the children involved were as mystified about the outcomes of that Government-funded programme as the Minister was. I can assure hard-working New Zealanders that under a National Government such spending will not continue. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is one of the savings a directive to the staff of Work and Income not to use the 7.5 kilometre Northern Gateway Toll Road unless there is an emergency thereby spending $6 in additional travel costs to save the $2 tolls—not forgetting the extra travel time? Applying that approach to the Minister’s value-for-money exercise would it result in even greater expenditure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can assure the member that the Ministers have given no such direction. They are focused on the substantial job of cleaning up the mess left by the Labour Government and ensuring that the $1 billion now spent on running the Ministry of Social Development and the grant programmes will be spent effectively over the next 3 to 5 years. 
Schools—Building Projects 
5.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has she received about the response to the Government’s plan to fast track school building projects? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have received many glowing reports. Sector organisations have praised the plan. The School Trustees Association has welcomed the fast tracking of property. The New Zealand Principals Federation has stated: “the education sector is grateful to have received the lion’s share of the recovery package” and it believes that the package is a “great start” for the education sector. 
Colin King 
: Has the Minister seen any comment from school principals on the announcement yesterday? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes I have. I have seen a comment from Denise Torrey the principal of Somerfield School who said that the package “certainly gives us a leg up that we didn’t have before which is pretty exciting”. Sandra Aitken the principal of Point Chevalier School has called the funding “a welcome contribution” and said that the money “means we can get things done and out of the way quicker so kids can just get on with learning”. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Does the Minister agree with her colleague the Minister of Finance and Minister for Infrastructure who said on  
Morning Report 
 today: “If we could have announced more yesterday that was ready we would have”? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The previous Government left a property division of the Ministry of Education that needed a huge effort to find projects that were ready to go. This is a disaster. This Government has had to reorganise a division that was in a disastrous state. The member should be ashamed of the state in which he left that division. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Can the Minister explain how the school building projects have been fast-tracked? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: There are a number of ways in which these projects have been brought forward. In relation to the five new schools announced yesterday in Northland Auckland and the Bay of Plenty they have all had their opening dates brought forward by between 1 and 2 years so that construction can occur as soon as possible. In relation to the money for refurbishments and replacement buildings I am advised by the ministry that construction on these projects will be able to begin a minimum of 6 months earlier than they would normally have started because we are bringing these funding rounds forward. That is really important for our schools which are desperately in need of this money and it is really important to keep people in work in construction and related industries. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Given the Minister’s answer to a previous question— 
Hon Simon Power 
: No start with a question. That’s not a question. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Mr Speaker can I continue? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It would be helpful if the honourable member were to actually ask a question. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Can the Minister explain why no funding was announced to bring forward building projects at Taupo-nui-a-Tia College Epsom Girls Grammar School Glen Eden Intermediate School Green Bay Primary School and Papatoetoe High School which all have projects ready to go and which were all listed in Labour’s mini-Budget plan for the post-2008 election period? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am happy to provide that information to the member. If he puts it down in writing to me I will find out exactly where those projects are at. 
Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill—Fiscal Cost of New Initiatives 
6.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is the fiscal cost of those initiatives in the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill which were not part of the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill introduced by the last Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The fiscal cost of the new initiatives in the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill that the member refers to over the remaining 2008-09 year and the 2009-10 year is $355 million and the fiscal cost over the next 4¼ years is $69 million. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is the Minister aware that under the Labour Government policy use-of-money interest rates would have reduced to a reciprocal 4.66 percent by now under half what he is planning to charge; and why does he continue to punish small businesses in the current economic conditions? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is another one of the fairy tales that Labour was telling during the campaign. That was an announcement made during the campaign but for which there was no funding. If we added up all the promises that the Labour Government made against the Budget allocation that it said it would stick to they would have blown the lid off it. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What is the fiscal cost of the tax initiatives announced as part of the small-business relief package? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The fiscal cost of the whole package is $484 million over the next 4¼ years. The main measures in it are a reduction of use-of-money interest which has a cost of about $70 million and removing the uplift on provisional tax payments that are due in May this year which means that about $0.25 billion will stay in the bank accounts of small and medium enterprises. Of course over the next 2 or 3 years that will be recovered by the Government. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What according to the current formula would the use-of-money interest rate be as of April this year if the Minister had not announced his plan to move the rate to 9.73 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot tell the member that off the top of my head but I can say his naive belief that because Labour said it would do something there was actually any money or any plans to do it is nonsense and that applies to about a hundred things it announced in the last 12 months. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How does the small-business relief package benefit the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am pleased the member asked that question. It will benefit the economy in two ways. First it will provide some short-term stimulus to businesses by for instance leaving $0.25 billion of provisional tax cash in their bank accounts. Second it also achieves longer-term gains as the Government is succeeding in doing with regard to many of its decisions in that it reduces compliance costs and will help to build business confidence so that as this economy comes out of recession businesses will invest and employ. That is how we will replace the jobs that are lost over the next few months. 
Housing—Critical Issues 
7.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What critical issues in the housing portfolio has he had to recently address? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I have had to address the issues surrounding the $2 billion deficit in State house maintenance that occurred during the previous Labour Government’s slum landlords tenure where it diverted depreciation money away from upgrades leaving the State housing stock in a sorry state. Yesterday’s announcement of an additional $104 million in the next 18 months will go a long way to making sure that families our current tenants—many of whom have kids—will live in decent healthy conditions. Phil Goff and his team should be ashamed of themselves. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the extreme length of that answer. Yesterday we had one answer that was about 2 minutes long. That was a very long answer. The Standing Orders are quite clear that answers should be concise. The Hon Phil Heatley’s answer was not a concise answer. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I just point out to you that the first two questions today took nearly half an hour. The main reason for that was the length of questions being put forward by the Hon Phil Goff. If we are going to infrequently have long questions that would be OK if it were just infrequently but if we are going to have a restriction on answers then Mr Speaker please apply it to questions as well. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If the member had objections to the length of questions asked in question Nos 1 and 2 he should have raised that at the time. The fact that the question may have been overly long at question No. 1 is not a reason for an answer to be overly long at question No. 7. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Both members have raised a relevant point of order. I am troubled by the length of time some answers are taking. Some Ministers are very good at very succinct answers but likewise some questioners are taking far too long trying to put far too many points into supplementary questions. I have let it go but if members want me to curtail both questions and answers a little I am prepared to do that. So I stress to members that if it goes on too much longer I will stand and cut a Minister off if the answer to a question goes on too long—and likewise for a questioner. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What other issues has the Minister of Housing had to address in his portfolio? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I have had to address yet another unmet Labour Government commitment. As Phil Goff said Labour had committed to build 650 new State houses this year. Unfortunately the statement of intent that came out early last year from Housing New Zealand Corporation said it would have to reduce this to 530 houses because it did not have the funding. My understanding is that the corporation would have had to reduce it again to 475 houses because Labour never funded it for even 530. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Why has the money appropriated in the Budget for 650 new State houses and reflected in the Housing New Zealand statement of intent been cut by his announcement yesterday and how honest is it to package a cut as an increase? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Housing New Zealand Corporation was never funded for 650 new houses; that is why last year it put out a statement of intent saying that it would have to drop it to 530 houses and why it has informed me as the new Minister that it has funding for only 475 houses. George Hawkins and his team never funded 650 houses or 530 houses and barely 475 houses. 
Tim Macindoe 
: In light of yesterday’s announcements what is the new National Government— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member did not start with a question. We are going to be very picky about these things; we have to be picky all the way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member might note that it is helpful to start a question with a question word. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What is the new National Government delivering in this financial year in light of yesterday’s announcements? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Let me be crystal clear. There will be a net increase of roughly 540 houses this financial year: 154 under Labour and 390 under National which will include the 69 that we announced yesterday. Labour funded 154 and we are funding 390. How is it that we are doing better for State house tenants than it was? 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Does he agree with the statement made by John Key describing State housing as “economic vandalism”; and how can New Zealanders take National’s commitment to State housing seriously when “National’s MPs inherently don’t have a desire to expand the level of State housing in New Zealand. It’s not an issue that is dear our core constituency.” as Tony Ryall said? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The Labour Government allowing State houses to fall into disrepair was economic vandalism. 
Police New Zealand—Confidence 
8.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she have confidence in the police? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes and I am surprised that by implication the member does not. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does the Minister agree with me that victims their families and the community are not interested in her trivialising the issue of escapes by providing clever and technical answers to parliamentary questions about whether the escapes happened under the watch of the Department of Corrections or the New Zealand Police when she is the Minister responsible for both portfolios? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am sure members of the public would like the member to get his facts right before he comes down to this House to make such statements. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What specific action has the Minister taken to reassure victims their families and the community that she will stem the tide of escapes apart from touring the country and asking everyone else for his or her ideas on how she should do her job? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have asked the police for a report on how these escapes happened and I have received that report. What I have found out is that despite the 9 years of a Labour Government it never took any steps to rectify the law that currently prevents the police from routinely holding prisoners in restraints. Not only that; the Labour Government’s occupational safety and health laws required the police to have an escape hatch in every police van. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What recent reports has the Minister received on policing in Counties-Manukau? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have received a report from the police that shows that violent crime in Counties-Manukau increased by 69 percent in the 4 years from 2003-04 to 2007-08. Recorded violent offences per 10000 of population are up from 124.1 in 2003 to 191.9 in 2007. The police advise that the district faces constant pressure from rising crime and urgent calls for service. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a tediously long answer to a very simple question that required a very simple answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made a perfectly fair point. The Minister was going on for far too long in answering the question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Can the Minister confirm two facts: firstly that under the previous Government escapes were reduced by 84 percent in 9 years and secondly that thus far under her watch in the last 3 months the rate of escapes from police custody is one of the highest in the last 3 years? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Judith Collins may answer one of those questions. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Did the police refer to significant additional resources; if so what significant additional resources were they referring to? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: This Government intends to assist the police to fight crime and protect the public. There will be 300 new sworn police in front-line roles in Counties-Manukau by the end of 2010. The law-abiding citizens of South Auckland deserve better than they ever got from the previous Labour Government. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Mr Speaker. At what point will the Minister call a meeting with community leaders including those in the gangs to look at finding enduring solutions to situations such as those that occurred in Murupara 2 weeks ago and Pomare this week? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have no intention of calling meetings with gangs. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Will the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should have the chance to ask his question. Show some courtesy please. 
Hone Harawira 
: Will the Minister insist that in future given the shambolic debacle of the recent police terrorism raids into Tuhoe the police Maori strategic adviser Superintendent Wally Haumaha be fully consulted on every major incident involving Maori groups or communities; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I will not politicise the police by telling them how to do their job but I will say—[ 
Interruption 
] Just calm down. I will say to the member that as he will be aware matters relating to the Tuhoe raids—which were made under the Labour Government—are being addressed. 
Gangs—Government Clamp-down 
9.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received regarding the Government’s plans to clamp down on criminal gang activity? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I have received a report from New Zealand Police endorsing the Government’s plan to clamp down on criminal gang activity. The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill will make it easier for the police to conduct surveillance of gang communications and will enhance police investigations by enabling interception warrants to be obtained for a wider group of offences committed by gangs. The police will be very pleased to have this tool once it passes through this Parliament. 
Chester Borrows 
: How will the bill help the police to deal with fortified gang premises? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill will mean that more of these gang fortifications can and will be removed. The police have welcomed the Government’s intention to increase the number of successful raids on these fortifications and the police aim to maximise the effectiveness of this change. The police are also undertaking further work to identify other initiatives to tackle gang fortifications and gang activities. 
Chester Borrows 
: Why is the Government clamping down on gangs and how does the Government’s approach to gangs differ from the previous Government’s approach? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Labour Government’s record on gangs was one of dithering and hand-wringing. It failed to produce any laws that would reduce gang powers— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who was the National Prime Minister who wore a Black Power jacket? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: —and in that particular case that member will have read about the appalling incident reported in today’s  
Dominion Post 
 about a Lower Hutt mother who was forced to flee from her home and community with her children after being terrorised by Mongrel Mob gang members. Under that Government that was tolerated; under this Government it is not. 
David Garrett 
: Will the Minister consider introducing laws such as those enacted in South Australia that make gangs illegal organisations; if so when can we expect to see such measures before this House? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I understand that that South Australian law has been in force for only a couple of months. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition went over with the transport spokesperson but not the law and order spokesperson to look at that law after it had been working for a couple of months. The Minister of Justice is intending to go. We will look at how that law actually operates and at just how successful it really is. If it is successful we will certainly be looking at doing that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How will the situation in the Hutt be helped by the decision under this Government to take police out of the upper part of the Hutt Valley—where Pomare is—as already announced and take them to Auckland? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That member is quite wrong and if he did any basic work as a local MP he would know that. That member should remember that this Government will give 600 extra police to the whole of New Zealand including 300 in Counties-Manukau. If that member did the most basic work as a constituency MP he would have been along to see the local police and would have been told that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How can that be consistent with the decision that was announced last week to strip senior staff out of the Hutt Valley? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: If that member did the most basic work as a constituency MP he would have realised that the local commander has in fact asked to consult on how the police can best police that area. That would involve the member in taking some initiative and going to speak to the police and giving the local commander the benefit of constituents’ views. But I understand that member does not really care very much about the Hutt Valley any more. 
Minimum Wage Review—Submission 
10.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Did she explain in person to the Minister of Maori Affairs her reason for rejecting his submission on the minimum wage review; if so what was his response? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 No. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Has the Minister seen any reports regarding the minimum wage? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes. I have seen a report from the  
Otago Daily Times 
 which unlike the member could understand that this Government’s decision on the minimum wage was “able to appeal— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does the Minister understand that she is making disparaging remarks about one of her own colleagues? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is most inappropriate. That was not a helpful point of order Dr Cullen. I apologise to the Hon Kate Wilkinson. Could she please resume her answer. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes. I have seen a report from the  
Otago Daily Times 
 which unlike Mr Mallard could understand that this Government’s decision on the minimum wage was “able to appeal to the sense of fairness and realism of much of the middle New Zealand.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can I ask the Minister why she chose not to meet with Dr Sharples or even to ring him up about this? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I answered yesterday I received a letter from the Minister of Maori Affairs. I also read a submission from Te Puni Kokiri. We took those submissions into consideration when calculating a fair balanced and realistic minimum wage. 
Electricity—Investment in National Grid 
11.  
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What reports has he seen about investment in the national electricity grid? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I have today seen a report from Transpower stating that it will accelerate a $50 million upgrade programme to maintain and strengthen structures on the national electricity grid. The programme will bring forward required maintenance that had been planned to occur over the next 10 years. It will focus on tower maintenance civil work and substation maintenance. I am advised further that an additional $50 million of investment in conductor upgrades will be announced shortly. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Where will this important infrastructure work take place? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The work will be mainly in rural areas and will take place all around New Zealand. The work will employ relatively high levels of local labour and use locally sourced materials so it will provide much-needed economic stimulus in those parts of New Zealand. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen the description of the programme by the Transpower chief executive Patrick Strange as “essential maintenance work” brought forward—that is neither major nor new? And is not the Minister’s attempt to trumpet it as “upgrading the national grid” typical of the overselling by this Government of its so-called stimulus package? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Does Transpower have any other work planned for the electricity grid? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes it does. I am advised that Transpower has over $3.8 billion worth of projects planned to reinforce the national grid. These projects either have commenced construction or are in the planning stages. The Government is currently looking at ways to fast track some of those projects by removing some of the regulatory roadblocks to that investment. There will be further announcements soon. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table two statements. One is from the chief executive of Transpower describing the programme as “essential maintenance work” and one is from the Minister describing it as “upgrading the national grid”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member seriously wants to have them tabled could we deal with the first one first. That was the statement from— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Transpower. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that statement being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And the second one was? 
Charles Chauvel 
: From the Minister describing this programme as an upgrade of the national grid. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I guess I am obliged to seek leave. Is there any objection? There seems to be no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Broadband Plan—Commencement Date 
12.  
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What is the Government’s target date for the commencement of its $1.5 billion broadband plan given reported anxiety in the industry? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 At the time the policy was originally announced we advised that the new Government would spend the first year consulting the public and industry and getting the investment structure right. By year 6 we will have rolled out ultra-fast broadband to businesses schools health facilities and the first tranche of homes. By year 10 we expect that 75 percent of the population will have access to ultra-fast broadband. 
Clare Curran 
: Is the Minister planning to use electricity lines companies as a vehicle to roll out its broadband plan as suggested in today’s  
New Zealand Herald? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government is working through a range of options and will have more to say on that very shortly. 
Melissa Lee 
: Who has expressed the most anxiety over the Government’s ambitious plans to invest $1.5 billion in ultra-fast broadband for New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It would appear that the person who is most anxious according to the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning is the former Minister for Communications and Information Technology the Hon David Cunliffe. I am just trying to divine whether he is genuinely anxious is anxious for party political reasons is a naturally anxious person or is going through a personally anxious period as he tries to work out when to make his bid for the leadership of the Labour Party. 
Clare Curran 
: Why in the current economic climate is the Minister seeking to reinvent the wheel on the roll-out of broadband and creating anxiety and loss of confidence in the telecommunications sector when he would be better to use the existing industry-supported mechanisms developed by the previous Labour Government? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The previous plan by the previous Labour Government was for a $325 million grant scheme. Our plan is for a $1.5 billion investment in ultra-fast broadband. I note that the Broadband Investment Fund was so urgent for the previous Government that it took it 8 years of its 9 years in Government to get around to announcing it. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table an article in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 titled “Nervous telcos play second-guess game” which claims that the National Government does not have a clue how it will implement its broadband plan. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has described the document perfectly adequately and—here we go again—is seeking leave to table something in the newspaper which the Standing Orders Committee made very clear is something we do not wish to see happening. I am obliged to seek leave but I think members will reject it. Leave is sought. Is there objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague was seeking leave there was a barrage of interjections and you validated those interjections by indicating what was already being indicated by the members opposite. I suggest that that is not appropriate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will take his seat. I accept that there were faults all round. The member in seeking leave went on far too long. It was my fault that I let the member go on too long in describing the press statement. That led to disorderly behaviour by some members. I accept that it was actually my fault that that happened. I will now put the request for leave again just to make sure there is no misunderstanding. Leave has been sought to table a press statement. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table an article in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
that speculates that the Minister is planning to use electricity lines companies but also— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We now have a clear understanding of what that press statement is. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During that seeking of leave Nick Smith interjected. You did not call him on that. I think all of us over here could hear him and we just want to know whether the rules will apply both ways. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The issue that concerned me was that you Mr Speaker had just given a ruling and guidance to members that they should not seek leave to table newspaper articles. It was somewhat a deriding of you as Speaker for the member to immediately get to her feet and seek leave to table another newspaper article. It was almost like she was snubbing the Speaker and that caused me concern. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: [ 
Interruption 
] When the Speaker is on his feet the member the Hon Darren Hughes will be silent. We had a new member seeking to table press statements—and I do not blame her because plenty of members have done that. The Standing Orders Committee reviewed this issue and has given clear advice to the House that that should not become our practice. I am not able to decline leave as I tried to do when leave was sought by the Minister the Hon Phil Heatley. I was wrong and I should have let him seek leave for that as I was obliged to put to the House the member’s seeking leave to table a press statement. The Standing Orders Committee has made it very clear that this is not good practice for this House and I urge all members to refrain from seeking to table a press statement unless it is in some exceptional circumstance. I think we should let the matter rest there. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you going to rule on the original point of order that I made which was that Nick Smith interjected during a point of order? You have not yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down. I am ruling on it. As I heard it Nick Smith just gasped at what was going on. That is the end of the matter. 
Address in Reply 
Debate resumed from 11 February. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 When my contribution to the Address in Reply debate was interrupted I was reflecting on the reasons why New Zealanders voted resoundingly in November for change. After 9 years of opportunity and economic fair weather Labour was found wanting. Some may say—and they have—that it was a good election to lose but the National Government was certainly not thinking like that at the time. We believe in our vision. We will deliver to the people of New Zealand our promises even though that task may have become more complicated by the dirty socks that were left by Labour. Yes I am referring to the uncosted promises and unfunded commitment—things like the state of accident compensation funding.  
It must be galling to sit on the Opposition benches and watch the National Government taking true action and bringing forward infrastructure spending to stimulate our economy. Opposition members have tried in vain to undermine the infrastructure package that was announced yesterday although deep in their hearts I know they will be pleased to see jobs saved for New Zealanders. We saw education net five new schools school refurbishments and maintenance and an information and communications technology infrastructure improvement plan. We saw transport spending set to encompass five large State highway projects and in housing 10000 State houses will be upgraded and renovated and an additional 69 new State houses will be built—but more important built quickly. The Social Services Committee heard yesterday that the nation’s State housing stock has suffered from years of insufficient upgrades and maintenance. This deferred maintenance amounts to an estimated $2 billion. We were told that it will need 10 successive years of spending to address that. The neglect of the previous Labour Government has come home to roost for New Zealanders.  
Last week’s small to medium sized enterprise package has been well received in my electorate. It is amazing how many people will ring your electorate office when they hear that things will get better and say “Thank goodness for common-sense orders.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We had pedantic comment on “your” earlier in the day and again yesterday. This member has breached the Standing Orders in that way. I am sure she would not be referring to your office Mr Deputy Speaker. Therefore I ask that the rules be applied evenly. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It did come up again yesterday. Members cannot bring the Speaker into the debate so future speakers should not use the words “you” or “your” because they relate to the Speaker. Please continue. 
JO GOODHEW 
: I give my apologies Mr Deputy Speaker. These same people rang my office and said “Thank goodness we can see some common-sense measures coming from the Government.” 
Resource Management Act reforms are filling New Zealanders with hope. Anyone who has encountered delays with consents is saying “Thank goodness!” again. It is amazing how such news triggers a whole lot of stories coming into our offices. Let me give some examples: a code of compliance that was not granted because the plugs for the sinks did not have chains attached; and bolts that had round washers not square ones and therefore did not comply. It beggars belief does it not? 
Then there was the story of the housebuyer who lived in his new house at No. 11. He was contacted by the local council and told that his number 11 on the fence was larger than 300 millimetres and therefore he needed a consent because it was a sign. Can we believe this? The $400 cost and the five forms to get that consent seemed ridiculously idiotic so the house owner just gave up removed the number 11 from the outside of the fence and put it on the inside of the fence where it has become a talking point for anyone who can find his house. 
Changes to the Resource Management Act and to the culture that brings about idiotic and frequent examples like the ones I have just mentioned are absolutely essential for New Zealand’s future. For our country to weather the current economic storm and rise out and above the effects of the recession we need to work hard preparing the way for our country to be more productive than it has ever been before. The National Government has the purpose the drive and the determination to steer New Zealand in the right direction through these tough times. But at the same time we must apply the building blocks. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am informed that the next call is a National call and it will be split. I call Chris Tremain. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker I acknowledge you and congratulate you on election to your office. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Napier and Wairoa for electing me as their member of Parliament. It is a privilege that I do not take lightly and a privilege that has to continue to be earned. 
