Volume 676 Week 86 - Tuesday 4 October 2011 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 676 Week 86 - Tuesday 4 October 2011 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21623. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 4 October 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Conduct in Chamber Use of Electronic Devices 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the rules on the use of electronic devices in here have somewhat changed. I just want to ask whether it is appropriate for the Minister for Social Development and Employment to be tweeting or texting during prayers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members know that I have been pretty relaxed about people using modern communications technology as long as phones do not ring in this place. I do not think we need members telling on each other like that. 
Resignations 
Hon Chris Carter Te Atatu 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Chris Carter resigning his seat in the House with effect at the close of 30 September 2011. 
Questions to Ministers 
Credit Rating Downgrade—Effect on Economy 
1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that “a credit downgrade of that sort would mean lenders would no longer see us as a good credit risk they would be reluctant to lend us money and when they did they would charge us ever-higher interest rates. I don’t want to see New Zealanders weighed down by that burden”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I do. Back in May 2009 when I made that statement markets were very nervous about lending and a downgrade could have been damaging. We have just seen Ireland downgraded from AAA to AA+ and their interest rates immediately rose half a percent as a consequence. The global situation is now quite different and the proof of that is that the bond yields in New Zealand today are unchanged from what they were a couple of weeks ago. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Who is telling the truth: Bill English who recently told this House that there is “no doubt” that a credit downgrade would lead to higher interest rates or the Prime Minister who said yesterday that it would not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Both of us. The question I was asked yesterday was whether I thought yields would rise and in the short term I do not think they will. In fact that is borne out by a graph of bond yields at the moment which shows they are incredibly consistent despite the downgrade. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister now saying to the House that the credit downgrade that he did not see coming will lead to higher interest rates as Bill English has already asserted as recently as Sunday? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Over time it might and that is why New Zealand would always want to strive to have a higher credit rating rather than a lower one. One of the commentaries from either Westpac or the ANZ actually confirms that. Although the short-term impact is unlikely to see interest rates go up over time they could do. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister still believe his statement to this House that a credit downgrade is “The No. 1 way to see New Zealanders down the road from their jobs …”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It would depend on the circumstances. If back in 2009 we had received a credit downgrade in isolation that would have been more troubling arguably than today when we have seen Standard and Poor’s downgrade nine of the last 10 countries and when there is a downgrade taking place because of the international environment. The downgrade is a result of the fact that that weaker international environment is of concern of the stock of private sector debt. I must say though that I would be interested in hearing the view of the Leader of the Opposition about whether he takes responsibility for that large build-up in private sector debt. I am holding a document listing the current account deficits run under the previous Labour Government. That shows they were incredibly high and that they were often about 8 percent of GDP. I remember in 1999 Michael Cullen saying that the No. 1 thing he would address was the current account deficit in New Zealand. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When for heaven’s sake will the Prime Minister accept any responsibility for the fact that the downgrading of New Zealand’s credit rating by two agencies last Friday was the first downgrading of New Zealand in 13 years and came 3 years after he became Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: With the greatest respect I am not responsible for what happens in Europe and the United States nor technically was I in Government when there was the enormous build-up in private sector debt. What I can say though is that both Fitch Ratings and Standard and Poor’s have taken quite some trouble to actually mention in their press releases that the Government—the books of the Government and the pathway of the Government—is not only on the right track but if any future Government were to unnecessarily place more debt on the economy as Labour is proposing that is likely to be a very bad thing indeed. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has he seen any reports on the build-up in external debt over the last decade? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Funnily enough yes I have seen two such reports. One shows that New Zealand’s net external debt rose from 64 percent of GDP in 2001 to 83 percent in 2008 because of huge and persistent current account deficits. The other report backs this up and says: “I do not pretend either that our record was perfect nor deny that there were significant questions unresolved. Our current account deficit was stubbornly high and the savings deficit … was unsustainable. Productivity growth was too low …”. That was a frank and honest assessment even if it came too late from David Cunliffe at “Mood of the Boardroom”. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When did a Government spend $18 billion more than it earned in revenue in a single year as this Government is doing in this financial year? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: To the best of my knowledge never—although I have not checked that. I say to New Zealanders that that is a very telling question from Mr Goff because half of that deficit was for the rebuild of Christchurch. This party and this Government stand for the rebuild of Christchurch. This party and this Government stand for helping New Zealanders through tough economic times. The Opposition does not and that is a very telling statement 8 weeks out from an election. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House will come back to order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it correct that New Zealand’s credit rating with those two agencies is now the same as Spain’s—a country that National has constantly derided as being an economy in trouble? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot confirm that. It may well be; it sounds logical. But let me quote this from Fitch Ratings: “New Zealand remains well placed amongst the world’s highly-rated sovereign credits with its creditworthiness supported by moderate public indebtedness fiscal prudence and strong public institutions.” But I will say this: when Standard and Poor’s was giving a meeting in New Zealand about a month ago what it did say was that there was about a 30 percent chance that we would be downgraded. That is what happens when one is on a negative outlook. It did go on to say though that if there was a change of Government that downgrade would be much more likely. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon John Boscawen. [ 
Interruption 
] How can the member at the back of the House be heard asking his question? 
Hon John Boscawen 
: If the Prime Minister is not responsible for what happens in the United States and Europe does he accept that he and his Government are responsible for public policy settings in New Zealand; if so how does he reconcile Standard and Poor’s statement that one of the reasons for its lowering New Zealand’s rating was “emerging fiscal pressures associated with its aging population” with his statement from 19 September that “All of our forecasts all our models build in a retirement age at 65. On the calculations we have it is affordable”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was it part of National’s strategy to avoid a credit downgrade by imposing 20 percent more tax on New Zealanders’ spending as Bill English suggested on  
Q+A 
; if so has it worked? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: One of the policy initiatives that came out of the rebalancing of lowering personal taxes and increasing GST was actually to give New Zealanders much greater choices to save to pay off their mortgage or to do whatever they want to do. The answer is yes it has actually worked because funnily enough New Zealanders are saving more at the moment. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Does he agree that increasing the retirement age beyond 65 would ease the emerging fiscal pressures associated with New Zealand’s ageing population as cited by Standard and Poor’s; if so does he think New Zealand’s credit downgrade proves that his policy to not touch the retirement age is short-sighted? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: In terms of the latter part of the question no. I think it is quite clear from all of the statements made by both Fitch Ratings and Standard and Poor’s that the reason for the downgrade was that the international environment is more fragile and that New Zealand had high levels of private sector indebtedness. In terms of the former the Government is comfortable that the retirement age at 65 is affordable. It is modelled to 2025 and that is about as far out as we need to go. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: I seek leave of the House to table a statement by Standard and Poor’s in which it states that “emerging fiscal pressures associated with its aging population” have led to New Zealand’s credit downgrade. 
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 John Boscawen 
: I seek leave to table a statement from the Prime Minister on 19 September— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a press statement or a statement published by the press? 
Hon John Boscawen 
: It is a statement from Mr Key as quoted on the  
3 News 
 website. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On what site? 
Hon John Boscawen 
: On the  
3 News  
website. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not table statements off websites of the media. 
Credit Rating—Current Ratings Compared with Previous Ratings 
2. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is New Zealand’s credit rating and how does that compare with previous ratings? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Following last week’s changes the long-term foreign currency credit ratings are AA from both Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings and Aaa from Moody’s. The local currency ratings are AA+ from Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings and Aaa from Moody’s. All ratings are on a stable outlook. New Zealand’s rating was AAA up to the early 1980s. It then dropped down to AA- through the late 1980s and into the early 1990s. We steadily improved over that decade and it is disappointing to see that misjudged economic policy through the last decade has led us to the situation of a further ratings change. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: To the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Wait a minute; I have not called any member yet. I had better go to the usual practice and go to Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga for the first supplementary question. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What are the main factors that have put the credit rating under downward pressure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The ratings agencies have stressed for some time that their view of New Zealand is determined by New Zealand’s large external liabilities most of which is private debt. It has built up gradually over several decades but in the time from 2000 to 2008 we had record excessive Government spending. We had a current account deficit of over 8 percent for 4 years which is almost a record for any country. During that time New Zealand households were spending about $1.11 for every dollar they earned and the tax system was encouraging rampant debt-fuelled property speculation. Since then the Government has taken several measures to change these dynamics in the New Zealand economy with some success but because of the deteriorating global outlook ratings agencies have become more sensitive to what are now lower external debt levels. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Who was the Associate Treasurer when New Zealand’s credit rating was last downgraded by Moody’s on 24 September 1998? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not sure but it might have been me and I am very pleased that that was during a period when New Zealand made considerable progress in productivity growth export growth and employment growth. That was all squandered by the Labour Government that came afterwards. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How has New Zealand’s financial position changed over the past 3 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have focused on getting through the recession while encouraging more saving and exporting and discouraging excessive property speculation out-of-control Government spending and too much debt. By every measure the outlook has improved over the last 3 years. The balance of payments deficit which was 8 percent for 4 years under Labour—almost a developed-country record—has now halved households are now saving again and we will have positive savings rates for the first time in 20 years next year. Government debt will peak at less than the projections when we took office and our foreign liabilities have fallen by $16 billion over the past 2 years. In the context of a global recession a New Zealand recession an economy mismanaged by the previous Government and the Christchurch earthquake that is a pretty good result. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What policies will continue to improve New Zealand’s financial position? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Two straightforward policies. One is to ensure that the Government gets to surplus that its debt stops rising in the next 2 or 3 years and we begin to pay down that debt. The second is that we develop further our capacity to earn a living by selling goods and services to the rest of the world rather than speculating and buying houses from each other. It is disappointing to hear that the Labour Opposition does not understand that and has so far trotted out— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —spending promises— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 3 the Hon Annette King. [ 
Interruption 
] Question No. 3 the Hon Annette King. 
Hon Annette King 
: Just giving some instructions to the Minister of Finance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Job Creation—Number of New Jobs by 2013 
3. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: In light of the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s answer to Oral Question No 2 last Thursday when she said 170000 new jobs was a “Treasury prediction” what is the Government’s assessment of the number of new jobs which will be created by 2013? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The projection that the Minister was referring to came from the Budget update which is prepared by Treasury using its best professional judgment. The Government does not make independent forecasts. However we think that the Treasury projections look feasible. They are currently finalised in its pre-election update which will be released this month. I do not expect the projections will be greatly different from those in the Budget. 
Hon Annette King 
: What evidence has he seen to support the Treasury projection of 170000 new jobs when other Treasury projections have failed to materialise—such as the 4.7 percent growth promised in the 2010 Budget which ended up as 2.3 percent growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Of course it is hard to find evidence for things that are going to happen in 2 or 3 years’ time but the evidence at the moment is that the economy is in a phase of moderate growth. There is reasonable business confidence there is some increase in investment and we have an export sector that has had probably its best year in 10 or 15 years. All of that is leading to a moderate but steady growth in employment. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why if we are on track to create 170000 new jobs were almost 800 people made redundant from jobs in the Alliance meatworks the Department of Conservation Tangiwai mill Canterbury Leather International Housing New Zealand Corporation the Warehouse and the wood processing industry in the last month alone? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well that is part of the ongoing process of the necessary restructuring of the economy. Of course losing a job is very difficult for any family that goes through that experience and the best thing we can do for them is to build an economic environment where they have the hope and the probability of getting a new job. That is what we are focusing on. 
Hon Annette King 
: As he has already seen next month’s Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update will Treasury’s projections of 170000 new jobs over the next 3 years be revised downwards; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member will just have to wait for that. I have not seen all the detail of the forecasts but the indications are—and as was set out in the Reserve Bank forecast just 2 or 3 weeks ago—that the economy is roughly on track from where it was with the Budget subject to two qualifications: it has performed a bit better than expected in the short term—a bit more growth and a few more jobs—and looking out 2 or 3 years because of the downturn in our trading partners it looks a bit softer. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister who said most countries would trade their right arm for our position; if so which countries have offered a limb in exchange for our almost 30 percent youth unemployment rate which is one of the highest ratios of youth unemployment in the OECD? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In reference to offers to swap positions I can tell the member that in discussions I had I think last week with the chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Mr Ben Bernanke at one stage he said: “Would you like to swap jobs?”. 
Credit Rating Downgrade—Effect 
4. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What will be the additional weekly cost of borrowing for someone with a $300000 home mortgage should interest rates increase by 0.3 percent as a result of the recent double credit rating downgrade? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 If mortgage interest rates increase by 0.3 percent for any reason then the cost I think would be about $17 a week. Of course what has actually happened is that floating mortgage rates are at a 45-year low. Back in 2008 the fixed mortgage rate was I think over 10 percent and now it is about 6 percent and that is worth some $200 a week in benefit to the average New Zealand household. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: So does the Minister of Finance accept that if there is an increase in mortgage rates of say 0.3 percent someone with a home mortgage of $300000 will be paying an extra $17 a week in order to service their mortgage? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There is a mathematical calculation about 0.3 percent which equals $17 a week. But two things are happening with interest rates. One is that around the world interest rates have been dropping so that is a downward pressure on interest rates—for not very good reasons I might say. The conventional wisdom is that a credit rating downgrade would push up interest rates; we have not seen any evidence of that yet but on any given day one does not quite know where the floating interest rate will come out. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has he seen Standard and Poor’s statement saying that the responsibility for the downgrade lies in part with the Government because “the country’s fiscal position has been weakened by Christchurch earthquake-related spending pressures …”; if so does he accept that his decision to borrow to pay for the rebuild rather than striking a temporary levy has led in part to the downgrade? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not think so although I understand the proposition the member is putting forward. The fact is that the levy as he proposed I think was a 10-year levy and it simply would not have raised the cash needed now to meet the welfare requirements the payouts—for instance for the red zone—the ongoing funding of infrastructure rebuilding and the ongoing operation of the Earthquake Commission which is now very large. We simply would not have raised the cash in time. There will of course be effective levy increases as a result of the earthquake. People who are renewing their insurance premiums right across New Zealand are finding that and it is likely the Earthquake Commission levy may have to increase significantly as well. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he accept that a temporary targeted earthquake levy raising $1 billion a year as the Greens proposed would have reduced the fiscal pressure on the Government hence reducing the likelihood of a credit downgrade by Standard and Poor’s? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not think it would have made much difference. The reasons the rating agencies have talked about are I think quite familiar: the build-up of external debt to the rest of the world which accelerated through the first half of the last decade and the Government’s fiscal position being a bit weaker because through the recession we continued to fund public services. His levy would not have made enough difference to the earthquake funding to change anything about the credit rating. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he appreciate that a person on the average wage with a $300000 mortgage is better off paying an earthquake levy of about $1 a week than paying $17 a week extra as a result of increased mortgage costs that have come or may come with the downgrade? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not think any prospective levy could have been that low. The Government has made a decision about Christchurch that has enabled us to demonstrate a very strong and clear commitment to the rebuilding of that city and we have no reason to rethink that decision. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is he concerned that most New Zealanders will now be paying higher interest rates to foreign-owned banks as a result of the double credit rating downgrade rather than paying a targeted levy that would help pay for the rebuild of Christchurch? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not see that those are explicit trade-offs. I understand the point that the member is trying to make but that is not how the Government sees the issue. We have made decisions about funding the earthquake and about the levy which we do not think would have made any difference to the credit rating outcome. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he stand by the answer he gave when I questioned him in March about the risks of a credit downgrade in relation to borrowing to pay for the Christchurch rebuild: “We are very conscious of the risks of a downgrade and believe that we are making the right considered choices to deal with those risks.”? Does he now accept that his considered choices were not the right ones that we need a new plan to limit Government borrowing and that an earthquake levy could be part of that plan? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In answer to the first question no. In answer to the second we have a plan to limit Government borrowing and we look forward to the support of the Green Party which is displaying a lot more economic logic than the Labour Party as we put that plan into place. 
