Volume 664 Week 47 - Tuesday 29 June 2010 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 664 Week 47 - Tuesday 29 June 2010 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12215. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 29 June 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Pacific Economic Development Agency—Contestability of Grant 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
:  
My question is to the Minister of Finance: does he stand by his statement to  
Morning Report 
 on 18 June when he said the $4.8 million appropriated—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes he is quite funny to look at but let us focus on the question Mr English. Can I start again Mr Speaker? There has been an unusual interchange on the other bench; members are a little unsettled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will invite the honourable Leader of the Opposition to start again. 
1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement to  
Morning Report 
 on 18 June when he said the $4.8 million appropriated to the Pacific Economic Development Agency would be contestable? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. What I said was that the money will be contestable if the purchase agreement cannot be reached satisfactorily. I expect officials will look at the same issues with regard to this contract as they would with any other—that is the capacity to deliver the ability to collaborate accountability and how to measure outcomes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did he claim that the appropriation would be contestable when the leaked memo of 25 March 2010 from the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs states explicitly that the Minister of Finance had made it clear that the Pacific Economic Development Agency was to be the preferred provider for the delivery of these initiatives? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member will be aware from his time as a Minister there is an appropriation process and then there is a contracting process. The contracting process will focus on achieving what the Government wants to achieve out of this and that is jobs and skills for young Pacific Islanders. The member may not be aware that they are the group most affected by the recession and we need to take positive initiatives to keep them connected to the workplace. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will recall that the question was about why he said it was contestable when the memo stated that this organisation was to be the preferred provider which is a contradiction of what the Minister had claimed. The Minister gave a long discourse about what he was doing but he did not answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: With respect—[ 
Interruption 
] Hold on a moment. With respect I think the Minister said a normal appropriation process was involved here. Members can question him further on that—whether they accept that is a reasonable answer or not. But I think it is an answer to the question that was asked. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How could saying this was a normal process be an answer to an either/or question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is asking a further question. The person to direct questions to is the Minister. That is exactly what supplementary questions are all about. Members have every right not to be satisfied with an answer that is given and if they are not satisfied with the answer they can question the Minister more about it and pin him down. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Minister of Finance ignore the advice of the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs that the projects promoted by the Pacific Economic Development Agency “overlap with many programmes that are currently being run by the Pacific Business Trust and other local and central government programmes”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The advice was not ignored. The Government always takes some notice of officials’ advice. This was a unique proposition and it is focused on achieving something that I think even the member would like to achieve and that is to help to lift the skills of young Pacific Islanders and keep them connected to the world of work so that as the economy recovers they can get jobs. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Minister of Finance decide to appropriate the money to the Pacific Economic Development Agency notwithstanding that the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs drew his attention to the fact that this was not an agency that had delivered on any projects of note that this was an agency that had no track record—this was an agency that was untested and unproven—that the experience of the ministry was that local and central government agencies had found that Pacific Economic Development Agency did not work well with other groups and that the advice from the ministry to him was that this contradicted Government procedures for tendering processes? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Officials are often cautious and that is their job. But as the member knows the appropriation did not create any obligation to pay any money to anybody and that is why right now officials are going through a process to ensure that young Pacific Islanders will get the benefit of an investment of Government money in developing further skills and better opportunities to get jobs. In the end I think the member will find that both the Pacific Island community and even the Labour Party will come round to supporting doing something active for those young New Zealanders. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Why did the Government make an appropriation in Budget 2010 to help young Pacific people? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Unemployment is 14.4 percent among Pacific people and it is even higher among young Pacific people. The Government simply has to take some positive initiatives to ensure that we do not end up with one in five young Pacific Islanders being disconnected from the workforce and having no skills. That would be a bad legacy from the recession. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How does the Minister justify his claim to the House on 23 June that the Pacific Economic Development Agency agreement would “meet all the requirements of accountability and transparency” when the process of deciding that it would get the money was anything but transparent and when the only legal requirement in the Budget is of self-reporting rather than the more usual and certainly the more stringent reporting requirement set out under section 32A of the Public Finance Act? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think that the member has asked that question about three times and he is— 
Hon Members 
: Still hasn’t got an answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is trying to describe a contract that has not yet been negotiated or completed. The contract with this organisation or with any other organisation will go through exactly the same process as for every other public contract. I might say that at the end of it we will be very pleased to see arrangements that will help young Pacific Islanders get skills and get jobs. I am surprised that the Labour Party is so opposed to that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was Inga Tuigamala an aspirant National candidate at any point involved in discussions with him or Mr Key in relation to the Pacific Economic Development Agency proposal? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was the reason that the Pacific Economic Development Agency was granted the appropriation—against all officials’ advice and in a totally non-transparent manner—that it was mired by party political considerations rather than being motivated by how to best and most effectively deliver the services needed by the Pasifika community? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No and it does not matter how often the Labour Party says that because it simply is not true. It was motivated by the need to stop doing what Labour did for years which was to talk endlessly write strategies and hold workshops and to turn the aspirations of the wider Pacific community into some real change for some real young people with real needs. 
Budgets International—Implications for New Zealand 
2. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received of recent Budget measures taken internationally and what implications do they have for New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Governments around the world are trying to deal with ballooning debt and deficits and that means some difficult choices. For instance in last week’s UK Budget the British Government was dealing with a deficit of 11 percent of GDP. It had an emergency Budget that included a 25 percent reduction in all departmental spending other than health and overseas aid a freezing of wages for State sector employees and an increase in GST with no offsetting change in income tax. That shows the kind of predicament that a country can get into if it does not pay attention to managing its Budget. 
Craig Foss 
: What were the circumstances that forced the new British Government to take such drastic measures? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The incoming British Government has referred to an unbalanced economy where that imbalance was caused by a decade of rampant Government spending and growth in all the wrong places. It talks about “a new model of economic growth [needing to be] built on saving investment and enterprise instead of debt”. That sounds very familiar. In New Zealand we are taking a more measured approach. We have curbed increases in Government spending and have reprioritised almost $4 billion of public spending in order to target our limited resources to the most vulnerable and to front-line public services. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Will the Minister listen to his own warning that cutting too much too quickly can push a country into fresh recession leading to more unemployment and more families struggling to make ends meet; and does he now regret the advice he gave to the previous Labour Government to give unaffordable tax cuts and build up debt in advance of a recession? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have listened to my own advice and I often do because it is consistently good. The Government has also listened to some of that advice and that is why New Zealand is taking a measured approach to fiscal constraint. We have set a horizon of 3 to 5 years over which Government departments need to manage within the money they have. We expect them to deliver more for less. 
Craig Foss 
: What lessons can New Zealand take from the British experience? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the lesson we can take is that Governments should be consistently careful about the use of taxpayers’ money and they should make measured and consistent change over time. If we do not make firm decisions consistently then we will end up making very harsh decisions as the UK Government has now been forced to do. That is why in Budget 2010 we delivered a package of changes that amount to measured control of Government spending as well as growth-promoting measures that will assist to close the Government deficit. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has the Minister seen reports of falling business confidence in New Zealand and does he attribute that to European Budget contraction or is it more likely a verdict on his own Budget which over 7 years musters less than 1 percent extra growth and only 5.7 percent of the extra jobs on the cycle? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think some fluctuations in business confidence are not unexpected. The fact is that the recovery is a bit patchy. Some sectors are doing well; some are not doing so well. The good news is that New Zealanders are not racing back to the housing market. They are being careful with their spending; they are not borrowing a lot more money in a hurry; and at the same time the export sector is reflecting the benefits of higher prices and higher productivity. That is exactly the rebalancing we need in this economy. We need more growth in our ability to earn from the rest of the world and less reliance on debt domestically. 
Craig Foss 
: Is he aware of any policy options that would make a painful British-style correction necessary? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes there are policy options that would store up trouble for New Zealand—for instance increasing Government spending rapidly in response to every single group that wanted a bit more money borrowing a lot more money in global markets and a reckless increase in Wellington-based bureaucrats that does not enhance front-line services. If we followed those policies which are the policies of the Opposition we would end up in the same situation as the UK. 
Health Services—Minister’s Statements 
3. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements on health services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes including the statement that just before the general election the Labour Government over 5 years cut over $110 million from public health services primary care funding for people with disabling chronic medical conditions the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme smoking cessation programmes and others. It appears the previous Government made those changes because despite giving district health boards more resources the growth in health service demand means that district health boards constantly need to move lower-priority spending to help deliver improved front-line health services. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Given the increasing number of general practitioners leaving the country under his watch and the fact that he has recently changed his mind about closing the wage gap with Australian doctors can New Zealanders expect to wait longer and longer to see a general practitioner under a National Government and pay more for the privilege? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No Government has made more efforts than this Government to keep doctors in New Zealand. Not only are we funding additional general practitioner training places but also the tax cuts announced by the Minister of Finance will put substantial money in the pockets of some of our hardest-working health staff. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What does he say to Grey Power which yesterday raised concerns about Meals on Wheels being cut in the Helensville electorate and is so distressed about this that it has written both to him and to the Prime Minister? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have looked into that case and I can say that eight people in Helensville are receiving Meals on Wheels from a local charitable trust that is part-funded by the district health board. Everyone else in the area gets home support and meals through the district health board’s mainstream support services. The district health board is rolling this small contract for those eight people into the contract it provides for the rest of the region. I am advised that those people will get the same if not improved service. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What reports has he seen in relation to improving front-line services in areas that are difficult to staff? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am pleased to announce that the Government’s voluntary bonding scheme for doctors nurses and midwives has been oversubscribed for a second year in a row. Five hundred new health graduates have joined this year’s scheme. Around 1400 doctors nurses and midwives have now been accepted into the scheme which offers student loan write-offs or cash incentives to stay in New Zealand. This year’s intake includes 45 midwives 392 nurses and 64 doctors. Almost half of all the new midwifery graduates joined the scheme. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why when he was warned last year that the Australian Government was making changes that would make it easier for New Zealand general practitioners to work in that country did he sit back and do nothing? As a result 59 rural practices have recorded a shortage of general practitioners since he became the Minister and in the past year 26 urban practices have recorded shortages. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The advice from Health Workforce New Zealand is that those changes in Australia will have a minimal impact in New Zealand. I remind that member of the thousands of New Zealanders who could not get a general practitioner when she was the Minister of Health. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Having last week dismissed the concerns of the staff at Wellington Regional Hospital in relation to their increased workload due to imposed annual leave entitlements what will he now say to the woman who has gone public with the fact that last Thursday at Wellington Regional Hospital her mother was left lying in her own faeces for 3 hours unable to get anyone to help her? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Of course it is absolutely unacceptable if that were to happen. That lady is currently under an investigation. I am sure that all New Zealanders would be appalled if the nursing staff put her in that position. 
Crime Victims—Increased Support 
4. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What recent announcements has he made about increased support for victims of crime? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 This morning the Minister of Police and I were pleased to announce the commencement on 1 July of a number of initiatives for victims of crime including on-the-spot safety orders for victims of domestic violence implementation of the $50 offender levy enhanced support services for victims of homicide and sexual violence and new information resources for victims of crime. 
Chester Borrows 
: What other steps will the Government take to improve support for victims of crime? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Officials will shortly report back to me on a range of options stemming from the public consultation document entitled  
A Focus on Victims of Crime: A Review of Victims’ Rights 
. The options are likely to focus on simplifying victims’ interaction with the criminal justice system and making the system more receptive to victims’ needs. The Government is committed to placing victims at the heart of the justice system. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has he made any announcements on his Government’s complete abandonment of victims and survivors of sexual crime as last week it was revealed that in 6 months only 178 people had been approved for accident compensation counselling and that figure had to be forced out under an Official Information Act request? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I can report that in addition to today’s announcements I am working on a number of initiatives to improve the interaction of sexual violence victims with the criminal justice system. Those initiatives include setting aside additional funding for sexual violence prevention programmes and funding for the survivor advocate role. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Will he appeal to the Minister for ACC to stop this ugly and offensive attack on victims of serious crime who are unable to get the help they need to heal in the aftermath of sexual abuse? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I talk to all of my colleagues including the Minister for ACC about initiatives that the Government is taking in this area. Members opposite might be interested to know that at 3.30 today with a bit of luck I will be having my quarterly meeting with the TOAH-NNEST—Te Ohaaki a Hine—National Network for Ending Sexual Violence—group which brings these concerns to me and continues a very constructive dialogue with the Government. 
Prisoners—Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation 
5. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does she stand by her statement on  
Close Up 
 last night that “prison is a very expensive place to send somebody to sort out their drug and alcohol problems. I’d much rather they were sorted out in the community”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: When she said that was she aware that at least two drug and alcohol treatment units based in Blenheim and Auckland respectively are preparing to close their doors on offenders with drug and alcohol problems? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes and I have spoken to the Minister of Health and he has advised me that in the case of the Blenheim institution the matter is being dealt with by the Ministry of Health which will be taking over the matter. In relation to the other issue which I think is in the member’s electorate the matter is being dealt with in another way as well. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: If she is advocating with the Government to sort out drug and alcohol problems within the community why has her Government decided to discontinue the funding previously provided for St Marks Adult Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre in Blenheim and for the Care NZ clinic in Otahuhu—not in Christchurch—both of which have been providing community rehabilitation services for offenders? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have done my best to answer a question that could have been directed to the Minister of Health. Quite clearly the Department of Corrections does not have responsibility for drug and alcohol treatment in the community and I would have thought the member as an experienced member would know that. 
Melissa Lee 
: What is the Government doing to help offenders with drug and alcohol problems while they are in prison and after they leave? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: We know that drugs and alcohol are major drivers of crime in New Zealand and that two-thirds of our prisoners enter jail with drug and alcohol problems. That is why this Government is committed to doubling the number of drug and alcohol treatment unit places from 500 to 1000. Just last week I opened a drug and alcohol treatment unit at Otago Corrections Facility and two further units at Wanganui and Auckland prisons will be completed by next year. I have also asked the Department of Corrections to look at an “outside the wire” drug treatment unit to help prisoners address drug and alcohol issues after they leave prison. Work is now under way to see how this initiative could be implemented— something the previous Labour Government never did. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Has she as Minister of Corrections at any time advocated to any of her colleagues that the Government should continue to fund the St Marks Adult Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre or the Care NZ clinic in Otahuhu? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I speak to my colleagues all the time and I am constantly talking about the need to have drug and alcohol treatment services both inside and outside prisons. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect that was a straight question. It asked specifically about advocacy or the lack of it. It was not pertaining to a whole host of agencies but to the St Marks Adult Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre and the Care NZ clinic at Otahuhu. It specifically asked whether she had advocated in respect of those two entities. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister if she has that information to let the House have it. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I speak to my colleagues all the time about this issue and I am surprised to hear as I understand that the member asking the question has never advocated for this himself. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will not waste your time. My point of order stands: the question was not about what I or any other colleague has done. It was not about discussions the Minister may or may not have had in general; it was about advocacy or lack of it for two specific entities. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order is a reasonable one. The primary question did not exactly point to where the member’s supplementary question has gone and that is why I invited the Minister to reply if she had the information. But it is a reasonable question to ask whether the Minister had advocated for issues relating to the Minister’s responsibility. The last answer from the Minister was not very helpful in attacking the questioner and I think that the House would be interested in knowing whether the Minister advocated on those issues. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I make clear that I have spoken to the Minister of Health about this issue in relation to both of these institutions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What credibility does her Government’s claim—that it is focused on the drivers of crime—have when programmes all around the country that have proven successful in preventing recidivism such as St Marks Care NZ Clinic the Wellington Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society and Te Hurihunga are closing down due to her Government’s decisions to withdraw funding? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well it has an awful lot more than the previous Government has frankly. The fact is we are increasing drug and alcohol treatment by 100 percent in our prisons within 3 years whereas the previous Government had 9 years to do something about it and never did a thing. Those members sit there and grandstand instead of actually dealing with the issue. 
Mokihinui Hydro Dam—Criteria and Evaluation Process for Land Exchange 
6. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What criteria and processes will she use to evaluate any land exchange proposed by Meridian Energy for the area of public conservation land it wishes to flood for its proposed Mokihinui hydro scheme? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Conservation 
: The processes and criteria are set out in section 16A of the Conservation Act 1987. They are also guided by Conservation General Policy 2005 and other relevant statutory documents such as the West Coast Te Tai o Poutini Conservation Management Strategy. The key criteria set out in section 16A are that the exchange will enhance the conservation value of land managed by the department and also promote the purposes of the Act. Land exchange applications are processes that are operated consistent with departmental procedures and the legislation. 
Kevin Hague 
: What land currently outside public conservation land could possibly offset the drowning of 300 hectares of irreplaceable river gorge habitat for kiwi blue duck kaka falcons giant land snails native bats and long-finned eels all of which currently live along the Mokihinui River? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The member may be aware that an application was made then subsequently withdrawn by Meridian Energy. That particular application was released under the Official Information Act and I am sure the member has a copy of it. 
Kevin Hague 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The supplementary question asked what land would fit that section 16A requirement and the Minister has not addressed that question at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I confess I thought the Minister’s answer was a fair way away from the question asked. I invite the member to repeat his question exactly; let the Minister hear it and provide an answer to the House. 
Kevin Hague 
: What land currently outside the public conservation estate could possibly offset the drowning of 300 hectares of irreplaceable river gorge habitat for the kiwi blue duck kaka falcons giant land snails native bats and long-finned eels that currently live along the Mokihinui River? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: This application has not been considered by the Minister and it would be inappropriate for the Minister to make a comment prior to the application. I mentioned the Official Information Act request because it dealt with land that Meridian Energy had offered. That application was withdrawn as the questioner may well know. 
Kevin Hague 
: Is she familiar with a Landcare Research report tabled in this House in 2008 that concluded that it is impossible to offset the biodiversity loss that this dam would cause; if so does she accept that Landcare Research advice? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I cannot say whether the Minister would be aware of that. But the Minister is well aware of the application. The Minister cannot make comment at this stage. That would prejudice her consideration of a future application. As she is the decision maker public comment on the merits would be inappropriate. 
Kevin Hague 
: Is it the case that Meridian Energy withdrew its first land exchange offer because that offer had been firmly rejected by the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board and the Department of Conservation; if so why was it rejected by her department? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: As I indicated the original application was made and released under the Official Information Act. It is correct that the department did not recommend that the application be accepted because it did not meet the criteria of the Act. At this point in time there is no other application by Meridian Energy. It is also worth noting that this issue is yet to go through the Environment Court appeal processes and as the member will probably know the department is not supporting that appeal. 
Kevin Hague 
: Can she give a single example of land that would represent an acceptable exchange and is not already protected? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It would be inappropriate to answer that question because that in effect would be looking to prejudge the merits of the application. 
Kevin Hague 
: Does she agree with her colleague Gerry Brownlee who last year told a Nelson audience: “The Mokihinui will not go ahead. I don’t think you are going to see any large scale dams built in the foreseeable future.”? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The member may be also aware that Minister Gerry Brownlee also indicated that such comments were being taken out of context. In any event the Minister of Conservation has the statutory authority to deal with any applications. Indeed she must act statutorily. 
Kevin Hague 
: Does she accept that there is no land exchange that could meet the criteria she needs to apply; therefore could she not save enormous expenditure of time effort and money from all parties including Meridian Energy by ruling out any possible land exchange right now? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I have already answered that question: to give an answer would pre-empt her decision on any potential application. She must apply the criteria set out in the Act and therefore she must act in a statutory manner. 
Kevin Hague 
: I seek leave to table a document that provides a link to an audio recording of Minister Brownlee’s comments that I have cited in the House from the  
Nelson Mail 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I take it that it is a link to a newspaper article? 
Kevin Hague 
: Yes it is a newspaper article. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not be doing that. 
Prisons—Smoking Ban 
7. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What steps are being taken to make prisons safer and healthier for staff and prisoners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that from 1 July next year all prisoners in New Zealand jails will be banned from smoking. About two-thirds of prisoners smoke and this exposes staff and prisoners to serious harm. Research into the air quality in prisons shows that staff and prisoners can be exposed to 12 times the level of second-hand smoke that is in the home of an indoor smoker. The policy will also mean that there is no need for prisoners to have lighters or matches. These have been used to set fire to bedding and to light balls of paper that have been thrown at corrections staff. Our hard-working officers deserve better than that and I fully support the introduction of the ban. With this photograph I show the House an example of just what can happen in a prisoner’s cell when there is access to lighters and matches. 
Sandra Goudie 
: How will the introduction of this policy be managed to ensure it is successfully implemented? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: There will be an extensive 12-month campaign prior to the introduction of the ban to encourage staff and prisoners to give up smoking. This campaign will be led by the Department of Corrections and supported by the Ministry of Health and the Quit Group. The campaign will include information education on smoking and support to quit smoking. Prisoners will also be offered an 8-week course of nicotine replacement patches. All youth units in New Zealand prisons have been successfully operating as smoke-free environments. Smoking is also banned in police station holding cells and secure mental health facilities. I have every confidence that the Department of Corrections will implement this policy successfully. 
Accident Compensation—Surpluses 
8. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Did he tell the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on Thursday 24 June 2010 that ACC was in a stable position with $2 billion of surpluses? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 That is an inaccurate summary of the transcript of my comments at the select committee. I noted that the accident compensation scheme’s investments had turned round dramatically but were still quite volatile that the scheme’s liabilities had grown dramatically under Labour but are now stabilised and that after losses of $2.4 billion and $4.8 billion I was expecting a surplus of about $2 billion this year. I urged caution at the select committee over the projected surplus because the accident compensation scheme still has liabilities of $25 billion and assets of only $14 billion such that ongoing surpluses will be required to close the gap and meet the legal requirement of full funding by 2019. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given that to use the Minister’s own boastful words last week the accident compensation scheme has made enormous progress is in a stable financial position and is expecting a $2 billion surplus this year and that that has all been achieved by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) as a publicly owned and operated entity does the Minister not see that that fundamentally undermines his case for privatisation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that National’s policy of investigating competition in the work account was announced long after we knew of the huge mess that Labour had left in accident compensation where costs grew by 57 percent—or by over $1 billion in claim costs—and in which administrative costs were out of control. On the issue of competition I say that this Government and the Prime Minister have made plain that the test for this Government will be ensuring the best quality of service and efficiency for our accident compensation services. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister now accept that he exaggerated problems and beat up a crisis so as to justify his plans to cut cover and to privatise accident compensation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Absolutely not. We need look only at the more than $10 billion increase in the liabilities of the accident compensation scheme the breach of the Public Finance Act and the increase in claim costs of 57 percent to know the sort of incompetent governance the previous Government had in respect of accident compensation. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What savings has the Government been able to achieve in the administration and claims management costs of ACC and how does that compare historically? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In the last year ACC has made savings in its own costs of $35 million—a saving of 7 percent. This includes savings of 52 percent in domestic travel 45 percent in international travel and savings in communications in sponsorship and in the corporate office. In contrast I note that during the previous 4 years ACC’s administration costs grew from $302 million to $494 million—an increase in admin costs of $50 million each and every year during the last years of the Labour Government. That is typical of the sort of mismanagement that occurred right across the public sector which this Government is now having to deal with. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why has the Minister refused to release under the Official Information Act the two stocktake reports on the accident compensation scheme he has had for months? Is it because they would be useful for critics of his privatisation plans? If he has no such worries why not just release them now? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The full stocktake report has not been received by the Government. It is exactly the same practice that has always operated and that is that reports will be released after the Government has made a decision. Neither Cabinet nor any Cabinet committee has given any consideration to the issue of competition in the work account and will not do so until such time as it receives the full stocktake report. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister embarrassed that he was forced to admit at the select committee that his earlier statement that self-insuring large employers have a better rehabilitation record which he has used to justify privatisation was based on no evidence whatsoever and was merely an assertion? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is making it up. The transcript shows that the claims he is making about what occurred at the select committee are quite incorrect and the interesting part— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Now the transcripts are accurate; they were inaccurate before. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: If Mr Mallard would like me to table the transcript from the select committee I would be more than happy to so that people can see what was said. I assure the member that National is not ideologically opposed to the private sector having a role in accident compensation. We will do what is best for New Zealand for claimants and for those who pay the accident compensation levies. 
Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Access Under Customary Title 
9. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Will any legislation replacing the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 contain a clause preventing the Maori owners of sections of the foreshore and seabed held under customary title from charging or attempting to charge other New Zealanders for access to the beach? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Cabinet has not yet made final decisions on the content of the draft legislation. It is not for me to prejudge Cabinet deliberations and of course one must pay close attention to the detail of the legislation. What I can say is that public access in on and over the public foreshore and seabed will be guaranteed subject to authorised limits such as for public health and safety reasons. For example no one reasonably expects the public to have unfettered picnic rights at naval bases. 
David Garrett 
: How will the Maori ownership of sections of the foreshore and seabed differ from NgaiTahu’s ownership of the bed of Lake Ellesmere vested in the tribe under section 168 and following sections of the NgaiTahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 which has led to NgaiTahu charging eel fishers 8 percent of the value of their catch? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: In the case of NgaiTahu that was a statutory vesting under the settlement Act of 1998. Customary title will be awarded under the replacement to the 2004 legislation and public access will be guaranteed. 
Attorney-General—Confidence 
10. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is he satisfied that the Hon Christopher Finlayson has shown sufficient attention to detail to retain his confidence as Attorney-General; if so why? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because he is proving himself to be an outstanding Attorney-General. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has Mr Finlayson informed him or his office of any matter other than that relating to Te Puhi Trustee (2) Ltd that should have been declared by way of the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament by Mr Finlayson and has not been? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have no recollection of those no. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has Mr Finlayson told him that he has made false declarations other than the matters that came to light last week? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is making an assumption. If we examine the member’s track record we see that he is normally wrong. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very carefully worded question and it—[ 
Interruption 
] Well— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not react. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There is no debate. It has been brought to your attention Mr Speaker that Mr Finlayson has made false declarations and he has accepted that. I think that a question asking whether another has been brought to the Prime Minister’s attention deserves a proper answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister has no responsibility for the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. However if a member has told the Prime Minister that a Minister may have made an error in that register I guess the Prime Minister has a responsibility for his Ministers. If the Prime Minister has been asked by the member whether there are any other errors then I guess the Prime Minister should answer the question. It was pretty specific as to whether the Attorney-General has told the Prime Minister of any other errors. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No the Attorney-General has not. I am aware that there was an error on behalf of Mr Finlayson’s lawyer at one stage in relation to an address with the Companies Office but Mr Finlayson and I have not discussed that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Would Mr Finlayson continue to enjoy his confidence as Attorney-General if a further false declaration came to light? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is an unreasonably speculative question. I do not think it is reasonable to imply when asking a question that a member may behave improperly. I do not think that is reasonable. I will give the member a chance to reword the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If a member in this House tabled a document that showed that Mr Finlayson made a further false declaration would he continue to have confidence in him? I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure what the point of order is. The member has just asked a question and he is now raising a point of order. I will hear him briefly but I want to know very quickly what the point of order is. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table a Companies Office record that shows that Mr Finlayson made another false declaration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A member must not make allegations of improper behaviour when seeking leave to table a document. The member must describe the document and no more. I will give the member a further chance to simply tell the House what the document is. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is a Companies Office record for Diana Bremner Trust Nominees Ltd. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Supplementary question Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member just asked a supplementary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have not finished yet. I was interrupted. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member actually interrupted himself. There is a personality problem— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It may have escaped Ministers’ attention but when I am on my feet silence means silence. The member was doing perfectly well until that point. The Hon Rodney Hide knows that that is no way to conduct a point of order. The first point he made was not unreasonable though. The Hon Trevor Mallard did interrupt himself. He had asked a question but the problem with the question he asked was that it still implied that a Minister may have done something improper and members know that it is outside the Standing Orders to make that implication in a question. I gave the member an opportunity to reword the question and I must now move on. 