The Speech from the Throne highlighted two crises ravaging the belly of New Zealand communities: the financial crisis and the gang crisis. The financial crisis has been much debated in this House. John Key has a clear vision for this nation: blunt the edge of the recession and place New Zealand in the very best position to go forward and to recover and grow. There has been total focus in this regard. A coalition agreement was reached within 11 days Cabinet was selected in 2 weeks and Parliament was reconvened in just 30 days. Before Christmas the House sat under urgency from 9 a.m. until midnight in order to give effect to a tranche of measures to deliver on John Key’s vision to blunt the edge of the recession. Just 93 days following the election we are back in this House in urgency again delivering a further spread of initiatives to deliver on the Prime Minister’s vision for blunting the recession and preparing the economy for growth. 
The small-business package has been practical and proactive. The infrastructure announcements are sensible. They are helping to protect jobs and laying the foundations for growth. I acknowledge the impact of the Matahorua Gorge project in Hawke’s Bay. This project will shave significant time off the Napier to Wairoa route improve safety and drive economic growth to the region. This is an example of short-term impact and long-term benefit. On any measure this package of initiatives is impressive but also measured. We are cognisant of the fact that any dollar borrowed today needs to be paid back tomorrow. 
The second crisis I wish to speak about is the ravaging of our communities by gangs. Members should make no mistake: it is a crisis. When I was 18 a friend of mine Vaughan Gooch stood up for a young woman at a Napier party. He was punched senseless by gang members to the point where he was unrecognisable in hospital. Twenty-four years on the situation is simply worse. Now people are not only punched senseless but murdered. The social experiment with gangs has failed. 
Whether it is 
the killing in Murupara which we read about in this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
 or the murder in Hawke’s Bay of 34-year-old Mark McCutcheon—who went to the aid of a woman and who leaves behind a wife and three young daughters—the cup of evidence is indeed overflowing. Every day stories such as those go below the radar. Before the Otane murder a gang member went into a Waipukurau cafe grabbed food walked out came back 3 hours later grabbed more food and sat down. The proprietor a woman confronted the gang member who spat at her and head-butted her for good measure as he walked out. 
These people are no longer part of our community yet we continue to treat them as though they are. We feed them we house them we pander to them in our prisons and what do we get in return? We are repaid with horrible crimes. We condone their existence. We condone the gangs to such an extent that many Kiwis and international tourists see them as the face of Maori culture. Yet they are a stain on Maori culture. Gangs hide behind tikanga of which they know nothing. Most cannot recite their whakapapa except back to nga kuri—the dogs—and they wear disfigured moko as some alien connection with a culture of which they have no idea. 
Maori need to break free from the shackles of gang thuggery to disown gangs and to stop making excuses for them. Rape murder burglary and intimidation are not part of tikanga. While Maori leaders continue to make excuses for gangs Maoridom in my opinion will be the loser. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What about the Pakeha gangs in Timaru? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: And those too. In that respect I congratulate Ngati Kahungunu. At their Clive Waitangi Day celebrations they banned gangs and they banned patches. This is the leadership that needs to be taken. The Maori Party needs to lead the way in that respect; all Maori MPs need to lead the way. Maori culture will not advance to where it should be while these thugs continue to drag on our coat-tails. 
In that regard I totally support the legislation of Simon Power. Would we allow 3000 people who wore Hitler’s swastika to parade in our streets to commit murder rape and burglary to feed our kids P and then to turn up in the courts barking like dogs? No we would not. Yet we condone a private army of people wearing Mongrel Mob and Black Power insignia. We condone a private army where rape is an act that qualifies one for the patch. I no longer condone these patches and I join my Hawke’s Bay colleague Craig Foss in doing all that I can to wipe out this menace from the face of New Zealand society. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker can I congratulate you on your position and indeed Mr Speaker Lockwood Smith and the Assistant Speakers Eric Roy and Rick Barker. Indeed it is a privilege to be in this Parliament sitting on this side of the House. I also need to acknowledge the fantastic maiden speeches and maiden statements that have been delivered in the House in this term. There was a very high quality of speeches right across the House. 
I want to talk about the fantastic result in this election and how John Key is progressing extremely well as our Prime Minister through difficult economic times. In record time he has pulled together a very stable Government with the support of the ACT Party the Maori Party and United Future. I believe that it will be a long-serving and very stable arrangement as we go forward. Of course there will be times when we will have disagreements but that is part of our democracy and we have some tough decisions to make going forward. 
But the biggest issue in 2009 is indeed the economy and that is why the Prime Minister has taken the steps he has taken in recent times to take the sharpest edge off the economy to try to protect jobs and to try indeed to get us out of this recession which I believe we were in in 2008 but many people did not realise it. I believe that with the packages that have been announced over the last couple of months we will track out of the recession a lot more quickly. I will talk a little about those packages and also about what a privilege it is to be representing the people of Horowhenua and Kapiti in the Otaki electorate and the fantastic result those people gave me to enable me to serve as the Otaki MP in this House—a huge honour. In fact we had the highest voter turn-out in the whole of the country which just goes to show what a close contest it was out there in the Otaki electorate. 
I alluded before to the packages that will take the sharpest edge off the recession. They include the tax cuts that will be rolling out on 1 April. They will put more money in people’s pockets. The ReStart package will help those people the most vulnerable who may in fact lose their jobs. The announcement made by the Prime Minister of $480 million for small and medium sized enterprises will help those small businesses. Indeed in my electorate there are 7700 of them and they employ about 20000 people. The package that has just been rolled out in our infrastructure announcements made yesterday of $500 million across about 4¼ years will also help to kick-start our economy. 
One of the important things is the reform of the Resource Management Act. It has allowed vexatious and frivolous objections that have slowed down projects of national significance. There are about 100 clause changes and they will help to streamline and speed up this process. I am excited about that initiative because I believe that it will also help us get through this economic recession. It will create more jobs. It is important that we get started on some of these big projects rather than the process taking as long as it does now. Transit openly told a select committee just a couple of years ago that it takes as long now to get resource consent as it does to build about 1 kilometre of road and most times that can take up to 3 years. 
We also have important initiatives around law and order which Chris Tremain the previous speaker has so rightly just spoken about. Those initiatives will be really important in allowing our communities to be safer. 
It is interesting when we sit on this side of the House and move around Parliament to see the different factions currently in the Labour Party all starting to form up and jostle for different leadership bids as we progress to the next election. Indeed we have Mr Cunliffe’s camp there talking about how they do not actually have a plan for the economy now but they will deliver it for the next election. We are interested to see who will run in the Mt Albert by-election. Will it be Phil Twyford? Will young Darren Hughes head up north to run in Mt Albert? We also have the different camps for Jones Horomia and Cosgrove. We are interested to see who will come into Parliament over the next few months from the list. The water cooler conversations have already started amongst Labour Party members. They are not very settled at all. We are waiting to see whether Phil Goff will survive the 90-day probation period. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As is appropriate Mr Deputy Speaker I congratulate you—and your fellow office holders—on your appointment and also the Speaker Dr Lockwood Smith. I also pay my compliments to the Governor-General. 
This debate is occurring in the biggest global economic crisis we have ever seen—certainly in the lifetime of members here. I suspect that no one in this House nor in the great countries of the world—the UK Australia and the US—knows how deep it will cut or the impact it will ultimately have on our people in New Zealand and those in other countries. The leadership of the UK the US and Australia has been called upon to do everything they can to try to stem the tide as it were of the negative impact of the recession. 
We can look at and compare the approach here—and I mentioned a couple of these points when talking on the tax bill—with what Barack Obama the President of the United States whom Mr Key takes great relish in likening himself to has done in the United States. Even before Mr Key and Mr Obama were elected roughly at the same time and even before President-elect Obama became President he had publicly put out a plan. He had put together a strategy he had published that strategy and he had talked and jawboned about his economic package in the House and the Senate. He cajoled people and he gained support for his economic package over and above the previous President’s package so that when he was elected and actually had the power to do something about it the wheels were turning the support was there and the package was moved to practical implementation. 
If we look at Australia we see Kevin Rudd’s package—and a second package has been announced today. The National Party tends to debate this argument by comparing dollar figures. But I say that we should compare National’s approach with the aggressive nature of the package in Australia where the Australian Prime Minister and the Australian Government together with the state Governments have pledged to do everything they can—not to drip-feed or have rolling mauls. We know that Mr Brownlee—I think he made the third XV at St Bede’s College—knows all about rolling mauls. There should not be rolling mauls or drip-feeds because they are based upon the political cynicism of the National Government which just drips it out so that it has something to put in its Budget and to try to lengthen its honeymoon. Those are the motivations in relation to the rolling maul. It is not about actually saying “To hell with it! We’re going to put a stake in the ground we’re going to have a strategy and we’re going to do everything now. And if we don’t have anything to announce in the Budget well we will have tried everything we could have to protect the people of New Zealand.” 
If we look at Gordon Brown in the UK we see that he is doing everything that he and his Government can do. They are not drip-feeding for political purposes but they are saying that they will try to stem the tide of the negative economic impact that this recession will have. But the game plan of members over there on the Government benches—and I hope the journalists are listening because a few of them have latched on to it—is to try to convince the people of New Zealand that the Government inherited a mess that it inherited hell in a hand basket and that it now has to clean it up. Well let us look at a couple of very clear facts that are evidenced throughout the world. 
That crew over there inherited from the Labour Government the lowest unemployment rate for 20 30 or 40 years but in the previous 2 years especially the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD and the world. Those are clear OECD figures. The National Government inherited from the previous Government the third-lowest level of debt in the OECD. Gross debt was 20 percent of GDP and net debt was almost zero. That is what the National-led Government inherited from the previous Government. 
It inherited a 4 percent unemployment rate. The present Government can look at Labour’s record over 9 years during which each week 1000 jobs were created. A thousand jobs were created each week over 9 years. Now we know the big bang package the next scrum or maul the next movement of the forward pack in National—the summit of five Ministers going up the line. 
We had an admission today by Mr Joyce that the total amount of relief that New Zealanders can expect is perhaps—maybe if they are lucky—the creation or saving of 2000 jobs in total. But as Phil Goff said in the last 3 months 10000 jobs have gone. Treasury predicts and we know that every week for the next 15 months 1000 jobs will go but this Government is trying to say that its package is the big bang that will maybe as Mr Joyce said save 2000 jobs. Well I say that that is grotesque and irresponsible and that National—this rolling maul with its drip-feeding—is motivated by one thing which is to generate an announcement once a week or once every few days that tries to hoodwink people. 
I heard Mr Heatley interject on me earlier about State houses. He has said that the Government will build 69 new State houses and he calls that an increase when on the same day he has cut 1500 houses—the construction build—out of Project Hope. Even with my limited mathematics I know that that works out to be a cut and a deep one. That member stands up and has the audacity to bleat and to accuse the previous Labour Government of being slum landlords when the previous National Government sold I believe 13000-plus State houses in its time in office. 
I will quote Brian Gaynor as I did the other day. Members opposite rubbish Brian Gaynor today but he is an eminent business person. I know Mr Gaynor; I had some interactions with him in the minerals industry some years ago. He is an eminent business person and an eminent commentator. In today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 he compared the trans-Tasman package with our own and said “our transtasman neighbours are planning to take the direct and aggressive route to the try line while we have a slow moving maul with little idea who is carrying the ball and which way the maul will move next.” That is what he said about New Zealand’s package. The Australians are taking direct and aggressive action. It was Kevin Rudd who stood up after he delivered— 
Paul Quinn 
: That’s why the All Blacks win because the Aussies don’t know which way we’re going. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I think we have a parrot or something chirping away at the back of the Chamber. Maybe he should have a few more sunflower seeds. 
Kevin Rudd said his first package was not enough so he said “We’re going to go again.” This National Government is gambling with New Zealanders’ lives. It is saying to New Zealanders “Well we’re going to drip-feed a bit here and a bit there.” National members are saying today by their own admission that even though the country has lost 10000 jobs and even though the Government inherited the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD National’s package will save maybe if it is lucky 2000 jobs but will bleed 2000 New Zealanders’ jobs per week for the next 15 months. That is irresponsible. 
Colin King 
: What about the 43000 who were leaving for Australia under your lot? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is the sort of arrogance coming from the back row. That member might want to reflect on the impact of 1000 job losses a week in his own electorate of Kaikoura. [ 
Interruption 
] That member does not have an electorate; he is a list MP. Well where he lives there will be 1000 job losses a week. Those members should reflect on that rather than stand up and try to trivialise what is a serious economic crisis. 
People know the economic facts. They know that this crew in the National Government inherited one of the best economies in the world with low debt and the lowest unemployment in the world. But National’s political tactic is to try to convince people that the economy was a mess when it got in. That is rubbish. It will not wash. I ask members opposite whether the best they can do is to have a summit of five Ministers then a Maori employment hui and then a Job Summit chaired by Mark Weldon Chief Executive of the New Zealand Stock Exchange who is an odd choice of individual to have chairing a summit I would have thought given the economic crisis in the capital markets. 
National members’ strategy is to go to a Job Summit but not say “This is our plan that we were elected on this is our strategy that we were elected on and we want the commerce sector to help us implement it.” Oh no! It is a bit like the case with Judith Collins. She wanders around this country and says “We’ve been elected but what should we do? What is the plan?”. The plan is to go to a Job Summit but not present a plan. Bill English will not get up and present a strategy vision or plan like Obama did like Rudd did and like Brown did; Bill English will go to a Job Summit and say “Can you give me a plan? What should I do? I’m going to take the edge off.” We say that if the sharp edge of the knife adds up to only 2000 jobs when 10000 have been lost and we will lose 1000 a week—thanks to Mr Joyce—then that proves that today National has no plan and no vision and is grossly irresponsible in using this recession as a political tactic to drip-feed little announcements. 
At the end of all those announcements New Zealanders will say “Well why didn’t you do it aggressively like the Australians? Why didn’t you do it aggressively and responsibly like the Australians and the British? Why didn’t you throw everything at it?”. Every one of those 1000 who will lose his or her job each week will ask why the Government did not act to do everything it could to save his or her job. I look forward to hearing Mr Brownlee Mr English and Mr Key giving a robust explanation for that. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker I congratulate you on being a person from the Waikato who now holds the position of Deputy Speaker. We look forward to that continuing in the future. 
When we look at what is happening around the world we see that it is pretty obvious that all of the major economies are developing a plan based on three key factors. Those key factors are to reduce interest rates to have stimulus packages based around infrastructure development and to support those who will be in need of help during this crisis. The reason why all those countries are basically engaging in the same plan is that they want to kick-start the economic system of the world. They want a situation where people can go out there and invest in businesses and have confidence that the economic environment will provide a future. That stimulus will lead to economic growth around the world. 
People need low interest rates because they are an incentive for businesses to take the risk of borrowing money to try to make a go of it. They need stimulus packages so countries invest in infrastructure. Major infrastructure programmes are the norm for most countries around the world. The question then becomes: which infrastructure projects are ready? That was one of the failings of the previous Labour Government—it did not have the programmes ready. The National Government has to bridge that gap by getting programmes through that we can actually deliver this year when unemployment is due to rise. It is not good enough to wait 2 or 3 years for the design and implementation that are required for the work. The Labour Party did not do those things while it was in Government. The previous Government did not set the New Zealand economy up for this situation; it left us in a situation where we did not have those infrastructure projects ready to go. The National Government in the last week has tried to push through some infrastructure projects that are ready to go; it has more to do in this area. As a political party we have led the charge in providing support for those in need. We have the ReStart package for people who will be in difficulty over this time. 
Those three key factors are universal around the world: to reduce interest rates to have a stimulus package and to have a support package for those who will be in need. That is the base of most economic planning at this stage. When Labour members talk of Obama and Brown and use the terminology of grand plans they forget the reality and the fundamentals of what those political parties are pushing for. They are pushing for these three key things which the National Government has done in New Zealand. They are pushing to get that economic base so that we can grow this economy. 
When we look at what the National Government has done we see that it has delivered on its 100-day plan it has given some direction to the New Zealand public it has given direction to the economy and it has indicated to the world that National is leading this country in a way that is possible in these tough economic times. I ask members to compare that with the 90-day plan of Phil Goff which is coming to an end very soon. He may not be there in the long term of the Labour Party. 
The jobs and growth plan of this Government is about keeping this economy running so that it can deliver as strong a solution as possible to the recession the country will face. The infrastructure programme that was released gives a $500 million boost to this economy. The infrastructure is based around areas of education transport and housing and is spread geographically through New Zealand. It is also spread through different industries and amongst different groups of the community that will be struggling. For those on low incomes a housing programme will provide some comfort coming into those cold winter months. For the economic growth that we need we have a transport programme which will advance some of the larger State highway projects in some of our regions. And in education we are building the blocks that will deliver a stronger New Zealand giving the strong base that the young people of New Zealand need to tackle the future economies of the world. 
Those are the things the National Government has done that are practical and realistic and that deliver. Let us compare that with what Labour would have done. Its infrastructure programme would have been to build embassies around the world. That would not have helped New Zealand workers would it? No way. Labour was not delivering for New Zealanders; it was delivering an empire of embassies around the world. That would have been Labour’s plan if it had returned to Government. Labour does not understand what it means to invest in the New Zealand economy. It set up programme after programme investing in US stocks—stocks that have lost billions and billions of dollars. The heart of the New Zealand economy which did so well in those good years has been transferred to the US stock exchange and that money has been lost to the public of New Zealand. 
What else did Labour do? It felt it was better to put money into the hands of Australians—through Toll—by paying for a rail network rather than delivering the roading infrastructure that New Zealand needs. It was prepared to send billions of dollars overseas rather than keep it here. Well National believes in New Zealand. We have a vision and a direction for New Zealand and we will invest in this country. We believe that New Zealanders can make the best of their money. We will not do what Labour was going to do: spend it on building embassies and send it to overseas companies. New Zealanders can build a stronger country—we will and we have. 
What will the Labour Government’s economic legacy be? Labour members always talk about what they have done for this country. Well let us look at it. Labour put New Zealand into recession before the rest of the world. It destroyed the economy before the rest of the world hit the tidal wave. We are in a situation of recession before the rest of the world is. If we look at the TV channels we see that countries such as America and Australia are fearful of a recession. What about New Zealand? New Zealand has been in a recession for month after month because of the antics of the Labour members their inability to determine how an economy should grow and their spending priorities which were not in the best interests of this country. That is the difference between the National Party and the Labour Party. The National Party has a plan that will deliver unlike the Labour Party. 
If we look at some of those plans we see that National has a business package for small and medium businesses. The package takes away some of the tax and regulatory impacts that have been stifling businesses for a number of years. They are simple measures but measures that are very important and very well accepted by the business community. The tax cut package will come. New Zealanders will get a tax cut under a National-led Government. Let us compare that with the Labour Government. It took Labour 9 years to deliver a tax cut and it had no intention of delivering the rest of the tax cuts. In December it was going to stop the next tranche of tax cuts. That was Labour’s grand plan of economic development. Its grand plan to deal with the recession was to stop the tax cuts that most economies are taking on board—about 40 percent of the US package is made up of tax cuts and that country is led by the Democratic Party! Labour would have stopped the tax cut package. It only put it up for the election—that was it. It had no intention of carrying it through because it does not understand the fundamentals of business. It does not understand that if businesses are given money they can use that money to build a stronger economy. 
Labour would have taken money off New Zealanders because it thinks it knows best how to spend that money in these difficult times. On the other hand National understands that New Zealanders need that money in their hands. We understand that New Zealanders can make the right choices. We will back them in these times so that they can deliver the kind of future that we need. Under a National Government we will have a growing economy. We will not leave this place in a recession as the Labour Government did. We will not squander on political things the best economic conditions that this country has had—through international trade—for many years. We will look for a direction that will build a stronger New Zealand and a way forward. Thank you. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to add my congratulations to you Mr Deputy Speaker and your colleagues on your elevation to the speakership role. In particular I congratulate the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith. 
It is increasingly obvious to all that the world is caught in the grip of a profound recession the like of which has not been seen since the 1930s or even in New Zealand’s history since perhaps the 1880s. But it is well known both at home and abroad that New Zealand goes into this period of economic uncertainty in better condition that almost any other developed country such is the legacy of the careful husbandry of Dr Cullen and the previous Labour administration. What the country needs at this point is bold and decisive leadership—boldness because unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures and decisiveness because there are and will continue to be hard decisions to make about how best to protect Kiwi workers and their families from the worst effects of the recession. 
We in the Labour team stand ready to support the Government when it takes such measures and makes such decisions in the best interests of all New Zealanders. We have said that from the start of our time in Opposition and it still holds true. For example we would be happy to participate constructively in the Government’s Job Summit at the end of the month but we have not been asked. We will resist attempting to score cheap and easy points against the National-led Government because of its ineptness and clumsiness but we will not stand by and let this National-led Government hoodwink the New Zealand public into thinking it is doing new innovative bold and decisive things when it is doing the opposite. This drip-feed approach to stemming job losses is neither bold nor decisive. It is meant to be gearing up production infrastructure and spending but it does none of those things. If we could have confidence that there was a bold plan and not a series of “just in time” decisions recycling money already appropriated then we could assess the merits of that plan and support the Government where there was merit. 
But so far we have had worse than a lack of boldness; we have had deception. Yesterday the Minister of Housing announced that 69 new State houses would be built in various locations around the country in addition to the 450 already planned for this financial year. Although the figure of 69 was pathetic enough the figure of 450 was even more alarming. The Housing New Zealand Corporation’s statement of intent for the 2008-09 year clearly states that the goal for housing acquisitions for that year is 650. In fact the Budget also demonstrates that the appropriation for acquisitions was tied to the goal of 650 new State houses to be added to the stock. The statement of intent actually states that the corporation would seek to revise the number downwards to a range of 530 to 550 but as the Minister of Housing I refused to do that because there was an outstanding and remarkable need to add to the State housing stock not deplete it. In fact the goal of 650 remains in the statement of intent as it appears on the Housing New Zealand Corporation website today. I have to add though—and it is the sort of thing one knows only because one has been the Minister—that the corporation’s concerns were not about the money appropriated; they were about consent processing times. 
But what have we seen with the plummeting of the housing market? Yesterday Kevin Mara from the Housing New Zealand Corporation came to a select committee and said that most local councils are now approving building consents in 20 days or fewer. So this is the optimal opportunity for the Housing New Zealand Corporation to use the appropriation that was there to buy houses at bargain prices and to flood councils with building consents knowing that they will be turned round in record time. There is still time in the financial year for the Housing New Zealand Corporation to snap up the bargains that are currently out there. But the truth of the Minister’s announcement yesterday is that he is in fact cutting by 200 the goal to increase Housing New Zealand Corporation stock by 650 then adding 69 new houses—a net reduction or “cut” in anybody’s language of 131 houses. As I have said money was appropriated for that purpose last year to achieve that goal of 650. The Minister has clearly shown that he is not prepared to compel his officials to stick by the statement of intent. So it has not taken that Minister long to be overriden by his officials. 
But this Government is in fact doing the opposite to what is required. It is calling the announcement yesterday an investment in jobs with additional spending. I would welcome the modest announcement of 69 additional houses if it were an increase over and above 650 but it is a cut of 131 houses. This figure does not go even anywhere near the 1500 houses that were planned for the Home Ownership on the Public Estate programme that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove mentioned earlier. It does not go anywhere near that so I am not being extravagant in my claims. The number of new houses to be built is a drop in the bucket. I ask whether the Government will bring forward the work on the 3000 houses to be built in Hobsonville or the up to 3000 houses to be renovated and reconfigured and added to the stock in Tamaki. Those were the plans of the Labour administration; it was talking in the order of thousands of new houses. This National Government comes up with 69 but it will cut 131 in the process. John Key has actually promised the people of Hobsonville that no State houses will be built there. So we can take 500 out of the mix. He promised them that and I have an audio recording—which I am willing to make available to members should they require it—to prove it. 