Credit Rating Downgrade—Effect 
5. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by all statements he has made on the effect of a credit rating downgrade? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why did he concede to the  
Dominion Post 
 that Friday’s double downgrade would impact New Zealanders’ interest rates and home mortgages and how does he reconcile this statement with that of the Prime Minister in the  
New Zealand 
Herald 
 today that that is unlikely? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What I have said about interest rates is that first conventional wisdom says a change in the credit ratings could push interest rates up and that secondly the best estimate we could find of that was about 0.1 percent. I might say that since the announcement about the credit rating there has been no sign of an increase in interest rates. I think that is because the market at large is focused on much bigger and more concerning issues around Europe and the US and because it regards New Zealand’s position favourably. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he stand by his claim that the double downgrade will add only 0.1 percent to mortgages a $170 million-a-year bill to households and on what basis is this current estimate so much lower than previous official Treasury estimates of 1 to 2 percent costing the Government $600 million a year—estimates which Treasury has not since rescinded? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I said Treasury retails the conventional wisdom about it. The evidence is that the market seemed to regard New Zealand’s position as pretty favourable. Claims about the cost of that are a bit rich coming from a party that oversaw interest rates that were around 10 percent rather than 6 percent when it was in Government. Labour did not seem concerned about the impact on households then. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister now regret denigrating the rating agencies like a jilted suitor in comments today saying they do not run the country; if he does why is he shying away from responsibility for the high level of private debt and low savings that have so concerned them when he himself cut KiwiSaver and the pre-funding of New Zealand superannuation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think what I said was that we do not run the country for the ratings agencies. What we do is make the best decisions we believe for the benefit of the New Zealand economy and the ratings agencies are free to form their opinions about that. I would have expected that that is what most New Zealanders would expect of a New Zealand Government. We are here to increase incomes and create jobs for New Zealanders and if the rest of the world gets into economic trouble we will continue to make the considerable progress that we have already made. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he stand by his statement that “a downgrade in the middle of a financial crisis would have been quite devastating but we’re in better shape now”; if so what part of the financial crisis in Greece Portugal Spain Italy the eurozone and the United States has passed him by? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well the member may recall that back in 2009 the lending markets were closed to New Zealand banks—completely. That is not the case now and I think the reaction to the change in the ratings demonstrates that the market does regard New Zealand’s position as pretty favourable. The Government has had a huge challenge to undo the enormous damage done by Labour to this economy and I am pleased with the progress that we have made. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called Amy Adams and I say to members at the front of the House that members at the back cannot hear me or whom I am calling and that is not fair. 
Amy Adams 
: Has he seen any other assessments of factors that have weakened New Zealand’s credit rating? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I have seen one particular comment that says “there were significant questions unresolved. Our current account deficit was stubbornly high and the savings deficit … was unsustainable. Productivity growth was too low”. That was a statement made by the Opposition finance spokesman David Cunliffe in one of those rare moments when he sounded almost as economically logical as the Greens. But since then he has gone backwards. 
Crime Statistics—Reports 
6. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received on the level of recorded crime in New Zealand? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am very pleased to report that the rate of recorded crime dropped 7 percent per head of population in the fiscal year to 30 June. The rate of crime dropped in all police districts with the biggest falls in Canterbury Southern Tasman Central and Waitemata districts. I am also pleased to report that the murder rate is the lowest since fiscal-year reporting began in 1986. It is also good to see a drop in recorded family violence and acts intended to cause injury. The police are to be congratulated on the outstanding work they have been doing to make our communities safer. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What advice has she received on the reason for the fall in the rate of crime? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The continuing fall in the level of crime in New Zealand is very encouraging. It shows that crime can be brought under control when the police are backed by the Government and given the tools to get on with the job. It also reflects the strategies being implemented by the police under the Policing Excellence programme. A greater focus on prevention and initiatives such as neighbourhood policing teams are starting to make a real difference in our communities. Although the drop is encouraging it does not mean that we will be taking the pressure off criminals. This Government will continue to back the police in the excellent work they are doing. 
Rahui Katene 
: When will she recognise that crime in New Zealand will never drop to a satisfactory level as long as there is prejudice against Maori in the justice system; if she has already come to that realisation when can we expect the Maori Party’s justice policy of reviewing the justice system to happen? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: My focus is always on victims actually. I think it is important to recognise that although Maori are overrepresented in the crime statistics as offenders they are also overrepresented as victims. Frankly focusing on someone’s race is not going to make it any better. We have to bring down crime deal with offenders and in fact prevent victimisation. 
Credit Rating Downgrade—Prime Minister’s Statements 
7. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that “if we get downgraded I personally would be very disappointed and very surprised”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes in the context in which it was made which was just before the 2009 Budget. 
Hon David Parker 
: Which of the following does the Prime Minister think was the more significant reason behind the rating agencies’ decisions to downgrade the rating of New Zealand: his Government’s consistent failure to meet its own growth forecasts or the projections of ever-increasing international debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The most significant factor has been the fact that the global economy is facing increased volatility and lower growth prospects. That has made ratings agencies banks governments and everybody much more sensitive to debt. So despite the fact that New Zealand’s position is better than it was in 2008 we have been put under the microscope and rating agencies have decided that even with a lower level of external liabilities we are not as creditworthy as we were. 
Hon David Parker 
: Which of these indicators of his Government’s performance over the past 3 years does he think drove or most drove the double downgrade: 56000 more unemployed real GDP per capita down 3.6 percent real wages down 3.2 percent the wage and GDP gap with Australia up Government spending up from 31 percent to 36 percent of GDP net Government debt up 1700 percent or 100000 emigrants to Australia and an $18 billion deficit? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister to answer that whoever is holding those signs in the gallery will take them down immediately or they will be removed. They will be taken down immediately. Thank you. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: None of them. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given the Minister’s acknowledgment in the first supplementary answer that the greatest problem was New Zealand’s increasing international debt when will he be introducing substantial policies to grow our exports and is he willing to consider a capital gains tax to properly direct investment into the export sector? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think that the member might have missed the large tax package that the Government put in place in the Budget last year which is I think taking about $800 million this year out of the speculative property sector. The Government is committed to rebalancing the economy to grow exports and we do not believe that new taxes more spending and $7 billion worth of more borrowing are the ways to do it. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister telling New Zealand that National rules out ever introducing a broad capital gains tax? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is the case and I think that both of the people who turned up to that member’s meetings recently would agree with us. 
Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot—Waitemata District Health Board 
8. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he seen about the bowel cancer screening pilot which is set to start at the Waitemata DHB this month? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 New Zealand’s first bowel cancer screening programme is being run at the Waitemata District Health Board. It is about to invite the first 500 people to join the programme. Of cancers bowel cancer is the second-biggest killer in New Zealand and the $24 million pilot which was promised for years by the failed party opposite will run over 4 years and inform us about the costs and benefits of rolling out a full national bowel cancer screening programme. It has been reported that this is the first State-funded cancer screening programme to include men. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What has Waitemata District Health Board been doing to prepare for the pilot? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The district health board is setting up a dedicated endoscopy facility at Waitakere Hospital in west Auckland—another new facility there—to provide colonoscopies for people in the screening pilot who return a positive test result. It has also been working to reduce waiting times. The number of people in the district waiting for a colonoscopy was around 950 earlier this year; it is now down to 550 and it is on track to be around 200 by the end of the month. Ireland the member may be interested to know has recently announced a delay to the start of its bowel cancer screening programme because it did not have the capacity to deliver colonoscopies but the Waitemata District Health Board is very confident it will be able to deliver this long-awaited service. 
Auckland District Health Board—Te Whetu Tawera Acute Mental Health Unit 
9. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by all the answers he gave on behalf of the Minister of Health to Oral Question No 8 last Tuesday? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did he or his office receive an email last Monday from Auckland woman Jo Heighton that said that she and her husband had “nearly been killed” after an attack by a patient who had been released from the Auckland District Health Board acute mental health unit; an attack that left her husband with two skull fractures and 65 stitches and had traumatised her family? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 111. This is a matter that is currently before the courts. I know you have discretion as to whether that question can be asked but I cannot answer relating to that matter for the very reason that it is not in the public interest and it may prejudice the case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is perfectly within the Minister’s rights to make that decision. He does not need my approval if the matter is in the Minister’s view not in the public interest to be answered because it is before the courts. That is perfectly reasonable. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that there is an absolute discretion here but it is certainly not under Standing Order 111. The question was nothing to do with any matter before the court; it was: did he receive an email? Whether a Minister received an email cannot possibly affect a judicial decision. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is up to the Minister to decide whether answering that question may compromise it. Whether it is believed that bringing the Minister into the issue could compromise the case it is not for me to determine. Obviously other members and the public will judge the Minister’s judgment in terms of whether it is not in the public interest to reply but the Minister has indicated that in his view it is not in the public interest to reply to that question and I must respect that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am now at somewhat of a loss because I think there has been an understanding reached between National and Labour with regard to changes to the Standing Orders some of which go very close to this particular question and certainly go to a question of trust. I do not think anyone believes that a judicial decision could be changed by that. For a Minister to claim that it could be is something that could well upset the acceptance by this party— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: —of a unanimous report— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: —of the Standing Orders— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. Members do not get into threats like that when a Minister—it is not becoming. The Minister in his view believes that the circumstances are such that it is not in the public interest to answer the question. Others will judge that. Further supplementary questions can be tested. We will just have to see whether the Minister considers any of them to be in the public interest to answer. But at the end of the day the people heard the question and they heard the point of order the member made. They will judge the Minister’s judgment on whether he should be answering the question in the public interest. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can he confirm the report in the  
Herald on Sunday 
 this past Sunday that Jo Heighton sent an email to his office last Monday saying that she and her husband had “nearly been killed” after an attack by a patient who had been released from the Auckland District Health Board acute mental health unit; an attack that left her husband with two skull fractures 65 stitches and had traumatised her family? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: As I said in my answer to the first supplementary question I am not going to comment on this case because it is before the courts. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did his office receive an email as described in the last supplementary question? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: See answers to supplementary questions Nos 1 and 2. 
Grant Robertson 
: In light of the email that Jo Heighton told the  
Herald on Sunday 
 she sent the Minister last Monday why did he say in the House last Tuesday that there had been “a marked improvement in the … way that patients are managed.” at the Auckland District Health Board acute mental health unit an answer that Jo Heighton said sounded like the Minister was wiping his hands clean of dealing with problems at the unit? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that question falls well short of Standing Order 371(1)(b). [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Some senior members may be leaving this Chamber unless they start behaving. A point of order was raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee who is one of their senior colleagues. I am taking it seriously and other members of the House would be wise to do so as well. The member has referred to Standing Order 371(1)(b). The issue in Standing Order 371(1)(b) is that questions should not contain “arguments inferences imputations epithets ironical expressions or expressions of opinion”. The questioner cited a newspaper story in respect of a supposed email being sent to the Minister’s office and asked the Minister why the Minister told the House that he believed things were improved—or whatever—in this mental health unit. I do not see how that question is ruled out by Standing Order 371(1)(b) because the questioner has not inserted any of his own opinion; he has just cited a newspaper story. That is how I heard the question. If I am wrong I am happy to be corrected. I think the questioner Grant Robertson is entitled to ask that question. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point is that the question was couched in the words “In light of”. That immediately leads to the statement in the newspaper being a fact that the member is now expressing as part of his opinion in asking that question. I think when you consider the whole context of the nature of the questioning and the response from the Minister to three previous supplementary questions then it can be construed only as just another way of trying to get at exactly the same stuff. I think that you would have to say that it does contain an expression of opinion because the member is asserting that what was in the newspaper article was in fact the case when there has been no confirmation of that in the House today.  
Hon David Parker 
: It is quite in order for Mr Robertson to put that question. It is also quite in order for the Minister if he denies it to say it is wrong. I put it that the question is quite proper as you have already ruled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee is a relevant issue. With supplementary questions we do need to be careful. I tend to allow them because Ministers are free to refute expressions of opinion or statements of supposed fact that are inserted into questions. I do not rule them out even though some of them may be out of order. In this particular case though the member is allegedly quoting a newspaper and newspaper stories can be used to validate even primary questions. I obviously cannot ascertain whether the newspaper does contain this claim but I basically have to take the member at his word that there is a newspaper story that makes this claim. It is up to the Minister. If the Minister considers it not in the public interest to answer the question the Minister is perfectly at liberty to say that. The public interest can be judged only by the Minister not by the Speaker. Reference to the particulars of a case is certainly not in order. General principles involved have traditionally been able to be discussed in this House without being a breach of our normal consideration of matters before the court. So I invite Grant Robertson to repeat his question and the Minister knows it is his judgment as to whether it is in the public interest to answer it. 
Grant Robertson 
: In light of Auckland woman Jo Heighton saying in the  
Herald on Sunday 
 last Sunday that she sent an email to Mr Coleman’s office why did he say in the House last Tuesday that there had been a marked improvement in the way patients are being managed at the unit an answer that Jo Heighton said sounded like the Minister was wiping his hands clean of dealing with problems at the unit? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I said that in the House last week because it is backed up by an independent report and I am quite happy to table that report in the House today for that gentleman’s edification. I seek leave to table that report. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Grant Robertson 
: I know that you do not approve of the seeking of leave to table newspaper articles but I think that in the circumstances— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no—the member is quite correct. We do not table articles from recent newspapers. The member will note that I accepted his question as being in order on the basis of what was in the newspaper. I think he has had the Speaker reasonably supportive of the question he was asking. 
Childcare—Out-of-School Care and Recreation Programmes 
10. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What changes are being made to Out of School Care and Recreation? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 We have committed an additional $2.8 million for assistance grant funding for out-of-school care and recreation providers and from November we plan to introduce a simplified set of standards for approval in order to reduce significantly that compliance for out-of-school care and recreation providers. We have had a huge increase in the number of providers. The fund was capped so they were getting less money so we have topped it up by $2.8 million this year. 
Jonathan Young 
: How will these changes support those organisations providing out-of-school care and recreation? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: These changes will ensure that we maintain and expand the supply of out-of-school care and recreation provision while also reducing the bureaucracy and compliance for organisations providing these services. Changes to standards include reducing the number of standards from 11 to six trusting providers more and monitoring compliance less making it easier for new providers to establish and enabling home-based care for after-school care as well. 
Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill—Justice and Electoral Committee Recommendations 
11. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does the Government support changes to the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Yes and I hope the House does too. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does he intend to seek or make any further amendments to the bill when it returns to the House for debate? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why did it take him 17 days after the Supreme Court decision in  
R v Hamed 
 to advise other political parties of his intention to introduce urgent legislation and can he assure the House that he will approach his job in a less leisurely fashion from now on? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: When the—[ 
Interruption 
] I have been told to be nice. When the judgment was released some time was required so that certain aspects of it could be redacted and then I immediately got on to the task in my usual sedulous manner. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does he now regret the fact that he and his colleagues failed to take up Labour’s offer made a year ago to progress the Search and Surveillance Bill and will he give the House an assurance that from now on he will be an advocate for expediting the provisions of that bill? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As to the first part no. As to the second part as I have said the Government accepts the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee that after the new Parliament is formed everyone will have to get their skates on to deal with the issue of the Search and Surveillance Bill. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does he agree with the assessment of lawyer Robert Lithgow QC as told to the select committee that “The Crown want to win when they lost.” and what are the implications to our legal system when the Crown makes the non-criminal criminal through retrospective legislation? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No I do not because I think everyone in this House agrees that those who actually succeeded in the appeal should have the fruits of their victory. Quite frankly I do not know what that gentleman is talking about. 