David Garrett 
: What confidence does he have in the Attorney-General’s attention to detail given that he told Parliament on 16 June: “I believe … that we are not talking about very much at all.” but then said in a television interview 4 days later: “In the round I think based on the sort of information I have based on my talking around the place I’d say about 10%” of the foreshore and seabed? Does the Prime Minister agree that 2000 kilometres of coastline is “not … very much at all.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I have enormous confidence in the Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He is proving that he can resolve issues that the previous Labour Government completely failed to. What level of the coastline goes into the foreshore and seabed customary title is purely speculative and the truth is that none of us know. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is he relaxed about having as Attorney-General—a role that requires precise legal declarations—someone who has already admitted making four false declarations? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am very confident in the Attorney-General. If one looks at the situation where the proposed or the alleged false declarations were made one sees that at the point at which the error was raised Mr Finlayson immediately took the matter up with the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. Subsequently he has been advised to change his listing. I might add though that it is not uncommon. Members from all parties do that from time to time including Maryan Street. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I suspect that matters relating to this question could return to the floor of the House on a regular basis in the weeks ahead. On behalf of members I would like you please to look at Standing Orders 159 160 161 and 162. I do not want you to comment on those today but I would like you to consider how Standing Orders 160 through to 162 and their various parts relate to Part 1 of Appendix B of the requirements under Standing Order 159. I am simply saying that it appears that we are straying into territory that wants to make a distinction between a pecuniary interest in a financial sense which is the requirement strictly of the Standing Orders or an interest declaration of a non-pecuniary nature. I think that this distinction is causing some difficulty for some members. It certainly will cause a lot of difficulty for all members in the future if in fact the difference between an interest in a broad sense and a financial interest whereby there is pecuniary advantage to a member is not clearly sorted out. It would seem that the registrar has failed members in this regard because there is no ruling. It would seem further from the strength of the Standing Orders that in the end it is the Speaker who rules on these matters. I ask you to give it some consideration and perhaps come back to the House to define the difference between an interest and a pecuniary interest. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the honourable member briefly. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think it would be valuable if you did that but as you do it it would be good for you to look at the ruling that Dame Margaret Bazley has made in the case of Mr Finlayson. She made it clear that the words “declare all directorships” mean that one must declare all directorships. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the honourable members and I appreciate the issue raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I think there are grounds for uncertainty here because the Standing Order relates to declaring pecuniary interests. That is the point that the Hon Gerry Brownlee made. The problem is not one of the registrar; it is the way in which Appendix B is constructed. It is a matter that we may well need to look at again. I am not sure the Speaker should rule on the matter alone. I think the matter may need to be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee at some stage. 
In the meantime members need to in so far as is possible comply with the recommendation made by the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. But we need for the future to make sure the Standing Orders are clearer on what is required. I think there are reasonable grounds for uncertainty where we have a register of pecuniary interests and it seems that members are also required to register matters that are not pecuniary interests. That would be my way of handling it rather than trying to sort it out on my own. I think it is a matter that needs reference back to the Standing Orders Committee. I thank honourable members. 
Petrobras—Petroleum Exploration Permit 
11. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Kei te whakaae a ia ki te korero a ApiMahuika te Manakura o NgatiPorou na te kore korero tahi ki te iwi kuawaiho e te Karauna te Tiriti ki rahaki a hingatonu atu te tino rangatiratanga o te Maorii roto i te whakaaetanga o te Karauna kia keri-whenua a Petrobras; ki te kore he aha ai? 
[ 
Does he agree with NgatiPorou leader ApiMahuika that the Crown acted outside the Treaty because it has not consulted and has failed to honour a guarantee to protect the rights of Maori in its granting of an exploration permit to Petrobras; if not why not? 
] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 No. The minerals programme for petroleum 2005 lays down requirements for consultation with relevant iwi when issuing petroleum blocks offers. In this case the Raukumara block offer that consultation did take place. I seek leave to table a chronology of engagement with iwi relating to the Raukumara block offer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: He aha tana ki Aotearoa whanui ki te whakaheita Manu Caddie ikoreronei he “shameful environmental record” taPetrobas a ka raru te taiao inga mahi keri-whenua? 
[ 
What assurance can he give New Zealanders to counter the claims by Manu Caddie that Petrobras had a “shameful environmental record” and that there are environmental risks inherent in the oil drilling operation? 
] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not know who Manu Caddie is and I do not have any responsibility for any comments that he makes. However I would say that it is widely acknowledged that Petrobras has spent many billions of dollars on safety over the past decade. The company has developed its own robust 15-point health safety and environmental guidelines. Most important New Zealand—since the National Government introduced it—now has the Environmental Protection Agency soon to be a stand-alone agency which will have responsibility for issuing permits in the exclusive economic zone. I would expect that the agency will develop the very highest of standards required for anyone undertaking any exploratory activity in the exclusive economic zone. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Ka aha ia ki te whakatauingaawangawangakuakoropupuakei roto i a Te Whanau-a-Apanui a Te Tai Rawhiti a NgatiPorou a Turanga-nui-a-Kiwa nanga mahi o te Kawanatanga ki te tuku i te Raukumara basin ki a Petrobras International? 
[ 
What actions will he take to address the evident loss of goodwill being felt by Te Whanau-a-Apanui Te Tai Rawhiti NgatiPorou and Turanga-nui-a-Kiwa because of the Government’s action in signing over the Raukumara basin to Petrobras International? 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did the Minister hear the entire question? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think I heard enough of it to understand what the gist of it was. The first point I would make is that goodwill and good faith is something that goes two ways and I would suggest to the member that I also feel as if there has been a breach of good faith by the parties mentioned in their dealings with me. But I will make clear that I was prepared to publicly apologise—and I did so—to both NgatiPorou and Te Whanau-a-Apanui immediately after the block offer was signed up with Petrobras. But I also tabled today for all members to see a very lengthy consultation exercise undertaken with those iwi. I think we have discharged our responsibilities appropriately. I am sorry that it is not to the standard that those two groups particularly would demand for themselves. But in the end these are nationalised minerals and the Crown has a right on behalf of New Zealand to consider what potential they may have to add to our economic well-being. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has the Minister advised the Maori Party that if it does not like the fact that oil and other petroleum products are nationalised and will not form part of Treaty rights—or indeed foreshore and seabed rights—that it could actually vote against the foreshore and seabed legislation that his Government is bringing forward? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think the efforts of my opponent over there to try to sow seeds of discord are a total waste of time. This matter has been discussed widely between all parties and what we are seeing is a disagreement between one Minister of the Crown and two parties to the arrangements. I am sure that it will be sorted out because in the end—[ 
Interruption 
]; once we get past all the trumpeting—what those parties want what National wants and what the Maori Party wants is the same thing. It is for people’s rights to be protected as their interests stand in the foreshore and seabed and I am confident that that is where we are heading. 
Triathlon ITU World Championship Series Grand Final—Government Support 
12. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What support is the Government providing for New Zealand’s hosting of the 2012 Triathlon ITU World Championships Series grand final? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Government yesterday announced that $900000 has been allocated from the Major Events Development Fund to enable Triathlon New Zealand to host the 2012 Triathlon ITU World Championship Series grand final in October of 2012. There will of course be associated tests at this event in late 2011. Triathlon is the fastest-growing sport in New Zealand and local triathletes regularly do well in international events. Around 4500 triathletes and supporters are expected to come to New Zealand for the grand final. Triathlon New Zealand’s feasibility study estimates that the event will have an impact economically speaking of about $30.9 million on the New Zealand economy—and who knows who else may be motivated to give triathlon a go if it all looks pretty good. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What other major events has the Government— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member but I could not hear that question. A little more reasonableness with interjections please. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What other major events has the Government supported recently? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government has provided funding for a number of major events including the 2012 Volvo Ocean Race stopover the American Express Queenstown Winter Festival 2010 the 2010 New Zealand International Festival of the Arts and the 2013 UCI BMX World Championships. They provide a pipeline of events that will maintain New Zealand’s major events profile and enhance New Zealand’s reputation as a host capable of presenting events in a very substantial way. They will provide television coverage of our country and will contribute to the promotion of New Zealand and that will help others to see New Zealand as a visitor destination. 
Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The House is in Committee for the consideration of the debate on the performance in 2008-09 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises. The debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises is a series of debates on individual financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported by select committees. A total of 3 hours is allocated for the debate. The debates on the individual financial reviews should be relevant to the performance in the 2008-09 financial year and current operations. A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. I understand that members have indicated the Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises they wish to debate. The first entity I understand members wish to debate is the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. 
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be the first speaker in this debate addressing the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority because it is a good-news story. In fact it is such a good-news story that doing research for this particular Crown entity was nothing short of a pleasure. 
I will run through some of the achievements of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority over the period under review. First of all we might as well start with the really good news which is the home insulation scheme. It has been not only a great success but a resounding success and a milestone with a number of New Zealand homes—I do not know the figure; perhaps the Minister of Energy and Resources may help me on it—given up to $1800 to assist them with the cost of insulating their home. That is good news for those homeowners. It is hugely good news for all of us in New Zealand— 
Hon Member 
: And children. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: My colleague so rightly points out that it is not just about the health of adults in the home but it is about the health of children in the home. That just shows that the Minister in the chair the Hon Gerry Brownlee cares about the health of New Zealanders. I think it is an excellent home insulation scheme. It is wildly successful and has been implemented by the National Government. 
The home insulation scheme Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart funds up to 33 percent of the cost of installing insulation. That is significant for people and it has been warmly welcomed. It will apply to ceiling and underfloor insulation and it makes such a difference to the lives of the many thousands upon thousands of people who have been fortunate to come under this scheme. 
Another piece of good news for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority is the Energy Spot TV ads. It has been a wildly successful initiative. Once a week a friendly face comes on to the screen and gives us all—I have listened to it with great interest—some good sensible advice on how to save energy. It is not just talking about it which the previous Labour Government was fond of doing; it is getting out there and providing some good sensible advice about how to save energy in our homes. It is about lagging the hot-water cylinder insulating pipes and stopping draughts. There is good sensible advice for all of us about saving energy costs on the road by running our vehicles efficiently. I watched the adverts and I know how to do it. I know how because of the Energy Spot initiative by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority which is at the hands of the excellent Minister Gerry Brownlee. 
As well as that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority provides advice on appliances with energy ratings labels—the more stars the more energy efficient—and that is something that I take note of. Consumers are increasingly taking note of that type of advice when buying their new appliances. 
I have saved some of the good news for later in my speech. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority won the award for the best Government agency in the Vero Excellence in Business Support Award 2010. That is a wonderful achievement for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. I take the liberty of quoting the Hon Gerry Brownlee when he accepted the award for the best Government agency. He said: “This government is committed to making the best of its energy resources. Helping New Zealand businesses use less energy and increase their use of renewable energy helps to strengthen our economy”. I suggest to the Committee that those are wise words from the Minister. That is not just talking the talk; that is doing the business. There is so much potential to save energy and successful businesses are the ones that focus on improving productivity and reducing waste. Efficient use of energy is a key part of that process. It is a key and critical part of this Government’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority policy. 
I go back to the home insulation scheme because I think it is a cornerstone and a critical part of the work that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority does. The Warm Up New Zealand initiative has been so widely welcomed. My part of the country the South Island is the coldest part of the country. The benefit that has been derived for homes that have applied for and been given grants by providers under this Warm Up New Zealand scheme has been immeasurable. I again acknowledge the work of the Minister in this scheme. 
Report noted. 
Genesis Power Ltd 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 At the  
Press 
 South Island forum last month the Prime Minister made a very interesting comment that if National were to go down the privatisation path the most likely candidates for part sale would be State-owned energy companies. It is very interesting. The alibi that the National Government has used when raising this issue—firstly when Bill English spilt his guts and let the cat out of the bag over State-owned enterprises in respect of Kiwibank the day after the Budget—is that for a number of assets there will need to be further capitalisation. National says in respect of further capitalisations that there is not enough money or enough cookies in the jar and it is reluctant to use taxpayers’ money so these assets should go on the block. 
It is interesting to look at Genesis Power. In February 2010 Genesis Power announced a $64.6 million half-year profit. Given that demand for electricity is already on the rise and is expected to continue to be even as we move out of the recession it is likely on projections that Genesis Power will continue to expect large profits in the coming year and in the future. It dampens down if not negates the National Government’s alibi that it wants to get rid of either in part or in whole those particular assets especially as the Prime Minister said it would be energy assets because they will require further capital. In the case of this particular asset and others that I am sure my colleagues will deal with later it does not require—certainly not at the mid-point—further capitalisation. 
It is very very telling that in the  
Press 
 forum the Prime Minister made specific reference to the partial privatisation of energy companies. He essentially said that they will be the ones on the block the first cabs off the rank if National was to win next year’s election. 
Let us look at all the State-owned enterprises and at the ethos and ideas around selling energy companies and entities like Genesis Power. The Minister of Finance has said that mum and dad Kiwis will be able to buy a slice of assets like Genesis Power and that this will be great as it will put a great injection into our capital markets. The only problem with that argument—and mum and dad Kiwis all around are not silly—is that they already own Genesis Power Meridian Energy and others such as Kiwibank Solid Energy and the like. Kiwis already own those and they have already paid for them. In some cases Kiwis have paid for them twice as the previous Government had to buy back assets that were on their knees thanks to the National Government of the 1990s selling them. Mum and dad Kiwis already own those assets. Mr English Mr Power and Mr Brownlee are challenging mum and dad New Zealanders to put up for a second time or shut up—put up money they have already spent in purchasing these assets through their taxes and somehow feel good that they can buy them back again. 
Then there is the issue of who would purchase a percentage of a State-owned asset like Genesis Power. In a recession where 70-odd percent—through the electorates it ranges from about 67 percent to 76 percent—of New Zealanders earn $40000 or less per year. Once they get their little measly tax cut and they take into account that it is negated by a 2.5 percent rise in GST and 5.9 percent inflation they are $30 to $50 a week worse off. Somebody who earns $1 million a year—like some of the mates of members on the other side of the Chamber—will receive $1000 a week as a result of the tax cuts. I think we can work out that Kiwi mums and dads in most of the communities will not be able to afford to buy a slice of an energy asset like Genesis Power. 
It will not be the 70-odd percent of New Zealanders who earn $40000 or less per year who are $30 to $50 a week worse off. They will not have the discretionary spending power to amble down to the stock exchange have a chat to their broker and spend $1000 to grab a slice of Genesis Power as Mr English—generous fellow that he is—said to. It will not be those people because they will not have the discretionary spending power thanks to that crew over there; it will be many of Mr Brownlee’s mates including one of his best ones Mr Henderson of Christchurch although he is in a bit of shtook at the moment. It will be Mr Brownlee’s mates who are earning $1000000 a year and who thanks to Mr Brownlee will get $1000 a week back in tax cuts. That sort of person will be able to mosey on down in the Daimler to the stockbroker and say that they will have a chunk of that asset thank you very much. I suspect it will more likely be some of the people that Mr Brownlee and others deal with on a daily basis. Those large financial overseas institutions will be as they were in the 1990s licking their lips to see whether they can grab hold of a slice of a Crown entity or a State-owned enterprise like Genesis Power Kiwibank or Solid Energy. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Like a fire sale. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: As my colleague says it will be like a fire sale. I think Mr Brownlee served for a time in the Bolger Government and we remember what Mr Bolger did in respect of KiwiRail. Mr Brownlee was part of a fire-sale Government in the 1990s— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I don’t think he was in that Government. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh he was not there; he was a latecomer. He is a member of a party that has a legacy of fire sales in respect of the 9 years it was in Government. Those large foreign financial institutions will be involved. 
Then we have the point that National is extremely fond of saying that it listens to the people is engaged with the people and is connected with the people. Mr Brownlee does not like it and all his fingers and toes are used to recalculate it when he sees it on TV at night but we have had an opinion poll in which 80 percent of New Zealanders said they did not want their remaining assets such as Crown entities like Genesis Power sold—full stop end of story game over. 
I make a prediction that two things will happen. The Government will quieten down about this policy. Mr English will have been gaffer-taped at this point and told to not talk about sales. It was interesting to note what happened in a select committee hearing with Mr Power the Minister for State Owned Enterprises. I asked him whether he had ever talked to his Cabinet colleagues such as Mr Brownlee or Mr English about Mr English’s articulation of his position on sales of various State-owned enterprises. He said no. I asked him whether he had ever dreamt about it passed Mr English a note about it at Cabinet over a cup of tea done semaphore between the offices made a phone call written a letter or ever discussed it in Cabinet. He said no. He had never even dreamt about it never even seen a psychic to predict what Mr English might want to do after an election. That lacks credibility to a high degree; there is no credibility in the assertion that the Minister for State Owned Enterprises has not had a wee chat with the Minister of Finance after Mr English spilt his guts the day after the Budget talking about a policy that the Government did not really want to talk about. 
Assets like Genesis Power are being readied for sale now under the guise of economic efficiency. If the Government wants to sell them the day after the next election which it will if it wins it cannot flick a switch and in 24 hours prepare a State-owned asset for sale. It will be very interesting to watch over the coming months whether the Government goes silent on that issue. The undeniable truth is that 80 percent of New Zealanders have wised up. They know that they already own Genesis Power. They know that it was a con when Mr English said they could have a wee slice of it back. They know who will buy it if it is put on the block: not the Kiwi mums and dads but the big end of town the foreign end of town—those foreign institutions. Eighty percent of New Zealanders have when asked by scientific pollsters turned round and rejected the policy. The Government would be very very wise to listen to the 80 percent of New Zealanders who have said “no way”. The public have learnt; they have seen it time and again. They have seen what happens when State-owned assets are put on the block and they say no. 
It will be very interesting if Mr Brownlee in this debate or in the debates on the other Crown entities responsible for energy that follow gets on his feet and tells us after all the bluff and bluster what he will do to help New Zealanders this winter in respect of their power prices and in respect of their ability to heat their homes in a basic way. We know that Mr Brownlee the great believer in insulation—anatomical and otherwise—has gone to great lengths to stomp around the country and say that he will sort it out. He says that he will ensure that Kiwis are looked after and that he will demand that power prices are not elevated to a point where they become unaffordable. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 There was a man the Hon Clayton Cosgrove speaking with all the power conviction and passion of a reformed smoker. I say that because he is a reformed asset salesman. Everyone knows that this country’s assets were put on the block at ridiculously low prices by the Roger Douglas - led Government of the 1990s. They also know that the National Government and John Key the Prime Minister have said there will be no asset sales in this term of Government and that if there is a change in policy we will tell people before we go into a general election unlike our political opponents who just cannot trust themselves to stay away from such a policy. So what we see is Mr Cosgrove practically unable to give a speech—and he practically would not have a speech if I did not come to Parliament each day because that is the only thing he can talk about—because he by and large just wants to get in there and do it. He wants to get in there and have a cigarette—I am sorry he wants to get in there and sell some assets but he cannot so he accuses everybody else of doing exactly what he wants to do. 
The issue is a straw man as far as this Government is concerned. We could not have made our position clearer. What we know is that when John Key says something will happen it happens and when he says something will not happen it does not happen. 
I will now turn to the issue Mr Cosgrove spoke about: New Zealanders’ power prices under the State-owned enterprise model. During the period from 2000 right through to 2008 the retail electricity price for New Zealanders rose by 73 percent or three times the rate of inflation. Over the last short time we have been in Government we have constructed a proper review of the structure of the electricity market and of the way electricity is sold in this country. Then we constructed a bill which has been through a select committee and is currently awaiting its second reading in the House. During that process we have seen a significant change in behaviour from retailers in the electricity sector with the real price-rise for electricity being just below that of inflation in the term of this Government unlike the rampant increase of three times the rate of inflation under the previous Labour Government. 
It is also worth noting that this Government has been concerned about how warm New Zealanders are in their homes and it has made a commitment to provide insulation and clean heating for New Zealanders with very substantial grants. The previous Government said it would divert State-owned enterprise profits for that purpose. Well it talked about it but never quite got around to doing it. 
One other point on which I would like to congratulate the Minister for State Owned Enterprises is that particularly in the electricity sector while prices have been stable profitability has been high and he has been insistent that the performance of the businesses themselves should not be measured simply by how much they can charge their consumers. One of the things we are seeing is that we have genuine pressure on prices to remain low along with genuine commitment inside the State-owned enterprises to increase their performance and thus their profitability. In the end that is a revenue stream that all New Zealanders benefit from. 
I worry about Mr Cosgrove and some of his ridiculous claims. They tend to deny the fact that is clear and evident to everyone—that State-owned enterprises are performing extremely well at the moment. State-owned enterprises are dynamic organisations and formulate their own planning as to how they might move forward. When Trevor Mallard was Minister for State Owned Enterprises it seems it was OK for New Zealand Post to enter into some very interesting sort of arrangements or for the Kordia Group to engage in some very interesting and quite big loss-making arrangements. Mr Cosgrove comes into the Chamber and wants to make a case that everything is all doom and gloom and bad and sad because the National Government is now overseeing this particular portfolio this particular suite of investments. I think that the taxpayers and residents of this country should be very very satisfied with the work of the Minister. They should be satisfied with the progress of State-owned enterprises in making a greater contribution to this country’s economy. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be noted. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Report noted. 
Meridian Energy Ltd 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Meridian Energy is one of the three State-owned power generators and is subject to some very similar issues to those debated in the Genesis Power debate. I refer back to the previous Government speaker Gerry Brownlee who said in respect of the Government’s privatisation policy that it would tell voters before the election what it was going to do to them. That would be lovely except that National did not do that last time. What John Key told the voters last time in respect of one State-owned enterprise—Kiwibank—was that a National Government would never ever sell Kiwibank. National said that it would not raise GST and it said the vast majority of Kiwis would be better off after the Budget. But of course the majority is not because the Government forgot to include the rate of inflation in the calculator and that has left average Kiwis $30 to $50 a week worse off even before we take into account other increased costs like those for early childhood care. 
The point is that nobody believes this National Government any more. No a small minority does. But 53 percent of New Zealanders when polled recently said they would not believe any commitment that the Prime Minister might give on State-owned enterprises like Meridian Energy. They believe he will change his mind—again. And which Prime Minister is it: the one who will never ever sell or the one who is dressing up to bring something to the electorate before the election? It is what we expect from this Prime Minister on this subject. This is the same Prime Minister who says Ministers are no longer responsible to him for their behaviour under the  
Cabinet Manual 
 or for their behaviour under the Standing Orders of the House. So as recently as today we saw the extraordinary spectacle of an Attorney-General who once again has been caught out for not giving a full and complete declaration on pecuniary interests. That is a sham but is exactly what we would expect from this Government. 
In respect of Meridian Energy as a major energy generator it is absolutely intimately tied up with the nature of the rules under the Electricity Industry Bill which is soon to be dealt with in Parliament. The Max Bradford reforms of the 1980s were a complete disaster. They were supposed to drive down the long-run price path for electricity. Instead it rose—at least it rose for residential consumers. It went down of course for major industrials like the Tiwai Point smelter. It went up for mum and dad consumers like the old lady across the road from my electorate office who told me that in the first week after the Budget she had found that the rise in her power price more than ate up anything that she was going to get out of superannuation. It more than ate it up. She is typical of New Zealanders up and down the country who are shivering in their cold and musty flats because they cannot afford power. 
New Zealanders cannot afford power because amongst other things this Minister has told companies like Meridian Energy that they must improve their financial performance. Well let us think about that. Meridian Energy as a generator has a bunch of dams and it has power lines running from the dams. It cannot do much other than turn the tap on and off or raise the price. So when the Minister was challenged in front of the Commerce Committee about why he had failed to ask the generators not to raise electricity prices the best that this Minister could say was that pricing was a blunt instrument. We know it is a blunt instrument but why has the Minister not lifted a finger to protect New Zealanders from rampant power increases? Why is he condoning increases above the rate of inflation and above the impact of the emissions trading scheme? The reason is that there is a quiet wink and a nudge with the Minister of Finance that the Government could use the dough. That is the bottom line. I tell the Minister that it is within his power as the Minister for State Owned Enterprises simply to issue a directive under the State-Owned Enterprises Act that would forbid Meridian Energy or Genesis Power from raising prices faster than—take your pick—the general consumer price index the effect of the emissions trading scheme or that plus 5 percent. You name it! The point is the Government has not lifted a finger to protect ordinary New Zealanders from rampant power price increases. 
Ah well we come to part two of the story. What might be the medium-term solution? The Government would say it is to privatise the State-owned generators because doing that will keep prices down. Yeah right! The Government would privatise them so that the boys in Merrill Lynch—the Prime Minister’s old firm—can make a quiet killing on the transaction. What would the effects of privatising Meridian Energy have been if it was privatised 5 years ago? Under the previous Government Meridian Energy invested in certain assets in Australia particularly in Southern Hydro. It made a cool billion dollars profit off those transactions which it returned to the taxpayer. That profit was returned to the Crown in the form of a couple of big cheques when we did the last long-term hold review because Meridian Energy said it should not be its own bank. We said no it should not. We said that money belonged to the taxpayer so Meridian Energy should return the capital. It did that. 