The previous Labour administration talked about and planned and budgeted for thousands of new houses and this Minister comes up with 69. Let us just see where these houses will go because that is a bit interesting as well. According to the Minister’s chart there will be 14 new houses in South Auckland but as at 31 January this year—not last year not the year before—there are 1441 people in serious significant or persistent housing need in South Auckland. This Minister seeks to address that with 14 houses. These are the families with the most serious housing need. It is hardly surprising that the Mayor of Manukau City Len Brown although welcoming 14 new houses—because who would not—says that does not go far enough. There will be seven new houses in west Auckland and North Auckland but there are 528 people there with a severe significant or persistent housing need. These are people in the A and B category on the waiting list. These numbers are new and larger than last year’s so new solutions are required. The Minister says there will be three new houses built in Auckland Central. This is meant to be a boost to the regional economy—three new houses! Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 To coin a phrase used by a former member of this House ka po ka po ka awatea. 
[ 
It is night it is night and then it is dawn 
.] 
It is a new dawn for Maori under a National Government. I want to pick up five points. The first one is Waitangi Day—a baptism of fire. But under the Labour Government its members were too gutless to turn up year after year— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen  
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A member has just said that Labour members were too gutless to turn up at Waitangi. That is an out-of- order accusation and the member knows it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Speaking to the point of order I said the Labour Party was too gutless to turn up year after year. If you want to take that as referring to the members of the Labour Party here well that is up to you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank the member for that. Exception is taken and the exception is ruled for. I ask the member to refrain from using that language in that tone. It is a very cute line to draw between the party the person represents and the individual. Members should well know that. I ask the member to continue with his speech. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The Labour Party was too scared to turn up. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is now being very cute indeed. He is also factually incorrect; a number of members of the Labour Party turn up every year. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Speaking to the point of order we have just seen the former Deputy Prime Minister rise to his feet and call a point of order. There was no point of order in the point of order he raised and he immediately sat down. It was used just to break up the momentum of a speech. I ask you to deal with that matter very seriously because if we let Dr Cullen get away with it [ 
Interruption 
]—and there goes another interruption on a point of order—and if we let that sort of thing go then you will have disruption in the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Assistant Speaker you ruled out of order the member saying Labour members were too gutless. The member then said the Labour Party was too scared. That is just a cute way of trying to make the same point. It is out of order as well as being factually incorrect. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Firstly I say to Mr Henare it is well known and understood that it is just as wrong to refer to people as parties as it is to refer to them as individuals. I make that point again. The second thing is that it is not correct to simply try to remake the objection in another way. The third point the member raised was about the breaking up of his speech. As I recall it the member had hardly uttered a further 10 words before objection was taken to the same thing. I just invite the member to continue with his speech but in a vein that is acceptable to the House. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: They did not turn up because they knew they would get a hiding at Waitangi. They did not do the bully-boy tactics but they did the verbals and the protests and they said they did not want to go there but would rather go somewhere where their mates were. 
I will give members a quote from John Roughan in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “she could not find it in herself to rise above small indignities and defeat them with humility and generosity of spirit. … She couldn’t find the capacity in her soul to say something humble heartfelt and uplifting in” the cradle of the nation’s people “the cradle of the nation’s hopes.” At Waitangi Labour members have shown how really awkward they are when faced with difficult situations. That is reflected in their relationship with Maori which is strained and awkward. 
The National Party leader has turned up every year despite the scuffles and the tellings-off because it is a demonstration of our Government’s humility and generosity of spirit. Our Prime Minister has pledged to the people of Te Tii Marae that he will be back no matter what occurs. He will be back no matter what occurs every year—ia tau ia tau ia tau. And why? This is a new dawn. 
Where else has Labour demonstrated its clumsiness? Oh that is right; it is on the battlefields of national identity. We heard from Labour about Kiwi this and Kiwi that but it never properly defined what it means by the word “Kiwi” or even by the words “national identity” because it was all just spin. When Labour ran out of ideas it was all spin spin spin. Labour applied that to everything from closing schools to State housing. When National asked where Maori fitted into Labour’s version of a national identity we were told that they had a special place. I have always wondered what that place was and now after 9 years and after looking back I see that it is in the corner on the naughty-mat. 
Under National we approach national identity is a deeper and more meaningful way because we know that Maori are central to this country’s identity. Without Maori and their unique outlook on the world in terms of their language customs traditions history and stories this country would indeed be a cultural wasteland filled with the ghosts of lost opportunity. That is why National has more Maori MPs than the Labour Party. That is why under National it is important for us to celebrate Waitangi Day at Waitangi the birthplace of our nation. That is why under National the debate is not about whether a Maori flag is flown but about which Maori flag is flown over this noble building and why under Labour debate on that would absolutely not have been possible. The Labour members did not believe in the idea of a national identity. I say it is a new dawn. The biggest— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Ka awatea! You’ve said that before; you said that 10 years ago. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is right. Absolutely! I am glad Darren Hughes was listening. 
But the biggest insult that Labour directed at Maori was the foreshore and seabed legislation. A vicious campaign of misinformation was carried out by none other than the former Prime Minister and the former Deputy Prime Minister ending with the immortal words of Dr Cullen: “If you do not agree with it you do not understand it.” Well 30000 people marched on Parliament simply to say they understood the bill all right and still did not agree with it. The question remains whether Helen Clark was there to listen to their pleas. No; she sent her mates Parekura Horomia and John Tamihere out on to the battlefield. Where was she? She was watching a sheep being shorn—adding Shrek to her version of national identity. 
But it is a new dawn. One would expect that under Labour with its significant Maori support we would have seen huge progress with Treaty settlements over 9 years—not just over the last part of it before the election. Labour had teenagers from the Office of Treaty Settlements negotiating with tribal leaders. But as I say it is a new dawn. 
Labour’s best faux pas was reserved for the Maori Party calling those members “haters and wreckers” and “the last cab off the rank”. That is what the former Prime Minister said. That relationship degenerated by the day to the point where Labour now struggles to engage with voters in the Maori seats who were once the party’s most loyal supporters. And I doubt whether those seats will ever go back to the Labour Party. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: You said that when you were in New Zealand First. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh no! No I never did. Members can see that the difference between the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and me is that I can remember. I am glad that voters in the Maori seats have once again seen the light and returned to a National coalition Government. It is a new dawn. 
I have a message for Parekura Horomia and it is that I can hear the hills of Tolaga Bay calling the former Minister home. The dogs are in the yard; the sheep are all ready to be rounded up. My message to Shane Jones is to take the reins right now and maybe just maybe he can retain what little mana Labour has left among Maori voters. It is over. It is done and dusted. It is time for him to ride off into the sunset and close the door behind him because it is for Labour ka po ka po and for National ka awatea ka awatea. What that means is out of the darkness comes a new dawn. Kia ora. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a real pleasure to follow that quite strange and crazy speech. I will take a moment if I may Mr Assistant Speaker Barker to congratulate you on your elevation to the role of Assistant Speaker. I offer my congratulations to the Speaker—the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith—the Deputy Speaker and Assistant Speaker Roy as well. 
I also congratulate the new members of Parliament from all sides. I listened to their speeches with great interest and I was struck by the conviction and motivation of so many of them. I am impressed with and very excited about our new Labour colleagues who are now part of the team and I welcome them. May I say to the new MPs on the other side of the House that we will disagree often but please do not take it personally. I have no doubt that every MP— 
Paul Quinn 
: Not a problem. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —comes to this House for a purpose— 
Moana Mackey 
: Except for you. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —yes; except for maybe that member over there—and I believe that they sincerely and genuinely want to make a difference. I am looking forward to those new members finding out that doing that is not as easy as they think. 
That is why the Opposition will be keeping the Government accountable for the many many promises made during the election campaign by those new members and the members from National who were re-elected. The promises just rolled off their lips. The Leader of the Opposition’s very reasonable amendment that he is suggesting be added to the motion on the Order Paper today spells out the things that New Zealanders have been led to expect under this National-led Government. It sets a benchmark for the Government to measure itself by and I tell the House that Labour will be vigorously monitoring it. As many of my colleagues have said Labour will work constructively with the Government where it acts in a positive way on behalf of all New Zealanders. Where it does not the Labour Party will be forceful in its opposition. 
As we all know New Zealanders are not immune to the global downturn and they deserve some real leadership in these unprecedented economic times. But I fear that the Government is clueless in a crisis. We are all hoping that National knows what it is doing; well I have not seen much sign of that yet. It made a really bad start before Christmas by cutting workers’ rights increasing tax for low-paid workers and slashing KiwiSaver as well as “retro-charging” research and development and climate change initiatives. 
I heard Chris Finlayson’s snobby comments yesterday about some of my new colleagues—those who have advocated for working people for most of their lives. His disparaging comments about unionists show the underlying prejudices that the National Party members still have and their failure to understand the modern union movement. That was demonstrated so clearly by National’s contemptuous process in rushing through the 90-day fire-at-will bill before Christmas. Now National members expect unions to sit down with them at the Job Summit and help solve all their problems. Actually calling a Job Summit is not a plan. It says to the country that the Government has used up all its big ideas already and is struggling to find more. I hope the summit is more than a talkfest but I am not holding my breath. 
However we in the Opposition like to be helpful so let me offer some suggestions. When it comes to jobs the priority must be to retain and reskill because if we do not do this not only will the economy nosedive further than it needs to but we will find that our country has the same problem of skills shortages that it had after the gutting of the labour market in the 1990s. It means supporting firms to hang on to workers not retrench them and providing training funds—as indeed Labour had proposed to do prior to the election—so that workers can spend downtime on upskilling while not losing income. It means creating green jobs as Barack Obama has done and heeding Ban Ki-moon’s call to the world’s business and other leaders to use the current economic crisis to launch a global “Green New Deal” that creates jobs and that fights climate change at the same time by investing in renewable energy and technological development. 
What it is not about is pay freezes. Yes maybe it is for the higher paid including the chief executive officers of private companies who have had a bonanza in recent years but not for those who rely on their incomes to feed their families. One of the reasons that New Zealand pay is so far behind that of Australia is the pay freezes and pay cuts during the 1990s during the two recessions we had under the last National Government. That money has never been recovered. It is never spent it is removed from the economy it disappears offshore in profits and it is not invested in New Zealand. Everyone at home pays and workers still lose their jobs. 
Yesterday’s infrastructure package falls well short of the mega-boost we need to protect New Zealanders from the fall-out of the global economic crisis. New Zealanders are looking for leadership from this National Government but all we are seeing are timid and weak actions. I have noticed that it is almost fashionable to have been a State house kid—I was one of them—but I suppose it depends which side one is on. I am not so sure about Hobsonville in John Key’s electorate. It is so unfashionable there that John Key will ditch a progressive-model mixed housing development. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Didn’t he have one? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: He had one but he does not want anyone else to have one. He does not want modest-income families in his electorate to live in pride and dignity among the better-off with access to good facilities and with a view of our beautiful harbour. The poor do not deserve views! National’s State housing announcement was really disappointing. It is as my colleague Maryan Street has pointed out a cut not an increase. I also noticed the seven new State houses being built in the west and north and there is need there but I find that quite contemptuous. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. 
I come now to the minimum wage increase. In hard times like these it is the lowest paid who should take precedence. It is unconscionable that the highest paid in the country will be getting a huge boost with tax cuts on April 1 while those on the lowest incomes will get almost nothing. National’s gifts to workers before Christmas were tax increases and the right to be sacked in the first 90 days. Where is the compensation for those vulnerable workers? It is a $3.78 a week pay rise if they are full-time workers as the Minister confirmed yesterday—the lowest increase to the minimum wage in many years. 
I take the opportunity to acknowledge the Maori Party’s attempts to gain a bigger increase for lower-paid workers. What a frustrating exercise that must have been. After all Tau Henare’s lovely words about a new dawn the Maori Party tried to get a better increase in the minimum wage and was ignored. I want to know how this measly minimum wage increase contributes to closing the wage gap with Australia. You know Australia’s minimum wage is $18 an hour. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: How much? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It is $18 an hour. So how are we closing the gap? [ 
Interruption 
] No it did not lose jobs during that period; it gained them. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why don’t they want to copy the Australians on that? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I am not sure. They like to copy them on all sorts of things. As the Council of Trade Unions says the current crisis was not created by workers but boy are they paying for it under this National Government! We need to do better for those who are laid off. We need minimum redundancy entitlements to be introduced urgently. The pitiful $26 million ReStart package goes nowhere near helping those who are going to lose their jobs. 
People are better off and have been better off under Labour. Unlike the National Government Labour gave priority to ensuring that the low-paid workers of the country were not left behind when it came to sharing the prosperity and growth of the last 9 years. But that has been the way of Labour Governments ever since we were first elected. It seems to me that talking about an underclass in New Zealand—as National likes to do—is one thing but doing something about it is left to Labour. Thank you. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 When one has been in politics for a long time—as Dr Cullen and a number of other members here including me have—one gets to know one thing that is almost an absolute fact and that is that New Zealand is highly highly dependent on what goes on in the rest of the world. No matter how much we would like to crow about what a magnificent Government we are or what a dreadful Government somebody else was or whatever the fact is that the vast bulk of what happens to us economically and with regard to employment and a whole range of other things is very very dependent on the rest of the world. I wish that that were not the case and I wish we were isolated enough that we could completely control our own destiny but the fact is that the world is some sort of global marketplace now we are part of it and we have to get used to it. 
In respect of that point I say that it was really galling to be a member of the Opposition for 9 years and to see world conditions so staggeringly good—to see unbelievable levels of commodity prices to see the strength of the world economy and to see levels of unemployment that were the lowest across the world. We sat in Opposition watching the Labour Government and hearing Michael Cullen making statements about how it was ferreting some of the good stuff away for a rainy day. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Just as well! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well—“Just as well!” says Steve Chadwick—what is really tragic is what happened just as the time came for National to clean up at the election. And clean up we did. I do not think I have ever known in the eight election campaigns I have fought—and I say this absolutely sincerely—more people saying this one sentence to me: “We’ve got to get this lot out.” I heard it over and over no matter where I went. The old axiom is slightly true: when one is in Government friends come and go but enemies accumulate. But I have never known it to be quite as strong as that ever. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Come on—1999! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No I am sorry but I tell Dr Cullen that it was not as strong as that in 1999. Yes it was strong. It was not as strong as that in 1990 when Labour was slung out but this time it was time for that lot to go. So poor old National came into power at a time when the entire world was heading for meltdown. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No it is no good lamenting it because that is just the reality—that is the reality of it. So now we have to pick up the cudgel and start to do some things that will take off the sharp edges of the world recession. It is no good ever trying to pretend that we will fix the world’s economy. It is no good trying to pretend that what is happening in the United States Europe Britain or Australia does not matter; it all matters. They are all major trading partners of ours; what is going on there matters. 
I am really proud to see the National Party in Government along with its coalition partners start to take some action almost immediately on being elected—almost immediately. Members will remember that the election did not take place until November and the Government was not sworn in until a couple of weeks later yet by the very beginning of December legislation was firing through this House to do some things. 
Let me take what I think is one of the very very best things National did when it came into office. This morning I met with an organisation called the Small Business Advisory Group. Interestingly every one of the members in that group was appointed by the Labour Government when it was in power so they are not a bunch of National Party lackeys or a bunch of our supporters. Every member of the Small Business Advisory Group was appointed by the previous Labour Government but the members of that group unanimously said thank you—they said thank you so much—for the 90-day provisional employment legislation. They all represent small business they are all small-business people themselves and they said that it would make a huge difference. As we went around the table nearly every one of them said they were facing falls in retail sales and customer orders and they were having to let some staff go as time went by. But for those who wanted to take a chance at bringing on a new staff member the 90-day provisional employment legislation meant they were at least prepared to take that risk. I asked if any of them there would want to bring somebody on to their staff hire that person for 89 days while they were trained up to be a productive staff member then sack that person so they could bring the next person in to start training him or her. They started laughing—they absolutely started laughing—and quite rightly so. 
That shows why Labour members have their thinking on this issue so wrong. I do not think that any of those members have employed anybody; that is their problem. They do not know about employing people. If only they knew that the most valuable asset a company can have is good staff and that when companies bring someone on and find that person is of value they will do anything to keep the person. I know a number of businesses that struggle almost daily to ensure they keep good conditions and the right environment. 
I know a number of small-business managers who have told me they are approached on a regular basis especially now that times are tough by some people who might be thought to be at the lower end of the employment register. Those people might be terribly low on the educational or socio-economic scale or whatever but they desperately want to get into the workforce. The managers of these companies whom I have talked to have not been prepared to take that risk in the past. But when the new legislation kicks in they will take that risk; they will have a crack at it and they will see whether those people can get on the first rung of the labour force ladder. They said they will be delighted if that works out and they can keep those people employed. But the Labour Party’s attitude to that is that the boss class will abuse the workforce by taking people on for 89 days and when they are just getting trained up give them the boot. 
Regarding the small-business portfolio I am pleased this Government has taken a whole range of other measures. Frankly I think there is a good argument to say that if a company is a Fletcher Challenge a Carter Holt Harvey or a Fonterra it will have a human resources department and an accounting department with a whole fleet of accountants—if “fleet” is the right collective for accountants. It will also have a whole series of legal advice people and a whole range of other things and therefore it will be able to comply with tax laws which are massive with occupational safety and health laws and with employment law. But it is quite clear that when a company is a one or two person business a husband and wife business or a three-person business the red tape and the bureaucracy of complying with the Inland Revenue Department and a whole range of other Government bodies can literally send that business down the gurgler and then there is not a business at all. So I am really pleased that as a first step in our small-business package we have allowed some discretion. We have said we will move the thresholds for GST filing PAYE filing provisional tax and all of those things. When a company is a one or two person business struggling to keep its operation going it is really annoying to be treated in the same way as a lot of big businesses which have the resources to do those things. 
We have also put in place some things put up by the Small Business Advisory Group. That group wanted an 0800 number that businesses could call for advice. There is now a free mentoring service. We have offered small-business people a free health check on their businesses. People who really do know their oats in this area can go in and look at how those businesses are functioning. There is no question about the methods this National-ACT coalition Government has put in place—within weeks not within months. In many cases it has taken up to a year for some Governments to have an impact after coming into power but within 2 weeks of the election result being declared things were flying through this House and packages are now being announced that change tax and employment laws and that will allow this country to survive this recession better than it would ever have had a chance to do had the country stayed under the Labour regime. 
The last thing I say is “Roll on with some changes to the RMA!” because if there has been one thing that has killed this country’s ability to make economic progress and go forward it has been the Resource Management Act. I welcome the fact that we will take a stick to it in two ways. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 It is appropriate that the member Maurice Williamson finished with a classic bit of National Party spin. Let me remind him that the Resource Management Act which he just condemned as holding back the New Zealand economy was passed by the National Government that he was part of in 1991. National has spent 9 years working on its spin lines and not 9 days working on its policies and that has been its problem ever since the election. 
We have seen two spin lines coming out in this debate. One is that New Zealand was the first and only country to have a recession in the last year. Let me correct that. The National Bureau of Economic Research in the United States is the official determiner of when the US is in recession. About 4 weeks ago it said that the US had been in recession since the fourth quarter of 2007. That is the official United States view. 
The second spin line is about all these things being unfunded. This is cute stuff. This is simply saying that when we say something is happening in 2 or 3 years’ time it has not yet been appropriated—it is unfunded. Well practically everything is unfunded at this point as far as 2010 2011 and 2012 are concerned. Right through the campaign it was National that pretended the economy was better than it was and that was summed up by Mr Key always telling us that New Zealand did not have a debt problem. Well the sound we hear from members opposite now is the sound of chickens coming home to roost faster than I have ever seen following a change of Government. 
This Government’s actions will now be measured against the scale of the problem we face. We do face the worst economic crisis in the world since the Second World War. There are two sources of that crisis. The first is the folly greed and dishonesty of those in international financial markets. Within the last 48 hours the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase announced that he got a US$27 million bonus last year having picked up US$10 billion from the US Government to fix up the mess that was made in that business. There have been US$18 billion in bonuses in the US financial system at a time when the US taxpayer is pouring money out hand over fist for people who never properly assessed risk and reward who disguised their behaviour who acted utterly improperly and who are now threatening to bring the world into a great depression. Those are the people whom members opposite admire. 
The second source of the crisis is the growing imbalance between the countries that have been borrowers and the countries that have been savers over the last 10 years. That fact was brought to the attention of every international economic conference over the last few years. 
What do we need to do in this situation? First we need to cushion the effects of this recession. Second we need to take advantage of the opportunities that are opened up as resources are being freed up. Some things that were not possible a year or two ago are actually possible now. Thirdly we must deal with the financial market issues and fourthly we have to deal with those imbalances. 
Let me take those in reverse order and judge the Government’s actions against them. On the question of imbalances this Government’s response has not merely been inadequate; it has been completely the opposite of what is required. We have been one of the borrowing countries and this has led to the growing imbalances in the world. Whereas the Chinese have to learn to spend more we have to learn to save more over the long term. 
And what is the Government’s answer? The Government’s answer has been to cut KiwiSaver—the first real attempt to lift private sector household savings in New Zealand—and to have unsustainable tax cuts which will lead to a fiscal position that the Minister of Finance admitted yesterday will on the present best estimates take us back to where we were in the early 1990s. What I left this Government was gross Government debt under 20 percent of GDP— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: A decade of deficits. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —and I remind the member opposite that he attacked the Government every year for running too big a surplus. Every year National promised to spend the surplus. Now it can live off that surplus for a year or two but within 3 years it will be looking at debt going back to being worse than it was in 1999 and within 5 or 6 years it will be back to where it was in the early 1990s. It will be a long haul through the next decade in that regard. 
To correct those imbalances New Zealand needs more exports and more research and development but the Government’s answer was to can the research and development incentive to cancel the Fast Forward fund and to cancel the Broadband Investment Fund which was ready to roll. So this will not be a year for asking business what it wants which is what Mr Joyce announced it would be today. By the time National decides that the rest of the world will have moved forward to the next stage and we will be catching up again in that regard. 
What about the extraordinary claim from Mr Key that New Zealand does not have a debt problem? New Zealand has always had a debt problem. For a while the Government did not have a debt problem but the new Government solved that pretty quickly. Now we have a household debt problem within New Zealand. Unfortunately the Government’s obsession with tax cuts will not work because the individual in the household acts pro-cyclically. When the economy is turning down and people are afraid of losing their jobs they will actually start to save more not spend unless money is given to those at the bottom. What did the Government do? It introduced a tax cut programme that took away tax cuts from those at the bottom and redistributed them to those at the top who will not be spending that money in stimulating the New Zealand economy. 