Leaky Homes Financial Assistance Package—Applications 
12. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What progress has been made in getting leaky homes fixed faster? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 More good news. Since the Government passed the weathertight homes resolution service financial assistance package just a couple of months ago several thousand homeowners have made applications to sign up to the assistance package where the Government will pay 25 percent of the repairs the local authority 25 percent and the remaining 50 percent will be paid by a loan from the banks with an underpinned loss-sharing agreement. Many homeowners have waited a long time to get this sort of assistance to get them out of the trap they have been stuck in where they have had zero or negative equity and could not move forward. What the Government has put in place gives them a fantastic future. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What has been the uptake by owners of leaky homes to the financial assistance package so far? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The uptake has been spectacular—more than 200 homeowners have already put their applications in and qualified. That represents about $23 million of subsidy paid out already—$18 million from the Government and $5 million from local authorities. In addition a remaining 684 claims are currently under process. They represent 626 stand-alone homes and 58 multi-unit buildings. For members’ interest here are some demographics: 70 percent of all the eligible claims come from Auckland 20 percent from Tauranga and Wellington and the remaining 10 percent are from—and I know that Mr Power will be interested in this long list—Christchurch Whangarei Hurunui Taupo Kapiti and Rodney. 
Questions to Members 
Question No. 1 to Member 
Question postponed. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Credit Rating—Downgrade 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from Dr Russel Norman and the Hon Phil Goff seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the downgrade of New Zealand’s credit rating by two rating agencies: Fitch Ratings and Standard and Poor’s. For there to be an urgent debate there must be a particular case of recent occurrence that involves the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government and that requires the immediate attention of the House. It is for members to make out a case for an urgent debate not for the Speaker to discover one. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. There must be distinct governmental responsibility for the particular case that is sought to be debated. 
There is no ministerial responsibility for the decisions of credit rating agencies. The fact that questions have been addressed to Ministers about such ratings does not necessarily mean that they involve ministerial responsibility on which a debate can be founded. The concept of ministerial responsibility for a matter qualifying for an urgent debate is narrower than it is in respect of questions which encompass any matter relating to public affairs with which the Minister has an official connection. I refer in that regard to Standing Order 369(a). The credit downgrade is an important issue but the grounds for an urgent debate under Standing Order 380 are not made out. The applications are therefore declined. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Without wishing to revisit your ruling I ask your consideration of the following. The credit rating downgrade was specifically related to two matters of public policy: first the growing current account deficit and second the growing net international investment deficit driven largely by private debt. There has been some debate about the responsibility by the Government for private debt but no debate whatsoever from the Government about the responsibility for the current account deficit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member is really getting into debating issues here although I accept he is linking them to my decision. But I point out to him that the Standing Order requires it to be a recent matter that the Government has been involved in. The member mentioned a couple of issues. One for example is growing debt. I am sure members of the House would argue the issues have been going on for some time; they are not a matter of recent occurrence. That is why those issues cannot meet the requirements of Standing Order 380 because they do not involve any recent ministerial action. The member’s own words make that very clear. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification for future reference and your guidance on whether the current year’s Budget would be a recent occurrence within the terms of this Standing Order. You will recall that in the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The member will recollect that the Budget was presented to this House some time back. Urgent matters are matters that have occurred very recently. Please understand that I am not saying that the matter the members—either Dr Russel Norman or the honourable Leader of the Opposition—have raised is not important at all. It is just that it does not meet the requirement of Standing Order 380 for an urgent debate. Members have asked questions about it because questions can be lodged about that issue. But it does not meet the requirements for an urgent debate for the business of the House to be set aside under Standing Order 380. 
Third Readings 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Criminal Procedure Bill the Bail Amendment Bill (No 3) the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 3) the Corrections Amendment Bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 5) the Criminal Disclosure Amendment Bill the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Amendment Bill the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 2) the Evidence Amendment Bill the Juries Amendment Bill the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill the New Zealand Bill of Rights Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 6) the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Victims’ Rights Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
 The passage of this legislation is well overdue. The laws governing criminal procedure are now over 50 years old and well out of date. Criminal procedure is currently characterised by avoidable delay excessive complexity unnecessary cost and a high reliance on paper-based systems that do not make sense in a modern era increasingly dominated by electronic technology. It is simply unacceptable that it takes an average of 16 months for a High Court case to proceed through the system. That is far too long for those victims witnesses and defendants who find themselves in the justice system through no fault of their own. 
This legislation will reduce and streamline victims’ and witnesses’ exposure to the criminal justice system. There will be fewer repeat or unnecessary events and the use of staff time and courthouse capacity will be optimised to ensure that money is spent more effectively. When the reforms are fully implemented and operational they are expected to free up over 9000 hours of current court capacity every year or about 12 percent of the current total effort in the criminal jurisdiction. Over 5 years these efficiencies equate to millions of dollars in savings which can be used to reinvest in the justice sector and address expected growth in demand for court services. 
Efficiency is important but so is the right to a fair trial. The legislation achieves a careful balance between moving criminal cases through the court system more quickly and protecting the fundamental rights and safeguards that underpin our justice system. Changes made to the legislation by the Justice and Electoral Committee and during the Committee of the whole House stage have clarified beyond doubt that this legislation maintains and even enhances fair trial rights and fundamental justice principles. In particular I refer to the changes made during the Committee of the whole House stage that set the jury threshold at offences carrying a term of 2 years’ imprisonment and above; that amend the clause giving the courts the ability to proceed in the absence of a defendant so that the court’s discretion is limited to proceeding and procedural hearings where no determination of guilt or innocence will be made; that remove the word “substantial” from the miscarriage of justice test—it is not intended that the test for the court granting leave for a second criminal appeal should differ between the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court—and that amend the reference to costs orders to make it clear that costs orders against the defence or defence counsel for unreasonable and significant procedural delay are expected to be used rarely and only for significant procedural non-compliance. 
I thank parties from all sides of the House for their constructive approach to negotiations after the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill was reported back from the select committee. It is true that the negotiations had their moments but I believe that the final version of the legislation is a good example of what we as a Parliament can achieve when we work across party lines. We as a Parliament should be proud of the legislation that we will pass today. I also thank the Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission for their extensive work on this project. As many members of the House will know this legislation is the culmination of a decade of work by officials the judiciary and the legal profession. The legislation brings New Zealand’s criminal procedure into the 21st century. The changes enabled by the legislation will help to build a more resilient court system further speed up case disposal rates improve customer service and enhance the justice sector’s capability to respond to future demands. I commend the bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I do not disagree—I do not think anybody disagrees—with the Minister of Justice’s contention that criminal proceedings need to be sped up. To that extent it is appropriate to welcome the legislation arising from the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill as it is read a third time in the House because it is true that many of its provisions will lead to an expedition of criminal proceedings. 
The legislation is better as the Minister said for the amendments that have been made to it. In particular the amendments I want to mention are those that flow from the minority report which was written after the Justice and Electoral Committee process and tabled in the House on behalf of Labour. In particular we insisted on recording our objection to the proposal to severely curtail the right to silence. We also objected greatly to the proposal in the bill that would have made it easier to try people in absentia. Both of these proposals are foreign to our tradition and our freedoms and I am very proud to be a member of a party that stood against those proposals from the outset. 
The legislation would also have been better if we had seen some of the Supplementary Order Papers that were moved in the Committee of the whole House not ignored by the Minister. For example I put up a proposal that would have created a statutory basis for the current judicial practice of giving sentencing indications—something that in itself does save time but does not introduce as far as I am aware any great unfairness. Similarly I put up a proposal that would have codified the practice of giving the defence 21 days to respond to disclosure on the part of the Crown. As I explained during the Committee stage at the moment there is no such time limit so that when the defence gets disclosure from the Crown in order to buy time to respond to it the general practice is to enter a pro forma not guilty plea. Guess what this means? It means delay; it means more time and more expense in the court system; it means all of the things that the Minister says that this legislation is designed to prevent. 
I do not think there is anybody in the House who does not like the Minister or who wishes him anything but the best in his retirement but he has shown a closed mind on criminal law reform. He vetoed the Supplementary Order Paper I have just referred to on the basis of its effect on the Government’s fiscal position. He agreed to the further amendments that I referred to in my speech which were contained in the Labour Party minority report only because of raw politics. That raw politics is that the Maori Party and the ACT Party took a long hard look at the legislation as it came back from the Justice and Electoral Committee and very properly decided that the objections that had been recorded by Labour were right and that they should also join in with those objections and deprive the Minister of Justice of his numbers to pass the legislation. I should say that the Green Party to its credit opposed the bill from the outset because that was those members’ way of recording their objections to the matters that I have outlined. 
Instead of what should have happened according to our parliamentary rules and procedures—instead of the changes that were proposed being carefully considered in the select committee and advised on by officials and the assistance with drafting that might be required being offered through an agreed process—we saw a closed negotiation process occurring between the parties. As it happens I think the outcome has produced better legislation as I have said. But I do deplore the process and the process stems from the fact that the Minister countenanced amendments to what he had decided to do on the basis of his officials’ advice only because he lost the numbers to ram through his proposal. 
I could compare that approach with other approaches that have been taken in the Minister’s portfolio area. I recall the evidence given by the New Zealand Law Society at the select committee about the best way to deal with criminal procedure reform. The Law Society reminded us that the right place to start was with the drivers of crime. We have just lost a major opportunity to deal with a big driver of crime—alcohol—by failing to take a comprehensive approach to reform in that area. We have a drivers of crime project going on apparently but it is a closed process. Not many parties in this House and not many of the general public would know much about it. It is not the sort of process that one would expect to be occurring if we were serious about taking a long hard look at what causes crime in our society. 
Then the Law Society said one should look at the substantive statutes. The Crimes Act dates from 1961 and the Summary Proceedings Act dates from 1957. They need to be overhauled. Only then once one has dealt with the fundamental drivers and then the substantive law might one turn to the issues of evidence and procedure that this legislation tinkers with. 
That is my criticism of what we are doing today and of what the Minister has achieved in his time in the role of Minister of Justice. He has been distracted. He has not followed a coherent and attractive reform agenda. He has allowed us to be diverted on to questions like the three-strikes legislation boot camps and depriving inmates of the right to vote which are all things that will not make a jot of difference to the public safety of our fellow New Zealanders while the most important statute on the Order Paper—the one that gives the police powers and controls over how they deal with surveillance warrants—was allowed to languish for more than a year despite the fact that my colleague David Parker wrote to the Minister and offered him support with a couple of tweaks to pass that bill. 
I do commend the legislation to the House as I said. It is better than it could have been it is not as good as it might be and it is not comprehensive reform. We must not kid ourselves about what we are doing here. We will be back in this House in the next term trying to deal with inefficiencies in the criminal justice system because of the failure of the Minister to follow the Law Society’s advice and to start at the beginning with root and branch reform rather than in the middle by looking at procedure. We could have had a great Minister of Justice in Simon Power despite his short tenure in the role if he had just listened and put together a comprehensive reform agenda rather than a piecemeal one such as the one that we have seen over the past 3 years. That is the great regret I have about the Minister’s term in the job. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to take a short call in the third readings of the legislation from the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. It is legislation has been a long time in coming to the House and has been 10 years in its construction. For 7 of those 10 years it was under the guidance of the governing party of the previous speaker Charles Chauvel. I think it is pertinent to point that out because in the tenor of what he said there seemed to be some residual thoughts that those 7 years were wasted and I would tend to think that that is not the case. The previous speaker indicated that we will be back in the House tweaking the criminal law over the next few years—that has always been the case rightly or wrongly—but I do not believe for a moment that the Minister of Justice Simon Power has been sitting on his hands or is responding with knee-jerk reactions to matters that have only recently come to the notice of Parliament. 
This particular legislation seeks to right four situations that have needed some dealing to for some time. Excessive delay: for example the median time to dispose of a High Court jury trial is about 16 months which is an increase of approximately 5 months in the last 5 years. Anybody who has been working within the justice sector and who has been awake will have seen that this has become progressively worse over that time and has been entirely foreseeable. Although some steps have been taken it is time to do something to speed up that process. 
Excessive complexity: for example the main laws for criminal procedure—the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and Parts 12 and 13 of the Crimes Act 1961—have been amended numerous times over 50 years resulting in what has been described as an impenetrable maze for most non-lawyers. That impenetrable maze has existed over a long period of time a period of time when the previous speaker was in Government and was not without some influence within that Government. 
The outdated legislative framework: for example the current provisions were drafted on the assumption of a paper-based system creating barriers to the use of modern technology. It has been a sad thing to sit and see that the use of modern technology as far as filing procedures and the monitoring of proceedings go has been lagging behind significantly over the past years bearing in mind the extent to which parties bringing proceedings to court rely on information technology in the preparation of those cases and those matters. 
Finally the legislation seeks to deal with excessive cost. For example it is estimated there are approximately 43000 unnecessary court appearances a year in the criminal jurisdiction and that more than two-thirds of cases that reach a defended hearing fail to proceed on the day. I agree with the previous speaker that a number of things need fixing within the system and that there are some things that need fixing within the judicial system but are not accounted for within this legislation. I certainly agree that the wider concerns of the criminal justice system in this country extend beyond criminal procedure and into areas that are considered the drivers of crime but I note that this Minister was the only one who even attempted to address the drivers of crime as an issue and as a cross-portfolio response to what brings people before the court and what fails in the areas of health welfare education and law and order. 
I am pleased to support this legislation and I commend it to the House noting the broad support that the legislation has across the House. I look forward to its passage into our law in the very near future. Thank you. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the third readings of the 15 bills that were divided from the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill in the Committee of the whole House. I will follow on from the comments of my colleague Charles Chauvel who played a very important role in getting this legislation to the point it is at now where it has the ability to pass through the House with reasonably broad support. I will also comment on the wider implications. 
But before I get into that matter I say that the legislation was an attempt to overhaul criminal procedure in New Zealand and it is the legislative result of the Criminal Procedure (Simplification) Project which was established in October 2007 by Labour to review criminal procedure in New Zealand and was undertaken by the Ministry of Justice in collaboration with the Law Commission. I make that point to a couple of members opposite who said that Labour had not done anything about this issue. We actually set in place a process to do precisely this. 
The Labour Opposition voted for the referral of the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I was a member of that select committee. We gave careful consideration to this very large bill of 526 pages. The select committee received 72 submissions and heard 35. Many of those submissions were very technical and detailed and were made by practitioners who were very very concerned about some of the human rights implications and about some of the changes that would have denied those defending themselves the right to justice. So we heard some very serious submissions in the course of hearings on this bill. 
The bill then was stalled really because a number of parties in the House—Labour Maori ACT and the Greens—were all concerned about features of the bill and those real threats to people’s rights to justice and a fair trial. I have to put all of that on the record but just before I move off the process we went through I acknowledge as I have done earlier the work of officials my fellow select committee members and indeed the chair and the Minister of Justice. We have reached this point because the Minister finally listened to those concerns. As my colleague Charles Chauvel said that was probably a political reality for the Minister: he had to listen because there were such significant concerns. But at least he has done that—he has considered those objections—and we now are in a situation of being able to support this legislation. They were serious objections around issues like jury thresholds and proceeding in the absence of the defendant which were changed during the Committee stage of the legislation. 
The Minister talks about a careful balance and that of course is very very important in anything to do with criminal procedure. We are balancing the quality of justice and the right to justice for defendants with the rights of victims. None of us benefits from undue delay in the process. None of us benefits if the system is outdated unwieldy or overly costly. It is important to get the balance right; certainly the legislation is more balanced than it was. That is a positive thing. 
It is disappointing that the Supplementary Order Papers put up in the name of my colleague Charles Chauvel were not picked up by the Government. I think that is a real mistake. Some of those amendments were very very sensible provisions codifying or formalising the processes around sentencing indications for example. Why would we not do that? I do not understand why not. 