Now let us imagine what would have happened if Meridian Energy had been privatised. It would have returned the profits all right—but to its private shareholders. It would not have gone into the “People’s Bank” or the consolidated account. It would not have been offset against taxes; it would have simply been somebody else’s dividend cheque. We have heard enough of the sham of saying mum and dad Kiwis should not be prevented from buying a few shares in Kiwibank—in something that they already own. Why would mum and dad Kiwis pay twice? They have already paid for Meridian Energy through their taxes and that is why they are already entitled to the dividends—like the billion dollars from Southern Hydro. Meridian Energy is a prime example of an asset that should not be sold. 
Let us move on to the next little story that the Minister has been spinning. He said to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that the performance of our State-owned enterprises has been terrible which was in direct contravention of the previous speaker Mr Brownlee who said the performance of the State-owned enterprises has been just fine. Of course Mr Power was not above quoting the annual results at the depths of the recession last year rather than taking a long-run average because if he had done so he would have found that the performance of the State-owned enterprise portfolio is within a couple of hundredths of a percentage point of the performance of the NZX50—that is apples with apples horses for courses State-owned enterprises are just as good as private businesses already. But admitting that would not suit National’s ideology would it? It would not suit National’s mantra that the only way to get performance is to privatise. That is simply not true; there is simply no evidence for that. It is perfectly possible for companies that are State-owned to perform well. National should ask Air New Zealand about that. Air New Zealand has performed well as a Crown entity under State ownership. So has Meridian Energy; so has Genesis Power. The Minister knows very well that Air New Zealand is largely Crown-owned and would have been sold to the knackers yard had the previous Minister of Finance not intervened. 
Of course the one to take the cake if the public has any doubt about these issues is Kiwibank. It is no wonder that 85 percent of New Zealanders want to retain Kiwibank. They know we have a terrible savings deficit they know we are bleeding red on our international accounts they know very well we have to make our financial sector stronger in the interests of all New Zealanders and they know that Kiwibank is a critical strategic piece on the chessboard. So what does that lot of clowns want to do? The National members want to flog Kiwibank off supposedly to mum and dad Kiwis knowing very well that it will end up in the hands of its Australian competitors. That is a shame. National should be building up the New Zealand financial sector not selling it to the wolves—not selling it to the wolves. I ask why Bill English and John Key cannot agree on this matter. I ask why it is that John Key says “never ever ever” and Bill English comes out the day after the Budget was released and says “What about selling Kiwibank?”. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Because they don’t talk to each other. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yeah maybe they do not take tea together. I suspect that might be true. After all who changed his vote in the last leadership run? It is absolutely unconscionable— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was actually the one before. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes it was the one before. Well we do not know; “Slippery Key” might have changed his vote two or three times. I would not be at all surprised if he had. 
Kiwibank must not be sold. It is not in New Zealand’s interests to sell Kiwibank just as it is not in New Zealand’s interest to sell Meridian Energy Genesis or Mighty River Power because those are crucial strategic monopoly assets in New Zealand. It is a sham that the electricity bill that is to come before this House contains no measures more stringent than simply shuffling a few of the deckchairs on those boats. The Government is simply swapping a power station between a couple of the generators and calling that structural reform. That is absolute bollocks; it is codswallop. The Government really needs to provide a decent regulatory framework that would unmask and deal to the problems identified in the Wolak report. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 We are nearly halfway through a debate on some of the State-owned enterprise matters in this financial review estimates debate so I thought I would take a call at the midway point on the broader range of State-owned enterprises that have been selected by members for debate this afternoon. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Stung out of his slumber. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Well if that last contribution was the result of a Harvard education I think we have all got problems. The shareholding Ministers are custodians of around $25 billion of investment by taxpayers and State-owned enterprises. Members might be interested to know that this represents slightly more than 20 percent of the net worth of the Crown. Additionally State-owned enterprises hold almost $47 billion in assets. In the 2009 financial year they paid about $647.6 million in dividends which included a $150 million special dividend from both Meridian and Mighty River Power. 
The responsibility of shareholding Ministers is to ensure that this investment the $25 billion effectively delivers an appropriate return. As the member who has just resumed his seat David Cunliffe asserted correctly with regard to the facts recent returns—returns prior to this financial year—have been unsatisfactory although as Minister Brownlee pointed out they are now starting to improve. For the whole State-owned enterprises portfolio there was an annualised return on equity of 1.5 percent for the 6 months ended 31 December 2008. This increased to 4.4 percent for the 6 months ended December 2009. However the shareholding Ministers are firmly of the view that there is still plenty of room for improvement and we will be continuing along with officials to work with State-owned enterprises during the current business planning round to develop appropriate performance expectations. 
The shareholding Ministers will be looking at a range of measures in terms of performance. To this end Ministers have asked officials to establish a range of financial performance indicators to be used across the portfolio covering shareholder returns profitability and efficiency leverage and solvency. These indicators have now been agreed following consultation with State-owned enterprises and should be included in each of the companies’ 2010-11 statements of corporate intent. Shareholding Ministers will also use the current business planning round as an opportunity to discuss capital structure and dividend expectations. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They’ve always looked at all of those anyway. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No they did not actually. Disturbingly they did not I say to Mr Mallard. The money invested in State-owned enterprises is taxpayers’ cash; it is not money that necessarily belongs to State-owned enterprises. That provides an incentive to see money returned to the Crown as a dividend. Of course those discussions as to whether money should be reinvested in the State-owned enterprises or returned to Ministers by way of dividend go on as part of that business planning round. 
The issue that the member who was previously on his feet raised about price rises deserves a quick comment before I resume my seat and allow the debate to continue. His Government had 9 years to implement his plan for dividends to be used to reduce power prices. Between 2000 and 2008 we saw increases of about 66 percent in those prices across the board. Over that period the Crown took $3.5 billion in dividends. I think it is a bit rich now for members opposite to give examples or advice about what this Government should be doing in that regard when those members had plenty of time to put their plan in place. Extracting performance is a very high priority for shareholding Ministers. We are making some progress but there is much work still to be done. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I will speak on Meridian Energy. Meridian is a very high performing State-owned enterprise. I have always been impressed with the people I have dealt with at that organisation with the work that they do with their commitment and with their professionalism. Meridian is the largest State-owned electricity generator in New Zealand. In total its generation capacity is 2600 megawatts and it produces on average 30 percent of electricity in New Zealand. It has over 180000 customers. 
Hon John Carter 
: How does the member know all this stuff? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Because I work with them. Meridian takes its responsibilities to New Zealand and to the environment very seriously. It owns operates and generates electricity from hydro stations on the Waitaki River in the South Island and at Lake Manapouri in Fiordland National Park. 
It is also an experienced developer of renewable energy projects. Indeed it is the largest producer of renewable energy in New Zealand. It is to be commended for its professional response to the changes to electricity legislation which will see them continuing as the predominant renewable energy generator with concomitant responsibility in price path setting. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who wrote this? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It is in my handwriting. Meridian’s approach to long-term development is that it is committed to meeting its share of the growing electricity demands of New Zealanders. I believe that it is well in line to achieve this. 
Let us turn to some of the comments that came from David Cunliffe. I ask where he has been for 9 years. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s not in handwriting. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Indeed I ask where Mr Mallard has been. The Government’s position on public assets is clear and unchanged. The National-led Government has made a very firm commitment to New Zealanders that there would be no asset sales in this term of office and that if that policy changes it will be clearly signalled and campaigned on for the 2011 election. I ask what Labour does not understand about that position. Shareholding Ministers have not asked for any work to be undertaken in this area. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No they have not at this point. Anything beyond—[ 
Interruption 
]; here we go—is pure speculation. 
Mr Cunliffe spoke about pricing. Mr Goff had 9 years to implement his plan for dividends to be used to reduce power prices. What happened between 2000 and 2008? What happened when Labour was on this side of the House? Increases occurred at about 66 percent across the board and the Crown took $3.5 billion in dividends. I can remember previously watching a Minister with responsibility for electricity with a “wink wink nudge nudge” say that as the lakes were going down in the South Island—goodness me—the prices would soon be going up. 
Pricing is an operational matter for State-owned enterprises to respond to. The dividends paid by State-owned enterprises have no impact on the prices they charge their customers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Rubbish! That is absolute nonsense. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Which comes first? State-owned enterprises set their prices to try to achieve a commercial return from their businesses. That is in keeping with the State-Owned Enterprises Act which requires them to operate as successful businesses and to be as profitable and efficient as possible. The Government’s job as the shareholder of State-owned enterprises is to monitor their performance and get them working efficiently for the benefit of taxpayers. Every dollar of profit earned by a State-owned enterprise increases the Crown’s operating balance and we are working on initiatives to improve financial performance which include improving the commercial expertise of boards; setting clear expectations in relation to performance including financial performance; and holding boards accountable for achieving those initiatives. Those are good solid business practices; they are things that Governments do. That is what the previous Labour Government should have done but chose not to do. That Government missed its opportunity and Labour is now being critical of the National-led Government for doing what should have been done while Labour was in power. 
Let us have a look at the purposes of generation in the South Island. If we look at the upper half of the South Island—from North Canterbury to Marlborough Nelson Tasman and the West Coast—we see that that region produces only 23 percent of the power it uses. There is a lack of South Island generation. Electricity demand in the South Island has grown significantly more than new generation developments. That has to change. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will take a call on this debate and start by complimenting the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power. He has been relatively precise in this debate. I think that in his sartorial elegance he looks the part of Attorney-General already. It is good to hear someone who is beginning to get his head around some of the issues that face State-owned enterprises. I make it clear as the previous Minister for State Owned Enterprises that I know that these issues are not simple; the power pricing one is a classic one. I am the first to accept that probably right from 1999 or even from 1998 when some policy decisions were made by the Labour Party and then Labour Government we did not get it right. My view is that when in late 1998 to early 1999 there was a signal of the privatisation of Contact Energy the Labour Party then should have made it clear that we would reverse that move and bring it back into State ownership—we would have refunded the money to the people who had bought it—and then the policy issues about energy would have been a lot simpler. It is clear that most people know that the conflict between being a regulator and being an owner has been one that has bedevilled Governments of both sorts. 
I want to make it clear that there are two ways of sorting that matter out. One of them is the way of National. Clearly the energy companies as the most valuable are sitting at the top of the National Government’s sale list. Those companies form the group about which Mr Whitehead at the Finance and Expenditure Committee indicated that public perception testing was going on in relation to privatisation—and you know that is the right of the Government. It is the right of the Government to test public opinion as to whether the energy companies should be sold. But I am hopeful of getting Labour policy to a point where we make it clear that if at any stage there is any privatisation then that will be reversed. People will have their money refunded but we will get back to the point of having a coherent policy. 
I think there is work to be done on energy policy generally as well as in the area of State-owned enterprises. As the Minister knows I have some sympathy for the State-owned enterprises and for the possibilities they have as businesses that need further capitalisation. I accept the point of view of a number of Government members that further capitalisation is not always the highest priority for a Government at a particular time. I myself have promoted approaches that would involve subsidiaries of State-owned enterprises being involved in joint ventures and I think that that is a positive approach. For example—and I know that the Greens would not be happy with this—we can see whether we can ever crack the coal-based hydrogen fuel cell approach which works now. There is no doubt that it works; between the Coal Research Association and Industrial Research Ltd we see it happening. 
There is a no-emissions hydrogen production that goes into a battery that can drive a car. It happens in New Zealand; it happens in my electorate already. The trouble is that it is too damn expensive. But over a period of time I am sure that as research goes on we can reduce that. But the question then is whether we want to have all of that production and distribution within a State-owned enterprise or whether there is room for partnerships at the subsidiary or subsidiary of the subsidiary level where that approach can be taken. I want to make it clear that I do not think coal is sexy—I am not with Mr Brownlee at all on that—but I do not want to rule out its use at some stage in the future. But even if people do not like that example or do not want to take that approach there are within Meridian for example three or four areas where a subsidiary is currently generating electricity within boilers. It is a really good world-leading technology that Meridian owns and something that almost certainly will not be properly developed in New Zealand because we do not happen to run most of our home heating through boilers. But the ability to generate electricity within a boiler system and then recycle it back into the grid is something that has a lot of potential. It is likely to be most used in the north-east United States and within Europe. 
But I think we need to look for partners so that we keep some skin in the game rather than do what we have too often done in the past which is sell off that technology and lose all further rights to it. We should use the intellectual property we have in order to develop and have an ongoing return for New Zealand—and eventually to the taxpayer—without our having to put a hell of a lot more money into a risky European - North American venture. If we put it in as intellectual property and lose that is not the end of the world. But if we have a potential for getting money back then that is something that should be done. 
In a similar way I think we need to keep on being innovative in relation to the way we finance some of the other State-owned enterprises. I was involved as far as Kiwibank was concerned in what was effectively their second-level capital arrangements. The bank has in order to fulfil its prudential requirements what is effectively preference capital. Therefore it is not debt and it means that the bank can lend more. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: They need more money. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well it does need more money but I think that it is probably getting to about the limit of that. But the Government can look for a good return going forward and a good return not only for Kiwibank—because I am sure that it is there—but more important for the economy through having an efficient working New Zealand bank and one that I hope can move into some other areas. I think there is room within the business area now for there to be some further lending on the part of Kiwibank. I think that the margins and if you like the conservatism in lending which is a result of having decisions made in Melbourne rather than in Auckland or Wellington on New Zealand business lending is something that is holding our economy back. That is not something that can be changed immediately but over a period of time it could be changed if Kiwibank continued to grow in a reasonable way and in a careful way within the market. But as Mr Auchinvole has pointed out it needs capital to do that. 
My view is that it could be a win-win situation if the Government decided to put some of what are some very clear unexpected and unbudgeted surpluses into that area. It is one of nil net fiscal cost because there is an asset that sits with the investment with the money it is putting in. Maybe as education spokesperson I could argue for another use. I think education is an investment as well but in this case we have an ongoing asset that sits alongside the money so it is nil net in that sense. I think from the Government accounts point of view and from the way people overseas look at it and the way we are rated it would be seen in a positive way as opposed to an area that would be seen as negative by rating agencies if in fact it added to the deficit. But this sort of investment would not do that. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Back to Meridian! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Back to Meridian. It is fair to say that Meridian is a well-performing State-owned enterprise. It would certainly not be for sale under a Labour Government. I am one of the people who will be pushing for National’s policy to sell to be matched with a policy to take it back. 
Report noted. 
Mighty River Power Ltd 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am thrilled to be able to stand and speak on Mighty River Power during this debate on State-owned enterprises. Mighty River Power is a significant organisation in the Taupo electorate. It is an integrated energy generation trading retailing and metering business and a successful one at that. 
I start by coming back to a point that the Hon Trevor Mallard made in his address on Meridian Energy. He talked about the fact that power generation is a particularly complex issue. He conceded that in the 9 years of the Labour Government it did not get it right. That explains a lot. It explains the 70 percent increase in power prices which is four times the rate of inflation. 
Mighty River Power’s generation capacity is significant as it is the hydroelectricity generator on the Waikato River. It has nine dams located along the Waikato River as well as geothermal plants—one of which I want to speak about in more detail—in Taupo and the Bay of Plenty regions the Southdown cogeneration station and also bioenergy production. It is also looking at developing a wind generation programme. 
New Zealanders want their State-owned enterprises to do well and we are fortunate to have as Minister for State Owned Enterprises Simon Power who is demanding that they do better than they have done. They are doing well they are providing dividends to the Crown and the Minister gave as an example what Mighty River Power has delivered to the Crown in terms of a dividend. But there is always the opportunity to do better. We are an aspirational Government. We are aspirational for our State-owned enterprises and we are aspirational for all New Zealanders. The opportunity to do better is always there. 
More than 90 percent of Mighty River Power’s generation now is renewable which is very much in line with where we are heading as a country against a background of issues around climate change. If we look at Mercury Energy’s performance against that of its competitors we see that it has been making gains in its market share which is fantastic news. It is great for the organisation great for New Zealanders and great for the Crown. 
I want to look at the exciting year that Mighty River Power has had and I want to talk specifically about the Nga Awa Purua geothermal power station. I was fortunate to be at the opening of that station with the Prime Minister recently. The Nga Awa Purua power station is a joint venture with the Tauhara North No. 2 Trust. It is a great example of a partnership with the local iwi. It was launched only a matter of weeks ago. It generates 140 megawatts and powers 140000 homes—the equivalent of Taupo Rotorua Hamilton and Tauranga—which is pretty impressive for a power station that uses renewable energy. Its total budget was $430 million. Of course it was opened under this Government and I am proud of the achievements of this National-led Government. One of the highlights of this power station is that it has the largest single-shaft geothermal turbine in the world with a total of 9 kilometres of pipeline. New Zealand is leading the world in geothermal electricity generation and I am proud of that. The other thing that is important to note in terms of Mighty River Power is that the construction carried out during this period played an important part in buffering the Taupo community through the recession because of the number of employees that Mighty River Power has managed to keep throughout this time. It does not end there. In terms of geothermal development the next power station off the blocks is Ngatamariki Geothermal Power Station and the resource consents are under way for that. We are looking forward to yet another geothermal power station opening in the Taupo electorate. 
I want to talk about some of the challenges that Mighty River Power faces. One of them is the fact that the recent drought has had a significant impact on the ability of its nine hydroelectricity power stations and dams along the Waikato River to generate electricity. Might River Power has done a lot in terms of giving information to the public about the lake levels and their impact on it. Thank you. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to stand and speak in this debate and in particular to talk about Mighty River Power. Before I do I will make a few general comments then come on to talk about Mighty River Power and about some of the work it is doing in my electorate and the wider Bay of Plenty. We have heard from the very hard-working member of Parliament for Taupo Louise Upston about the work that Mighty River Power has been doing in the Waikato and in her electorate. 
Stakeholding Ministers are custodians of $25 billion worth of investments by taxpayers in State-owned enterprises which represents slightly more than 20 percent of the net worth of the Crown. Additionally State-owned enterprises hold about $47 billion in assets and paid just over $647 million in dividends in the 2009 financial year which included $150 million in special dividends from both Meridian Energy and Mighty River Power. The responsibility of stakeholder Ministers is to ensure that this investment delivers an appropriate return and we have heard from the Minister that to date the returns have been unsatisfactory although improving. 
For the whole State-owned enterprise portfolio there are annualised returns of 1.5 percent for the 6 months ended 31 December 2008. We have had record low interest rates under this Government but if some of that money had been just put in the bank during that time there might have been a higher return. That rate of return increased to 4.4 percent for the 6 months ended 31 December 2009. However stakeholder Ministers consider that there is still plenty of scope for improvement in this area and Ministers and officials will continue to work with individual State-owned enterprises during the current business planning round to develop appropriate performance expectations. I believe that the New Zealand taxpayer would encourage Ministers and officials to do just that. 
I come now to Mighty River Power. I was doing a bit of research before my speech today and I found that in the 2008-09 period Mighty River Power generated revenue of $1.1 billion and made a post-tax profit of $160 million. Its subsidiary companies contributed $43 million but incurred some losses and in its annual return Mighty River Power indicated that it would pay an ordinary dividend of almost $80 million representing 50 percent of the net profit after tax. 
I will come to my electorate of Rotorua and talk about some of the work that Mighty River Power is doing there particularly in the geothermal electricity generation field. In the 2008-09 financial year Mighty River Power’s renewable generation rate increased by 36 percent and its geothermal production increased from 9.5 percent to 20 percent. The geothermal power station at Kawerau was opened at the end of November 2008 which was a very good month for my electorate and at the time that station represented the largest geothermal development in New Zealand for 20 years. I notice that that power plant in Kawerau was revalued on 30 June last year at $500 million which is an increase in value of $240 million. I recognise and congratulate Mighty River Power on completing that project well ahead of schedule and certainly under budget. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What a good Minister. 
TODD McCLAY 
: Absolutely. That very good Minister is sitting in front of me now. Last year the geothermal power station at Kawerau received a top national award for the work that it did and Mighty River Power won the electricity supply industry Engineering Excellence Award during that year. Of course a lot of local people had come together to make sure that that could happen such as local iwi owners of land the two pulp and paper plants and the industry and it is good to see a local community joining together. There is 100 megawatts of baseload electricity produced in that small plant—100 megawatts of baseload. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: How much is that? 
TODD McCLAY 
: That is more than the electricity in the batteries the member uses in his radio when he listens to Parliament at home. 
That plant was only the first of the new plants to be opened. Louise Upston mentioned earlier an investment in Nga Awa Purua Geothermal Power Station north-east of Taupo and I notice from my notes that the electricity generated in this power station— 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I predict that the coming year will be a record year for electricity generators owned by the State—a record year. I say that because I believe that Government-owned electricity generators Mighty River Power Genesis and Meridian Energy will make more money than they have ever made before. In 2 days’ time we will have the emissions trading scheme which will contribute substantial extra profits to the Government-owned generators—windfall profits not just to the Government-owned generators but to the privately owned Contact Energy and TrustPower. Why is that? In essence the emissions trading scheme makes electricity produced by burning coal and gas more expensive. 
Genesis with its Huntly power station will have to pay for the cost of the emissions given off from burning coal and gas in the production of electricity. The way the electricity market works is that the wholesale price is established approximately 80 percent of the time by Genesis. Genesis is usually the most expensive generator and when it is called on to produce electricity for the New Zealand market it sets the price. 
From 1 July Genesis will be able to increase quite reasonably the price of electricity. We have already seen electricity companies move to take advantage of that. The first of those was Mercury Energy. How interesting it was to hear Louise Upston— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The subject under debate is the estimates for Mighty River Power. If the member is bringing in other material he must relate it to Mighty River Power. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I am certainly bringing in things that are relevant to Mighty River Power. The emissions trading scheme will enable Mighty River Power to increase the price of its electricity and make super profits. We need look no further than the letter Mercury Energy sent to its customers at the end of May. Mercury Energy is a 100 percent - owned subsidiary of Mighty River Power. What does the letter say? It starts by saying that the Government’s emissions trading scheme will take effect from 1 July 2010. It goes on to state: “The ETS is a government imposed cost on all electricity production that emits greenhouse gases reflecting the volume of greenhouse gases produced by the electricity industry as a whole.” Later on the letter states: “This will result in an increase to the wholesale price of electricity and gas which will in turn increase the retail price of electricity and gas.” 
The critical words—for all New Zealanders—in that letter are the words “the electricity industry as a whole”. We heard Louise Upston say very proudly a few minutes ago that 90 percent of what Mighty River Power produces comes from renewable sources. It comes from the Waikato River and it comes from geothermal stations. What will Mighty River Power pay for the emissions given off by electricity produced from the Waikato River and the geothermal stations? Absolutely zero; nothing. The emissions trading scheme enables Mighty River Power to justify an increase of 3.3 percent when it incurs minimal extra costs. One might ask how that relates to Mighty River Power. Well it enables Mighty River Power to charge more for its electricity and make extra profits. 
As I said I believe that the electricity generators owned by the State will make more money in the coming 12 months than they have ever made before. Who will pay for that? The people of New Zealand will. How do I know that? Because the Prime Minister of New Zealand himself has said so. A headline in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
states: “PM admits public face hefty ETS bill”. He acknowledges in the article that the people who purchase electricity from Mercury Energy—which is 100 percent - owned by Mighty River Power; 100 percent - owned by the taxpayers—will be paying more for their electricity. 
The Government has tried to argue that although a 5 percent increase in electricity prices was forecast by Treasury Mercury is actually increasing the price by less. We ain’t seen nothing yet. What will drive those increases will be Genesis and Contact Energy and particularly Genesis because it burns coal and gas. Genesis is sitting on a 1 million tonne stockpile of coal in Huntly right now—it is sitting there in reserve—and it will not have to pay for emissions on it. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very happy to speak on Mighty River Power. We have heard some excellent information about this State-owned enterprise and about its success particularly during times of drought. Just recently I visited Lake Karapiro and drove over the dam that I used to walk over many times as a young boy. I swam in the lake went down the slide and watched people water-ski. The Rowing World Championships will be held on Lake Karapiro in the not too distant future and those rowers will have a lake full of water. We would not believe it now but we have come through a tremendous drought which has affected Mighty River Power’s dividends. 
This is a Government that believes in improvement; it really does. It is a Government that is focused on improvement in the return to the taxpayer of value for money. The Minister for State Owned Enterprises mentioned that towards the end of December 2008 the annualised return on equity was 1.5 percent but that has increased for the 6 months to the end of 31 December 2009 to 4.4 percent. We have to acknowledge that that is three times the rate of return. This is during a time when power costs in terms of inflation have been dramatically less than in the era of the previous Government when between 2000 and 2008 we saw an increase of four times the rate of inflation at 66 percent. We are achieving this improved rate of return on equity because we are expecting and driving for greater efficiency. 
In Mighty River Power’s statement of corporate intent one of its key objectives is to be as profitable and efficient as comparable businesses that are not owned by the Crown. It is good to see that we are seeing that sort of rate of return. We know that in 2008-09 Mighty River Power generated revenues of $1.1 billion and that came through not only its generation but also an increase of 1.7 percent growth in its customer base during that financial year which has continued to increase. By the end of 2009 there was a an increase of 50000 customers so the total customer base was 400000. Indeed this is a State-owned enterprise that is not only generating electricity from 90 percent renewable sources but also has increasing support from the people of New Zealand. We are happy to see that. It has shifted a number of its premises to Rotorua and the member for Rotorua Todd McClay forgot to mention and asked me to pass on that 60 jobs have come to his city because of that. He is very very pleased about that. 
The shareholding Ministers continue to look for a range of measures in terms of performance. To this end shareholding Ministers asked officials to establish a range of financial performance indicators to be used across the portfolio covering shareholder returns profitability efficiency leverage and solvency. There are many market forces and disciplines brought to bear in our State-owned enterprises. We have to congratulate Mighty River Power on its great financial result during a time when the water source and supply was severely depleted. In fact it had the highest capital return for the 2008-09 financial year out of all the Government-owned generators. It credits this to its focus on energy trading a large hydroelectrical component in its portfolio and a strategic move into geothermal generation. We heard the member for Taupo Louise Upston speak about that and how it brought a great increase. Thank you. 
Report noted. 
New Zealand Post Ltd 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 If members were to give me $1 and I was to promise them that I could turn it into $10 over 8 years would they invest with me? Absolutely if I was going to turn $1 into $8 over 10 years. I tell members that that is what Kiwibank has done. With an initial investment of $80 million this bank is now worth $800 million by some valuations. The National Government wants to sell Kiwibank. Those who doubt this must have their heads in the sand. 