What of the financial markets? There is no sign of a comprehensive understanding of what needs to be done. The Government is still locked into a right-wing agenda in that respect. New Zealand needs a new social contract around a market economy that states clearly that capitalism succeeds best not merely in producing wealth but when there is a fair sharing of that wealth. That was the contract that dominated the first three-quarters of the 20th century. It has been broken over the last quarter of a century and that has led directly to the crisis that we are now in. Unless there is a move to have much greater disclosure in financial markets both within countries and across countries unless there is much greater commonality of rules and unless there is the ability to intervene by regulators without tight brightline rules that create means for financial sector people to move around them we will simply see the next recession being worse than this. This recession is worse than the last one precisely because those issues have not been addressed. 
What about the cushioning effects and taking advantage of them? It is much too little much too timid and it is constrained by National’s tax decisions. There should have been bold moves on sustainability on public transport and on skills and these areas have not been mentioned at all so far in the Government’s announcements. A whole strategy has been agreed between Business New Zealand the Council of Trade Unions and the Government and it is ready to roll out. It could be funded much more—Business New Zealand wants that. Where is the announcement around that? There is nothing so far. Where are we building the skills for when the economy takes up again? Luckily the Government will get Kiwis coming back from Australia. Luckily there will be fewer Kiwis going to Australia. That will be the great success in the next year. Why? Because Australia is in recession and therefore there will not be so many people going. It is a great move but it does not mean anything for the future of this country. 
Where are the moves to retool industry while we have the chance to do so in this situation? Instead there will be 69 new State houses which is actually a reduction of 11 even on the Government’s own numbers. There will be a $42 million roading package. In terms of the cost of bringing it forward half will be spent on a bridge designed merely to get people to and from their holidays faster. What will that do to productivity? Well if the Government is going to take a week off people’s holidays they will need to get to and from their holidays faster! Of course the doozy concerns Transpower and the network—the Government is going to paint the pylons. So it is not a case of  
Fawlty Towers 
; rather “Monty Pylon” is the Government’s answer to an infrastructure package. Painting pylons will be the answer to New Zealand’s economic problems! Well it is slightly better than the situation in the 1930s—but not an awful lot. 
It is no wonder that yesterday and today Mr English has looked overwhelmed by the problems. I know that the numbers he is getting from Treasury are enough to frighten any Minister of Finance. It is no wonder that he said yesterday in a slip of the tongue that it is the worst recession for 90 years. If that is true the Minister of Finance yesterday told us that it is worse than the Great Depression. That was a frightening comment from a Minister of Finance. This Government does not have an answer at all. It is fiddling and fiddling around and it does not know what to do. It simply has spin lines to try to blame the previous Government. It will not work. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 That speech was from a member whose legacy to New Zealand is a decade of deficits. That member said today that we should be spending more but only 6 months ago he was accusing John Key of being reckless for wanting a $4.5 billion programme of infrastructure investment. What we have now is a Government that is committed to keeping its word to the public of New Zealand. We have a Government that is committed to responding properly to the global recession and to doing so in a way that is realistic and responsible. 
We are 85 days into the first 100 days of the new Government. Is this a Government that is doing what it said it would do? Well we said that in the first 100 days we would pass a tax package to reduce tax for all New Zealanders and to improve the incentives to create wealth. I note and compare the first act of the previous Labour Government when it came to office. It put taxes up. Members on this side of the House are proud of the fact that one of the first actions we have taken is to reduce the tax burden on those who earn the wealth for this country. 
We have come to office with a huge infrastructure deficit. If there is any part that reflects that it is in respect of the shambles of the Cook Strait cable. As a Minister in the previous National Government I remember being told that if there was an area where we would be attacked in the unlikely event of a military threat then it would be the Cook Strait cable. Do members realise that the previous Labour Government without any enemy has created a set of infrastructure where half the Cook Strait cable is down? Whether we look at roading in Auckland at electricity at water or at any other part of the infrastructure we will see that the last Government neglected New Zealand. National is on track to address that problem. 
We said that during our 100-day programme there would be a Minister for Infrastructure. We said that we would be setting out a programme with a 20-year plan for infrastructure and we said that we would bring those projects forward early so that we could get on and do them. The Government is doing just that. 
The third thing we said we would do within that 100-day programme is to introduce and announce a set of reforms to the Resource Management Act. For 9 years there were pleas from every corner of New Zealand for the previous Government to make changes to that Act which has acted as such a brake on the engine room of growth for the New Zealand economy but the previous Minister for the Environment said that the Act was beautifully crafted and beautifully written and steadfastly refused to make changes to that statute. 
I was amazed to get a letter today from a former president of the Labour Party Mr Bob Harvey. He has written to me to congratulate the Government on its Resource Management Act reforms and to say that they are excellent. He went one step further: he said that they should have occurred years ago. Bob Harvey is right; they should have occurred years ago. Next week this Government will be introducing a resource management reform bill so that we can build the infrastructure and have the engine room of the New Zealand economy growing. 
We also said that we would be introducing a transitional relief tax package. I say to members opposite that there is almost a pretence from David Cunliffe that if only the Government spent enough then it could somehow make the international recession go away in New Zealand. Members on this side of the House are far more realistic. Anybody who pretends that New Zealand can somehow magically—as David Cunliffe would have it—remove itself from the international events that are occurring is off in cuckoo land. We have seen from this Government a very realistic response to those things that we can do. We are aware that there will be New Zealanders out there hard-working New Zealanders who will lose their jobs through no fault of their own. I congratulate Paula Bennett on the package she has brought forward that will make it easier for people particularly for low and middle income families as they manage the effects of the recession. 
I particularly compliment Simon Power on the work he has done in the justice area. If one looks at the 100-day programme and the challenges—[ 
Interruption 
] Well what does it say in the 100-day programme? It says that legislation will be introduced to deal with the parole issues for the worst repeat violent offenders. We have done that. I say well done to Simon Power. It says that we will introduce legislation to clamp down on criminal gangs and the drug trade. It says that we will make changes to the bail laws. It says that we will make changes around the DNA laws. It says that we will introduce a levy for those who commit crimes so that we can help victims of crime. It is a very ambitious agenda. 
The interesting thing coming from members opposite is that every one of them has said that the Government is going too fast. Members on this side of the House say that we are keeping our word—and we will keep our word to the electorate. 
I also commend Anne Tolley the Minister of Education. She said that in her first 100 days she would introduce legislative change to provide for literacy and numeracy standards—and she has delivered on that. I say well done to her. New Zealanders up and down the country will also say well done to her. 
Tonight I am holding a public meeting in my Nelson electorate around the issue of special education facilities. I have to say that the community in Nelson welcomes the extra money that has been brought forward for educational facilities. What does it mean for my community? It means that special-needs children in Richmond will have access to a newer facility so that they might get the education they deserve. I know that members on all sides of the House will say that that is right and proper. I just cannot see why members opposite would whinge about a plan that will see children in New Zealand have better facilities than they have had previously. 
I look at the programme in terms of what the Government is planning in the area of health. The Government said it would instruct the Ministry of Health and the district health boards to pull back on their bureaucracy and I congratulate the Minister of Health—my benchmate—on doing that. The Government campaigned on providing the full 12-month treatment for Herceptin. I have to say the most amazing thing happened to me over the holiday period when I hopped down to my local Mitre 10. A lovely woman and her family came up to me—in a way that has never occurred in my 18 years as a parliamentarian—to express how grateful they are that the Government is providing that Herceptin. In fact it was actually very emotional in that the woman broke down in tears over the fact that no longer would they have to raise a mortgage on their house so that their daughter might be able to get the best chance of life. I say good on the Minister of Health for meeting that part of the 100-day programme. I know that families all over New Zealand are grateful for that. 
Also in that 100-day programme John Key said that National would repeal the Electoral Finance Act. I know that there are New Zealanders up and down this country who are grateful for that. I look forward to members opposite apologising for that Draconian law which was nothing other than an abuse of power by a desperate Labour Government that would do anything to hang on to power even screw the electoral laws to its own advantage. The most amazing element has been the Leader of the Opposition admitting that Labour had that wrong. 
This is a Government that is keeping its word. This is a Government that is responding responsibly to the recession. This is a Government that is on track to be able to be a responsible and good Government for the people of New Zealand. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the following words be inserted in the amendment before the words “And expects”: “And commits to a Green New Deal to simultaneously combat the economic crisis and the climate crisis in a way which is fair to all New Zealanders to give our environment the greater protection it desperately needs and on which our economy entirely depends and to conduct politics in a way which is honest open and democratic and supports the continued representation in this House of the true diversity of voices in Aotearoa New Zealand.” 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the following words be added to the Address: “And expects over the next three years to see a closing of the wage gap with Australia; reduced serious crime including family violence; reduced waiting times for elective surgery with twenty new dedicated elective surgery theatres; fewer people on working-age benefits; lower greenhouse gas emissions; increased investment in infrastructure including rail and public transport; the extension of the fibre network to nearly all homes; all sixteen and seventeen year olds in education training or employment; no cuts to public services; expanded availability of subsidised medicines; a police to population ratio of 1:500 with all new sworn police officers committed to general duty roles; a doubling of the number of prisoners receiving drug and alcohol treatment; and the settling of half of the remaining historical Treaty of Waitangi claims.” 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Address in Reply 
Presentation to Governor-General 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Address is as follows: 
ADDRESS FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
TO 
His Excellency The Honourable Anand Satyanand PCNZM QSO Governor-General of New Zealand  
YOUR EXCELLENCY— 
WE the House of Representatives thank you for the speech addressed to us when you opened this Forty-ninth Parliament. 
We assure you that the matters referred to in your speech will receive our careful consideration. 
Ko te tumanako nei kia mahi tahi tatou katoa. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That Mr Speaker accompanied by the mover and the seconder and other members of this House do present the said Address to His Excellency the Governor-General at a place and time to be appointed by His Excellency 
. 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded to the introduction and first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill and Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2.  
The Electoral Amendment Bill deals with the controversial Electoral Finance Act which caused a great deal of grief for a lot of New Zealanders prior to the last election. It was a commitment of the National Party going into the election to in fact 
— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Turn the page. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —sorry 
— 
advance that bill. It is our intention today to make very significant progress with the bill which will be read a first and second time this evening. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
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. 
Motion agreed to. 
Electoral Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 This bill delivers on the Government’s election promise to repeal the Electoral Finance Act 2007 within its first 100 days in office. As an interim measure the bill reinstates the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act 1993 that deal with electoral finance while retaining the donations regime from the Electoral Finance Act. The interim regime is needed to ensure that a fair and workable electoral law is in place should there be a by-election while a more enduring regime is being developed. 
No one can deny that the Electoral Finance Act 2007 was enacted without the broad cross-party support that has historically characterised electoral reform. That is because the Electoral Finance Act seemed less about levelling the playing field and more about settling supposed political scores. I cannot disagree with those who say that the electoral system belongs to the people and should ultimately be decided by the people. But political parties should not be removed from that process. Regardless of whether people supported or opposed the introduction of MMP it was at least the first significant recognition in law that modern elections are primarily about voting for parties. Political parties have to deal with the rules surrounding elections on a practical level and from the experience of the past 18 months we know what happens when those rules do not have buy-in from parties right across the spectrum. The law in that case simply lacks legitimacy. 
The 2008 general election and indeed the 10 months of the regulated campaign period that preceded it highlighted in the Government’s view the inadequacies of the Electoral Finance Act. The Act resulted in unnecessary legal action because of confusion about who was and who was not a third party and about what does and what does not constitute election advertising. Even the Electoral Commission has said publicly that the Act had “a chilling effect” on political participation. 
This bill repeals the Electoral Finance Act. Gone is the heavy regulation of what were referred to in the Act as “third parties”. Gone will be the regulated period which started on 1 January in an election year for expenditure of political parties and candidates. Instead the bill returns to the 3-month period prior to polling day that was previously the case under the Electoral Act 1993. Those two measures imposed a significant restriction on the ability of individuals and groups to exercise their freedom of expression and to participate in the democratic process and they justifiably earned a rebuke from the Human Rights Commission. Gone too will be the concept of “financial agents” as the obligations regarding donations and expenditure will be transferred to constituency candidates and party secretaries. 
This bill will amend the Electoral Act 1993 to reinstate the election expense and campaign advertising provisions that governed the 2005 general election. Let me say this: although aspects of that Act might not have been ideal it did at least enjoy the level of consensus that is required for electoral law. Compared with the Electoral Finance Act the meaning of those provisions from the 1993 Act is certain and all participants in the electoral process know what is expected of them. 
Having said that I tell the House that the Government recognises that the donations provisions of the Electoral Finance Act have provided greater transparency. Unlike most other aspects of the Electoral Finance Act these changes enjoyed broad political and public support. So this bill reinstates or reinserts those provisions because they were moves in the right direction. The bill also retains the stronger compliance and enforcement regime that was a feature of the Electoral Finance Act including increased penalties for corrupt and illegal practices and serious electoral finance offences and of course an extended time line over which electoral finance offences can be prosecuted. Again these changes enjoyed broad cross-party support and we are retaining those provisions because they increase public confidence in our electoral system. 
Transitional provisions in the bill will retain the rights and obligations of political parties constituency candidates electoral agencies and others arising from the rules in force at the time of the 2008 general election—an extremely important point. Essentially this means that returns for the 2008 general election—with many still having to be filed—and any offences resulting from the 2008 general election can still be investigated and can still be prosecuted; it is only right and just that actions committed under one law are accounted for under the same law. 
Finally the bill makes some minor drafting modifications to ensure consistency primarily of language between the reinstated provisions of the Electoral Act and the provisions of the Electoral Finance Act that are being retained. As I have previously said the purpose of this bill is simply to implement an interim regime before work starts on a new electoral finance law to be put in place before the 2011 general election. It is my intention and the Government’s intention that all political parties and interested members of the public will have an opportunity to have input at more than one stage in this process both before and after a bill has been introduced. 
In the past week or so I have been encouraged by the willingness of all parties in the House to meet with me and to discuss this bill and the way ahead. I am delighted that even those parties that I understand intend to vote against this bill today have indicated that they want to be part of the next phase of reform. The participation of all parties in that process is the path most likely to lead to enduring solutions. I am not going to pretend that we are all going to agree but everybody must have the opportunity to have their say. In more ways than one this bill and the subsequent consultation process over the laws for the 2011 election will return democracy to our electoral finance law. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I think it is clear that the National Party having campaigned pretty intensively on this issue and having told the electorate that it would repeal the Electoral Finance Act and go back to the status quo has a mandate to do just that. I agree that it is desirable and the Labour Party agrees that it is desirable that if we can achieve a consensus as to appropriate electoral law then we ought to try to do so. For those reasons primarily the Labour Party will be supporting this legislation at its first reading. In doing so we concede there are imperfections with the existing law and that it produced an overly complicated regime that can be improved. So we will be supporting this bill at its first reading. I note though that that does not mean to say that we resile from the principles that were intended to lie behind the Act that we are today repealing. In my opinion the first and most important concern in electoral law is that we ought to be maintaining public confidence in our electoral system. That after all is the primary objective I think of electoral law. That requires us to maintain the population’s confidence by having an honest and transparent system. The prior law the law before the one now being repealed had totally inadequate provisions relating to the transparency of donations. Indeed improvements could still be made to the donation regime but I think that it is pleasing that the National Government has conceded that the revised Act passed by the last Parliament did improve transparency provisions and that the status quo transparency provisions in the Act as introduced a couple of years ago will be continued during this period of review. 
Transparency is fundamentally important. Without transparency we cannot have an assurance that policy is not being paid for by major donors. That imputation is easily made but very hard to prove; it is very hard to disprove when the imputation is made wrongly. We need to protect the integrity of our system and the trust of our voters in our system by ensuring we have transparency of donations. In order to have transparency of donations though some difficult issues are thrown up that will need to be considered by the review being embarked upon by the Government. These relate to third-party involvement. It is a fiction to pretend there can be transparency of donations applying only to named political parties while having no control beyond political parties and pretending there is real transparency. Without reaching further than political parties transparency is a fiction; those who want to find a way around the intent of the law can easily find one. And that really is at the nub of where this policy gets quite difficult. How do we control against inappropriate behaviour while we are also appropriately protecting the rights of people to engage in political activism in support of causes they believe in or against Governments they do not believe in? 
I for one believe in the right of the Exclusive Brethren to criticise the Labour Party so long as they do so transparently so long as they are accountable for the money they spend and so long as they too are subject to some reasonable limits on their expenditure. I think it is inappropriate for the Exclusive Brethren or any other group to be able to spend unlimited amounts of money in pursuit of their political causes just as it is inappropriate for the Labour Party or the National Party to be unlimited in the amounts of money we spend in pursuit of our political beliefs. To do otherwise than have some controls leads to the position that I think most people in this Parliament believe is undesirable which is the approach taken in the United States where up to billions of dollars were spent in the last presidential campaign—which is excessive. If we allow that sort of approach to be uncontrolled in today’s world we cannot avoid the conclusion that rather than there being fair and equitable participation in campaigning we could have wealthy interest groups having disproportionate influence on an election outcome. 
These are the issues that will need to be worked through. We accept the Government’s statements that it has a genuine commitment to an inclusive all-party process; we will contribute constructively to that process. We will work towards finding a durable outcome that can have cross-party support— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: You were wrong first-time round then? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I have already admitted that I say for Mr Coleman’s benefit; I am happy to do mea culpa mea culpa mea culpa again. There were imperfections but I maintain a commitment to the principle that we must maintain the faith of our electorate and a fair democratic process. That requires both transparency around donations and some limit on the ability of people to buy elections by spending disproportionately or unseemly large amounts in pursuit of their viewpoints. I reinforce the fact that we will contribute constructively to this process. I am not sure that we will be able to reach unanimity in respect of all things. I note that the Minister seemed to suggest that anything more than a 3-month control on expenditure going— 
Hon Simon Power 
: No no—I didn’t say that. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No? I picked that up wrongly. I think that the question of how long the election period ought to be is a genuine issue for debate. Should it be 3 months or a year? We in reality know that election campaigns are conducted over more than a 3-month period. I look forward to the debate. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I think the member missed out mea maxima culpa because this was a grievous error on the part of the Labour Party. Actually it should not be “mea”; it should probably be “nostra”. But it is good to see that the member is repenting. 
History has shown us that the only possible way to make a major change in electoral law is to have an element of agreement between political parties. That statement is as true today as it was when Ralph Hanan said it in this House over 50 years ago during the passage of the Electoral Act 1956. Sadly the idea of a consensual non-partisan approach to the amendment of New Zealand’s electoral law was a foreign concept to the previous Labour Government. That Government joined with New Zealand First and the Greens to force through this House with the narrowest of margins legislation that contravened the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and was totally unacceptable. 
Today this Government is taking the first steps to repair the conventions that were trampled over by the previous Labour Government and is restoring the tradition of consultation and consensus on electoral law that Governments should always have. It is in the public interest that there be cross-party consensus on electoral law and that is why I was so impressed by Mr Parker’s contribution. It revealed a level of maturity and decency that was not present in 2007. 
We have been in this situation before of course. National Governments have periodically been forced to deal with the electoral amendment disasters that have been inflicted on us by Labour over the last 60 years. In 1945 Labour altered the composition of the Representation Commission to stack it with Government appointees and we had to fix that up in 1950. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How old were you? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I was a gleam in the eye of my parents! 
In 1975 the Labour Government forced through a range of changes to screw the scrum in its favour. The entrenched provisions of the Electoral Act stopped it from getting some of those changes through; the rest we had to tidy up in 1976 and in 1977. Now in 2009 we have to deal with Labour’s latest error of judgment. In doing so—and it is important to note this—we will behave better than the previous Government did. We will not keep on the statute book legislation that we said—and I repeated this on numerous occasions during the Committee stage of the electoral finance debate—confers massive advantages on the Government and on incumbent members of Parliament. 
Labour passed the Act in order to shut the National Party out of Government but there will be no utu from the National Party because it is in the public interest that we band together to get back to a situation where there is proper discussion between all parties on these very important issues. It was indeed a wake-up call for me as a tyro MP to see that the safeguards that exist in our constitution to prevent the passage of laws like this one are inadequate. 
As the House will know earlier this week I provided a section 7 report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act on the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. Under this Government the Attorney-General will be prepared to make those reports. The previous Government made a total mockery of the system. My predecessor failed to table a section 7 report on the Electoral Finance Bill; even though that Government knew that the legislation breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and even though we had a number of submissions from the Human Rights Commission to the Justice and Electoral Committee saying the bill severely trampled over rights of freedom of expression. 
So we stand here today to rectify the situation caused by the very Act that the now deputy leader of the Labour Party said does not restrict free speech and Mr Chauvel called a very good bill. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that Labour did not have the consensus it should have sought out when it passed the Electoral Finance Act and I hope the Labour members who in 2007 spoke in support of this insult to democracy will support their leader’s willingness to engage in a bipartisan manner on the reform of electoral law. 
I go back to what a senior public servant said to the Justice and Electoral Committee. He said during the committee consideration that in the early 1990s it was Mr McCully for the National Party and Mr Caygill for the Labour Party who worked together to get law that was enduring. Basically it was a two-party Parliament and they worked constructively together. I am certainly heartened by the words of Mr Parker that going forward all parties in this House will work constructively to get election law that endures. I think that many of the issues he has raised are very helpful and I look forward to playing my part. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I welcome the bipartisan approach that the Minister has taken to reviewing the Electoral Finance Act and the undertaking he has given to bring all parties together to get broad agreement on a new Act. If I have any regret about the legislation we are repealing it is that there was not a consensus around it. It was highly undesirable to have great controversy around the rules surrounding elections of course. To be fair though the reason for that lack of consensus was not all one-way traffic. I think some of the people who led the attack on the Act—the one we are repealing now—would have had a lot more credit if they had been much more willing to acknowledge the ugly practice we experienced in the 2005 election. 
Let me give members one example of that from my electorate. The day before the election two newspapers published full-page advertisements from a fictitious promoter using a fictitious address in my electorate practically accusing me of mass murder. It went to every home in my electorate and it was much too late for me to do anything about it—some of it was being delivered just before midnight on the day before the election. How was that fair? Why did we not hear nearly as much outcry over practices like that as we have heard about the Act? The police I have to say did not even act on my complaint. Actually to be fair my majority went up by 150 percent so perhaps I should say: “Make my day!”. But the principle behind the legislation has to be looked at very carefully. 
There are two basic principles in the Act that we are repealing that I think need to be kept. The first is that the name of the promoter of a political advertisement should have to be clear. It should be obvious who is taking responsibility for a statement made in an election context. The second principle is that there should be a fair limit on the amount that can be spent to buy an election. We all know that money makes a difference in elections; that is why we spend so much time trying to raise it. When elections are decided more by money than by the clarity and strength of ideas however then our democracy is in trouble. That is why nearly every country in the world has some kind of cap on election spending. It stands to reason that if we have a cap on the amount that can be spent to buy an election then we have to identify the people who are spending the money. We cannot have secret expenditure if we want to have a reasonable cap on election spending. We cannot have people quietly coordinating their spending in backroom deals if we are going to cap election spending. 
Having said that I say I actually support an increase in some of the caps in the current legislation. One example is a spending cap of $20000 per electorate. The sum is of course $40000 for a by-election. But those limits were set in 1995 and it is fair to say the cost of election expenses has risen a bit since then. In today’s money $20000 in 1995 is worth $27000 now and the by-election cap of $40000 would be worth around $53000. So in real terms we should address those limits. I would like to see those limits on election spending at least at electorate level increase from where they are set today. I think that is reasonable. 