The reality is that there is more to do and there is no doubt that this House probably sooner rather than later will be doing more work around the criminal justice system. There are a number of reasons for that because there still remains outdated legislation. There will always be the need for amendments that result from changes in society or changes in technology. One of the things we grappled with in the select committee and really did not get sorted was the whole issue of name suppression and the internet and who was accountable and liable for that issue. We have not nailed that. If we are honest we will have to deal with that issue in the future. 
More important the reasons that Charles Chauvel gave are the reasons that we will be dealing with this matter again sooner rather than later. The issue of crime is complex and has a number of dimensions to it and we must deal with the whole issue. A number of submitters made that point. We have to look at these things in context and clearly looking at the drivers or causes of crime is a fundamental part of criminal justice reform. We need somebody with a real reforming zeal in this area and I hope that in the future that person will be my colleague Charles Chauvel. It is really important that we address these issues. 
Recently I had the experience of visiting Arohata Women’s Prison with Charles Chauvel and it was very very informative. I had not been to a prison before. We were able to speak with a number of the women in the prison and the issues of the context in which crime happens and what we need to do were very clear to me. Many of the women there talked about the violence that they had suffered. Many of the women there have alcohol and other addictions. Fortunately they can deal with them at Arohata Women’s Prison unlike the other two women’s prisons in New Zealand. There are no drug and alcohol treatment facilities in Auckland and Christchurch but at Arohata Women’s Prison there are and many of the prisoners were dealing with those addictions. 
When we talked with them about what would make a difference when they had served their sentences we found it was things like being able to get a job lift their skill levels see a future for themselves and get on a different course. Those are things that this Government is performing very very badly on. This Government has not focused on jobs has not focused on an economic plan that delivers jobs for New Zealanders and has not addressed the issues of skills and lifelong learning opportunities—the sorts of things that would make a difference to those women in Arohata Women’s Prison. 
We need to look at the criminal justice system from one end to the other. I absolutely concur with Charles Chauvel on that point. This bill of course will make some positive changes will save money and time and will therefore have benefits for all of those involved in the criminal justice system. But it is one piece and it is probably the wrong piece to have started on. I leave my comments there. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 We have come to the end of a long road with the third reading of this legislation. Both in the second reading and in the Committee stage I paid tribute to the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power for his achievement with this legislation and I shall not repeat myself here. Suffice it to note that the impending adoption of this legislation is generally recognised as a seminal moment in New Zealand’s judicial legislation the kind that occurs every half-century or so. 
The legislation has ploughed a tortuous path and no greater convulsions have occurred than those in the last 2 weeks. The changes made recently have resulted in new-found support from three parties—Labour the Maori Party and ACT—and the legislation is about to pass. The only question now is whether it passes unanimously or by majority. Unanimity on important legislation is desirable and in the Committee stage the hope was expressed that the Green Party would support it a hope expressed not only by the Minister but also by the Green Party. 
In the Committee stage we moved amendments on three issues. The first two addressed the absence of a defendant in court and procedural non-compliance. These were narrowly defeated but neither was a sticking point for us. That left the jury trial threshold where we proposed an amendment that would retain the 3-month threshold for the right to trial by jury rather than the proposed change to 2 years. We had indicated that the Green Party would not compromise on that yet our proposed amendment was also narrowly defeated. 
The Minister appealed to us to drop our insistence on this issue and join the other parties in supporting the bill. Should we do so at this late stage? Those favouring the change include not only the Government but also the principal legal bodies in this land the Law Commission the District Court judges and the Law Society yet those against it include the Criminal Bar Association the community law centres and the Human Rights Commission so I trust that the Minister will concede that the issue is neither simple nor straightforward but complex and finely balanced. 
The central argument for raising the threshold is judicial efficiency. The low threshold it is contended causes three problems in particular. The sheer number of jury trials causes unjustifiable delays is expensive and inconveniences jurors. The Government believes the 3-month threshold is so low as to have had a profoundly negative effect on the conduct of criminal litigation in this country causing serious delays in the criminal justice system. Such delays may in themselves raise concerns about access to justice. The Minister argued in the Committee last week that justice delayed was justice denied. So the issue revolves round the tension between efficiency and fairness. Is the right to elect trial by jury a matter of constitutionality or of convention and if it is purely convention should it none the less still be retained? 
Trial by jury is not a universal right. New Zealand will not be breaching its international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by raising the threshold because the right to a jury trial itself is not recognised. The universal right is to a fair trial not the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The civil law system for example does not provide for trial by jury and it represents perhaps half of the judicial system of the world. The British Human Rights Act has no express provision for the right to a jury trial because the European Convention on Human Rights makes no mention of jury trials. In the common law system of which New Zealand is a part the precise threshold varies from 3 months in New Zealand to 5 years in Canada. The issue is not one of non-derogable human right or of constitutionality in New Zealand but rather one of national judgment. 
In a ruling just last year a New Zealand judge observed that there seemed to be nothing particularly sacrosanct about 3 months. So why should we not raise the threshold? It is a question of whom we have in mind when we make that decision—the stronger elements in society or the weaker. It is where law and morality intersect. Justice delayed may as the Minister points out be justice denied but justice unduly sped up may as the select committee chairman points out be no justice at all. It was the moral philosopher John Rawls who in his seminal work  
A Theory of Justice 
 argued that social arrangements are to be evaluated from the standpoint of the worst-off in a society. In the case of criminal justice that is the defendant along with the victim and a balance must be struck between those two. If a legal perspective promotes efficiency a human rights perspective protects the vulnerable. 
This is a matter that the Green Party takes to be of fundamental moral concern—the relationship perhaps between jurisprudence and natural justice. The English jurist Lord Devlin once observed that 12 commonplace minds may reach a sounder solution than two or three brilliant ones. Juries bring a plurality of ethnic gender and socio-economic composition into the judicial system. In New Zealand the lack of such diversity within the judiciary makes a jury more important than elsewhere. It was Denning who separately observed that trial by jury has been the bulwark of English liberties for too long for anyone to seek to alter it. “Whenever a person is on trial for serious crime …” he concluded “trial by jury has no equal.” The right to trial by jury is seen as providing a safeguard against the arbitrary or oppressive enforcement of the law by Government. It is commonplace that when jurors perceive a prosecution to have oppressive characteristics they are likely to acquit. The jury is seen as standing between the accused and the State in a way that judges who are sworn to apply the law are not always seen to do. 
Although it is not a universal human right the idea of trial by jury in New Zealand is unlike in the UK explicit in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In other words we judged it 21 years ago to be a national human right. That Act is as close as this country gets to enshrining a constitutional right. It is only our fabled No. 8 fencing wire preference to trust ourselves rather than to entrench principle that keeps such rights in the vulnerable realm of parliamentary legislation. How easy is it for the executive in a unicameral Westminster system that has no codified constitution to enter the arena and trample upon those rights? Raising the threshold to 2 years will require altering the Act. This has been done once before but this new amendment would limit a citizen’s right for the first time. 
Are we sure that we wish to do this simply to speed up trials and cut costs? We have examined the crimes within the 3-month to 2-year bracket. They include serious offences where the right to a jury trial should be available. Charges within that bracket can include those with some political colouration. We need only cite Waihopai and Urewera on the one hand and the foreshore and seabed on the other to see the extent to which politics can invade the judicial terrain. Judges by their nature temperament and training are less likely to empathise with or even comprehend the political-moral basis of civil protest than the plain folk who compose a jury. The bracket can also include defendants on a second or third charge for whom a jury trial may prove more critical in terms of natural justice than a summary proceeding. 
So if as the Government argues the matter of raising the jury trial threshold is not one of universal human rights but rather one of national political judgment the Green Party contends that such judgment should favour natural justice rather than State efficiency. It should sanction the rights of the defence rather than strengthen those of the prosecution. It should respect the conscience call to civil disobedience rather than promote the power of the State. It should protect the weak rather than empower the powerful. 
This legislation that is about to be adopted will amend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and diminish the current right of a New Zealander to elect trial by jury. For that reason and that reason alone the Green Party will vote against it. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is a privilege to stand up and take a call on the 15 bills that have come out of the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. It is particularly a privilege for me because I suspect that this week will be my last week in this debating chamber as a member of Parliament and there are probably few examples of my being so proud of legislation as this one. 
The ACT Party plays a vital role in this House. Above all else we have contributed to stable Government over the last 3 years. We have supported National in all of its major legislative initiatives in its legislative programme but where necessary we have held National to account. There can be no better examples of that than both the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill and the video surveillance bill. Both bills have been before members particularly over the last 2 or 3 weeks and of course the surveillance legislation is coming up in the House later this week under urgency. 
The criminal procedure legislation comes before the House with major changes and those changes would not have occurred without ACT’s involvement. In fact it is the actions of the five ACT MPs in unison that have driven those changes. I will come back later to the comments of Mr Chauvel which I want to respond to but the public of New Zealand should be in no doubt whatsoever that the changes to this legislation are due to the actions of the five ACT MPs who universally stood against this legislation in the form in which it came back from the select committee. Without doubt had we agreed to those changes this legislation would have been passed in the format agreed to by the select committee and by the National majority but in a format that was substantially different in substance from the legislation before this House today. 
Without doubt the most significant of those changes is the change that truly upholds the right to silence. 
Simon Bridges 
: You’ve got the right to silence John. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: That is right—upholding the right to silence. It is interesting to hear the comments or the interjections of Mr Simon Bridges and I will come back to his comments in earlier readings of this legislation. Without doubt the bill as originally reported back would have severely curtailed that right to silence— 
Simon Bridges 
: No it wouldn’t; you know that’s not true. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: —which is a breach of a major constitutional provision. If Mr Bridges does not accept that it shows sadly that he did not actually understand what was in the bill when it was originally reported back. The bill as reported back required defendants persons charged with a criminal offence to identify which part of the Crown’s case against them they did not agree with. Defendants would have been required to tell the police and the Crown counsel what parts of the evidence against them they did not agree with. If a defendant had failed to do that the court would have been able to draw an adverse inference. A judge could have found a person guilty when he or she might not otherwise have found that person guilty. The fact is that by requiring a defendant to identify the so-called issues in dispute the prosecution would have been allowed to fashion the evidence to train witnesses to tell witnesses where the cross-examination questions would come from and to train witnesses in how better to answer the questions put to them by the counsel for the defendant. 
As the Green Party speaker Kennedy Graham has just acknowledged we need to be very careful to protect the weak because we need to acknowledge the substantial difference between the resources and power of someone charged with a criminal offence and the resources and power of the State to bring charges against them. The ACT Party was asked to support the bill as was originally reported back which would have required a defendant to indentify to the police the issues in the police case that they disagreed with. That would then have allowed the police to train witnesses on how better to fashion their evidence. We insisted that that provision be taken out and the legislation comes back into the House this afternoon with that provision taken out. So the right of ordinary people to stand up to defend themselves and to be proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt—that major constitutional principle—remains. 
The Minister identified some additional changes that the ACT Party was also instrumental in achieving and I acknowledge Mr Chauvel and his minority report. It is a fact that when the bill originally came back it would have enabled the Crown to deny a person a jury trial if that person had been charged with a criminal offence that carried a sentence in prison of 3 years or less. The ACT Party insisted that that term be dropped back from 3 years to 2 years. In this particular instance I refer to the submission of Family First. One of the things I have been able to do in my 3 years in Parliament has been to present a member’s bill that tried to implement a compromise on the so-called smacking legislation that this House looked at in its previous term. Family First and I have been absolutely unrelenting in our determination that that legislation be repealed or certainly amended. Family First said in its submission on the criminal procedure legislation that certain charges—for example a charge of a man assaulting a female or a parent assaulting a child—would carry a maximum prison sentence of 2 years in prison. Under the bill as it was originally reported back by the select committee a parent charged with smacking his or her child—charged with assault—would not have been entitled to elect a jury trial. One of the benefits of the changes that we have made is to allow a parent charged with smacking his or her child to be tried by their peers. 
I think that this Parliament and the people of New Zealand owe a huge debt to organisations such as Family First and to the various other lobby groups that stand up for the rights of New Zealanders and take an interest in civil society. Those different lobby groups represent all sides of the political spectrum from the left to the right. Although individual members of this House may not particularly agree with the submission of one particular organisation or another we should acknowledge the work those organisations do and Family First is an example of one of those organisations. 
This legislation has also received submissions from a number of other organisations—particularly as we would expect from organisations associated with the legal fraternity. We have had multiple and additional submissions from the New Zealand Law Society the Criminal Bar Association—certainly its Wellington branch—and various barristers and no less a person than the Chief Justice made a submission on this legislation. But I would like to acknowledge three barristers who I think have done more than anyone else in this country to bring to politicians’ attention the issues associated with this bill. I again acknowledge Patrick Winkler and his assistant Samira Taghavi and Roderick Mulgan. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Hear hear! 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I would like to record in  
Hansard 
 that Mr Chauvel is agreeing with me. We have been lobbied by those people. We have been lobbied to do the right thing and that has been at big personal cost in terms of money and time. 
Mr Chauvel commented on the fact that the ACT Party was late in coming to the argument that the Minister of Justice did not have the numbers or that the Minister lost the numbers. Well the blunt reality is that the Minister never had the numbers. The ACT Party supported this legislation at the first reading so that it could go to the select committee as we do with most legislation because we wanted the people of New Zealand to have the right to submit on this legislation. We do not actually have a representative on the Justice and Electoral Committee. When we saw the implications of this legislation to a person our ACT caucus was absolutely united against it. 
We are very pleased that this legislation comes back before this House with major changes not just to the jury provision in respect of having to identify issues in dispute but also to the imposing of court orders and to clause 376 which would have increased the threshold for getting a new trial from previously a “miscarriage of justice” to a “substantial miscarriage of justice”. The ACT Party is proud of the legislation in its current form. This legislation really highlights the vital role we play. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be standing in the third reading debate on Criminal Procedure Bill one of the bills arising from the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. It is such great timing to be considering the concept of reform and modernisation of the criminal justice system. Just last weekend my colleague Dr Pita Sharples gave a ground-breaking speech on this subject. He brought the attention of the nation to the fact that the justice system including the police courts and corrections systematically discriminates against Maori. 
Although that is an undisputed fact made by authorities no less than the Ombudsman Mel Smith former Police Commissioner Peter Doone veteran Maori legal authority Moana Jackson or the head of Rethinking Crime and Punishment Kim Workman of Ngati Kahungunu I do want to reassert the context from which we would hope any review of criminal procedures might benefit and this is the situation by which Maori offenders are more likely to have police contact to be charged to lack legal representation to not be granted bail to plead guilty to be convicted to be sentenced to non-monetary penalties or to be denied release to home detention. 
For the same crimes Maori are arrested at three times the rate of non-Maori. Maori are four to five times more likely to be apprehended prosecuted and convicted than their non-Maori counterparts. In the case of Maori aged 10 to 13 this is six times more likely. Maori are seven times more likely to be given a custodial sentence and 11 times more likely to be remanded in custody awaiting trial. It is hardly breaking news that for most Maori justice in New Zealand is not positive; it is a system that is unfair biased and flawed with ongoing and consistent prejudice. 
What we need therefore as indeed the police admitted yesterday is a focus on crime prevention and innovative approaches to policing. New Zealand needs fresh approaches to reducing the impacts of offending on our communities and we hope that this bill can help to reduce the stress upon families who find themselves presented in the justice system. Our review of the criminal justice system will investigate and analyse the facts as the basis for better policy. 