Some of my colleagues have outlined the economic and financial reasons for not selling Kiwibank; members could write a book about these. A few of them have been outlined by Mr Mallard and Mr Cunliffe but I will outline a few philosophical and social reasons why this bank should not be sold. Why would we sell it? We are talking about a bank—Kiwibank—that was set up by the Government in 2002. It was set up against strong opposition from the National Party but it was set up because there was a belief that the major Australian banks were gorging profits off ordinary New Zealanders and that we needed to have a say in our market. We needed to have some influence. Kiwibank was Jim Anderton’s vision backed up by the passion of the previous Labour Government for New Zealand and for New Zealanders. 
It is a fact that the four major Australian banks send profits offshore that are greater than the entire profit of all the companies listed on the New Zealand Exchange. About $2.6 billion in profits is made from Kiwis and sent offshore annually by the Australian-owned banks. Kiwibank returns profits to New Zealanders—to us the New Zealand taxpayers. The Inland Revenue Department recently reached a settlement worth close to $2 billion against the four major Australian banks over tax avoidance. If Kiwibank had been owned offshore that would have been five banks but Kiwibank is our bank. 
How many New Zealanders do members think have invested in Kiwibank? How many New Zealanders do members think have put money directly into Kiwibank? 
Hon Member 
: Thousands. 
STUART NASH 
: Thousands? Five hundred thousand? Eight hundred thousand New Zealanders have put their money in a bank set up by New Zealanders for New Zealanders. This is our bank. I have accounts with Kiwibank. I believe the competition it has brought to the market was not only good but vital. I support that competition and 800000 other Kiwis also supported it. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Local branches too. 
STUART NASH 
: Absolutely. It is estimated that Kiwibank has saved New Zealanders around $1 billion in interest payments due to the increased competition it has brought to the market yet Bill English and John Key want to sell it. 
Why would we want to sell Kiwibank? God knows. Perhaps it is to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthiest in society. For example as we know the chief executive of Telecom has just received $1650 per week extra in the hand whereas a person on the median wage in Napier is about to receive $3 a week after GST. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Don’t be jealous! 
STUART NASH 
: Yes. Is this why Kiwibank is being sold? I tell members on that side of the Chamber that all New Zealanders are now saying “Enough!” to asset sales. Labour will fight the sale of Kiwibank to the bitter end—make no bones about that. 
Are we surprised that the Government is now talking about asset sales? Well listen to this from Bill English. During the 2008 election Bill English said that National would sell Kiwibank eventually but not now. There is no ambiguity there. The day after the Budget this year Bill English floated the idea of selling Kiwibank in a speech. He believes there will be a strong demand among mums and dads for a Kiwi investment model and if we put product into a market people will buy it. Why do they need to buy Kiwibank? They already own it. It is our bank. It is owned by every single New Zealander. Kiwibank is New Zealand - owned as all its advertisements say. It is the only bank in this country that can say that it is 100 percent New Zealand - owned. I wonder whether the decision of the Minister of Finance Bill English to raise the issue of the sale of Kiwibank the day after the Budget was an attempt to foster debate about asset sales. Maybe it was an attempt to foment trouble with his leader. 
What does his boss have to say about this? John Key talks with a forked tongue and I suspect that sometimes he does not know whether he is Arthur or Martha. For example John Key said on at least nine occasions—including May 2007; 5 6 and 7 August 2008; 21 and 22 October 2008; and 4 and 5 November 2008—that it was National’s policy never ever to sell Kiwibank 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Can’t trust him. 
STUART NASH 
: Yes we cannot trust him. Then John Key said that a decision on whether to sell Kiwibank would be made in the second term if National was re-elected. Which John Key is telling the truth? Is it the same John Key who said that he would not raise GST? That was not ambiguous and we all know what happened there. 
Asset sales represent a huge destruction of Kiwi wealth. The vast majority of Kiwis understand this and that is why polling shows that 80 percent of New Zealanders are against asset sales—80 percent. In fact 53 percent of Kiwis are not buying National spin and they actually think that John Key will try to sell our assets. Abraham Lincoln once said: “You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all the people some of the time. But”—I say to Mr Key and Mr English—“you cannot fool all of the people all of the time”. This time New Zealanders can see through the rhetoric the spin the smokescreen and the public relations. New Zealanders know that this Government has a privatisation agenda and Kiwibank is at the top of that list. 
The National Government keeps saying that it will take the sale of State-owned assets to the electorate in 2011. I look forward to that. In fact I am relishing the prospect of standing on-stage with the National MP based in Napier while he justifies to the good people of Napier the sale of Kiwibank. I cannot wait for that. I would love to attend a public meeting called by National to explain the sale of Kiwibank. I welcome it. I challenge Mr Foss to organise a meeting in Hawke’s Bay to debate the sale of Kiwibank. I cannot wait. 
I reiterate that all New Zealanders own Kiwibank—800000 New Zealanders have put money into Kiwibank and they have choices. New Zealanders have choices in this market and 800000 New Zealanders at least have confidence in this bank unlike that Government which wants to sell it. 
This is a very successful bank from a philosophical perspective but also it is successful from a social perspective. It is very good at keeping the big four banks honest because it makes it very difficult for the big four banks to act in unison against the interests of New Zealand consumers. If Kiwibank is sold there is no doubt whatsoever that it will be sold to offshore interests—no doubt. It will not be a New Zealand bank if it is sold. The only people who are looking forward to that sale are the merchant bankers who are salivating like wolves waiting for the kill and circling like vultures. They are the same merchant bankers who put the world into the economic recession that we are in at the moment. Well I can tell those bankers that Kiwibank is not for sale. It is our bank. It is a New Zealand bank and Labour will fight tooth and nail—tooth and nail—to ensure that Kiwibank remains in New Zealand ownership. If it is sold all New Zealanders will be losers. Labour will not let Kiwibank be sold. National wants to sell it. Mr Key wants to sell it and Mr English wants to sell it but Mr Goff will fight tooth and nail to ensure that Kiwibank is not sold. 
The retiring Chief Executive of Kiwibank Sam Knowles said not to sell it. Former National Prime Minister Jim Bolger said not to sell it and he was Prime Minister when Ruth Richardson was the Minister of Finance. Jim Bolger said not to sell it. Sam Knowles said not to sell it. 
Craig Foss 
: What role does Mr Cullen have in all this? 
STUART NASH 
: The only people who are saying we should sell it are Mr Key Mr English and—it sounds like—Mr Foss. They are all saying we should sell Kiwibank. There are economic financial philosophical and social reasons not to sell Kiwibank. I tell Prime Minister Key and finance Minister English to listen to those who know: Dr Cullen Jim Bolger and Sam Knowles. Do not sell Kiwibank. 
Report noted. 
Solid Energy Ltd 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate with particular focus in this aspect on Solid Energy. It was quite interesting because in preparing for this debate this afternoon I decided to google three words: solid energy and sale. A report popped up as the No. 1 item. I will quote from it because it is really relevant to the debate that we are about to have on this State-owned enterprise: “There would be few Ministers in the John Key Cabinet more enthusiastic about the prospects for state-owned coal miner Solid Energy and its partial sale than Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee. So the height from which he jumped on [Solid Energy’s] chairman John Palmer for suggesting such a thing shows just how nervous the Govt has become about discussing the ‘P’ word at all. With the furore created by Finance Minister Bill English’s thinking aloud about part-sale of KiwiBank only just put to bed Palmer’s decision to air his personal views about the politics of asset sales was ‘unhelpful’ as they put it in the Beehive.” Well it may have been unhelpful but it was pretty accurate and it was fairly truthful I would say as a rough assessment of the situation. The truth has been very unhelpful to Government members on this issue. 
The article goes on to state that Solid Energy despite all of the furore will be the first cab off the rank should the Government get a second term. I think that it is important to reflect on that because we have been told time and time again that the Government has a commitment in place but that the commitment is for this term only. It is a one-term commitment—that is the exact phrase used by the Prime Minister just recently. Members on this side of the Chamber are perfectly well aware that John Key is regretting that one-term commitment because it has tied his hands in terms of what Government members would really like to do at this stage in the cycle. He is certainly absolutely determined to go to the polls next election without that particular constraint and we all know what that means. The Government of the day if it was not constrained by the commitment that had been made in the lead-up to the last election would be selling assets. 
I also have a theory as to why National made that commitment when it probably did not need to in order to be elected. I think that it had suffered from the campaign that it had run in 2005. It realised that under MMP there was no guarantee that it would win an election when it was caught out in such an obvious set of conduct that when brought to the public eye actually led to a change in the result of the election. 
In respect of Solid Energy I think that the Minister of Energy and Resources should reply now to the point that we have the very clear impression from the report we received from that State-owned enterprise that the Government is doing all the preparatory work for its sale anyway. Government members are working extremely hard to make sure that this company is readying itself for at least a partial sale but I suspect that that will be for a complete privatisation. This agenda has been part of National’s less-than-public face and it definitely wants to go to the next election without having that constraint on it. 
If we look at what John Palmer said when he gave his speech—and I will come back later to whom he checked that speech with before he gave it—we see that Solid Energy is a classic case. The fact is that Solid Energy was described by John Palmer as being a lower political risk than other State-owned businesses like Kiwibank. His expression was that that debate was vastly different to the emotional discussion surrounding State-owned Kiwibank. Well we have just heard from the previous speaker Stuart Nash who spoke on Kiwibank all the reasons that the New Zealand taxpayer the New Zealand people does not want to see that bank sold. It has taken on an important role in our economy in light of the strategic positions of the other four banks which repatriate significant profits from this country on an ongoing basis. I think that the Government is relying on the fact that people do not feel so connected to their mining company. Solid Energy does not quite engender that same sense of warm fuzzies that Kiwibank certainly does—the passionate loyalty as my colleague said. 
But when we think of the Government’s reaction to John Palmer’s speech we know that it has been quite extraordinary. Gerry Brownlee said that he had overstepped the mark but I think that the only reason he overstepped the mark is that he said it in public. That was the only thing that overstepped the mark. He told Bill English that he would give that speech before he gave it to the NZX AGM. So to get slapped down by the Minister of Energy and Resources is somewhat ironic. I am not allowed to use a certain other word that begins with “h” but irony I can certainly use. There is an irony in the fact that the Minister of Finance knew about the speech before John Palmer gave it. Mr Palmer delivered that speech knowing full well its repercussions. I believe that the Government wanted him to float the privatisation of Solid Energy as an idea and that Gerry Brownlee has been shedding crocodile tears in order to cover up for the fact that he is absolutely onside with what the chairman of Solid Energy said. 
It seems that the reason Bill English floated the Government’s real position on asset sales the day after the Budget was also to get feedback. When there was a huge public backlash National members all suddenly ducked for cover. But sale is not off the agenda; talking about sales is off the agenda. Fortunately in this Parliament we get to expose the Government’s somewhat ironic position on that matter. 
I will also comment briefly on the example of Air New Zealand used by John Palmer as the best way to structure ownership so that we get the best of both worlds. But he failed to comment on how Air New Zealand got to the position that it is in today. There was a State sale Air New Zealand was asset stripped and there was a Government bail-out. That is how Air New Zealand got to the point it is in. So it seems to me to be somewhat ironic that the Government is using Air New Zealand as a classic example of how to privatise although obviously not to New Zealand’s benefit. 
Don Brash was very open about the desire to privatise Solid Energy back in 2005. It was absolutely on the table then and my contention is that it is still on the table; it has just been covered up by a bit of cloth which the Government intends to pull away straight after the next general election. Solid Energy provides an enormous return on investment to the Crown as the select committee report makes clear. That is why it is crazy to think about selling it. But more important it owns very important strategic assets that we do not want in foreign hands. It is absolutely vital that we hold on to Crown ownership. We have seen from the strategy supported by the Government that it is using a soft sell approach which states that mum and dad investors need something rock solid to invest in because they do not trust the share market and they do not trust finance companies any more. But I ask how long it will remain in mum and dad’s hands when offers come flooding in from overseas because that has not been a way of protecting ownership within New Zealand at all. I think that the Government has to think of a different way especially in regard to these core assets. 
The Prime Minister has started using an expression to float ideas that might be unpopular with the public. He says: “We will kick the tyres.” Well I see that as a warning sign. Every time he uses that expression I draw breath. He says: “We will kick the tyres on MMP. We will kick the tyres on the policy of State asset sales.” As he said on 24 May of this year the Government’s State asset sales policy was a one-term commitment. I think that is the real issue. “Kicking the tyres” is an expression that the Prime Minister has come up with in order to enable the Government to float ideas that it knows the public will not like. 
Report noted. 
MidCentral District Health Board 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I congratulate the MidCentral District Health Board on its review of the quality of aged care through a special audit it undertook last year when the board was worried about the number of complaints it was receiving about the quality of care in MidCentral Health. The board was worried that the issues that were being raised could be endemic so it decided to conduct a special audit of eight facilities operated by the MidCentral District Health Board. It found instances of abuse and numerous wide-ranging and systemic problems that it said had caused significant risk to the safety of residents and had resulted in an unsafe environment for residents. The board said that many of the issues and problems that it found were breaches of the district health board contract and of the legislation. There were things such as medication errors untrained staff dispensing medicines acute shortages of staff people who had had falls and so forth not being attended to and people who had illnesses that had not been detected. I could go on and on. 
The picture that emerges from reading the MidCentral District Health Board special report is the same picture that is emerging from an investigation that Luamanuvao Winnie Laban and I are conducting around New Zealand. We have now held about 12 public meetings and we have also met with aged-care nurses and aged-care workers privately because of course many of them are not able to speak publicly about the situation for fear that they would immediately lose their jobs. 
The same picture is emerging of institutional neglect and in some cases even abuse. To give members an example last night I met with 20 aged-care workers who said that there are widespread acute shortages of staff in the sector particularly at weekends where it is commonplace for only half of the number of staff who are meant to work in an aged-care facility to be on duty. One of the reasons is that they are paid if they are lucky only 50c an hour extra to work at weekends so there will mostly be casuals students and untrained people working in the weekends and in the evenings. 
One nurse I met last night was in charge of 64 residents and another nurse was in charge of 70 residents. I asked them what happens when there are no staff in the evenings and the weekends and they said that basically they leave residents in bed all weekend. The only thing they can do is literally just leave them in bed all through the weekends and through the evenings. They said that they are simply unable to attend them and they gave me examples. We have had many reports of people who have had a fall who were left for an hour or so before someone discovered them and of people being unattended for hours on end because there literally were no staff. From my own experience when I visited an aged-care facility over a 6-week period I found a complete absence of staff. There was no one to be seen and residents were just lying in their beds day after day after day. 
The aged-care workers also talked about showers. Apparently most residents are being showered only twice a week and if they are lucky three times a week. They are not even being toileted enough. Aged-care workers will tell residents that they are sorry that they do not have enough staff and that the residents will have to wait for an hour or so. Residents are not being walked properly and not being fed properly because meals are just being left with them and they cannot feed themselves. They also get dehydrated and so on and so forth. The other concern is that apparently it is becoming routine for aged-care workers to dispense medication even though as the Minister pointed out in the House that is technically illegal. 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on the MidCentral District Health Board entity. Mrs Kedgley is correct in pointing out that the MidCentral District Health Board has undertaken some of its own work to look at the status of rest home auditing and monitoring in its own region. It is done within the context of a quite serious situation that this Government inherited. It is set out in the report that informed the work of the MidCentral District Health Board which is the quite damning report of the Auditor-General. Mrs Kedgley acknowledges that report even though she is travelling around the country with the people who are damned in it. That report sets out very clearly the failure during the period 2002-08 to correctly monitor performance in our nation’s rest homes. This is very much the theme picked up in the MidCentral District Health Board report. 
The Auditor-General said that despite knowing about a number of shortfalls in the monitoring of rest homes in New Zealand as early as 2004 the previous Government failed to act on the issue of rest home monitoring and auditing. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Who turned down the aged-care inquiry? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We do not want inquiries; we want action. That member was an Associate Minister of Health whose governance was panned in the Auditor-General’s report. The Auditor-General’s report was highly critical of the Ministers of Health under the previous Government—and it had three in 3 years—who failed to act on the poor state of monitoring in rest homes. 
As the MidCentral District Health Board report says a number of changes are needed and this Government has acted. The first thing we were very concerned about—and it was a feature of the MidCentral District Health Board report because it talked about the importance of clinical engagement and leadership in a lot of these rest homes—was to deal with the quality of nursing supervision in our nation’s rest homes. One of the first things we did in last year’s Budget was put an extra $18 million into subsidies for aged care specifically to improve nursing supervision and numbers in rest homes. That is a very important investment. We followed that up this year with an additional $16 million increase in subsidies for aged residential care. So there was a 5 percent increase last year and an additional increase of $16 million this year with a real push on nursing quality and supervision in our rest homes. That was something that was picked up by the Auditor-General and by this MidCentral District Health Board work that Mrs Kedgley talked about. 
We have followed that up even further by introducing a spot auditing regime. Many members would be surprised to know that when it came to the mid-year audit the auditors used to ring up the rest home and say: “We’ll be arriving on this date.” Well hello! Does that mean that the auditors would get a true look at what is happening? They might but they might not. We have introduced spot auditing. We do not tell the rest home the date on which the auditors will turn up and that is very important. 
What is more we have said that the people in rest homes their families and those considering going into rest homes need more information about the performance of rest homes. That is why for the first time despite the previous Government being asked to do it this Government has put those audit results online. We have provided an easy colour-coding in order to look at how rest homes are performing against the key quality criteria. 
Craig Foss 
: What does red mean? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It starts with blue which means a very good performance through to red which means a poor performance. When a rest home has a poor performance there is a requirement on that rest home to address those concerns. 
As is pointed out in the MidCentral District Health Board report much of this hinges on the designated auditing agency the third party that comes in and audits the rest homes. The Government has been concerned about the auditing process because as Mrs Goodhew pointed out in her discussion paper on aged-care policy in 2007 a lot of these rest home audits were contradictory. They could be done within weeks of each other yet they were contradictory. We have been looking at this audit process with particular scrutiny on the auditing agencies. One of the initiatives of this Government which is in line with the Auditor-General’s report is to bring in third-party accreditation of the auditing agencies. This means that the auditors themselves now have to meet an accredited standard in order to audit rest homes. This action was announced a week or two ago by myself as Minister of Health. It follows a programme of auditing the auditors. Last year we sent the Ministry of Health in to audit— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: More bureaucracy. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well do we want to care for the old people in rest homes or not? It is not more bureaucracy because it is actually dealing with the problem where we can have duplicate audits saying completely contradictory things. We are auditing the auditors we have brought in third-party accreditation for the auditing agencies and we are reviewing the auditing process—so much so that the Ministry of Health is now briefing the auditors directly on how they do some of their work. 
All of us have visited rest homes from time to time to visit some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders there. Earlier this year I went with my children Maisie and Llewellyn to visit a rest home in Te Puke. I can tell members that it was very clear that most older New Zealanders in rest homes are receiving very good-quality service. They are being looked after by people who care for them love them and are doing their level best for them. Those front-line workers deserve our support and admiration for what they do. But there is no doubt that there are a number of cases of people not receiving the quality service that they need and that is why this Government has invested in nursing quality and supervision in rest homes. We have brought in accrediting of the auditing agencies we are smoothing the audit process so we do not get these contradictory audits we are reporting the results online and we are engaging with district health boards on how we make sure we get a better service there. The key thing is we can have all the auditing we like but we still have to make sure we get good-quality care for the residents. 
Anybody who has visited a rest home recently would be able to tell us that we have done a pretty good job of staffing our rest homes in the last 18 months. Work has been difficult for many people and turnover has dropped dramatically in the health sector. Last year I visited a rest home on the Kapiti coast and for the first time in years it had had a number of people apply for nursing positions. Previously it had struggled to get even one person to apply but others have now applied as well. We have been able to get good staffing in many of our rest homes around New Zealand. 
However it is very easy to beat up scaremongering stories. We heard one today in the House in question time where it was alleged that the Government had taken away Meals on Wheels in Helensville. The truth of that is that eight people will now be covered by the general service for Meals on Wheels and home support in the Waitemata District Health Board. Those people will still get their Meals on Wheels. They will be getting the same if not better service as a result of that. It is very easy to put out a press statement that says as that one did that starvation was inevitable as a result of those changes but it is very important to know the details. 
In their work on rest homes the good people at MidCentral District Health Board have identified the importance of a number of factors. One is that there are some risks around smaller owner-operated rest homes. They have indicated that there were some risks when there is a large turnover of staff or management in particular. They have identified that when there are complaints that is also a red flag showing further investigation is needed. That is all being adopted into the changes that we are making in rest home supervision. The Government did not inherit a good situation. The Auditor-General not the National Government tabled a report before Christmas that damned the governance of the previous Government. It said that the previous Government knew the state of rest home monitoring was appalling and it did nothing about it. It took this Government led by John Key to start dealing with the issues. From that party opposite we see that it is trying to rewrite the history of its neglect of rest home monitoring and supervision in New Zealand. 
As I travel around the country I can tell members that more and more people have wised-up to the political games that are going around the country on this select committee dealing with rest homes. They know the members whom they are talking to were Ministers in a Government that neglected rest home nursing and supervision neglected monitoring and neglected dealing with the auditing agencies. They are all issues that this Government is dealing with and they are all issues that the MidCentral District Health Board is strongly supportive of. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises and it is with great pleasure that I speak on the MidCentral District Health Board and the health service in general. Undoubtedly National has reignited life in New Zealand’s health service and the MidCentral District Health Board is one of the classic examples. 
Let us look at the board’s performance against the basic performance criteria over the last three quarters. Firstly diabetes and cardiovascular health services came up from fourth in the country to third in the country. That has to be pretty good. Then we get to the “better help for smokers to quit” health target and in that area the board came up from twelfth in the country to fifth in the country. That is very very good progress indeed. Increased immunisation is of course absolutely vital for the children of New Zealand and the board came from sixteenth in the country up to ninth in the country which is a great result. On the issue of shorter waits for cancer treatment radiotherapy the board has come up from nineteenth in the country to first equal. So the MidCentral District Health Board deserves to be congratulated on the clear evidence-based progress it has made over this period of time. 
There is absolutely no doubt that under National we have seen as I said earlier a reignition of life in New Zealand’s health system in stark contrast with the previous 9 years when we saw increased bureaucracy and wastage a dismal productivity result which was basically zero as was clearly identified by successive Treasury reports and very very poor value for money. 
What is extremely important for the MidCentral District Health Board as for district health boards around the country is workforce. In 2010 we have just realised that our nursing workforce for instance is now 46000 which means a total of 1000 more nurses than the previous year. That is a very good result given the difficult times. Let us just think about what happened under the previous Labour Government. All it could do was strategise about workforces. There was committee after committee strategy after strategy and nothing whatsoever happened. 
Under this very good National Government we have seen immediately the creation of Health Workforce New Zealand under Professor Des Gorman and there are some very innovative things going on there but also the voluntary bonding scheme which has worked extremely well. It includes graduate doctors midwives and nurses and it has been oversubscribed for a second year in a row with 501 new health graduates just joining the scheme. It was salutary to learn this afternoon that we now have 1400 doctors nurses and midwives accepted into the scheme which offers a student loan debt write-off or cash incentives to stay in New Zealand. Labour had plenty of time to do a creative initiative like that but it failed to do so. It is vitally important for district health boards like MidCentral District Health Board. This year’s intake includes 45 midwives 392 nurses and 64 doctors. In fact almost half of new midwifery graduates have joined the scheme. Of course it takes time for those improvements to work through. 
What we have today is the legacy of Labour’s dismal performance but fortunately we also have the reignition of New Zealand’s health service through the National Government. 
Report noted. 
Accident Compensation Corporation 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 At the time of this debate last year the Government was trying to convince New Zealanders that the accident compensation scheme was fundamentally broken. It was exaggerating the problems that the scheme had so as to try to justify the very fundamental and negative changes the Government wants to make to the structure of accident compensation including privatising some of its public functions. How did the Government go about it? A year ago it was saying that the scheme’s liabilities were out of control. It had had some bad luck I have to admit occasioned by the international financial crisis decreasing the rate of return on investments. If we have a lower rate of return on investments and we are reliant on a pool of investments to fund the long-term costs of claims—for example someone who is a tetraplegic and might be on the scheme for decades—then of course we need a bigger pool of investments in order to meet that future cost. 
The increase in the scheme’s liabilities which is the way that number is expressed was used as an excuse by the Government to claim that the scheme was fundamentally broken. The Government revalued the long-term cost of care by making some very negative assumptions about the rate at which claims on the scheme would be made and refused to do what everyone in this House knew needed to be done which was to extend the date for fully funding old claims. By that I mean that progressively over time the scheme is moving towards having enough money in its accounts to fund the “whole of life” costs of existing claims rather than paying it on a “pay as you go” basis every year. The Labour Party had campaigned on putting out that date for full funding from 2014 to 2018 I think it was although it might have been 2019. The National Government knew that needed to be done but refused to do it until finally doing so under the cover of its legislation at the start of this year I think it was when it should have done that earlier. 
Here we are a year later and the Government through the Minister for ACC Nick Smith came to the select committee and said a few things. He said huge progress had been made over the last year—those were his words “huge progress”—so much so that the scheme is now in a stable financial position and is expected to make a $2 billion surplus this year some of which comes from increases in rates of return on investments but some of which is an operating profit—that is the scheme is collecting more in levies than the “whole of life” costs of the claims in this year. What a remarkable change we are being asked to believe! The truth is that the Government had been exaggerating the problems with the scheme in the first place and it has been caught out. 
The problem for the Government is how having been caught out it can justify the substantial changes it wants to make to the scheme. It wants to privatise what is currently a public scheme. Why? We have to ask ourselves in this Committee why the Government wants to do that. It is not because the scheme costs too much. Even the Treasury report to the Minister of Finance last year stated it was “Not clear that levies are excessive”. Now we would all like levies to be lower and maybe they were pushed up too much last year; the scheme has certainly had a surplus this year so it did not need all of that levy increase. But Treasury is right in stating that it is not clear that levies are excessive. We know that because at the select committee last year because of the Labour Party inquiries we had some cost comparisons with Australia and there is nowhere cheaper in terms of total levies than New Zealand. 
