Volume 691 Week 45 - Tuesday 11 June 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 691 Week 45 - Tuesday 11 June 2013[Sitting date: 11 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:10899. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 11 June 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Points of OrderPersonal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Withdrawal and ApologyHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Pursuant to Speaker’s ruling 18/3 I hereby withdraw and apologise.Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What was the apology about by the member T Mallard?Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a—[Interruption ] Order! That matter was dealt with. The member has to go back and look atHansard from last week. The matter has now been tidied up.Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionHon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When is your office going to deal with the breach of privilege complaint laid by me against T Mallard?Mr SPEAKER: There is a process now by which I will be seeking comments from the member who has been accused of a breach of privilege.Questions to MinistersElectoral Commission—2013 Māori Electoral Option and Engagement1.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki)to theMinister of Justice: Is she satisfied with the Electoral Commission’s engagement with whanau hapū iwi and marae around the 2013 Māori Electoral Option; if so what advice has she received that would explain why halfway through the process there are only 5000 new enrolments?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):I have received four reports from the Electoral Commission on progress for the Māori electoral option. It is fair to say that the uptake from Māori for enrolment on the Māori roll has not been great. The Electoral Commission has run a 4-month campaign over radio television and print media as well as setting up a Facebook page which has reached over 200000 people and received over 13000 likes. I am advised by the Electoral Commission that the response for this campaign is similar to the response in 2006 when there were around 6000 new enrolments.Te Ururoa Flavell: Can I ask what assurances can she give that the Electoral Commission has prioritised kanohi ki te kanohi or face to face communications with Māori constituents in informing them of the Māori electoral option?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I understand from the Electoral Commission that it has in fact undertaken that. I also understand that it has met this morning with the Māori Party to discuss the Māori Party’s stated concerns. I am sure that many people would say that there are not enough Māori on the electoral roll and that anything we can do to assist should be done if we can.Te Ururoa Flavell: As only 73 percent of young people are enrolled to vote with the proportion of rangatahi Māori even less what responsibility does she have to ensure that 100 percent of New Zealanders are enrolled and how does she plan to reach those people who are not enrolled?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Short of actually prosecuting people for not being enrolled which I am not prepared to consider as something that this Government—or any Government—should prioritise I would say that even in Australia where there is compulsory voting only 95 percent of people generally turn out. In this country the average turnout is 81 percent. In fact that number tends to go up when there is a possibility of a change of Government. I am happy to say that one of the good things from such a low turnout at the last election was that it was because people did not want to have a change from the fabulous current Government that we have.Government Communications Security Bureau Review of Compliance—Investigation into Leak2.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition)to thePrime Minister: On what date was he his office or the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet first informed that David Henry would not meet his deadline of the end of May as set out in the terms of reference for reporting back and what reason did Mr Henry provide for the delay?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):The terms of reference anticipated that Mr Henry would present his findings to Mr Kibblewhite and Mr Fletcher by 31 May. This was not strictly a deadline. The report was delivered 2 working days after that date. I am advised that Mr Henry indicated to the Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau earlier in the week ending 31 May that there was some risk to the anticipated timetable. He formally confirmed on 31 May that he would likely need to take an extra week to complete the report. As it happened he took only 2 more working days. The reason given for the extra time was that Mr Henry was continuing discussions with one individual. Mr Henry said he needed to complete an interview and then finalise his report.David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement on 29 May that “He does not believe for a moment that his Ministers or their offices leaked the report …”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did at the time I made that statement.David Shearer: Does he know who leaked the Kitteridge report and who was it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For certain? No I do not know.David Shearer: Why is he not taking all possible steps to firmly establish what Mr Dunne leaked?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I think Mr Henry is to be congratulated on an extremely thorough report. Secondly that report has led to an outcome which is the resignation of a Minister. Thirdly the only point I could do is I could go and reconstitute the inquiry arguably subpoena the emails and to do so I would subpoena the emails of Andrea Vance.Hon Members: No.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is what the member wants. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is what the member wants. Just as long as the gallery understands that Labour wants to be able to forage around in their emails.David Shearer: Does he understand that there is an important difference between Ministers’ duties to hold confidences and the role of the media and the Opposition to highlight information that has been disclosed to them and why does he continue to confuse the two?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Why does the member believe that it is OK to have one side of the story—David Shearer: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask the questions and he is supposed to answer them I thought.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to repeat his question please.David Shearer: Does he understand that there is an important difference between Ministers’ duties to hold confidences and the role of the media or Opposition to highlight information that has been disclosed to them and why does he confuse the two?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I understand completely my responsibilities as Prime Minister—that was to try to get an answer to the matter. I commissioned a full report. Secondly I understand the need for balance. So if we are going to have a full understanding of everything in those emails that Mr Dunne is not prepared to release himself then we need to see both sides and while we are at it we will get Phil Goff’s emails about the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why did you allow the Prime Minister to add on that last part when it is not part of the question or any inquiry or above all the severe embarrassment the Government is now under?Mr SPEAKER: Because as I interpreted the answer from the Prime Minister I did not think it was out of order at the time.David Shearer: Does he believe his Ministers should be held accountable for leaking information that they have a duty to hold confidential and given Mr Dunne’s continued denials how can he leave the matter there?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is quite clear that the Minister has been held to account. He has been asked to comply with the inquiry he has failed to do so and he has lost his ministerial warrant. But there is a simple way of clearing this up. Apparently Mr Peters has got the emails. Maybe he could give them to Mr Shearer.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters and it will be heard in silence.Rt Hon Winston Peters: That was totally outside the Standing Orders. The Prime Minister is meant to be terse and to the point. The last time that challenge came and he was told by me that his Minister was gone he laughed then but he is not laughing now. The fact is that on the question of disclosure of the five different electronic records there are the Prime Minister is the person responsible for that. So we all have a true and full picture and thank you for that point of order.Mr SPEAKER: And it was not a point of order.Economic Growth and Job Creation—Progress and ForecastsMr SPEAKER: Question No. 3 Katrina Shanks. [Interruption ] Order!KATRINA SHANKS (National):To the Minister of Finance. What do recent indicators show about the economy’s performance this year and its outlook for the next 3 to 4 years?Mr SPEAKER: Has the Minister adequately heard the question?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):No. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! There was so much noise in the House that I could not hear Katrina Shanks reading that question. Would she please commence again.3.KATRINA SHANKS (National)to theMinister of Finance: What do recent indicators show about the economy’s performance this year and its outlook for the next three to four years?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):The New Zealand economy grew 3 percent in the calendar year 2012 among the fastest-growing in the OECD. Growth was broad-based and by the end of 2012 15 of the 16 measured industries were showing growth. The outlook for the next 3 to 4 years is growth of 2 to 3 percent. This is based on increased private consumption supported by higher business and consumerconfidence increased business investment increased residential investment and a continuing wider recovery. Elevated terms of trade and increased dairy and commodity exports are also expected to be long-term drivers of income growth. This is good for families because it means more jobs lower unemployment higher incomes and more opportunities.Katrina Shanks: What has been the basis for the economy’s stronger performance this year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Recent economic data is reasonably encouraging. Tax revenue is ahead of forecasts. The indexes that measure the growth of the manufacturing sector and the very large service sector are both showing growth. Business and consumer confidence are at 3-year highs. Employment has increased and unemployment is falling although it still remains too high at 6.2 percent. Last week building consents were reported as being up by 43 percent in a year reaching a 5-year high. This is not related just to the rebuild of Canterbury but also to reasonable growth outside that. Dairy prices remain well above long-term averages and they may be supported by the recent welcome falls in the New Zealand dollar against the US dollar.Katrina Shanks: How does New Zealand’s economic growth compare with that of other developed countries?Hon BILL ENGLISH: At 3 percent for the 12 months to the end of 2012 it compares favourably with most other developed economies—that is a higher growth rate than the US Canada Japan the UK and the eurozone and comparable with Australia. On current trends it is likely that over the next year or two New Zealand will grow at similar if not slightly better rates than Australia.Katrina Shanks: What reports has he seen on New Zealand’s economic programme and the Government’s approach to turning round the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I recently read a report from theAustralian Financial Review that says: “What immediately stands out is Wellington’s grown-up and stable Government”. It also says that New Zealand’s bad luck is about to take a turn for the better and it will reap the benefits of disciplined policy making. TheAustralian Financial Review  which is not noted for being a cheerleader for New Zealand notes that New Zealand did not have a mining boom to shield it from the global financial crisis. But it acknowledges that we did have a devastating earthquake in Christchurch and a drought this year. It notes: “John Key’s National Government also had to deal with the legacy of nearly a decade of a back-sliding and big-spending Labour Government.”Grant Robertson: Is it correct that his 2013 Budget says that his Government will fall 61000 jobs short of his election promise of a 170000 extra jobs?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot remember the exact numbers but the number of new jobs has been fewer than was expected. Over the next couple of years though we expect that will pick up. As I just pointed out to the member we have had to deal—and I will quote theAustralian Financial Review —“with the legacy of nearly a decade of a back-sliding and big-spending”—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a specific question. Remarkably the Minister of Finance could not remember his own Budget but he did show—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I gather the point of order. The question has certainly been adequately addressed.Intelligence Agencies—Legislation and Information Sharing with Overseas Agencies4.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition)to thePrime Minister: Has he received any information that shows foreign intelligence agencies are routinelycollecting emails other communication or location data on New Zealand citizens and residents while they are in New Zealand; if so has the resulting information been passed on to the Government Communications Security Bureau?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):No.David Shearer: Do New Zealand intelligence agencies use or have access to the PRISM system developed by the US National Security Agency?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not believe that it is in the public interest to go into the operational programmes used by the Government Communications Security Bureau or the Security Intelligence Service but what I can say is that I have sought an assurance from the Government Communications Security Bureau that it is acting in accordance with New Zealand law and that it does not ask Government agencies in other countries to circumvent that law.David Shearer: Will he give New Zealanders an assurance that information collected on them by non - New Zealand intelligence agencies has not been and is not being used by New Zealand authorities without them having the legal authority to do so?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can assure the House that we do not use our partners to circumvent New Zealand laws. We do not ask them to do that. I cannot speak for other international agencies; I simply do not know what they do. But I know that from our perspective and from the Government Communications Security Bureau’s perspective we do not use foreign partners to circumvent the law.David Shearer: Why is he passing legislation extending the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau without the opportunity for a thorough examination of the technological changes in cyber-security that would be covered by an independent wide-ranging inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly it is quite clear that the law needs to be clarified. That is as a result of the Kitteridge report and the work done by Justice Neazor—that is the first thing. The second thing is without clarifying the law the assistance work provided by the Government Communications Security Bureau to other agencies actually cannot continue. Thirdly in my view there was an extremely thorough piece of work done by Rebecca Kitteridge so we have a good understanding of what has taken place there. But I do find myself in a bizarre situation now answering a question from a man who wants to protect privacy—Mr SPEAKER: Order!David Shearer: Why is he refusing to conduct an independent inquiry into New Zealand’s intelligence and security agencies when the public has lost confidence in our intelligence agencies at a time when serious concerns are being raised about whether the privacy of New Zealanders has been breached?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not believe for a moment that the public has actually lost confidence in New Zealand’s intelligence agencies. I think it is quite clear that there was a mistake made by the Government Communications Security Bureau when it came to using its foreign intelligence powers with regard to Mr Kim Dotcom. But actually beyond that what the Kitteridge report highlighted was a significant amount of work that needs to be undertaken. It was an extremely thorough review.Grant Robertson: A very narrow review—a very narrow review.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The director of the Government Communications Security Bureau is actually undertaking that inquiry. Well actually I know for a fact that Mr Shearer does not think that it was narrow. He is looking for a different reason to not vote for it.Steffan Browning: Has the Government Communications Security Bureau ever made requests to the United States that have resulted in intelligence being gathered andprovided using the PRISM system and did the Government Communications Security Bureau seek approval from you or other Ministers before doing so?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Do not bring the Speaker into the debate.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not going to go into the operational matters or techniques used by the Government Communications Security Bureau but what I can give people an absolute assurance on is that we do not ask foreign intelligence agencies to act in any way that circumvents the law. Any assistance that may have been provided by other agencies will be because it is both lawful—that means signed off both by me as the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service and by the Commissioner of Security Warrants—and importantly in the national interest for us to do so.Steffan Browning: On the basis of that was PRISM data used in the cases identified in the Kitteridge report where metadata or other intelligence was collected illegally on 88 New Zealanders?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said firstly I am not in a position to go into the techniques that are deployed by the Government Communications Security Bureau. I do not think any Prime Minister has done that. Secondly I would challenge the member to go away and read the report from Justice Neazor. Actually it did not find that the 88 cases were illegal.Steffan Browning: Under the Government’s proposed law changes when the Government Communications Security Bureau spies on New Zealanders can that include it requesting surveillance by the US National Security Agency and thus potentially the PRISM system?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think I have actually answered that question but for clarity reasons let me give it to the member again. I have sought assurances from the Government Communications Security Bureau that it acts in accordance with New Zealand law and does not ask Government agencies in another country to circumvent the law. There would be no reason to do that if the person was in New Zealand and there was a legal warranted—Steffan Browning: Point of order—Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let me finish the answer—a legal warranted activity to be conducted.Steffan Browning: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was not really answered because I said “can that include it requesting surveillance by the US National Security Agency and thus potentially the PRISM system?”. That was not answered.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think on this occasion the Prime Minister has very adequately addressed the question.Education National Standards—2012 Assessment Data and Moderation5.ALFRED NGARO (National)to theMinister of Education: What recent announcement has she made about achievement against National Standards?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Today I released the second year of national standards aggregate data and for the first time data on the achievement of students in Māori medium schools. The 2012 national standards data shows small positive gains in reported achievement overall. Overall achievement is strongest against the national standards for reading followed by mathematics and then writing. The information released today also includes for the first time data on achievement by year level. We have an education system that is amongst the best in the world but we can do better. Good-quality data on student achievement at all levels is essential if we are going to achieve a system-wide lift. Under this Government we have started to collect such data.Alfred Ngaro: What is the value of the achievement data that has been reported?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Tēnā koe. In the words of Andreas Schleicher education director at the OECD: “Without data you are just another person with an opinion.” Achievement data is extremely powerful. [Interruption ] Achievement data is extremely powerful. At a school level it helps principals and teachers to target resources where they are most needed. At a system level we will be using it to continue to get resources to those schools that need it most. Public Achievement Information allows parents to see how their child and their child’s school are performing and will allow the Government to see how well the system as a whole is doing in order to raise achievement for all students. Public Achievement Information includes national standards Ngā Whanaketanga Rumaki Māori data Education Review Office reports schools’ annual reports National Certificate of Educational Achievement data and relevant national and international reports.Hon Trevor Mallard: I know it is really unusual for an Opposition member to do this for a Government question but my view is it was a very good question that actually was not addressed and I wonder whether the question could be repeated so the Minister could address it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. On this occasion the question was clear and the answer addressed the question.Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question Metiria Turei. Oh sorry.Chris Hipkins: That’s new!Mr SPEAKER: Again I humbly withdraw and apologise and hope that I will be forgiven. Supplementary question Chris Hipkins.Chris Hipkins: Thank you. Thank you Mr Speaker. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have done all I can do and that is humbly apologise. Now supplementary question Chris Hipkins.Chris Hipkins: Can she—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to have his question heard.Chris Hipkins: Can she guarantee that the national standards are being applied consistently across all schools and that the same student being assessed in one school would not get a different result if assessed in a different school; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The New Zealand education system runs on a high-trust model which is based on the overall teacher judgments made by teachers. Teachers use a whole range of tools to make those assessments. They do that in every school across New Zealand. As we get better at this process—the moderation that will be involved—the judgments will become more consistent. This is the second year of national standards data and so there will be some variation.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question that I asked was whether she could—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the member just repeat the question.Chris Hipkins: Can she guarantee that the national standards are being applied consistently across all schools and that the same student being assessed in one school would not get a different result if assessed in a different school; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: No I cannot guarantee that. In the same way the National Certificate of Educational Achievement has taken 10 years to develop the robustness that it has and it has been applauded by the international systems with whom we compare ourselves. That is why we are in the process of investing in skills for teachers for consistency and progress in national standards.Chris Hipkins: What is the moderation process for national standards?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The Public Achievement Information framework over the next 5 years was published on the education website last year. It sets out the approachover the next 5 years of investing in exactly that—how we can ensure that the quality of judgments made by individual teachers across the school system will become more consistent over time. In the same way that the national curriculum has taken 12 years and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement has taken 10 years this is only the second year of national standards data reporting.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very short and simple question: what is the moderation process for national standards?Mr SPEAKER: And I understood that the Minister has referred you to the website and the information will be available.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is question time when we ask questions and Ministers answer them.Mr SPEAKER: I am aware that this is question time Mr Hipkins.Chris Hipkins: So can I have the answer to the question?Mr SPEAKER: You cannot expect an answer to the satisfaction of the member. The Minister responded and adequately addressed the question by saying that the detailed information the member needs is available for the member on the website.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it acceptable for any Minister to answer any question that the Opposition puts to them by saying that the information is available on a website somewhere?Mr SPEAKER: No it is clearly not acceptable on all occasions but on this occasion to expect the Minister to have the detail at her fingertips I think is not reasonable and I took it from the Minister’s answer that she did not have the information to satisfy the member and therefore she referred the member to the website. So on this occasion I think it is acceptable but I certainly accept the point that the member is making—that if on all occasions a Minister simply got up and said to refer to a website we would not have a very functional question time.Chris Hipkins: Does the Ministry of Education website outline a moderation process to ensure consistency in this year’s national standards results?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Overall teacher judgment is the approach to use for assessment of the national standards. “Overall” means that it takes into account the deployment of a number of tools which are at the choice of the teachers and the schools in particular. The Public Achievement Information framework sets out the 5-year plan on how we will increasingly improve the consistency of judgment—that is moderation within schools and between schools is set out in that plan. This is the second year. The data this year is better than last year’s. Next year’s data will be better than this year’s. This is a standard process of development of our education system which is world-class for that reason among many others because of the high-trust model we operate by trusting the over 30000 teachers across the 2100 schools working with the 475000 primary school students to reach these data decisions.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the supplementary question that I first contested with you the Minister referred me to the Ministry of Education website.Mr SPEAKER: Correct.Chris Hipkins: I then asked her quite a specific question about what that website information would contain and the Minister has not addressed that. She has not answered it; she certainly has not even addressed it.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion Chris Hipkins raises a reasonable point. The Minister did not have a categoric answer to the first question and told the member to refer to the website. The member then asked a simple question about whether that information would be available on the website and I am actually none the wiser as to whether it is available. Would it help the Minister if the question was repeated?Hon HEKIA PARATA: No. There are a range of tools used by schools and they are described on the website. In order to achieve consistency in the judgments used by teachers in respect of students it is a process of investment over time. The specific tool that has been designed to work in this specific area is the progression and consistency tool. It has been piloted in a number of schools this year with the intention that it will be refined and applied—Hon Annette King: Is it on the website?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes a description of it is on the website. It will be applied in schools and as it is tested and found to be successful it will be used next year and the year after.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has given quite a lot of information about what is going to happen in the future but my question actually asked whether the website contained the process that was used to ensure consistency in the data this year. The Minister has talked about what is going to happen in the future but I actually asked her about what had happened this year to ensure consistency in the data she has released today.Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister could answer just that final point around this year it would help the House move on. The Minister I think gave a very genuine attempt to answer that question quite fully for the member. But that bit of information if it can be given would assist as to whether the information will be utilised this year. Am I correct?Grant Robertson: For this year’s standards.Hon Trevor Mallard: The moderation for this year’s standards.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to get the question repeated. The only aspect that still remains to be clarified is the timetable for this year.Chris Hipkins: Does the Ministry of Education website outline the moderation process to ensure consistency in the national standards data that has been released this year?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate it.Skycity Convention Centre—Terms of Agreement and Implications6.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green)to theMinister for Economic Development: Will the Government sign the legal contract between it and SkyCity for the SkyCity Convention Centre this week; if not when will it sign this agreement?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):I am advised that negotiations for the final agreement are progressing with Skycity. While they are progressing it would not be helpful or appropriate for me to discuss the nature and progress of negotiations until such a final agreement has been finalised. The heads of agreement anticipate that a final agreement will be signed on or before 14 June 2013. However both sides may agree to extend this to a later date and depending on how things progress this week we may or may not do so.Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with leading constitutional lawyer Stephen Franks that signing this agreement is “arguably unlawful”; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I do not necessarily agree with everything in Mr Franks’ publicised opinion although there are some things I do agree with. For example he states that this sort of law is not unprecedented in New Zealand practice. Recent examples include the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act 2010 and qualified exemptions from certain provisions of the Commerce Act 1986 for Fonterra under the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001. So I think he suggested it is arguable but then goes on to state some examples.Metiria Turei: Did the Minister seek any specific advice on the implications of the decision ofFitzgerald v Muldoon before signing the heads of agreement; if so what was that advice?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I did not.Metiria Turei: Has the Minister sought advice on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications of signing a deal to amend the Gambling Act 2003 before there is legislation before the House to do so; if so what was that advice?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Sorry I did not quite get that.Mr SPEAKER: Hon Steven Joyce do you want the question repeated?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes that is right.Mr SPEAKER: Could the member please repeat the question.Metiria Turei: Has the Minister sought advice on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications of signing a deal to amend the Gambling Act 2003 before there is legislation before the House to do so; if so what was that advice?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I have not but I would point out to the member that in many examples of legislation the agreements go on to be then put before the House—for example in an agreement. So you can take just for example Treaty settlements with the Treaty of Waitangi and also international trade agreements where agreements are signed and then put before the House for the House to consider and decide whether to endorse those agreements.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take personal offence at the comparison of a Treaty settlement that provides for the rightful compensation to iwi and hapū with this dirty deal about gambling.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. It is not reasonable to take offence at that answer given by the Minister.Metiria Turei: Could a select committee amend the concessions in the intended legislation concerning this deal without affecting the contract and triggering a compensation requirement?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry; I did not get that.Mr SPEAKER: Again we are having trouble hearing. Can the member actually speak directly into her mike so that—Metiria Turei: I will turn it round.Mr SPEAKER: That would help I am sure.Metiria Turei: Could a select committee amend the concessions in the intended bill concerning this deal without affecting the contract and triggering compensation?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The intention—and I stress again that this matter has not been brought before the House in any way yet—is that the bill that comes before the House would seek the House’s endorsement in terms of the agreement. So obviously no compensation would apply if a select committee and then the House subsequently rejected the terms of that agreement. That is what the House will have the opportunity to assess—whether it decides to proceed with the legislation that would give effect to the agreement.Metiria Turei: Will Skycity be entitled to any compensation if the legislation enacting the Gambling Act concession does not pass and is he concerned that the future of this whole deal relies on two MPs who are teetering on the edge of political oblivion?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think that the point that the member sort of seeks to raise is: “Are we dependent on Parliament?” and the answer is “Yes.” Governments are always dependent on Parliament in terms of passing legislation. So I do not think this is anything new. But if the Greens decided to move in favour of supporting jobs and growth in the New Zealand economy—which I know would be rare—I would welcome their support as well.Metiria Turei: Will Skycity get compensation if his Government fails to get the numbers to pass this dirty deal?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have no idea what dirty deal the member is referring to. As far as I am concerned the member is trying to offer a characterisation that probably applies much more to Green Party policy than to National Party policy.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have in fact asked this question twice now. At neither of those times did the Minister answer it. I was very specific in my final question: will Skycity get compensation if the legislation does not pass—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wanted that answer she should have asked it without the political implications.Question No. 3 to MinisterRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I seek to table an OECD document that totally refutes the claim by Mr English in answer to question No. 3 that New Zealand’s growth rate is the highest in the OECD. It is just plain false.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the OECD document which I take it is not readily available to members. On that basis I will put the leave. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Housing Affordable—Reports Response and Land Supply Policies7.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany)to theMinister of Housing: What policy conclusions if any does the Government draw fromPriced Out - How New Zealand Lost its Housing Affordability and how consistent are its findings with those of the 2012 Productivity Commission Report on housing affordability?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing):The most important conclusion is that we must address restrictive land policies if we are to improve housing affordability. It notes that section prices have soared way ahead of building costs over the past decade and now make up more than 60 percent of the cost of a house in Auckland. The report also notes that Auckland’s metropolitan urban limit “favours the old and the rich and punishes the young and the poor.” The Government is taking action on the full range of issues identified in the Productivity Commission’s report covering the costs of building materials infrastructure and sector productivity as well as consenting because there is a high level of consistency in these reports.Jami-Lee Ross: Can the Minister cite any examples of how restrictive land supply policies are allowing very large profits to be made at the expense of homeowners?