In the course of our consultations with Minister Power about the legislation we came to the realisation that should we successfully achieve the amendments we sought there could be much in this bill that might assist our review. We support the concept of promoting discussions between parties to reduce adjournments and have shorter hearings. We endorse also the proposal that guilty pleas be entered as early as possible to help avoid delay. 
I want to bring to this debate an example that was sent into us following our comments about the need for a review of the criminal justice system. We received an email reflecting on the comments of a retiring judge interviewed on Radio New Zealand National about 2 or 3 years ago. One of the questions the judge was asked was whether he had any regrets. His reply was that he did. He was sad about one thing. He said that Maori coming before him were usually very honest and always admitted to what they had done. When somebody admits to breaking the law they are not entitled to a defence; they just turn up to be sentenced. 
On the other hand when a person states that they are not guilty they are then entitled to defend themselves and with a good lawyer they may well get off. The correspondent put it very simply and I quote from her email: “But isn’t lying fraudulent? So you commit a crime go to Court swear an oath on the Bible to tell the truth etc etc and when asked ‘How do you plead?’ you reply ‘Not guilty.’! So after swearing to tell the truth you lie and get entitled to a defense! Something is not right here!”. It is a very interesting question and unfortunately I am not convinced that this bill provides us with an answer other than whatever process is followed it will be more efficient. 
That said I do want to acknowledge the Minister for his commitment to working alongside us in order to achieve our support for this bill. It does most certainly not provide all the answers—hence our call to conduct a systematic review of ethnic bias in the criminal justice system—but it does provide some immediate responses to improve the system and for that we are happy to provide our support. 
We are particularly pleased with the decision to limit the discretion of the court to proceed to only procedural hearings in the absence of the defendant—that is hearings where determinations of guilt or innocence will not be made. As the Attorney-General himself admitted this clause was formerly inconsistent with the rights affirmed by section 25(e) in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—that is that everyone charged with an offence has the right to be present at the trial and to present a defence. 
We were very pleased with the compromise position of the Minister on the reduction in the threshold for the right of a jury trial from 3 years to 2 years. We fully accept that there will be some people who feel that justice has not been served and may feel vulnerable having a sole judge grant the power of a prison sentence. David Mathias in his submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee specifically referred to this provision noting: “the right to jury trial is important for reasons based in fundamental community values and the bill should reflect public views.” Accordingly the Minister agreed to set the jury trial threshold at 2 years and to remove the exceptional circumstances put forward earlier. 
Another issue of concern for the Maori Party was the clause described as the loss of the right to silence. This was the court requirement that the defence disclose before trial issues in dispute. We welcome the decision by the Minister to remove those provisions from the bill. 
I return to the context in which this bill is located. No one can ignore that there are real issues that need to be addressed when we look at Maori overrepresentation particularly in our prisons. Ninety percent of prisoners have significant literacy issues and 90 percent have drug and alcohol issues. The Maori Party review is not an attack on the justice system; it is a search for a better way to achieve justice. We believe that a constructive platform has been established by this new reformed Criminal Procedure Bill and we are looking for a brave Government to go even further and investigate the long-held concerns around ethnic profiling and institutional racism across all levels of the justice system. 
I want to finish with one simple statement that every member of the Maori Party immediately could relate to because it is simply one of those accepted realities of the everyday life of being Maori. Kim Workman director of Rethinking Crime and Punishment has said that this is not a new issue. In fact he referred to a 2009 study by the Ministry of Justice that showed that Maori overrepresentation had reached an alarming level not only with police apprehensions but elsewhere in the system. He shared an example which was: “when the Pakeha passengers of a Maori youth won’t let him drive his own car because they keep getting stopped by the police there is something seriously wrong.” 
Believe it or not this is an ongoing reality in our lives in the lives of our children and our mokopuna` and it reflects a criminal justice system in which decisions are made on factors other than evidence of a crime being committed. A truly reformed and modernised criminal procedure bill would look seriously at situations such as those and devise solutions to achieve a system of justice that is fair to all. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It has been good to listen to speeches in the House on this legislation. I particularly enjoyed listening to my friend Kennedy Graham from the Green Party who gave us a learned exposition of many— 
Hon Member 
: Dissertation. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: —a dissertation of many theories of law. In particular he treated us to a view on John Rawls one of the 20th century’s greatest jurists and political philosophers and his theory of justice. But given that Kennedy Graham will be voting against this legislation I wonder whether he is none the less under what we would call a Rawlsian veil of ignorance. 
Be that as it may it is good to speak on this legislation. It is the result really of a consensus on criminal procedure from the Law Commission from the justice department and from various other bodies that the status quo could not stand. There have been for some time—and it has been getting worse—excessive delays costs and complexities within our justice system and particularly our jury trial system that need to be remedied. 
One point I want to make at the outset is that no one particular change in the legislation—although not all the changes are equal; some are much more significant than others—makes the difference. Really it is the total package viewed holistically I suppose that makes the difference and that will I am confident make great reductions to the delays the costs and the complexities that courts the victims of crime and the accused currently labour under. 
I talked in the second reading debate about the issues around the jury threshold and about this so-called—I think wrongly called—attack on the right to silence which is not in this legislation. I want to just— 
Hon John Boscawen 
: It’s been taken out Simon. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: That is what I said. That is why I said it is not in this legislation I say to Mr Boscawen. 
Today I want to talk about just a couple of other provisions that I think are pretty significant. Sentence indication hearings are contained within clauses 58 to 63 of the Criminal Procedure Bill. Effectively what we see in the bill which I hope will soon be law is a codification of existing practice. An accused—a defendant—can come to court and can ask for if you like a mock sentencing to see where they would be if they pleaded guilty. Some in the legal profession have been squeamish about this because in a sense it is having one’s cake and eating it too. It is saying to the outside world: “I am innocent of this; I am not guilty.” but on the inside because of the fact that the sentencing indication hearing is suppressed it is saying: “But I would like to just see because I am not very confident.” 
Nevertheless pragmatically speaking economically speaking and in terms of saving time I think we have a very good set of provisions here. Judges under clause 58 will be able to say the type of sentence; it may be home detention or imprisonment. They can go further than the existing practice by saying that they also think the sentence will be say 2 to 2½ years—giving the length and so on. Only defendants can request the sentence indication hearing which of course makes sense because it is for their benefit. 
I think another important provision is the fact that a court will need to have before it a minimum of information: the summary of facts previous convictions and victim impact statements. As has been the previous practice there will not necessarily be probation service reports and psychological and psychiatric reports. That may mean that a sentence indicated at a hearing may change somewhat at the real sentencing because on certain occasions those reports can make a difference. Nevertheless that is a very worthy part of this legislation. It is just a small part but it gives a flavour of what this legislation does. 
The other aspect of this legislation I wanted to highlight very briefly is the trial call-over memorandum that is now to be handed in by both prosecuting and defence counsel. That again is a codification of a practice that has been happening around much of the country. It also will save a lot of time. It makes it clear to both sides from the get-go what their positions are what witnesses they are calling what pre-trial applications they will be making and the like. That brings a lot of certainty and it will reduce the costs the complexities and the delays we have seen in criminal courts. That gives just a flavour of two small parts of very hefty legislation that Minister Power and the Justice and Electoral Committee should be rightly proud of. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am not an expert on criminal justice but it is quite good to get a perspective from across the House. The procedure began—and I have heard members attributing this legislation before the House today to Minister Simon Power but I will take members back—with the Law Commission report in 2004 about delivering justice for all. That was the instigator for this change to a very complex legal construct. It was Labour actually and the previous Minister of Justice in 2007 that began this process of agreeing on the one hand that there was a need to reform criminal justice procedure and went about the drafting of this legislation. Sadly this resulted in a huge bill the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill which as members alluded to was 526 pages. It was very complex. It was considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I understand that that was a very diligent process which was led by Chester Borrows. 
I have heard different individuals in the House today talk about who attributes the success and the outcome of this legislation to whom. I do not think that that is the issue; I think that the issue is one for all New Zealanders to have faith in the system and to believe that the system will work for them; that it is transparent and that it is fair as they go through the criminal justice procedure. Most non-lawyers would agree with the Law Commission. It said that the court system is an impenetrable maze for most non-lawyers. It is perplexing to us all. 
I acknowledge today in the House that I enjoyed hearing John Boscawen. It was probably his last speech in the House. He is a man of principle. We do not always agree but boy does he fight for his principles. That is something we as lawmakers like to see in the House. 
It is sad to hear that this legislation got a bit bogged down. It got bogged down because of the minor parties and this is the strength of an MMP Parliament. The minor parties actually said that there were aspects to this legislation that they found simply unacceptable. They held out on that. I acknowledge Charles Chauvel. He held out and said that we needed to look at changing the threshold for jury trials defence disclosures proceeding in a defendant’s absence and compliance cost orders. So well done to the minor parties that took on a reformist Minister who is being seen as rather overzealous by members of the legal profession who have really got the ta-tas about the pace of reform they have had to face. I congratulate the minor parties on taking on the Minister. 
Also we are really pleased that after the select committee process the Minister did listen to Labour’s concerns. We wanted to see one aspect of this legislation changed that was not changed which was greater certainty for sentencing provisions. What a pity that the Minister chose to ignore a member like Charles Chauvel who has a deeply critical analytical legal brain. We could have made a much more enduring piece of legislation. I noticed that Jonathan Temm who resides in Rotorua and is doing a wonderful job has said that we will be back in the House very soon to relook at this. 
I think that is because it has not been done in a cross-party considered approach. Even though Chester Borrows talked about the drivers of crime and Minister Power has attempted to look at the drivers of crime I remember the Hon Lianne Dalziel having to ask whether she could participate in that process. We in Labour felt just as we had felt about domestic violence family violence and sexual abuse against women that the legislation would be much more enduring if all parties agreed. We had to invite ourselves into that workshop on the drivers of crime. They have had a good relationship ever since. 
We are supporting this legislation now in the third reading debate because of the process that was followed at our and the minor parties’ request. I hope we will see here that this restores confidence to a very complex and often perplexing issue of access to criminal justice in a fair way for all New Zealanders. Thank you. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a brief call this afternoon on the legislation arising from the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. It has been interesting to listen to the debate this afternoon in the House as it was interesting to come in at the tail end of the select committee process when I joined the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Across the House this afternoon there has been a little bit of a battle about who is responsible for what. Everyone is now trying to claim ownership but I think the thing that matters to the people who use the justice system is that we are now taking steps to make it easier for people who find themselves in the justice system through no fault of their own. The Minister of Police made it quite clear this afternoon that her priority with legislation as it is for the Minister of Justice and for all of this Government is first and foremost to look after the victims of crime. 
I did not practise in the area of criminal law other than some brief forays but I can tell members that from my experience with clients who have had experience in that field one of the most horrific aspects of the justice system for the victims involved in it is the sheer delays and the fact that the crime lives in their head and owns their life for month after month after month. It is not enough that whatever wrong it is that they are dealing with was done to them but to have such delays consequently in their heads without being able to get closure for such a long period of time is quite simply unacceptable. 
As the Minister of Justice pointed out in his opening remarks it has been over 50 years now since a Government has sat down and had a ground-up review of how our criminal justice system works. It is long overdue and the answer has never been to keep throwing money at a broken system to build more courthouses and to try to pump the cases through faster. 
There needs to be a comprehensive look—and there now has been—at how the system works and where we can get that delay complexity and cost to all parties out of the system; at what parts of the procedure are fundamentally important to the proper carriage of justice; and at what parts can be rethought. That is what this legislation does. It is a comprehensive piece of work and it sits alongside our other key initiatives in the area looking at things like the drivers of crime. They are things that I think we can all be proud and have resulted in the reduction of crime across the country in the last year by more than 7 percent and in my own region of Canterbury a reduction of nearly 15 percent. That is a significant improvement which means that all New Zealanders can feel safer in their homes and safer in their communities. That is in large part due to the work of our police due to the fact that we have given them the tools that they need to get on with their work and due to the fact that this House has supported them and put in place a framework that makes it quite clear that we have no time for criminals and those who seek to destroy our lives but we will do whatever we can to support victims. 
Similarly the offender levy which was put in place by this Government has required criminals to pay to help victims in their process through the courts. That has been staggeringly successful. It was derided by the Opposition as being meaningless when it was put before this House. The reality is that it has far outstripped expectations. With the passage of this legislation we are taking another step in making our justice system fairer for the victims fairer for those who are involved through no fault of their own and fairer for the taxpayer. I am very happy to commend it to the House. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the third reading of the legislation arising from the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill in the name of the Hon Simon Power and to note to the House that the list of legislation arising from this one bill covers the length of a whole page of the Order Paper. That is one indication of the complexity of this legislation. The second thing is that some of the Acts being amended are from as long ago as 1947. These are old statutes and this legislation is all-encompassing to help improve the administration of justice. 
I am happy to claim some responsibility for this legislation. As a former Minister for Courts I could see that the lines of people going through the court system were getting longer and longer. Despite the fact that we were appointing more judges and building more courts the lines were not diminishing at all. The reason for this was that our criminal justice procedure the administration of justice was out of date. It was unnecessarily complicated and difficult. What should happen is that a person should be charged they should appear before the court the day after or 2 days after they have been charged and they should know what the charges are. The only other time they should go back to court is when the trial begins. That was not the case. There were all sorts of hearings sub-hearings call-overs and other procedures that had to be undertaken. It was a paper-based system that was unnecessarily complex and unnecessarily bureaucratic. 
If we are to improve the administration of justice the statutes that underpin the administration of justice need to be updated. It is a substantial task and anybody who cares to look down the list of bills that are being amended will see that it is a very complex task. It had been started before on a number of occasions the Law Commission had written reports on it and when I came across it when I was Minister for Courts it had simply fallen into abeyance because it was too difficult. But with the pressure on our courts system I gave it a nudge and I am very pleased to see that the Hon Simon Power has completed the work. 
Yes people have made comments about the need for cross-party support in this and I agree with them but this Parliament needs to get its head around the fact that it cannot afford to allow statutes to sit for 60 years virtually unamended and then expect that the systems that are administered by 60-year-old legislation will keep pace with the changes in expectations within our society. This Parliament will have to be seized with the notion that it has a responsibility to constantly update the administration of justice and the legislation that underpins it even if it is difficult complex and hard. If we continue to allow the administration of justice to languish unattended and unamended for a long time it will fall into disrepute in the public’s mind as the system of justice did because of the way this Parliament had ignored its responsibilities. 
There are many controversial things in this legislation that others have canvassed and I do not intend to do that but I want to leave on the record a simple point that it is Parliament’s responsibility to update the administration of justice. Yes it is legislation that is initiated by the executive but select committees can do their work in this area and the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Law and Order Committee can put pressure on administrations now and in the future to have these pieces of legislation updated. It is as much Parliament’s responsibility as it is the executive’s. It is a role that should include the judges the judiciary and people who are expert in the administration of justice such as court registrars people who are at the Bar and lawyers who use it. It should include all groups including parliamentarians so that we get a general consensus on what needs to be done to improve the administration of justice because if justice is not administered properly fairly and efficiently it will fall into disrepute and the decisions that are therefore administered from that will be in disrepute as well. This is Parliament’s responsibility and I am pleased to see that it has taken it seriously on this occasion. I commend this legislation to the House. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the third reading of the legislation arising from Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. This legislation will be a big step in reforming criminal procedure thus reducing unnecessary delays and inefficiencies in court processes thereby avoiding unnecessary stress to the victims and those who find themselves there through no fault of their own. I congratulate the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power on his achievements on this longstanding issue. 
This legislation also has approval to permit the courts to proceed in the absence of the defendant if the court is not satisfied that the defendant has a reasonable excuse for his or her absence. Another important change to the issue of name suppression is the replacement of the current broad discretion for granting name suppression with more clarity and defined grounds on which evidence and name can be suppressed. 