I want to mention one other area that will have to be improved and that is the administration of the Act by the Electoral Commission. I believe that the commission somehow simply lost the plot before the last election and it did not approach the administration of the Act in a calm and considered way. I have already expressed my frustration with having been referred to the police twice when I was confident that the issues I was being referred for would not remotely result in a prosecution. Indeed that is exactly what the police decided too. But they investigated the issue and determined after the election that no offence had been committed. Of course I had suffered all the reputational damage of being referred to the police when it turned out that no offence had been committed nor was it ever likely that had been. Emails with press releases in them could hardly be seen as a nefarious offence against the Act. 
And why would we have committed an offence anyway? The Progressive party was the only party that observed the law strictly in 2005. We were the only ones who did not have to pay anything back. So all of the people who were sneering at me and saying it served me right for voting for the Act in the first place might have considered those facts. There was no offence committed. 
I had no idea when the Act was passed that the commission would be so obtuse in administering it. It is very unusual for a State agency to set out to frustrate its own Act but here is an example of how obtuse the commission could be. On 19 June the commission wrote to me stating: “The commission has observed some items on the Progressive website which might be considered an election advertisement.” It told us: “The website does not appear to contain any promoter statement”. We wrote back to the commission pointing out that the promoter statement was highlighted in bold type in the middle of the page. It was the high-tide mark of silliness and I put it to this House that no legislation no matter how sensible could withstand an agency that was so careless or belligerent and so determined to avoid intelligently applying the law. Whatever Act replaces the one we are repealing it will need to be administered with a lot more caution and a lot more care and intelligence than the Act we are repealing was administered. 
Electoral law of course never seems to be universally admired—even by politicians in this House! I remember when I was in this House on my own representing a party that had polling support higher than that of any other political party and I had a polling percentage higher than that of any other leader that the electoral law then was carefully tailored to fit the two major parties. I do not recall that there were screaming campaigns by the  
New Zealand Herald  
then declaring that democracy had been gagged. I do not recall that members of the National Party rushed to declare the arrangements were “odious”. So I ask for some reflection on that point as the current law’s opponents reflect on the most recent Act’s repeal tonight. 
There has been a long history of using electoral law tactically often with reasonable intentions—which of course the road to hell is paved with—even if they just happen to suit the major party of the day. I accept that members of the Government felt aggrieved by this law and I have come to the conclusion that it is right to repeal it and look for a better one. I largely agree with the holding arrangements that the bill puts in place while we pass the new law. Just as we have come on this side of the House to this view I ask members opposite to be constructive too and to look at the way in which we can actually improve the law and cover ourselves against some of the excesses that have been committed in recent years. The Minister has certainly given an undertaking to do that and I am pleased to acknowledge that. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The influence of money on politics is one of the greatest threats to freedom and to democracy. Political parties necessarily need money to run election campaigns but we know that that money can be a source of undue influence on our democratic process. There are numerous examples. In addition wealthy non-political-party actors can intervene in the election process by buying advertising and distorting the process in favour of their agenda. For that reason Western democracies all around the world have introduced many rules to try to limit the influence of money on politics. 
As the 1986 New Zealand Royal Commission on the Electoral System said it is not fair “if some in the community use their relative wealth to exercise disproportionate influence in determining who is to govern and what policies are to be pursued.” In New Zealand over the years we have introduced a series of laws in order to attempt to reduce the impact of money on our democracy. For example parties are to some extent required to publicly identify the source of their donations over a certain threshold. They are not supposed to declare donations as anonymous when they are not. Parties cannot spend their own money on TV and radio advertising but have to spend the money allocated by the Electoral Commission. This is an attempt to restrict the influence of money on politics. There is a cap on how much parties can spend. One of the best aspects of our current system is that there is a cap on how much political parties can spend in election campaigns. I agree with the Hon Jim Anderton that that cap needs to be adjusted. It is certainly something that we advocated during the negotiations with Labour over the Electoral Finance Act and I am sorry that we did not get that in there. None the less the cap itself is a really good idea and one of the most important parts of our system. 
However the origins of the Electoral Finance Act were that a number of problems emerged in our system in the 2005 election. A number of loopholes that needed to be addressed became apparent and they were around two particular issues. There were a lot of issues but there were two in particular one of which was the avoidance of the rules requiring disclosure of the true identity of donors. We found that National by using the Waitemata Trust which it had set up and Labour which had a lot of anonymous donations were hiding the true identity of the sources. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Which trust? 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: A huge amount of money was going through the Waitemata Trust. We did not know the true source of that money but it turned out when one reads Nicky Hager’s book  
The Hollow Men: A study in the politics of deception 
 that the National Party did. That was a getting around of one of the key rules. 
One of the other problems we discovered was the role of third parties—the role of non-political parties. The problem is that when we have a cap on what political parties can spend which makes a lot of sense one can get around that rule by having a non-party actor who basically says: “Vote for this party” and spends a lot of money but that money is not incorporated within the cap of that party. Of course that is exactly what the Exclusive Brethren did. The thing about the Exclusive Brethren is not that they are an unusual religious sect. That is completely irrelevant to the argument and I think too much focus goes on that. We are not critical of the Exclusive Brethren because of some of their religious practices though one may well be. The issue is this: they effectively ran a “Vote National” campaign in the 2005 election and spent $1 million in doing so and avoided the spending caps. That was the key issue that the whole third-party regime was trying to address. 
It is really difficult to set in place a bunch of rules that contain third-party spending—every country in the world has struggled with it. The Canadians have a regime that is much stricter than the Electoral Finance Act but with a much shorter time period. The UK has a similar regime to ours in terms of restricting third-party spending in an attempt to protect democracy from the influence of money. I want to quote from the royal commission again because it conducted one of the most extensive investigations into this issue in 1986. “It is illogical to limit spending by parties if other interests are not also controlled. Supporters or opponents of a party or candidate should not be able to promote their views without restriction merely by forming campaign organisations ‘unaffiliated’ to any party ... Nor should powerful or wealthy interest groups be able to spend without restriction during an election campaign while [the parties] are restricted.” This is a difficult regime or set of rules to put in place as we saw with the Electoral Finance Act. None the less if we do not try to put in place a regime around non-political party intervention in elections with spending caps then the spending caps on the political parties become irrelevant. 
The Electoral Finance Act for all its problems—and they were numerous and we all experienced them—was an attempt to deal with these fundamental principles: the principle around reducing the influence of money on politics and the perception of the influence of money on politics. That is why the Green Party supported it. We do not resile from voting for the Electoral Finance Act. The principles were sound even if there were real problems with the bill. At the time when we were negotiating with Labour we were not happy with the fact that it was not a multiparty approach and I commend the Minister for his negotiations with other parties so far and for the comments he has made about taking a multiparty approach to electoral finance reform. I commend the Minister for that. 
However there is another aspect to consultation that is missing here which the Greens put in around the Electoral Finance Act and that is the citizens’ assembly idea. The thing is that everyone in this House has a vested interest in these rules. We are all political parties. We have a vested interest in trying to get the rules that suit us best but they are not necessarily the rules that suit the voters of New Zealand. The voters of New Zealand have a different perspective and it is their democracy not our democracy—they own it. The citizens’ jury that the Greens negotiated which sadly the incoming Government has abolished was an attempt to include ordinary people in the decision making around their electoral system. Just as we give a jury the ability to send someone away for life why is it that we do not trust ordinary citizens to make recommendations about campaign finance reform? If a jury is able to get its head around whether someone is guilty or not guilty of a particular crime and to make a decision that will affect the rest of someone’s life—such as sending that person to jail—surely the citizens of our country are perfectly capable of making decisions about what their electoral system should look like not our electoral system their electoral system. Yet they are being excluded. 
I say to the Minister that although it is true that there will be public input—and I accept his reassurances that he will put out an issues paper to the public and the public will have an opportunity to make submissions on that—it is not the same thing as a deliberative process whereby a group of randomly selected people have the chance to be informed and provide informed feedback as a group back to the people who will ultimately make the decision who are the people in this room. A citizens’ assembly is a much more deliberative process. It is about interacting—informed debate—and I encourage the Government to revisit the getting rid of that. 
Of course it would be extremely politic of the Greens not to be out of step with every other party in this Parliament and to vote for the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act. However I have to say that we oppose this bill to repeal the Electoral Finance Act. We oppose this bill because we supported the principles of the original Electoral Finance Act even though we understand the problems with the Electoral Finance Act. We supported why it came in. The purpose of the Electoral Finance Act was to limit the influence of money on democracy. We stand by that purpose. We could not come into this House was it a year and a bit ago and defend it day after day after day then turn up today and suddenly run away from it. That is not the kind of party the Green Party is. We recognise the problems with the Electoral Finance Act but we support the fundamental principles and that is why we are not going to vote for the repeal of it. There is no reason to repeal it now. There is no urgent election about to happen. We could actually have a proper process improve the Act and then we could have an advanced and better system of electoral finance control rather than going back to the old Electoral Act 1993 and we could move forward. 
Once again I acknowledge the efforts of the Minister to involve other parties. I hope we can have a deliberative process and I once again encourage the Minister to involve the citizens of our country. It is their democracy. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
. 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the House afford urgency to the continued first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill and items Nos 1 2 and 3 on the Order Paper. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a question of asking you for a ruling as to whether the motion that has just been moved was one that was agreed to within the original urgency motion. We are now currently in urgency. I cannot remember that motion being on the list and if that is not the case we have to come out of urgency— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Which we have done. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sorry; I thought we had one other item in the original motion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will just respond to the member. It is not for the Speaker to have knowledge or be part of any agreements that are organised so it is not for me to rule on that matter. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No Mr Assistant Speaker I am not— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Hang on I am on my feet. It is a matter of process. The Leader of the House has sought to go out of urgency. He is now moving another motion. It is not for me to respond as to whether there is any agreement on that within the House. The Leader of the House may wish to clarify that. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In moving the motion earlier it was my mistake that I left out two very important words. The consequence of that is that the House may end up doing considerable extra time next week. There is a general understanding that we will be sitting until 10 o’clock tonight so I took the step of moving a motion to adjourn the previous debate. We have now adjourned it; we are in normal House time. I am now moving urgency according to the motion that I have just moved. It is different from the previous one so as to satisfy the requirements of the Standing Orders. That is essentially the situation we are in. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 That is the very point that I was making. The fact that we have adjourned a particular debate when we have another debate already set down and agreed to by the House under urgency does not mean that we can then move to another urgency motion. The proper thing to do is to deal with the next matter that the House has already agreed that urgency be accorded to. That is the next order of business not this one here. We have to go to that matter we have to deal with it and then we have to come back to this motion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: My understanding is and I rule that what has happened is quite in order. The Leader of the House has sought to go out of urgency whereupon the Government can indicate at any time that it does not wish to continue with the urgency. It has now moved another motion on which we will put the vote. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a new point of order. In order for the Government to get the House sitting hours extended this evening from 7.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. the Government is required to advise the Business Committee of going into urgency and the Government did that at its second attempt at the meeting on Tuesday. We have had a motion for urgency that was voted on for the House to go into urgency. The Leader of the House has now broken that and I cannot see how he can then try to create a second round of urgency when that was not advised to the Business Committee at the meeting held earlier in the week. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s the same sitting day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The Leader of the House interjected but he has adjourned the previous urgency motion that was before the House—the agreement that was before the Business Committee. My second point—to seek information from the Leader of the House—is that he has now moved an additional motion that adds an extra order of the day to those he advised in his previous motion which would clearly take the House beyond 10 o’clock this evening to a Friday morning sitting. Can he give the House some assurance or advice about what his sitting programme is because with each additional urgency motion he is adding more work for the House and it would be impossible to get it all done? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will hear from Mr Brownlee and that may well satisfy your point of order. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: This situation is caused by a mistake on my part. I have admitted that to the House. I left two important words out of the motion and there is no intention that the House should sit beyond 10 o’clock this evening under urgency. The motion that I just mentioned was rather due to the fact that the House appears to be making greater progress than was previously anticipated. But if the member wishes me to pare things back then there is another procedure that we might go through. This is the way to achieve the outcome that was previously notified. I make the point that urgency was notified for this day and nothing has changed in that regard. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: I think it does go back somewhat to the original point that I was trying to make which is that when the House has taken urgency it takes urgency for a particular set of business and other business cannot be included while that urgency is occurring. It appears to me that what has happened here is that when we have not completed the original urgency—merely adjourning a particular debate as the member has done and is able to do—we go on to the next business of the original urgency motion. We are not in a position under the original urgency motion to take another motion that is not within what was set down to the House and agreed to by the House. I accept that the Leader of the House has made a mistake and is trying to get out of it. As a Government whip for a number of years I know that mistake has been made in the past and is a serious one. Frankly my memory is that when one makes a mistake like that one is essentially stuffed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not really a part of the point of order. We are not currently in urgency. It is the Government’s prerogative to move whatever motion it likes and if members have displeasure at that they can vote accordingly. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How can we know that we’re not in urgency Mr Speaker? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Because we took a motion to go out of urgency. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No we did not. 
Hon Annette King 
: We did not. We adjourned the debate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We adjourned the debate. That doesn’t take us out of urgency. It takes us to the next business. Adjourning a debate takes you to the next business under urgency. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I ask members to wait just one moment while I take some advice. We are probably breaking new ground here but when the Government moves to adjourn the debate it is in effect breaking the urgency. Therefore the other motion is in order. We will now put the motion. The question is that the motion— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that you are getting unhappy but one thing I have done on a number of occasions as a Minister and that I have organised to be done in the past as a whip is the adjournment of a debate under urgency. It can be done in two ways. It can be adjourned and set down for further consideration presently and it stays within the urgency motion or one can do as the Leader of the House has done now which has the effect of the House being unable to consider that matter under the current urgency motion. But quite often there have been 10 or 15 other matters for which urgency has been accorded. In this case there is only one further matter for which urgency has been accorded and what happens is that when we abandon one matter we go on to the next. Urgency is not currently breached. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Let me bring to the House’s attention Speaker’s ruling 12/3. It quite clearly sets out that the urgency is broken so I will put the motion. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no. That does not say that at all. Speaker’s ruling 12/3 is about third readings coming back from a committee. That is nonsense. Speaker’s ruling 12/3 has nothing to do with that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No I will put the motion. I have ruled. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It says “Where bills are reported back … from committee”. There is no bill reported back from a committee in this case. That cannot possibly be correct. You may be able to find another Speaker’s ruling that heads in that direction but ruling 12/3 does not do that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry; it is Speaker’s ruling 12/5. The question is that the motion be agreed to. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What motion are we voting on now? Can the member move it again? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Would the member restate the motion? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the House accord urgency to the first reading and the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill and Government orders Nos 1 and 2. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I make two points. First the Leader of the House has now given us a different motion from the one he gave to the House before we got into this little debate. Second I want to be clear what the motion was about given that the Leader of the House was not sure himself. He is required to advise the House why urgency is required. But the main point is that he has shifted the business within 10 minutes of his earlier motion in terms of what we are meant to be in urgency about. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That point is correct. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes it is true. I listened to the pleadings of Opposition members who do not want to be here for additional hours and thought we had better drop one item off. If they want me to put one item back on then certainly I will do so. The reason for the urgency is that we see the Electoral Amendment Bill as being extremely important to the Government’s programme. We want it to be passed in 100 days. The motion affords the opportunity for that. The Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill is one that is very important also and we want that to be progressed. The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill provides that those who commit crimes are levied by $50 for a victims’ fund. We think that is very important and we want that to be debated as well. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We have had an explanation about urgency being broken we have had an explanation from the Minister as to why the urgency is required and I will now put the motion. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the House accord urgency to the first reading and the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill and Government orders Nos 1 and 2. 
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. 
Motion agreed to. 
Electoral Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 On 18 December 2007 I sat in the gallery above as other members of the public do now and I looked down on the speakers in the third reading of the Electoral Finance Bill. Many outstanding speakers that day spoke against that bill but there was one speech I will never forget and it left very firm memories in my mind. It was a speech by Hone Harawira. He started his speech by saying “Yes folks money talks but nothing talks quite like the truth”. Nothing talks quite like the truth and the truth has finally spoken. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is now just a little bit of confusion amongst my colleagues as to which reading of this bill we are on. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We are continuing with the debate that was adjourned on the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill. We are continuing with the debate so this is just a continuation. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. When the Hon Phil Goff was elected leader of the Labour Party he moved immediately to distance himself from the Electoral Finance Act and he acknowledged the mistake that he and his party had made; I congratulate him and I congratulate the Labour Party on that. But that does not hide the fact that the passing of the Electoral Finance Bill was one of the worst events in the democratic history of our country. The Labour Government and their supporters represented arrogance they changed the rules to suit themselves and they tried to tilt the playing field in their favour. The only way they believed they could get re-elected to Parliament was by changing the electoral rules to suit themselves. That in my view was a despicable act. 
That was done despite widespread opposition from throughout the country and despite widespread opposition in the media. I refer in particular to the campaign led by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 commencing on Monday 15 November with its “Democracy under Attack” series. I quote the first paragraph of the editorial—it was the first time the  
New Zealand Herald 
 had placed its editorial on the front page—“When is the Government going to get this message: democracy is not a device to keep the Labour Party in power.” It printed the third editorial on the front page the following day and the fourth on the Wednesday. 
What also characterised the passing of that bill was the deceitful way it was done and the way that people who spoke out against it were attacked. I was attacked by members in this House. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 was attacked. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 was portrayed as being interested only in its advertising revenue. I have the highest regard for the editorial staff and the editor of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and for the other members of the news media. The  
Dominion Post 
 the Christchurch  
Press 
 the  
Otago Daily Times 
 and most other newspapers throughout this country ran campaigns against the Electoral Finance Act. 
Let us look at the consequences of passing that Act. There are many consequences. I think it is quite interesting that the Labour members today can reflect on the fact that they are sitting in Opposition because I believe that one of the reasons there has been a change of Government is the passing by the previous Labour Government of the Electoral Finance Bill. We had a party vote earlier and the result was 69 to 53. It would be very very easy to believe that the result of the last election was an overwhelming victory to the National Party. That is far from the truth. The result of the last election could so easily have been different. I think Labour members might like to reflect on the fact that had New Zealand First got just 10000 more party votes it would have been game on and who is to say how the Maori Party would have moved? We might as well not have had a change of Government. So we see a party that moved to pass a law to tilt the Electoral Act in its favour and it has been punished by the electorate. I think that is a very important lesson for all parliamentarians to learn because that bill was pushed through quickly it was pushed through with deceit and it was pushed through with arrogance. I urge the members of the National Party when they are in Government for 9 years not to try to do the same thing. 
I think it is also interesting that all of the parties that supported the Electoral Finance Bill at various stages suffered losses. Labour certainly suffered losses New Zealand First is no longer in this Parliament— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to do this and I regret it but it is important to do it before 6 o’clock because to do it afterwards will mean there will be no ability to follow it up or to rectify the situation on the part of the Government. The problem I have is that in the earlier period before the re-moving of the adjournment motion this debate was adjourned. When a debate is adjourned if it is not set down for resumption “presently” then it is set down automatically for resumption next sitting day and therefore there is not an ability—as we are purporting to have now—to pick up a debate notwithstanding the urgency motion. To pick up a debate that would be on the Order Paper for the next sitting day I understand would require the suspension of the Standing Orders. When the member moved that the debate be adjourned he did not move that it be adjourned and set down for further discussion presently. Therefore my submission to you Mr Assistant Speaker is that we probably have about 2 minutes to get this matter sorted out. 
The alternative of course is to go on to the other debate that was set down in the original urgency motion or in fact probably to go to either of the two subsequent bills that are there. I would go to Peter Dunne who has had roughly the same length of time and experience that I have had in the House for advice. It is certainly my understanding that when a matter is adjourned unless there is an agreement of the House to the contrary it is then set down for further consideration on the next sitting day. I think we had this problem at one time with the maritime legislation and it required a special motion of the House—a suspension of the Standing Orders—in order to recover the matter and get it back on to the Order Paper. 
I can see that some preparation for advice is going on and while that is occurring I will attempt to fill in the time in order to give you a chance to get that advice. But again I say that we are in an unusual situation because of the mistake made by the Leader of the House earlier and we are not in normally flowing waters on this particular occasion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will just try to respond to that but it would be my understanding that there was no expectation to do otherwise than to continue presently. The member’s point is that that has not been said but I think that the intention was clear. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can I respond to that Mr Assistant Speaker? Unfortunately when we are passing laws as we have seen in this particular bill and when we are dealing with motions in the House to work by our intentions unstated is not the way that we work. The House made an agreement to adjourn the debate. It did not make an agreement to adjourn it to “presently”; it made an agreement to adjourn it. When a debate is adjourned then it is adjourned. It is something that has to be left until it is next on the Order Paper and the next occasion an adjourned debate is on the Order Paper is on the next day the House sits. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Let me respond. We can look at Standing Order 129(1) and I think the point is quite clear that the intention was there and really the test of that was that the House voted. So the intention was accepted in the vote of the House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Can I speak to that just briefly Mr Assistant Speaker? I am not speaking to that point of order because I see where you are coming from but it was the intention as we understood it this morning that the Government wanted to proceed with the first and second readings of the Electoral Amendment Bill. That was the intention as we understood it to take up your point. The fact that the Leader of the House did not move that in his urgency motion does not change the fact that that intention was not reflected and that was how we got into this procedural mess. It was because of the fact that the words did not follow what the intention was. The Opposition does not contest your view on that but because— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon Darren Hughes 
:Not “contest”; I do not mean that in a challenging way. But I am saying that we would like to discuss that with you because the issue is that we are just saying that we think that what the Leader of the House intended when he moved that the debate be now adjourned is not really good enough because that is not what he did. We have to go on what he said and that is not what has occurred. I am also conscious that we have now gone into the time for the dinner break. We have gone past 6 o’clock and we may have to resume consideration of this matter at 7.30. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think that is what we will do and— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. So that you take the thought away with you I think that it is only fair that I briefly respond on this side to that contribution. Standing Order 129 “Adjournment of debate”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member should not do this without seeking leave for 2 minutes maximum. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
:I seek leave for a maximum of 1½ minutes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought. Is anyone opposed to that course of action being taken? There appears to be no objection. Leave is granted. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
:Mr Assistant Speaker I ask you to consider Standing Order 129 “Adjournment of debate” which states: “(1) After a question has been proposed any member on being called to speak to that question may move ‘That this debate be now adjourned’ …”. The point is that these are new Standing Orders for this Parliament and this Standing Order makes it abundantly clear that the debate is adjourned “either to a later hour on the same day or to any other day.” There has been no change of day as a result of the two urgency motions. So picking up the bill subsequent to the second motion does not affect the fact that we are on the same day. Therefore we can pick up the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: OK that point has been made. Nothing has broken the urgency motion at this stage. This is a matter of debate on which I will rule. 
Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: When the House rose for the dinner break it was engaged in a series of points of order for which at that stage there was no resolution. I have given the matter consideration. The Leader of the House moved under urgency to adjourn the debate on the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill. An adjourned debate is set down for further consideration on the next sitting day. Because the motion to adjourn the debate did not specify its resumption at a later hour on the same day the debate on the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill should have been set down for resumption on the next sitting day. 