In addition we know that with the State-run monopoly which does not have to make a profit on capital—it just has to cover its costs; it does not have to return a profit to its shareholders—the administration costs of the scheme are the lowest of any in the world. There are none lower. That has been proven by the study that was done by PricewaterhouseCoopers in Australia a couple of years ago. Our scheme is already cheaper. We know it is comprehensive. We know that the no-fault principles that underlie the scheme mean that we do not waste money on insurance company margins and on lawyers’ bills fighting over liability issues. The money goes into rehabilitation care and income-related compensation so where is the case for privatisation? It is not there. But this is ideology that is driving the Government; it is not reason. 
The latest thing we have heard in the last week comes from the Government’s appointee as chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) John Judge. What has he said in the last week? He said we should have financial penalties for doctors who have been involved in treatment that has led to accident compensation payments because the treatment did not go properly. Does that not sound remarkably like moving in the direction of the American system? Not only is it litigious and wastes all this money on litigation which the scheme avoids in the New Zealand system—which is one of its real attributes—but more important perhaps we know what happens in the United States. The United States spends twice as much as a percentage of GDP on health care in America as we do in New Zealand but its people live shorter lives. That is because money is wasted in the health system because there is such a defensive method of medical practice that people do not take any risks. They do not take any risks for fear of being sued and for fear of the personal consequences to them as doctors and nurses and as a consequence a lot of money is wasted. What does that mean? It means that instead of two people getting a hip operation the system can afford only to give it to one person. That is why in simplistic terms despite spending the US medical system spending twice as much as New Zealand does people have a lower life expectancy than we have here. 
In addition they do not do things like spend money on prevention. That is another thing that has gone wrong in the last year. The ACC board cut ACC’s accident prevention plans. It cut the Otago medical school - designed falls prevention programme which delivers services to people who are over 80 years of age who have already had a fall. We know that statistically those people are at risk of having another one. We can reduce that risk and therefore reduce the risk that they will break a hip and have to get that fixed with the attendant cost. What happened? ACC cut it. Do members know how much it was saving? 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Nothing; not a thing. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Woodhouse says it was not saving anything but I tell him that a peer review study showed that for every dollar that was spent $2 was saved in the first year following the intervention. Do members know why ACC cut it? It was cut because only 70 percent of that $2 cost was on its books and the rest was a cost to the health system. So this Government which cannot have one person talking to another cut a programme that saved taxpayers $2 for every $1 that was spent because only 70c of it was saved in the accident compensations system. 
This area of policy is being grossly mismanaged. I have a real fear that the Government will not just still push ahead with privatising some of the management functions and some of the operational functions when it comes to managing claims but have a tilt at privatising levy setting and underwriting and there is no justification for it. It is not evidence-based. Minister Nick Smith was caught out at the select committee. Last year he said that his justification was that some of the self-employed and the big employers have better rates of rehabilitation. He said that so we went to ACC under the Official Information Act and said we were very interested in this; please show us the information. The ACC flicked it to the Minister’s office because there was none. The Minister did not have any either. All he could produce was a press release from one of the private providers saying that it does it well. There is absolutely no evidence that the self-insured pool which does contract out the management of claims to private providers does it any cheaper or at any higher rates of rehabilitation— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Yes there is. They stay in the programme. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: They stay in the programme because they actually contract out of the averaging of levies. That is why they stay in it. It is not because they have better rates of rehabilitation; it is because— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Yes there is. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There is no evidence for that and we have made inquiries on that. That is a mere assertion by that member and his Government should be ashamed that it is willing to act on assertion rather than evidence when we know that we already have a good scheme. 
It is a pleasure that accident compensation is in far better shape than the pretence of where it was last year. It is notable that the improvement in the scheme’s financial stability and liabilities and its $2 billion surplus have been achieved as a publicly owned entity that is operating publicly. There is no need to change the model. 
Hon PANSY WONG (Associate Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The Hon David Parker lives in denial. Let me just take up some of the points he made. Nowhere have I seen in the report back from the Accident Compensation Corporation’s financial review David Parker registering his concern about the $2.7 billion losses of the accident compensation scheme in the years 2007-08 and the $4.8 billion losses in 2008-09. He said that those were manufactured by a National Government. He forgot that those accounts were signed off by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. I challenge Labour to write to the Auditor-General’s office and say that it helped to sign off an account that had a manufactured or exaggerated loss in accident compensation. We do not have to take seriously anything that member says because he was wrong. The independent Audit Office signed off last year on the fact that accident compensation had made a loss of $4.8 billion. 
Why did that loss come about? Quite simply some of it was out of the corporation’s control but it was largely due to the incompetent leadership exercised by the Labour Minister for ACC which was in three areas that I will share with everyone. 
First there was an increase in entitlements without any consideration being paid to the impact on levies. I will draw on the example of physiotherapy; I think most people will remember that. In 2004 the claim cost for physiotherapy was only $55 million. By 2008 that cost had gone up to $144 million. If the National Government did not do anything that cost was forecast to increase to $232 million. Why? Once again Labour directed the corporation to provide so-called free physiotherapy. We could see that a lot of clinics had put up signs saying that physiotherapy was free. Well I am afraid nothing is free; someone has to pay for it. 
Second there is the non-earners account. When National came into Government in 2008 the first news that we heard was that the accident compensation scheme needed a top-up; there was a $300 million deficit in that account. The claim costs for the non-earners account had gone up from $600 million in 2004 to $1.2 billion in 2008. 
Third there is good news about the administrative cost of the Accident Compensation Corporation. At the end of this financial year the administrative costs of the corporation are down by 7 percent. So it was not true when the Hon David Parker said that those costs could not be improved. Under good governance and under good leadership they can be improved. They have gone down by 7 percent in the area of international and domestic travel and of taxis and parking. In administration the savings in the head office of corporate overheads has gone into front-line services. 
I have good news for Labour members who keep talking nonsense and saying that the rehabilitation and management of those claims have not improved. One of the biggest problems facing the accident compensation scheme’s $6 billion outstanding liability is related to claims for people who have been on the scheme for 2½ years. What a waste of human resources! 
I am very proud to say that although Labour is in denial we are so proud to have a Minister for ACC the Hon Nick Smith who exercises the leadership that is very much needed in steering the accident compensation scheme. I know that Labour members hate to hear this but a former National Government introduced the accident compensation scheme to New Zealand so we are the very proud party that wants to make sure that any problem caused by Labour will be remedied. We are glad that we have a very capable and able Minister for ACC who has put the accident compensation scheme back on a sound footing and who has made sure that everybody is covered. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Labour Party has used its allocation of speeches so there are none left for the Labour Opposition. 
Darien Fenton 
: Do we only get two? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No you have used your full allocation; I am just bringing that to your attention. You will have no more speakers for the rest of this debate. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I think I observed the same glint in the eye of the Opposition spokesperson for ACC David Parker as he had last week at the estimates review of the accident compensation scheme when he heard that it had started to turn the corner financially and may have improved its financial performance to about a $2 billion surplus. It did not seem to me that Mr Parker’s enthusiasm at that news was genuine applause for what I think has been an excellent turn-round in the scheme; it is more an indication to him and his colleagues that somehow it is now OK to take the foot off the pedal for the scheme’s performance and that some of the steps this Government has taken were not necessary. Well nothing could be further from the truth. It is worth remembering that at the time Mr Parker was last involved in a Government that oversaw a result where the scheme had $2 billion in it it was a $2.4 billion deficit. The previous Government’s response was to make the scheme even more flaccid particularly in respect of rehabilitation rates. The result for the following year was a $4.8 billion deficit. So although I am really encouraged that the scheme seems to be in the process of a turn-round plan even if it is something like $2 billion in surplus it needs to be weighed up in the context of the previous 2 years which showed an audited and signed-off result of $7.2 billion of deficit. The vast majority of that was overseen by the previous Labour Government. 
Mr Parker talked about the Government using unreasonable assumptions to inflate the unfunded liability. I will give members one example of where those assumptions were particularly unreasonable under the previous Labour Government: despite medical and rehabilitation inflation going well above the consumer price index the consumer price index was the only thing used to measure cost increases. That severely dampened down the unfunded liability and it just could not continue. The chickens came home to roost when the revaluation occurred and we saw a blowout of about $10 billion in a couple of years. So no one who knows about the accident compensation scheme can place any sort of credence on the assertions by Labour and Mr Parker that the scheme’s financial position over the last few years has been anything other than very tenuous and that it did require the sort of remedial action that this Government has put in place. 
I am delighted to see in such a short period of time the message about improvements in performance not only being received and understood but actively and enthusiastically supported by the staff who administer the scheme. The most pleasing aspects of the sorts of performance indicators that the Minister for ACC the Hon Nick Smith talked about in the estimates review last week were in respect of rehabilitation performance. He gave us an update for 11 of the last 12 months. We saw some tanking performance in terms of outcomes in rehabilitation from 2008-09. The 10-week exit rate was below 65 percent. Those administering the scheme set themselves a quite ambitious target of 69 percent. They are now tracking at about 71 percent well ahead of their target. For the 9-month exit rate they were down to as low as 89 percent I think. They set a target of 91.5 percent and they are now at 93 percent. What does that mean? It means that far fewer people are going into long-term claims. The rehabilitation performance for long-term claims has dropped by about 14700 claims to 13500 claims. Those sorts of numbers have a very very significant impact on the corporation’s financial performance. 
Investment performance has been talked about a lot. The scheme has consistently performed above the benchmarks for the market. Even when it made losses in the 2008 year it was still performing well ahead of the general average and against its budgets so it simply is not true to say that this massive dip in the scheme’s financial performance in 2008-09 was somehow the result of the dip in investment performance. Yes there was a little bit of that but it certainly was not the material factor. I think that the warning bell should be sounded in respect of the fact that the Minister advised the committee that although it is looking pretty strong over the year there was about a $150 million dip in returns in the last reported month. So that recovery in terms of investment performance is still pretty lumpy. 
Overall I think this is a very very good news story. People should not be fooled by the smoke screen that Labour continues to throw up in respect of accident compensation performance under its tenure. There is a long way to go before we can achieve the sorts of stability that accident compensation deserves. I look forward to that occurring. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Members the question is that the report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the 2008-09 financial review of the Accident Compensation Corporation be noted. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I sought clarification on speaking slots for this portion of the debate. I was advised that if Government members did not take their calls we could stand to take a call. My colleague Lynne Pillay stood to take a call when no National member stood. We were following guidance and without wanting to trifle with the Chair I point out that you tried to seek closure on this debate. I seek some clarification on that step that you undertook in the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that. Each party is allocated so many speaking slots in which they can seek calls. Labour has actually used the 12 calls. National still has six calls left for its members to exercise. As they have not exercised their six calls they can now move on to the next question before the Committee. If at the end of the debate and within the 3-hour period there is still time available then it is open for any party to seek calls. But at this stage we must move on. As the member’s party has exercised its 12 opportunities we now must move on. That is why I cannot accept a call from the member. We will move on to the next vote and as I said if all parties have exercised their total votes within the 3-hour period and there is still time available then there is an opportunity for further speeches. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I go to the question of whether the allocations are fixed according to the Standing Orders or whether they are a guideline. My understanding is that they are a guideline rather than a fixed allocation. I apologise; I was not in the Chamber when this was first raised and I have come in and I have been looking for the appropriate Standing Order—if I am pointed to it and I am wrong I apologise—but my understanding is that they are guidelines as opposed to an allocation by way of the Standing Orders. Although I accept that there will be an opportunity presumably in a later debate for people to pick it up I would appreciate a ruling on the strictness of the allocation interpretation and whether that is fixed in the Standing Orders or whether it is something that is less formal. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The first point that I will raise is that I am surprised that in the middle of a vote we are having this debate. My understanding was that the Speaker’s ruling is that once we have commenced a vote we should continue with that vote. The second point I raise is that there is a longstanding tradition that this speaking number is based on proportionality agreed prior to the debate and that was canvassed. There was plenty of opportunity before the debate to come back and argue the position that members wanted more or fewer calls. We agreed before that National would have 18 and that Labour would have 12. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I would now like to not quite withdraw and apologise but pull back somewhat. I have had time to get advice and have a quick look at the Standing Order; I accept that the ruling you made earlier is correct. I apologise for the interruption. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Just to clarify for members I tell the Committee that if we look at the consideration of financial reviews under Appendix A of the Standing Orders we can see stated that the whole debate will be 3 hours. I understand there is agreement between the whips and that the proportionality has been worked out. There is agreement between the parties and I think that Speaker’s ruling 25/6 clarifies the matter. I intend that the decision I made earlier stands; I will put the vote. 
Report noted. 
New Zealand Symphony Orchestra 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to join the debate this evening and to talk about the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra which is the national orchestra of New Zealand. It is a Crown entity and it operates under the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act 2004. It has 90 full-time players. The orchestra was founded in 1946 as the National Symphony Orchestra of New Zealand and was administered by Radio New Zealand until 1989 under the name NZBC Symphony Orchestra. It is currently based in the Wellington Town Hall. 
The orchestra is funded by a Government grant box office proceeds and partnership income and sponsors and funders. The Crown funding for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra this year is $13.446 million and at the most recent financial review the Government Administration Committee identified no matters to bring to the attention of the House. New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Ltd did not appear before the committee. 
During the recession the arts have had to work very hard to maintain audiences and box office returns. Sponsorship and additional funding has also been hard to find so it is not surprising that based on a business-as-usual scenario a statement of intent of the Symphony Orchestra indicates projected operating losses over the next 3 years. Those losses will reduce the working capital to $61000 by June 2013. The implications of that forecast for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and its current business model are being closely monitored. 
The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra continues to advocate for the development in Wellington of an orchestra studio and scoring stage. Its members are very keen to establish a world-class facility capable of recording orchestral scores for the film industry. That is the only post-production facility not available in Wellington at present and they believe that it is an opportunity for income generation. There would be demand for only one scoring stage in New Zealand and it would provide Wellington with a complete suite for post-production and a competitive advantage for its film industry. The studio would also become the permanent home for the orchestra and it would provide recording facilities for a range of other organisations in film music and tertiary education. 
The mission of the Symphony Orchestra is to enrich the lives of New Zealanders through artistically excellent concerts presented throughout the country and abroad by a full-time full-strength professional symphony orchestra of international standing. Indeed the orchestra is well-recognised internationally. It has sold over a million CDs in the last few years and this year it has been invited to tour some of the most prestigious concert halls in Europe. It will also visit the 2010 World Exposition in Shanghai and Beijing. The orchestra will earn almost $800000 in performance fees for the 2010 European tour concerts. 
The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is a well-established and well-loved part of the New Zealand arts scene and we are delighted that it is recognised and in demand internationally. I wish orchestra members all the best for their 2010 tour. 
Report noted. 
Sport and Recreation New Zealand 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 What about those All Whites eh? Has it not been exciting to watch their progress up to and through the FIFA World Cup? Has it not been exciting to see the rise in support for football here in New Zealand? Has it not been exciting to see the way Maori Football NZ has tried to run a campaign to make football a credible alternative to rugby and rugby league? And has it not been exciting to listen to Winston Reid and Rory Fallon both All Whites speak of their desire to return home and inspire Maori and Polynesian youngsters to follow football? Yet if we were to talk to the manager of Maori Football NZ Phillip Pickering-Parker he would tell us that the All Whites had in the past been invisible to New Zealand youth who lacked visible role models whether Maori or non-Maori. 
Nowadays roughly 50000 to 60000 Maori youth across both genders are playing football yet when we look at the 2008-09 financial review of Sport and Recreation New Zealand we do not see football. It is invisible in the review of the performance and current operations of Sport and Recreation New Zealand. I commend the initiative the vision and the commitment of people like WyntonWhaiRufer and Phill Pickering-Parker who have done so much to generate energy for the new growth sport of football. Phill Pickering-Parker of Ngati Manawa is an amazing legend. After his own football career took him from Kawerau to South London he has now become a qualified elite coach to Aotearoa’s budding football stars. It is all about the mentoring and development of our young players—something that one would have thought was an appropriate role for Sport and Recreation New Zealand to take on. 
There are other notable omissions from the 2008-09 financial review. Yes the Rugby World Cup is there with its $1.5 million for volunteers but there is nothing to support the Aotearoa Maori Women’s Rugby Sevens Team who took out the Roma Sevens final against France and Italy just 20 days ago. These young women are great ambassadors for their country their whanau and their culture. They are seven-time international winners having won the Women’s Rugby Sevens championship in 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 and 2010. What is even more exciting is that women’s rugby sevens will be an Olympic sport in 2016. 
The opportunity to compete internationally and to enjoy world-class success is an amazing experience for our young Maori men and women and provides automatic career openings for many of them. Yet although the team is supported by the New Zealand Rugby Union through its Maori board Whakapumautanga no funding has followed. The team is celebrated across Aotearoa and has received support from Te PuniKokiri the New Zealand Community Trust and the First Sovereign Trust over the years yet it has received nothing from Sport and Recreation New Zealand. It is hard to fathom why. 
Third time lucky? Perhaps I will try basketball. We have been aware of young Maori players who are selected for the Junior Tall Blacks yet struggle to attend the tournaments due to a lack of funding. Again nothing in the latest review indicated support for this high-growth area of sporting excellence. 
What about waka ama? There is nothing in the report. I know that my two young nieces who went to a world championship in Tahiti a couple of months ago had to fund-raise really hard. They had quiz evenings and sausages sizzles to enable them to get there. 
Every year the National Maori Sports Awards show that Maori sportspeople are demonstrating their incredible talents and abilities in every sporting area across the world. We see Maori world champions represented in sporting areas as varied as woodchopping wood sawing cue ball rowing tae kwon do and body-boarding yet the only reference we see in the report of Sport Recreation New Zealand that addresses Maori and Pacific communities describes the need to invest in Maori and Pacific Island participation in sport because Sport and Recreation New Zealand is worried about the prevalence of inactivity and obesity. Otherwise we see the justification for the involvement of Sport and Recreation New Zealand in schools as that it wants to support schools in responding to an increasingly risk-averse attitude. 
I refer the Committee to the amazing initiative in my electorate the sports academies at Aranui High School and their mission to motivate Maori and Pacific Islanders. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Tihei mauri ora. Whaia te paetawhiti kia tata whaia te paetatawhakamaua kia u kia tina. 
[ 
Behold the breath of life. Seek the distant horizon so that it is closer but the horizon closest at hand must be held on to firmly and cherished 
.] 
That whakatauaki teaches us to reach for the stars and pull them close to us. If there is something in New Zealand that we do extremely well it is following that proverb when it comes to sport. Across the globe and around this nation we go after our goals in a big way and we reach for the stars and pull them close to us. If there is a team that has done that in the last couple of months it has been the New Zealand All Whites. They have gone out on to the international stage and done an amazing job. We saw the way New Zealanders got behind that team throughout those three games. We supported Ricki Herbert Ryan Nelsen and guys from my own electorate—for example Shane Smeltz and Mr Paston. They did a wonderful job on that stage. They made us feel proud. 
Sport and Recreation New Zealand stands behind that team and helped it to get there. If we look at the appropriations throughout last year and this year in helping that team to get to the World Cup we will see there was a $250000 appropriation to help with the preparation and further on there was a $300000 appropriation to help with the campaign proper. But when we think about the contribution that this nation gives to its sports teams in comparison with what other nations give to help their teams on an international stage it really does fade into insignificance. If we look at what the Italians did to help their team get there and at what the English did we see that we really do box above our weight which is absolutely amazing and long may it continue. Long may we continue to follow that proverb I read at the start of my speech. 
In respect of Sport and Recreation New Zealand there are two areas I want to focus on. The first is the funnel it is opening up to ensure we continue to stay on the international stage and stay champions. The second is on KiwiSport at the bottom level where we encourage our children to develop the skills that are necessary to give them the competence to get out and play sport. I am proud to say I was with Sport Hawke’s Bay on Monday at Te Awa School with Pip from Sport Hawke’s Bay. It has started a scheme called Parents in Schools where it is bringing dads—particularly dads—into the schools in the mornings. So the dads instead of just dropping the kids off at the gate and shooting off to work are being asked to come into the school shoot a netball or throw a rugby ball around and give the kids the skills to get them started so when they do start to play competitive sport they do not feel embarrassed in front of their peers. 
We have seen that amongst all the amazing sports trusts around New Zealand. They are a key part of our community binding the community together and ensuring that there are volunteers and coaches to help the children get the skills they need to compete. Sports trusts are absolutely amazing organisations and I am fully behind them. It is great to see Sport and Recreation New Zealand supporting them. 
The point I want to finish on is the impact this Government has made in terms of taking sport to a whole new level with high-performance sport. The announcements Minister McCully has made in the last couple of weeks are absolutely fantastic. It is great to see what we will now be investing in the Millennium Institute of Sport and Health in Auckland a great organisation. It was originally started by Graeme Avery I might say and Allan Peachey. Allan Peachey from this House started through his school in association with Graeme and they got it off the ground. Now there is $40 million going into that. Throughout the country throughout the motu as Mr Horomia might say we are seeing centres of excellence being set up. There is an amazing initiative going on in the North Shore in Wayne Mapp’s electorate and in Jonathan Coleman’s. There is a centre of excellence for sailing and water sports and we will soon see what will happen there. In the Waikato David Bennett’s area there is the rowing on Lake Karapiro and it is absolutely fantastic to see what is going on there. We are seeing centres of excellence being set up. We are investing money into these sports to make sure our sportsmen and sportswomen continue to be on the international stage up where Kiwis want to see them. I am fully behind what Minister McCully has done. The appropriations for Sport and Recreation New Zealand are absolutely sensational. There is a cycling bid out there that I know a number of regions are bidding for. Hawke’s Bay will be giving that one a damn good shot. Kia ora. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be noted. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 43; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Report noted. 
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA) has been the subject of many questions to both the Minister for Climate Change Issues and the Minister in the chair right now Wayne Mapp over the last 7 or 8 months. 
NIWA is responsible for maintaining our climate records having taken over this function from the Meteorological Service of New Zealand in 1992. In the early to mid 2000s NIWA produced a graph showing that New Zealand was warming even faster than global averages. This new temperature series which was based on only seven measuring sites throughout New Zealand showed that the warming trend in New Zealand was 0.9 of a degree centigrade per century. 
The New Zealand Climate Conservation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition combined to investigate the New Zealand temperature record. They started with the official graph and the raw temperature readings both published on NIWA’s website and they found that there were big differences between them. The raw data which is simply the data of the temperatures recorded over the last 150 years showed no trend whatsoever—no warming. It was only the adjusted data that showed the 0.9 degree warming. There was no explanation of the differences on NIWA’s website. 
Most of us will know that there are very many good reasons to adjust data. There may be gaps in the series the site for temperature readings may have shifted or there may have been a change in the environment such as tarsealed car-parks or a change over time from rural land to urban land. There can be valid reasons for making adjustments and the technical term for these adjustments is referred to as a schedule of adjustments. It is quite normal to have a schedule of adjustments and in fact it is essential to have a schedule of adjustments because it helps us to keep track of the reasoning behind those adjustments and it allows other scientists to cross-check the work that has been done. 
But this is where it gets interesting. When NIWA was asked to produce the schedule of adjustments it became very evasive. When it answered requests it talked about the standard reason for making adjustments and it referred to numerous papers and methodologies for doing so over the last 20 or 30 years. But NIWA refused to provide that schedule of adjustments to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition when it asked for it just over 12 months ago. At that stage the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the New Zealand Climate Conservation Group approached the ACT Party seeking assistance. We asked questions of the Minister for Climate Change Issues and also the Minister of Research Science and Technology. We tried oral questions in Parliament and we received evasive answers. We tried written questions and again there was evasion. We asked ourselves what they were trying to hide. All we wanted was a schedule of adjustments for the official climate series so that scientists not politicians or political parties could check the analysis. All we wanted was some basic science. 
As scientists NIWA should have welcomed the scrutiny of its data and its methods. Instead it blocked us at every step. It eventually became clear that NIWA simply did not have a well-organised database with an accessible up-to-date or defensible schedule of adjustments. It also became clear that NIWA was in breach of its statutory obligations under the Public Records Act. 
What we know is that the raw data showed no warming in New Zealand whatsoever. I see the Minister of Research Science and Technology is nodding his head. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No; shaking my head. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the temperature records of the New Zealand Institute which are maintained by the Auckland Museum showed a temperature of 55.4 degrees Fahrenheit in 1868 which is 12.9 degrees Celsius. A century later the same record shows 12.7 degrees Celsius. In essence there is no warming. One may ask why this is important. It is important because in 2 days’ time New Zealand will join the expensive experiment that is the emissions trading scheme. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I think that speech could be characterised by the member who has just resumed his seat confusing the shaking of one’s head with the nodding of one’s head. Most people can tell that when someone shakes their head they are disagreeing with someone. If they are nodding their head it would imply that they are agreeing with someone. Apparently Mr Boscawen cannot tell the difference between those two actions. I think that probably goes to the very heart of the ACT Party’s confusion on this issue of temperature records. 
It is simply untrue to suggest that the data is in any way faulty flawed or erroneous or that it does not show any climate change. The member has asked literally dozens if not hundreds of written questions on this issue and has been provided with extremely extensive information. However he still trots out his interpretation of that information and I believe the ACT Party to its embarrassment will have its campaign to discredit the temperature records of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) disproven by the science. 
I want to take members and indeed the public through three key points about the data. There are two series involved here. The first is  
The NIWA ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series 
. The oldest record goes back to 1858 and as has been indicated it has been subject to adjustments for a variety of reasons. Sites have shifted. One site in particular in Wellington in 1928 changed altitude by 120 metres from Thorndon to Kelburn. It is an a priori fact that when altitude is changed there is a change in temperature and therefore adjustments have to be made. I acknowledge that Mr Boscawen acknowledged that. A schedule of adjustments is necessary. 
John Boscawen 
: Why did you do the reverse with Hokitika? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The second point I want to deal with is the issue raised by the interjection which is the situation of Hokitika. The first point is that the work on this series was originally done by Dr Jim Salinger as part of his doctoral thesis. It was extensively peer reviewed at that time and more recently because it was acknowledged that the seven-station adjustment was largely dependent on Dr Salinger’s dissertation and therefore should be reviewed. 
What was the outcome of the recent review of data from the Hokitika station? There was less than one-tenth of a 1-degree variation between Dr Salinger’s work and the review. I suggest to members that that variation is not particularly significant. The institute is doing the same exercise on data from the other six older stations and it will provide an up-to-date schedule of adjustments. The variation will be not terribly significant I would suggest in line with other work by NIWA. 
The second key issue is that there is an 11-station series actually the most important series running from 1930 to the present. The member well knows that that series is not adjusted and that is the critical point. It is an absolute comparison of the past with the present because the sites have not shifted and are virtually all in rural areas. In fact one of them is at Raoul Island. 