Justice delayed is justice denied. There are presently excessive delays in the court system. Making time to dispose of a High Court jury trial may take up to 16 months. This legislation will allocate cases between the High Court and District Courts more effectively and streamline pre-trial procedures. 
The legislation also addresses the excessive outlay of the cost incurred. It has been estimated that there are approximately 43000 unnecessary court appearances a year. In excess of two-thirds of these cases do not reach their hearing and fail to proceed on the first date. 
We cannot continue to mask delay and inefficiencies in criminal procedures by simply building more courthouses and appointing more judges. National is committed to improving the criminal justice system and fair trials. We are confident that this legislation will achieve both of those aims. I commend the legislation to the House. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Procedure Bill the Bail Amendment Bill (No 3) the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 3) the Corrections Amendment Bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 5) the Criminal Disclosure Amendment Bill the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Amendment Bill the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 2) the Evidence Amendment Bill the Juries Amendment Bill the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill the New Zealand Bill of Rights Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 6) the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Victims’ Rights Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Mana 1. 
Bills read a third time. 
Crown Entities Reform Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Civil Defence) 
 on behalf of the Minister of State Services: I move  
That the Crown Entities Reform Bill be now read a first time 
. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Government Administration Committee. 
The Crown Entities Reform Bill is an omnibus bill providing for machinery of government changes in the health and charitable sectors. The bill provides for the following structural changes. It establishes a new Crown agent the Health Promotion Agency to take on the functions of the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand the Health Sponsorship Council and the relevant functions of the Ministry of Health and it disestablishes those councils. It also disestablishes the Crown Health Financing Agency and transfers some functions to the Ministry of Health while other functions continue to be provided by Treasury’s New Zealand Debt Management Office. The bill brings forward to 30 June 2012 the date for disestablishing the Mental Health Commission and transferring the functions of the commission to the Health and Disability Commissioner including establishing a new Mental Health Commissioner within the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner to carry out the advocacy and monitoring functions. The bill also disestablishes the Charities Commission and transfers its functions to the Department of Internal Affairs with the exception of decisions relating to the registration and deregistration of charities which will be carried out by an independent decision-making board of three persons. 
The changes are consistent with the Government’s overall direction for the State sector and the Government’s aim of improving State sector performance. The New Zealand public’s expectations of what the State sector can do for them continue to rise. We expect the State sector to be organised in a way that makes it more accessible to New Zealanders and able to deliver its services more efficiently. A State sector that meets the needs of 21st century New Zealand is one based on the following principles of clear priorities—that is focusing our efforts and Government funding on the things that matter most to New Zealanders today and in the future—of easy access to the Government and to high-quality front-line services and of high-quality services ensuring that public services are modern responsive and provide good value for money of reducing waste and ensuring that government administration is efficient well organised and resilient. The bill’s structural changes to the health and charitable sectors will improve services reduce cost in the long term and future-proof the long-term delivery of State services. 
There are three parts to this bill. Part 1 covers the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. Part 1 relates to the establishment of the Health Promotion Agency the HPA as a Crown agent and to the disestablishment of the Alcohol Advisory Council the Health Sponsorship Council and the Crown Health Financing Agency. The bill provides that the new Health Promotion Agency board will have at least five but not more than seven members appointed by the responsible Minister. Levy provisions carried over from the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 enable the Health Promotion Agency to recover certain of its operating costs. In respect of the Health Promotion Agency’s alcohol-specific functions—that is advice recommendations and research relating to problems associated with the misuse of alcohol—the agency will be required to have regard to Government policy when directed by the responsible Minister rather than being required to give effect to Government policy. 
Part 2 refers to the Mental Health Commission Act 1998. Part 2 relates to the expiry of that Act and the appointment of a Mental Health Commissioner under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. The Mental Health Commission Act will now expire on 30 June 2012 rather than on 31 August 2015. The bill provides for the appointment of a Mental Health Commissioner under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 and for the appointment of the chairperson of the Mental Health Commission as the first Mental Health Commissioner. 
Part 3 looks at the Charities Act 2005. Part 3 disestablishes the Charities Commission and reassigns the functions and duties under the Charities Act 2005 to the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs with the exception of decisions relating to the registration and deregistration of charities which will be carried out by an independent decision-making board of three persons. The decisions of the board will be subject to appeal to the High Court as are the Charities Commission’s decisions now. The board will also retain the commission’s ability to publish details of possible breaches of the Charities Act or possible serious wrongdoings. The bill provides that the board members are not subject to direction from Ministers in performing or exercising their functions duties or powers and that each member must act independently in exercising his or her professional judgment. This will ensure independence in decision making. The bill places a requirement on the board to actively consider delegations to the chief executive or another person such as a board member. This will ensure the effective and efficient use of resources. Any delegations carry with them the same independent and professional judgment in decision making. The bill provides that the chief executive must supply all secretarial and administrative services required to enable the independent board to carry out its functions duties and powers. 
In the Committee of the whole House stage it is intended that this bill will be divided into the following separate bills: a New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill a Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill and a Charities Amendment Bill. 
This bill is part of the Government’s ongoing State sector reform focused on efficiency in the State sector to ensure that government administration is efficient well organised and resilient. I commend the bill to the House. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It was interesting to hear the Minister of Civil Defence say that the principles that would underlie a good Public Service policy would be around developing high-quality services that were modern and responsive. I found myself saying: “Exactly!”. That is exactly what we need. We need a plan around the delivery of 21st century public services that are responsive to people and that are developed in consultation with those who receive the services and with the Public Service. But that is not what is in the Crown Entities Reform Bill which is before us today. What is in the bill before us today is more shuffling around of agencies in the public sector in some kind of vain hope that this represents a plan to deliver better public services to New Zealand. 
The sad fact is that the Minister now and the bill we have before us today have not made the case for why these changes need to go through. From Labour’s point of view we cannot support this bill because we do not believe that the Government has made the case for why these changes need to be made. It certainly has not made the case for how this bill will deliver better public services to New Zealanders. We all want more effective more efficient and more responsive public services. But the approach the National Government has taken since it got into office has been simply to cut. The Prime Minister when he came in actually said the Government would cap but not cut the public services. He said it would cap but not cut. Instead he has gone back on his word. Here we are—2000 people have lost their jobs and public services have not got better. 
What we see from this Government rather than a plan to actually improve public services is just a series of indiscriminate cuts. I would welcome a plan that said how the Government was going to deliver more effective public services. But that is not what we have seen from the Government. What we have seen from the Government is cuts: “We will cut.” 
This Government said it does not need policy advice. Bill English told us that he could run Government by Google. He does not need policy advice; he will just get advice off the internet. That is what Bill English told us. That will not deliver good quality public services to New Zealand. It will simply deliver fewer public servants fewer programmes and fewer services. The Minister tells us when he stands up that this is about the new Public Service of the 21st century. Well it is not; it is the shuffling of agencies while the Government goes on with its indiscriminate cuts to public services. 
Let us look at a couple of examples in the bill. The first is around the creation of the so-called Health Promotion Agency. At a time when the country and the House are debating one of the greatest public health crises of our time the abuse of alcohol this Government comes to the House with a plan to get rid of the one agency in Government that is actually focused solely on alcohol issues. It is an unbelievable proposition that for this Government which claims to be concerned about the harm that alcohol is causing in our communities its big plan for the public sector is to get rid of the one agency that is actually focused on alcohol. But again the case is not made by the Government as to why this is the right thing to do. 
We see also that the public health responsibilities of the Ministry of Health will now be folded into this Health Promotion Agency. I can tell members that there are not many people left in the Ministry of Health working on public health measures because this Government has systematically cut funding from public health: $124 million— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How much? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —$124 million was taken out of the public health budget by this Government. The Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programme is basically gone and the Government has no plan to ensure that we keep New Zealanders healthy. That is what public health is about. It is actually about the Government supporting New Zealanders to keep New Zealanders healthy. But public health has basically gone from the ministry and it will now all disappear into an agency that will have mixed priorities and will not necessarily be able to give the focus to these issues that New Zealanders want. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Delusional. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: He’s talking to himself. Don’t worry about it. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I challenge the members on the other side who are interjecting: is alcohol abuse a problem in New Zealand? Is it something the Government should be working on? If the answer to those two questions is yes why is this Government proposing to get rid of the one agency that is actually focused on that work? When it comes to the new Health Promotion Agency Labour is yet to be convinced that that idea will actually deliver good quality public services to New Zealanders. Certainly it will mean that the one agency focused on dealing with alcohol problems in New Zealand goes out of existence. 
I turn for the remainder of my speech to the proposal to disestablish the Mental Health Commission. The Mental Health Commission was due to end its work in 2015. If we were standing here today saying that the good news is that everything is done the mental health blueprint has been fully implemented and mental health policy and systems are going well then maybe we could agree to the commission being ended in 2012. But the truth is that under this Government focus on mental health has declined. There is no longer any kind of nationwide priority or target for mental health. 
District health boards have responded to the Government’s lack of interest in mental health by shifting resources away from mental health. Here in the Capital and Coast District Health Board region in Wellington most of the agencies that deliver mental health services in the Wellington and Kapiti communities have had their funding cut. Wellink the organisation that provides supported housing for mental health consumers has had its budget cut by one-third. It has had to close one supported housing facility on the Kapiti coast and is looking at closing another one in Wellington City. 
Mental health is simply not a priority for this Government and closing the Mental Health Commission 3 years early simply signals that mental health is the poor cousin of the health system under this Government. That is wrong because mental health issues in New Zealand are becoming more and more important by the day. 
If we needed an example of the lack of attention given to mental health we saw it in the House today from Associate Minister of Health Jonathan Coleman. He decided to avoid answering questions in the House about a serious assault on a family in Auckland by a person released from the acute mental health unit of the Auckland District Health Board. He hid behind parliamentary procedure and said that the question of whether he received an email from a member of this family was a matter before the court. Well I can assure the House that Mr Coleman’s receiving of the email is not the matter that is before the court. Mr Coleman received that email last Monday and it told him that this woman and her husband had nearly been killed by a patient who had been released from Te Whetu Tawera the Auckland District Health Board’s acute mental health unit. 
The Minister stood up in the House the next day to say there had been a marked improvement in the way patients were being managed at that unit. The Minister stood up and said that the day after he had received that email from a woman who said she had nearly been killed. The truth is that the Auckland District Health Board mental health unit is in crisis. The number of beds has been reduced from 58 to 52 because staff do not feel safe in that unit. This woman and her family have raised concerns and the Minister has refused to answer them. I think that is disgraceful. 
It goes back to the fact that mental health is not a priority issue for this Government. The changes being made in this legislation to end the activities of the Mental Health Commission are a sign of that. I want Minister Coleman to take some responsibility and explain to the people of New Zealand and the people of Auckland how he will ensure that patient safety family safety and community safety will be assured with the reduction of acute mental health beds and whether community mental health services in Auckland will get additional resources to deal with the patients who are now being released from the unit because there are not beds for them there. There need to be some answers from Minister Coleman; he cannot hide behind parliamentary procedure. 
Labour will not be supporting the first reading of the Crown Entities Reform Bill. We do not believe that the case has been made for these changes. We certainly do not believe that these changes will lead to more effective more efficient public services. They will certainly not turbocharge the economy. These changes are a shuffling around of agencies. They will not deliver better outcomes for New Zealanders and therefore should not go through. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to debate the first reading of the Crown Entities Reform Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amalgamate the functions of a number of existing agencies for greater efficiency and to streamline bureaucracy and focus on better public services. This omnibus bill provides for structural changes in the way the Government is organised across the health and charitable sector. 
New Zealand currently has 38 Government departments over 150 Crown entities and more than 200 other agencies. There are clearly efficiencies to be gained by merging entities or transferring their functions to other agencies. The National Government has already set up the Better Public Services Advisory Group to provide support and advice to the Minister of State Services and to help ensure that the changes we make improve results. The group has clearly focused on value for money innovation high-quality service provision and effective change management. We have made pragmatic decisions to merge Government departments and agencies with ongoing savings. These amalgamations alone will deliver a saving of $92 million over 4 years and ongoing savings of $22 million per annum. We have already amalgamated the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. We have also agreed to merge the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. These changes will improve the efficiency coordination and quality of public services. 
I am very pleased that under National we have 300 more police officers in Counties Manukau and we are on track to have 600 more by the end of the year which includes those 300 in Counties Manukau. I have heard from the people of Manukau that they feel safer with these new deployments. These improved circumstances are due to those agencies delivering good front-line services where they count. I support this bill. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 That was a tragic attempt at a valedictory and I am very disappointed that the member Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi chose to talk about an increase in police in some parts of the country when the Crown Entities Reform Bill is about destroying the lives and careers of hundreds of public servants who are dedicated to ensuring that all New Zealanders have access to high-quality public services. That member got up and defended this bill. He should be ashamed of himself. We have already seen nearly 2500 Public Service jobs lost because of the direct actions of Ministers in his Government at a time when our unemployment rate is rising dramatically. How stupid can that member and his colleagues be? Well the answer is “extraordinarily stupid” actually. There is no sense at all in cutting back jobs and access to services in our communities during a recession when we are trying to grow our economy or for the Government to say: “We will show leadership in this area. Let’s cut a whole lot of jobs. Let’s make a whole lot of people unemployed. We’ll give them great career options in Australia where they do pay their public servants well and they do offer them strong career prospects.” 
That member defends it. It is just short-sighted stupid and wrong and that is why Labour is opposing this legislation. We want to see high-quality public services delivered in New Zealand communities in an accessible way. People are entitled when they pay their taxes to know they will get access to high-quality information in a way that makes sense to them as a result of their contribution. That is how a healthy society works. That is why some members on the other side of the House have lived as public servants for years and I am sure they thought they were doing very fine work. In fact I have heard some of them say how good their work was. Then they come into Parliament and think that everyone else is a slug and should lose their jobs and that all of these departments are suddenly so inefficient and need to be merged. This is just short-sighted nonsense. It has not improved the delivery of services one single dot nor will this work at all. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Services have been improved. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: For that member who used to have high standards and principles and was prepared to stand up for reasoned debate— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Oh it’s been a while. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: My colleague says it has been a while—that is true. I remember that member standing up to his colleagues for values he believed in but he is now prepared to see both the Alcohol Advisory Council and the Mental Health Commission—two critical areas in the lives of a healthy society—lose their mandate. How can that member justify that when his Government has been so timid in implementing the Law Commission’s alcohol recommendations and when it has been castigated around the country for parading a problem but not being prepared to present an answer? National is now taking away our country’s No. 1 alcohol watchdog. The group that — 
Jo Goodhew 
: No they’re not. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: —has been empowered to lead this debate is now being gutted. The current member—soon to give a valedictory—for Rangitata Jo Goodhew who has been paraded in her home town for not fronting up to public meetings on this very issue is prepared to back it as well. She will go in with her hand up on the vote for this legislation. 
It is the same with the Mental Health Commission. Despite what Jonathan Coleman the Minister said in this House we know that mental health needs to be protected and treasured and that the Mental Health Commission has done an internationally well-regarded job of ensuring that mental health is no longer the Cinderella of the health ball. There are always huge competing demands in the health system. There are always areas that will put political pressure on the Minister of Health and that will raise concerns in our community—and rightly. Mental health is never seen to be the issue that will light up public awareness. People will align themselves far more with something that is seen as an attractive health issue to back. Mental health must be an issue that the whole of Parliament continues to give priority to. 
I have never been as proud of two women of opposing parties as I was when I saw how the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley and the Rt Hon Helen Clark—from completely different sides of the political spectrum—both put mental health as a priority within our health system. Their record on that should be continued to be admired. But instead we are seeing Tony Ryall saying we have finished the work in mental health. The work will never be finished. I think that having that focus undermined and rejecting the value of the Mental Health Commission is just wrong. 