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. There was a very good example reported in theNew Zealand Herald  where a 29-hectare rural property at Flat Bush in Auckland was bought for $890000 in 1995 but is still undeveloped and is now on the market for $112 million. This profit is coming at the expense of ordinary families trying to afford a home. We must tackle the restrictive and unresponsive land supply policies if we are to address the root causes of housing affordability.Jami-Lee Ross: Have any of these substantive reports on housing affordability from the OECD the IMF the New Zealand Initiative or the Productivity Commission concluded that the answer is for the State to embark on a massive housebuilding programme?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In fact none of these substantive reports recommend a massive State housebuilding programme. It is simply not credible to claim that you can build a three-bedroom house in Auckland for $300000 when the section price in Auckland is now over $325000—particularly when the advocates for this approachoppose any steps to free up the supply of land. If the answer to less expensive houses is to have the Government build them all I suspect we will next want to lower food prices by having the Government running all the supermarkets.District Health Boards—Waiting Times for Emergency Departments and Diagnostic Testing8.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai)to theMinister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements on health; if not why not?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):Yes within the context that they were given. This Government has increased funding of health by an average of $500 million a year but has always said that district health boards will sometimes have to slow scale or stop programmes to meet the changing needs of New Zealanders.Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement: “Many hospitals struggle to even see patients with immediate or imminent threat to life or limb.”; if not why is it now acceptable for 3900 patients in one district health board alone who were assessed as being needed to be seen within 10 minutes in an emergency department not being seen in that time although their conditions could include serious head injuries massive bleeding or suspected heart attacks?Hon TONY RYALL: The member of course is referring to some triage times that are measured in hospital emergency departments. What we know is that performance across district health boards within emergency departments has improved dramatically from the time when that member opposite was the Minister and people waited in the North Shore Hospital under bright fluorescent lights on trolleys for 3 days on end.Hon Annette King: Why is it now acceptable for 25000 patients in one district health board alone in the last year not to be seen within the best-practice benchmark of 30 minutes at the emergency department even though they had what he called in Opposition “quite serious conditions”?Hon TONY RYALL: I am sure that number was a lot worse under the previous Government. What I can tell the member is that the time she is quoting measures the time that people wait until they see a doctor or a senior nurse. What this Government measures in its hospital emergency department waiting-time which was recommended by clinicians was how long it takes until patients are treated discharged or returned home. We do not think it is acceptable that patients wait days on end on hospital emergency department trolleys under bright fluorescent lights as happened when Annette King was Minister of Health.Hon Annette King: Why did he dump the public reporting of triage times in emergency departments—something that he called in Opposition “best-practice benchmarks” and which are still used by Australian emergency medicine—before a suitable replacement had been developed?Hon TONY RYALL: A suitable replacement is out there. It is called the publication of the hospital emergency department waiting-time performance against the 6-hour target to be treated. I think my response to any question from Annette King on hospital emergency department waiting times involving patients is summed up in three words: North Shore Hospital where people waited 3 days on end under bright fluorescent lights. This Government is providing more patients with faster treatment sooner.Hon Annette King: Why do patients have to wait until 2015 before district health boards meet his new so-called gold standard of 6 weeks’ wait for an ultrasound or a magnetic resonance imaging scan when doctors are saying that some of the current waiting-times pose a danger to patients right now?Hon TONY RYALL: I did read some of those comments in the media last week. What I would say is that the Government is making that information available to the public; it was not previously. It contrasts with for example when that member was aMinister of Health when 1000 patients in Christchurch were waiting more than 9 months for a magnetic imaging scan. When that member was Minister of Health she had 500 patients in Christchurch waiting more than 1 year. When she was Minister of Health they had patients waiting for CT scans—1300 patients waiting more than 8 weeks. And when she was Minister of Health—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is quite a sufficiently long answer.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a 2007 press release by Tony Ryall claiming many hospitals—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That press release will be freely available to members. It will still be available.Hon Annette King: That was 2007.Mr SPEAKER: Well the easiest way to put it is I will put the leave. There is a 2007 press release by the Hon Tony Ryall. Is there any objection to it being tabled?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Absolutely. I’ve got it framed on my wall!Mr SPEAKER: There we go.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a report in theNew Zealand Herald of 2007—Mr SPEAKER: No that is—[Interruption ] Order! That is definitely something that members can get back if they want.Hon Annette King: In 2007?Mr SPEAKER: Yes they can.Christchurch Recovery—Public Service Presence in Central Business District9.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central)to theMinister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How will the Government support the redevelopment and repopulation of the Christchurch Central Business District following the Canterbury earthquakes?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery):Yesterday with the Minister of State Services the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman I confirmed that the public sector will be locating facilities in the heart of the city as an integral part of developing theChristchurch Central Recovery Plan . The Government is committed to bringing Crown agencies back into the central business district as part of the revitalisation of Christchurch. These core tenancies will provide confidence for developers and investors to undertake new building projects. The Public Service workforce will also be attractive to retailers and service providers to encourage them back into the central business district. The project builds on the ongoing work of the Christchurch Central Development Unit’s blueprint for a smart green productive city.Nicky Wagner: What has been the response to the call for proposals for public sector office accommodation in the central business district?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government Property Management Centre of Expertise and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority put out a request for proposal for the Christchurch accommodation project. In response 24 different parties indicated they could provide office space in new or refurbished buildings in the central business district. Across 20 Government agencies the process remains on track to select preferred suppliers in the third quarter of this year. Space is being sought for nearly 2000 public servants. This excludes the almost 1000 employees who will also be based in the justice centre meaning that the city can look forward to the tenancies accommodating 3000 civil servants.Nicky Wagner: What are the benefits of this project for public servants?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Public Service performed superbly throughout the Canterbury earthquakes. As Canterbury continues to recover we will moveGovernment agencies from temporary or patched-up facilities into modern high-quality buildings. The project aims to provide long-term quality office accommodation solutions for Government agencies in Christchurch. It will have a commensurate effect on private sector development as well.Education National Standards—2012 Assessment Data10.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)to theMinister of Education: Is she confident that the National Standards data being released today gives an accurate picture of student progress; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Yes I am confident that the data released today provides an accurate overall representation of student achievement. This is because I trust the collective professional judgment of around 30000 teachers working in more than 2100 schools and teaching more than 475000 students. In the words of Philip Harding president of the New Zealand Principals Federation: “Value your teachers trust your teachers and let them do the work.”Chris Hipkins: Did the Ministry of Education alter the results of this year’s individual term 1 student writing assessments without telling the schools and teachers of the change; if so what was the effect of that change?Hon HEKIA PARATA: No.Chris Hipkins: Was the assessment data in the e-asTTle tool for this year’s term 1 writing assessment adjusted by the Ministry of Education?Hon HEKIA PARATA: No.Chris Hipkins: Has the Ministry of Education informed schools that it has adjusted or scaled the results of term 1 student writing assessments this year?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The Ministry of Education has advised that the e-asTTle tool has been refreshed—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What does “refreshed” mean?Hon HEKIA PARATA: —in line with the concerns raised by teachers themselves. It is a norm-referenced tool the norm changes over time and in response to the concerns that it was not completely referenced to the curriculum levels the ministry took action together with the sector.Question No. 11 to MinisterRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek to table section 7 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 which totally rebuts the Prime Minister’s statement that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not table bits of legislation in this Parliament.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well he has not read it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will ask his question.Government Communications Security Bureau Review of Compliance—Investigation into Leak and Access to Electronic Records11.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to thePrime Minister: Did he discuss with David Henry the requirement for Mr Henry to see the full unedited electronic record connected with the Kitteridge report leak; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):And there I was thinking he was going to table the emails. No I did not speak with Mr Henry during the proceedings of the inquiry.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know he wants to see them.Mr SPEAKER: Is the member asking a supplementary question?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is very clear. Could he possibly just answer the question rather than act like a giggly schoolboy?Mr SPEAKER: That is a very acceptable point of order. Would the Prime Minister please address the question.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why didn’t you do something about it without being called to account?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did not speak—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt. Would the member the Hon Clayton Cosgrove stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I withdraw and apologise.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Sorry. For the third time I did not speak with—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you advise me under the Standing Orders when a Minister begins a question that is outside the Standing Orders is it incumbent upon the questioner or another member to raise that breach or is it incumbent upon you to act in your own right to call the Minister to account.Mr SPEAKER: That depends on the circumstances. In this case because we now have such a disjunction between the question being asked and the answer I am going to ask the right honourable Prime Minister to start the question again. [Interruption ] I apologise again.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Many a true word said in jest.Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will return to some normality. The right honourable Prime Minister—[Interruption ] The right honourable Winston Peters has been called to ask question No. 11.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did he discuss with David Henry the requirement for Mr Henry to see the full unedited electronic record connected with the Kitteridge report leak; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did not speak with Mr Henry during the proceedings of the inquiry.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case why was Mr Henry able to say that in respect of this inquiry he was acting with “the support of the Prime Minister”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because we set the terms of inquiry.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Prime Minister set up this inquiry did he intend for it to get to the whole truth?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That was certainly my aim and I think what the inquiry has demonstrated is that a Minister has paid a very high price by resigning from his portfolio.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very clear. It asked the Prime Minister whether when he set the inquiry up he intended to get to the whole truth not the ramifications of what—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister very adequately addressed the question. Does the member have further supplementary questions?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I most certainly do yes.Mr SPEAKER: Well the member can ask them.Rt Hon Winston Peters: What was the Prime Minister’s response to Mr Henry when Mr Henry informed him—as he surely did either in person or by that report—that Mr Dunne would not cooperate in releasing all of his electronic records?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For the purposes of clarification at no stage have I had a discussion with Mr Henry. I have seen his report as the member noted. Clearly I wanted to ensure that all people who were subject to the inquiry engaged fully and thatwas why my chief of staff sent out an email to senior private secretaries ensuring that they and other people around them complied with the inquiry. That is why Mr Kibblewhite sent a report to everybody who was subject to the inquiry instructing them to comply.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If Mr Henry felt confident that he would have had the appropriate powers from the State Services Commissioner why did he not give Mr Henry the appropriate powers as the Prime Minister?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Could the member repeat the question?Rt Hon Winston Peters: If Mr Henry an investigator appointed by the Prime Minister refers specifically on page 2 at point 7 to the confidence that he had the appropriate powers if he had wanted them from the State Services Commissioner why did the Prime Minister—because he was dealing with Ministers—not give this investigator the appropriate powers to get to the full truth?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the Minister firstly was a support party Minister but it would be the same actually probably for any Minister. It is not my practice to go through their emails any more than it would be my practice to go through the emails of a journalist like Andrea Vance. What I do expect them to do though is comply with the inquiry and that was why the instruction to comply was made quite clear. If a Minister did not comply then that speaks for itself. But in reality Mr Peters does not need this. Mr Peters has the emails—so he tells us. He can just read them out.Hon Dr Nick Smith: He’s bluffing.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did the Prime Minister—oh it is going so good now is it not?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the member just ask the supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well you know “Nancy” over there said I was bluffing.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please ask his question. I would be grateful if there were not the interjections coming from the right-hand side of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question—Hon Member: The emails are in the wine box.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes. Why did the Prime Minister not give Mr Henry—[Interruption ] Mr Speaker I cannot actually ask this question with all this hysterical laughing down the back nervous as it is.Mr SPEAKER: I think that Mr Peters and I would both appreciate it if there was less interjection coming from the right-hand side of the House so that we can have this supplementary question asked.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did the Prime Minister not give Mr Henry the power to access all of Mr Dunne’s electronic records when it became necessary for Mr Henry to access those records to get to the truth knowing as he did that it was the records that the inquirer needed not publication after he had got the information?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Quite simply because Mr Henry did not ask for more powers. At the end of the day I think everyone can see for themselves that if a Minister fails to comply with an inquiry then that has serious ramifications. It has had serious ramifications—Grant Robertson: Well we still don’t know who leaked do we John?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well Mr Peters knows because he has got all the emails remember? And he can read them.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why are you allowing the Prime Minister to behave like that? [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is meant to be a point of order and therefore it will be heard in silence but I do not yet know what the point of order is.Rt Hon Winston Peters: To constantly demand of a member of Parliament that he fulfil the duties that the Prime Minister is responsible for. It is not within the Standing Orders.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question for me to ascertain is whether the question asked by the member the Rt Hon Winston Peters was adequately addressed and I believe it was. The member may have further supplementary questions. Has he?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister standing in this House and saying that he is falling short of finding out the truth the whole truth which he said at the start he wanted when he set the inquiry up or is it that he is just embarrassed by what is in all five sets of electronic records and it points out his incompetence?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the inquiry was set up in such a way for expediency to make sure that it was quick and that we could get a result. We actually know that where an inquiry has gone to positions of oath for instance and the like it has taken a long time it is before the courts—and actually the Opposition has criticised it remember? So basically this was a document that was not distributed to that many people—about 30-odd in total. My view was that Mr Henry had wide-ranging powers. In fact a Minister has resigned because he has failed to comply with those so—Grant Robertson: So did he leak the report did he? Did he leak the report?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well he has failed to comply and that as I have said publicly many times says something about Mr Dunne. But in the end it is for him to comply.Border Control SmartGate System—Passengers Processed and SmartGate Plus12.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa)to theMinister of Customs: What information has he received regarding the success of automated passenger processing systems at the border?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs):SmartGate has gone from strength to strength since it was—Hon Member: More good news.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: —yes more good news for the House—first introduced about 4 years ago when we were processing only about 40 percent of all eligible passengers. Last week we had a milestone and SmartGate is now processing 70 percent of all eligible arrivals into the country. By the end of this month we are expected to process 6 million passengers through the automated processing. It is delivering on the Government’s commitment to making it easier and faster for travellers at the border to use modern technology.John Hayes: What is being done to further enhance border processing?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Yesterday we began trialling at Auckland Airport a new technology called SmartGate Plus. I know the Opposition does not like this because it never had a technology project that worked but let me tell the Opposition about it. SmartGate Plus cuts out the middle man which is the kiosk and now you can walk up to the gate put your passport on the glass screen and the door lets you through. The average processing time is now 9 seconds—9 seconds. The hundreds of people who used the trial machine yesterday at Auckland Airport had nothing but good things to say about it.Points of OrderQuestions for Oral Answer—Questions to MembersHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am assuming we have come to the end of questions to Ministers and I want to raise with you a decision by your office not to accept a question today and to raisethe interpretation of Standing Order 376(1) with regard to the Intelligence and Security Committee and the role of the Prime Minister.The first point I would like to make is that there is not a requirement for the Prime Minister to chair this committee. In fact it is something that the Prime Minister can nominate another person another member of Parliament to do. I would like to point out to you that there is probably a similar position with the Privileges Committee where it is currently chaired by a Minister but does not have to be chaired by a Minister. The important question I think for the House—and it may be something that ends up before the Standing Orders Committee for review—arises where there is a matter that is a matter of process before a select committee or where a Minister is in charge of a bill that is not a Government bill. Of course Ministers cannot be in charge of members’ bills because any bill that is in a Minister’s name in that circumstance is a Government bill but they can be in charge of local and private bills.One of the important things in this House is that there is someone responsible to the House both for the substance of legislation and for the process that is being followed. In this particular case the question was a relatively simple one asking about submissions to the Intelligence and Security Committee on legislation that is currently before it. We were told by the Clerk’s Office that a question could not be lodged but I would like to refer you toHansard of 7 December 2010 and the comments of Mr Speaker Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith on that occasion in relation to a bill before the very same committee that indicated that a question was being ruled out not because it was to the Prime Minister but in fact because the bill had not got to the committee at that point. Of course being a thorough Speaker Dr Smith would have ruled it out on the other basis if that was available to him.The point that I want to leave you with is a request to refer this matter to the Standing Orders Committee so that the House can have someone responsible for this committee for the Privileges Committee for private bills and for local bills where the Minister happens to be someone who is currently in charge of them.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. I took some advice on this matter prior to 2 o’clock. Where the Prime Minister chairs a committee a question relating to the business before that committee must be put down as a question to a Minister. The Prime Minister chairs the committee in his capacity as the Prime Minister and answers to the House in that capacity.Standing Order 376 provides for questions to members. It is quite clear that questions may be put to members not being a Minister and in fact also not being the Speaker. There is not a special category for questions to chairpersons. Questions to chairpersons are a subset of questions to Ministers. Where a Minister chairs a committee a question relating to a matter for which the committee has charge must be put down as a question to a Minister. The fact that legislation may provide for Ministers and members to be acting in their capacity as a member does not change Standing Order 376; it merely establishes for the avoidance of doubt that something has to be done as if it were being done for a parliamentary purpose. This does not alter ministerial accountability to the House. [Interruption ] Order! But I accept the point that the member makes. I will certainly have a look at theHansard to which the member has referred me. I do acknowledge that if a matter like this needs to be considered the appropriate place for it to be considered is before the Standing Orders Committee which now has other matters before it following a decision last week.Urgent DebatesHon Peter Dunne—Report on Investigation of Review of Compliance Leak and Resignation as MinisterMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have received letters from David Shearer and the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the resignation of the Hon Peter Dunne and the release of the report on the inquiry into the unauthorised release of information relating to the Government Communications Security Bureau compliance review. Both letters relate to particular cases of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The two cases are interrelated and members will be able to refer to the inquiry report in debating the resignation of the Minister. In these circumstances the application received first by me is the one to take priority. Mr Shearer’s letter was received first and I therefore accept his application. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition):I moveThat the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance . John Key must put aside his own self-interest and finish the job that he started. The public deserves an answer to the question that John Key actually asked himself: who leaked the Kitteridge report? Because frankly we still do not know. A Minister resigned last week and we do not know why yet. The stakes for John Key are very high and we need to get to the truth of the matter.The leaking of sensitive documents is serious enough but actually this goes to the heart of the Government’s stability. How much longer can this Government continue to be propped up by someone who has been accused and looks to be guilty of leaking the report and also by somebody who is currently before the courts?Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is there not a well-known Standing Order about matters that are before the courts and members who are before the courts? Otherwise we will talk about the money-laundering account in New York.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member will resume his seat. It is a debatable issue.Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is there not a long-held Standing Order that says that matters before the courts cannot be debated in this Parliament by members who are associated with a matter before the court?Hon Trevor Mallard: There is a longstanding Standing Order about debating matters that are before the court. There is a difference between debating a matter and going to the question of judgment involved and referring to that fact. The member shares my unfortunate—I am an unfortunate predecessor. There was plenty of reference to the McCready matter when I was appearing before the courts. The reason for not referring to it might be that it might be seen that people were moving on a question of judgment. I hate referring to Mr Terris for a ruling but in this case Speaker’s ruling 31/3 states: “There are no grounds for ruling against a member making a statement that there is a legal action in existence but the member should refrain from giving emphasis to the likely outcome.” I think that was actually the Terris drunk-driving case but I think the ruling is a good one.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for that. It is not out of order to refer to the fact that a case is before the courts but it is out of order to refer to the details of the case.DAVID SHEARER: I acknowledge the member for bringing that to the House’s attention. [Interruption ]Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! We have a point of order on the floor.Hon John Banks: It is the money-laundering—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! That is a frivolous interjection designed to break up a speech. The member has his first yellow card.DAVID SHEARER: Let us look at the facts. David Henry’s report threw up three suspects. Two of those suspects were cleared and one Peter Dunne remained. Peter Dunne resigned as a Minister. Peter Dunne has told this Parliament and the New Zealand public that he had nothing to do with the leaking of the Kitteridge report. In the Finance and Expenditure Committee Peter Dunne could not have been clearer. When he was asked directly whether he leaked the report he said categorically no.Here is the problem for Mr Key: the Prime Minister’s own investigation leaves Mr Dunne as the only suspect. That is why we need an investigation. This matter raises the most serious of questions. Did Peter Dunne leak the sensitive report? Has he lied to the New Zealand public and this House? I do not know. I do not know the answer to that; neither do the people of New Zealand. It cannot simply rest there. Mr Key cannot simply walk away from this report and not get to the bottom of what is actually going on here.Peter Dunne is the only one who had the report and who exchanged that quantity of emails with a political reporter. He did that on a ministerial computer which is subject to the Official Information Act. Peter Dunne is one of our most experienced Ministers in this Government and one of the longest-serving MPs in this House. He knows that he is covered by the Official Information Act. He knows that the emails could have been requested by any member of the public and any member of the media. I am sure that most of the media agencies have an Official Information Act request in right now to see those emails. Mr Dunne went in with his eyes wide open to this and now he claims that the emails might clear him but he will not show them certainly not to David Henry who could have seen them confidentially.He will not show them to Mr Key who is the only man in New Zealand who appears to trust Peter Dunne—or we suppose he does because yesterday the Prime Minister kicked him off the Intelligence and Security Committee. Mr Key said that that was because he needed to be a Minister. In fact that is not true. If you look at the Act that is simply not true. The real reason is that Mr Key cannot actually trust him to sit on that committee where we listen to confidential information. But he will trust him to prop up his Government—he will trust him to prop up his Government.We have a Government that is now propped up by a rorter of electoral law and by somebody who is leaking. That is a joke and New Zealand knows it. Mr Key knows it as well and it is why Mr Key has simply walked right away from that report and its investigation. His only concern is to prop up Mr Dunne and to prop up John Banks. That is where the matter stops and starts for him.If you look through that lens all of a sudden everything becomes very very clear. This is not the first time that Mr Key has done this. Can anybody remember the teapot tapes? That was when John Key desperately called in the police in the middle of the teapot tapes saga to get to the bottom of what was going on. It was because of John Key that search warrants—search warrants—were issued to search the contents of four media agencies. That is how big a defender of the media Mr Key is. He did not think twice when calling in the police to give him the sort of political protection that he needed. Back then he claimed that that was a matter of principle but where is that sense of principle today? Where is that responsibility to get to the truth? It is nowhere to be seen and it is a complete and utter double standard.The public deserves answers and this House should be left in no doubt that this is an issue that is as serious as it gets. It involves one of the Government’s support parties and one of John Key’s most senior and trusted members. The report was considered so sensitive that it was held in a highly restricted electronic system within the Government Communications Security Bureau. No electronic copies were distributed; just 35 copies of the report were circulated. The report was a matter of our national security—the most sensitive information we have. Two months ago—just 2 months ago—John Key agreed. Two months ago leaking the report was so serious it demanded an inquiry. Two months ago John Key said that these leaks “undermine the integrity of the entire Public Service.” Two months ago he said that he had a responsibility to get to the bottom of it if he could.Today all of that has mysteriously changed. Today he is trying to spin it that it is no big deal. Today he is trying to say that leaking it was nothing more than transgressing or breaking an embargo. Today he does not want to get to know about it. Today John Key will not go the extra step to finish the job. The truth behind that is very very simple: it has become a matter of political expedience. All we want is to get to the bottom of it. We do not need to go as far as the teapot tapes and bring in the police; we just want to know the truth. We want him to get to the bottom of what went on and he will not do that because his support partner now is in the gun and the stability of his Government is at stake. His own political skin is on the line. Once again we are seeing his self-interest being put above everything else.Propping up John Banks and Peter Dunne is more important than getting to the truth. For John Key when it comes to Peter Dunne and John Banks it is better the devil beast you know than the devil beast you do not know. I can tell you that we had the finger pointed at us a few weeks ago and all you need to do is look behind you to see just how stable that Government is. John Key needs Peter Dunne to prop him up. Peter Dunne has the casting vote that put Mighty River Power Meridian and Genesis on the block. John Key needs Peter Dunne to pass the Skycity deal—that sleazy deal—because all he needs is one vote and that is coming from Peter Dunne.That is not good enough. New Zealanders expect much more from their Prime Minister than that. He promised higher standards but instead we are being dragged from one scandal to another to another. He will not even look at the police report that refers to John Banks because he does not want to know. We have to ask the questions and he says he does not know because he has not read the report because he does not want to know what is actually in that report. He knows that as soon as he does he will have to fire John Banks as well.Turning a blind eye is not leadership. We saw it again in the response to the MMP review. Let us remember what happened to that review. That review was meant to be about ensuring that people who voted for MMP got a chance to improve the system but Judith Collins turned around and said: “No we don’t want to hear about that.” and absolutely cancelled it. And why? Because the Government was standing up and protecting John Banks and Peter Dunne—that is the reason why. It was not because it wanted to improve the system; it had to prop up its mates. If you want to move on to more scandal Skycity was given an even better deal—better access to Ministers than any other tenderer in that deal. That is what I call a sleazy deal. Even Stephen Franks a former National Party candidate believe it or not—he actually stood against Grant Robertson—Grant Robertson: He lost.DAVID SHEARER: —and he lost comprehensively—thinks it is wrong to sell a 35-year exemption under the law. John Key had invested so much into that deal that he had to get something out of it no matter how much it cost New Zealanders.The Government is certainly concerned only with its own survival. New Zealanders deserve much more than that from this Government and that is why we need to get to the bottom of what went on here. It is not good enough simply to walk away from it and wipe our hands of it. We need to know what happened. We need to know the truth and I am tired of John Key standing up and ignoring what he needs to face up to—absolutely ignoring it.This Government is propped up by two phoneys—two phoneys. That man needs to face up and tell New Zealanders the truth. Thank you.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister):Last week it was Labour being led by the nose by the Greens and this week it is Labour being led by the nose by New Zealand First. There is no doubt about that.The previous speech by David Shearer would be much more credible if the Leader of the Opposition showed the same enthusiasm for the investigation into the leak of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade material to Phil Goff. I did not hear him say that Prime Minister John Key has to get to the bottom of what happened with the leak of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade material to Phil Goff. I did not hear him say that Prime Minister John Key should be going through the emails and the phone records of Phil Goff to find out how a leak to him from a public servant occurred. I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition pleading with the Government to get to the bottom of that investigation which of course those members characterised at the time as a witch-hunt against those who want to bring transparency to the Government. Well of course when they give that speech then I will believe it.The other reason we would find that speech credible would be if the Leader of the Opposition had addressed most of it to the leader of New Zealand First and said something like this: “We want to get to the bottom of this Mr Peters. Give us the emails.” After all Labour is in full-on courting mode so why did David Shearer not take this opportunity in the House to ask Winston Peters for the emails that Winston Peters says he holds?