What does that series show? It shows a temperature increase of 0.92 degrees Celsius from 1930 through to the present. It is one of the fundamental foundations of the science in this area in New Zealand and I suggest to members there is no way that the ACT Party and its supporters will be able to rebut the veracity and accuracy of that series. It is unadjusted; it is taken by high-quality instruments; it does show an increase of 1 degree Celsius; and the rate of change broadly mirrors the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I suggest that this is much ado about nothing. The ACT Party is trying to raise a debate about a problem that simply does not exist. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be noted. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 43; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Report noted. 
New Zealand Transport Agency 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The New Zealand Transport Agency in many ways has done a good job but it is handicapped by two things. Firstly the Government—particularly the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce—has set very strong policy guidelines and has laid down the seven roads of national significance that the New Zealand Transport Agency now has to fund. The most controversial of these is the Puhoi to Wellsford motorway sometimes called the Holiday Highway. It is not really essential to have that road turned into a motorway at this stage with the low density of traffic on it and it would be at the huge cost of a couple of billion dollars over some years. The benefit-cost ratio for that would clearly be at the bottom of the heap in terms of priorities for the expenditure of Government money on transport when in the broader Auckland region it is quite clear that the priority should be public transport. 
If members look at the expenditure of the New Zealand Transport Agency across the country—it has a 3-year planning horizon from 2009-2012—they will see that the total expenditure is to be $8.7 billion over 3 years with only $900 million of that for public transport and only $51 million for walking and cycling. So members can see that public transport and walking and cycling are sort of afterthoughts; the New Zealand Transport Agency still sees itself largely as a roading agency. 
The agency does mention in its list of national projects a few good public transport projects like the New Lynn transit developments integrated ticketing for Auckland—which is very important and should be hurried up; some progress is being made there—and railway station improvements in Auckland and Wellington. It also mentions the development of public transport along the important artery of Dominion Road in Auckland and the Dominion Road priority lanes. The problem there is that the Auckland City Council which has some control over things is cutting back on all of that and putting things other than buses on the bus priority lanes which is not a very good development. 
In the area of cycleways of course the Green Party is working with the National Government on a national cycleway. Unfortunately that has not been translated too much into the urban setting yet; the New Zealand Transport Agency is not really helping very much there. But members can see that the idea of a walkway and cycleway over the Auckland Harbour Bridge is very popular. Piles of people went over the bridge when there was a big protest in that direction a year or so ago which I was on. Even though that walkway-cycleway over the Harbour Bridge has had various estimates of $20 million to $40 million in cost which is minute in the scale of the overall New Zealand Transport Agency budget the agency has not gone along with that. Although the cycling and walking advocates have said they would do a public-private partnership and would charge people per ride or per walk and virtually pay for it themselves the agency is very reluctant to go along with it so that is not terribly good. 
One of the good projects—and it is mentioned somewhere in the broader New Zealand Transport Agency documents particularly in the Auckland documents—is the idea of an underground extension of the Britomart terminus to connect with the western line around the Mount Eden train station. It is mentioned in the transport agency documents at least that $6 million has been given to look at the route for that rail tunnel but in terms of longer-term projections it is in the never-never whether it will ever be built and when it would be built. The tunnel would cost a lot less to build than the Puhoi to Wellsford extensions. It would cost roughly $1.5 billion although it is not fully costed out at this point. The Green Party says that we should get on with critical public transport infrastructure in Auckland particularly the loop beyond Britomart to connect with the western line. Thank you. 
Report noted. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Thank you very much for this opportunity to outline where the Housing New Zealand Corporation is sitting at the moment and where we would like to see it go. Members might be interested in some interesting statistics. I know that the Minister in the chair the Hon David Carter certainly would be. At the moment the Housing New Zealand Corporation manages just over 69000 houses. The majority are owned by it. A few are leased—not many but roughly about 5 percent. As we increase the number of State houses—that is our commitment—we are buying building and leasing properties. We are tending to lease and build properties more than to buy existing properties because we want to add to the housing stock in New Zealand. We are very very keen to see the stimulus effects in the economy and particularly in the construction sector when we build. Of course if people buy an existing house—the Housing New Zealand Corporation does that—there is no stimulus activity in the building sector. Members might be interested to know that when we lease houses which the Housing New Zealand Corporation does it tends to lease new-build houses. So we do not tend to lease those that are already in existence. We tend to go out and lease new builds. That also stimulates the economy and the construction sector. The flip side to it is that we get a new and modern home. Members may also be interested in the waiting list. From 1 November 2008 to today 31 May 2010 we have seen an increase in the waiting list of just over 400. 
Report noted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on the performance of the 2008-09 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises has therefore concluded. I will report the debate to the House. 
Report adopted. 
Courts (Remote Participation) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill provides a legal framework for any participant in any court proceeding to appear by video link provided that certain criteria are met. I would like to commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for its prompt consideration of the bill and for the sensible amendments it has proposed which the Government supports. The committee received eight written submissions on the bill and heard one oral submission. 
I note that some submitters and a minority on the Justice and Electoral Committee were concerned about the use of video links in criminal substantive matters where evidence is being presented. In particular there was a concern that this legislation might be used to prevent a defendant from being physically present at his or her trial. I do not accept that allowing a defendant not to be present at a trial by video link is an erosion of his or her fair trial rights. A fair trial is about the ability of defendants to participate in their proceedings. Physical presence alone does not ensure participation and it certainly does not ensure effective participation; it merely provides an opportunity to participate. 
Under this bill each case will be examined by a judge on its merits. In some cases the judge may decide that the physical presence of a defendant will ensure effective participation. In other cases the judge may find that the defendant can participate just as effectively by video link. Clause 5 of the bill sets out the criteria that a judge must consider before deciding to use a video link in any proceeding. Clause 6 provides even more safeguards if the video link is to be used in a criminal proceeding. In criminal proceedings a judge will have to consider the impact of the use of video links on the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Specifically the judge must consider the defendant’s ability to comprehend the proceedings participate in the defence consult and instruct counsel privately access relevant evidence and examine witnesses for the prosecution. Where the judge is not satisfied that those criteria can be met through the use of audiovisual links then he or she will not allow them to be used. 
Before this bill was introduced it was reviewed by the Attorney-General and the Crown Law Office. The advice provided by the Crown Law Office—which is publicly available on the Ministry of Justice website—was that the bill complied with the right to a fair trial and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In addition each time a judge permits video links to be used that decision must comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. No defendant will lose the ability to participate in his or her trial as a result of this bill. The safeguards in the bill ensure that the defendant’s right to a fair trial is preserved. Equally the rights and interests of other participants such as victims and witnesses can be taken into account in any decision to use video links. Video links can already be used for the evidence of witnesses including that of the defendant. 
I do not accept that New Zealand is going beyond other countries in allowing defendants to appear at their trial by video link. Video links can be used in criminal substantive matters in New South Wales Victoria and the United Kingdom. Bodies such as the Yugoslavian war crimes tribunal have also recognised that there is a legitimate place for the use of video links at trials. 
I expect that there will be legitimate caution over the use of video links in substantive hearings. However as the technology improves and the courts become more comfortable with its use this bill will enable video links to be used in a wider range of situations without the need for further amendment. I see no reason why video links cannot be routinely used for the appearance of defendants in procedural matters. The use of video links in these situations is a sensible and safer response to significant court pressures. It would reduce the need to transport prisoners to and from court which can have tragic consequences as it did in the case of young Liam Ashley. 
The Ministry of Justice anticipates that by 2014 some of New Zealand’s busiest courts could each see up to 2000 remand prisoner appearances by video link every year. This represents significant savings for the justice sector—and I might add it will increase the speed with which these matters can be heard—without compromising the rights and interests of defendants. To bring it down to the level of an individual offender I tell the House that in early 2007 it cost the taxpayer $16000 or $4000 each way to transport Graeme Burton from Paremoremo to Wellington for two court appearances. I am pleased that around $2 million will be made available in the coming financial year to fund the installation of video link facilities. 
I will highlight two of the more significant changes to the bill recommended by the select committee. Clause 8 contains a presumption in favour of the use of video links in criminal procedural matters where no evidence is being presented. This presumption has been strengthened by the committee. This is an important point. Although the use of video links remains properly at the court’s discretion clause 8 now requires a judicial officer or registrar to consider using video links in criminal procedural matters if the technology is available. Although video links are not entirely new to the courts this presumption will encourage a culture change among the judiciary court staff and court users to enable greater use to be made of video links. We should not be afraid to use what is now well-established technology to help make our system run more smoothly. 
Video links may also be used in civil matters under clause 7. This clause has been amended by the committee to ensure that the interests of other participants can be taken into account in any decision to use video links. For example in custody proceedings in the Family Court although the parties may consent to the use of video links the child is not a party to the proceeding. The amendments to this clause ensure that the views of the child about the use of a video link can be taken into account. 
Once again I thank committee members for the work that they have done on this bill. I know that they applied themselves in a rigorous way to many of the issues that were brought up during the hearings and evidence that was presented and the House and I are grateful for that. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I concur with the Minister of Justice on the work that was done by the Justice and Electoral Committee under the good chairmanship of Chester Borrows who I am happy to attest is a very effective chairman. 
I will say why the Labour Party with a somewhat heavy heart will vote against this Courts (Remote Participation) Bill because 99 percent of what this bill will do in practice is good. For 99 percent of the time when the powers in this bill are exercised to force a remand hearing or a bail hearing to be heard without the presence of the accused no injustice will be caused. But there is no need to take away the right of an accused to attend his or her trial; there is no need for that. It is a fundamental right of mine if I am accused of a crime or of anyone in this Chamber or any other person who is accused of a crime to attend the trial at which I am or they are being accused of that crime. It seems to me such a fundamental right that I cannot believe we are so lightly brushing aside that right and saying it is now a matter of discretion for a judge as to whether an accused has the right to be present at the trial where he or she is being accused of a crime—accused; not necessarily guilty but accused. 
I have faith in our judicial officers. We have a pretty benign political climate at the moment in terms of standing up for people’s human rights. But it may not always be that way and we will have the occasional judge who has a rush of blood to the head and thinks that a person might be a terrible evil person who ought to be put away. Maybe there will occasionally be a former prosecutor who aligns himself or herself a little too much with the prosecution. That happens. It does happen on occasions. It does not happen a lot but it does happen. In this bill we are for the first time in New Zealand’s history taking away the accused’s absolute right to be present for his or her trial. 
Why is that important? Well the sense of fairness the sense of justice—or injustice if one does not have the right to attend one’s trial—will be ever held by the person who cannot attend his or her trial when he or she wants to. For ever that person will wonder what went down that he or she did not see. Was the judge asleep? Did members of the jury fall asleep? Were faces being made at that person’s expense when evidence was being called in his or her defence? Were inappropriate pictures being shared amongst members of the jury that the accused did not know about and therefore had a right to challenge? Those are just a few of the examples that I can think of as I stand here speaking. The accused will not necessarily know that that is happening. Even though the accused might have a video link into the prison where he or she is sitting in some little cell—assuming for the moment that we trust completely the Department of Corrections officers never to frustrate that process which is a pretty big ask I would think; at times I could foresee that process being abused at the prisoner end—and even if we assume that that end of the process is perfect there is only one camera in the court and that camera is looking only at the witness or at the lawyer. It will not be focused on the jury it will not be focused on the other lawyers and it will not be focused on someone who might be at the back of the court holding up some sort of protest sign. 
This is outrageous legislation. Tonight we are taking away the right of an accused to be present at his or her trial. I say to the Minister that it is not the international norm. We were spun that by the officials from the department for a start and when we dug into it we found that it was very rare. There is the occasional exception starting to appear in some overseas jurisdictions. Most of them have not done it and those that have done it were wrong to do it. There is no mischief here to be cured. We had no evidence at the select committee that there was a problem that needed to be fixed. We did not have one instance pointed out to us that it was wrong that the accused had the right to appear at his or her own trial; there was not one instance. The Minister will take away my right and the right of every other New Zealander to protect ourselves against the actions of the State by appearing in our own defence. It is now a matter of discretion for the judge. That is wrong. 
What did others say? The New Zealand Law Society and the Human Rights Commission both submitted strongly and both said it was wrong. Given that there is no evidence of any malpractice or something going wrong here that needs to be fixed I ask why the Government would override our existing civil liberties in the face of severe criticisms from both the Human Rights Commission and the New Zealand Law Society ignore those concerns and take away the unconditional right of the accused to be at his or her own trial. 
If an accused acts up when he or she is at the trial and disrupts the proceedings the judge already has rights of contempt to control the way in which the accused handles himself or herself in court. If that person is in contempt of court he or she can be sent down to the cells. I have never seen that happen but I am sure it happens occasionally. Judges have the right to do that. If something goes wrong in their court they already have the ability to control it. But in my opinion there is no justification for taking away the right of the accused to be present at his or her trial. Sure in the 99 out of 100 cases where this will be used in a bail hearing or an adjournment because a witness is not available so the trial cannot proceed or because the parties are not ready then that is fine. I can accept that on those call-overs on those non-substantive trial dates there should be the ability to override the will of the accused. It should be very slow for the judicial officer to exercise that discretion where the accused is opposed to it but that discretion ought to exist. I agree with that. But for the substantive trial where a person may be accused of murder where his or her liberty is at stake where his or her whole life if we think about it is at stake as a consequence of a possible conviction for the person not to have the unconditional right to attend his or her own trial is just wrong. 
What saddens and perplexes me is that I do not understand the problem that is meant to be addressed by this legislation because we were not given any instances at the select committee to show why this was necessary. I think that this is just bad policy that has arisen in the start by accident. I think the departmental officials thought that it was a good thing that we use technology to reduce court costs to speed the costs of court procedures and to speed up trials which are both good objectives because we should not have long periods between people being charged and their eventual trial and we should not make these processes any more complex or expensive than they need to be. It was a good ambition. But the Government’s thinking was too woolly. It did not distinguish between call-overs adjournments bail hearings and the trial where someone is being accused of something for which he or she could be convicted and lose his or her liberty. 
If the Crown will be taking away someone’s liberty then the person whose liberty will be taken away should be able to stand up at his or her trial and participate in every aspect of it. The accused should see everything that goes on. If members in this House do not think that sometimes inappropriate things happen in court well I am sad to say that they are wrong. Those things do not often happen but they sometimes do. Whether it is witnesses behaving inappropriately jurors behaving inappropriately or even occasionally judges behaving inappropriately if I were the accused I would feel less able to protect my interests if I did not have the right to be there. If I was not there to be able to see those things when they go wrong and to protect my interests I would feel an injustice had been committed and that I was not properly able to protect myself against the power of the State. The State has all the power and the resources here. It has the police it has the prosecution service it employs the judges and it has all the money. We need to protect the civil liberty of the accused to be present at his or her own trial. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. I acknowledge the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee as previous speakers have done. It is important to note a couple of points made not only by the Minister of Justice but also by the Hon David Parker in his first speech on this bill. So I too acknowledge the substantial ground within the bill that we agreed upon and I acknowledge the real concerns that Labour members have expressed in their minority report. Later I will articulate the reasons why the Government has come to the conclusion to proceed with the bill in the way it has. 
The first point to note is that in civil proceedings there is no real argument. We should use audiovisual links for appearances by witnesses as appropriate. That is something that has been conceded there has been a movement towards that for some time and it has been flagged. 
The second point is that in procedural hearings—matters such as bail applications call-overs for trial and maybe name suppression applications—where no evidence is called there is again agreement across the House that an audiovisual link is an appropriate medium for a defendant to be able to appear in the court. That is because the defendant is represented the arguments are clear and there is no contest as to the evidence that is being given or if there is it is being well canvassed. 
Then there is the point the Minister made. He said there is a safety issue. Lastly I guess there is the issue of the cost to the taxpayer and that is no less an issue especially in the matter quoted by the Minister of the transportation of a particular prisoner from Paremoremo to the Wellington High Court for two procedural call-overs. But the fact is that audiovisual links are used in those procedural matters right around the world in all sorts of jurisdictions sometimes with consent and sometimes at the discretion of the judge. Nevertheless all sides of the House agreed that that was appropriate. 
The sticking point really was on substantive hearings which are hearings where evidence is called and the removal of the right of an accused to be physically present in the courtroom and a move towards giving judges the discretion to overrule a lack of consent and insist that a trial be heard via the use of an audiovisual link. I think that the thrust of the argument put forward by the previous speaker is that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done and the ability to see justice being done should not be limited by wherever the camera casts itself. 
The point that David Parker made in respect of where the cameras are pointed during the course of the trial is quite valid. In considering that we have to think about the demographics of people who appear before the court as accused persons. By far the majority of them struggle with literacy struggle with understanding struggle with the language used within a courtroom and struggle with an inability to communicate with their counsel in legal terms about the ingredients of a crime. In many instances they struggle with engagement with the legal system. We know that the people who end up going to jail are overrepresented in those areas as well as in areas such as drug and alcohol dependency. Somewhere between 61 and 65 percent of them have mental health issues. We can see where Opposition members are coming from in respect of the perceived unfairness of taking this step which they deem to be a step too far. 
The point was also well made that when we look around the world we see that no other jurisdiction is going where we are going. At the same time when we look at the criteria that are held within clauses 5 6 and 9 we see that they are quite stringent. Clause 5 lists the general criteria for allowing use of audiovisual links. The decision maker—the judge—has to consider the nature of the proceedings the availability and quality of the technology and the potential impact of the use of the technology on the effective maintenance of the rights of the parties to the proceedings including the right to assess the credibility of witnesses and the level of contact with other participants. We can understand that that is a good general parameter of the considerations. 
Clause 6 deals specifically with criminal proceedings. The judge has to consider not only the criteria I have just articulated from cause 5 but also the ability of the defendant specifically—and this is exactly the concern the Opposition has—to comprehend proceedings to participate effectively in the conduct of his or her defence to consult and instruct counsel privately to access relevant evidence to examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to assess the level of contact the defendant has with other participants. 
We can imagine the difficulties for a person who as we have already accepted may not have the ability to engage with counsel and instruct them or to pass on the nuances that he or she is picking up from the evidence given by a witness. We can imagine the difficulty for the person in terms of communicating all that during the course of the trial while the evidence is being given—for instance in a cross-examination sequence of questions. A judicial officer or registrar must consider those criteria as well as how well the defendant will be able to communicate—the defendant may wish to communicate inconsistencies or some “yes buts” to counsel—and any adverse impression that may arise through the defendant or any other participant appearing by means of an audiovisual link. 
As one looks through that list of criteria one would hope—and the Government certainly believes—that a decision maker takes all those criteria into account in making decisions about whether someone will appear via an audiovisual link. The decision maker has to climb over a very high hurdle to make that decision. Then clause 9 refers specifically to the use of audiovisual links in criminal substantive matters. 
I have referred to the criteria for the use of audiovisual links in procedural matters so those two clauses clauses 6 and 9 are two extra-significant hurdles that the decision maker has to consider before an order is made in respect of the use of an audiovisual link for criminal substantive matters. The decision makers consider the previous criteria but they also take into account whether the parties to the proceedings consent. A judge thinking on that has to consider those very high hurdles before making a decision. It is important to note that when some members of the Justice and Electoral Committee quizzed officials in respect of how they came to this point they said it was from the mode of evidence approach whereas the concerns of the committee were really around an access to justice approach. The majority of the committee felt that the officials would have come to it from that access to justice approach. 
I had a conversation today with probably one of our leading counsel in this area and in human rights matters and he made the point that the law is quite incremental and a lot of the public do not understand quite how that happens. A recent decision has been made whereby someone who made a complaint to the police and gave an interview alleging sexual abuse does not have to appear before the court to give evidence-in-chief at all or be available for cross-examination. That is another step forward that has happened through the common law process. 
So with the implementation of this bill we can conceive of a situation however remote it may be—and this is the Opposition’s point—in which a defendant may be charged with a crime the complainant is not available for cross-examination and the defendant is not there either. It is a significant step that has been taken. I can say that I am convinced that the work of the officials in the drafting of the bill has put in very very high criteria. The Government does not come to this position lightly. It is aware of the transitions and improvements to technology and the ability over time for appearances by audiovisual links to significantly enhance the participation of an accused person in a matter like this. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 It is a shame that we could not reach consensus on the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill because the underlying principle that the Government was trying to espouse when it used the expression “Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.” is precisely the point that we on this side of the House have been making. Justice cannot be seen to be done when the accused is not able to represent himself or herself at the hearing. It is a fundamental breach of our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Of course Labour members agree with the principle that audiovisual links can play a useful role in interlocutory proceedings but not in substantive hearings and certainly not otherwise than by consent. That is the fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition on this issue. Despite the statements from the Minister of Justice about the assessment of compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the Human Rights Commission does not agree. I want to spend a bit of time going through the Human Rights Commission’s submission because it has some really important points to make. 
When I refer to the commission’s submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee I want to reorder its statement about why it does not support the bill in its current form. I want to put at the top as the first reason that the bill risks eroding important victims’ rights. We have had an entire discussion from two members of the Government that referred solely to the position of the accused but what about the victims’ rights to face those who have been accused of offending against them? There is a right that sits with victims that has been completely ignored by the Government. 
Let me read through all of the reasons why the commission does not support the bill in its current form and why it believes that it does not comply with certain rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and is incompatible with international human rights instruments “particularly the right to a fair and public hearing the right to be tried ‘in his presence’ and the right of the accused to defend himself in person;”. As I have said the commission believes that the bill risks eroding important victims’ rights; that beyond judicial review as affirmed by section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act there is no provision to appeal a decision to use audiovisual links in a specific case; that the use of audiovisual links may impact on victims’ rights to participate in the proceedings and the longstanding principle that victims have the right to confront an accused; and that there has been no evaluation of the impact of the use of audiovisual links in criminal matters. My colleague David Parker explained very carefully to the House the risk of our going down a track based on advice that suggests far more widespread use of this particular technology in criminal trials—in substantive proceedings—than can be identified from the evidence. I think the Government will be asked to account for all of those matters as we proceed with the debate on the bill. 
Very few adjustments need to be made to the bill in the Committee stage to have unanimity on it across the House. It would not take very much for that little bit of extra work to be done and for us to achieve the outcome we would like to achieve. 
Hon David Parker 
: A simple amendment to clause 9. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: A very simple amendment to clause 9 would do the trick. I was looking on the Internet before I came down to the House to speak on the bill and I noticed that Peter Dunne will vote against it as well for a slightly different reason from the ones I will expound on now. The issue of whether this measure is justifiable in terms of our response in this area is definitely on the line and it is something we still could fix. I hope that in considering the very good submission of the Human Rights Commission we get to that point. As my colleague David Parker has already stated the New Zealand Law Society has adopted a position very similar to that of the Human Rights Commission. 
Let me remind the House what the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides in relation to criminal proceedings. There are four specific rights: the right to be brought before a court following arrest the right to a fair trial the right to be present at trial and the right to examine witnesses on an equal basis to the prosecution. Those are the rights set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Section 25(e) of the Act guarantees the “right to be present” and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that is described as the right “To be tried in his presence” and it is to present a defence. That is the right that is enshrined in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The dictionary definition of the word “present” is “being in a specified place” so I am talking about the ability to bring people into substantive proceedings. I want to focus on substantive proceedings; I am not talking about some of the interlocutory matters which we all agree can be easily dealt with by way of audiovisual links. 
The Human Rights Commission stated that it acknowledged that the rights were not absolute but “the State’s duty to protect and uphold them may only be diminished where it is demonstrably justifiable in a fair and democratic society.” Well we have not had that justification because the Crown Law Office has essentially provided advice to the Minister that there is no question of a challenge to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act yet on the face of it there is a challenge. I hope that as we go through the debate on the bill there will be some focus from the Government on why the Human Rights Commission has an entirely different perspective on the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in terms of this legislation from that of the Crown Law Office. 
In fact it is very explicit in the Human Rights Commission’s statement which states that the Crown Law Office “provided a report on this Bill to the Attorney General. In this report CLO determined that the Bill was not inconsistent with [the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act]. The Commission disagrees with the report and considers that the analysis provided is flawed. … In its advice CLO conflates practices in which evidence of witnesses can be given by AVL with that of an accused being entitled to be present and to give evidence in person.” Then the commission discusses the  
Maryland v Craig 
case which apparently was the justification for the position taken by the Crown Law Office. The commission states that that case “addressed only the giving of evidence remotely by a witness by AVL—not an accused.” That particular case is not relevant to the issue that we are deciding in this legislation and that is why the commission states that the analysis is misleading—because it “does not include the Court’s full and proper reasoning in that case but cites selectively from it.” That is an alarming statement and I hope we are able to have in-depth debate about that matter as the bill proceeds through its remaining stages. 
The commission states that it does not consider that there is an important public policy reason for the extensive use of audiovisual links in criminal matters and it was concerned about the reliability of any evidence given in that form given that there is a real risk of adverse inferences. Having sat on a select committee that has heard submissions by way of audiovisual links I can attest to this House—and I know that other members know exactly what I am about to say—that there is nothing like having the person give evidence directly in front of a committee. And those who give evidence by audiovisual links to a select committee say that they cannot tell how MPs are reacting because with the level of technology we have today they cannot read body language. I think it is a serious problem to go down this track without fully resolving this question and I do not think going down this track is justified. 
I hope the Minister will take seriously the suggestion that Labour members are happy to work with him on a relatively minor amendment that would achieve unanimity in my view across the House in order to have the bill passed and achieve its main goal which is to have audiovisual links apply more generally in procedural matters and not in the substantive hearing itself. We would not have to do much to fix the bill. 
I end by returning to the question of victims’ rights. The Human Rights Commission made it very clear that although the State has a duty to protect persons where a crime is committed against a person the victim has a corresponding right to demand that an offender be tried to participate in proceedings and to be present to observe the exercise of justice. It is for victims that the Government has to rethink its position on this legislation and I hope the Government does that. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I must say that it is with considerable sadness that I rise on behalf of the Green Party to address the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill at least in the sense of the way things have developed in the last few months. We initially entered this exercise with the intent of supporting the bill. We certainly supported it at its first reading and its referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee and as has been established by both Government members and Labour Party Opposition MPs that constructive spirit worked its way through pretty much the whole of the select committee process. The problem that arose was that it became apparent that there is this one what I would call fatal defect in the bill. It is a very narrow one but it strikes very deeply. If it is only 1 percent of the text of a bill that a party finds objectionable it would have to go very deep for that party to oppose it. I put it to the Minister and to Government members that this is a case in point. I do so in sadness but I also do so in hope because I do not believe it is too late to change one minor but fundamentally important point. 