The other spin that the Minister has quite unsuccessfully put on this story is that we are cutting backroom services and increasing front-line services. But we can see up and down the country in health in inland revenue and most recently in conservation where front-line services—particularly in provincial towns—have been destroyed. I have yet to hear the members of Parliament for Whanganui Napier Tukituki or Wairarapa stand up for their communities anywhere. They could come in here under parliamentary privilege and say: “I think the Minister got it wrong in my town.” They might get away with it. They are probably so scared that they would be placed low on the list having been rejected by their community as being a total waste of space because they never stand up for their community. They should just come into this House and at least go out on a proud note—at least be seen to stand for something. But none of those members of Parliament have ever raised concerns in this House during any debate about the direct loss of their constituents’ access to services. 
We cannot get more front-line than a local tax office—the local office of the Inland Revenue Department—where people used to be able to go in with their concerns. They did not have to be put on to an 0800 call centre wait for an hour and put in a whole lot of numbers. Those members should get into their local office of the Inland Revenue Department. Those services have gone. They were front-line. Not one National member of Parliament stood up and said: “My constituents deserve access to services.” and what is more: “My constituents want to keep their jobs.” They have been doing those jobs well for years and they should continue to do them. 
We know that front-line services are being reduced and not bolstered. We have lost them in the Department of Conservation just in the last sitting week. I challenged the current Minister of Conservation to tell us why the scientists who were doing the work on the protection and management regime of the North Island kiwi were losing their jobs. The Minister came back with an extraordinary answer. She said that I should be aware that Genesis Energy had recently fronted up with some money to better support the blue duck. Well that was extraordinary news. That was very interesting. Of course everyone in the House already knew about it because it had been in the paper but having Genesis supporting the blue duck good though it may be does nothing to help the scientists who are doing the protection and management programme of the endangered North Island kiwi and those scientists are losing their jobs. 
New Zealand prides itself on our regard for our endangered species and so we should. Various parties leading the Government have said that we need to commit ourselves to ensure that New Zealand does not rank highly on the list of nations that have got rid of a whole lot of species. We put in some energy and effort into protecting those species. What does this Minister of Conservation do? Scientists—just flick them off—not important. They are critical not only to the future reputation but also literally to the future existence of our most endangered species. 
What this legislation shows most of all is that John Key and Tony Ryall are out of touch with New Zealand communities which know that they want and value public services that are accessible in their community. Labour opposes the first reading of this bill. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Thank you for this opportunity to speak in the first reading debate on the Crown Entities Reform Bill. The Maori Party has campaigned long and hard for a system of Government that is cost-effective transparent and accountable so we want to be clear from the outset that our focus has always been that we want to see more community services and less Government bureaucracy for the outcome of whanau restoration. Our emphasis has always been on reinvigorating ourselves and restoring to ourselves the possibility of achieving the aspirations we set for ourselves. 
This bill moves some way towards putting in place the machinery of government changes to increase the efficiency of the Public Service while delivering better services. In doing so it will help enable us to focus on what is really important: outcomes rather than inputs; the results rather than the activities. In this way it is actually consistent with many of the initiatives that we have advanced during this term of Government particularly of course Whanau Ora. 
In our 2008 policy we looked at the opportunity for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General being required to report annually on the effectiveness of interventions targeted at Maori Pacific refugee and migrant communities as well as young people. This is a way of holding kawanatanga to account ensuring that the Government really does serve the public and all members of the public to the best of its ability. By implication the party supports the effective administration of government particularly State sector Crown entities. The party supports a cost-effective public sector but not at the expense of people’s mental and physical health and of State sector workers’ rights and jobs. 
The first tranche of changes introduced in this bill are enclosed in Part 1 addressing the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act. The bill authorises the disestablishment of related bodies to establish a single Health Promotion Agency. The entities that will be merged into one body include the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand—more commonly known as ALAC—the Health Sponsorship Council and related aspects of the Ministry of Health. The key for us is that the dedicated commitment of the individuals and the work programmes encompassed within both ALAC and the Health Sponsorship Council must be supported to continue even though the infrastructure around these agencies is dissipated. So we will be keeping a watching brief on the way in which advice recommendations and research related to problems associated with the misuse of alcohol will be included in this new agency as well as the priorities of the Health Sponsorship Council. 
The Maori Party believes that we must really focus on the long-term outlook the intergenerational shift that will ensure we reduce alcohol-related harm right across the whanau. The  
New Zealand Medical Journal 
 in June this year reported that a large proportion of New Zealanders report having had the experience of physical social economic and psychological harm because of the drinking of others. This broader context of whanau ora must be considered in the discussion of alcohol policy and of how it will be implemented in the new Health Promotion Agency. 
We need to invest in well-being and to study the motivators and triggers that are associated with alcohol use within the whanau. It is about denormalising drinking and distancing our communities from the grasp of the alcohol industry. When I spoke on the Alcohol Reform Bill a couple of weeks ago I referred to an interesting comparison made by Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu with the regime of environmental management. It was their contention that the rights protected under article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi included the capacity to protect and preserve the well-being of our greatest taonga: our people. Accordingly their view is that iwi have a right to be decision makers on the supply and regulation of alcohol within their respective ancestral land. We will be considering these issues further as this bill progresses to the select committee stage to enable a tighter focus on how health promotion activities and targets will be determined in association with mana whenua. 
The second part of the bill relates to the expiry of the Mental Health Commission Act 1998. It provides for the appointment of a Mental Health Commissioner under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act and for the appointment of the chairperson of the Mental Health Commission as the first Mental Health Commissioner. It also seeks to transfer the advocacy and monitoring functions of the Mental Health Commission to the Health and Disability Commissioner. We want to know how the mental health sector relates to these proposals and in all honesty a key way of being able to achieve that will be in ensuring this bill enters into a process of robust consultation to which we are confident that advocates and consumers in the mental health community will contribute. 
The third part of this bill moves to disestablish the Charities Commission and transfer its functions to the Department of Internal Affairs. It also proposes to transfer the process of registration and deregistration of charities and for it to be carried out by an independent decision-making board of three persons. Although we understand the inevitable we have to admit to being greatly disappointed that the autonomy and independence of the Charities Commission is being compromised by its integration into the administration of a central government agency. We do have to wonder how the community and voluntary sector will respond to this latest change particularly as it is hot on the heels of the Office of the Community and Voluntary Sector moving into the Department of Internal Affairs. 
The Maori Party has always considered it one of our most critical priorities to empower communities whanau and hapu to develop responses to issues impacting on them by trusting them and resourcing them. Communities and their relationships with central and local government are critical to our assessment as to the effectiveness or otherwise of the proposals contained in this bill. 
I am mindful of the agreement for a first-principles review of the Charities Act 2005 which is to be completed by 2015. The review will consider whether the legislation is fit for purpose and reflects the needs and composition of our charities sector. An inevitable issue that arises for us is whether we are placing the cart before the horse: are we dismantling the Charities Commission before we actually know whether the current mechanism is fit for purpose? 
The Maori Party will support the bill in its first reading in order to allow time for all Maori groups and individuals who have a stake in this issue to tell the Government Administration Committee what they think of this bill and how they think it may affect any of these services to Maori in the future. However our voting in the future will consider these public submissions. In the meantime to enable this bill to be open to the full free and frank scrutiny of the community we support the bill at its first reading. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I think this debate needs a dose of honesty and integrity and a bit of plain speaking. First of all I am very pleased that the Crown Entities Reform Bill will apply to all New Zealanders equally. Secondly the point has been made in the House this afternoon that the removal of the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) will cause huge trouble but that is just not the case. ALAC’s independent evidence-based advisory function is retained within the new entity—the Health Promotion Agency. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Yeah right! 
JOHN HAYES 
: Alcohol harm reduction programmes will continue to be funded through a levy on alcohol consumption. 
That member also said earlier in her somewhat fossilised view of the world that mental health services were going to be reduced. I tell her they are not. The functions of the Mental Health Commission will continue to be performed by the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner and we have specifically provided for the role of the Mental Health Commissioner within the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner. 
Let us just go back a bit. Under the 9 years of the Labour Government the number of public servants increased by 50 percent or by 1800 public servants per year. We have to keep in mind that this country is smaller than Australia. We have 4 million people. We cannot afford an unlimited non-capped Public Service. Before the last election National said: “No. 1 we’re going to reduce taxes No. 2 we’re going to simplify the RMA No. 3 we’re going to get rid of bureaucracy and red tape.” We said: “We’re going to improve infrastructure.” Go and have a look at Rimutaka Hill Road and see that improvement happening. We said: “We’re going to bring in standards for education and we’ve got NCEA. We’re going to reduce crime. We’re going to bring in broadband.” We have delivered those things but still we must remove the overcapacity of our Public Service. If we are going to chase John Key’s aspiration of achieving Australia’s income levels then we have to run a very efficient Government administration. The Government is committed to improving the efficiency coordination and quality of public services. 
It was said in the House two speakers ago that nobody from the Wairarapa would stand up and say there has been an improvement in health services. Well I invite that member to look at the delivery statement of the Wairarapa District Health Board which is second to none in this country in most areas of its operation. Certainly in 3 years I have not had a person come into my constituency office in Masterton and say they are not getting health service delivery. But “not getting health service delivery” was a consistent theme for the 3 years that I was in Opposition and when the Labour Government was in power. 
Second I think we have to focus Government efforts and funding on things that matter most to New Zealanders and on making sure that we do them well. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Tax cuts for the wealthy. 
JOHN HAYES 
: OK you can talk about tax cuts. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member constantly brings me into the debate. You cannot use the word “you” or “your”. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Let us review the question around gift duty. This was a tax that cost $70 million a year to collect and in the last 12 months generated $1.7 million. It cost $70 million so it makes no sense to be in that space. 
We are going to continue to streamline bureaucracy and focus on front-line services. I particularly congratulate Tony Ryall and his people in the health sector for really doing that very well. This Government has a very clear focus—on efficiency coordination and the quality of public services. As managers of the economy as managers of people’s taxes we have a responsibility to the community to do that. 
I thoroughly commend this first reading of the bill and its provisions to the House. We want the State sector to be focused on very clear priorities we want it to deliver high-quality services and we want to eliminate waste across the public sector. Thank you. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 That member John Hayes challenged us to be plain-spoken. Well we could not get more plain-spoken than this. The Crown Entities Reform Bill is just a meagre attempt to cost-cut with no reason or demonstration of benefits to the public. Cut public services cut public sector jobs and cut the role of the community and voluntary sector and non-governmental organisations out of the equation. It is as simple as that. 
I want to confine my contribution to this debate to the aspects relating to the Charities Commission because what the bill proposes to do is absorb the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs. I am a great believer that form follows function and the question that must be asked of members on the other side of the House is why they are absorbing the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs when the non-government sector itself has raised concerns about that when it has asked the Government to implement the review that was promised under the Charities Act 2005 when the Charities Commission was set up and when it has asked to be consulted on this particular issue because yes although there are concerns in non-governmental organisations about the way in which the Charities Commission is undertaking its role there is time for the review to be implemented to get feedback from the sector and work with the sector just as Labour did when we initiated the Charities Commission to ensure that the progress of legislation and the form and the role of the Charities Commission can work alongside the very important role of the community and voluntary sector and non-governmental organisations. I urge the Maori Party member who spoke before me Rahui Katene to read the letter from the Association of Non-Governmental Organisations of Aotearoa that was sent to Tariana Turia urging her to pause on this particular issue because the association has very real concerns about the lack of autonomy and independence that may eventuate from absorbing the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs. 
Labour believes that there is a very strong role that the Charities Commission can play in the long term. In fact the education role that it currently plays to upskill volunteers and strengthen the governance and financial management role in our voluntary organisations is a good one. We are concerned that the Government has made no commitment whatsoever in this area to continue this role and we are very sceptical in fact that by absorbing the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs that arm’s-length independence will be lost. Now we do not believe that the independent role of the Charities Commission should be done because it is a nice thing to do. No. By virtue of the work undertaken by the charitable sector by the community and voluntary sector and by non-governmental organisations in terms of the advocacy that it undertakes which sometimes criticises Government policy it should be at arm’s length and should remain autonomous and independent. That is why. I do not think that the views of the sector have been listened to very well at all by the Government. The sector is certainly listening to this debate and questioning what the go-forward opportunity is with this Government. 
The issue of the  
Kia Tutahi Standing Together Relationship Accord 
 and how that as a working document for the community and voluntary sector is supposed to partner with the community sector is not being upheld by what is being achieved here today. I also wanted to point out that in so far as feedback from community organisations on this matter is concerned it is worth mentioning that they have advocated to a number of Ministers over this year about ways in which constructive opportunities to review the role of the commission and how it can better function as we go forward that feedback has been offered time after time after time. But has the Government listened? No. In this instance it is introducing a measure that is not supported by the sector that does not demonstrate gains back to the community and voluntary sector and that most important fails to recognise that a comprehensive review of the Charities Act could in fact have been reached if the Government had accelerated the review date that is already set down in the Charities Act. 
Although it would be too easy to skim over this particular part of the bill I think we owe it to our community organisations—the 25000 that have already been registered—to provide some type of reason as to why the Government is taking the steps that it has today to absorb the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs. Nobody can really understand the reasons for that and that is the least that could be done for those 25000 organisations throughout the country. They play an important role especially in tough times when families are struggling and every member in this House knows who picks up the slack: our community organisations the community and voluntary sector and our non-governmental organisations. In fact what they will be telling a number of members in this House—and certainly the members in the Labour team—is that they are picking up far more slack with less putea than ever before. So while the Government is washing its hands of any responsibility to fund the capacity of the community and voluntary sector and non-governmental organisations to do their job well and to be able to respond to the needs of vulnerable families out there what is the Government doing? It is hiding all its commitments by making this meagre change which is not supported by the sector and may continue to erode the very important role community organisations are actually taking up in our communities. 
Without prolonging my contribution I can quite confidently say that a number of organisations in the community and voluntary sector will be making submissions on this part of the bill. I look forward to that. We will not be supporting the bill because we do not believe that cost-cutting measures that aim to cut public services and jobs in the public sector will indeed deliver the benefits that the Government thinks they will. 
One last thing: here is a little example of an organisation that was deregistered that is making a particular contribution in the area of social housing. Labour was particularly concerned that Minister Phil Heatley refused last year to intervene to restore charitable status to Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust. The trust plays a very important role in the area of social housing and providing community housing. At a time when the Minister could have shown leadership about the important role that organisations like that have in our communities to put a high urgency and obligation on providing community housing emergency housing and social housing in our communities to respond to those very important needs the Government did nothing. The Minister did nothing and he could have intervened to turn that situation round. We cannot see situations where the Government or the Minister fail to take leadership on important obligations and roles that are being undertaken by the charitable sector. That is just not good enough and we will not tolerate it. 
I believe this bill has enormous implications for other organisations that are undertaking these types of charitable obligations and we do not want to see that trend continue. I hope that that becomes the subject of the submissions that are raised in the select committee and I especially invite those organisations that have been deregistered to present their views to the select committee so that they can be heard in full. 
Having outlined quite specifically the nature of our concerns I am pleased to say Labour will not support this bill. We do not believe it will deliver any benefits. In so far as the community and voluntary sector goes I back it but the Government does not; Labour backs it but the Government does not. 
Debate interrupted. 
Valedictory Statements 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 This will be the last speech I give in this House and I start by acknowledging Pete Hodgson and Jim Anderton who are also giving their valedictory speeches today. They have both made a tremendous contribution to our Parliament and to our country. Their combined service adds up to 48 years. I am very happy to be saying farewell with them today. 