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! Mr English is making a hard-hitting speech and some interjection can be expected but not so much that it drowns out the speaker. The Speaker will not allow that.Hon BILL ENGLISH: None of the interjections were a satisfactory answer to that question. Why does Winston Peters not give the Labour Party the emails so that David Shearer then knows what happened? Mr Peters might take the opportunity to table them when he speaks in this debate. He said he has got them—Hon Member: He’s got them.Hon Member: Look at the envelope.Hon BILL ENGLISH: He is opening the envelope as we speak. He is opening the envelope; the emails are coming. Would that not be a fine thing?What is going on in the Opposition is the manoeuvring between New Zealand First and the Greens. That is really what is going on. The Labour Party is sitting there with the Greens being a much more effective Opposition. They bared their teeth and it was a snarl not a smile. We now know the true nature of what the Greens would be like in any kind of Government. Mr Peters has spied this growing relationship and he has realised that he needs to reposition so that he could be a potential partner in 2024 for the incoming Labour Government. So he has decided that the way to reposition for 2024—Hon John Banks: 2024?Hon BILL ENGLISH: —he will be only 85—is to look tough on security. And actually he is being tougher on security much more so than what used to be the mainstream Labour Party. Winston Peters has addressed the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation in a much more serious and consideredmanner than the Labour Party has. The Labour Party members have just decided that whatever it is it is a Government bill so it will vote against it. Even a bitter partisan like Helen Clark did not do that in Opposition. Labour considered national security issues seriously. This Labour Party is incapable of doing so. But that is a bit of a side issue that will play itself out over the next 6 months.Mr Peters has decided on the basis of a whim last week to pretend that he knows what happened with the Henry inquiry and that he has the emails but he cannot produce them. Now he has pushed the Labour Party into putting in a privileges letter. Well is the Labour Party willing to answer the question the media are now asking? Does it really want a committee of Parliament to fashion a legal or parliamentary procedure that would allow anyone who leaks on the Government including MPs to have their whole phone and email correspondence wide open to public inquiry? I think Labour Party members this week are trying to get off the hook. They rushed at it on Sunday led by the nose by Winston got the privileges letter in and now they are going to find that their friends in the media are turning on them because the media do not want the emails of the Fairfax journalist in front of the Privileges Committee. They have made it absolutely clear that they will use every legal means possible to protect their sources and their journalist and we would not expect anything else.You would think that a media-savvy Labour Party would know that being led by the nose by Mr Peters takes it to the same place as him. He is always at loggerheads with the media. That is his business. That is his brand. But the Labour Party members are just realising this afternoon after reading theDominion Post editorial that they are headed for a titanic clash with the media.The next issue is this: is the Labour Party in Opposition indicating that when in Government it would have the legal or parliamentary procedure to inquire into the personal communications of every member of Parliament if they are under suspicion of a leak? I invite—Grant Robertson: What about a Minister?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well he is no longer a Minister—that is the point. He is no longer a Minister.Hon Phil Goff: He was when he leaked it.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Peter Dunne is a member of Parliament. OK. So this is the proposition of the Labour Party to the media now: any journalist who corresponds with any Minister in any Labour Government needs to know that their emails and voice messages will be open to scrutiny by the Prime Minister whenever they feel like it. That is the Labour Party proposition to the media. Well let us just watch over the next couple of weeks. Those members might shout it in here but out there they are going to be working very hard to get off that hook because their relationship with the media is now at stake and when you are in Opposition you need to be able to communicate with the media. You need to have free flow of information. You do in Government too actually.Hon John Banks: You need to do a lot of leaking.Hon BILL ENGLISH: You need to do a lot of leaking to be in Opposition. The Opposition members are now saying they want a parliamentary legal procedure so that if they get some leak and make it to the media the Prime Minister must get to the bottom of it. He must get their emails—from Trevor Mallard from Chris Hipkins from Kris Faafoi—Hon Phil Goff: You don’t have to do that. You put Peter Dunne on oath.Hon BILL ENGLISH: —from Phil Goff—Hon Phil Goff: You put MFAT on oath. You won’t put Peter Dunne on oath.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Mr Goff could save the Government and the taxpayer a lot of time and money by handing over—Hon Phil Goff: Double standards. Put Peter Dunne on oath.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Here is a challenge for Mr Goff. Mr Goff hand over your emails and your phone records so that we can get to the bottom of the leak from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Labour Party. I invite Labour to get up in this debate and table in the House Phil Goff’s emails Phil Goff’s phone records—Hon John Banks: And the bank account from New York.Hon BILL ENGLISH: —and the bank account from New York. Let us get to the bottom of that. What a great idea. [Interruption ] That is a very good idea.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just remind members that interjections are to be relevant and reasonable but a running commentary is out of order. If members want to speak they can do so when the opportunity arises.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. I guess that on this side of the House our feeling is that if Mr English is simply going to make things up continually through his speech it is very difficult for us to be able to restrain ourselves.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Understood.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Here is the opportunity for the Labour Party to back up the credibility of its leader: one ask Winston Peters for the emails; two table Phil Goff’s emails and phone records from the period during which he received leaks from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; and three table David Shearer’s bank account because we want to get to the bottom of what was actually a substantial undeclared asset. It is of parliamentary interest. It is of parliamentary interest. These are the three things we want the Labour Party to do: ask Winston for the emails table the emails and phone records from Phil Goff and table David Shearer’s bank account. Those are all items of personal information relevant to this leak or another leak or a breach of parliamentary requirements about the members’ register of interests.That all sounds pretty simple to me and we look forward to those things happening this afternoon. Otherwise we would have to come to the conclusion that Labour was stampeded into its privileges complaint by Winston Peters and by the kind of shallow advice that Grant Robertson gives his leader which is undermining his leader and which is pitching him at his worst not his best. That kind of shallow advice has led the Labour Party to now be on the hook as the people who are threatening Parliament and the media with powers of intervention into the personal communications of MPs that we have simply never had before.The facts are pretty simple. There was an inquiry into a leak and a Minister subject to that inquiry has resigned. The Prime Minister has done his job and now we look forward to the Labour Party doing its job and producing the documents that we have invited it to table.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member called?Metiria Turei: Yes Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I could not hear actually. There was so much noise.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):That is all right Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koe. The question is and it has been said before how low John Key will stoop to keep this little Government cobbled together. That is what we are seeing happen with this scandal around Peter Dunne. John Key is desperate to cling on to power and to keep people inside his tent despite the serious concerns about their integrity. This is certainly not the first example of this. It was certainly the case in the previous National Government and it is certainly the case in this one that John Key will do anything tocling on to power even if it puts the public at risk and there are serious questions of integrity for his Ministers.John Key needs Peter Dunne to keep supporting his unstable and unethical Government. He needs Peter Dunne for bills like the Skycity convention centre dirty deal. He needs Peter Dunne’s vote to get that thing through. He knows that it is unethical. He knows that the New Zealand public are opposed to it. He knows it will cause harm to hundreds of New Zealanders and to small businesses and community organisations but he is desperate to keep alive this $400 million monument to John Key. He will do anything including keeping Peter Dunne on side in order to see that it proceeds. That is a Prime Minister who has no understanding of the effects of his actions on ordinary New Zealanders in their everyday lives.John Key has said that Mr Dunne was replaced on the Intelligence and Security Committee because he is no longer a Minister. We would have seen that on television with John Key saying that it did not really have anything to do with the issue of trust; it was to do with the issue of no longer being a Minister. That is just not the truth—that is just not the case. In fact for membership on the Intelligence and Security Committee it is required that every person who nominates someone for membership of this committee this particular Intelligence and Security Committee “shall have regard to the requirements of security”—shall have regard to the requirements of security.Peter Dunne has not been tossed off this committee because he is no longer a Minister; he has been thrown off this committee because he is not trusted by this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s job is to nominate someone for this committee. He has removed that nomination because Peter Dunne cannot be trusted with the security that is required for this committee. That is a clear implication from John Key the Prime Minister that he does not trust Peter Dunne any more. Despite that and despite that clear statement he will keep him on in some form in the agreement that National has with United Future in order to be able to keep Peter Dunne’s vote—despite the fact that he no longer has any trust in Peter Dunne.The Prime Minister has to be up front and honest with the New Zealand public. That is his job. He has primary responsibility to the well-being of the New Zealand public—not to another person in his Cabinet not even to his own party but primarily to the people of New Zealand—and John Key is failing in that duty.It is interesting actually when you think about when that rule did change because we have other members on that committee—the public may not know this—who are not Ministers either. So for example Russel Norman and David Shearer who are not Ministers are on that committee. They are trusted with the requirements of security and they will continue to be members of that committee because they are trustworthy. Peter Dunne has been thrown off the committee by the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister no longer trusts him.I want to just raise an issue that has not been discussed actually very widely at all in the debate around Peter Dunne and his actions and his reasons for resigning as a Minister. Peter Dunne has been very clear that he himself cannot explain his behaviour or why it is that he is still withholding information from the Henry inquiry. As a result there has been a lot of speculation about this being a salacious issue about this being an infatuation as it has been described. The person who has no voice in this debate—the person who is subject to all of this rumour and innuendo—is the journalist involved. That journalist cannot talk about her sources. She is unable to defend herself against the accusations and innuendo that are being made against her. We have people like Michelle Boag a National Party toady making defamatory statements about the journalist on television—Rt Hon Winston Peters: And me.METIRIA TUREI: Well Winston Peters does have a voice in this debate so I would not consider Winston Peters to be a victim of what is going on here but the journalist I think is a victim. Because the journalist is a woman and because the journalist is young that means that there has been a deliberate inference that somehow that journalist has behaved unethically in the relationships that she has with members of this House. That accusation must be put down. It is not the case that this innuendo is accurate. This journalist has a real problem now because her reputation is at stake and she has very little opportunity to defend herself against the accusation. I would implore the rest of the media who are dealing with this issue to bear in mind what is happening here with one of their own and that this would not be acceptable to them if it was them or one of their own in their own media.Hon Gerry Brownlee: What about the Privileges Committee?METIRIA TUREI: Mr Brownlee talks about the Privileges Committee. The Privileges Committee is quite rightly investigating this issue. If there is an issue of a breach of the Standing Orders then absolutely the Privileges Committee should be investigating it. That does not give the journalist involved in this case a genuine voice to defend herself against the salacious and defamatory comments particularly from the National side about her behaviour. She does not have an option here.In essence this is a very clear story. John Key is desperate to keep his Government going because he has all sorts of legislation that he is desperate to get through on the basis of two votes from two MPs who have both had their integrity questioned and who are both teetering as I have said earlier on the edge of political oblivion. There is John Banks as a result of allegations that he lied about his donations return—he is currently in court over that issue—and of course now Peter Dunne who has resigned as a Minister but the policy agreement that he made in order for the Government to continue does continue. So he will keep on supporting this Government even though John Key has effectively said that he no longer trusts Peter Dunne with any matters of security or consideration.This Government is unstable it is unethical and it relies on the votes of disgraced men. Just like the last days of the Shipley Government—for those who are here and remember those times—John Key is having to cobble together another National Party coalition of the disgraced. Thank you.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):There is a sword of Damocles that hangs over the Prime Minister and the head of this Government. Those members seem to have learnt nothing. Whether it was back when we had the Māori loans affair the BNZ the wine-box inquiry the tea party tapes—they sit there and scream out “Where’s your evidence?” and when it is all over they are the ones who have been severely damaged by their behaviour. It puts you in mind of Walter Scott’s famous quote when he said: “O what a tangled web we weave When we first practise to deceive!”. It had all the marks of a whodunit. And if Dunne had not done it who had?Oh how things have changed. Back just before the time he ordered the inquiry Mr Key was the anti-politician—the fellow who could be trusted because he did not behave like the rest of us. He had standards that were high he said. He was someone above the ruck of politics. Of course he thought that matters like this—proven when he sent the police in after the teapot tapes—were things that were justified from a Government and from the Prime Minister of a country. Remember that? That was 2 months ago. Back then he was going to make sure that no one undermined the integrity of the entire Public Service. How laudable was that? He was going to get to the proverbial bottom of it. Now he is condemned by his own words. Now he can parachute out of the bottom of a snake and still have some room.It looks like John Key never had any intention of finding out what really happened. There was no public servant alas to carry the can like they did over Novopay. Three Ministers were responsible but oh no they found a civil servant. And the meat shipments left on the wharf in China—has any Minister been called to account? No.The finger of suspicion came on Mr Dunne. The Prime Minister had a dual responsibility over this matter. He is the Minister responsible for security. He is the Minister above all Ministers responsible for the actions of those who are his Ministers. The leak of the Kitteridge report was not an isolated incident. That demonstrates how incompetent this Prime Minister is and how irresponsible his behaviour is. This was not an isolated incident. There was the leak about morale at the Government Communications Security Bureau there was the leak about the new head of the bureau there were leaks about the briefing on the bureau there was a leak about the security of the Intelligence and Security Committee itself and there were other leaks. The secretary of the committee warned the members in writing to shut up. All five members were now under suspicion. But one was responsible. There are five sets of electronic records Mr Key and we want to see the complete package. There are five sets of electronic records—Hon John Banks: Well table them—table them.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and it is the responsibility Mr Banks of your Prime Minister to show the country what they mean. There are over five leaks with one department alone the Government Communications Security Bureau. And Mr Banks has the temerity to shout out to a backbench MP: “You table them.” Well I can see why someone who would forget 42 out of 42 texts would say that. But a rational sane person would not say that—that the responsibility lay with a backbench MP. No Prime Minister the reason why you have on your CV the Prime Minister’s job is that with the job and the status and the office goes a terrible thing called responsibility transparency openness and honesty.You know national security is the first duty of any and every MP. What are our allies thinking? The member Peter Dunne broke the terms of his warrant when he was a Minister. He leaked security matters to a journalist. This was no stand over matters of principle. This was no stand to make the world a better and safer place or to make New Zealand a better and safer place. Maybe years of looking at the tax tables made him flip. Maybe they caused him to want to get some excitement into his life. Whatever it is—it may be a human explanation—it is not what the nation needs to know which is what was leaked to whom and when and it was far wider than the Kitteridge report was looking into. He is given life though simply because National needs his vote to sell off our assets and he let the shonky casino deal go ahead and Mighty River Power—Hon John Banks: Ha ha!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No no Mr Banks. I have seen that nervous laugh and it gives me enormous confidence that one day I will wipe it off your face.You know yesterdayPrime News at 5.30 carried Fairfax’s outing of Mr Dunne with information that I knew at the time that I said in the select committee: “Mr Dunne you’re the leak aren’t you?”.Hon John Banks: How did you know that?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh great question. My job is to be good at my job. My job and my colleagues’ job—everybody who votes for New Zealand First knows one thing profoundly: we will keep the system honest. That is why they are coming out in their droves because New Zealand First keeps the system honest. This is just one more example. I know that members would love to know how we know. Well you know I suppose we would all like to know that but we cannot divulge the source.Hon John Banks: What about Owen Glenn’s cheque?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That was not behaving illegally. That is the difference over here. That is the difference over here.Why did David Henry stop investigating the leak of the Kitteridge report? It is all on page 2 of his report. “I’ve got the powers in the State Services Commission.” he says. “I’ve got the support of the Prime Minister. I’ve got a Minister out of Cabinet who is not a civil servant. I remain of the view that I need to have full access to all 86 emails.” It is all there.What is the National Party’s devious and bound-to-fail excuse? “Oh all of a sudden we cannot entertain any breach of privacy issues.” Mr Banks and Mr Brownlee where in the report from Mr Henry has he disclosed the 44 emails already seen by him highly edited as they are? There is no privacy issue. I personally am not concerned about the emails from Andrea Vance; I am concerned about the far more than 86 emails that were on this issue and others as well.Some members here should learn how to do their research and homework. Perhaps if they knew a few people around town they might find out what is going on downtown. Let us demolish the argument that there is a privacy issue. Mr Henry has not given over the 44 emails. There goes the excuse. Why did Mr Henry not get the powers to see all the emails and ensure a thorough and complete investigation? The Prime Minister was asked today: “When you set up the inquiry did you want to get at the full truth?”. “Yes.” he said. Really? Well he is exposed by his own words and shibboleths and deceit. Why for example is this reeking of double deals? Had it been a civil servant it would have been not just demotion—not just demotion—but demotion and then dismissal instantly. But here we have got Mr Dunne—he stays on. The whole affair is smelling like a giant cover-up.The Prime Minister goes on to tell the media yesterday at a press conference that Mr Dunne has been removed from the Intelligence and Security Committee because he is no longer a Minister. Here is the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996. This is section 7 of the Act and it shows that after 24 hours the Prime Minister still cannot tell the truth. The media might fall for it but we did not. Peter Dunne is entitled as an MP to be on that committee so why did you get up in front of the press and say that when you knew you had to be not telling what were the facts?Every day there is more obfuscation and evasion. And let me tell you this: this is not a case of whether New Zealand First or an MP in New Zealand First should do the Prime Minister’s job but we are going to carry on until this cover-up is totally exposed for what it is. It has one valuable asset for New Zealand apart from correcting our national security. Do you know what it is? People are going to find over the ensuing days and weeks exactly what the Prime Minister of their country alas is like.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery):Can I say at the outset of my comments that I have known Peter Dunne for the better part of almost 50 years. I know him to be an honourable person and I accept that when he says that he has had an inexplicable moment or moments in his life that have led to this he does so from a genuine perspective. It gives me no particular pleasure to speak in this debate but I think when you listen to the speech that we just heard from Winston Peters and listen to the speech of the speaker from the Green Party Metiria Turei and for that matter the small bits that I picked up from the leader of the Labour Party there seems to be a desire here to suggest that there is something out there that the public has not been told about.I want to make it very clear very clear to this House that there was absolutely nothing—absolutely nothing—in the speech by Winston Peters today that is not already in the public arena. In the 1980s that sort of speech would have been a sensation because the reach of the media and the reach of the public to information were so muchlimited. But now of course all of that out there brought in to New Zealand First as if it was some pile of special information delivered to Winston Peters because he is the only man in Parliament who can make something of it is actually quite plain and quite normal and quite well known by everyone.I say to Winston Peters’ party members that the leader of their party might like to say that New Zealand First members make a habit in this House of keeping the place honest but they also make a habit of not sticking around too long. In the time that New Zealand First has been here it has burnt off almost as many MPs as any other party in here during that time and there is no reason to believe that the situation next year will be any different.A couple of things here I think are pretty relevant. Firstly when Mr Henry’s report was released last week the last paragraph in that report really says it all. He makes the point that he could not continue the investigation because Mr Dunne did not release all of the email traffic that he would have liked to look at. But he certainly leaves it very very clear that there is nothing else to investigate.So what this comes down to is a very very simple matter. Firstly Mr Dunne has resigned because the Prime Minister made it clear that if he did not release those emails there was no choice but for him to resign. So then this mad case being pursued by the Greens that he should have remained on the Intelligence and Security Committee falls apart because when one has lost the confidence of the Prime Minister there is certainly no place on the country’s most important security committee.The issue then becomes when do the emails between Mr Dunne and the reporter become public and indeed should they become public? The question for the Labour Party is whether the Labour Party will insist should there be a Privileges Committee hearing—and I think there is a big doubt about whether there should be in the first place—that Miss Vance’s emails are released to the committee and become part of the record of the committee. If that is the case then the rules for operation in this House and the long-held desire by all members to keep private communications between them as elected members and constituents and other people who come with information is long gone.There is no doubt about it: the only way that Mr Shearer escaped the axe earlier this year over his failure to disclose his very substantial secret bank account was the fact that he was able to simply take a position knowing that no one could investigate any information that he might have had or been in possession of that would have meant he had made a very very big mistake. I simply think we need to understand that there is a lot more at stake here than just the situation relating to a Minister who got himself into bad circumstances and has had to resign as a consequence.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I want to make a few brief comments on this matter. The first one I want to make is that we still do not know for sure who leaked this document. The next point I would like to make is that if this inquiry was properly set up or in fact—I want to say—if Mr Henry did his job properly we would know. The Prime Minister could have asked the State Services Commissioner to set up this inquiry. At that point the inquirer would have effectively used the Commissions of Inquiry Act and the powers thereof in order to take evidence under oath. The Prime Minister chose not to do that. But even then Mr Henry could have come back to the Prime Minister and asked the Prime Minister for extra powers and for it to be properly set up so I do want to somewhat criticise Mr Henry for his approach.The other thing that Mr Henry could have done because these were emails to and from a Minister is to ask Mr Dunne to release them under the Official Information Act. These documents—these electronic documents—if there is anything to do with his roleas a Minister within them are subject to the Official Information Act and most of us are pretty sure that they will eventually come out. In fact I would be very surprised if there were not half a dozen new agencies and a number of members of Parliament who have already asked Ministerial Services for these emails under the Official Information Act.Hon Gerry Brownlee: All traffic?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well if a journalist writes to a Minister by email then that journalist knows that that email is subject to the Official Information Act. If someone went to Miss Vance’s in-box and took an email out of there that would be wrong. But something that is received by a Minister and more important the messages that were sent by a Minister are also subject to the Official Information Act and eventually they will come out.I want to contrast that with the case that that Prime Minister keeps on bringing up to do with my colleague the Hon Phil Goff. Phil Goff received documents that had been leaked. They were sent or given to him. Mr Goff has made it clear that if the Prime Minister puts Dunne under oath then Mr Goff will release all relevant emails—he will release all relevant emails—and give access to ensuring that all relevant emails are released. But what do I hear from the Prime Minister? Not a word. Not a word from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did not have—we are not allowed to say “balls” are we? He did not have the—Grant Robertson: Intestinal fortitude.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: —we are not allowed to say that either—spine to stand up in this debate. He did not have the spine to stand up in this debate and to try to justify his position.Hon Chester Borrows: I raise apoint of order Mr Speaker. The member used a term to describe the Prime Minister that is unparliamentary.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member made a lot of insinuations and I guess the extension of those is that they were unparliamentary but he kind of I think stopped short. When we are talking about skeletal matters if that is what the member was referring to that has been used in this House before. I am not sure whether that makes it right or wrong. I would certainly prefer not to see it used.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did you want to help Mr Brownlee?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think you have quite rightly identified the bound between what might have been totally offensive and otherwise. I understand the case that you were speaking of before. It was where a former Prime Minister accused the Leader of the Opposition of being a spine looking for a chill to run up—Hon Members: A shiver.Hon Gerry Brownlee: —a shiver to run up. It is the sort of description that could be offered to the current Leader of the Opposition.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let us just park it all and say let us keep to the debate all right?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Helen Clark Jim Bolger Rob Muldoon and David Lange in this circumstance would be on their feet and defending their position and I want to know why John Key is not defending his but I think I do know. I think I do. It is because he will not defend the indefensible. There is a stink coming from the cross benches. There is a stink coming from over there. There is something rotten. There is Banks and there is Dunne and they are the ones who are holding this Government together: the man who is in and out of the dock regularly for getting brown paper bags full of money during his mayoral campaign and Peter Dunne who will not tell the truthin these matters. This Government is being held together by a pair of individuals who stink and should not be in this Parliament.LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō):It is not really a pleasure to speak in this debate and I have to say I find quite detestable some of the language that has been used and the personal attacks that have occurred.The Labour Party is really kind of indicating quite a significant turning point in terms of the access to personal information of MPs of journalists and of a range of people who currently have some protections. I was interested in the Green Party contribution because the Green Party speaker was quite concerned about this journalist and the vulnerability of this particular reporter. Perhaps that speaker had not been talking to their friends in the Labour Party about exactly what this privileges complaint will lead to. There will be no protection for that vulnerable reporter—there will be absolutely no protection for that reporter—because of what the Labour Party wants to do with laying a privileges complaint. So all of a sudden we move into this completely new space because of the Labour Party’s actions.The thing that makes it even more despicable is the fact that there are just such double standards in this House and that is the thing that I found absolutely despicable. I want to follow up and I want to remind the House of the Hon Bill English’s words. The Hon Bill English said quite clearly that there are three things. If the Labour Party wants to get to the bottom of things there are three very clear opportunities for what it can do. The first one was—remember—to encourage Mr Peters to table in the House all of those emails that he has.Kris Faafoi: It’s your inquiry.LOUISE UPSTON: You want to get to the bottom of it? He is your mate he wants to get into bed with you guys instead of the Greens so lay it on the Table and that will mean we can get to the bottom of it.The second thing is quite simple again with Mr Goff: if you want to release personal records and if you want to release your personal emails—oh but that is right there is an individual called “Person A” whom Mr Goff has an interest in protecting. You are doing all you possibly can to protect “Person A” but you are actually quite willing to leave a reporter and hang them out to dry. It is quite interesting—double standards again from that side of the House. The third one of course that Mr English said quite clearly was the release of some bank statements that would also help the House get to the bottom of some other matters.So you know it is about putting things on the record. It is about getting to the bottom of things. That is where this debate started at quarter past 3. Mr Shearer as the Leader of the Opposition was very clear about wanting to get to the bottom of things but actually in this House you cannot have those sorts of double standards.Another double standard that is being demonstrated today is what I think is actually quite a level of contempt for a very highly respected public servant. I find it quite despicable in this House that a public servant of David Henry’s stature is criticised to the extent that he has been in this House. I am confident that a very professional and thorough inquiry has been undertaken—it has been undertaken. Some parties in this House would actually want the Prime Minister to interfere in what is an independent inquiry. That is right—this side of the House recognises what independence is but that side of the House is used to having a Prime Minister who interferes and has their sticky fingers on everything. I am not pleased to speak in this debate but it is important to get some things on the record.Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):The so-called urgent debate from the Labour Party this afternoon has actually been pretty appalling.The leader of the Labour Party could not even devote 15 minutes to the issue. He had to—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to seek an assurance that there is a written undertaking for this member to take the call that belongs to the Hon Peter Dunne.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This according to my schedule is an either/or call.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I was saying in this so-called urgent debate the leader of the Labour Party could not even devote 15 minutes of his speech to the issue at hand. He had to trail off down the Skycity path which of course is a path that certain Labour MPs trod on the weekend on Saturday night at a certain rugby match—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh no!Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes certain Labour Party MPs were treading off down the Skycity path and enjoying the hospitality of Skycity. That is actually a little like the “h” word we are not allowed to use in this Chamber and that is what we see out of this debate with the Labour Party today. Actually I think it would be very helpful if Labour MPs could rule themselves out as to whether they attended the Skycity box on Saturday night because that would prove they were not being “h”—hypocritical—and they would then have the opportunity to show that they had the courage of their convictions.But we need to have an assessment of how the relevant people involved in this particular issue have performed—the Prime Minister first of all. The Prime Minister has once again upheld the highest standards in his ministry. There is no Taito Phillip Field issue here. There is no trying to pretend it is not happening for months on end as the Labour Party did—trying to pretend that Taito Phillip Field was not an issue as the Labour Party did for months and months on end. The Prime Minister has an issue he calls an inquiry the inquiry reports the Minister refuses to cooperate with the inquiry and the Minister resigns. That is the quality of the leadership of this Prime Minister in this Parliament which is way higher than what actually occurred under the Labour Government of the previous 9 years which was absolutely shonky the entire time.Then we have Mr Dunne. Mr Dunne has made mistakes—there is no doubt about that—and he has paid for those mistakes. He has paid for those mistakes and I am sure wherever he is this week he is contemplating those mistakes. But of course he has had a proud 29 years in this Parliament. He has accepted his punishment and he has resigned from the ministry. He has actually done that and he has done it without complaint which is appropriate in this situation.So those two people involved in this—the Prime Minister with his high standards and in fact the person who was directly involved—have actually done their jobs. So what about the rest? What about David Shearer? Well I am sorry David Shearer and his party have been hysterical and also completely hypocritical in terms of the way this has happened. The reality of it is that the Labour Party sat there and in fact Grant Robertson said on theThe Nation on the weekend that Peter Dunne should leave Parliament altogether—he should leave Parliament altogether.Well do not Labour members have short memories? Back in 2004 Lianne Dalziel leaked legally privileged case notes to the media about a refugee. She repeatedly denied that she had done this. And what was her punishment for this? She was sacked as a Minister. She did not leave Parliament. You did not hear Grant Robertson in the leader’s office declaring that she should resign. She actually stood in the 2005 election and was reappointed again after the election. So the problem for the Labour Party is that it is completely double standard on this—completely double standard. Of course it is trying to quietly back away a little bit now in terms of the issue because it does not even want to know because it knows Phil Goff is in the gun. Phil Goff is in the gun for his leak. I could quote all the comments about Phil Goff saying that it was ridiculous tohave an inquiry into the leaks at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade which of course he did.But the other one that needs to be mentioned—well there are two. One is Winston Peters. Winston Peters—I am sorry; it is just like a rerun of everything I have watched on TV for the last 25 years. You may not have yet seen the new Sky television channel called JONES! but I tell you what that speech this afternoon was like being on JONES! TV. It could have slotted in betweenIt Ain’t Half Hot Mum andCheers . It was that relevant it was that modern and it was that much of a rerun of every speech he has made over the last 30 years. It was appalling just like his performance onCampbell Live last night. Then we have Russel Norman—“Rusty”—who in his race to be the Leader of the Opposition races towards the cliff of requiring the emails of every MP to be made available to the Prime Minister of the day and then like a late-realising lemming actually stops just prior to the cliff and backs away. Meanwhile all his friends on the left are calling him illiberal and an authoritarian. The problem is that these parties have not considered what they want and have done an appalling job on this issue.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour):I presume that Judith Collins will be down shortly because she knows that the National Party leadership is within her grasp after that speech from Steven Joyce. He tried to tell us that throughout this episode John Key has shown what high standards he has. His standards are so high that he still cannot say today who leaked the Kitteridge report. He set up an inquiry—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the member?GRANT ROBERTSON: —to find out who leaked the Kitteridge report and as we stand here today—Nick Smith who leaked the Kitteridge report?Hon Dr Nick Smith: You tell me.GRANT ROBERTSON: Who leaked the Kitteridge report? I am not in the Government Dr Smith. John Key is the Prime Minister he set the inquiry up and he is the person who should be able to tell New Zealanders who leaked the Kitteridge report. The obvious conclusion that New Zealanders can draw is that John Key does not really want to know. John Key does not want to know because if he finds out and if New Zealanders find out the truth—which they deserve to know here—that puts the stability of his Government at risk.Political expediency is what is at play here because John Banks and Peter Dunne are the reason that National can pass legislation like that concerning the Skycity deal and the sale of State assets. It is those two votes. John Key has a record of wilful blindness to the actions of his support parties and Ministers. He is the person who would not even read the police report on John Banks so that he did not have to know that John Banks had lied to him. That is why he did not read the report. Now he will not actually get to the bottom of who leaked the Kitteridge report because he does not want to see his other support party go out of Parliament.That is what is at play here. What this is about is a Government that is tawdry that is held together by tawdry deals and that acts not in the interests of New Zealanders but in its own self-interest. And it is John Key’s self-interest that has fundamentally driven his approach to this. We have seen it with the Skycity deal and we have seen it with appointments like those of Jackie Blue and Susan Devoy. Process means nothing to this Government. Process means nothing to this Government and the rule of law means nothing to this Government. This Government will drive issues through this Parliament against the interests of New Zealand and in its own vested interests. What this report and what this decision are about is that having set up an inquiry to find out who leaked the Kitteridge report John Key cannot tell New Zealanders the answer to that today. He wants the matter to end there and that is not good enough. That is what this is about.I want to say what it is not about. It is not about National adopting its usual divert and diminish tactics. That is what is going on here. Phil Goff was the recipient of a leak. He did not leak—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: You don’t have to defend him Grant.GRANT ROBERTSON: —Jonathan Coleman—Phil Goff was the recipient of a leak. Peter Dunne leaked the document. That is the difference. It is a very very clear difference. As Mr Dunne said at his press conference he still denies that he leaked the report. Jonathan Coleman cannot tell me who leaked the report. Peter Dunne still denies it. If Peter Dunne wanted to give David Henry his end of the emails to show that he did not leak the report he could have done that. He could have done that in confidence but he did not.Having set this inquiry up John Key owes it to New Zealanders to get to the truth but once again John Key is letting New Zealanders down. He came into office telling New Zealanders that there would be higher standards and telling New Zealanders that he would hold his Government to higher standards and the opposite has happened. What we have seen from this Government is scandal after scandal and deal after deal where this Government does not have high standards. It has some of the lowest standards it is possible to see.I will tell you what this is also not about. Bill English stood up and said that this Government and this Prime Minister take national security seriously. No he does not because the way the Government Communications Security Bureau and national security issues have been run under this Government is appalling. John Key is the person who having been told that there was illegal spying going on sat on that information for months. John Key is the person who has covered up and misled around the Kim Dotcom case. And now John Key is the person who cannot be bothered getting to the truth of a national security issue—the leak of a highly sensitive document—because in all of these cases it would expose his self-interest and it would ensure that the interests of New Zealanders went ahead of John Key’s interests. That is what we know about this Prime Minister that the interests of New Zealanders are gone. The great promises from when he came into office are gone. John Key is now governing solely in his own interests and those of the vested interests that support him. He does this propped up by discredited members. He is propped up by John Banks who is in court and we have heard in Parliament the reasons why that is. The reason why that is is that he has not told the truth about donations he got. Now John Key is propped up by Peter Dunne and that is the reason why New Zealanders currently do not know who leaked the Kitteridge report. The convenient situation John Key has created for himself is “Don’t ask don’t tell.” If John Key actually asked the questions he is responsible for asking then he would have his Government in trouble. He would have the loss of a coalition partner. That is what is going on here.National likes to say that it is Winston Peters’ job to release the emails and that Labour is doing terrible things by referring this issue to the Privileges Committee. None of that is relevant to this. John Key set the inquiry up it is his Government and it is the leak—it seems—by a Minister in his Government that is at issue here. He is the one who is responsible. National’s divert and diminish strategy—that the report was going to be released anyway and that it is Winston Peters’ fault—is typical of the way this Government operates: dodgily. It follows that up with a divert and diminish and then demean strategy with the personal attacks coming out from John Key. That is not good enough. That is not good enough for New Zealanders who expect more of their Government. This Government is so out of touch with New Zealanders and so mired in scandals and deals that it is unable to govern in the interests of New Zealanders. It is left governing in its own vested interests. That is a huge letdown for those New Zealanderswho put their trust and confidence in this National Government. What they are left with is a tawdry Government propped up by support party leaders who are discredited and disgraced. That is what New Zealanders are left with.This Government and the way that it goes about its business have now become the subject of ridicule. We are here again in an urgent debate in the House having to deal with a scandal from this Government—an incomplete report because the Prime Minister does not want to know the real answers. For all of the diversion and diminishing from this Government that will go on over the coming days the truth is that it is the one that has to answer. John Key has to answer that critical question of who leaked the report. He set the inquiry up and he is the person who said it was serious enough to undertake this inquiry but when he gets to the point where it looks like it is his support party that is in the gun he pulls up and says that there is nothing to see here any more. That is not acceptable. New Zealanders deserve the truth from this Government they deserve to have this inquiry completed and the only conclusion that New Zealanders are left to draw is that once again John Key has put his own interests and the vested interests that support him ahead of New Zealanders’ interests their right to the truth and their right to a transparent Government. That is the legacy of the John Key - led Government: ride roughshod over process mislead obfuscate divert diminish and hope that it will all go away. It will not go away because New Zealanders need to know the truth and John Key will be held to account for this tawdry Government that he leads.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence):That was a very entertaining speech; the only problem was that none of it was true. Grant Robertson has just put in a very good audition for leader of the Labour Party. I do have to hand it to him. That was a lot better than his leader managed this afternoon. But quite frankly trying to actually put that up as debate when all it amounts to is a scurrilous attack on the Prime Minister—well I hate to say it but I think Grant Robertson is actually better than that and he knows that. What he knows is that the Prime Minister acted quickly. He acted decisively. He called for an investigation and the matter was dealt with very quickly. Sadly a Minister resigned on Friday but in the end David Henry said that he could not take the inquiry any further. I know that those members over there will have read the inquiry and it is spelt out quite clearly there.I would also like to say that no one in this House takes any pleasure in what has happened over the past few days. It is a very sad turn of affairs. Peter Dunne a member who has served here for many many years and is well-known to the House is a man of honour and he cannot explain his behaviour either. What has gone on is I think beyond explanation but sadly a career of service to New Zealand has been brought to an end. I even forgive Mr Dunne for handing me the wrong speech to read on his behalf while he skived off to a school prize-giving one night but that is a long time ago.But Labour cannot have it all ways. You know David Shearer today is calling for greater emphasis on privacy and talking about PRISM. He is very very concerned about the implications of that for New Zealanders’ privacy and privacy is a serious matter. But then in the next breath he is wanting all these emails tabled and released. His naivety I think has been highlighted in theDominion Posteditorial this morning which just shows how naive David Shearer is being in calling for that. But it is even worse than that because actually David Shearer has been conned by Winston Speakers. He has taken the sucker punch—Andrew Williams: “Winston Speakers”? Who’s “Winston Speakers”?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: He has been convinced by Winston Peters—Winston Peters; well Winston Peters thinks he is the Speaker—to put—Hon Maurice Williamson: He thinks he’s the Prime Minister.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well the Speaker thinks Winston Peters is the Prime Minister. He has been convinced by David Shearer to put in a letter to the Privileges Committee and he wants Peter Dunne put under oath and all those emails and his phone calls to be revealed in their full entirety.Well there are some serious implications to that. If you look at the sad case of Phil Goff a member who has been leaking sensitive Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Defence Force documents for a long long time—and I would love to see Mr Goff’s emails and I would love to see his phone logs because I would like to know what conversations he had when he leaked to the media pages from the court of inquiry relating to the death of a New Zealand soldier. I think that if David Shearer was not working to a double standard he would say to Mr Goff: “You know in the interests of this new age of transparency that Labour is calling for please table your phone logs; please table your emails and their contents.” so that we can know where Phil Goff gets his information from. When Phil Goff undermines national security when he undermines the morale of the Defence Force he knows that he is doing the New Zealand Defence Force and the people of New Zealand a great disservice.But there is more coming for Phil Goff because of course about a year ago Phil Goff tabled leaked documents from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He tabled pages from a Cabinet paper and I want to know who Phil Goff’s source was. I would love to see the content of Phil Goff’s emails and I would love to see his phone logs but of course Phil Goff thinks it is OK for Peter Dunne to be called to account under oath and be made to table his emails—to be made to table the full content—but Phil Goff never will. Of course when David Shearer actually connects his neurons together and gets some synapses firing he will realise that what he is calling for in this House will have very very grave consequences.We heard from Winston Peters today and of course we all know about the 2008 Privileges Committee hearing. Winston Peters was found guilty at that hearing. Would we not love to see the full content of his phone logs? Would we not love to see the content of his emails? I think that would be very very revealing. So David Shearer and Winston Peters should be very wary of what they ask for because if they are going to hold Peter Dunne to one standard they will have to hold Phil Goff—the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade leaker who has undermined the morale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the New Zealand Defence Force—to exactly the same standard and I think it is really going to unravel pretty badly. Someone with the ethics of Phil Goff who will seek out leakers and who will go out there and publish that information would not like to be held accountable.Hon Phil Goff: Just ask any member of the Defence Force who was responsible they’ll say the Minister. They’ll say the Minister let them down.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: You can tell by the fact that Phil Goff is raving and shouting that he has lost it here in the House. A raw nerve has been hit because Phil Goff is the biggest leaker in the New Zealand Parliament. Of that there is no doubt.Hon Member: I thought that was Andrew Williams.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well no we are talking information leaks. So I can tell you Phil Goff’s day of accountability is coming. I would love Phil Goff if he believes in transparency to get up in this House and tell us who “Person A” is and tell us who his contact is who leaked the information to him and I think you will find he is very loath to do that. Transparency goes both ways. Ministerial resignations and MP resignations go both ways. So when you are calling for Peter Dunne to be put under oath be prepared for Phil Goff to go under oath as well because you might not like what you find.Hon Phil Goff: Why can’t they come clean on that—did Peter Dunne leak the paper?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: You can tell by Phil Goff’s yelling and shouting and raving here and the barrage of completely non-witty interjections that he knows we are on to him and that his day is coming very very soon.Of course there is the police complaint again Phil Goff as well. We greatly await the police complaint—Hon Maurice Williamson: What?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes apparently someone has made a police complaint because Phil Goff leaked those details of the dead soldier to the media. It was a court of inquiry it was a suppressed report—Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you were in the House when the Minister had to withdraw and apologise for making an allegation that was not true and that I found offensive and he has just done it again. I will ask you again to ask him to withdraw and apologise.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Speaking to the point of order—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will hear the member.Hon Phil Goff: Well you—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Order!Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Mr Deputy Speaker you know that that is a debating point. It is not something he can take offence at. I could say that I take offence at the way he characterises—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not believe I was here when the decision the member refers to was made but I think we can be more productive and just move on with the debate.Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Speaker ruled last Thursday that the Minister making that statement had committed a breach of the Standing Orders in making an offensive statement the more so because it is not true. I ask that you do what the Speaker did last week in exactly the same circumstances and require the Minister to withdraw and apologise because I take offence at the untruth that he has just told.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right—[Interruption ] Order! All members are honourable members and the member has taken offence. The member will withdraw and apologise and then continue with his speech.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I withdraw and apologise. To get back to the facts what Phil Goff did was he took—Hon Phil Goff: You’ve done it twice now and if you lie again you’ll have to do it again.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member has just breached the Standing Orders himself by implying that that member did something that is not acceptable. So the member will now withdraw and apologise.Hon Phil Goff: I withdraw and apologise.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have got a far thicker skin than Phil Goff. What Phil Goff did—OK so Phil Goff took a suppressed report. The coroner had suppressed this court of inquiry. It was a court of inquiry relating to the death of a New Zealand soldier in Afghanistan. Phil Goff broke that suppression order and he took pages from that inquiry and emailed them to the media and that is now the subject of a police complaint. Not only did he do that but a year ago he took sensitive Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade documents and Cabinet papers and released them publicly. So I want David Shearer to go out and say to Phil Goff: “Phil Goff we want Peter Dunne to table his emails. We want transparency. But to do that so that we don’t looklike hypocrites we need you Phil to table all your emails and to make available your phone records in exactly the same way we are calling for.”So you see when you tie all this together and you go back to thatDominion Posteditorial today what you see is the Prime Minister has acted very very decisively and quickly. Dunne was gone that day. That did not happen in the Clark era. I mean it took years and police investigations—incredible pressure—to get rid of Taito Phillip Field. But John Key a man of high integrity acts in a totally different manner. He acts decisively. If Phil Goff and David Shearer et al. really want to get to the bottom of this in the way they say all they have to do is get their mate Winston Peters to publish the emails that he claims he has. But of course we do not reckon he has them. Once he tables them we will all know what David Shearer thinks he wants us to know. We want to see Phil Goff’s emails and his phone calls but most of all I would love to see the emails relating to David Shearer’s secret bank account because this is a man constantly calling for transparency and we would not want to see hypocrisy in this House.So the summary of it is to be careful what you ask for because it really could backfire. There are no winners in this. I feel sorry for Peter Dunne. He was a man of integrity. I still believe he is. He has had some sort of very unfortunate brain explosion and I do not think it is reflecting very well at all on David Shearer and his ill-judged crazy calls for a total change to accepted parliamentary practice.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Extended SittingsHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I moveThat the sitting of the House today be extended to consider the first reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates Foreign Superannuation and Remedial Matters) Bill the first reading of the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill and the Committee stage of the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2).A party vote was called for on the questionThat the motion be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State EnterprisesIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 14 May.New Zealand Qualifications Authority(continued )Report noted.New Zealand Teachers CouncilCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):This speech will not be as melodramatic as those in the previous debate. There will be no offence I think no personal abuse and no—Chris Hipkins: I am going to speak in it.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: True true. Mr Hipkins alias Metiria Turei is speaking today so anything could happen that is true. There seems to be a bit of identity confusion in Parliament today.I would like to speak about the Teachers Council. Despite its lack of Shakespearean drama I do think it is an important issue. The Teachers Council has been reviewed in the past year and this review appears to be welcome across the education sector and across the parties. Everybody felt that this was a useful thing to do although not all the 24 recommendations from the Teachers Council review are acceptable. The debates that have come through about the work of the Teachers Council in the past year are around whether we should create an independent statutory body such as the Medical Council of New Zealand for example where doctors basically look after the issues of doctors—teachers would be more than capable of doing something like that—or whether we should just improve the existing Teachers Council. I think there is a lot of support for the idea of an independent statutory body because it would recognise the importance of the profession.The Teachers Council as it exists right now is about the protection of professionalism mainly through registration and the discipline of registered teachers. The Government has said that this is ineffective. However the Government’s response to this supposed ineffectiveness which may have grounds is curious. There is an opportunity for the Teachers Council to do some interesting professional work around teacher appraisal registered teacher criteria and professional standards but what has been suggested for one of the recommendations is quite strange and it relates to the underlying privatisation agenda of the Government. The Government says that professionalism registration and standards are extremely vital but it is now suggesting a whole new category of unregistered staff in schools which can undermine the whole raison d’être of having a teachers council that looks after registration and professionalism. So it is actually quite a contradictory situation.This new authority to educate which is broader than the current limited authority to teach may not appear to mean anything but actually like many things in the education sector it has a strong drive towards policy that the Government is pushing through around privatisation and the lack of recognition of what a teacher actually does. This broader authority to educate can include scenarios such as this one where a former teacher who has been deregistered possibly for serious misdemeanours can now apply for a broader authority to educate if they have “proven expertise”. The examples that were discussed at our select committee with this Crown entity were alarming because the entity itself did not raise these issues but some of the committee members talked about how anyone who might have a degree in physics for example would be suitable for teaching in a primary school.Presumably under charter schools or using the authority to educate in its broader sense a lecturer can be a teacher. This is a fundamental destruction of the profession if it says that no skills in teaching are actually required; all you need to do is know how to lecture. As for myself having been a tutor like many other people here I would never call myself a teacher. The point about this is that people can have knowledge and have expertise in tutoring adults as some of us do but that is very very different from having the pedagogical process that teacher training offers. I am all for improvement. I think there is more we could do to improve the pedagogy but definitely allowing more deregistered teachers under the Teachers Council and making this Crown entity responsible for a contradiction is not going to be an improvement. It was really concerning when we heard that idea. The idea that teaching is not a skilled and dynamic process that relies on a pedagogical background is very scary.Of course what is behind this in terms of this Crown entity is that it is now being possibly asked to have oversight over the new charter schools—the legislation for which passed through the House last week—where you could have up to 100 percent unregistered teachers. I would suspect that they probably will not have 100 percent unregistered teachers but they will have some staff who are under the Teachers Council who are registered properly meeting professional standards and who will be managed by the Teachers Council in that form and then they will have a category of people who are not registered and who are not required to meet those same standards. This is going to create division confusion irregularity conflict and practice that by no means—even in the Government’s own terminology the idea of “national” or “standard”—means there will be a national standard for teachers. There will not be consistency.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):There are few areas of Government operation that highlight the contradiction of this National Government in education more than the Teachers Council. On the one hand we have got a Government that says it is focused on the quality of teaching and on improving educational outcomes yet it does so many things that go completely the other way.The review of the Teachers Council came back and argued that teaching should be a postgraduate profession that in order to enter the teaching profession someone should have a postgraduate teaching qualification. I think that is something that is very worthy of discussion. Yet this Government went the other way with charter schools and said: “Actually you don’t need to have any qualification at all. Anyone can go and teach in a charter school and that’s OK.” So we have got a review of the Teachers Council that says all of the international evidence tells us that the quality of teaching is the thing that makes the most difference and the Government turns round and says it will ignore all of that and have charter schools that do not have to have qualified teachers at all. I think that is wrong.In the early childhood area where we were moving towards a system where we would have fully qualified and fully registered teachers again the Government went the other way and it has abandoned the targets that would have seen us moving to a more qualified early childhood workforce. It has simply scrapped that altogether. Actually what we should be saying is that early childhood education is vitally important we should have qualified and registered teachers in early childhood centres and we should fund them in order to cover the cost of that. This Government is not doing that.It is a double standard for Hekia Parata the Minister of Education to come to the House during question time today and talk about the importance of trusting in teachers’ judgments when it is very very clear that the national standards policy was designed because the Government does not trust teachers’ judgments. The Government says to parents that they cannot trust what teachers tell them and it has to set these arbitrary standards in place instead. Even then after it has set the standards in place it is going to manipulate the results to get the outcomes that it wants.In the case of the national standards in writing there is only one standardised assessment tool. That is the e-asTTle assessment tool. This year in term 1 when that produced results that the Government did not like or that the Government did not think were reliable it simply went in and scaled the results. It went in and changed the results to give it the outcome that it expected. So how is that in any way a national standard? How does that reflect a national standard when the Government is going to just change the results of the assessment in order to get the outcome that it thinks it should have got in the first place? It is an absolute hoax.National standards are neither national nor standard. Although we can have an enormous amount of faith in the professionalism of teachers teachers exercising their professional judgment against a pretty vague standard in one school are going to make adifferent judgment from teachers exercising their professional judgment against a vague standard in another school. Unless there is something in place that ensures consistency across those it is not the professionalism of the teachers that is at question. It is the very concept of the standards in the first place that undermines our education system and that means that parents cannot have faith in the information that they are being provided.National standards are not a reliable indicator of a student’s achievement they are not a reliable indicator of a teacher’s professionalism or the quality of the teachers and they are certainly not a reliable indicator of how successful and effective a school is.John Hayes: So you don’t want any standards?CHRIS HIPKINS: No I absolutely think there should be standards but these are not national nor are they standard. In fact good schools already were reporting quality information to parents and in fact some schools are now reporting less information to parents as a result of national standards because they are reporting only the standards and they are not reporting all the other information that they used to give parents.So parents are being duped by national standards because the information they are getting is unreliable. It is not consistent. There is no guarantee that a child being assessed at one school against a standard is going to get the same result if the parents take them and have them assessed at a different school because the standards themselves are vague they are inconsistent and there is no moderation process. For Hekia Parata to try to draw a comparison between national standards and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) is absolute hogwash because NCEA has a moderation process in place. There is no such moderation process in place for national standards.National standards are not an exercise about lifting student achievement or about education; they are bad for education. Internationally they have not worked. They are not working here in New Zealand. We should be focused on making sure that we have a system that works for Kiwi kids. National standards do not.