An urgency motion cannot anticipate business that has been set down for a future day. Had the Leader of the House indicated that the debate was to be adjourned to later today it could have been included in an urgency motion. Having moved that the debate on the first reading be adjourned the Leader of the House indicated to the Assistant Speaker that he did not wish to continue with the remaining business in the urgency motion and the House resumed consideration of Government orders of the day from the Order Paper. 
Prior to Government order of the day No. 1 being called the Leader of the House moved a further urgency motion to accord urgency to the adjourned debate on the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill its second reading and Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2. This motion was agreed to. 
Having reflected on the matters relating to the urgency motion I rule that it is not in order for the motion to include an item set down for consideration on the next sitting day. While the House is in urgency it will require leave for the adjourned debate on the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill to be added to the urgency motion. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave for the House notwithstanding the wording of the motion to adjourn the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill to continue the debate on the first and second readings of the bill. I do so in order to give the Government a chance and because Mr Brownlee has probably suffered enough over the last couple of weeks. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is. 
Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 10 February. 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 This Government is delivering on its election promises. This Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill is a very important bill. In 2007 John Key announced this policy at the police conference. National campaigned on this policy because law and order is a huge issue right across New Zealand. We saw that today with the revelations about gangs on the front page of the  
Dominion Post 
. Chris Tremain talked in the House earlier today about this issue and what it means to people in Napier and indeed right across New Zealand. 
This legislation is hugely important. It will allow for the DNA profiling of those who may be innocent or who indeed may be guilty. Profiling will be a highly effective tool for identifying and catching criminals. I am sure that most people in this House will agree that we have to catch more criminals protect more people—more victims—and try to make our communities safer right across New Zealand. Currently DNA samples can be taken only with a suspect’s consent or when someone is suspected of an offence punishable by more than 7 years’ imprisonment. These requirements preclude DNA samples being taken from those suspected of a wide range of significant offences such as assault with a weapon. They also require police officers to go through the complex process of applying to the High Court for leave to take DNA samples when consent is not supplied. 
It is important for those in the House this evening to acknowledge and support this bill. It will be referred to a select committee and people will have a chance to make submissions. I know that there are a few concerns about this bill mainly around the issue of privacy. As is the case with fingerprint records and photos DNA records will be destroyed as soon as practicable when charges are dropped or a person is found innocent—that is an important point. 
Fears about the potential misuse of genetic information are often based on misunderstandings. The DNA profile currently used by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research in Auckland is only a very small portion of an individual’s total DNA profile. People will realise from watching some of the programmes currently on television such as  
CSI 
—whether or not one believes what one sees on that programme—that a lot of criminals are caught by DNA testing. 
Another important point is that this legislation will give the police another valuable tool to catch criminals. It will be one of a wider range of criminal investigation reforms. This was a big part of the Government’s law and order stand—one of our pre-election promises was to upgrade the police’s tool kit. The bill will enable the police to use one of the most sophisticated and modern-day methods of catching criminals. As I said before this will occur in a two-stage process and it is important that the House be alerted to that. Between now and 2011 the Government will phase in the power to conduct DNA testing on every person charged with an imprisonable offence. This will happen in two stages. In the first stage the police will have the ability to obtain and test the DNA profile of every person charged with a relevant offence. In the second stage the process outlined at stage one will be extended to all individuals charged with an imprisonable offence. 
The Government is supporting this important legislation this evening. It is interesting to note that we have I believe the support of the biggest Opposition party as well. During the election campaign many people realised that over the last 9 years Labour had been too soft on crime and now it is up to the National Government to toughen up that stance. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Where’s the “Crusher”? Is she here? 
NATHAN GUY 
: I say to Mr Cosgrove that that is why I support this bill. Most New Zealanders will support it as well. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 It is important for me to state from the outset that Labour will support the referral of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill to a select committee but not without reservations. The most immediate reservation that comes to mind is the rushed manner in which this bill is being pushed through by the National Government. As a new MP I came into this House with a somewhat idealised expectation of how legislation might be conceptualised developed and implemented but that idealised expectation has been knocked for six in the last 2 weeks of 2008 and this first week of 2009. 
A complete disregard for adequate and appropriate levels of consultation has been demonstrated through the National Government’s farcical treatment of proposed legislation and scant regard for due process. When members of Parliament and the general public are not given the opportunity to carefully consider and consult over proposed legislation what is the Government saying to New Zealand? Is it saying that the law does not require careful consideration? Is it undermining the value of the broader parliamentary and public voice? Is it placing personal and political agendas ahead of best practice? 
If there was a rational explanation for why this particular bill needs to be rushed through so quickly then I might understand. However as many of my colleagues have already stated over the course of the past 3 days this is all happening because the National Government has allowed its grand 100-day action plan to take priority over carefully considered legislation and fair process. 
With the limited time we have had to consider this bill which we saw for the first time just prior to the start of the first reading debate 2 days ago what can we say about it? Labour had already amended legislation to significantly extend DNA testing so obviously Labour agrees that DNA profiling is an essential investigative tool in mainstream policing. The way the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act currently stands reminds us that Labour took DNA testing technology seriously and acted responsibly as the former Government to legislate accordingly. This also demonstrates that the current Government is again choosing to window dress rather than develop in consultation robust and effective legislation—and all of this for the purpose of being seen at least on the surface level to be addressing some of the fears that New Zealanders have with regard to law and order. But there is no depth to what it is doing. 
Labour is not opposed to further extension of DNA testing but it is unclear whether this legislation will have a significant impact on serious crime considering the changes that Labour made when in Government. Given the opposing positions of the Ministry of Justice and Treasury with regard to this bill’s regulatory impact statement we have very genuine and valid concerns. Treasury has clearly stated that it views the regulatory impact statement as being inadequate for a number of reasons including “a lack of clarity around the nature of the problems with the current DNA testing regime along with evidence (anecdotal and empirical) to support these”. So the first problem is that there is no evidence. Given the fact that the National Government has removed the research and development tax credit we are not surprised that it does not feel there needs to be an evidence base to the legislation it tries to push through. 
The next reason Treasury gives for the legislation being inadequate is the “limited analysis of the impacts of the options. The analysis of costs is partial e.g. only aggregate first year costs are estimated and capital costs are excluded and there is no assessment of risks such as risks related to implementation and how these will be mitigated”. So the second problem is that no one knows the costs involved or the risks with regard to what the Government is trying to push through. Despite the fact that we are in the middle of a recession and that National members have said the Government will cut bureaucracy and red tape and make sure it looks after taxpayers’ money it will push through legislation even though taxpayers are paying for it and the Government does not know how much it will cost. 
The next reason Treasury gives for the legislation being inadequate is that “the RIS does not report on the outcome of consultation and how any issues raised have been addressed.” So the third problem is that there has been no consultation. How can we discuss any issues when none has been raised because there has been no consultation? Going back to what I said earlier we know that this legislation will go to the select committee and that we will have 6 months to discuss it so there is absolutely no reason why the bill needed to be pushed through in urgency. 
I have no doubt that the select committee and the public will be vigilant in pulling this bill apart and putting it back together to create rational well-thought-out legislation—basically in complete contrast to its current form. What will the end result look like? Probably it will be only slightly modified compared with the version that currently stands. Will it be more effective than the current legislation? We will not know until the task is complete but possibly not. In that case the select committee will have spent hours and thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money on effectively doing nothing if the legislation is no more effective than what we currently have. Thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money would have been spent on discussing and consulting on legislation that will effectively do nothing. So much for cutting the red tape and bureaucracy! 
Labour will support this legislation. There is a possibility that the amended legislation will go slightly further than what we currently have but there is no proof of that because as Treasury has said there is no evidence to suggest that it will. When we look at the current legislation and what Labour put into place we can see that burglary suspects can already be compelled to provide a DNA sample. That is because of the changes that Labour pushed through including to the circumstances in which a crime scene sample is matched with a known offender’s DNA profile held on a police data bank. 
Prior to that crime scene samples could not be used in evidence unless a fresh DNA sample was taken which the alleged offender could refuse to give. That is one of the points that Labour pushed through with the amending legislation in 2003. 
The next point is that the offences for which someone may be compelled to give a sample have been significantly extended to cover crimes punishable by at least a 7-year jail sentence such as motor vehicle conversion some receiving stolen goods offences or any attempt or conspiracy to commit such crimes. 
The next point with regard to what Labour has already done is that DNA samples can be obtained by compulsion from prison inmates who have been convicted of serious offences prior to the commencement of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. 
The next point with regard to what Labour has already done is that the police no longer need a court order to obtain a sample from a convicted person; however a judicial hearing can be requested by a person who believes that he or she is not liable to provide such a sample. 
The next point with regard to what Labour has already done is that mouth swabs which are cheaper less invasive and just as accurate as blood samples can now be given as an alternative. 
The issue arising is that this is a substandard bill that National is proposing and that effectively we may spend 6 months wasting taxpayers’ money while working on the bill to come up with something that is very little different from what we already have in place. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I support the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. I agree with something the Minister said and indeed with what other members in the House have said: that DNA is indeed the modern-day fingerprint. Therefore at a basic intuitive level this bill makes great sense as it expands the State’s database and it allows more crimes to be solved—it is hard to disagree with that—it allows more criminals to be brought to justice—it is hard to disagree with that—and also of course it allows the innocent to be eliminated from the inquiry. And indeed it is hard to disagree with that. 
The bill also allows the State to move with the times as the science gets better and better. The science of DNA testing does indeed get better and better month by month. It was not so long ago that it required a DNA sample about the size of a 50c piece—whether blood semen hair; you name it—for there to be any ability to use it and get usable DNA from it. Now there is trace DNA invisible to the human eye which is capable of being good evidence in court. The power of the technology is greatly increasing month by month and this bill moves with the times and allows us to use the modern-day fingerprint of DNA to good effect in the criminal justice system. The bill seems to do away as well with the needless charade of suspect compulsion order hearings in the High Court and the need for lengthy expensive hearings that waste a High Court judge’s time and for that reason alone it is to be commended. 
Can I also just say that in terms of the Attorney-General’s report it is good indeed to see that an Attorney-General is able to issue a report to this House like this report which is a lawyerly detached legal opinion rather than the kind of report—which was not a report at all—that we saw from the previous Attorney-General in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill where clearly there were breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Here we have a fine lawyer as Attorney-General who is able to deal in shades of grey rather than just in black and white. He has issued a tentative opinion that this bill appears to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bills of Rights Act. Certainly as someone on the Justice and Electoral Committee I say that I am sure we will take this report seriously. We will look at the issues in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act impact and consider this matter carefully. 
Nevertheless this bill allows the DNA testing database into the criminal justice system in a greater way. It is the modern-day fingerprint. I commend the bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a first time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 108 Noes 13. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. 
In March last year National announced it would introduce a $50 levy on all those convicted of an offence which would be used to assist with expenses faced by victims of serious crime. The reaction was interesting. Members of the families of homicide victims came out into the media in support of that. A couple of weeks ago the offender levy was again endorsed by groups as diverse as the Sensible Sentencing Trust and those involved in Rethinking Crime and Punishment. However from the beginning Labour scoffed at the policy and misleadingly attempted deliberately or otherwise to portray the levy as a direct reparation to victims. The same Labour Party promised to “consult widely on an appropriate victims’ compensation scheme.” That was in 1994. Fourteen years later and in its third term in Government Labour asked the Law Commission to produce a discussion document on victims’ compensation. The previous Government was so committed to that policy that when I debated with the then Minister of Corrections Phil Goff on Radio New Zealand National during the election campaign he had no idea that the Law Commission had released its report 10 days earlier. 
This Government is not mucking around and we are committed to putting victims at the centre of the criminal justice system. We have not forgotten that in 1999 92 percent of voters agreed with the proposition of the citizens initiated referendum which among other things asked whether there should “be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of the victims providing restitution and compensation for them”. We know from the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into victims’ rights that the victims of serious crime often face significant costs that are associated with the crimes committed against them and are not covered by accident compensation other State assistance or court-ordered reparation. I want to make it absolutely clear today that we can never legislate away the pain and suffering that the victims of serious crimes such as murder sexual violation grievous assault and other such offences face. We can however respond to the practical needs and emotional costs that fall on the victims of serious crime in particular. 
Imposing a levy on offenders to provide for a fund to assist victims is not an uncommon measure. In the United Kingdom the levy is set at a flat £15 and in Canada it is set at Can$50 for summary offences and Can$100 for indictable offences. 
This bill proposes to amend the Sentencing Act 2002 to provide that all offenders who have been convicted of an offence must pay a levy of $50. The levy is not a sentence and its imposition is in addition to any other penalty that the criminal courts may impose such as imprisonment community work a fine or reparation to be paid to any victim specifically. The courts are not to consider whether the levy will cause hardship as is the case when a sentence involving reparation is being contemplated nor is it to be taken into account when determining the amount of a fine. The collection of the levy will be prioritised: after the collection of reparation but before the collection of fines. To be absolutely clear no victim will forgo reparations so that an offender can pay the levy. It is estimated that of the 120000 eligible sentences in the first year in 20000 of those cases reparations will be ordered and in the remaining 100000 or 83 percent of eligible cases the levy will be collected first ahead of any court costs or other fines. 
The bill includes provisions that relate to enforcing the levy. To ensure the enforcement regime is as efficient as possible the proposal in the bill is to take advantage of the current enforcement regime that is in place for collecting outstanding fines and reparations. 
The offender levy which will apply only in the adult courts will be paid to the Secretary for Justice who will direct the money to a specific Crown bank account known as the victims’ services bank account. The bill requires the Secretary for Justice to approve any organisation as an approved agency for providing victims with services that are paid for from the victims’ services bank account. I can advise the House that officials are already working on identifying the gaps in services for victims that the offender levies could be directed towards. One that comes to mind is the need for victims to pay for travel to court and parole hearings which has been identified by Kevin McNeil the son of Lois Dear as a particular strain on victims. Because the fund will take time to build up we will begin by prioritising the victims of the most serious crimes such as the families of murder victims. The fund will be bolstered by savings made from abolishing the previous Government’s Sentencing Council and Criminal Justice Advisory Board. 
This bill will start a process that will fund the provision of additional services for victims of crime for many years to come a process that should have started many years ago. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill could quite possibly be the most controversial of the suite of law and order bills that the Government has proposed because there is a whole host of unanswered questions within it. Again here we go the bill is being rushed through under urgency after Mr Brownlee gave his Golden Globe-winning performance of “Messed-up Standing Orders”—something for which he may have to pay 50 bucks to the victims on his own side. He might be the first to pay as an offender. 
This bill will sit before the Justice and Electoral Committee for 6 months so again one wonders why it is being rushed through without consultation. The bill is very interesting when we look at it as a whole. It is about a very strange system which we will examine in the select committee. It puts aside the fact that the Ministry of Justice tells us that in the period between 2001 and 2008 $146.5 million in reparation was ordered and $116.5 million was paid. So around 80 percent of the reparation that was ordered was paid. I accept that that is not perfect but it goes some way. 
We could have a number of alternative ways of looking at this issue in terms of helping victims. One could say that if the reparation system is not working as well as it should then let us deal with that or one could come up with this bill. 
We on this side of the House raise some real problems and questions about it. This bill says that for every offence $50 will be paid upon conviction. That means that if somebody murders somebody then he or she will pay $50. If somebody shoplifts and is convicted then he or she will pay 50 bucks. To me that does not seem right. The scale and the enormity of the tragedy involved in one of those crimes—obviously murder—far outweighs but does not excuse the damage or trauma caused by a petty crime such as shoplifting or a petty assault such as a bar fight when somebody takes a swing at somebody. It is not excusable but I would have thought that committing murder rape or serious serious violent offences would not be equivalent somehow to a $50 shoplifting tax. 
It is interesting that Mr Power talks about how reparations will not be undermined. If we actually look at the Act and look at the court precedents we see that courts when setting reparations—I think as Mr Power said himself—take into account the economic circumstances and the ability of the offender to pay presumably based on the principle that one cannot get blood out of a stone. We should remember that 80 percent of reparations go through and are paid. I suspect that judges are likely simply to decrease the reparation by 50 bucks. It is their decision; not Mr Power’s not Mr Brownlee’s and not the Government’s. It is quite rightfully the judge’s decision. Therefore the 50 bucks will not go directly in reparation to the victim; it will be taken and then administered. 
Then we come to this wonderful thing called bureaucracy. Mr Brownlee Ms Wilkinson and all the other so-called specialists on that side paraded round electorates saying they were going to kill off bureaucracy. I would like some answers to some interesting questions. If there are 110000 crimes a year this measure will raise about $5 million. What is the cost of chasing the $50? 
Ms Collins the Minister of Police whose priority is somewhat undefined at this point has said “There’s no point fining people who don’t pay fines when you’ve got other action to take.” Ms Collins was referring—quite rightly I have to say—to boy racers because they do not pay fines which is why the law was changed. So if people do not pay fines as Ms Collins quite rightly points out how on earth are they are going to pay another fine? 
What the judges will then do is deduct the fine from the reparation because the reparation goes directly to the victim. But this $50 will get sucked back into the Ministry of Justice and some sort of bureaucracy. I would like to know from the Government speakers whether they have costed the administration of firstly fining the extra $50 and secondly chasing the extra $50 from people who as Ms Collins quite rightly says will not pay it. Exactly how much is that going to cost? 
I argue and take a bet with some of the members over there that based just on the raw figures—the $5 million they will gain from this measure not the top-up they say they will make—the cost of administrating the measure will far exceed the resource of $5 million that is supposed to help victims. I ask the National Government to reflect on that because we are going to have a very interesting time examining this legislation. 
I say again that $116.5 million was paid—of $146.5 million in reparation—between 2001 and 2008. That is 80 percent. So if one wanted to really help victims directly as one should then surely if one was not satisfied that the reparation system was working one would deal to that reform it and make it happen. 
My colleague the then Minister of Courts set up a very good system in terms of fine collections for situations whereby people want to whip off to Oz or whatever—or Maui as Mr Key did—and not pay their fines. Say Mr Key before he went on his Pacific odyssey had not paid his fines. He could have been stopped at the border and told that he could not go until he had paid them. 
This bill is interesting because it is political theatre from the National Government. It is political theatre but it will be examined by the select committee. Labour has been criticised as usual. National members get up on their hind legs and say that Labour did nothing and all that sort of thing. I have talked about the regime that the then Minister of Courts put in place. Labour was the Government that introduced and passed the Sentencing Act 2002 which introduced a presumption in favour of reparation and resulted in reparation sentences being used more frequently. As I said 80 percent of reparations are paid. It was the Labour Government of 2003 and the Ministry of Justice that launched a campaign to trace owed money because—and again Ms Collins is right—people try to evade paying fines. There was an advertising campaign and other resources were put in. Before that is criticised I point out that we established a collection centre and further bolstered collection and disbursement of reparation. In 2003 $9 million was allocated in the Budget to hunting that money down and trying to get it directly to victims. 
It was Labour that passed the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act which ensured that victims of inmates awarded compensation could claim against that compensation using all practical measures. That was a particularly important measure because people have said quite rightly that if a person is inside and something happens to him or her then there needs to be a sanction. Two wrongs do not make a right but that person should not benefit as a prisoner from that compensation while victims of the original crime sit outside and get nothing. So that was dealt with. 
I ask National members—and it will be interesting to see whether speakers look at this—what the cost of this measure will be. How will they stop a judge from lowering the reparation? I do not see a clause directing a judge to maintain reparation and not lower it by 50 bucks because the person may not have enough dough in the eyes of the judge. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: And they’ll laugh. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: And they will laugh as my colleague says. So that is $50 that does not go directly to the victim. But everybody will pay the same: the shoplifter will pay 50 bucks the murderer will pay 50 bucks and the rapist will pay 50 bucks. 
Chris Hipkins 
: And how much to collect it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes. How much will it cost to collect it? It does not go to the victim; it goes into the bureaucracy. I am sure Treasury will have a view as it had a view—which was scathing—on the DNA bill. We will have a wee chat to Treasury about the administrative cost of collection. I remember all the National Party MPs railing against bureaucracy. That is a problem. 
I wonder also what the murder victim’s family will say about the amount being 50 bucks which they will not see. I wonder what that family will think when they see the shoplifter come in and pay 50 bucks. What will they think when they see the rapist pay 50 bucks and when they see the guy who has assaulted somebody in a bar and given them a bit of a nudge pay 50 bucks? 
This bill has not been thought out. This bill is tantalising for the public and I mean no disrespect to the public. They expect that people should pay and that is why Labour set up a whole series of victim support measures when it was in Government. I can understand people saying that this measure is not a bad one but it will be really interesting to see in a year’s time or whenever this legislation gets through and is being administered how much of the 5 million bucks—as Mr Heatley grins like a Cheshire cat— 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: I’ve got every reason to smile. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Maybe he looks like the other end of a Cheshire cat. It will be interesting to see Mr Heatley go to his constituents and explain to the murder victim’s family and to the rape victim why the $5 million disappeared into the ether and was sucked up in administration costs. It will be interesting to hear Mr Heatley explain why this bill is a piece of political theatre rather than something substantial. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. Despite Mr Cosgrove speaking about political theatre he was pretty unclear about whether his party would support this bill’s referral to a select committee. I have a feeling that there is a fair amount of political theatre going on on that side of the House and that Labour members are supporting the referral of the bill to a select committee. That is political theatre indeed. 
The Government is here today it was here yesterday it was here the day before that and it was here the day before Christmas to deliver on the promises and the commitments that we took to the public at the election in 2008. The New Zealand public are out there singing to the hills that they are finally seeing a party that is delivering on the promises it made during an election campaign and delivering in spades whether in terms of the commitments we made regarding taxation health education or infrastructure. We are here in the House delivering upon the issues that we took to the electorate. In the area of taxation it has been great to see the small to medium sized enterprises bill. It was also great to see the commitment we made about restoring our district health board in Hawke’s Bay be ticked off on. In terms of education it is great to see national standards being rolled out and in the area of infrastructure it is great to see some fantastic projects including the Matahorua Gorge project which has been brought forward in Hawke’s Bay. That is absolutely outstanding. 
But in respect of the law and order policy there is probably not a Minister who has spent more time working since Christmas than Mr Simon Power has. We need to acknowledge the effort that that gentleman has put into the law and order portfolio in order to make sure that he delivers on the promises and commitments he brought to the public at the election. We need to acknowledge not only Mr Power but also his team— 
Paul Quinn 
: Not skiing overseas somewhere. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: No he was not skiing overseas. His team have worked until midnight and past to deliver these bills to the House. It is fantastic. I think we should acknowledge the hard work they have done as well as Simon Power. 
This bill is an initial response to the Government’s concerns about how our society should respond to the financial and emotional costs that fall on the victims of crime particularly on the victims of serious crimes such as murder sexual violation and grievous assault. But that is not quite correct: it is actually a response to the public’s concerns and this Government—unlike the Labour Government—actually responds to the concerns of the public. We have been out there listening and we are here responding because it is the public over a number of years who have been saying the Government should get out there look after victims put a victims’ compensation scheme in and deliver compensation—the Government should do something. Here we have members on the Opposition side of the Chamber talking about political theatre but we are actually delivering on something and now the bill is going to a select committee where the opportunity will be there for it to be kicked around. We will be able to look at the different opportunities with regard to this bill there. I am confident that we will see a very robust sound bill come out of the select committee. It will be one that the public of New Zealand will be proud of. I think that is absolutely fantastic. 