We are not talking about civil trials. We are not talking about the procedural dimension of criminal trials. We are talking simply about the substantive trial of a criminal case and in that context we are talking only about the rights of a defendant. We are not—at least the Green Party is not—talking about whether witnesses should or should not submit evidence via audiovisual links. We are prepared to see witnesses in substantive criminal trials submit evidence via audiovisual links. What we are not prepared to see and what we suggest is a fundamental tenet of common law systems in New Zealand the UK Australia Canada and the United States is the right of the defendant to be physically present in the substantive hearing of a criminal case. That is an absolute principle that cannot be measured in terms of dollars saved. 
I reach for the various authorities on criminal law and I look up “in absentia”. Under the phrase “In absentia in common law legal systems” I see the statement “conviction of a person in absentia that is in a trial in which they are not present to answer the charges is held to be a violation of natural justice. Specifically it violates the second principle of natural justice audialterampartem.” By contrast in some civil law legal systems it is permitted to have trial in absentia. Various cases are cited in the common law system. I understand the Minister cited New South Wales Victoria and the UK. I do not think that that is a fundamental tenet of the judicial system the criminal law system in those countries. I look to the United States to the constitution and cases in 1844 reiterated in 2004 where the principle of natural justice is held to be inviolate when it comes to substantive hearings of a criminal nature. 
I think we need to be very careful how we proceed from here because I see from a release on 3 June that the Government has already released $2 million to roll out the audiovisual link system throughout the courts. In introducing the second reading the Minister was drawing the distinction and it is an interesting distinction between effective participation and physical participation. I would respond that the only effective participation in a substantive criminal trial is physical participation. That is an absolute principle from which one cannot derogate. We have to understand that in almost every case the defendant is in a weak position. If we cede the absolute nature of that principle we have essentially taken away the fundamental protection that the defendant will have in such a trial. We are farming out that protection to a decision by the judge or the registrar. 
To what end are we doing this? I ask the minister what the rationale is for ceding the absolute principle of the right of the defendant to be present in a criminal trial. I look to the Minister to reply in the fullness of time. What is it that has changed so seismically in our system that there is a justification—an explicit transparent justification—to do that? What are the reasons? We are told that it is “improved efficiency cost savings increased safety increased access to justice and improved quality of evidence”. Are cost savings what will take away the absolute right of the defendant to be physically present? I ask what price what dollar figure we place on that. Is it $100000 for one miscarriage of justice per year discounted to $150000 for two? How much are we going to save and how do we look around and tell our citizens and indeed our children that it was worth it to take away this right because we saved a few hundred thousand dollars in Vote Justice? 
Let us put it to the test in the legislature or indeed in the executive. Let us suggest that Cabinet meet by audiovisual link for a 6-month period. The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister would not be present; others could be. The Minister of Justice can participate in Cabinet decisions including his own portfolio decision-making by audiovisual link from his electorate. There is no need for him to be physically present—it will save costs! Let us see what happens with the body language when he is not present. We have heard suggestions as to what is and is not picked up from one angle of the camera. To suggest that a defendant can completely comprehend what is going on in his or her murder trial by watching from 100 kilometres distance from one camera is ludicrous—is the judge winking? I hope this can be rectified in the Committee stage. 
The Green Party is not against the advance of technology in introducing audiovisual links. We support the bill in its thrust with the single narrow exception of the right of the defendant to be physically present in the substantive hearing of a criminal trial. It will not take much for the Government to cede a point on this and I hope that pride does not get in the way. We are talking about striking at the fundamental heart of our criminal law system. If that is not done then the Green Party will reluctantly oppose the bill on that sole point alone. As a signal of our intent we will oppose the bill on this second reading. In the event it is voted through into the Committee of the whole House we shall work constructively to see whether we can clarify that one point so that we can resume a positive vote for it. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
:  
Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker tenatatau katoa iteneipoi a tatau e koreroneimo te ahuatanga o teneipire. I tonapanuitangatuaruaaneitonungawhakaaro o te PatiMaori. Kai te noho ahuarangiruamatou o te PatiMaoriiteneiwa. Tino pai ki a au te ahuatanga o ngakorerokuaputai te ponei na taha e rua a tae rano ki a matau e noho nei a ki tenei mema ikorero ki muai a au. Pai ki a au te whakarongo ki anakorero kitonawhakamarama otira ngakorero o te RopuReipa a Honore Lianne Dalziel. Ka mutu ki te honore mema a David Parker imuai a ia ka mutu ki te Minita. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and greetings to us all as we address aspects of this bill tonight. Here are some views from the Maori Party in its second reading. At this point in time some of us in the Maori Party are somewhat uncertain about it. For me personally I enjoyed what I heard from speakers on both sides tonight including ourselves seated here. I liked what the Hon Lianne Dalziel had to say in terms of what the Labour Party think about the bill and her explanations. I enjoyed the Hon David Parker’s contribution as well earlier on and then the one from the Minister. 
] 
It is clear from the Minister of Justice’s speech on the second reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill that the bill’s purpose is to enable greater use of audiovisual links in New Zealand courts. We know that information technology advances are being seen everywhere so it is probably appropriate that we move in that direction. I have really enjoyed tonight’s debate and the views that have been put forward. I suppose that it is balancing out the benefits versus the downsides of this legislation and that is where the Maori Party’s view sits at the moment. 
I say to the Minister that the Maori Party is prepared to let the bill go further on its course and to give it some support knowing full well that we certainly want to advance some of the ideas put forward by Dr Kennedy Graham. I understood his korero because it was along the same lines. These are some of the concerns. Peneii a matau o te PatiMaori e peraano hoki ngawhakaaro. 
[ 
We of the Maori Party share those views 
.] 
If we are to look at the benefits I think it is clear that costs will be reduced in the court process if the participants are not required to travel from one end of the country to the other or even to travel half the country. Instead the court will go to them. That is good. Pai tonutera. We have an expectation of improved safety and security for all of those involved in criminal cases. Pai ano hoki tera. [ 
That is fine as well. 
] We recognise that increased access to justice will come because the audiovisual links will enable matters to be heard in provincial areas without the need for the judge to travel on circuit. We know that a large number of court cases have been backed up for some time. In my area in Waiariki getting to court has sometimes been a long long time between drinks. 
We reckon that there might be an improved quality of evidence by making it easier for witnesses to participate. We hope that there will be enhanced efficiency in relation to the evidence of expert witnesses and interpreters. We hope that the system will assist victims and witnesses to appear in court without being confronted in person by the accused. 
I certainly latch on to the discussion from Kennedy Graham and Labour members in respect of the fundamental right they have talked about—that is the accused has the right to attend his or her case in person. I hear that debate. 
These advances all appear to be relatively non-contentious and straightforward but—and of course there are obviously some buts—the hub of our concerns rests with clause 6 in Part 2. It can be said that our concerns revolve round the safeguards that protect from the impact of technology the right of the defendant to a fair trial in criminal matters which is pretty much the debate at the moment. Of course we in the Maori Party believe in the pursuit of justice—te whaingai te tika nga te pono—and we rest a lot of faith in the legal system’s ability to deliver that. 
The strange thing is that in looking at the submissions—and I understand there were about eight submitters—we saw that the Human Rights Commission’s sole concern seemed to be about the speed with which this initiative is progressing. In the short time available to make a submission on this bill the commission was unable to complete a full analysis of all the types of cases that would come under the broad categorisation that the bill anticipates. The human rights implications in any non-criminal case involving detention or other penalties need to be carefully considered. 
From our perspective we want to be assured that the use of audiovisual links actually improves court efficiency safety and security and that it does so without causing harm to any person. When we were looking over the submissions the New Zealand Law Society brought to our attention the statement in the explanatory note that the bill will ensure that all audiovisual link facilities are installed in courts and that they can be used to their full potential but that they must be treated with caution. It suggested that although it is desirable that audiovisual systems should be used to the fullest extent possible they should be used only where appropriate. That is a minor detail but in that sense it is still a caution to note on our part. 
We will be looking for advice on the writ of habeas corpus—that is the writ to protect persons from being harmed by the judicial system. This again is an important legal instrument that safeguards the rights and freedoms of the individual and we hope that it will not be sacrificed by any of the moves being made in this bill. 
We have said a number of times in this House that the Maori Party supports a restorative justice system where victims are empowered. We want to know that court proceedings will be conducted in a safe environment that will ensure the physical safety of all court users. 
Finally I will turn to the submission from the Whitireia Community Law Centre. It told the select committee that it agrees with the overall purpose of the bill to provide for the greater use of audiovisual links. However the centre queries the effectiveness of the measure and queries how audiovisual links will be used within courts especially when used for participants in criminal proceedings. 
We have heard stories of defendants who have attacked the judiciary court officials and others. We will support this bill at its second reading but we want to know that safety is assured for all in the court and that the right of a defendant to a fair trial is protected as well. We will be looking out for advice on that matter during the Committee stage. 
I say in closing that we will be paying close attention to the discussion and hopefully picking up on the key points. I am not a lawyer but I do understand the general principle that was stated earlier by a number of members. We hope that those members’ concerns can be addressed. We look forward to having some Supplementary Order Papers and also to working constructively with the Minister and with other parties to see whether we can come to a place where we will all be happy. In those circumstances we will be supporting this bill at its second reading but with the proviso that we will be taking a very careful note of what happens at the Committee stage and into the third reading. Kia ora tatou. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 This has been an interesting and at times thought-provoking and high-minded debate. We have heard some interesting comments on the principles of criminal law. But I have to say that from where I have been sitting there has also been to some extent a degree of unreality in the debate. 
We have heard from a number of speakers now for example that there is an absolute right for an accused person in this country to be present at his or her trial—an absolute right. Well I tell this House that that is not the case. There is not much in criminal law that is absolute. Although the circumstances where an accused person would not be present at his or her trial are I accept rare indeed that should not be elevated to a fundamental absolute never-transgressed right. For example there is a strain of cases in this country in the High Court often in multi-accused trials where in order not to hold up the trial and also because the accused may be seen to be trifling with the case—perhaps he or she has not appeared for his of her case—the trial proceeds in his or her absence the evidence is called and he or she will be found guilty or not guilty at the end of that case and rarely with very significant penalties imposed. 
Hon David Parker 
: But not if they want to be there. That doesn’t apply if they want to be there. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: That is not true. There is a strain of cases and I accept that this is exceptionally rare where the trial can proceed without the accused. 
The other thing that we have heard from the Hon Lianne Dalziel and I think also from Kennedy Graham is that this should be about the victims. I agree that it should be about the victims. Lianne Dalziel said that the victim has a right to be heard. I entirely agree with that but I can tell that member that there is not a defence counsel in this country in a case where it mattered that would not want the victim or the complainant there in person. Really we are only ever going to have it on application from the Crown or police that the victim would give evidence by audiovisual link. Again I say that there has been an air of unreality in some of the things being said. 
I will pick up on some of the things that Kennedy Graham said. He said that audiovisual links in relation to victims—or complainants as they are actually called at trial—could have some real problems. Again I say that there are many many cases in this country today before we pass this law where complainants in criminal cases give their evidence by closed-circuit television. They are giving evidence from other rooms by video link. They are not physically in the court. That happens I can say with confidence every single working day in this country. So we are not dealing necessarily with absolutes. Criminal law is often developed by experience and on a case by case basis. 
My real criticism of the Labour Party’s position is that—if I can put it this way—it is a bit simplistic. It is a blanket-rule approach. National is not saying that all substantive hearings will now be held by audiovisual link—it is not saying that at all. We are saying that the courts should work through the range of what I think are quite strict criteria that we have put into this bill for them. We are saying that for trials where there is an audiovisual link for the accused—and I think the Minister put it more judiciously than this—legitimate caution would be shown by judges. I think and I am not trying to in any way fetter what judges do—and they will see this if they look back at this debate—that it will be exceptionally rare if at all that accused people will be giving evidence by audiovisual link at their court case. But there we have it; we have left the door open. I think that is the right thing to do and to leave it to the judges who may well take a more sophisticated approach—and I think this bill allows for this. 
It has been said that there is absolutely no mischief that we are remedying. In fact I can perceive of cases where it would perhaps be in the interests of justice that we have accused people giving evidence by audiovisual link. It will be very rare but there will be occasions. There may be cases in this country where the accused are harming themselves or are a real danger of causing harm to themselves and others—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Kennedy Graham laughs. In fact that is not necessarily something that we should laugh at. It happens. There are cases like that where the accused are not insane where they have not met those legal tests but where they are in court with really serious issues. I am not saying that it is likely; it may never happen. But we are not closing the door in this case. 
There are other things I will say very briefly in considering all of this. Members should remember that the definition for “substantive hearing” is very wide. When we talk about substantive hearings we are talking about any hearing where evidence is called. The matters can be very minor and in those cases it may be absolutely right that the accused gives evidence by audiovisual link as on a minor bail matter where the accused just wants his or her address changed from say 63B Grove Street to another address. Using an audiovisual link may be the appropriate way in which to have the evidence heard in that matter. 
Secondly we must remember—and I have said it before but I just want to reiterate and emphasise it—that we have set the bar high in this legislation. For audiovisual links to be considered and adopted in a substantive hearing the courts will have to consider clauses 5 6 and 9 of the bill. Clause 6 is effectively the most significant one. Court officials must take into account—I will not go through them all—“(a) the ability of the defendant—(i) to comprehend the proceedings; and (ii) to participate effectively in the conduct of his or her defence; and (iii) to consult and instruct counsel privately;”. It goes on. Certainly when we get to the business end of a trial by jury or by judge alone and when someone’s guilt—or non-guilt as it may be—is on the line judges will go through those factors very seriously. As I say my personal view as a former lawyer is that it would be a very rare case where audiovisual links for the accused in a trial would be granted. As the Minister said judges would show legitimate caution. That is their culture; that is the way they do things. 
I do not think that we are being simplistic; we are leaving it to judges to take a more sophisticated approach. I think there has been an air of unreality in this debate and when we actually consider things in the cold light of day we will see that this bill is a good thing. It will make courts more efficient and it will lead to better safety in courts. I commend the bill to the House. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I will begin by first referring to the contribution made by the Maori Party on the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. That party was essentially seeking assurances from the Government that some of the issues that Labour had raised would be addressed. I say to the Maori Party members who at this stage are supporting this bill that we have raised those issues in the Justice and Electoral Committee and we have raised them directly with the Attorney-General but to date we have not reached a satisfactory conclusion. That is the reason why the Labour Party will not be supporting this bill. I urge the Maori Party to reconsider its position given that I am very sceptical that its members will receive the assurances they are seeking. 
Obviously other speakers have already traversed the background to this bill: the fact that when it was first presented to this House it was focused on the notion of the courts making better use of new and advanced technology and basically on the use of audiovisual links in criminal and civil proceedings. The Government’s criteria were put before us and Government members argued very strongly in favour of the use of audiovisual links for three substantive reasons. One was the cost: the savings that could be made. Then there was the argument based on efficiency grounds and finally there was the issue about the safety of other participants in a proceeding. For certain areas of criminal matters we agreed with that and we highlighted it in the first reading that for simply procedural matters—like remand etc.—we had no objection to audiovisual link technology being used. But what we do object to and what we will continue to object to strongly is the proposal that for substantive criminal matters audiovisual link technology could be used thereby removing the ability of accused people to be present at their trials. 
Why do we object to that? It is because we were not simply using a set of criteria that sat around cost efficiency and safety. We had in mind another set of criteria that is enshrined in our law and that goes well beyond even the history of this Parliament. Those are the criteria we would all know well: that when it comes to criminal matters there should always be a presumption of innocence the right to face one’s accuser and the right to be judged by one’s peers. Elements of this bill fundamentally remove those rights which were the set of criteria on which we judged this bill and on which it has failed. 
I will reflect briefly on the part of the bill that has become the most contentious. To those who may be interested in that I say it is clause 9 which states “AVL must not be used in any criminal substantive matter for the appearance of a participant unless a judicial officer determines to allow its use for the appearance of that participant in the proceeding—(a) in accordance with the criteria in sections 5 and 6;”—and I will go over those criteria because I think they prove a useful point—“and (b) taking into account whether the parties to the proceeding consent to the use.” Chester Borrows who is the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee which considered this bill—and he is an excellent chair—raised what he considered to be the high bar that is set out in this part. But I think that in doing so he still demonstrated our point. There is a bar and of course any bar can be jumped over. In fact there is still the ability to have an accused person’s fundamental right removed via this clause. The judicial officer has complete discretion. That officer is able to take into account the views of other parties but there is no compulsion for the officer to take into account for instance the accused’s position against audiovisual technology being used for his or her substantive trial. 
I guess really that if we were to simplify this argument I would ask members of this House this: if tomorrow any of us were in a situation where we faced a trial on a substantive criminal matter and we were given the option of using audiovisual link technology to appear in or observe our own criminal trial would we opt to use it? I assume—because I know that certainly in my case I would not—that the position of many members in this House would be to say no. Why? I think the reason is quite obvious; in fact the criteria demonstrate the point. It is because the audiovisual link creates a detachment between the accused and the proceedings that are so vital to the trial that he or she faces. 
If we go through the criteria that a judicial officer is required to consider in determining whether audiovisual link technology will be used we find this is what clause 6 sets out: “A judicial officer … must also consider … (a) the ability of the defendant—(i) to comprehend the proceedings; and (ii) to participate effectively in the conduct of his or her defence; and (iii) to consult and instruct counsel privately; and (iv) to access relevant evidence; and (v) to examine the witnesses for the prosecution; and (b) the level of contact the defendant has with other participants; and (c) any adverse impression that may arise through the defendant or any other participant appearing by means of AVL and whether that adverse impression may be mitigated.” I find it interesting that those criteria set out all of the detrimental impacts that the use of audiovisual links may have in a substantive criminal proceeding. Clause 6 sets out all of the reasons why the use of audiovisual links could limit an accused’s access to justice in his or her own substantive trial. I think it shows and demonstrates the fundamental difference between appearing before the court and observing it from behind a screen. 
We can relate that to something that we all know well. I have already heard the experience of select committees being raised and that is a very good example. As select committee members we have experienced the wall that is generated by communicating with an individual via a video link. In the same way anyone who watches the proceedings of Parliament via television will not feel a part of the proceedings in this place compared with someone who is sitting here amongst us as a participant in what goes on here. I think that that is the best way to describe the distance between an accused who appears by audiovisual links and an accused who is able to be present at his or her own trial. That is without mentioning the access that that person has to his or her lawyer who of course will need to be present for the substantive trial and will not be able to communicate with the accused person via a video link as the proceedings occur. I think that sets out very clearly all the reasons why we should exercise caution with regard to this clause and that has not occurred in the way that it is set out currently. 
I want to very briefly raise a quick point. I find it contradictory that when it comes to the fundamental civil liberties of an individual the Government is willing to hand over discretion to the judiciary yet when it comes to “three strikes” it has removed all discretion from the judiciary because in that case the judiciary might somehow hand down a penalty that is not the maximum which is obviously what the Government now strives for in every case. The discretion of the judiciary is obviously something the Government will give and take at will. 
Other members have already talked about the fact that the Attorney-General appeared before the select committee and said he did not feel that there had been any breach of rights under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. When the Attorney-General appeared before the select committee on another matter we raised this issue. We asked him to clarify that it was his intention when he first reviewed this legislation that for substantive trials an accused could be refused the right to appear. We have not yet had that advice back. I really would urge the Attorney-General to proceed quickly with giving his advice on that for the benefit of all members in the House. 
I highlight again that the New Zealand Law Society submitted that audiovisual links should not be used for substantive criminal matters as did the Human Rights Commission and that has been discussed at length. 
Finally I highlight the fact that in this case I had expected the Minister of Justice to seek an absolute majority on this significant issue. Instead he has chosen to exercise power rather than wisdom. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill and address some of the points raised by the Opposition. This bill clearly sets out the parameters for the judiciary to decide whether an audiovisual link is to be used. This was well discussed during the select committee proceedings and it was decided by majority that this report should proceed further. 
The audiovisual link facility will be used both in civil and criminal proceedings. This bill is part of many legislative changes that this Government has introduced to make our courts work more efficiently and effectively. This system is already being used in many countries like Australia Canada the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The Australian jurisdiction in particular is internationally recognised for its effective use of videoconferencing in legal proceedings. 
There is a real need to enhance the efficiency of our judicial system. There has been a 10 percent increase in the number of trials that our courts have to deal with. Although our police force has undoubtedly made a marked improvement in bringing people to justice with increased prosecutions it has meant an increased burden for the courts to deal with. With ever-advancing technology the audiovisual link system will be seen as a real advantage in streamlining the efficiency of our justice system. An audiovisual link can be used for example for a witness living overseas thereby cutting costs. Another advantage is that expert medical witnesses living overseas can use the link. 
I say in conclusion that this bill will greatly reduce costs and moreover significantly increase the number of cases that can be brought before the courts. This will make the system function more effectively and efficiently. The bill will also greatly reduce distress for victims and witnesses who may have to wait a year or more before their cases are heard. I fully support this bill. I believe it will be a vast improvement and an excellent step forward for our justice system. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to speak on the second reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill along with my colleagues. I share their concerns. 
We have heard the previous speaker and other speakers talk about the efficiency gains this bill will bring. But I would say to the House that we have not really seen any evidence of inefficiency under the current system. We in Labour are not fundamentally opposed to the use of remote participation. Rather we believe that in this instance with new technology with new ways it is really important to err very much on the side of caution. We have heard the arguments of efficiency and access to justice on one side but on the other side we have the very important principle that justice should be seen to be served. The question my colleagues have raised and I raise concerns the right of the accused to be present in the court to put his or her case and to participate fully in the court process. With remote participation one is not able to participate fully. Also victims have the right to confront the accused. 
Certainly we on this side of the House have no problem whatsoever if the parties consent to an audiovisual link being used in substantive criminal proceedings. Our concern is that the consent of either the accused or the victim is not required and at this very early stage that is very risky. Certainly this Government has taken some risks and has let nothing stand in its way in terms of implementing legislation no matter how unprincipled or how inappropriate that legislation may be. 
Darien Fenton 
: That’s right. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right says my friend and colleague Darien Fenton. Look at the ridiculous “three strikes” legislation—an absolute joke of legislation. The Ministry of Justice was prevented from providing good advice to the Law and Order Committee. What do we see happening around Christchurch in terms of disbanding Environment Canterbury? Again we see the Government riding roughshod not applying caution and not applying the key principles of democracy and justice. Of course on my home turf there is the abysmal situation of the Auckland super-city where all the concerns that Aucklanders raised have been largely ignored—as have the concerns raised by many people throughout the select committee process of this bill. That is not good for democracy and it is not good for justice. It is indeed a very very worrying trend. 
We are not saying that there are no worthwhile measures in this bill and that audiovisual links are inappropriate to use—we are certainly not saying that. But we are very disappointed. We in the Labour Party—certainly the Hon David Parker Jacinda Ardern and I—believe that we are well considered— 
Darien Fenton 
: Very reasonable. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: We are very reasonable people—very reasonable. Nobody in this House would say that David Parker Jacinda Ardern and I are unreasonable people. I do not think there has ever been any evidence of that. It is rather sad that the very constructive points we raised—which were actually raised by the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society—were largely ignored. Perhaps if there had been more of an open-minded attitude from the National Government and some minor changes had been made the bill before the House would be one we are very happy to support. I think the loss of National’s ability to listen and take those concerns on board is a lose-lose situation. It is a loss in terms of the good parts of the legislation going forward and it is also a loss in terms of justice not being served not only on behalf of the accused but also on behalf of the victim. I think that that is pretty rich from a Government that boasts ad nauseam about how committed it is to victims and victims’ rights. 
Su’a 
 William Sio 
: Hogwash. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Su’a William Sio says it is hogwash and I agree with him completely. If this Government was committed to seeing justice served and seeing victims truly cared for then we would not see the debacle that we are seeing at the moment with accident compensation. I find it inappropriate that we have a Minister for ACC who is an absolute shocker. I would say that out of all the Ministers for ACC there have been and there have been some doozies from National Nick Smith would be the worst. Why? Because that Minister has completely disregarded the voice of victims in New Zealand. I can see Paul Quinn nodding his head and looking really perturbed because he is a man with a conscience. [ 
Interruption 
] OK maybe I have gone a little too far. But I know he is sympathetic. I also wish that the Minister of Justice spent a little more time listening to victims and a little less time hurrying through legislation that at the end of the day will not see justice served fully in this country. 
I acknowledge the Law Commission because it gave a very very good submission as indeed did the Law Society as did many other submitters. Nobody including those submitters objects to efficiency and as I said before to access to justice. Rather their concern is that and I quote the Human Rights Commission submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee “The Bill represents a substantial departure in judicial process is broad in its scope and does not appear to be based on evaluative evidence of potential impact.” That is quite true. 
I thought that the Human Rights Commission put up a very common-sense suggestion and that was that there should be a trial period. What would be wrong with a trial period? It is like national standards in schools. If we are going out on a limb if we are proposing something that looks like it will not be a winner then surely it is logical to have a trial period. Why? Because if there is a trial period and it is not working then it can be rectified. Members on this side of the House are very interested in working with the Government where things are not working. The only problem at the moment is that nothing is working whether it is in education law and order justice or health. It is all a shambles. There comes a point when this Government must take note of the damage that it is causing. Although this bill certainly does not have the implications of many of the Government’s policies had the Government been prepared to listen the concerns of Labour could well have been met and we could have had a meeting of minds on it. I am really sad that we are not able to support this bill. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Believe in it. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: We do believe in justice we believe in access to justice and we certainly believe in efficiency. But this bill is untested unproven and cuts into the very rights of both accused people and victims in New Zealand. I hope that in a short while the Government will give careful consideration— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but her time has expired. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. I will start by commenting on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think we have reached the stage during the course of this parliamentary session where we have enjoyed each other’s company and we have respected each other’s views. As David Parker referred to we have developed an excellent working relationship. But occasionally we have disagreed and this is one of those occasions; I can accept that. Basically the issue that we disagree on in this bill is the second aspect of what it tries to achieve. There are three aspects: firstly the use of audiovisual links in criminal proceedings; the second aspect is the criminal substantive hearings; and the third part covers civil matters. 