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram):I am very happy to take a call on the Teachers Council to talk about the Teachers Council review and pick up where my colleague Chris Hipkins finished off. I want to focus on two aspects of the review. One is the independent statutory body and what was asked for there and also the postgraduate teaching qualification that was mooted. I think the postgraduate teaching qualification shows demonstrably how all over the place this Government is when it comes to education. It does not have a consistent plan. It is not about educational outcomes.At about the same time that we were talking about the need for greater qualification for teachers in our schools the Government talked about undervaluing postgraduate education in this country by withdrawing student support for those students wanting to undertake it. On this side of the Chamber we have talked at great depth about the contradictory nature of the moves around postgraduate student support and how they undermine the Government’s rhetoric around an innovation-led economy and the knowledge economy. Well it shows very much how contradictory that is even within the portfolio of education and how there is just no coherent plan around what is needed.One thing that we on this side of the Chamber are absolutely sure of is that qualified and registered teachers are absolutely key to the success of our education system. That is why to us the Teachers Council is so important as the body that carries the register of teachers in this country. It is why when the council came to the Education and Science Committee and submitted on the issue of charter schools we were so interested in what it had to say. Government members were not in the least bit interested in what the council had to say because it said the idea of having unqualified and non-registered teachers was not at all a good idea.The New Zealand teacher register has not only national but international recognition. It ensures that our education system is relevant within the global context. This is vitally important. Actually Treasury has advised that quality teaching is the most important factor in student achievement and that teacher registration although not perfect gives some assurance of quality. That is what we are very concerned about and it is what is missing in the mode of education in charter schools that this Government set up last week. We do not have that mode of assurance that teacher registration gives us.This is something that we view with great alarm because it is qualified and trained professionals who provide the foundation for a high-quality education system. We need not look very far for the fine examples of Finland Singapore the Netherlands Australia Canada and Scotland where successful teachers require a depth of specialist professional knowledge in areas such as curriculum assessment pedagogy and learning. With teacher registration the need to keep your registration up to date is absolutely vital to ensuring that we have this. This body in the Teachers Council through the register ensures that we have the most important aspect of quality going into our education system and that is quality teachers.We on this side of the Chamber very much value the teachers we have in this country and the expertise they bring so we listened when they and their bodies came to our select committee and told us that they were really alarmed around the notion of teachers not needing to be qualified and not needing to be registered when it came to being entrusted with the education of young New Zealanders in charter schools.So we think that the review of the Teachers Council is a vital document for us to reflect on as this Government makes fundamental changes to our education system. This is not small tinkering around the edges; this is fundamentally different. We are saying that you do not need to be a qualified or registered teacher to now stand in front of our children and teach them. You do not need to follow the curriculum either although we know that one of the things that the Teachers Council is vitally concerned about is making sure that teachers have access to professional development where they can keep up with curriculum development. These are all things that the Teachers Council needs to be the administering body for because one of the things that I think many of the parties that have looked at the review of the Teachers Council have said actually is that in terms of this independent statutory body the new professional body does need to have much oversight over the profession.Report noted.New Zealand Antarctic InstituteThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I call John Hayes.Grant Robertson: Here’s a polar bear himself!JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa):For the benefit of my colleague across the House there are no polar bears in the Antarctic. I know that. I do not know what school you went to and how good your teachers were but there are no polar bears in the Antarctic.I will just take you back a bit because you do not seem to know much about the Antarctic. A review back in 1994 recognised that the Antarctic was strategically important to New Zealand and this led to the establishment of the New Zealand Antarctic Institute known as Antarctica New Zealand. That was sorted through in 1996. I think it would be fair to say that Antarctica is seen as the last pristine area in the world and all of us in New Zealand see that preserving and protecting Antarctica is a vital role of the Government.Antarctica New Zealand is the Crown entity responsible for developing managing and executing New Zealand’s activities in Antarctica and in the Ross Dependency andit reports to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee annually on its performance. Antarctica New Zealand manages Scott Base which is New Zealand’s Antarctic research station and it maintains—without sun at this time of the year—New Zealand’s operational presence in the Ross Dependency for the benefit of present and future generations of Kiwis. Key activities include supporting scientific research conserving the intrinsic values of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean and raising public awareness of the international significance of the continent.I think the Antarctic Institute is well rated in both financial and service performance terms and its operational presence environmental stewardship and public engagement has been very good. The Crown provides annual revenue of around just under $14 million and in this last financial year under review it had a net operating surplus of $400000. Most important it achieved a cost saving of 30 percent of its budget and it met that. It also made very significant savings in fuel something like in the financial year under review 666000 litres of fuel that it did not need to use down in the Antarctic and that is 44 percent more than the target fuel savings for last year.The installation of wind-driven generators has contributed to this outcome and particularly to the future energy security both of the American McMurdo Station and New Zealand’s Scott Base. I think that this relationship around the supply of energy to both stations reinforces a long and a very successful relationship with the United States Antarctic Program.I have just a couple of words about the New Zealand Antarctic Research Institute. This was launched by the Prime Minister earlier this year and it will lead to multidisciplinary multinational research down in the Antarctic. This vehicle has been established as a means to attract new international funding working in collaboration with the private sector. The public-private partnership is an innovative new model for science funding and will ensure we continue to build capacity in New Zealand’s polar science community.That institute has already completed the first international study on Antarctic tourism impact and it has partnered with Landcare Research to lead international development of an Antarctic environmental portal to better manage ecosystems. It has also undertaken a joint recovery with the United States of a 763-metre-long core from Roosevelt Island a world-leading climate record of the last 30000 years.Finally I think it is also worth thinking about the importance of the Antarctic industry to Christchurch because it contributes around about $280 million every year to the Canterbury economy. That really imposes I think a particular obligation on the chief executive Lou Sanson and his team and the chair Rob Fenwick and his board to be thinking creatively about how to expand their vision to generate significant benefits for future generations.Report noted.Housing New Zealand CorporationHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing):I am pleased to be speaking on the review from the Social Services Committee of Housing New Zealand because we are embarking as a Government on the most exciting and positive changes in social housing in a generation. I want to just briefly talk about both the review and what those changes mean. The long-term assumption about Housing New Zealand is that it is the sole provider of social housing. In 2010 the Government received the vision on social housing which is all about expanding the provision of social housing to beyond just the State. We have seen with the Budget announcements this year this ambition to expand the community provision of social housing up to 20 percent.I know that in Australia—actually I would ask members opposite to talk to their Labor colleagues in Australia about the success of expanding social housing beyond being just a State entity because the programme that the Government is embarking on is mirrored in Australia.Grant Robertson: Who began third-sector housing funding? We did.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well Mr Robertson interjects and says: “Oh these reforms all started with Labour.” Well let us just look for a moment and say: “Well what percentage of housing—after 9 years of a Labour administration how much community social housing was there?”. It was less than a teeny-weeny 1 percent. The second challenge I have got for the deputy leader of the Labour Party is that if he really believes in the report of the expansion of community social housing why did his party vote against the bill in the Budget that enables community social housing providers to be able to have access to the income-related rent subsidy? Why did you vote against it? If you are so committed to the community social housing sector why would you say that the State subsidy is available only to Housing New Zealand?Equally I would draw the Committee’s attention to the huge boost that this Government is giving to improving the quality of our social housing with Housing New Zealand and others and to making sure that houses are in the right place and are the right size. I reflect Mr Robertson on the decisions of the previous Labour Government which robbed the funding for actually maintaining State houses and saw them deteriorate to an appalling quality simply because Labour played a cynical game of just making a count of the number of State houses.Dr Rajen Prasad: Ha!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say to this Committee quite straight and I say to Mr Prasad who is interjecting that this Government is committed to the quality of those houses not just the quantity. Actually having tens of thousands of State houses that are uninsulated and are the wrong size is not the best way in which we can get the right social dividend for New Zealand from its $15 billion investment in Housing New Zealand.Dr Rajen Prasad: When did that start Nick?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I ask the member whether he supports the Government’s exciting initiative announced in the Budget called Project 324&5 where we are going to take thousands of portable bedrooms and add them on to houses. We are going to change them from being three-bedroom houses into four or five-bedroom houses and reduce the over-crowding for those needy families. We will reduce the incidence of diseases like tuberculosis and rheumatic fever which we know are connected to over-crowding and yet we have not heard a squeak from Labour members in support of that initiative from the Government.The last point I want to make is this. Over the next 3 years this Government is going to invest $2.9 billion into the improvement of Housing New Zealand.Chris Auchinvole: $2.9 billion?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes $2.9 billion. That is almost a billion dollars a year for the benefit of my colleague from the West Coast. What was the average during the affluent years when money came easy prior to the global financial crisis? The previous Labour Government committed less than a third of that—less than a third of that. That speaks louder than words and shows the level of commitment this Government has to a better housing outcome.Report noted.Environmental Protection AuthorityJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):The Environmental Protection Authority is a Crown agent and it is responsible for functions concerning New Zealand’s environmental management. The authority is new. It was established by the National Government in 2011. What it does is bring together the various functions previously part of the Environmental Risk Management Authority the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry for the Environment.The Environmental Protection Authority was established to be New Zealand’s national environmental regulator with responsibilities under several different pieces of legislation. It is responsible under the Resource Management Act for proposals of national significance. It is responsible under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act for the regulation of hazardous substances and new organisms. It is responsible for the administration of the emissions trading scheme and the regulation of ozone-depleting substances and hazardous waste. It is also the agency nominated to manage marine consents monitoring compliance and enforcement within the exclusive economic zone. During the first year of operation we were told the organisation was focusing on—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time for this debate has expired. The debate on the performance in 2011-12 and the current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises has therefore concluded. I will report the debate to the House presently.Debate to be reported presently.Immigration Amendment BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 30 May.Part 1 Substantive amendments(continued )Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):This is my first call in the Committee stage of this bill the Immigration Amendment Bill whose passage I am responsible for and I had hoped to answer the probing technical questions that had been raised by members of the Committee when the Committee stage started but sadly the debate so far has not been replete with such erudite technical questions. Nevertheless there are elements of the bill that I do want to touch on including its background.But before I do I just want to acknowledge the many hundreds perhaps more than a thousand emails I have received expressing concern about this bill and in particular that it may be in breach of our obligations under UN conventions on refugees and specifically the 1951 convention. I have done my best to reply to all of those emails—I may have missed a few—and I have certainly been appreciative of the further feedback I have been getting in correspondence about this. The point I want to reassure members of the public and members of this House about is that the Government takes its obligations in respect of those conventions very very seriously and is satisfied as is the Attorney-General that this bill when passed will not constitute a breach of those conventions. I must say it does not help when organisations like Amnesty International make comments about unlimited detention under this bill which are simply not correct. It is not possible for somebody to be detained indefinitely as was stated in a recent report that Amnesty International released.I just want to remind the Committee of the background to this bill. In 2011 an exercise was undertaken to assess New Zealand’s preparedness for an irregularmaritime arrival—a mass arrival by boat. This exercise known as Exercise Barrier was a very helpful exercise. It identified a number of issues requiring improvement and this bill is one part of those. It firstly seeks to deter a mass arrival. The simple fact is this: we do not want these people to come. We do not want them to come for the simple singular reason that they are putting their lives at risk. They are paying money to thugs and thieves. They are in desperate situations; we understand that. There are many millions of people who are economic and political refugees around the world but getting on a boat and sailing across the ocean as so many people are doing right now is not the answer. There is no doubt—and I make no apology for it—that this bill contains provisions to make New Zealand less attractive as a destination for those people. Exercise Barrier certainly identified some administrative challenges in respect of the management of a mass arrival should one occur and this bill will also include steps to take in order to identify and remedy those including the ability for a judge to issue a group warrant to house and detain people until their security status—their health issues and the validity of their asylum claim—is sought.One issue that has been raised certainly with our confidence and supply partners has been the definition of “mass arrival”. This was also touched on. I want to acknowledge the support and cooperation of Peter Dunne and the very good grace with which he cooperated with me on the progression of this bill. I also acknowledge the Māori Party who are also supporting the bill at this point. The definition of “mass arrival” has been proposed by Mr Dunne to increase from the number 10 to 30 and the Government will support that amendment.It will not support the other amendments that have been put forward but I do want to acknowledge the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He indeed spoke on this point in the second reading while supporting the bill which I certainly acknowledge. The issue around this was in fact—you know we have competing objectives in respect of the appropriate place for detention of irregular maritime arrivals—that it seemed on the face of Mr Peters’ second reading speech that he wanted to go a little bit harder than the Government was going. I am not quite sure that was actually what was reflected in the Supplementary Order Paper but nevertheless it is an appropriate concern to ensure that those people arriving by boat in this way are detained in a place that is appropriate for and commensurate with their risk and their need. I think that is what is behind the right honourable member’s Supplementary Order Paper and I want to acknowledge that. The Immigration Act itself does not specify exactly what those places of detention might be but it does go on to name certain forms of detention which might be a police station a prison premises approved by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment other residences or domestic residences and all of that would be in accordance with the risk that has been identified.The Government has made a commitment to invest a significant amount of money in the upgrade of the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre in South Auckland and that is likely to be the place where the vast majority of refugees irregular or not are going to be located. It is not appropriate and it is not possible for those detained at Māngere to simply come and go. There are severe restrictions on their freedom of movement while their asylum claims are assessed. However it is not a prison. Nevertheless on boats there are going to be three types of occupants. There are going to be those who have paid to be there—the victims of people smuggling. There are going to be the traffickers—the people who are piloting the ships. Then of course there are going to be people who are known by other nations as terrorist suspects and those people need to be weeded out. Where it is appropriate there will be a higher level of detention. Sowhile acknowledging New Zealand First’s concern and the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put forward the Government will not be supporting it.I have a Supplementary Order Paper and it is in response to a very technical error in the omission of three words in the 2009 Act when it was passed. Members may recall the case known as theKonsaijan case. A Thai national was charged with aiding the flow into New Zealand of people for the purposes of working in breach of the terms of their visa but because of three words that were left out of the 2009 Act it was not possible to prosecute. I have committed to putting those three words back in—in fact those who have read the Supplementary Order Paper will see there are a great deal more words than that. I think it is going to be as watertight as possible. If people who have legitimate visas are coming here with the intention of not complying with the terms of those visas then anybody who facilitates that process will be subject to conviction.The last thing that I want to just say at this time is in respect of some rather nonsensical speeches that we heard when this Committee stage started. We heard references to ghost ships. We heard references from Mr Cunliffe that it was more likely that somebody would come from Mars than Indonesia or “Wogistan”. I think frankly that that is not only wrong I believe it is deliberately so. I wonder whether those people know they might not be here by the time a ship arrives so that they do not have to account for the nonsense statements that they have been making. I can go through a number of publicly known attempts by irregular maritime arrivals who have New Zealand as their destination. They date back 10 years and they are continuing. As we know in April this year a rickety 14-metre wooden-hulled vessel with about 60 people arrived at the West Australian port of Geraldton and the Australian customs and border protection officers in their report confirmed that the target was New Zealand—the vessel’s intended destination was New Zealand. They knew that because of the testimony of the master of the vessel and an analysis of data onboard that confirmed the vessel was heading for New Zealand. It was a 14-metre wooden well-resourced well-fuelled vessel. It had GPS on board obviously or satnav because they had onboard data that confirmed that was the target.Anybody who believes that that could not have occurred forgets that most of our ancestors came here on wooden-hulled sailing ships and waka. To say that nobody could cross the Tasman—we have members of our country who have rowed across the Tasman when they are well resourced and they have the right technology. Anybody who thinks this could not happen is being either deliberately evasive or naive. I think this bill deserves better than that. This is an important bill. It sends a very strong signal to those people who would exploit vulnerable people that New Zealand is not a soft touch and that when they get here they will be detained in a place commensurate while their status is determined and they may well be turned around like the 80 percent of asylum seekers in this country are.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):Following that speech—that typically generous speech—from the Minister of Immigration I would like to suggest that perhaps we could send him out as a one-person welcoming committee. If any of these boats turn up I can assure the House that the boat would likely turn round and head for the hills. The Immigration Amendment Bill is a scurrilous bill. It is an outrage it is unnecessary and it introduces into New Zealand law provisions that are designed to distract from the current parlous state of this Government and designed to provide the kind of set-up that exists in Guantanamo Bay. This is an outrage. We do not need this in New Zealand. It is absolutely clear that we do not need this. The people on these boats whom Michael Woodhouse refers to on the tattered boat present no threat to New Zealand.I want to firstly commend the excellent Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague Darien Fenton that seeks to provide a solution to appease the fears of the Minister by encouraging a mass arrival group set-up to be in the facilities that are already existing at the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre. Problem solved—problem solved! If this problem which is so big in the Minister’s mind that he spends so many hours every night worrying about such that he cannot get to sleep really exists this excellent Supplementary Order Paper would surely be a sensible solution to this perceived problem. But we in this House all know that this problem does not really exist.The representation of this problem is intended to distract from the scandals in the current Government. We have a Government that is propped up by one man who is appearing in court and by another who has sought to resign from his ministerial posts and we have a Government that has had to release one of its own recently because it just could not cope. So what we have here is a distraction. It is not a bill that is intended to address a real issue. It is a waste in my view of parliamentary time. It is a serious waste of very expensive parliamentary time and that needs to be said. That needs to be put on record. There is over a million dollars in time if you add up all of the contributors to the debate and you add up the time and salaries of the staff here to run this Parliament. You realise that there is a huge cost to passing legislation like this that does nothing for our country.I hope nevertheless that the Minister will give serious consideration to the Supplementary Order Papers in the name of my colleague Darien Fenton because they do provide a humane way of dealing with such a problem if a problem were to ever exist in the future. If we are going to pass this jolly bill and use the time of this Parliament at least we could set up a humane solution that would withstand the test of time so that if this issue became an issue in 150 years’ time we would have a law on our books that dealt with it in a humane way.It is important also to note that this particular distraction in the space of immigration is but one problem in that field. We know that Immigration New Zealand is proposing for example to shut down the very very proficient office in Dunedin North in the electorate that I represent in the electorate that that Minister the Hon Michael Woodhouse seeks to represent each time there is an election. That highly performing office is proposed to be shut down and I think this is an outrage. We know that the staff in Dunedin Public Service offices are very efficient on all measures. The staff in Dunedin tend to be cheaper more loyal hard-working and productive and that is something this Government seems to have no concern for. It seems to have no concern whatsoever for the people in the regions who are losing their jobs for no gain for this Government. In fact if we examine the statistics we see that the performance of Immigration New Zealand is in decline. That is an outrage and I think it is an outrage that this Government and that this Minister in particular is trying to gut Dunedin of jobs that are there in a time when there is so much unemployment. But back to this bill because this is an important issue. This is indeed an important issue—JAN LOGIE (Green):This bill the Immigration Amendment Bill enables the courts to detain any group of 10 or more people though there is in front of this Committee of course a Supplementary Order Paper from Peter Dunne Supplementary Order Paper 239 to extend that number to 30. I have not heard the Minister of Immigration speak to that in terms of whether the Government will still be supporting that—I missed that. That is one of the things that this bill does.This bill also limits family reunification to immediate family for those claiming refugee status after a mass arrival. I hope to speak more on that point later. This bill provides the power for suspending processing of all refugee and protection claims byregulation without the oversight of this House. This bill removes the right of some claims to be heard before the Immigration and Protection Tribunal for subsequent claims along with the removal of certain rights of judicial review. In short this bill breaches the refugee convention international law and our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard amazing submissions through the select committee process from a very wide range of experts in this area—New Zealand - based groups internationally based groups and Australian groups who all too tragically have in-depth knowledge of policies that treat asylum seekers as if they are something to fear who seek to say that in their country they have seen the really high consequences of treating asylum seekers in the way that in my belief this bill frames asylum seekers.We heard from the Human Rights Commission after this bill was reported back. When the Government is saying that maybe there were some criticisms earlier but it has made some amendments and actually the bill does not do those terrible things we are suggesting in this Chamber that it does—well let me tell you what the Human Rights Commission has said on the amended bill. It has said: “the Bill and associated policy changes unduly penalise asylum seekers for irregular entry to New Zealand in clear breach of Article 31 of the Refugee Convention. The detention provisions in the Bill will result in arbitrary detention in breach of both New Zealand’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The suspension of applications from nationals of specific countries without providing them protection is discriminatory and may violate the right to seek asylum as guaranteed by international law. Restrictions on the right of judicial review proposed by the Bill goes against the basic and longstanding constitutional right to challenge the legal validity of government actions as protected by … the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.”This is commentary on the bill in front of this Committee from the experts in human rights in this country. That is the bill that we are now discussing—a bill that clearly breaches Acts and conventions that we have had consensus on for 50 years. This is a big deal. It is not something to be taken lightly. It is not something to be done at all.This bill is being promoted by the Government as a deterrent to people-smuggling and as a just and sensible pre-planning initiative to enable it to process a group of asylum seekers. Well that is clearly—very very clearly—contrary to the evidence that we were given in the select committee. It does not do those things and even if it did it would still be breaching those fundamental rights and there is no justification for that in this area. The only mention of people-smugglers has now been added in Supplementary Order Paper 232 an amendment at a later date—except in the text justifying the bill. It was not in the content of the bill and it does nothing fundamentally to address people-smuggling.If this Government or any party in the House that wants to support this bill disagrees with the Human Rights Commission’s analysis of this bill or disagrees with my position on this bill then I challenge them to support my Supplementary Order Paper 243 which will put consistency—CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):I appreciate the opportunity to join with colleagues in opposing this bill the Immigration Amendment Bill. It was very interesting listening to the Minister of Immigration’s explanation and I hope that during the course of what I am sure will be a very long Committee stage we will get down to some of the nitty-gritty as he talks about.Essentially the aim of this bill is supposedly to amend the Immigration Act 2009 to enhance New Zealand’s ability to deter people-smuggling to New Zealand and then itdefines a mass arrival group and allows for mandatory detention. I intend in speaking on Part 1 to focus primarily on clause 12 but before I do that I just want to say that the underlying reasons that we will not be supporting this bill are quite important ones as others have said. We believe that it is punitive and unnecessary. We believe that it is a significant shift in direction from New Zealand’s longstanding support of the 1951 refugee convention and that this bill will undermine New Zealand’s reputation as a positive and constructive global player. That is a reputation that we I think as New Zealanders are proud of and this kind of bill will undermine that reputation.The other thing I think is interesting is that our Prime Minister John Key has said that New Zealand was ready to deal with a boatload of asylum seekers. We have got quotes of him saying exactly that. He said that we did not need to change any legislation that we already had any provisions we needed in place. That is what he said in July 2011 Minister. I do not know why he or you have suddenly decided that this is so urgent but I do have to question what this Government prioritises in its legislative agenda. I want to come back to that because actually this bill is unnecessary but there are many important bills that are languishing on the Order Paper that we should be dealing with.To talk again about our international reputation one of the areas particularly has been that we have been highly regarded internationally for our refugee policies. In comparison with our neighbours across the Tasman our reputation is a good one and I think most New Zealanders even people who do not follow these matters very closely will know that Australia’s reputation has been severely tarnished and damaged by the way that it has treated people and by the mandatory detention provisions that are in place in that country. That has cost Australia’s reputation internationally and the cost of that detention in 2011 was $137317 per year per person. It is not an option that we want to look at in this country. I like others will be talking about my colleague Darien Fenton’s Supplementary Order Papers.Clause 12 is the operative clause in this part. It is the one that actually sets in place the various provisions to put this into effect. In clause 12 we have all of the provisions around actually obtaining the detention orders. It is the most significant clause and it provides for a mass arrival warrant to be issued. As my colleague David Clark has mentioned Darien Fenton has Supplementary Order Paper 244 which would amend the section in clause 12 to make detentions at the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre in the first instance and to ensure that refugees are not housed together with prisoners. If this bill is going to go through there are things that the Minister could do to mitigate some of the worst provisions.Another Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague Darien Fenton Supplementary Order Paper 246 inserts a new section 317BA to require adequate health care and psychological support services to be available to refugees. Again I think about what we all see and know about the Australian situation: absolute psychological problems the suicides the mental illness and all of those other things. Again most New Zealanders even those who do not follow this sort of thing closely would know they happen to people who are already stressed who are already in terrible terrible situations who have arrived in a terrible state and then are put into detention. What is the cost of that—the human cost of that? This Supplementary Order Paper 246 is also one that we will be supporting. We think it is a sensible suggestion which the Minister did not comment on when he was talking about the various amendments that are on the Table.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National):I moveThat the question be now put .IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):Sometimes it is an interjection during the debate that can be most instructive about exactly what a party’smotivation is for a particular piece of legislation. While the Green Party member Jan Logie was speaking the member for Wairarapa John Hayes made the comment: “They’re not refugees; they’re economic”—what was the word—“opportunists.” He said: “They’re not refugees; they’re economic opportunists.” In that one line John Hayes has dismantled all the arguments that the National Party members are making in favour of the Immigration Amendment Bill. They are trying to make out as though they are interested in the pastoral care of asylum seekers and want to set up a framework that is so Draconian that it will deter people from embarking upon the dangerous journey not only from Asia down to Australia but then the particularly dangerous part from Australia across the Tasman Sea to New Zealand—the part that of course is so dangerous that nobody has actually done it. Nobody has actually done that. In fact the Tasman Sea will provide more of a barrier to people wanting to try to come to New Zealand by boat than any piece of legislation ever will.But I want New Zealanders to reflect on what John Hayes said. The National Party views people who are seeking asylum not as people who are escaping dangerous situations not as people who would put themselves and their families at risk in order to escape a life that is such a nightmare that is so dangerous and that is so life threatening that they are prepared to put themselves at the mercy of those scurrilous people-smugglers to set themselves to sea in vessels that are utterly unseaworthy and to put themselves at the mercy of the Australian authorities—or maybe even the New Zealand authorities—but as people who would go through that because they are simply trying to jump the queue or they are simply trying to advantage themselves economically. That is the most outrageous aspect of this—that the National Party is trying to dress up this legislation as somehow being interested in the welfare and well-being of those asylum seekers. John Hayes revealed tonight that that is a lie that that is an absolute lie. I think it is important that we understand what we are debating and we understand the motivation behind what we are debating and I thank John Hayes the member of Parliament for Wairarapa for telling the truth. It is an unusual characteristic in the National caucus but I am very very pleased that John Hayes was prepared to tell the truth.I would like to address the amendments in the name of Darien Fenton. Supplementary Order Paper 244 actually sets in law what the Minister of Immigration said he expected to be the situation. So why not lay it out in law—that is that asylum seekers who arrive in New Zealand would in the first instance be sent to the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre which is actually set up to deal with refugees and asylum seekers and their specific needs. Sending them to a police cell or a prison or some other detention centre built possibly by Serco I do not know is not the appropriate—Simon O’Connor: They’re performing very well.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well it might be performing very well in that member’s estimation but that member might want to consider why the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has just excluded Serco because of its policy regarding ethical investment. I want that member to go away and have a read about why Serco has been excluded because of its unethical behaviour—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I agree we should be talking about the bill but that member over there brought up the subject. I believe we should have it placed in legislation that in the first instance asylum seekers should go to Māngere because that is where they will be best looked after and that is the facility that is best placed to take care of those asylum seekers. The Minister himself said that that is what he expects to happen so let us codify it in law. Let us just codify that in law so that it is unambiguousand the authorities understand exactly what the Government expects. I support Darien Fenton’s amendment.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):I am happy to have an opportunity to talk to my Supplementary Order Papers but it is really important to remember where this Immigration Amendment Bill came from and Part 1 in particular. It actually started with a cabbage boat. It started with a cabbage boat when it started as a cover-up by this Government as a dog whistle when John Banks’ donations from Kim Dotcom were in the news and were causing embarrassment—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Part 1.DARIEN FENTON: I am talking about boats in Part 1—it is very important to know. Also talking about mass arrivals it would be very interesting to know—Iain Lees-Galloway: The ACT Party will never again be a mass arrival.DARIEN FENTON: No that is true and it would be interesting to know whether a cabbage boat could actually contain enough cabbages to be considered a mass arrival under Part 1 of this bill. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister of Immigration on his view.Having mentioned the Minister I do want to say that I was very disappointed in his comments. He was not a Minister at the time when this bill was going through the select committee process so he was there and heard from 33 submitters who opposed this bill. [Interruption ] Oh he was not there. I do apologise Minister. But anyway it is important for the Minister to know and be reminded that 33 submitters opposed this bill—particularly the definition of “mass arrivals” and “detention”—and they were people who were very qualified to oppose this bill.But I would like to ask the Minister of Immigration what his objection is—and this is a genuine question Minister—to my Supplementary Order Paper 246 which would actually require that “where detention is deemed necessary all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the person.” That actually comes from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and from section 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act so it is putting in the legislation some comfort. If this bill passes and people make it to New Zealand—and there are a lot of ifs there may I say—and the Government is determined that detention is necessary what is wrong with treating people with humanity and with respect? What is wrong with that? I genuinely would like to hear from the Minister about why there is a problem with that. It certainly would give some comfort to many of the people who are opposed to this bill including the members on this side of the Chamber.I also want to mention again my Supplementary Order Paper 244 which is saying that where it is strictly necessary where there is a mass warrant for detention and where it is adopted as a last resort asylum seekers are housed in the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre. The Minister mentioned before that the Government has put some money into rebuilding the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre—although I will mention that it is a public-private partnership and it will be interesting to know—Hon Member: Serco.DARIEN FENTON: It will be interesting to know whether Serco is going to be part of that and exactly how that is going to be. Somebody is going to be making money out of the refugees who arrive on our shores under the United Nations convention which we have signed up to. We have agreed that 750 refugees can come to New Zealand and they actually go there to be cared for in their first 6 weeks—and may I say while I have the opportunity that they do an excellent job at the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre. To the member Mr Hayes who talked about—what was it—“economic opportunists” and anyone in the National Party who believes that I really reallystrongly recommend that they go to the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre. I strongly recommend they meet the children who have been in camps for years and years—Iain Lees-Galloway: Born in camps.DARIEN FENTON: —born in camps; babies some of them—and meet the people who have never been to school meet the people who have had to fight over food and meet the people who have been waiting for years and years and years. They are refugees but they are also asylum seekers and I want to be very clear that when we are talking about asylum seekers we are not talking about economic refugees. We are not talking about queue jumpers. We are talking about people who have the right to seek asylum. That is a major human right. People have the right to seek asylum in any country and this bill completely undermines that right and treats them as criminals before they even get off the boat and that is outrageous. It was designed as a cover-up with all—Dr CAM CALDER (National):I moveThat the question be now put .DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a soft touch by would-be people-smugglers or illegal immigrants. We accept that there is in fact a risk that mass arrivals are possible as they have been in Australia. We agree with Labour that that risk is small but we still must be prepared for it. New Zealand First has a strict regime approach to the whole issue of immigration which we think is currently too lax in too many ways. We are especially concerned in respect of all cases of illegal entry and more especially again if New Zealand is faced with illegal mass arrivals however remote the possibility may be. But notwithstanding New Zealand First’s hard-line approach we are committed to meeting New Zealand’s international obligations under the United Nations’ quota programme providing for properly processed entry into New Zealand. But illegal immigration puts strain on our ability to meet those obligations and illegal arrivals must not be rewarded at the expense of those who follow a correct process.The Immigration Amendment Bill as it is assumes that the New Zealand authorities have the capacity and facilities required to deal with a mass arrival as defined in the bill and this means that the relevant Government departments and agencies must have the facilities to set up one or more centres for illegal refugees soon after their arrival. We do not feel that there is any guarantee that such systems or plans are in place and the bill in its present form places no expectations on the authorities to develop them. We do not feel that the current facility Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre fits that bill either. So New Zealand First therefore deplores the failure of the Government to support Winston Peters’ Supplementary Order Paper 219 which would ensure that proper systems are in place to deal with mass arrivals—as defined—as they happen and if or when they happen and which specifically requires the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections with the authority of the Prime Minister within 24 hours of the issue of a mass arrival warrant to provide facilities for the secure detention of a mass arrivals group. This does not mean a prison. It means suitable good-quality humanitarian accommodation but which is secure. So I think we see that quite differently from Labour.New Zealand First therefore cannot support Supplementary Order Paper 239 in the name of Peter Dunne or 243 in the name of Jan Logie nor Supplementary Order Papers 244 and 247 in the name of Darien Fenton. All of those we feel would have us adopt a soft approach to the whole issue of illegal mass arrivals. Peter Dunne would have us believe also that 30 people or fewer are not a mass arrival and most New Zealanders we think would disagree with that. But we can support and will support Darien Fenton’s Supplementary Order Paper 246 in relation to the provision of health serviceswhich we would certainly wish to see. Parties in this House should set aside their differences and do what is in the national interest rather than playing politics. Protecting our national borders is paramount protecting the integrity of our immigration system is paramount and New Zealand’s international reputation is also paramount. So assuming Winston Peters’ Supplementary Order Paper 219 is not passed because of Government opposition New Zealand First will be obliged to vote against the bill.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn):I rise albeit a bit burdened with flu to take a call on the Immigration Amendment Bill because I think it is a very important bill. We all know that it was dreamed up as a public relations stunt to provide cover for a beleaguered Government to get the public’s mind off scandals like the Dotcom issue.But actually it is part of a much more disturbing trend that is underlying some of the recent actions by this Government. It is no surprise Minister Michael Woodhouse that you are wearing your dark blue tie today because this is a dark blue bill; it really is and it is part of a trend. It is part of a trend that is seeing the progressive erosion of civil liberties in this country. Here the target group is some fantasised multitude of boat people speeding their way on rickety rafts through the Tasman Sea to land on our West Coast beaches—a more ridiculous prospect I have hardly heard of before. But it is part of a very serious matter. This bill as advised by the Human Rights Commission breaches our international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It may breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is not common in this House I say for the viewers that we would have an unmitigated breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Never in my time as Minister of Immigration did I assent to a bill going to the House that breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in this way. This should not stand.The backdrop to this is a trend. There has been so much discussion in the last few weeks about the Government’s surveillance powers—about 88 cases of illegal spying where the Government’s response has been to say: “Problem? No problem. We’ll simply make it legal now.” and there goes another civil liberty; or making it illegal for New Zealanders to exercise their democratic right of protest over international oil and gas companies doing offshore drilling; or even seemingly more mundane things like the unpicking of jurisprudence on the Resource Management Act or the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill which completely wreck the judicial process. And here—no surprise—in this bill a first claim can go through with very limited rights of appeal with no second or third claims and appeals to the High Court are only by leave. The traditional protections against arbitrary Government action have been thrown out by the stroke of a pen in a bill that may breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.New Zealanders should be very concerned because that which is done to the least of them the most vulnerable of them can be done to all. It is just too easy for this Government to say: “Oh well it’s about these boat people these phantom masses who simply do not exist who can barely cross to northern Australia and who don’t show a dog’s chance of getting to New Zealand shores alive.” If they did they should be welcomed with open arms and put straight into hospital because they would be near dead. This bill is not only unnecessary it is not only a travesty of a public relations stunt but it is part of a deeply disturbing trend that is seeing the progressive erosion of the civil liberties and democratic protections that generations of our forefathers have fought and died for. New Zealanders should be very concerned. That which we do to the least of them can be done to us and this dark blue Government has no hesitation about taking away the rights of others or the rights of New Zealand citizens. How long will it take before New Zealanders are—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate is interrupted. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Before the dinner break as members will recall we were debating the fact that this Immigration Amendment Bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is a sham it is a stunt it is designed to cover up some of the tawdry scandals that are enmeshing this Government but it does so at the price of the sacrifice of some of the fundamental civil liberties that this country has long stood for. As such New Zealanders should take it seriously. As such they should be ashamed. I challenge the Minister of Immigration to take a call and to explain why he has sent a bill to the House that breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and why he has put a bill before the House that with no proximate cause sacrifices so much in terms of the jurisprudence that we hold dear.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):I moveThat the question be now put .Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour):I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Immigration Amendment Bill and really try to interrogate what the reasons are behind this particular system that Part 1 sets up for mass arrivals of boat people.It has been interesting to listen to the Minister of Immigration and members opposite provide some explanations. Today we heard that the Māori canoes made it here. That was a serious argument that the Minister put up: the Māori canoes made it here. But there was another one a little after that: Abel Tasman made it here so therefore boat people could make it. If the Minister did not say that somebody did on the other side. I will stand corrected Minister if it was not you. So the arguments for this particular system are not there.The case has been built up around the possibility of a boat with 500 people on board coming here and the costings have been done on that. But indeed the figure that this bill talks about is 11—a minimum of 11 people and then this system will be triggered. Well that is hardly credible. I know there is an Supplementary Order Paper to make it 30. The arguments have not been made by the Minister nor by the members opposite. We ask what the real risk is to New Zealand. None has been demonstrated so why is there is a need for such a law?There is another argument members opposite have been putting forward as well. This is that New Zealand must develop a deterrent—a deterrent for boats that would come I assume out of Asia and into New Zealand. Having a Draconian system of this type will be a deterrent. Well I say that really does demonstrate a very poor understanding of the history of refugees around the world and New Zealand’s experience in that because that indeed has not happened. If deterrents are what we are talking about then it is quite interesting that the Australians also made the same argument. When you look at their evidence between 2000 and 2001 94 boats came with 8455 people on board. We know that that was the greatest increase since 1976—the 2 years 1976 and 2008. When we look at those figures we can see that the Australian example shows that there is no deterrent—in fact their figures have kept on going up. There is something about their geographical location and their proximity to the refugee-producing areas of Asia and that is why that works. We do not have a risk and we do not have a need for Draconian legislation like this.New Zealand has a great record in responding to refugees around the world. It is a leader. It was one of the earliest ones to set up a quota system. It has lived with that for a long time. It does respect the UN conventions it does understand basic human rightsand it delivers on those really really well. So why is it that this Government has brought this kind of legislation to the House when there is little need for it? We wonder. We have been asking this. Was it designed only to detract from what was happening at the time?The issue of 500 boat people which is the modal number that has been used—there has been no explanation provided for that as to why that number is being used and why that sized boat could come and that is the system we must guard against and prepare for. This bill therefore sets up having built that kind of case—and there is something irresponsible about building a case around scare tactics like that; saying that that could happen and therefore we need a system of this nature—6 months’ detention which is quite Draconian a further 28 days that can be extended and rights taken away. The responsible State that New Zealand has been in this particular area is acting quite irresponsibly when it comes to this particular bill.There are other reasons why we ought not to create a system similar to that of the Australians. Even the Australians say that their system has not worked that it has not reduced the number of refugees. Many of them come get settled and become Australian citizens anyway.ALFRED NGARO (National):I moveThat the question be now put .A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to insert new clause 14A be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendment agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of Jan Logie to insert new clause 3A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes50New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 1; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of Jan Logie to clause 12 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes50New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 1; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of Darien Fenton to clause 12 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes49New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes70New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of Darien Fenton to clause 12 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 219 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to clause 12 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes7New Zealand First 7.Noes112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 247 in the name of Darien Fenton to clause 12 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes49New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes70New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Consequential amendmentsThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We come to the debate on Part 2 which is clauses 16 and 17 and schedules 1 and 2.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):I want to take a very short call on what is a very short part which should not require too much detailed debate given that the substantive effect that this is giving agreement to has already been addressed in Part 1. But I do want to take the opportunity to address some of the comments made by members Logie and Cunliffe in respect of how the detention provisions the warrants to which Part 2 refers are in some way a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Ms Logie mentioned that they were also contrary to the Human Rights Act and the refugee convention. I think Mr Cunliffe mentioned the heinous or egregious breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which I find rather interesting because of course the Attorney-General is required to make such a comment if indeed it is felt by the finest legal minds in the nation that that were the case.In pointing this out I am under no illusions that I am going to change the minds of Ms Logie and Mr Cunliffe—a mind of sanctimony is a hard one to change. But indeed the Attorney-General having given very very careful consideration to whether the Immigration Amendment Bill did breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as he is required to under section 7 of that Act did not do so nor did the justice officials nor did any of the other officials supplying the information to the Transport and IndustrialRelations Committee. What Mr Cunliffe is saying is that he knows better than the finest legal minds in the country. He knows better than all of them.I do not think anybody could say that Mr Finlayson is anything other than straight up and down the line when it comes to his obligations under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And yet he having taken the best advice and having looked at this bill in its entirety decided that it was not a breach. Indeed when the bill was reviewed the Ministry of Justice pointed out that detention is not and does not become arbitrary. A District Court judge has to be satisfied that detention is necessary. It enables the judge to issue a warrant for a shorter period of time than sought or to revert—and I think this was a recommendation of the committee—back to an individual warrant of commitment when the judge is not satisfied that a group warrant is necessary.So I utterly reject the members’ supposition and all the shaking of the heads is not going to change that. And certainly I do not expect I will change Ms Logie’s mind because I rely on better legal advice than the skewed opinion of Ms Logie and certainly Mr Cunliffe who I believe is a lawyer and should know better. This—Hon Judith Collins: No he’s not. He’s not a lawyer.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: He is not? Well thank goodness for that. At least he has got some out because that would be a bit of a travesty on the legal profession if that was the extent of his legal knowledge. This is not a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This is not a breach of any of those conventions that this Government takes extremely seriously.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):I want to make a contribution to Part 2 but I start by responding to the Minister of Immigration. I find it very interesting that he thinks he knows better than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees the Human Rights Commission various refugee organisations and a range of people who came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and opposed this Immigration Amendment Bill very strenuously and who have been ignored as we expected they would be and sadly as they expected they would be as well. Whether or not it is a breach of the convention no doubt will be tested in time. I look forward to that occasion and to that Minister having to front up in international fora and justify this bill.Part 2 deals with just one issue really which is changing one of the forms from the Immigration Act 2009 to deal with supplying a warrant for mass arrivals. I wanted to go over the issue of mass arrivals and the definition of “mass arrivals” again. If we go right back to the very beginning of this bill the justification for it was as included in the regulatory impact statement that a mass arrival for the purpose of this bill: “means an arrival: by a substantial group of people (by sea or air)”. Then it went on to talk about assumptions around the bill that were made in the regulatory impact statement including that “500 people would be involved in a mass arrival”. This was when it first came to Parliament. It was over a year ago and it was around about the time when there had been a steel-hulled vessel arrive in Canada with 500 people in it. That sent our Ministers into overdrive to find an excuse to introduce this bill to cover up for the cabbage boat issue that was happening at the time. It was coming down the river or going up the river—I cannot remember exactly what it was.Then when the bill actually arrived in front of the Parliament the mass arrival that is referred to in the warrant was 11 people. That does not constitute a substantial group of people arriving by sea or air—11 people. That is ridiculous. It is a joke. Surely it is a joke. A mass arrival is 11 people! New Zealand under this bill could not cope with 11 people arriving by boat or by air and claiming asylum when we actually cope every year with something like 300 asylum seekers who come by plane. So that was crazy and then we moved on to the last part of the joke which was Peter Dunne proposingwhich has just been passed in Part 1 that the mass arrival definition be moved to 30. Now what we are saying in the bill—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I am listening very carefully and Part 2 is about consequential amendments. I am just waiting for the member to draw this debate in to the subject matter of Part 2.DARIEN FENTON: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Perhaps you can help me with this because the Minister of Immigration started off the debate with a fairly wide-ranging discussion on Part 2.David Bennett: No he didn’t.DARIEN FENTON: He did. I am concentrating on mass arrivals which is what the warrant is about so I thought that actually I was addressing Part 2 in a way that the Minister had not.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I was kicking his shin under the table. Look let us not try to justify where we are. We will try to keep this debate focused on Part 2.DARIEN FENTON: OK. Well I am concentrating on the warrant which is in Part 2. If you read the bill everybody you will see that the schedules are about altering the warrant that applies to a mass arrival. That is the major amendment here. That is what I have been talking about—mass arrivals; what is a mass arrival. Under this bill it started at 500 then it went to 11 and now it is 30. It is really confusing.Dr Rajen Prasad: When is a boat a boat?DARIEN FENTON: Well when is a mass arrival a mass arrival? Is it 500? No obviously not—obviously not. In the meantime we have all sorts of other mass arrivals if I may say so and I wanted to mention them—in particular a mass arrival of something like 1000 workers being employed by Weta Digital overseas workers—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Oh no look—[Interruption ] Order! [Interruption ] Order! Come on. The member is drawing an extremely long bow and the changing of a form under the consequential amendments is—the member has gotten outside the scope of what Part 2 is. So I just remind her and ask her to come back.DARIEN FENTON: OK well I will come back to mass arrivals if I may because that is the major change in the form in schedule 2. The only reason we have got schedule 2 is that we have a bill that deals with mass arrivals and form 5 is the “Warrant of commitment (mass arrival warrant)”. The whole reason that we have this form in schedule 2 is that we have a bill that describes what a mass arrival is. I go back to my earlier point that I am still very very unclear about the original justification.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):I confess that I was looking to hear what Darien Fenton was going to say. She was on the cusp of really kind of getting to the grips of what the mass arrival issue was. That is something that has been troubling me just how it will be defined. I hope she has another opportunity in the debate to further expound on it because this is an important debate.I made the point in Part 1 so I will not labour it now that this Immigration Amendment Bill is attempting to distract from the scandals in the Government. I guess I want to carry that on in so far as in Part 2 we actually have the practical application of that. We have the consequential amendments in Part 2 which give effect to things through other legislation. If we imagined for a minute that some of those things were different in Part 2 we would get to a different outcome. We would actually get a bit more chaos if the consequential amendments were not followed through. Arguably that would actually be a better outcome than having a consequential amendment that reflected the legislation because this is such a poor piece of legislation—it is such a poor piece of legislation.We see for example that the amendment to section 116 states: “in the case of a person detained under a mass arrival warrant … section 317B”. If that number waswrong then this legislation would not be able to be enacted in the same way. I am interested in whether the Minister of Immigration will get to his feet to suggest otherwise because these amendments in here—for example in section 117 to replace the word “earlier” with “earliest”—put a different emphasis in the legislation. This is all designed to ensure that this legislation is effective when it is put in place. We in the Labour Party think this is a bad piece of legislation. It seems that the actual best outcome would be for Part 2 to be ineffectual because that would lead to a fairer and better outcome.There are plenty of opportunities. My colleague Darien Fenton’s Supplementary Order Paper 244 would see people referred to a refugee centre—the current arrangement that is in place—and a much more humane way of dealing with the issue rather than the hysteria being cranked up by this Minister following others in his caucus in order to distract from the real issues in the country.This is a Government that is propped up by support parties that are troubled—one that is in court at the moment one that is being stepped back from a ministerial post and another party that is squabbling amongst itself about who is leader. We have a mess in the Government—and of course there was Aaron Gilmore who has just gone. This is a Government that is struggling so we see it prioritising legislation that is actually not good for New Zealand. [Interruption ] Government members across there do not like it. You can hear them interjecting because they know it is true. I would be embarrassed too. If you look across there you will see some red faces on some of those backbenchers. They are embarrassed about this legislation. They are embarrassed about Part 2. They know what will happen when Part 2 gets enacted. They know that they sign their names to this kind of legislation—this kind of knee-jerk response—that is actually not good for our country and is not good for our reputation as a humane and hospitable place where refugees are treated with respect and integrated into the culture. To those people across the Chamber there I tell them that this is a bit of a day of shame. This is John Key’s attempt to channel John Howard with a bill that politicises the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. It is divisive it is destructive and it does nothing to address the real issue.We have got to ask ourselves what has changed. What has changed? In 2011 John Key said that New Zealand was ready to deal with a boatload of asylum seekers—ready should one make it to our waters—and he knew that was never going to happen. What has changed since 2011 apart from John Key’s plummeting popularity? That is why Government members are exercised over there. They know that John Key is becoming unpopular because this kind of knee-jerk reaction—this kind of knee-jerk legislation—is the only thing that is going through the House. There is actually not anything that is qualitatively changing things. We know this Government has got the worst economic record in 50 years and there is no legislation being progressed to address that very important issue. Government members know it is true—across the Chamber they know it is true—and that is why they are exercised. That is why they are embarrassed about this legislation.John Key said: “Look we’ve upgraded our operating manual. We can deal with this immigration issue. We’re confident we understand our legal position.” Well something has changed since—something has changed since—and it is the popularity of the Government. That is why this legislation is being pushed through—to try to distract from the real issues.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I want to make a contribution about where the debate is going. Just because the Immigration Amendment Bill mentions mass arrivals—the debate is about the consequential effects of clauses 16 and 17—it does not open up a whole debate about mass arrivals. Part 2 is about consequential amendments.SUE MORONEY (Labour):In speaking to Part 2 of the Immigration Amendment Bill I do want to speak to the issue about the form that is actually in schedule 2 which is referred to in Part 2. There is now a new form in this country. How good do we feel about this as New Zealanders that the Government has had to create a new form? It is called “Form 5” in this legislation. The title of this new piece of bureaucracy that we in New Zealand should all feel so proud about is “Warrant of commitment (mass arrival warrant)”. What a fabulous new form that is for New Zealand to have and what a fabulous new form that is for New Zealand’s international reputation. We will have a new form a new piece of bureaucracy which can be filled out to issue a warrant about mass arrivals.I note that this new form—which is quite hard to describe to the public because it is in front of us in writing—starts off saying that the form is “To every constable” and it names the constable and “To manager(s)”. It says that the form is going to go “To Person(s) in charge of [specified premises]”. The next part is the part that really interests me because it says that they are going to be required to put down the names of the people who are going to be detained—the names. Remember that when the Government first proposed this piece of legislation a mass arrival was going to be 500 people. So the names of 500 people were going to be written on this form before it could it actually be lodged. But then the Government decided “Oh no not 500 that’s not a mass arrival. It’s only 30.” But by the time we get down to this form which is actually in the schedule attached to Part 2 we know that they have only to come up with more than 10 names before this particular form can be validated—more than 10 names.That reminds me of aGet Smart skit. I do not know whether people rememberGet Smart  but it used to have an ongoing gag that Maxwell Smart when he was cornered would say “Would you believe the entire building is surrounded by the FBI?” and of course the baddies would go “Nah don’t believe that.”; and he would go “Well would you believe that the boy scouts have got the building surrounded?”; and they would go “Nah don’t believe that.”; “Would you believe my grandmother’s outside?”; “Nah don’t believe that.” Well that is what has happened with this bill. The Government started out with a big scary concept of 500 people coming in this mass arrival and we were going to have 500 names on this form in schedule 2 under Part 2—500 names the authorities were going to have to come up with before they could issue this form. What has it scaled down to? Apparently this big scary mass arrival is going to be 10 or more people—or is it more than 10? It is more than 10—I am exaggerating as I am prone to do. It is actually the names of 11 people that they will have to have down here. So sorry for that gross exaggeration.The point that I am trying to make is that we will now have a new form in our bureaucracy. That is what this is creating. It is just more bureaucratic form filling. Authorities will have to track down 11 people whose names are going to have to go on this form before it can actually fit the definition under the legislation and then they will have to fill out all the rest of this form in order to do what? Basically it is in order to protect our shores from John Key’s ghost ships. That is what it is all about. It is all about ghost ships as a distraction from all of the scandals that this Government has been involved in. Is it not surprising the timing of our debating Part 2 today? The Government has another scandal on its hands and—hello hello—what pops up on the Order Paper again but Part 2 of the Immigration Amendment Bill the mechanism it has been using since last Christmas to distract us from any political problem that it has.I will be very interested to know in 1 or 2 years’ time whether this form has ever seen the light of day. Has creating this form in this schedule been a complete and utter waste of time? Will it ever be used Minister? Is there any situation that the Minister of Immigration can see where this form is going to be filled out with those 11 names?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn):I wish to begin by responding to the earlier intervention of the Minister of Immigration. The Minister was unclear in his comments as to whether or not in fact a full New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet had been obtained from the Attorney-General. The Minister read to the Committee some words by which the Attorney-General indicated he was not unhappy with certain processes in the Immigration Amendment Bill. I seek the Minister’s clarification as to whether that amounted to a full New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. If he does not have a signed New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet he should disclose that to the Committee. That is the first matter.The second matter in relation to your own intervention Mr Chairman is quite simple. It is that in debating the consequential amendments it is in our view necessary to go back to the principles that those amendments give effect to. Therefore in the balance of my remarks I will stray somewhat towards the purpose of the bill.I do so by firstly taking up the issue of the mass arrival group. There were amendments which were rejected by the Committee in debate on the previous part to extend the number. The issue of mass arrival is germane to this and the consequential amendments because it is simply highly unlikely that the country is going to face such a mass arrival. It would require a large vessel to navigate a very very long distance in hostile and very difficult climatic waters to get to New Zealand. That would be a very very unlikely thing and that brings the Committee to the point of why we are debating this bill. It comes to the point that this bill is nothing more than a distraction—a distraction from the scandals and a distraction from the fraying of this Government’s majority.Hon Members: Oh!Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Government backbenchers can sit at the back and bray but they know in their heart of hearts that the last couple of weeks have seen the beginning of the end of this Government. This is a Government that is teetering on the brink of losing its majority. How careless to lose a Minister; how much more careless to lose a member of Parliament. I will return back to the bill. You never know the current MP for Ōhariu might find that he is a refugee in some other country before long. Perhaps he will be taking a boat back the other way and be deemed a mass arrival by members—perhaps a mass departure.Why is there no reciprocal clause in this bill about mass departures? What is clear under this Government is that there has been a massive departure—something like 54000 Kiwis to Australia in the last 12 months an all-time record. But there is no clause in this bill to prevent mass departures. A Government that is exporting people as fast as the Key National Government is ought to be glad that a few people want to come to New Zealand especially if they have had to weather the hardships of travel as boat people. We must not make light of a terrible human tragedy and obviously nobody would find themselves by choice in the situation of being a boat person.New Zealand has a very strong reputation in regard to upholding its obligations to the United Nations and the global community in respect of the refugee take. We have had bipartisan consensus for many years around the fact that we would take 700 to 800—I think usually 750—United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees quota refugees. We have maintained the highest standards in terms of having an asylum vetting system that has allowed us to uphold our international obligations. If it is the Government’s position that we will continue to do that why did it vote against the honourable Darien Fenton’s Supplementary Order Papers which actually required that in this law?Simon O’Connor: They’re amendments to Part 1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes they were amendments to Part 1 but these are consequential amendments that follow from that part. If it is the Government’s position that it will be abiding by international law why was it unwilling to put provisions in this bill that undertook to do exactly that?This is a shoddy piece of legislation and all House banter aside it is one step further down the road of corroding the standards of New Zealand’s rights New Zealand jurisprudence and New Zealand’s civil liberties which this Government is making a hallmark of in its second term as it stampedes towards electoral defeat and the torrid mess that will be known as the National caucus. I see the Minister of Justice there sharpening the knives already.