I will talk about three particular cases from my own electorate that have been very difficult cases to handle as an electorate MP. The first one came up only a few months after I was elected back in 2005. It was the Mohaka rape case whereby a young woman had been stalked by her neighbour in Napier. The gentleman was a P user. He bundled her up in his car took her out to the Mohaka Forest and did unmentionable things to her. That poor woman had very little if any support. We as a community had to rally behind her to fund-raise out of the community even just to pay for replacing some of her clothes that had been taken away for sampling for DNA purposes and for other reasons. It was appalling. I think that this is the type of legislation that can put together a fund to help men and women—particularly women such as that woman—in such situations. 
The second case I will talk about is a case that involved a child sex offender in Napier who had been sent to Napier from Auckland and housed in a Child Youth and Family home next door to a young woman. That gentleman was not looked after as he should have been. We can spread blame around but effectively the caregivers did not look after that gentleman. He jumped the fence into the young lady’s backyard not once or twice but seven or eight times. She had a young daughter and initially thought it was not much of a problem and that he was just one of the neighbour’s boys jumping the fence. Then she found out that the fella who was jumping into her backyard was a convicted sex offender. One can just imagine the terror that that young woman and her daughter must have felt. It was appalling. And where was the help for that young woman? Once again we had to lobby for support to actually get her shifted from that home because it was owned within the family and to get all the legal fees paid so that she could move to another home out of that particular area. A victims’ compensation scheme will help. It might not provide all those costs but it is certainly a step in the right direction. That is what the New Zealand public have been asking for: just a small contribution or some sort of contribution.  
The next case I will talk about is a much more recent case in Hawke’s Bay: the Ongaonga case. Young Mr McCutcheon was murdered outside the Ongaonga pub when he went to help a woman who was being whacked by a gang member. His young family a wife and three daughters aged 6 4 and 2 have been left on their own without the husband and father who was to have been there for the rest of their lives. It is unthinkable what that woman and her family will have to go through. So this legislation again is a step in the right direction towards providing some form of compensation. I will not stand here and say it will deliver the earth because it would be difficult to do that. But it will be a form of reparation that will actually help with some of the costs and support that a family like that needs. We all grieve for a family like that. We all sit back and say “My God! Why should a woman and her family have to go through that?”. It is just unthinkable.  
I am confident that this bill will be a step in the right direction taking small steps to get there. It will be going to a select committee where it will be looked at in detail and we will come out of that with a very strong bill. The initial fund will be funded by the $50 levy and I am sure that the levy will be debated in the select committee. I am sure that that issue will be thrown around and there will be submissions on it. Whether the levy is enough will be a matter of debate in submissions I am sure. But the fund will be precipitated by an amount of $5.8 million from the recently disbanded Sentencing Council and the $90000 that will be made available by disbanding the Criminal Justice Advisory Board. The levy is just a small amount to get the fund going. I say to Mr Cosgrove who was talking about political theatre that real money is actually going into this thing. There is real money to start it off.  
I am absolutely proud to be standing here tonight as a member of the National Party delivering on the promises that we took to the election. We said to the New Zealand public that yes we had been listening to what they had to say. We had been hearing that they wanted to see more support for victims and the establishment of a victims’ compensation scheme. Tonight we are here delivering that scheme. Thank you. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 Discussions around legislation such as this will always draw out quite heartfelt stories of heinous crimes and the victims they leave in their wake. I think it would do a disservice to this House to purport that either side does not feel massive amounts of sympathy for those victims. That is not what we are here to debate; we are here to debate whether this bill will do anything for those victims. Labour members have various strong reservations about that. Although we support this bill going to a select committee that is so that we are able to have a constructive discussion on the support that is in place for victims and also so that we can expose the political theatre that this bill represents. 
I will go on to discuss why it is mere political theatre but I will begin with two points I wish to highlight. Our reservations are based on the fact that this levy does not make criminals directly accountable to their victims. In fact it makes them accountable to the State through a tax. As I will demonstrate the bill takes the levy away from the victims because it is likely to be deducted from reparations. Secondly the cost of collection—this is something my colleague Clayton Cosgrove touched on—is likely to outweigh the cost of the levy itself. I will also expand on that. 
Firstly I will go over the accountability point. The explanatory note of the bill states: “The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that offenders contribute to addressing the harm they cause to victims.” How will they do that? They will do that through a levy. They will pay 50 bucks to the Secretary for Justice it will then be transferred to a victims’ services bank account and it will sit there go through a bureaucracy and be churned out the other side. How does that show direct accountability to the victim of that crime? 
I can tell members that we already have in place systems and mechanisms that draw out accountability for crime. Restorative justice is one of them. That is one of the most direct ways that a criminal can be brought to account in regard to his or her victim. The second way is through reparations. Those who have read the Sentencing Act 2002 will know that it requires the court to impose a sentence of reparation unless the court is satisfied that such a sentence would result in undue hardship. We directly imposed a requirement on judges to place higher priority on direct reparation to victims. What has been the consequence of that? It has been significant. The Ministry of Justice has stated that as a result $148.4 million in reparation was ordered between 2001 and 2008. That equates to about $21 million per annum over 7 years. It is much more direct and it is much more significant than the offender levy that members on the Government side of the House are talking about. 
One might argue that more money in the pot is good; that if we add on an extra 50 bucks per person it will equate to $5 million and that can only be good right? Wrong! It will come at the cost of that direct reparation to victims. How will that be? Well clause 4 amends section 12 of the Sentencing Act 2002. It states that when a judge is considering an award of reparation he or she must consider undue hardship; he or she must take into account ability to pay. If the judge knows that 50 bucks already has to be paid regardless of ability to pay that 50 bucks will come off the reparation. So the Government is saying to the victims that it will give them their reparation but it will whip 50 bucks off it and stick it in a State bank account which will cost a huge amount to administer and therefore the sum that goes back to the victims is likely to be much depleted. The Government is robbing from reparation and putting the money in a different account. 
Where will the new money come from? It is likely to come from offenders guilty of victimless crimes because under the Sentencing Act 2002 everyone else is required to pay reparation where possible. 
Having outlined that issue with regard to the bill which I would be very eager to hear the Minister’s response to I come to the issue of administering the account itself—the cost of issuing the $50 levy and collecting it. As we have already heard ability to pay is not being taken into account any more. First of all there is not much that can be said based on the explanatory note of the bill; it has a very weak regulatory impact assessment. There is almost no analysis of collection costs. In fact there is a very telling statement in the explanatory note under the heading “Costs”: “the costs relating to the collection of the levy in the first year of operation. It is anticipated that over time the revenue generated from the levy will cover ongoing collections costs . . .”. It says that “over time” we will be able to cover the cost of collection. How long will it take for the levy itself to cover even the cost of administrating it? Eventually it “will rise to sufficient levels to fund services for victims of crime.” 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How long? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Eventually. I know that the select committee will be very eager to see a full cost-benefit analysis. This bill has been rushed through so quickly that one has not been included in the explanatory note. 
What do we have to go on to assess how much collection might cost? Well it helps if we look at the existing legal ability to collect fines. Of course it is held under the Summary Proceedings Act which contains an extensive code for the enforcement of payment of fines. What can the State do to collect its 50 bucks? It can issue a warrant of seizure of property. That sounds quite expensive if you ask me; perhaps there would be a bailiff call-out. If that sounds as though it could be a bit much one can make an attachment order that deducts a specified amount from the offender’s salary or wages. We know that if the offender is working for a small to medium enterprise a deduction order on the offender’s wages will come at a cost to the business owner—so where is that going? One could issue a notice requiring the bank to deduct a specified amount from the offender’s account. Banks will love that. Or one could publish a notice in a newspaper containing the name last known address and age of the offender. I believe—someone may correct me—that the cost of a classified ad these days is about $45. That will give 5 bucks at the end of it. 
One could also refer the matter to a judge who may impose on the offender a sentence of home detention community detention or community work. That is saying: “Sorry you did not pay your $50; come back in and we will deal with you with another court sentence.” I am not sure—perhaps the Minister could clarify—whether the offender is charged an extra $50 offender levy at that point. The court may issue a writ of sale against the personal property of the offender or a warrant for the collection of the fine. It may impose a period of imprisonment community work or community detention. 
A final option something that the Labour Government introduced to improve the collection of fines is fines collection at airports. That is one final mechanism but I note that generally we use it only for fines of $5000 or more such is the cost of that method of fines collection. 
I question which of those mechanisms the Government will choose to use to collect its $50 levy and I question as well what the total cost will be. 
I want to highlight finally that in considering this bill it is necessary that the Government reconsider what is involved in providing a comprehensive suite of mechanisms for victims. The Labour Government looked well beyond compensation. We looked at direct reparation as I have talked about but we looked well beyond it. We introduced the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002 and the Evidence Act in 2006 to enable people to give evidence in a way that protected vulnerable people. We amended the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act to ensure that victims of youth crime could attend Youth Court hearings and we introduced the Victims Charter. We also promised $1.7 million in 2008-09 to establish a central contact point for victims that would provide information and additional services totalling $5.8 million in 2008-09 and $6.2 million in subsequent years for an independent victim advocate/support person for victims of domestic violence. It is not just about travelling to court; it is about the place we give the victim in the entire justice system. That is what Labour concentrated on when it was in Government—the totality of the package. 
What we have seen from the National Government is political theatre. It is conning the public it is conning victims and victims will only be let down if this offender levy legislation is allowed to go any further. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I am not intending to spend a great deal of time on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. It has been an interesting day I have to say. 
Hon Member 
: Don’t be like that! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Well it has—the member has to confess. It has been interesting. 
The Green Party fully supports any kind of system that will provide greater support for victims. My colleague Nandor Tanczos was lauded for his work in initiating the inquiry into victims’ rights that took place I think in the Justice and Electoral Committee over a long period of time and a great number of recommendations came out of that work. 
This bill is not a real response to those concerns. It is an election promise and it sounds good—a $50 levy on all offenders. It is a great thing to go out and campaign on if that is the sort of thing that tweaks one’s buttons. But in terms of policy and effectiveness in achieving the objectives and the outcomes particularly those that are set out in the bill itself it fails and on that basis the Green Party will not support it at this first reading. 
We are very pleased that there will be at least a select committee process and we look forward to hearing what submitters say at that time in addressing a number of issues and I will discuss some of those issues in a moment. We may well decide that the bill will be effective in dealing with some of these concerns and change our view on it but at this stage there is really not enough in it to justify supporting it at this point. That is particularly true when we look at the background in the explanatory note where it talks about the bill being “an initial response to the Government’s concerns about how our society should respond to the financial and emotional costs that fall on victims of crime particularly victims of serious crimes such as murder sexual violation and grievous assault. Underpinning the Government’s concern is that failing to recognise and acknowledge the interests of victims in the justice process or failing to address the negative impact of crime on victims risks eroding victims’ confidence in the justice sector’s ability to deal effectively with crime.” That is an entirely laudable position to take; this bill fails to meet those concerns. 
I agree with many of the issues that have been raised by the Labour members and I appreciate Jacinda Ardern’s very clear elucidation of those. How will imposing a $50 levy on every offender meet these objectives? The cost recovery alone will eat up the levy. In fact the Government itself confesses that the administration of the levy will eat up those funds for a very long period of time before they become available to victims. So it is just a self-perpetuating tax of no advantage to victims except at some long time in the future that has failed to be determined yet. Victims will not be getting access to this money any time soon and the cost recovery will be enormously expensive. 
The $50 will go to the Government as was just described so there is a real issue there. It will not go to the victims anyway. It will go into Government coffers and the Government will fund programmes to support victims who need to have access to court or it will give support in other ways. Hopefully at the select committee we will see how that will happen and what kinds of costs for victims will be funded through this levy. 
I acknowledge that Kim Workman from the Rethinking Crime and Punishment project has expressed a great deal of support for this levy. He has talked about it as a way of finding the funds to meet the costs of restorative justice conferences—not the conferences themselves but victims’ access to those conferences—and to help victims access and visit the offenders who committed the crimes against them so that they can engage in some of these more constructive processes. That money is not really available to victims at this stage. Money being made available would be very useful. Unfortunately because the administration of the levy will cost so much this money will not be made available to those victims for a very long period of time. The concept works; the practicalities do not. 
Indeed it is very much the Green Party policy that supporting restorative justice has to be the No. 1 priority for dealing with the issues of victims and the issues of offenders in trying to reduce reoffending rates. There are many different kinds of restorative justice processes. There is not just the restorative justice conference where an offender is brought together with his or her victim to try to resolve some issues. There is a confrontation. It is one form—a very intense form—of restorative justice but it is not the only way we can have restorative justice programmes. There are things like the Sycamore Project where a group of offenders and a different group of victims are brought together. That is extremely helpful because it enables those offenders and victims to talk about their experiences without having any personal relationship between them. 
There have been lots of really good examples of offenders actually—who are the ones who need to change their behaviour and their attitude—saying that if they had had to confront their own victim they would not have been able to make the progress they did because they would have been so defensive and angry that they would have just closed themselves off. Being able to talk with other victims who have allowed their stories to be part of those programmes enables offenders to address those issues in a safer environment for them and there is also opportunity for the victims to do exactly that—to confront issues of offending in a safer environment for them. There are other ways of dealing with offender issues too where victims can be part of those processes. Sometimes they involve Maori units in prisons or faith-based units in prisons where there is a connection between the community and the offender. 
These are very good programmes and all of them need support. The victims who are part of those programmes need practical support to get access to those programmes to get information about them to get transport and all of those sorts of things. This levy will not provide those things because it will not be made available to them. It will be eaten up by administration until some distant time in the future. 
At the select committee we will look for information about who actually will pay this levy. There are real issues around structural racism in the legal system. We do know that Maori are more likely to be stopped by the police—I have described that before in the House—more likely to be arrested by the police and more likely to be convicted than other population groups. That is a form of structural racism against the Maori population and particularly against Maori men. If a levy like this is imposed on them it will have a particular impact on that population group because of the structural racism inherent in the system. 
So who will pay this levy the most? We need to find out that information as well. What is the cost-benefit analysis of this levy in terms of cost recovery? How will it be recovered? Will it really come out before fines? What will be the difference? Will it not just be considered by an offender to be another part of the fine? To what extent will an offender be learning from having to pay this levy? Will it really make a difference to the offender’s attitude as opposed to paying reparation which often does? How will resources for restorative justice programmes and support for victims involved in those processes be funded out of this levy? Again looking at the victims inquiry and the recommendations that came out of that very big body of work we need to see whether this bill meets those objectives and whether it will take them any further. 
The Greens will remain open-minded during the select committee process on this legislation. We want to see real victim-centred policy that will provide systems for victims to have their issues redressed as far as possible economically socially and personally. That is why we support restorative justice as we do. We know that those programmes also reduce reoffending and make the community safer. So we will be very open-minded about what happens in the select committee but until we see evidence that something that is really just an election campaign promise can actually produce the results intended by the bill we are very reluctant to support this legislation. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on this first reading of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. This bill is one of a number agreed to by the ACT Party in our confidence and supply agreement with the National Government and for that reason we will be voting in favour of it today. 
I appreciate what the Government is trying to do. It understands that there has been a failure in recent times to address the interests of victims. Too often victims are subjected not only to emotional and physical scars but also to further harm through financial costs. Members will know that I have worked actively with the Sensible Sentencing Trust for 5 years or so but I am not going to do as Ms Ardern suggested members might and roll out a number of cases. I think that it is wrong to do that and everyone knows them anyway. 
Before moving on to the bill itself though I will pay tribute to the Labour Government which introduced the Victims’ Rights Bill because that was a significant step. When one goes to law school one of the things they teach that seems very strange to a lay person—or to a lay person like me—is that the victim has no status. A case is named for example “ 
The Queen v Brown 
” and Mr Smith or Ms Smith who was raped or killed is really an irrelevance—or was 20 years ago when I was at law school. So the Victims’ Rights Bill introduced by the Labour Government was a significant step in at least giving the victim a status in the criminal justice process and I commend the Labour Government for doing that. 
The problem with this bill I am afraid—and the finger has been put on it fairly well by speakers on the Labour side—lies in the simple problem of extracting the $50 levy. The amount clearly is not enough in itself but here is the catch-22—or one of the catch-22s for reasons that I will go into in a minute. Fifty dollars is nowhere near enough but even that will not be able to be extracted in many cases so it is pointless making it $150. 
In the old days judges would order a fine of X dollars or in default 14 days in prison. I personally would be very much in favour of returning to that system rather than having what we have now—huge levels of unpaid fines. But that would not help victims either. Fourteen days in prison if an offender did not pay a levy—so what? It does not help anyone as other speakers have said get to conferences or pay for losses that have been suffered. Mr Cosgrove over on the Opposition benches said that 80 percent of reparation is paid. When I saw that reported on television it sounded awfully high. Then I thought about it and of course the reason that 80 percent of reparation is paid but $780 million in fines is unpaid is that reparation often has a significant effect on a sentence. If the lawyer for the criminal stands up and says: “And reparation has been paid your Honour.” or says that $500 or $1000 has been paid to the Salvation Army that affects the sentence that is handed down. 
So I am not surprised that reparation is paid at a fairly high rate. But fines are effectively voluntary in this country now—except if an offender wants to travel overseas as Ms Ardern has said—and every day judges write off huge amounts of fines. If a young offender whose income is $25000 a year accumulates 30 grand in fines when the level of fines gets high enough the judge writes them off. It is an entirely unsatisfactory system. So I am afraid that I cannot see that collecting this levy will be particularly practical and that is leaving aside the administration issue which appears to be quite uncertain. But given that the levy has a different status from a reparation payment—it has a different status from a fine as well but it is more akin to a fine than a reparation payment—I cannot see why offenders would be particularly keen to pay it. We need to remember that by definition the people who will be subjected to the levy will be criminals many of whom will have their lifestyle subsidised by the State and/or have no legal income. So I do not know where or how the levy will be collected. We will see the kind of situation we have now where $10000 in fines is ordered to be paid at $1.25 a week then eventually is written off. 
However ACT still supports the bill because it is a step in the right direction as others have said. The problem with the levy and the payment thereof can be solved surely in other ways. This is not ACT policy but my personal view is that one way would be to divert speed camera fines to this fund. I personally have been subjected to a few of those. I would imagine most members of the House have and one feels unjustifiably embittered that Government coffers are being swelled by 50 bucks or 200 bucks or whatever it is. I personally would feel better if that speed camera fine was going to a victims’ fund. But that is my personal view; it is not ACT policy. That is one idea; there must be others. 
So we support the bill because it is a good idea. We support it because it recognises victims’ rights and victims’ need for compensation. Ms Ardern I think correctly said that the Pay or Stay campaign at the border has been effective as has seizing defaulters’ cars. So there are other ways. The level of the levy is clearly inadequate. When we think about the logic of it we realise that we pay insurance to cover the possibility that our house might be burned down for example. But only one in a thousand houses burn down; the premiums on the other 999 are invested in the Bahamas and reinsurance schemes pay the company’s profit and the cost of whoever’s house has burned down. But in this bill every criminal will have at least one victim and sometimes more than one. Every victim will have at least $50 in tangible costs but probably more like $500 in tangible costs. So the level is quite inadequate but as I said at the beginning of my speech there is no point in making it $200 if we cannot even collect $50. 
In conclusion ACT supports the bill in principle and because we are committed to doing so but there has to be a better way and hopefully that will emerge at the select committee or the very bright people out in the community will come up with a better way to fund the proposed scheme. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The word “victim” has taken on tragic connotations this week with at least 180 people confirmed dead and a death toll predicted to rise to about 300 people from the ferocious wildfires in Victoria Australia. Over and above the suspected arson there have been reports of looters robbing from the dead—stealing precious memories from the families left behind. 
Victims come in many forms: they may have been offended against directly; their property may have been lost or damaged; or a family member may have died or may be unable to make decisions about his or her welfare. Victims may have been psychologically traumatised physically abused sexually violated or emotionally harmed. They may be financial fatalities having fallen prey to the actions of corporate crooks such as the nine directors of failed finance companies Bridgecorp and Nathans Finance. If we think of Bridgecorp for instance—which I try hard not to do—we are thinking of some 14300 victims owed a grand total of some $459 million including my small savings. 
The Maori Party believes that the country should invest in a restorative justice system where victims are empowered and where Government agencies work with whanau to support them on issues affecting them. We are mindful that there are particular concerns around the disproportionate overrepresentation of Maori in victims of crime. Maori victims experience almost twice as many victimisations as non-Maori. Even worse Maori women victims have the highest victimisation rates with an average number of 4.8 reported offences per victim. Maori women are overrepresented among victims of domestic violence and are more likely to experience repeat victimisation from a partner. Maori are 50 percent more likely to be victims of property offences like theft and twice as likely to fall prey to violent offences. Interestingly the high rates for Maori and Pacific peoples have been linked to other risk factors associated with victimisation; they are more likely to be young unemployed sole parents and to live in more socio-economically deprived areas. 
All those are part of the group we might loosely define as “victims”. The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill responds to the moral imperative to support and respond to the needs of this group giving new meaning to the concept that crime never pays. All offenders convicted of a criminal offence must pay an offender levy of $50 at the point of sentencing. It is a levy in addition to any other fine imposed on the offender such as a prison sentence community service a fine or any reparation to be paid to the victim. In its most basic form the Maori Party supports the concept of what is essentially a crime tax. We support the contention that offenders should contribute in a tangible practical way towards addressing the harm that their offending has caused. 
Of course although the $50 fee is a start we are under no illusion that it is a straightforward solution to the complex range of problems that are associated with victimhood. The Maori Party wonders firstly whether all victims will be eligible and if they are not what the specific criteria will be to determine who can access the fund. We look forward to attending the select committee to hear the experience of providers and advocacy groups around whether all convicted offenders should be required to pay the levy or whether there should be exceptions and similarly whether all victims will be entitled to have access to the service. In particular we will be interested to learn whether all prisoners will have access to the fund and its services if they are victims of crime while incarcerated. This is a situation of especial relevance to the situation of many female inmates of whom an estimated 90 percent have been identified as survivors of sexual abuse. Researchers describe it as poly-victimisation in which offenders may well reveal a history of extensive sexual abuse. A Ministry of Health survey of New Zealand prisons found that more than a third of women inside had experienced post-traumatic stress disorder. So the question we would ask of the Minister is whether such offenders who are also victims will be able to claim support. 
Another set of concerns for the Maori Party is that this initiative may push open the door for privatisation and whether there are any long-term implications for the operations of the accident compensation scheme. There is also the more philosophical question around the value of financial reparation—the levy and the fine—in contrast with what we might broadly call the loss of enjoyment of life. Perhaps instead of compensation alone there could be work undertaken on alternative strategies to produce benefits for those who have offended and those who are offended against. I am thinking of something like Aroha Terry’s work with SL Group Ltd. SL Group has been developing a programme designed to provide healing techniques and solutions from the inside out. The programme Te Mana Wananga gives emphasis to the restoration of the mana of offenders victims and whanau through the promotion of key concepts—wairua tinana tipuna. I believe this is an area where far more emphasis could be given if we are to truly support more recognition of victims in the justice system. 