I get a bit annoyed when Opposition members stand and lecture us as they have this evening instead of acknowledging in a civilised manner the fact that we have differences. We are a Government that was elected to govern. Opposition members stand and say that we are using power not wisdom when they made an art form of that very phrase—an art form of it. 
Lynne Pillay 
: There’s no need to be nasty. 
PAUL QUINN 
: I suggest in the spirit of our normal camaraderie I say to Lynne that Opposition members have to accept and respect the fact that this Government has been elected to govern and that is exactly what it is doing. 
I will make just a couple of comments. I can summarise Opposition members’ arguments in the debate this evening by saying that they have focused on the extraordinary exceptional case that may occur and blown that up as though it will be the norm. I am a fair-minded New Zealander and I agree that one can never say never. But the simple fact of the matter in respect of criminal proceedings is that we have a justice system as Mr Parker referred to that is independent and professional. Should the case arise that a defendant has been served an injustice then he or she has the right to appeal. A defendant can go to a higher court and have his or her case heard. But that seems to have been lost by Opposition members. 
The simple fact of the matter is that our courts are inefficient they are clogged up and they are years behind. We have an excellent Minister for Courts who is doing a wonderful job of bringing new and innovative solutions. She has picked up some difficult issues and is addressing them and I see the Government has continued to address them in the last Budget. But I think it is important that we look at the practicalities of it. 
Another observation I make in this debate is that the contribution from this side of the House and in particular from Chester Borrows and Simon Bridges came from people who had experience in the field of endeavour that we are talking about as opposed to Opposition members who as per normal stood up and talked about theory. To me if the members have not walked the walk and talked the talk then it is time that they get some experience. So I suggest to the Opposition that its members should come down from the academics and the theory and listen to the practitioners because they are the people who are in a much better place to share the experience and the practicalities. 
I want to focus on the criteria in respect of criminal procedures which are contained in clause 9. Clause 9 is particularly relevant because it specifies that a judge is the one who makes the decision to use audiovisual links in respect of criminal procedures. I think that provides every safeguard going forward. So with those few words I commend the bill in its second reading to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Statutes Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave for the debate on the 47 parts of the Statutes Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate with the questions on each part to be put separately at the end of the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There being no objection we will do what the leave has been sought for. 
Parts 1 to 47 schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is great to have the opportunity to speak freely on the Statutes Amendment Bill which was considered by the Government Administration Committee in a collegial manner some time ago now. [ 
Interruption 
] Well we thought we should just to see how it went. It was certainly an interesting exercise. We did not have a great number of submissions that came to the committee although we did have one or two. 
In this first contribution I want to make a couple of general remarks about Statutes Amendment bills and how they come before the House. I did raise this in my second reading speech but I think it is worth repeating now as we start to go through the bill part by part. Statutes Amendment bills have been around for many years and Mr McGee’s fantastic book tells us that they were prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s and again in the early 1990s. But they have been in abeyance for some years. Traditionally they have contained and I am quoting here “non-controversial amendments such as corrections of drafting errors” and the practice has developed that if anyone objects to a clause in the Committee stage then it will be thrown out. 
There has been an assumption that the bills largely deal with corrections that need to be made to update laws where dates get out of synchronisation and omissions of a technical nature. Concerns were raised in the process of this bill that several parts were in fact somewhat more than that and were pushing the boundaries beyond omissions or corrections and moving more into the nature of shifts in policy. They may not be major shifts in policy and they may not be earth-shattering changes that will cause New Zealanders when they wake up and read the newspaper tomorrow morning to wonder why on earth Parliament made them but they are shifts in policy. They are not simply omissions or corrections. I think it is worth our dwelling on that for a time just to make sure that we are clear and aware for future Statutes Amendment bills that given the process for putting them through the House we cannot afford for them to include policy changes at all because they do not undergo the policy development process and the scrutiny that we would expect of policy changes. 
I highlight two examples that the committee dealt with. The first was one that did attract a public submission. It is in Part 9 which is a change to the Conservation Act 1987. The particular change is to extend liability to people who are either the owners or in charge of dogs that attack seriously injure or kill protected wildlife in a controlled dog area or an open dog area. This bill extends liability so that it is an either/or situation—either the owner or the person in charge of the dog. The committee received a submission from a lawyer Graeme Edgeler who is known to many people in the House as somebody who looks closely at the legislation that goes through this Parliament. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Needs to get out more. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Edgeler is indeed somebody who as my colleague noted is very focused on Parliament and perhaps might benefit from being in the wild whether with a dog or not. But in his submission Mr Edgeler stated that he believed that the amendment was not appropriate for inclusion in a Statutes Amendment Bill because it does not merely involve the correction of an error or oversight in the Conservation Act; it involves extending serious criminal liability—up to a year’s imprisonment—to a class of persons whose actions were not previously subject to criminal sanction. The point that Mr Edgeler goes on to make is that it is not that he does not necessarily agree with change but that this process is not one that we would normally see occurring in a Statutes Amendment Bill. 
The Labour Party shared similar concerns that the bill seemed to be extending the scope of the offence rather than correcting an error. The committee discussed it and although we decided that the change was reasonable it was a good one and we could support it we were still concerned that widening offences and creating greater liability is an example of a change that deserves close scrutiny. We can accept the point that is being made here—that the Conservation Act is inconsistent with the National Parks Act—and we can see that the change would not create the potential for people to be charged in two ways because the word “or” is included meaning the owner of the dog or the person in charge of the dog. We understand the technical detail here but it is a change and it is an example of a Statutes Amendment Bill being used to slightly push out the boundaries. We want to put in a note of caution that that is perhaps not where we should be heading with our Statutes Amendment bills. We need to keep them simple and largely technical because in that way they can flow through the House quickly and address the particular technical concerns we have without being bogged down in a policy process. 
The other example that I will mention in that regard is in Part 4 of the Statutes Amendment Bill which changes the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act. This is an interesting change because it amends section 9(2) of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act which states the circumstances in which only one parent needs to register somebody’s birth. Currently the Act allows for that to take place where among other things one of the parents is unavailable with the definition of “unavailable” being “dead unknown missing of unsound mind or unable to act by virtue of a medical condition”. The concern was that that is a very narrow definition of being unavailable and if a parent is genuinely unavailable in the ordinary sense of the word—that is he or she is not there—it was not covered by the definition currently in the legislation. 
The change being made in clause 25 will insert into section 9(2) of the Act: “(ba) it is not reasonably practicable to obtain the other parent’s signature because—(i) he or she is overseas; and (ii) he or she cannot be contacted within a period of time that is reasonable in the circumstances;”. 
Once again that is an eminently sensible idea and one that reflects the reality of people’s daily lives. Sometimes people will be unavailable. They will leave the country they will not have a forwarding address and they cannot be contacted. But that is a change in policy in many senses. It is a change that says we are now accepting that the policy will not be that a parent had to be of unsound mind dead or completely missing but just that he or she could not be contacted. It is a sensible change but one that it is necessary and important to debate. The committee did do that and that clause has returned to the House as part of the bill. 
We have a couple of examples here where a Statutes Amendment Bill is extending itself a little beyond what we have traditionally seen as being the role of Statutes Amendment bills. 
The Labour Party will be supporting the inclusion of both of those clauses within this bill but I think it is important to recognise that this kind of change in these kinds of bills is prescribed for a reason: because they are not always open to the level of scrutiny that they would be if they went through the normal policy process with all the consultation with the public that we traditionally associate with policy change. The Government Administration Committee took its responsibilities seriously in this regard. We called for submissions which some people felt was unnecessary but I think those two examples highlight why sometimes it becomes necessary to do that. 
I also note that this bill was a collation of 2 years’ worth of Statutes Amendment bills and that sometimes made it difficult because there were so many clauses. Obviously there were practical reasons for that but I think that having separate bills each year is good because it limits the range of the different clauses and makes them easier to keep up with. 
In closing this call I note that the process of each party being able to object was retained and that was useful. We worked through our differences. It is important that the statutes amendment process continues to allow individual members to object within the Committee of the whole House process and allow parties to be consulted in advance of the bill coming forward. I congratulate the Associate Minister of Justice on having led that process because he led it well but I would highlight those two examples of areas in which I think we are moving to policy changes and away from purely technical changes or rectifying omissions. I think the House needs to bear that in mind for future reference. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill. As Grant Robertson my fellow member on the Government Administration Committee noted this is an omnibus bill that is designed to deal with a number of non-controversial issues. I thought that the select committee process was good. We did call for submissions. There were not a lot of them. We noted a couple of things as the bill went through the select committee process. Probably the one that I want to highlight first of all amends the Statistics Act. A small issue came out of the amendment made by clause 156(2). We would have recommended an amendment but we felt that reprinting the bill—and it is quite a substantial bill because it has a number of statutes in it—was not justified for a single minor amendment that should be addressed at the Committee of the whole House stage and it will be. We consider that the words “in each place where it appears” should be added to the end of clause 156(2) with regard to the substitution of the term “enumerator” with the term “collector” as that term appears more than once in section 26(3) of the Statistics Act 1975. 
One can go through the Statutes Amendment Bill and find a number of interesting statutes to be amended. One is the Conservation Act which will be amended by several amendments that the committee found quite interesting. Several things will change as a result of this Statutes Amendment Bill. First of all section 26ZD(7) which deals with the meetings of fish and game councils is amended by omitting “3 months” and substituting “4 months”. It is a pretty non-controversial and sensible change. Also section 26ZR relating to the use of hazardous substances to catch or destroy fish is amended by substituting a new subsection (2) which states: “Subsection (1) does not apply to actions taken by—(a) a warranted officer or a fish and game ranger; or (b) any person authorised in writing for the purpose by the Director-General the Director or the appropriate Fish and Game Council.” There are a couple more amendments to the Conservation Act. 
I highlight these particular amendments to that Act as an example of one of the amendments to 47 statutes administered by 15 different Government agencies. There are 196 clauses in total in this bill and it was the select committee’s job to go through each and every one of the amendments to those 47 statutes. We had to examine them to determine whether they would be controversial and whether the amendment made sense which in most places it did. The select committee had a pretty robust process in place to do that and I thought at the time that the committee had come to a pretty good agreement on how we would return this bill to the House for the Committee stage. 
With those few words my contribution is almost at an end. 
Amy Adams 
: So soon? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Yes so soon—I thank my colleague. I will mention the Copyright Act 1994. Again this was an interesting amendment. The bill amends the definition of “prescribed library” in order to cover the law libraries that are maintained by the New Zealand Law Society. The old district law society libraries have now been taken over by that organisation under the reforms implemented by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. 
Charles Chauvel 
: A very fine Act. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well it was quite an interesting statute to look at because I know one law library particularly well. I have seen people coming in cutting and pasting and sellotaping bits into the statutes so I am a little bit familiar with that. 
There is also the Electoral Act 1993. The bill amends the Electoral Act by removing the obligation for a party to an intended marriage or civil union to provide information to the registrar-general but it requires the registrar-general to provide details of registered marriages and civil unions to the Chief Registrar of Electors. Although that might seem to be a minor amendment I suggest that it is quite a significant amendment for a number of people. 
The final amendment I will raise is the amendment to the Juries Amendment Act 2008. New section 14B inserted by clause 97 provides: “(1) The Registrar may permit a person summoned to attend as a juror on an occasion to defer that person’s attendance to serve as a juror to a time within a period that—(a) starts at least 8 weeks and ends no later than 1 year after the date on which that person is required to attend under the summons;”. So that provides a little bit of leeway. It seems eminently sensible and that was one of the other statutes that was considered and approved by the committee. Thank you. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage of the Statutes Amendment Bill. It is not a bill that I can pretend I have taken an intense interest in as it has proceeded through the House. However I am very pleased to take a call on it particularly in respect of the changes to the Wills Act 2007 which I will speak on in a moment. In summary Labour supports this bill. Obviously a Statutes Amendment Bill is a wash-up bill for a whole variety of necessary changes and we support the thrust of it. Most of the amendments are indeed minor and technical in their thrust and approach but there are one or two areas where Labour has indicated its concerns. 
I particularly want to comment on the change to the Wills Act. I can speak about it from the heart as in the last couple of years I have seen both my elderly parents die. My mother died 2 years ago this month and a will was signed by her in the last couple of weeks of her life. No will was in place at the time and that change caused some issues within our family as we considered the will was signed literally on her deathbed. The concept that this bill proposes whereby a will can be acknowledged by a person as having been signed by him or her but not having been witnessed raises a whole series of issues because they are very delicate matters within families at someone’s late stage of life. I think those concerns have been articulated well in an article from  
New Zealand 
Lawyer 
 in which Margaret Nixon commented on the problems with the law change being of concern given that we have a growing population of elderly people: “Many of them live in retirement homes or alone in their own homes under the influence—perhaps at the mercy—of caregivers and relatives. If a caregiver says ‘This is your signature isn’t it dear?’ some elderly people will automatically say ‘Yes’.” 
Then there may be the situation as this bill envisages where a couple of caregivers standing nearby could sign as witnesses and the will would be validly executed. It raises a whole range of questions as to who actually put the signature on the will and in what circumstances that took place. We obviously have not only a growing elderly population but also a growing elderly population of people with dementia. I mentioned both my parents passing away. My father passed away in February at 91 years of age which is a good innings. He had not signed a valid will although one had been drafted because his moments of lucidity were decreasing as he approached his demise. I suppose I could see a situation where at some point there was a lucid moment and he might have been able to sign a will or indicate to somebody else that he wanted him or her to sign the will but the circumstances of that happening have to be explicit and clear. That is why Labour says that this is the sort of issue where very careful consideration needs to be given and it needs to have gone through a separate select committee process for people to be assured that we are framing the law correctly. 
As Margaret Nixon went on to comment in that same article: “… it is a bad idea to make incorrect judicial statutory interpretation into statute law. Legislation should restore Parliament’s original intention if the common law has not corrected the misinterpretation in later cases.” She again commented: “The way chosen to resolve the ambiguity makes life even easier for the caregivers and relatives of elderly people. They can simply say ‘You got me to sign this for you this morning didn’t you dear?’ and with the addition of a couple of signatures from bystanders who see the elderly person blink in reply the person’s will is validly executed.” This legislation gets us into a very very grey area. I think it is very controversial legislation and that goes against the whole premise of a Statutes Amendment Bill. Such legislation is designed to be a non-controversial mop-up bill not one where we get into areas where there are highly contentious matters that deserve to be traversed fully by a select committee and not subject to dozens and dozens of other mop-up clauses. That is why Labour very clearly thinks this is a bill that should be considered by a select committee. Those are points we have raised throughout this process. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I think Mr Burns has hit the nail on the head. This Statutes Amendment Bill is contrary to the general purpose of what we do in this House which is to work together on these sorts of bills. I think it is an abomination. I congratulate Mr Burns on hitting the nail on the head. 
I will get a couple of definitions out there. People have asked me what an omnibus bill is. Is it a bus that carries one big person like Gerry? I do not know. “Omnibus” is defined as pertaining to including or dealing with numerous objects or items at once. Hence we have one bill dealing with a whole lot of items. Taking that further an omnibus bill is a single document that is accepted in a single vote by a legislator but contains amendments to a number of other laws. It may even sometimes create entirely new laws but that does not happen in this country and it should not. As Brendon Burns said these sorts of bills are put together to make minor non-controversial amendments. 
Under Standing Order 259 “An omnibus bill to amend more than one Act may be introduced if—(a) the amendments deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy or (b) the amendments to be effected to each Act of a similar nature in each case or (c) the Business Committee has agreed to the bill’s introduction as an omnibus bill.” I was not lucky enough to be on the Government Administration Committee when it debated this fine legislation. It amends in one hit—believe it or not—about 48 pieces of legislation. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: It’s a clean-up bill. 
STUART NASH 
: It is a clean-up bill. We need to do this every now and again. We support this legislation but as Mr Burns said we have some concerns about it. Mind you we have concerns about a lot of things that the Government does. We would have done it differently. Then again the Government has done a lot of things that we would do differently. That is my 2c worth. I will leave it up to my colleagues to hammer home the point. Thank you very much. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a short call to support the Statutes Amendment Bill. This bill is a good vehicle to tie up a number of pieces of legislation in one hit and to correct anomalous errors within a sensible frame. 
My colleague Charles Chauvel expressed some concerns during the first and second readings that a number of the provisions were straying close to the edge of what is acceptable in statutes amendment legislation. I am particularly interested in two issues. The first is that Labour has expressed its objection to Part 47 of the bill which amends section 11 of the Wills Act 2007. The Wills Act came into force on 1 November 2007 and it was hailed as a timely reform of succession law. It replaced the old British Wills Act 1837 which governed a lot of the law in New Zealand for 180 years. It is only 41 sections long and it is easy to read. What is more fantastic is that the Act was drafted in plain English. It is easy to understand and most of all it is accessible to all people. The terms “testator” and “testatrix” have been replaced by “will-maker” and a “testamentary document” is now simply a “will”. The Act was welcomed because it made it easier for a will to be drafted to reflect the will-maker’s intentions and wishes. 
The current law says that the will-maker must in the presence of two witnesses sign the will either personally or by acknowledging another’s signing on the will-maker’s behalf. But the change proposed in this bill to section 11 substituting new section 11(4)(a)(ii)(A) will also allow will-makers to effectively sign a will not by signing it but by acknowledging a signature as his or hers. This is bad according to Margaret Nixon of the Parliamentary Counsel Office for two reasons: the will as executed could be challenged on the grounds that the will-maker particularly the elderly did not have will-making capacity and the idea is just as bad for younger people; and it makes incorrect judicial statutory interpretations into statutory law. Legislation should restore Parliament’s original intention if the common law has not corrected the misinterpretation in later cases. 
In a similar vein new section 11(4)(a)(ii)(B) resolves ambiguity in section 11 of the Wills Act. The ambiguity is whether a person signing at the direction of the will-maker must do so in the presence of the witnesses or may do so in the presence only of the will-maker. This is clearly a controversial issue and we think it should be referred to the select committee. 
The second issue relates to the amendments in clause 119 to section 94A of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. This amendment concerns the independence of witnesses to enduring powers of attorney and seems to be policy-related. The Government Administration Committee report recommended that no change be made to clause 119 of the bill as section 108AAB of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Act 2007 provides for a review in 2013 of the effectiveness of the amendments and whether further amendments are desirable. 
Unlike an ordinary power of attorney an enduring power of attorney allows a person’s attorney to act for that person if that person becomes mentally incapable. The law in connection with enduring powers of attorney changed from 26 September 2008 including the process for completing an enduring power of attorney. Those changes also required the donor to receive an explanation of the effects and implications of it and of other matters from the person who witnesses the donor’s signature. That person must also give a certificate as to certain matters before signing the enduring power of attorney. Thank you. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Part 5 agreed to. 
Part 6 agreed to. 
Part 7 agreed to. 
Part 8 agreed to. 
Part 9 agreed to. 
Part 10 agreed to. 
Part 11 agreed to. 
Part 12 agreed to. 
Part 13 agreed to. 
Part 14 agreed to. 
Part 15 agreed to. 
Part 16 agreed to. 
Part 17 agreed to. 
Part 18 agreed to. 
Part 19 agreed to. 
Part 20 agreed to. 
Part 21 agreed to. 
Part 22 agreed to. 
Part 23 agreed to. 
Part 24 agreed to. 
Part 25 agreed to. 
Part 26 agreed to. 
Part 27 agreed to. 
Part 28 agreed to. 
Part 29 agreed to. 
Part 30 agreed to. 
Part 31 agreed to. 
Part 32 agreed to. 
Part 33 agreed to. 
Part 34 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 143 in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to Part 35 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 35 as amended agreed to. 
Part 36 agreed to. 
Part 37 agreed to. 
Part 38 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 125 in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to new Part 38A be agreed to. 
New Part 38A agreed to. 
Part 39 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 126 in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to Part 40 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 40 as amended agreed to. 
Part 41 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to Part 42 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 42 as amended agreed to. 
Part 43 agreed to. 
Part 44 agreed to. 
Part 45 agreed to. 
Part 46 agreed to. 
Part 47 objected to and struck out of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 142 in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 142 in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 3 agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Animal Products Amendment Bill the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill the Building Amendment Bill the Charitable Trusts Amendment Bill the Chatham Islands Council Amendment Bill the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Copyright Amendment Bill the Coroners Amendment Bill the Court Martial Amendment Bill the Court Martial Appeals Amendment Bill the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons United Nations and Associated Personnel and Hostages) Amendment Bill the Crown Entities Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill the Dog Control Amendment Bill the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) the Epidemic Preparedness Amendment Bill the Fire Service Amendment Bill the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Amendment Bill the Immigration Advisers Licensing Amendment Bill the Incorporated Societies Amendment Bill the Insolvency Amendment Bill (No 2) the Juries Amendment Act 2008 Amendment Bill the Marriage Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2) the National Parks Amendment Bill the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill (No 3) the Property Law Amendment Bill the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill the Public Finance Amendment Bill the Public Records Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill the Real Estate Agents Amendment Bill the Securities Amendment Bill (No 2) the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 4) the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 2) the Statistics Amendment Bill the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill the Takeovers Amendment Bill the Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre (Wairarapa) Amendment Bill the Telecommunications Amendment Bill the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill and the Wild Animal Control Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper127. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Readings 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Animal Products Amendment Bill the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill the Building Amendment Bill the Charitable Trusts Amendment Bill the Chatham Islands Council Amendment Bill the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Copyright Amendment Bill the Coroners Amendment Bill the Court Martial Amendment Bill the Court Martial Appeals Amendment Bill the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons United Nations and Associated Personnel and Hostages) Amendment Bill the Crown Entities Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill the Dog Control Amendment Bill the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) the Epidemic Preparedness Amendment Bill the Fire Service Amendment Bill the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Amendment Bill the Immigration Advisers Licensing Amendment Bill the Incorporated Societies Amendment Bill the Insolvency Amendment Bill (No 2) the Juries Amendment Act 2008 Amendment Bill the Marriage Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2) the National Parks Amendment Bill the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill (No 3) the Property Law Amendment Bill the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill the Public Finance Amendment Bill the Public Records Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill the Real Estate Agents Amendment Bill the Securities Amendment Bill (No 2) the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 4) the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 2) the Statistics Amendment Bill the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill the Takeovers Amendment Bill the Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre (Wairarapa) Amendment Bill the Telecommunications Amendment Bill the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill and the Wild Animal Control Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
By its nature statutes amendment legislation does not address significant policy matters. The process by which such legislation is developed and the requirement for support across the House means that it is designed to ensure that only minor technical and non-controversial amendments are included although this evening we had a change to that procedure when the part of this legislation that directly focused on the Wills Act did not progress through. The amendments to that Act will need to be addressed further down the track and I will make a few comments in a moment’s time about that. 
The range of amendments advanced by the current legislation serves to emphasise the value of Statutes Amendment bills as legislative vehicles for progressing matters that could not hope to receive priority in the House on their own. This legislation amends some 48 Acts administered by 15 different Government agencies. Many of the changes are designed to correct drafting errors such as an omission of the word “land” in the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 or to correct cross-reference errors such as those in the Telecommunications Act 2001 and the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. Some changes reflect the use of new terminology such as the insertion of the term “code company” in the Takeovers Act 1993 or enable the use of new technologies as in the case of the changes to the Statistics Act 1975 which authorise a full range of transmission modes by which people may receive fill in and return schedules for surveys. Unobjectionable refinements to machinery provisions may also be advanced such as the amendment to the Juries Amendment Act 2008 which allows deferral of jury service to be made to a time period rather than to an exact date. 
I think it is appropriate that I make a couple of comments about the amendments to the Wills Act 2007 that we could not progress through as part of this legislation. Those amendments were intended to make it clear that the 2007 Act does not change the law about the formalities for making a will as set out in its predecessor Act. I have received correspondence and I know that the Minister of Justice has also received correspondence from beneficiaries who have been adversely affected. Some executors who have applied to the registrar for probate have been refused on the basis of the provisions of the 2007 Act and they have been required to make an application to the court to obtain probate. Executors of some estates have been delaying applying for probate until these amendments are passed as they are afraid that the wills may be invalid under the 2007 Act. As these amendments were not made some wills that were made in accordance with the law at that time may be found to be invalid. Having done everything in accordance with the law at the time the will-makers whose wills have been affected by the 2007 Act are not given the respect that they deserve. That issue will need to be addressed in a future Statutes Amendment Bill. 
In closing I thank the Government Administration Committee which has been instrumental in the passage of the statutes amendment legislation. I commend these bills to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I will address the comments that have been made by the Associate Minister of Justice in my third reading remarks; I will confine myself to responding to those remarks. I put on record for the House that we on this side of the House made it clear to the Associate Minister that if an application for leave had been forthcoming to refer the particular amendment to the Wills Act which has been the subject of most of the debate this evening to a select committee such as the Justice and Electoral Committee for a proper discussion on its merits no one on this side of the House would have raised an objection. The Government has not chosen to avail itself of that procedure in the House tonight notwithstanding the fact that it might have. Let us not have too much rhetoric about the unfortunate effect of declining leave to allow the amendment to the Wills Act to proceed tonight. A remedy was open to the Associate Minister; he simply did not take it. 
I hope the Associate Minister has learnt from tonight’s proceedings that statutes amendment legislation should contain matters that are truly non-debatable in a technical sense; they ought to be non-controversial. If they are controversial then they should not be included in this sort of legislation. Really that is the be-all and end-all of the rules relating to statutes amendment legislation. They are an essential part of parliamentary procedure. They play an important part. The Opposition will always attempt to be reasonable and find ways forward when a particular proposal does not fit into that category as we tried to do in respect of the amendment that has been debated tonight. The offer that we made unfortunately was not taken up so the Minister is right: it will have to be the subject of a further substantive amendment in future. That is a consequence of the fact that the amendment clearly requires substantive debate substantive input and expert evidence as to the effect that it may or may not have if it is passed. 
With those comments for the record I simply commend the surviving parts of the statutes amendment legislation to the House. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I will speak on the third readings of this legislation. The previous speaker Charles Chauvel is quite right: this omnibus legislation is generally non-controversial. In this case a couple of years’ worth of statutes are being amended—some 47 of them if I read my papers correctly. I have to say following the contribution of the previous speaker that the Government Administration Committee’s consideration was thorough but I do not recall any particular discussion on any problem the Opposition had with the Wills Act. I want that noted in  
Hansard 
. 
A number of interesting statutes are amended by this legislation; some are quite unique and obscure. For instance this bill amends the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 which seems reasonably obscure. With those words I commend the legislation to the House. 
Bills read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 10.03 p.m.