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore):I moveThat the question be now put .A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1A party vote was called for on the questionThat schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2A party vote was called for on the questionThat schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Schedule 2 agreed to.Clauses 1 to 3Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour):I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage of this bill and really reflect on the title of the bill. Although calling it the Immigration Amendment Bill is putting it into a wider context this bill creates a different category called protected persons and they are not refugees. If you look at schedule 1 which we just passed there are refugees and protected persons and protected persons are really not to be protected. So if I were to give this bill a proper name it would be something like the “Protected Persons Bill” or the “How Not to Protect Protected Persons Bill” because it does create this crazy dilemma that we have now created in this bill a new category called protected persons. To all intents and purposes they are refugees but we will not deliver to them the kinds of services we are delivering to refugees. Refugees come to the border not categorised as refugees but they claim refugee status. They get treated quite differently but in respect of this particular group of protected persons that we have created in this new category it makes no difference to their plight. We take no responsibility really because what this bill does this “Protected Persons Bill” as I am now calling it is ensure we do not protect them because we will put them in situations where they will be in danger of mental health difficulties and the other kinds of difficulties that the Australian example shows us.We are really giving a very clear signal that we do not intend to honour our obligations to the refugee convention. The convention dictates how we are to behave and yet we will take them we will lock them up and we will treat them quite differently for long periods of time. So I think that something like the “Protected Persons Bill” or the “How Not to Protect Refugees Bill” might be appropriate names for this because this bill gives that very clear signal that we will not be protecting them.That leads me to perhaps another name and it could be something like “The National Party’s Disinterest in Refugees Bill”. One has to wonder what it is about the National Party that it does not like refugees. I wonder whether the present refugee population of New Zealand actually understands that and appreciates that because here are Government members taking groups of people like them—like the present refugees but at an earlier stage—and treating them in this vile and objectionable way. So this actually shows the National Party’s antipathy towards refugees.Hon Michael Woodhouse: They are not refugees; they are asylum seekers.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Well we treat the others who come seeking asylum much better. We do not lock them up. We actually provide services to them Minister so why is it for this group of maybe only 30—the Minister originally intended it to be a group of only 11—that we lock them up in that kind of way? Minister we have presented argument after argument that there is no evidence for the need for this. [Interruption ] There is not. No boat has come this far. Despite Abel Tasman and despite the Māori canoes getting here as speakers on this side have said there is no need for this bill. It has not happened yet and there are other ways of dealing with this situation if it occurs. The Minister defends that by saying that this bill is not National against refugees but in fact that is the effect of it. When people become refugees they become part of our refugee population. The Minister is dancing on the head of a pin when he says these people are not refugees. We have responsibilities under the convention to make sure that we treat them properly. There are guarantees in the system the Minister has designed here that they will not get that fair treatment.Look at the mental health statistics out of the Australian example Minister and look at what those examples tell us. Listen to the Australian examples. But no another name for this bill is the “John Howard Lookalike Bill” because this is indeed what John Howard did. Look at what happened to him in the end. He might have won an election but he told lies to the Australian people. [Interruption ] Mr Howard did—the AustralianPrime Minister did. Remember what he said about children being thrown back into the water? He lied about that. There is something similar about this particular bill in that in a sense it is intellectually dishonest to say that they will come.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to take a call on this bill the Immigration Amendment Bill which is probably one of the most insidious pieces of legislation this House has had to consider since last Wednesday when we had the first reading of the dreadful Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Now we come back to this. This is a time of electoral desperation for this Government. Anything it can do to divert and distract attention it will do. So it will trot in all these dreadful pieces of legislation when it suits and now tonight it is the turn of the Immigration Amendment Bill. It deals with so-called mass arrivals. The most unusual thing however—I just want to make this observation—is that so many pieces of legislation that have come through this House in the last few weeks or months have created injustice upon injustice. So it is refreshing at least to see that it is the Minister of Immigration as opposed to the Minister of Justice who has introduced this latest piece of legislation which creates the latest dreadful injustice we have to contend with.There is no question that this bill is absolutely and utterly meaningless. It will apply to nothing. There is no risk for it to address. There is no remedy that it can provide to any meaningful problem. Passing this legislation is taking up the time of this Committee its energy and I might add its intellectual capacity although that is really affecting only this side of the Chamber. Mr Woodhouse looks at me quizzically and curiously. He is sitting there thinking: “Intellectual capacity? I’m an accountant. I’ve never heard of that before.” So a more suitable name for this piece of legislation would be as my colleague Rajen Prasad suggested the “Immigration (John Howard Reprise) Bill”. This bill is a throwback to an age of political chicanery duplicity and manipulation that we have not seen for a long long time. We certainly have not seen it under the Julia Gillard Government—that straight-shooting Labor Government across the Tasman. We have not seen anything like this for some years.This bill might otherwise be named the “Immigration (Electoral Desperation) Amendment Bill”. Whenever you are in trouble when your coalition partners are floundering around and evaporating before you what do you do? You create a distraction. The only mass arrival that this Government has been looking forward to—and that has not happened—is the people turning up to the United Future membership recruitment office. There is no one turning up there to sign up any more. That party is history and its one and only member is history as well. This Government is desperate to cobble together something that looks like a stable and credible Government. Well it is not happening and it is disappearing fast.The only other suggestion I have for this piece of legislation—because humour aside it is embarrassing frankly for the Committee to be spending its time on legislation of this nature; it runs counter to the international obligations and commitments that we have made—is an alternative title which is the “Immigration (Degradation of International Reputation) Amendment Bill”. This is a bill that cuts across our reputation as a country that has established itself firmly as one that offers the hand of solicitude support and succour when it is needed to our international friends—those who are left stateless those who are by the circumstances in their countries left to flee for a better life and a better time. This legislation does not reflect that value that approach of this country and its role as an international citizen. It is an embarrassment and as politicians of this country travel the world over the next few months and years they will be collared and asked how on earth a nasty insidious piece of legislation like this could get passed. And we will have to respond that it is because of the nasty insidious Government that put it through.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):I want to pick up where my colleague Andrew Little left off. I would like to think of another name for this bill because the title “Immigration Amendment Bill” does not really cut it does it? It does not really describe what this bill is about.I would like to suggest that we call this bill the “Immigration (National’s Shame) Amendment Bill”. That is for three main reasons. First and foremost is the fact that the actual content of this bill—this is where I am picking up from my colleague Andrew Little—is shameful. The suggestion of how we might treat these people is shameful—people who are already in the worst possible situations people who risk their lives and their families’ lives to try to escape terrible situations. For these people to come to a country and be detained in the manner described in this bill is shameful. It is shameful that our country’s reputation is being dragged through the mud by this National Government. It is a reputation that many of us and many people listening to Parliament are very proud of. It is a reputation that is well deserved because New Zealand has been a country that has treated people well and has played a role in all sorts of international forums.The bill is shameful in that regard but secondly it is shameful in the sense that I actually do not think anybody across the Chamber believes it is necessary. It is shameful because we are wasting the time of this House putting through legislation that almost inevitably is not going to be used because we are not going to have mass arrivals in this county. We have not had any such situation arise. Others this afternoon and this evening have described the reasons for that. We are a long way from anywhere. We have a very hostile climate to get through in order to reach this country by boat. The expectation is that we will not need to use this legislation. There will not be mass arrival groups for us to detain thankfully.None the less it is still shameful. It is shameful that the Government is using this bill as others have said to disguise some of the other things it is doing as a distraction to try to do the dog whistle politics to try to appeal to the lowest common denominator—the anti-foreigner anti-immigrant kind of mentality that exists and that this Government likes to manipulate.But also this bill is shameful because this is legislation that has been prioritised over other legislation. It is shameful because there is really important legislation that this House should be dealing with. I would say for argument’s sake that legislation trying to regulate loan sharks would be very important legislation for this Parliament to be dealing with because it would actually make a real difference in people’s lives. But despite promising that prior to the last election—cynically in fact in November of 2011—and then a whole suite of backbench National MPs talking about getting tough on loan sharks at the end of April we finally had a bill introduced to this House and it is still awaiting first reading. We could profitably be dealing with something like that which we have already said we would support going to select committee because it is a real issue. It is an issue that I have been talking to budgeting services about over the last 2 months. Thousands of New Zealand families are getting stung by high interest rates high fees—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!CAROL BEAUMONT: —getting into a spiral of debt—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!CAROL BEAUMONT: Well Mr Chairperson it is about the title of this bill which is the “Immigration (National’s Shame) Amendment Bill” and this is the third part of why this is National’s shame. Not only is it offensive in content not only is it a shame because it is unnecessary it is a shame because we are doing this instead of doing thingsthat we actually need to be doing and that are worthwhile. I think that it fits within the title “Immigration (National’s Shame) Amendment Bill”.I do not think that anybody in this Committee has presented any argument. Certainly those members opposite have not nor has the Minister of Immigration presented any really compelling reason for this legislation—Dr Rajen Prasad: Not one call.CAROL BEAUMONT: Not one call—exactly—as my colleague says. Apart from the Minister we have just had National MPs sitting across the Chamber moving closure motions. This is a pattern. This is a pattern we see all too often. Why are members opposite not willing to actually stand up and debate the bill? If this is such an important issue if this is so necessary get up and say something about it. You have an opportunity. We are still on the title clause. Get up and explain to us why this is such an important bill. Thank you.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):I moveThat the question be now put .JAN LOGIE (Green):Thank you Mr Chairperson.Hon Member: Good choice.JAN LOGIE: Good choice indeed. I would like to speak and also offer my opposition to the title of the Immigration Amendment Bill which I do not think describes what is happening here at all. There are many things I would like to call this bill but most of them I am not allowed to say in this Chamber I must say. So I will constrain myself to polite language in alternative titles though to be honest they will not reflect how I actually feel about this bill. The Minister of Immigration may have called me sanctimonious for quoting the Human Rights Commission. You know it was not actually my opinion I was offering; it was the Human Rights Commission’s opinion. If that makes me sanctimonious well I will live with that.Being on the side of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees of people working with refugees in Australia—you know I am OK siding with those people and their views of this bill. I am sure they would come up with quite a few titles for this bill that were not “Immigration Amendment Bill”. I think one title maybe would be the “Needless Fearmongering Bill”. I do want to speak to that title a little bit because it speaks to some of the heart of this for me around the difficulty of speaking to this bill. It is difficult because when we talk about that in fact there is not going to be a mass arrival because—despite the fact that you know waka arrived here from the Pacific a while ago and we had some large boats—the world is different now.We know that the boat that made it to Canada that had 500 people on it was a multimillion-dollar boat I think and was funded by a very wealthy Tamil community in Canada. We know that in New Zealand we have had advice from the officials that we have no such wealthy refugee community in New Zealand who would be capable of funding such a venture. So it is incredibly incredibly unlikely.The fact that a boat made it to Australia carrying people who said they wanted to come to New Zealand means nothing—nothing at all—because your first point of arrival is where you seek refuge. And to say you want to go somewhere else means nothing. But in speaking the way I am speaking right now I am really conscious that it creates a sense of fear that actually we would not want an arrival of people that it is something we need to shore ourselves up against and we need to create barriers to prevent these people from coming here. That is not an impression that I want to give because these are people who are fleeing wars who are fleeing persecution. Many are people who are trying to do the right thing who may be going against their military and the call from their Government to kill people which they find morally repugnant and they are fleeing for their lives in the belief of doing something right. These are notpeople we should be shoring ourselves up against and creating barriers for in order to prevent them from entering our country.Our country does very very little actually globally in terms of supporting asylum seekers. In terms of Australia actually we are talking about not wanting the terrible situation that is happening in Australia. Globally Australia takes in very few asylum seekers compared with other countries. Look at what is happening in Lebanon at the moment and how it is welcoming refugees and asylum seekers into its country into its systems. It is not setting up camps. In fact it is just allowing people to integrate because it recognises its role in the global community in protection and that fundamental value of us having a place to go in a time of strife. That is what we should be striving for. That is what the convention committed us to. This bill should be titled the “National Day of Shame Bill” the “Bill Lacking in Humanity Bill” the “Not Doing Our Fair Share in the World Bill” or the “Ruining our International Reputation Bill”. I can list off flippant titles but this is not a flippant matter. This does come down to the leadership we are going to take in the world in terms of ensuring people’s safety and being able to stand up and say that we have a role to be able to ensure people’s safety we need to sort out the UN systems and we need to sort out the refugee camp systems. I went to a refugee camp this year for the first time in my life and they are no life.ALFRED NGARO (National):I moveThat the question be now put .SUE MORONEY (Labour):Thank you Mr Chairperson. A very good choice indeed Mr Chairperson because when it comes to debating the title of this bill the Immigration Amendment Bill it causes me to internalise a complicated situation I have got to say.Hon Members: Oh!SUE MORONEY: It does. When I am contemplating the name and the title of this bill it causes me to say that I am internalising a complicated situation because I am trying to work out how I can get the phrase “ghost ships” into the title of this bill. I think if we were able to get you know “Immigration (Ghost Ship) Amendment Bill”—and I should just say so that people listening to this debate understand that I am talking about ships: s-h-i-p-s. I just want to make it crystal clear that I am talking about ghost ships.If we had that in brackets as part of the title of this bill every time that people looked at this bill when it becomes an Act they would remember the background to what actually brought this about. They would remember that during the Christmas break last year—no sorry not the one just gone but the one prior to that. I think the Minister at the time might have been Simon Bridges I think it was who is well-known for bringing before this House lots of pieces of legislation that do not have a New Zealand Bill of Rights clean bill of health if you like. He is actually becoming quite known for that. It was Simon Bridges who was the Minister at the time who said: “Look look over there. Don’t look here at the National Party scandals. Look over there. Somewhere out in the world a long long way away in a land far far away there are 500 people on a boat and they want to come to New Zealand. They want to take our country over.”It was like—what is it that John Key says these days? He says: “Oh nothing to see here.” That is right. That is what he says: “Move along nothing to see here.” Well Simon Bridges was trying to copy that sort of stance: “Move along nothing to see here. Stop looking at the scandals.” I cannot remember exactly which one it was at the time but this Government is constantly embroiled in scandals. It is a bit hard to keep up but there was one going on at the time that caused Simon Bridges to do the “Nothing to see here. Move along. Look over there; way way away over the other side of the world”—and I think in fact over to Canada. That is how far away it was. There was a boat with 500 people on it apparently going via Canada to get to New Zealand because that waswhere they really wanted to come! He was trying to convince New Zealanders that this boat was on its way here and that not only would it arrive here but also when it arrived here our way of life would be threatened. Our way of life would be threatened by these 500 people. And of course we know now that this mass arrival of 500 people then turned out to be 30 people and has now been reduced to more than 10 people. So the whole sort of scaremongering thing that has gone on should be reflected in the title. I would like to get “ghost ships” in there in brackets but if I cannot do that—if we cannot actually get an amendment to get “ghost ships” in there in that way—then I would like to get the phrase “scaremongering” into the title because I think that this is exactly what this bill has been designed to do.I notice that when there have been members from the Labour Party or the Green Party taking calls the members opposite have wanted to bellow and call out and bray from their seats—well not even their own seats quite frankly but that is another matter—but they will not take a call. They will not actually get up and take a call to express their views. They will only yell across the Chamber instead of actually getting on their feet and telling us why it is that they believe that this is such an important measure that should be taking up the House’s time. But they have no way of actually being able to describe that.I join with Jan Logie in looking in wonder at a Minister of Immigration who got to his feet during the debate to sanctimoniously declare that Jan Logie was sanctimonious. I thought it was actually quite comical to see the sanctimony coming from that Minister as he sanctimoniously had a go at another member for apparently being sanctimonious. And how was that member being sanctimonious? She was being sanctimonious by pointing out the human rights abuses inherent in this piece of legislation. Well I join with her and I say that Jan Logie should wear that as a badge of honour quite frankly. If that is what it takes to be called sanctimonious—MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I moveThat the question be now put .A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.Legal Assistance Amendment BillIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Legal Services Act 2011Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):This bill was introduced initially by the former Minister of Justice Simon Power. It would be easy to blame him for the absolute disgrace that that original legislation represented. It would be easy to blame him but for the fact that every member of the National Party in Government and its disgraced acolytes that support it in this House voted for that bill. That bill went to the Justice and Electoral Committee and it received first of all the regulatory impact statement which said that the legislation introduced by that National Government would have denied people the basic right that every individual who lives in this country should have which is about access to justice. Legal aid is designed to ensure that those with insufficient means are not denied access to justice.You see it is probably pretty hard for the National Party to understand that justice is not a commodity. It is not a commodity that can be bought by those who can afford it and be denied to those who cannot afford it. But that is exactly what the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill would have done. And what we have here in this legislation the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill is a nine-page apology from the National Government about the nature of the changes that it originally sought to make which would have denied justice to people in this country. It would not only have denied justice to those who could not afford it and not only put at huge disadvantage one person of lesser means in a civil proceedings against somebody of greater means but it would have ended up clogging up the system and costing more because when a person is forced to be a self-represented litigant that requires more costs at every stage of the justice system.What is more the regulatory impact statement pointed out that this would put huge pressure for example on social agencies. It would increase the level of stress on people who were facing domestic violence and those problems would not be resolved because there was not a mechanism to resolve them. It said that the fundamental principle of a decent society which is justice available to all would be taken away.Judith Collins in the second reading of this bill and Simon Power before her said that the reason that this bill was being introduced was that the cost of legal aid had soared. The cost had gone up. It had gone up because in 2007 for the first time in 20 years the rates of payment to legal aid providers were actually adjusted. Of course the cost went up but the result of this legislation as introduced and probably as it still is amended by the committee is that fewer and fewer providers will be willing to lose money by representing people on legal aid and that would create a huge injustice in this country. It is not that legal aid is generous. To qualify for legal aid as a single person you have got to earn less than $22000 a year. That is about $425 a week. It is $10.60 an hour. Do you know what this bill and the requirements of the threshold of legal aid do? They prevent any working person earning more than the minimum wage from being eligible for legal aid.Hon David Cunliffe: That is outrageous.Hon PHIL GOFF: That is outrageous as my colleague has just said. It is outrageous because the people who cannot afford the cost of legal representation are often those really hard-working people on low incomes and they would be denied the right to get legal aid. This would be a system purely for those who were on social welfare benefits and I believe that justice should not be denied to those low-income people who cannot even though they work hard actually afford legal representation.So what we saw in this bill was a measure that would make our society growing in inequality even less fair by denying more and more people the right to justice. You know it is not about unaffordability at all Minister; it is about your priorities. This Government’s priority was very clearly that it would cut tax on those on the highest income levels. So you can give the Prime Minister a six-figure tax cut a year but you refuse to give people who cannot afford legal representation the right to have their position represented in court. And we are talking about people who are often in no situation—no situation—to be able to represent themselves. This was the bill as introduced—John Hayes: Not true.Hon PHIL GOFF: —Mr Hayes and you know it and it was so appalling that even the National members on the Justice and Electoral Committee had to take a knife through most of the provisions and cut them out. I want to know in the Committee of the whole House from the Minister of Justice why it was that every one of her colleagues voted for that bill as introduced why they did not do their homework and why they did not give a damn about justice.I was sitting on the plane this morning between two businessmen—nice guys actually—but they were talking about their kids going to the school ball. They were saying it was terrible. One of them said: “You know my daughter’s dress cost $3000.” He said it was $3000 for her dress for the school ball for St Cuthbert’s College. I thought to myself and I actually pointed it out to them that that sounded a bit strange to me representing a low-income electorate that here we have people who cannot afford to put shoes on their kids’ feet and that businessman was spending $3000 on his kid’s school ball dress.I want to say this: the bill as introduced was going to take into account in terms of asset testing things like your refrigerator and your washing machine and your vacuum cleaner. You know it was so mean and miserable that it was going to take into account the value of your electric wheelchair if you were disabled. What a disgrace. I want to know why it was that the National caucus approved this bill and the National Cabinet put it to the House to come in. Only at the select committee deliberation did they run away with their tail between their legs and say that even a hard-hearted cold-heartedNational Government could not possibly produce the injustice that this original legislation was going to produce.But I have got to say that there are still things that are wrong with this bill even with the changes that have been made. An application can be turned down for example if a person getting legal aid is in arrears. Well the nature of poverty and the nature of being on a low income is that you live from wage packet to wage packet. If you have got a bill owing because you are paying for legal aid because it becomes a loan rather than a grant you are not going to be able to keep that up and still meet the other costs that you are struggling to pay out when you are living on the edge. You know ask any reasonable parent and they will say that they will put shoes on their kid’s feet and food in their stomach before they will pay the arrears in the legal aid bill. So this Government in its wisdom says that if you are falling behind in your arrears and you cannot pay them then we will deny you further legal aid and therefore we will deny you justice. Well they had to qualify that by saying that maybe there should be an interests of justice argument and a test there but there is a very clear rule that should be set in this and that is that you do not deny people legal aid if they are not paying their arrears because of the hardship they are facing. For God’s sake the members of the National Party surely have enough humanity to see that there are situations of gross injustice that will arise from their legislation.Then they decided that the user charge that they brought in of $100—another discredited idea that they took from the Ruth Richardson years—was not really going to work because that would be a barrier to people so they made it $50. Well why is $50 right if $100 was wrong? Why are they nickel-and-diming that sort of thing when even the select committee report to the House indicates that that could still be a barrier?And not only were they going to deny people who were in arrears of legal aid any further access but they were going to charge interest on arrears of legal aid and that is still in the bill. Again they have left some room for discretion but there should be some more clear-cut test that that should not be required if hardship would result. What they have done effectively is said that even in the event of hardship—Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):I must say that that speech has been an interesting historical lesson from the Hon Phil Goff who has talked an awful lot about my predecessor—and of course my predecessor is not here to defend himself. But I will take it as a compliment that Mr Goff is obviously quite pleased with some of the changes that we have brought about. I would actually like to come back to the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill and Part 1 of the bill rather than history.Part 1 of the bill amends the principal Act. It reclassifies certain eligible proceedings before the Parole Board as criminal matters rather than civil matters as they are now. This is a largely administrative change but it will make it easier to obtain legal aid for these proceedings. Part 1 also tightens the criteria by which applicants can receive civil legal aid when their income and assets exceed the relevant threshold specified in regulations. This will ensure that civil legal aid is limited to those who genuinely cannot afford a lawyer. I for one am one of the people who look in horror as we see some of these failed finance company directors on legal aid with all their money tied up in trusts laughing at the taxpayer. Some members may not find that very very sad but I certainly do.However special protections have been put in place in the case of asylum proceedings care and protection applications and some domestic violence applications. In these cases the means test will be less stringent. When a legally aided person is in arrears on previous civil legal aid debt Part 1 provides that the Legal Services Commissioner may refuse to grant further legal aid unless the interests of justice require otherwise. This provision balances access to justice with the responsibility of legal aidrecipients to repay their debts. Criminal legal aid will not be affected and this provision will not apply to vulnerable people in certain types of proceedings.Provision is made in Part 1 for a user charge to be payable to the legal aid provider in civil proceedings. Providers will be able to decline to provide services until the charge is paid or to recover the charge if the services have already been provided. The user charge is a small but significant contribution from the applicant to ensure that the legal aid system remains financially viable in the long term. Again certain proceedings involving vulnerable people will be exempt to ensure continued access to justice. Clause 11A makes it clear that legal aid amounts payable under conditions of grant are debts due to the commissioner. This will allow the commissioner to recover debts more efficiently including in any relevant court or tribunal if this becomes necessary. Interest will now accrue on all legal aid debt 6 months after the debt is finalised. The commissioner will have additional powers to collect legal aid debt from benefits wages salaries and bank accounts by issuing deduction notices. However for those who are unable to pay Part 1 protects a minimum amount of earnings to ensure the debt is repaid without causing financial hardship to legal aid debtors. It also extends current provisions allowing debt to be written off to include any interest associated with that debt.Clause 14 creates a deputy review authority to assist the existing review authority in examining the commissioner’s decisions and appointing legal aid providers. This will assist the legal aid providers or lawyers by ensuring any review applications are examined and resolved promptly. Existing legislative provisions allow caveats to be lodged against property or interests owned by a legally aided person. This ensures that legal aid debts are repaid when the property or interest are disposed of and Part 1 allows the commissioner to recover any costs such as solicitors’ fees incurred in lodging caveats before the commencement of these reforms. This will ensure the caveat provisions are used appropriately to secure legal aid debt owed to the taxpayer. Finally Part 1 clarifies that the commissioner must decline claims from legal aid providers that exceed the maximum grant amount that are not of a type approved by the commissioner or that are excessive or inaccurate and this will further bolster appropriate cost control in the legal aid area and will encourage quality and predictability in the system.I have in fact tabled today Supplementary Order Paper 250 in relation to this particular part of the bill to make provision for electronic processing of applications for legal aid in criminal cases where no discretion is required. This change will allow aid to be granted automatically if the appropriate statutory criteria are met or referred to a legal aid grants officer for further consideration if they are not met.Grants of legal aid made under proposed new section 16A are not subject to the conditions referred to in section 18 of the Act—for example the condition that the grant must be repaid. They will however be subject to a maximum grant the level of which we notified in theGazette . Grants made through electronic processing will otherwise be as if they were made under the standard process and the Legal Services Commissioner will retain her or his ability to cancel or correct the grant if an error is made. This change is an administrative improvement which will have no impact on eligibility for legal aid. It affects only internal Ministry of Justice processes. The likely impact on legally aided people and legal aid providers is that decisions are made more quickly.Supplementary Order Paper 250 also amends Part 1 of the bill to clarify the operation of certain regulation-making powers in the Act. Currently section 114(1)(b) provides that regulations can be made to prescribe methods for calculating maximum grants of legal aid. Following the Court of Appeal’s query around regulations the Government believes there would be merit in further clarifying the circumstances in whichParliament intends for such regulations to be made. This Supplementary Order Paper therefore amends section 114(1) so that regulations can prescribe fees to be paid for legal aid work the circumstances in which they would apply and criteria that would be needed to depart from the fees. This change will allow clarification of the boundaries within which Parliament expects the commissioner to exercise his or her discretion. The Government considers this a reasonable and appropriate step as it ensures that the commissioner retains his or her independent discretion to depart from prescribed rates where appropriate in a particular case.The effectiveness of this provision is supported by two other changes contained in the Supplementary Order Paper. Section 99 is amended to enable the commissioner to decline any claim to the extent that it exceeds the fees set in regulations. Section 52 is amended to give applicants for legal aid the right to seek review of the commissioner’s decision to depart from or refuse to depart from fees set in regulations in their particular case. These changes combine to ensure that not only does the commissioner retain his or her discretion to depart from prescribed fees but also there are appropriate pathways for legal aid applicants to seek review of such decisions. Thank you. I believe that Part 1 is the substantial part of this bill. It is a very sensible amendment to the primary Act and I think it is one that this Committee should support.