In the victims’ rights inquiry undertaken by the Justice and Electoral Committee one of the key concerns put forward was the need for improved support services for complainants and victims including information legal advice and counselling. A biggie from that inquiry was the need to improve access to restorative justice. Under the current system of justice a victim of crime is hardly acknowledged in the process. If anything the victim’s role is likened to that of a witness with victims feeling they have been sidelined in the whole process. My colleague Te Ururoa Flavell has been calling for a marae-based restorative justice system in the wake of the slaying of the young boy in Murupara. It would be a process by which everyone faces up eyeball to eyeball. Na te whakama matou i patu; it is about the group bearing the burden of the collective shame. I whakama matou mo nga mahi i mahia e tetahi o matou; we are ashamed of what one of us did. 
This bill and the associated offender levy are an important stage in empowering the victims of crime and at the same time forcing offenders to face up to what they have done and to make it right. The levy is however only one part of a much bigger issue about how to create a more humane and more restorative justice system. The current system of justice is failing Maori and indeed New Zealand. The Maori Party is determined that we must see much more change in the system as a whole if we are to achieve a system that truly promotes justice over injustice that demonstrates fairness instead of bias and in which all participants have due access to the law. Kia ora. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a call and speak in favour of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill after Rahui Katene who gave a thought-provoking and thoughtful speech on the wider issues of justice in relation to victims and victimisation. It is also good to be on my feet because although Labour members might not like to hear it this Government clearly has a mandate to pass this law. It is something we talked about again and again on the campaign trail. It is certainly something I talked about and it is something the people of Tauranga were very very glad to hear about. 
This bill takes a very positive step towards greater rights for victims. It is a step towards putting victims at the centre of the justice system and that is entirely as it should be. This is something that is very dear to my heart. In my maiden speech I spoke about victims victimisation and the neglect of victims by our criminal justice system. This bill helps in two very real ways as well as in other ways. It helps victims to travel to and from court and it helps with additional counselling. Let me deal with those points one by one. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: What a big help with the trauma they have been through. That’s an insult. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I can hear the Labour members. For many of them who live in Wellington Central it is not far to the closest court; it is a nice walk down the road. There might be a bit of wind but they will be there very quickly. However in most parts of New Zealand it is a very long way to the courthouse for the victims. In Tauranga and its surrounding areas— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It is if you travel from Auckland to Tauranga. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I am surprised at Steve Chadwick whose husband I have a great deal of time for and with whom I have done jury trials. He well knows about the victims. 
The court in Tauranga services much of the Bay of Plenty. It services Whakatane which is an hour and a half away; Opotiki which is two and a quarter hours away; and Te Kaha which is nearly 3 hours away making it a round trip of 6 hours to get to and from court. Sadly for many victims coming to and from the jury trials and sentencing it is a 6-hour round trip. 
The victims of crime are disproportionately poor people—those whom the Labour Party says it stands for. Metiria Turei says it is Maori who will be paying. I say to her that the victims who will benefit from this bill will also be Maori. They will get the benefit of offenders paying this levy and that is a good step. 
Of course the poor do not come to Tauranga the night before the court date and stay at the Sebel. They do not come to Tauranga the night before and have a nice meal out; they come very very early in the morning to meet with the police or the prosecutor. Frankly they have more than enough to worry about. Coming to court is a traumatic enough experience for them and worrying about travelling costs is the last thing they should be doing. It is traumatic enough that they will be in court opposite the family members of the accused—of the criminal—and that they will be there in the same court as those who have intimidated them before and who will be intimidating them again. I know that Steve Chadwick knows about this. It is the kind of thing that can make a grown man cry. 
Those people have enough to worry about without having to worry about travelling and the costs of getting to and from court. Fifty dollars or $100 would make all the difference to those people. It is hard enough getting to court let alone having to worry about the economics of it. 
I agree with Labour members that this measure is banal and ordinary but it is practical. It is a practical step towards more rights for victims. It is funny because Labour started to do a reasonable job for victims. It passed the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002 and in doing that it allowed victims to read the victim impact statement in court and many a victim is empowered by that. I am surprised that Labour members cannot put politics aside and support this practical measure towards helping victims and doing something for the victims of crime. 
One has to wonder whether Labour is now the party of the criminal. It liberalised the bail laws. It made it easier for criminals to get bail. It liberalised the parole laws and made it easier— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice about that comment Mr Assistant Speaker. I suggest that labelling a party “a party of criminals” is right out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member is skirting a bit far into insinuation. I think it would be appropriate for him just to continue but to mind his language. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Measures passed by the Labour Government such as liberalising the bail laws did not help victims; they helped the criminal. Labour members do not like to hear it but Labour liberalised the parole and sentencing laws and here we have a bill that helps victims and puts them first in a small and modest way but Labour members cannot support it. Labour members put politics first in this debate. It is cheap point-scoring ahead of helping victims in Te Kaha Whakatane and places that Steve Chadwick knows about yet she cannot bring herself to speak wholeheartedly in favour of this bill which supports women children the disempowered the weak and the vulnerable—those who are the victims of crime. Getting $50 from offenders goes towards making a lot of money to help those who need help the most. 
I want to say something about the morality and value of this bill. It is good that offenders contribute to addressing the harm they helped cause to victims. Labour members do not believe in cause and effect. They think they can do whatever they like and it does not matter but in National we believe in consequences for what we do. With this bill offenders will be putting money forward to help those who have been collectively hurt by crime in this country. It is good and it is right that those who cause harm and are culpable should be held accountable. That is just desserts; that is accountability. Those are values that the National Party and the National Government are very much in favour of. 
The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill is a good bill. It is a very positive step in a journey towards having greater victim rights in this country and putting victims at the centre of the criminal justice system which is as it should be. Labour seems to have forgotten about victims in all of this. It puts petty politics first. We certainly will not and I commend this bill to the House. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the House for the first time in 2009. Unfortunately I would prefer that it was on a bill that I could wholeheartedly support. Labour is supporting the referral of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill to a select committee though it is doing so with significant reservations. We have already heard that Labour is not the only party that has reservations about the bill. In fact it is hard to find a party that is wholeheartedly supporting this bill through its first reading and referral to a select committee because all parties except the National Party have already expressed their significant reservations about the bill. 
This bill does carry on a theme that the Government has demonstrated in its first 100 days of action of making itself appear to be busy working in a way that our grandmothers would have called “making very busy work”. If people are not familiar with that saying I tell them it was used to describe people who went around looking as though they were very very busy and trying very hard to look as though they were generating a lot of outcomes but who did not actually have any outcomes. “Making very busy work” typifies the National Government’s first 100 days of action. 
This bill is another very good example of “making very busy work” because although the Government is trying very hard to look as though it is doing something substantial that will make a big difference everyone has identified in this debate so far—apart from the members on the Government benches—that this bill tinkers around the edges. That is another theme that has developed in this Government’s first 100 days of action. It tinkers around the edges. When it comes to victims’ rights when it comes to looking after victims and looking for victims’ compensation then this bill also tinkers around the edges. Many speakers have already indicated that that is the case. 
This bill also typifies the new National Government’s legislation because it misses the mark in terms of what it is trying to achieve. It reminds me of the employment relations amendment that National brought in late last year under urgency too—“making very busy work” again under urgency. At a time when job security was on the minds of most New Zealanders I ask what the National Government rushed into this House to do. It rushed in to undermine job security for working people again completely missing the mark. New Zealanders are after job security. What did the Government introduce? It introduced legislation that undermines job security. It is doing the same thing here. National has responded to a very genuine concern within the New Zealand community about victims and their needs under difficult circumstances to have certain costs met. I think that is a genuine concern by our communities. However National has picked up that concern as some sort of political theatre—some sort of political game—and has brought out this legislation which just tinkers around the edges. 
As we have heard National believes it will be able to impose a $50 levy on criminals and collect that levy without too much drama cost and bureaucracy. We know National is the party that does not like administration and does not like bureaucracy so that $50 will just be handed over and find its way into the hands of victims! Clearly that will not happen. It is completely naive to believe that that would happen. I listened very carefully to the Government speakers on this bill and heard them finding it very difficult to justify the levy. They resorted to telling stories about very tragic crimes—heart-rending stories and true stories. But this bill will do nothing to address those concerns. 
I am sure one of the Ministers must agree with that. Recently we heard the Minister of Corrections Judith Collins admit that fines for crime do not work. She said: “There’s no point fining people who don’t pay fines when you’ve got other action to take”. That was Judith Collins talking about fining boy racers. She is agreeing with me; she is nodding. I wonder whether she is willing to support this legislation which in fact exactly demonstrates her point. The Government is asking for a $50 levy but it will most probably not be able to collect it without going through a whole lot of drama costs and yes folks good old bureaucracy that is needed in order to administer this fund. 
Even in the best-case scenario the calculations are that if everyone paid up if it did not cost too much and if it was based on the number of offences committed—not the number of offenders committing them because we do not know what that all means—it might gather $5 million. I know the Government does not like to admit this but the measures the Labour Government took had a much larger impact than any of that: $116.47 million was paid in reparation because of law that Labour passed through this House. That was paid directly from criminals to victims. There was no bureaucracy along the way. Nothing was taken out of it—no costs and no concerns about getting that money. It was paid directly across to victims. The $5 million that we may or may not get pales into insignificance in comparison with $116.7 million. Whether we get the $5 million it will cost us money anyway. We may get it one day but we still have not seen any regulatory impact statements to that effect. 
This bill tinkers around the edges. It misses the mark. It is “making very busy work” and of course we are doing it in urgency so it must be very important and it feels very important. Not only are we debating this bill under a bungled urgency but also—and I apologise to my good colleague Clayton Cosgrove—it is what I would call a Clayton’s urgency because we actually have not been here beyond 10 o’clock on any night this week. I am not sure how that counts as urgency but it looks as though we are doing a lot and it makes the Government look as though it is taking this issue very seriously. But we have not been working urgency hours at all as we have been debating this bill. 
I want to talk about the impact of this scheme on women because as we know—and many other speakers have referred to this already—women are disproportionately the victims of crime. I want to make sure that we do something important in this area. I noted that in almost all of the stories that we heard before women were the victims of those crimes. It is very important that we take responsible action about that. Labour had already asked the Law Commission to look into the best options for setting up a proper victims’ compensation scheme. We need a proper victims’ compensation scheme not this tinkering around the edges. We and every party apart from the National Party in this House seem to understand the reality of why this scheme will not work. 
In conclusion I say we are talking about $50—three blocks of cheese probably on the current market. That is what getting tough on crime is about under the National Government. Of course we are doing this bill in urgency. We are “making very very busy work” but it will not have the necessary impact. I think that really characterises every piece of legislation that has come before this House so far under this National Government. There has been a lot of heat but not much light and practical outcomes will not be there at the end of the day. Labour will support this bill going through its first reading and its referral to a select committee. We are very pleased to see that at least one bill brought to the House by this new Government will have some public input through a public submission process. This one certainly needs to be given a lot of scrutiny by the public. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise tonight to take a call in support of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill which will set up the victims compensation scheme that this country has been looking for for some time. This scheme is intended to help victims with one-off expenses that are not already covered for them such as travelling to and from court additional counselling and the sorts of things members have heard my colleague Mr Bridges talk about in his excellent speech. It helps victims and it supports them. 
I ask this House why offenders should not be held accountable for the extra costs that they put on victims. Why should they not be held accountable? It is a general principle in our law that if a person causes someone cost or does someone harm it is up to that person to put it right. Why should we as a Government not demand that offenders contribute to and be held accountable for the extra costs that they put on their victims? We are not prepared as a Government to sit back and let that cost sit with victims who have had no hand in causing it while the offenders keep that money. We will make the offenders stand up and take some more accountability for that. We are sick of hearing the all too frequent horror stories of when victims are further traumatised by having to deal with this extra cost. Members have heard that this scheme has already been endorsed by many of the significant victims’ rights bodies. These people know what will help victims and they are endorsing it. This mirrors what already happens in many overseas jurisdictions; we are hardly out on a limb here. 
I suggest that members who are listening to people in their electorates—as I have done in Selwyn—will know that law and order is a massive issue for the people in our communities. I know that it is a massive issue in Selwyn. After the economy it is the single-biggest issue and the single-biggest concern that people in our communities have. This National Government is listening to them and we are focused on helping them. If law and order is concerning them then it is concerning us. We are a Government that gets things done; we do not just pay lip-service. We will not spend 9 years paying lip-service to victims’ rights; we will get things done. This is yet another example of us doing exactly what we said we would do when we were out on the streets talking to people. 
We are prioritising law and order bills in the early part of this parliamentary term for that reason—because we know that this is what New Zealanders are looking for. They have not had it and we will give it to them. All our law and order policies are part of a wider strategy to make sure that we can reduce the number of victims that we have in New Zealand. We want there to be fewer victims. It is not a radical concept but it is about time somebody stood up and said so. We want there to be fewer victims and we want to help victims deal with the impact of crime on them. We want to lessen that impact. I wish that we could take the impact away from victims. I wish we could. We cannot but what we can do is to assist them with some of those additional financial costs that currently fall on their shoulders. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: 50 bucks eh? 
AMY ADAMS 
: Fifty bucks is more than the zero bucks they are getting at the moment. We have already heard that under the victims’ compensation scheme there will not be hardship waivers. I think that is a good thing because it is a clear signal by the National Government that victims’ rights are more important than offenders’ rights. It is pretty simple: victims’ rights are more important than offenders’ rights. It will not in any way reduce or lessen the sentence those offenders have to serve or the reparations or fines they have to pay. We are here to put victims first which is why this levy will be paid before court costs or fines. 
You see we do not think that bureaucracy is more important than victims; we think that looking after victims is more important than bureaucracy. That might be a hard concept for the members on the other side of the House to deal with but we think that victims should get their money before court costs are paid. That is why in this victims’ compensation scheme we have taken funding from two underperforming bureaucracies. We have funding of $5.8 million coming from the disbanded Sentencing Council and the $90000 it costs to run the Criminal Justice Advisory Board. The National Government has said: less bureaucracy more help for victims. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How much will this cost to administer? How much? 
Phil Twyford 
: How many bureaucrats will it take? 
AMY ADAMS 
: I know bureaucracy is a matter dear to Mr Cosgrove’s heart and I know he would like to see more bureaucracy but we would rather help victims and we make no apology to him for that. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not think I have sat down. 
Interestingly enough victims have been promised compensation schemes for more than a decade by the Labour Government and the Labour Party. By my reckoning for close to 15 years Labour has been talking about having a victim compensation scheme. We have not seen it. Nothing has been delivered. It was 1994 when Helen Clark stated: “Labour also intends to consult widely on an appropriate victim compensation scheme.” Well we know how much Mr Cosgrove loves due process but is 15 years enough consultation for him? In 2005 the Labour Party election manifesto once again stated: “Labour will inquire into the level of immediate financial support available to the victims of serious crime especially homicide.” 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Did they do it? 
AMY ADAMS 
: No and Labour was going to examine the options for providing more support—lip-service! Labour members are prepared to talk about it they are prepared to look into it but have they done anything? No they have not. 
I stand here as the representative of the people of Selwyn and I know that the people of Selwyn are looking for a Government that gets in behind victims that helps victims that says victims are more important than offenders and that says to victims that it will hold those offenders accountable and make them contribute to compensating for the harm they have caused victims. We put victims first. We recognise that more needs to be done to support them. The psychological impacts of crime are bad enough. As I have said we wish we could do more to help victims with those impacts but what we can do is to help them financially. We will give them more money than they ever got under the previous Labour Government and I am very proud that we are doing it. It has not taken us 15 years of talking about it; it has not taken us long at all. We said we would do this over the campaign period because we listened to our people. We listened to the people and we know that putting victims first and saying that victims are more important than offenders is what New Zealand is asking for. Rather than just talking about it we are going to do it. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I repeat what has been said by previous speakers from around the House: we all feel for victims and we all wish that more could be done for them. Unfortunately— 
Nathan Guy 
: Are you voting for it? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We are voting for the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill to go a select committee. I seriously doubt whether it will have our vote once it comes back from the select committee because it does not withstand scrutiny. The issue here is this: why pay more than $50 to collect $50? Essentially that is the equation here. 
The regulatory impact statement included in the bill from the Government—wholly inadequate as it is—refers to the fact that extra costs will arise for both the court and the ministry collections. Vote Courts will pay. It will cause additional cost both in the court process and in collections. I will just drill down on that point a little bit because no one from the Government has. Its totally inadequate regulatory impact statement does not have even one figure in it as to these costs. 
The Opposition has asked members of the Government repeatedly to give us some estimate as to what the cost is. This estimate has not come from them so I thought that I would look at the Budget documents and see how much is spent on the collections vote in order to get some estimate of what this measure will cost. It just does not make common sense to me that we can recover $50 from an offender for less than $50. I do not know of any corporate people who recover $50 debts from unwilling payers because it costs more than $50 to do it. Quite apart from the court filing fees the processing time costs more than $50. I thought I would look into this. How much do members think the appropriation is for fines collection by the courts? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Richard will know. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I ask Richard Worth. 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: $5 million. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I tell Dr Worth that he is out by a factor of 10—the appropriation for fine recovery and civil debt collection is $66 million the vast majority of which is for fine collection. The appropriation is $66232000. 
Let us think about this. How many offenders come to court and do not go into the fines collection system? There are quite a number of them. Quite a number of them get community service or periodic detention and do not have to pay a fine. We have heard from the National Government that everyone will be in this system. 
Another fiction being run here is that somehow this will always add an extra $50. Well an offender makes a statement of position that goes up to the bench and the judge thinks about what is realistic reparation because there is no point in being completely unrealistic. The court may add on $50 for victims of crime but often the amount will be taken off the fine the reparation or the court costs. So in reality if we take these things into account less than $50 extra will be paid by offenders. 
Let us put that aside and assume that the full $50 is added. We will tease that point out at the select committee and I think we will get an acknowledgment from officials that in reality less than $50 per offender will be added. But let us assume that the full $50 is asked for. What will have to happen that does not happen now? The court will have to do something extra for every offender that comes before it. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Another transaction. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It will be another transaction for the court. 
An estimated 100000 offenders go through the court system every year which means that 100000 people will pay the $50 and that is where we get the $5 million figure from. Currently $66 million is spent to recover about $200 million worth of fines. If we look at the $5 million as a proportion of all fines collected we see that this cannot be done for less than 10 percent of the cost of collecting all fines and no one is kidding himself or herself about that. We cannot collect the amount from everyone rather than just from some people and say that it is likely to cost no more than 10 percent of what is currently spent on the collection of fines. 
We know that that amount is currently over $60 million. So this will add about $5 million to $6 million to the cost of fine collection for the Ministry of Justice. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Don’t vote for it then. Vote against it. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I say to Mr Power that we will dig down on this at the select committee. He should be embarrassed with the outcome because this is poor policy. He wants to pay $5 million to victims and that is a good thing to do. But why does he not just pay it out of the money already being collected from fines? That would be far more cost-effective. Why spend more than $5 million to collect $5 million? He is wasting taxpayers’ money. It will cost more than $5 million in order to collect the $5 million and he as much as acknowledges that fact in the regulatory impact statement. It states that it will be some years before enough money is collected to cover even the start-up costs: “It is anticipated that over time the revenue generated from the levy will cover ongoing collection costs and will rise to sufficient levels to fund services for victims of crime.” The Government will not collect any net money from this; this will cost money. 
We look forward to exposing this point at the select committee. I am pretty confident that this bill will be so discredited that in the later readings it will not get the support of as many parties in this House as it will do at the first reading. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill deals with a very important principle that many New Zealanders feel has been insufficiently appreciated and acknowledged at a Government level at least for the last 9 years and possibly longer. Having been subjected to the barrage of speeches and interjections from members opposite for the last half an hour or so I can say that it is quite clear that New Zealanders are absolutely right in coming to that conclusion. 
I am proud to be part of a Government and to support a Government that is demonstrating its responsiveness to the electorate. Do Labour members not know what New Zealanders are saying about crime? Do they not care what New Zealanders are saying about the consequences of crime? The National Government has come into office with a very clear mandate and it is demonstrating its absolute determination to put victims’ rights and concerns at the forefront of criminal justice policy. I am absolutely gobsmacked that Labour members say they want to support the bill but have said absolutely nothing in this debate so far to demonstrate that they mean what they say they intend to do. Few subjects have provoked greater anger in the Hamilton West electorate than the sharp rise in violent crime during the term of the last Labour Government when many victims suffered greatly but appeared to be forgotten in the legal proceedings that followed if indeed any legal proceedings did follow the crime. 
So the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill is a very important step. It is only a step but it is an important step towards acknowledging that it is victims who should receive our support and compensation not those who inflict the misery upon them. That is the principle that clearly eluded Clayton Cosgrove when he focused solely on the administrative costs associated with the scheme and on Labour’s sorry record in this area. Mr Cosgrove claims that he supports the bill but it is absolutely impossible to detect anything in his speech that demonstrates why he came to that conclusion. Jacinda Ardern Sue Moroney and David Parker all followed him in a similar vein. All were more concerned with costs and process than with dealing with the substantive issue. It is absolutely fascinating to hear Labour speaker after Labour speaker claiming that the bill will not work and that it is just a piece of theatre. When my colleague Simon Bridges was speaking I think I even heard Steve Chadwick say the bill was an insult to victims and Clayton Cosgrove definitely made that remark when Amy Adams was on her feet. 
Apparently even though the bill is an insult to victims Labour will support the bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Well that sounds like a totally unconvincing each-way bet to me and it will not fool any of Labour’s disillusioned voters who abandoned them in such great numbers at the polling booths last year. 
Hon Member 
: No one will be fooled. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Absolutely no one will be fooled. Those members and other members opposite have demonstrated that although they have made all sorts of empty promises over a dozen years and more Labour throughout its term of office consistently ignored the needs and concerns of victims and now it is in real danger of making that same mistake again. Those members can scoff at this bill and ignore the issue as much as they like but they need to reflect on the mess they bequeathed to the new National Government which will do something about cleaning it up. They need to realise that their soft approach badly let down those most deserving of help in our justice system. 
Phil Twyford 
: Like this will make a difference! 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Yes it will make a difference I say to Mr Twyford and that is why we are doing it. I say to Mr Twyford that its success will be measured by the increased assistance that victims receive with their one-off expenses that are not currently covered by accident compensation with their travel costs to and from the court—well apparently that is a bad thing for members opposite; I cannot see why that is—and by additional counselling which I would have thought members opposite would welcome. 
The levy is set at a rate that most would agree is far too low to compensate victims—there is no argument about that—particularly those who are victims of our most serious crimes but it is an important first step towards refocusing our justice system on the needs of victims. It should be noted that the Government will also introduce measures to improve the services that victims receive and to enhance victims’ rights. In other words it is part of a bigger package. 
The simple fact which may be unpalatable to members opposite but they should be quiet and think about it for a moment is that New Zealanders voted overwhelmingly in support of this matter just 3 months ago. We are absolutely determined to get on with the job that New Zealanders elected us to do. I commend this bill to the House and so do the overwhelming majority of my constituents in Hamilton West. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
The House adjourned at 9.31 p.m.