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):The original purpose of the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill especially as set out in Part 1 was actually to wrench cost savings out of the legal aid scheme without properly considering the effect on low-income New Zealanders’ ability to have effective legal representation. The result would have been many more self-representation cases more appeals less effective justice and as a result in fact more not less costs.The Minister of Justice did not want to talk about history because I think the history of this particular bill is a little bit embarrassing for the Government. Out of necessity the Government has rethought the amendments and the proposed cuts I am glad to see have mostly been abandoned. The Minister referred us to Supplementary Order Paper 134 and the amendments that that puts alongside the bill. That Supplementary Order Paper did address many of the concerns raised in the proposals including first of all removing the proposal to use Orders in Council to change proceedings for which civil legal aid is available which was far too excessive; removing the tighter financial means test for serious criminal cases which was another very concerning issue; and removing household goods from the calculation for eligibility for legal aid which was a perfectly ridiculous provision. The Minister also indicated changes to be introduced in the regulations including the reduction of the proposed user charge from $100 now to $50 which I will refer to later and also the charging of interest now 6 months after legal aid debt is finalised rather than immediately.These changes are welcome but New Zealand First will still not be able to support the bill as a whole for three good reasons. Firstly New Zealand First will vote against the bill with new section 10(3A) inserted by clause 7(2) in it. The Justice and Electoral Committee recommended allowing the commissioner to refuse civil legal aid if the applicant is in arrears for repayments on previous legal aid grants but subject to an interests-of-justice test. The committee’s proposed clause would further amend the eligibility criteria for civil legal aid to encourage legally aided people to recommence payments and once they began making repayments to become eligible again for legal aid. The majority said this provision would be unlikely to reduce significantly the number of people receiving legal aid but I am not convinced of that at all and I think it is likely to cause injustice even if only in a few cases by making legal aid unavailable to people. I do not particularly trust the commissioner’s discretion being exercised in this way.The majority also said that they had carefully considered the likely effects of this provision on vulnerable people and we are assured that domestic violence mental health refugee and protection cases would be exempt from the provision but I remain concerned that such people would in fact be denied legal aid and again I do not particularly accept the assurance given. The point is this: that eligibility should not rely on the commissioner’s discretion at all in that way—simply to deny or not to deny legal aid because of a past legal aid debt especially where domestic violence protection cases and suchlike are concerned.Secondly the bill’s original purpose for the reintroduction of a user charge remains although it is now $50 rather than $100. Most of us know that in many cases legal aid providers simply paid that charge as their clients could not afford it. That should not be necessary and in my experience on the Legal Aid Review Panel for several years I could see from reading the files that that happened in a large number of cases so what this provision is going to achieve I do not know. At a time when more and more providers are exiting the business of providing legal aid this seems to be self-defeating and bad public policy.The third reason is this: the bill’s provision is that interest be charged on legal aid. The majority of the committee in amending clause 12 said that it should be paid on all unpaid final legal aid debt to ensure that the “amount payable” as defined in the principal Act captures all final debt. The intention was to incentivise prompt repayment but that I think is very unlikely given the financial position of most legally aided people. So again we have an utterly pointless provision that is going to achieve nothing whatsoever.I am pleased of course that there is an amendment to delay the imposition of interest for 6 months from the final determination of what the debt would be but the point is that the principle itself is wrong. People who qualify for legal aid are by definition not easily able to afford it. Charging interest will make their position even worse. The State should get repayment for legal aid because that is the basis of the scheme but the State should make a contribution by bearing the interest—not the person who gets the grant. The State of course actually pays no interest itself; the scheme is provided from taxation. In some cases the imposition of interest will itself create hardship. We are told that there is a discretion so that the interest and in some cases the debt itself can be waived but this is likely to be too often withheld. Again I refer to my experience on the Legal Aid Review Panel where I read many files and cases where people complained that it had been withheld in inappropriate cases and that was true in many cases.This bill was badly conceived at the outset. It is nothing more really than another attack on the lowest-income people in the community. It is penny-pinching at the expense of an effective legal aid system. Many amendments have been needed to the bill—and these are welcome—but there are still some fundamental problems with it especially those three that I have set out. The Government would be best to scrub this bill altogether and for those reasons New Zealand First will certainly vote against it.Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East):I would like to add weight to the comments made by my colleague Denis O’Rourke in respect of the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill as it was introduced but now to be known as the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill. The reason that I think the Government has taken the word “sustainability” out of the bill’s title is really to take away from our reflections the legislation’s real focus which is actually about cost cutting. To use the word “sustainability” when actually you mean “cost cutting” is I think unfortunate so I certainly approve of the removal of the word “sustainability”. But I question whether it was put there in the first place for reasons that are unhelpful to a public discourse around something that perhaps is not a very popular subject which is access to justice.Obviously there are people who are very easy targets when one is looking for cost-cutting measures and those who face criminal charges in our courts are the very easiest of targets.I want to remind the Committee why this legislation was introduced in the original format that it was. Again it was not a desire to address the overall issue of sustainability; it was to look to where cuts could be made to legal aid that would be acceptable in terms of the public eye. I want to remind the Committee what one risks when one goes down this track helpfully summarised in the original regulatory impact statement that was prepared for the original legislation. I do think it is important to place on record when we are dealing with Part 1 because this is the substantive part of the legislation what the particular risks were that were discerned right from the outset. The first one was that “A change of purchase approach is required but is likely to be resisted by some parts of the legal profession particularly those who may feel that it will reduce their incomes or curb the choices they can make when managing cases. This is likely to lead to an increase in the number of legal challenges of legal aid grants as well as public concern.”I just want to unpack that language a little bit. What it is about is actually blaming the legal profession who devote their lives to supporting people through the criminal courts particularly those at the lower end of the offending range who day in day out in the courts in South Auckland provide a level of service that most of the legal profession who are their colleagues do not have anything to do with and can have no understanding of. My former colleague Charles Chauvel and I both met with the South Auckland Bar and we were incredibly impressed with the commitment and the work that people were prepared to do for clients who do not fit the normal corporate lawyer’s waiting room shall we say.The examples that they gave us were of clients who could not keep appointments because they were not out of bed before 10 o’clock in the morning. They had clients who could not communicate easily in English because that was not their first language. They talked about clients who were so disoriented and confused and really excluded from wider society because of their drug and alcohol addictions and by the way that they had been disenfranchised from their communities and from their families and in many respects were lost in a city that really did not feel like home. They talked about people who got themselves in trouble very early on who did not have good lawyers representing their interests and who ended up on a trajectory that was a never-ending trajectory to prison. They would end up taking on these cases and as one of my colleagues mentioned paying the $50 if there was a fee that needed to be paid from the outset just to get them in the ball park.The number of times that they told us about the examples of young men—in particular Māori and Pasifika—who pleaded guilty to offences that they were not guilty of because they did not know that there was a difference between an action and an intention and who ended up in a place where they were down this track and potentially under the three-strike legislation facing very very serious charges. They talked about the commitment that they made to people whom we really would rather we did not have to deal with. The thing is that this legislation was all about making sure that those lawyers did not get to talk about how it might reduce their incomes or curb the choices they can make when managing cases. I am sorry but the regulatory impact statement advice does not match the reality of lawyers working in South Auckland.And then the regulatory impact statement talked about how “Reductions in the price paid to lawyers could create gaps in provision particularly in the family and civil jurisdictions where there is more choice of private work and in some smaller centres where there are already supply issues.” Well actually that is a risk that has alreadybeen realised and we know that. “The introduction of income and asset thresholds for the criminal means test …”—which we know has been addressed—“will be in tension with section 24(f) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act providing for the right to an affordable defence. It could also delay some court cases if judges defer proceedings because of inadequate representation.” I think we must remember these things; that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act exists with these protections for a reason. It is about access to justice. It is about people who require adequate representation. “Restrictions to eligibility will disadvantage people on low incomes who have few options to find legal services elsewhere. Generally this includes young Māori men in the criminal jurisdiction and women and children in the family jurisdiction.” Then the regulatory impact statement goes on to say: “Withdrawing legal aid for low income groups is likely to lead to additional costs elsewhere in the justice system. In particular it may increase the number of self-represented litigants”—which we have heard are all the way through the Family Court cases—“with flow on costs due to delays additional assistance required from court staff and the judiciary and higher numbers of appeals of decisions.”These were the risks. They were all calculated they were all assessed they were all set out in the regulatory impact statement and the truth is that they are really important risks. There are things that we do not like to say in this country but I am going to say one of them here and now: if you are Māori you are much more likely to be stopped and questioned; if you are Māori and you are stopped and questioned you are much more likely to be arrested; if you are Māori you are much more likely if you are arrested to be charged; if you are Māori you are much more likely to be charged with a much more serious offence or a higher number of offences; if you are Māori you are much more likely to be found guilty; and if you are Māori you are much more likely to end up in prison. We cannot allow that to continue to happen and I believe that this piece of legislation is part of a package of measures that continues to perpetuate the problem that we have in this country. It does not address the problem; it only perpetuates it and unfortunately it is another wasted opportunity to address the real issues that we must confront as a country if we are really to move on and to address things that are important.I want to agree entirely with my colleague Denis O’Rourke who talked about the fact that this bill continues to propose that an application for legal assistance may be turned down if the applicant is in arrears and repaying any part of a previous grant of aid that he or she may have received. I believe that this could be the opportunity in the Committee stage in the Chamber to actually redress that problem—to actually address that problem to fix what we have in front of us and to make it good. That would help us to see this bill pass but we cannot support it in the way that it is drafted.DAVID CLENDON (Green):The report back on the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill from the Justice and Electoral Committee—that is the majority report from the Government members predominantly—makes interesting reading. I have never read a majority report in a select committee report where the Government members on a committee have been so willing—indeed eager—to overturn some of the original provisions of the bill as it was first drafted. To their considerable credit they have recognised that many of the provisions in that original bill were utterly untenable. They were unacceptable to New Zealanders. The severity of what was proposed in that original drafting was a disgrace and as I say it is a credit to the Government members on the select committee that they along with the Opposition members saw that those provisions were untenable. They were unacceptable to New Zealanders indeed.Unfortunately what continues in this bill which obviously the Greens are opposing is the unacceptably low income thresholds for eligibility for assistance. The propositionthat somebody earning the minimum wage should not be eligible for legal assistance reflects a complete lack of awareness a disconnect between what are the lifestyles shall we say or the lived experience of people making such propositions and those who are actually caught up in the legal process. We know that the minimum wage is significantly less than a living wage in New Zealand. It is not sufficient for somebody to have a decent standard of life a decent quality of living. It suggests however in this bill that that is sufficient for people to afford an appropriate and decent defence if they find themselves in a situation where they need legal representation.We heard from the Minister of Justice earlier a proposition that this bill will somehow deter those who might be in possession of significant wealth who might be using family trusts or some other mechanisms to disguise that wealth and thereby become eligible. I would be delighted if the Minister could point us to provisions in this bill that will remedy that situation of a person—I think she referred to a failed finance company director—still sitting on considerable personal wealth but managing to conceal that wealth. I would be delighted to have it shown to me where in this bill that situation would be remedied—where that person would be obliged to pay for their own defence rather than be able to appeal for legal aid.I think the low point of the original drafting was the proposition that in order to be eligible for legal aid a person’s so-called capital goods would be valued—people’s clothing their household goods. For me my personal bête noire is the notion that tools of trade should have to come into that calculation. The proposition that a person should be obliged to sell their tools of trade the means by which they earn their living in order to become eligible for legal aid is simply a nonsense. It is abhorrent and it is to the credit of the committee that that at least has been thrown out of this legislation.The point is made in the Green-Labour minority report that in pursuit of the cost savings of this legal aid scheme there is scant regard for the catastrophic effect on low-income New Zealanders and their ability to access the justice system and the extent to which these propositions can potentially be seen to contravene the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has already been observed and noted.It is not only low-income people who need to have concerns about this legislation. Middle New Zealand—people who are earning what might be deemed a living income but who for whatever reasons are not well-to-do people. There are a significant number of middle-income New Zealanders who would struggle to afford decent representation in a court of law and this legislation does nothing to recognise their situation. It does nothing to alleviate or in any way deal with that situation that they could find themselves in.The proposition that a person can be denied legal assistance if they have not yet repaid obligations or debts from some former use of legal aid in itself seems not unreasonable except that it overlooks a whole bunch of situations an individual might find themselves in where they are simply not able to afford to repay that obligation at the point at which it is made. I think some of the conditions that appear in Supplementary Order Paper 134 are interesting particularly for me the proposition that a deduction from a person’s income from their salary wages or whatever it might be can occur.The proposition is that a person is no longer entitled to legal aid at the point at which a reminder notice is sent to that person. In new section 41B(1) as proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 134 “This section”—in terms of the deduction of overdue amounts—“applies whenever the Commissioner has reminded an aided person in writing of the person’s obligation to pay an overdue amount …”. One thing we know about low-income people is that they tend to be very transient. They tend not to be in one place for very long. It is entirely reasonable to assume that people may not be awareof their obligation. Somebody who does not see a reminder notice may nevertheless suddenly discover that their income is having significant deductions taken from it.We are told further on in the Supplementary Order Paper—new section 41H “Protected earnings” so-called—that 60 percent of a person’s net income may be protected. Turn that round. A person could lose 40 percent of their net income. It could be deducted in order to repay this so-called debt from some prior use of legal assistance. For a person on a low income or even a moderate income that could be disastrous in terms of taking away from them the ability to pay basic living costs—their rent their power bill their grocery bill. Deducting 40 percent of income from a low-income person or even a moderate-income person could just lead to the complete financial collapse of a household. Whose interests are then served when that person is no longer able to provide the basic necessities for themselves and for the household they may well be supporting? That is an extraordinarily high provision a very high bar to enable the commissioner to take 40 percent of a person’s net income.I will not dwell on it here but we have had some significant submissions to this bill of course in the process of the select committee hearings. The Criminal Bar Association pointed to the fact that in its view the bill as drafted systematically deconstructs safety nets available to those vulnerable people charged with criminal offences. It refers to the bill’s improper balance between access to justice and the cost of a legal aid system which will be at the cost of justice in a large number of cases.These are not trivial objections from a group of people who are right at the sharp edge. On a day-to-day basis their members see the reality as Ms Dalziel described of places like the Manukau court the west Auckland courts and so on where it is not a matter of wealthy people concealing their wealth. It is a situation of people completely adrift in a system of which they have very little understanding who need representation and who will not be able to afford it.We know in respect of self-litigants—and again this came through in a number of the submissions—that the denial of legal aid will lead to more self-litigation so the penny saved will result in a pound more cost further down the track. Self-litigation slows the processes of courts. Judges become by default purveyors of legal advice. Court staff will be obliged or asked consistently and routinely to provide legal advice which is actually not what they are there to do. Self-litigation is recommended against at various points on the Ministry of Justice’s own website. The failures the difficulties and the dangers to the accused person the costs to the courts and the costs in terms of time to the judge and the whole judicial process are clearly out of step and have not been taken account of in this. Inevitably we will see more people try to represent themselves who do not have the skills the information and the wherewithal to do so. So any money saved by this quite Draconian denial of access to legal aid will very quickly be hoovered up by other costs that are imposed further down the track.Unfortunately that is a phenomenon we have seen all too much of recently. In the Government’s absolute determination to get this elusive Budget surplus it is looking for line-by-line cost reductions without looking at the bigger picture. When the big picture is the justice sector that is untenable. It is not just a matter of financial impropriety. This is talking about absolute basic rights basic access to the justice system. We ought not to be denying our citizens that.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):It is hardly surprising really that we are considering a bill the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill that involves yet again another denial of due process potentially another denial of access to justice because this Government—and indeed this Minister of Justice—is establishing a very strong track record on exactly that issue. We most recently had the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Act (No 2) which was at least explicit about denying accessto the courts for a group of people who were desperately in need of it. Now we have legislation that deals with the process end of trying to get access to justice and it starts putting up the barriers and the humps to get in the way.The Minister may well consider that she has done a good job at watering down some of the worst aspects of the legislation as it was introduced but there are still barriers and there are still problems with this legislation. I think it is instructive to note that since the present legal aid regime was commenced—was put in place—the number not only of lawyers doing legal aid since the beginning of last year but also of law firms now allowing their lawyers their solicitors and their partners to do legal aid has been dropping consistently and dramatically.You hear it from lawyers too. Law partners now say that whereas once upon a time a lawyer with 2 or 3 years’ post-qualification experience could be put on to some legal aid cases—it builds up their experience gets them a bit of court access and court time—they no longer do it because with the fixed-fee regime and with the administrative process that it now entails it is getting harder and frankly less viable for law firms to do it. Lawyers particularly those practising on their own account are now saying it is just too much and they are getting out of it. It is interesting to note now that the Ministry of Justice is having to put together a programme specifically to attract senior counsel back into doing legal aid work because the present regime is not working. Well this bill is not going to help. If anything it is going to make it worse.We should not when we are thinking about those who are dependent on legal aid overlook just what sort of a barrier $50 is in terms of making an application or contributing to those initial costs or legal costs that are required. For the impecunious the destitute and the poor those who find themselves facing the full force of the police and the coercive arm of the State and having to defend themselves and most importantly their liberties against it actually having access to legal aid is very important. And if you do not have $50 you do not have $50.Whereas before a lawyer who was making the application representing their client could in reality absorb that $50 in terms of the charge they pass on to the Ministry of Justice they cannot do that under the fixed-fee regime that now applies to legal aid. Unless there is a change there—and who knows what will happen there—it is simply going to get harder for those who are dependent on legal aid to stump up that $50. They will be dependent on the generosity of legal counsel who are themselves making the applications for legal aid in order to represent that client to either pay it themselves or in effect accept even less than the specified fees regime that is in place at the moment. That is the insidious nature of just that part of this bill. That is why this bill continues to create a barrier that we can all foresee will have very real effects for those who would otherwise be dependent upon it.Then there is the arrears issue this insidious notion when you are needing legal assistance particularly if you are facing a criminal charge. We claim that in our system our constitution where the State can come after people with prosecutions and put their liberty at risk we say: “Yes you can get access to court and get your case heard.” To put in place a situation where a previous grant of legal aid may give rise to a debt that then if it is unpaid may count against a future legal aid grant goes against a fundamental constitutional principle that when the State is coming after you and putting your liberty at risk you must be allowed access to the court to be heard. And it is not only access to the court but also adequate representation—representation of a quality and nature that befits the charge that the person is facing. That particular provision innocuous as it may seem on paper and as the Minister may make it out we can foresee is going to also create a barrier to access to legal representation at a time when a personwho is dependent on legal aid is going to need it most. That is yet another reason why we will be opposing this bill.We have already seen in the consideration to date of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill—and it is not complete yet—just how difficult it is going to get for people in the civil jurisdiction to get access to legal aid. In that particular case it is going to get harder for parents going through a family dispute mainly a separation to get access to legal aid and certainly legal representation at a time when they most need it which is when their particular situation and the legal ramifications of it are being talked about. Also disturbingly counsel for the child are now going to find it much harder to get State support to play their important role because that role is more or less legislated out under that particular bill. It all ties in with what this bill is trying to do which is to once again minimise and reduce the cost of legal aid to the State.The Minister makes very fine statements about the importance of legal aid. Legal aid is a big cost—about 50 percent of the cost—of the Justice vote. But we have that in a civilised country like ours because it is important. It is important for people to have access to adequate representation when they are in court. When we think about legal aid it is an area in which we should proceed with caution with care and with respect for that constitutional right of people to be represented in Her Majesty’s courts. When issues of rights are being determined and when issues of liberty are at stake then there is no cost too great to ensure that a person’s rights are fully observed and respected that they can get an audience and that a judge can make a considered decision on the basis of good quality representation.There are some respects in which if we do not meet the proper cost of legal aid the proper cost of representation of people when they are before the courts that cost will be picked up elsewhere. It will be picked up as my colleague Lianne Dalziel referred to as unrepresented people making guilty pleas that with proper consideration and access to legal aid they would not otherwise make. That may have implications then for the application of other legislation like the three-strikes legislation that may see people serving extensive sentences—sentences of up to 14 years—for what might otherwise be considered to be trivial acts of street thuggery or street burglary. We take this seriously. Notwithstanding the positive changes and the general direction that this bill has taken we still see in the provisions in this part of the bill some real problems and some real concerns about access to justice and the observance of people’s rights.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):I moveThat the question be now put .CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):It is a privilege to rise to speak on the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill. I have listened to all of the contributions made so far on this bill and I have to say that there have been some extremely interesting and very thoughtful contributions made by all of the speakers tonight on what was the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill which is as others have noted now being renamed the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill.I guess I will start by saying that despite changes—and a number of people have commented that if you like this is being clawed back to something a little better—it still does not mean that this is a bill we can support. Labour does oppose this bill. We oppose it because its net effect is still a denial of access to justice. As others have put more eloquently than I will be able to I am sure representation is fundamental to access to justice in our system. Having access to legal representation is vital. So many people are not able to represent themselves and are for a range of reasons perhaps even unaware of their own rights. So having decent representation is fundamental especially when the consequences are potentially very significant. Whether they be financial penalties or loss of liberty the fact of the matter is that people can suffer very severeconsequences and they have the right to have access to justice and decent representation.We oppose this bill because it still places a number of limitations on New Zealanders’ rights to access to justice. It is part of a concern that we have about the general direction of the Government in relation to the justice system. In relation to the bill as originally introduced certainly the contributions from a variety of people on it have been very interesting in realising the full extent of what was proposed and how serious those changes were. My colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel does make the comment that the Minister of Justice rather than members of the Justice and Electoral Committee from the other side of the Chamber was probably most likely to be responsible for the improvements that were made. There is a significant number—pages in fact—of changes made under Supplementary Order Paper 134. But despite that—despite that—there are still a number of significant areas that we are concerned about and if we were to sum them up they are in four main areas.Firstly the application for legal assistance may be turned down if the applicant is in arrears for repaying any part of a previous grant of aid that he or she may have received. I think it is important that we look at this in the context that New Zealanders are currently living in which is that it is extremely difficult for many New Zealanders to make ends meet that actually the budget does not stack up for people with the income they have and the expenses they have and that frankly it is quite likely that people will be in situations of not being able to repay arrears because they are trying to live. If you talk to budgeting services they will tell you just how hard people are struggling. That is the first of the four main concerns. Also still of concern are secondly the reintroduction of a user charge although the figure has now been reduced; thirdly the provision that interest is to be charged on arrears of legal aid; and fourthly the provisions having retrospective effect. Those are the four main areas that we are concerned about.I would just like to say that the Minister talked about and somebody else has mentioned people being concerned about seeing white-collar criminals—you know the finance company rip-off merchants—using legal aid but the fact of the matter is that it is not they who overwhelmingly use the legal aid system.I want to also refer to the regulatory impact statement. The Hon Lianne Dalziel referred to it earlier but I want to particularly talk about how it is not white-collar criminals—it is not middle-aged white men—who are going to be hurt by restrictions and the denial of access to justice. Let me just reread those two sentences: “Restrictions to eligibility will disadvantage people on low incomes who have few options to find legal services elsewhere. Generally this includes young Māori men in the criminal jurisdiction and women and children in the family jurisdiction.” So even with the changes it will still disadvantage those people.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa):I moveThat the question be now put .A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Amendments to other ActsHon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East):I want to comment in particular about the amendments in this Legal Assistance Amendment Bill as they relate to the Care of Children Act 2004. I know that this is directly linked to a piece of legislation that we will be dealing with in the House at some stage in the near future. This whole question around the transfer of the payment for the lawyer for the children and also the court-appointed counsel to assist in Family Court proceedings will be traversed I think in a great deal of detail when that particular piece of legislation is dealt with but the legal assistance or the legal aid aspects of it are dealt with in this bill.There are a number of issues that I think we should be concerned about. I really would like the Minister to take an early call on this particular part in order to work us through the particular issues because many of the issues that were raised when we were dealing with this bill were raised again when we were dealing with the Family Court legislation. In some respects some of the changes that were made to that piece of legislation directly impact on this and vice versa. I have to say that in fact I think some of the delay and some of the rethinking that was done which I do give the Minister some credit for—I think that her predecessor probably went a little further than I think even National members felt comfortable with and we are certainly grateful that this Minister has seen fit to take a step back and have another look. I think the Family Court provisions were one of the areas that created a significant amount of difficulty because I know that the Family Court judges submitted even though with a different head of bench on both bills.It was I think unusual certainly in my long experience in this place to have Family Court judges come and make submissions. They were very careful from their knowledge of how the bill would impact on their work as members of the judiciary not to cross that line in terms of policy which is appropriately the work of the Government. They were very clear about that and I thought they handled themselves exceptionally well. What they were concerned about was that some of the changes that the Government was making would not necessarily produce the result the Government was trying to achieve. I thought they were trying to be helpful in that regard.I think that in this area of the Family Court we have significant problems and one of the main problems relates to requiring refunded payments in respect of a lawyer acting for a child and this is referred to in clause 27 which introduces new sections 131A to131C. What we have in that area is new section 131A “Order requiring refund of payments in respect of lawyer acting for child”. I will just highlight what the concerns are. Section 131A(1) states: “An order referred to in section 131(5)” which is dealt with later on “must order the parties to refund to the Crown the prescribed proportion of the amount paid by the Crown under section 131(1)(b) in respect of the appointment of a lawyer appointed under section 7(1).” Each party must pay an equal share of the prescribed proportion. So we had some discussion at the select committee about what that prescribed proportion would be. I think it would be really good for the Minister to place on the record of the House what that prescribed proportion will be because the way it is set out in the legislation here is that the definition in new subsection (6) states that “prescribed proportion means the proportion that is prescribed by regulations made under section 147 for the purpose of this section”. A regulation-making power in respect of the proportion that is going to be set really does give a lot of power to the executive—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the debate on the financial performance in 2011-12 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises; the Immigration Amendment Bill with amendment progress on the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill and no progress on the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill and the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill.Report adopted.Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)