I have had some good advice that a valedictory speech should be dignified and not churlish and I will do my best to meet that standard. However there are some things I really want to say so if I offend anyone in the House today I apologise in advance. It has often been said that there are no friends in politics. That has not been my experience. I have made some wonderful friends and not only in the Labour Party. Of course I have made a few enemies too. In the interests of dignity I will not mention their names and I remain hopeful that they will not mention my name either. 
I first stood for Parliament in 1999 because I was committed to improving the rights of working people. That was a difficult time for so many New Zealanders. As a union organiser I had seen the devastation that the Employment Contracts Act caused in working people’s lives. I got to Parliament for a very brief 10-day stint as a list MP in 1999. I congratulate Keith Locke who actually took my space in the final count after the special votes came in. Keith I bear you no malice. 
In 2002 I was elected as MP for Waitakere. The sheer joy of being part of the Helen Clark and Michael Cullen Government which did so much to bring fairness back to New Zealand is something I will always hold dear not only for the many things that I had campaigned for in my former life—fairer labour laws enhanced health and safety in workplaces Modern Apprenticeships 4 weeks’ holiday paid parental leave increases to the minimum wage and creating jobs for people—but also for the restoration of income-related rents in State houses free early childhood education for every 3 and 4-year-old child affordable doctors’ visits tax credits through Working for Families putting money in the pockets of families who really needed it KiwiSaver help with homeownership and interest-free student loans. Those were exciting times and they have made a mark in our history in making our country a better place for all New Zealanders. 
I have also had the opportunity to be part of some major social changes. These included the amendments to section 59 of the Crimes Act and the Civil Union Act. Social change is always controversial. Emotions run high people become polarised misinformation becomes widespread and there can be more heat than light in the debate. The easy option for some would be to pull back to retain the status quo but I could not in all conscience do that. Chairing the Justice and Electoral Committee on the changes to section 59 of the Crimes Act had its challenges. The law was never about criminalising parents for lightly smacking their kids. Rather it was about protecting our children from being beaten. 
Sue Bradford introduced the legislation to Parliament as a member’s bill. The select committee heard from hundreds of parents caregivers children young people and organisations. I thank all the members of the select committee who treated every submitter with respect. I particularly acknowledge the invaluable contribution of my Labour colleagues Charles Chauvel and Ann Hartley. I also acknowledge National’s Chester Borrows who despite a difference in opinion on how to achieve it shared the same commitment to providing a safer environment for our nation’s children. 
Lobbying at that time was full-on and it was a very intense time both inside and outside Parliament. I recall a conversation with Doug Woolerton from New Zealand First who was supporting the change to the legislation. I said to him: “Dougie are you still with us on changing section 59?”. He replied: “Yes but I’ve just been talking to Chester and I told him his amendment seemed all right. Is that OK?”. I said—and I am sorry about this Chester—“No. Look Chester means well but his amendment won’t be helpful. If you support it I will be heartbroken.” He replied in true Dougie style: “OK sweetheart. I’ll tell him I’ve changed my mind.” Subsequently Doug Woolerton and the late Brian Donnelly were put under immense pressure from members of their party to change their stance. They never wavered and I want to say in this House how much I admired their courage and their integrity. I have strong views about the damaging role played by some members of the media on the issue at the time which makes it especially important that I congratulate all the wonderful organisations that advocated so strongly for our children because they knew it was the right thing to do. 
The civil union legislation was another important social change and I am proud to have been part of that change. I still struggle to understand why some people find it so difficult to recognise the right of all people to have their loving relationships acknowledged and celebrated. 
In 2007 my member’s bill the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill was drawn from the ballot. When the Human Rights Act was enacted the New Zealand Defence Force had a policy of not allowing women to serve in combat roles which was recognised in that legislation. However the Defence Force had discontinued that policy in 2000. Despite the fact that the discrimination had ceased the wording of the Act prevented New Zealand from complying with the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women known as CEDAW. The bill removed that wording and allowed us to ratify the United Nations convention. It was a historic moment for New Zealand—and we beat the Australians to it. 
Perhaps my proudest experience was being entrusted with the passage of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill in Parliament. The bill was promoted by the Waitakere City Council under Mayor Bob Harvey’s leadership the Auckland Regional Council and the Rodney District Council. It provided long-term protection for the Waitakere Ranges—in particular from the ad hoc development described by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as death by a thousand cuts. The Waitakere Ranges Protection Society and the Hon Jonathan Hunt had campaigned for many years and I am proud to have played my part in providing added protection for this iconic landscape for generations to come. 
During my time in Government and in Opposition I have been actively involved in victims’ rights. I was the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee during the inquiry into victims’ rights in 2007 and later became the Labour Opposition spokesperson on victims’ rights. At the inquiry we heard from many victims of crime and also from some organisations. The messages were twofold. On the one hand some like the Sensible Sentencing Trust and members of the media focused almost exclusively on how long the perpetrator should be locked away. On the other hand others saw more complex issues. Many told the select committee about feeling let down by their treatment within the justice system and there was a need for better information and support more counselling a victims’ advocate and enhanced restorative justice. Some progress has been made but there is still much to do. 
I am not renowned as a bipartisan person; I will admit that. But this is one issue that cries out for a bipartisan approach. Victims’ rights and law and order should not be political footballs. If there is one message I would like to leave this House with it is that making the Department of Corrections our second-largest Public Service agency is really nothing to be proud of and it will do nothing to guarantee community safety in the long term. 
On a less bipartisan note one of the most challenging issues I have been involved in was the accident compensation scheme’s cuts to counselling for victims and survivors of sexual abuse. Many campaigned for reinstatement of that counselling including survivors and the professionals and organisations that support them. After almost a year and an independent inquiry some counselling support was reinstated but not before immense harm had been done and to people who had suffered so much already. I admired so much the tenacity and the courage of those women and men and it was a privilege to work alongside them. 
My other recent role has been as Opposition spokesperson on disability issues. Whilst we were in Government some exciting things happened in the disability sector. These included making New Zealand Sign Language an official language of New Zealand in 2006 New Zealand being awarded the prestigious Franklin Delano Roosevelt International Disability Award in 2007 and ratifying the United National Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008. However there are many challenges ahead. In these hard economic times disabled people are the most adversely affected in terms of education training and employment opportunities. It is the Government’s role to ensure that all citizens have the ability to participate in society and to reach their full potential. 
My maiden speech drew on my experiences as a union organiser—in fact it was those experiences that brought me here—and my belief in the need for a strong democratic union movement remains. The contribution of unions and workers is essential to the well-being of working people and their families. I can only hope that I have honoured their contribution during my time here. 
There are many people here whom I want to acknowledge today: all the hard-working parliamentary staff the messengers the security people the cleaners the Hansard select committees buildings travel and library staff—all of the workers here without exception do a tremendous job. My office in Waitakere has been very busy and people have come with many issues from immigration to accident compensation housing training jobs education and health to name just a few. We could not fix everything but I know we were able to assist in making some really positive changes in people’s lives. That is one of the most rewarding parts of the job and it happens only because of the extraordinary commitment of wonderful staff. 
I thank all of my staff over the last 9 years. In particular in Waitakere I thank Debbie Taylor Don Clark Elysa Hyde and Megan Murphy who is with us now. Here in Parliament I thank Gay Pledger Michiel Burger and Ritchie Wards who is also with me now. They are all fantastic people and have done so much to support me personally and they have gone all out to assist the people who needed it most. 
My thanks go to my hard-working westie Labour team over the years including but not restricted to my famous fellow westie MPs: Carmel Sepuloni David Cunliffe Darien Fenton and now Phil Twyford. I thank Enzo and Gina Giordani Debbie Taylor Mike Loughran Brian and Mary Lythe Beverley Buffett Don and Noreen Clark Trixie and Bruce Harvey Hamish McCracken Barbara and Len Hill Gerry Neil MacKenzie Ngaire Kimberley Inu Mohammed Faiaz Tala Eric Bechet Jeremy Greenbrook-Held Gary Marshall Kerry Christian Barbara Hutchinson Celia Dave Downing and Dave Munro. Their support both for me and for Labour never wavered. They are all people I very much admire and am proud to call my friends. And of course I thank all of my mates in the wider Labour whanau. 
I will get a bit emotional now—just pause everybody for a moment. My taxi driver Dorothy works harder than anybody I know. I will really miss those Tuesday morning and Thursday evening journeys hearing about her family. Dorothy’s five children are all at university or will be there in the future. That is testament to her and her husband’s support and self-sacrifice. I am heartened that policies like Working for Families interest-free student loans abolition of youth rates and increases to the minimum wage have helped. Those journeys have been a constant reminder of why I am here. 
My best wishes go to Phil Goff Annette King and our team—my talented caucus colleagues and our fantastic staff—for building on Labour’s legacy taking into this election the most progressive platform Labour has presented to the people of New Zealand: a fairer tax system a $15-an-hour minimum wage no asset sales integrating our environmental and economic future and putting children at the heart of our policies. 
To Charles Chauvel Moana Mackey Darien Fenton and Carmel Sepuloni—my very very good friends—I will miss you all. Also to Carmel you have hit the ground running in Waitakere and I look forward to working alongside you in the next 2 months. I can say in all sincerity that Carmel Sepuloni is twice the woman I am. 
To my brother Graeme; my sister-in-law Pru; my favourite niece Jessie and nephew Rufus; and my very very good friends Dave Hollander and Kaine Thompson thank you. You have been a big part of my life here in Wellington. To Mike’s and my modern blended family—blended families are now the new mainstream. To Mike’s children and in-laws Nancy Michael Ewen and Kelly; to those beautiful grandchildren Kai Mahe Lena and Archie; and to my sister-in-law Sharda—actually my first husband’s second ex-wife—and my stepson Ashwin I am so happy you are all in my life. To my son Mark my daughter Kirsty my son-in-law Shane and our grandsons Nikau and Mikaia I love you all dearly and I am so looking forward to spending more time with you. To Mike my rock I have such high expectations of your support and you almost always deliver. I am so lucky to have you as my partner and you are lucky to have me too. 
Helen Clark went off to the United Nations Michael Cullen went off to chair New Zealand Post and I am going around New Zealand in a campervan. Mike and I are looking forward to it: an opportunity to explore our beautiful country and catch up with many friends which we have been unable to do for quite some time. The Government will be very relieved to know that we will be complying with the Freedom Camping Act and all waste will be contained and disposed of appropriately. 
Now I am out of here. This has been a wonderful 9 years for me and a privilege very few people get to experience. I leave paid political work with a commitment to continuing in voluntary political work. Thank you. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I arrived here in 1990 but before then I worked for the Labour Party. Jim Anderton who is speaking next hired me in 1980 when I was almost a 30-year-old. I am now 61; I have got to get out of here. Politics has been my life all of that time—nearly all of that time actually; for 2 or 3 years in the early mid-1980s we lived in Britain. Anne wanted British midwifery training the kids went to school there and I went out to fund-raise as the local veterinarian. We lived on top of the Durham coalfield. The veterinary practice included pit villages and when Margaret Thatcher and Arthur Scargill engaged in mortal combat it was the little people and of course their pets who got it in the neck. I saw grinding poverty amongst plenty. I tried to join the British Labour Party—curiously it said it was full. 
Back home David Lange had become the Prime Minister and in 1985 I was appointed as the party’s marginal seats organiser. At the 1987 election Labour’s vote went down but the number of Labour MPs went up. We had perfected the art of putting almost all of the party’s resources into just 15 percent of the seats. Voters in the other 85 percent were of no interest to us. It was a great tactical victory. But it meant that I voted against first past the post in 1992 and 1993 and I will do so again next month. First past the post and its lookalike the supplementary-member representation system reduce the value of most people’s votes. Under MMP all votes are equal. 
The irony was that the 1987 victory exposed our deep divide. It cast the Labour Party into the role of opposition to the Labour Government. I was assigned to David Lange’s office to do the numbers again and again. Then the party itself split asunder—do you remember this Jim? You caused it! I had to ask every member in Sydenham to choose one path or the other. 
I read my 1990 maiden speech recently; it had two clear threads: an abhorrence of poverty and a commitment to sustainability. Those two threads persist. I cannot bear the unfairness of poverty and its sheer wastefulness. I am gripped still by the maxim I used back then: we do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. 
Some people who were in the gallery then are back today supporting me still but now also coming to claim me. Anne is here. She is a good part of my decision to leave politics. Anne has lived many adventures of her own meantime but she is ready for the next phase of her life and I have been invited along. I asked Phil and Annette to take me off the front bench 3 years ago so I guess it has been pretty well signalled. Remarkably my mum and dad are here too. They are down from Whangarei where I was born and raised still supporting me. Sister Vicki and Trevor are here; cousin Grant and Liz and all of their family are here. One of our sons Tristan is here; the other is in Australia running his adventure tourism business. Tristan’s wife Amanda is at home looking after Cooper their first child our first grandchild and mum and dad’s first great-grandchild. The wee fella turns 2 weeks old tomorrow. 
About 15 years ago two young black men from a francophone nation in West Africa washed up on our shores at Port Chalmers as stowaways. After 2 days of negotiation I dug them off the ship. They had run for their lives. It was a pretty high-profile event at the time—national telly and all that. John Banks the noisiest shock jock of the lot more or less declared an invasion. They lived with us for several years. Anne mothered them. They learnt English they studied they became friends they became Kiwis and then they became family. Each has produced a daughter since and each daughter is a delight. One of them Gloria is in the gallery. She is nearly 3½ and she brought her mum Marie-Paule with her. 
I am not sure whether I am the first veterinarian in this House or whether I am just the first veterinarian for a while but while in Opposition I was materially involved in the passage of new and badly needed animal welfare legislation. The details of how that happened no longer matter really except that I had good advice and good luck and I am grateful to all who helped. It is coming up for review now as it should. I have just one insight to humbly offer. It is that the architecture of the legislation and the development of codes are its strength. Issues keep changing. Today it is the egg industry; this time last year it was sow crates; tomorrow mark my words it will be heli-hunting. But through the continuous development of codes the legislation will keep up. 
The 9 years in Cabinet were rippers. We racked up huge hours. I thought I was privileged. I am sure that today’s Ministers feel the same way. We were incredibly well led. We knew what we wanted to do; our years in Opposition had not been wasted. And we had regained unity. Helen forged it and it persists today as part of her enduring legacy. Something else is an enduring legacy of that Government: each year we paid down the Government’s debt until there was not any left and each year unemployment fell until it was the lowest in the Western World except for some months when South Korea’s was lower. So when the global economic crisis came we had no public debt and we had the shortest dole queue in the world. That was not a bad starting point for a new Government—even more so when one recalls the endless pressure to cut taxes that we were under during that time. For 9 years this Chamber rang with the baying of the tax-cutters. When we finally did cut taxes in late 2008 it was the beginning of a vital economic stimulus that had we listened in earlier years we would not have been as able to afford. 
All in all I held 14 portfolios and several associateships as well. I do not know of anyone else to have held as many but then again I have not particularly looked. Of course there is no time to dwell on them or even to list them. Statistics was tiny; health was not. Science was exciting; commerce was a little less so. Transport is full of characters but fisheries has a whole lot more than that. I inherited a mess from Max Bradford in energy; and being the last to touch science tertiary education and economic development on this side I earnestly hope that no one across the way thinks that they inherited a mess from me. In all of those portfolios a lot was done. I was an activist Minister. I am a restless person. The Government was a restless Government. We were criticised sometimes for having too many strategies to implement and I just say to that better too many than too few. 
Valedictories are supposed to be about the past but my head lives pretty well constantly in the future. So let me give one portfolio climate change a little bit more attention because the world’s response to it has barely begun. There are three key problems. The first is that the global addiction to cheap oil persists. It is an astonishing fuel but they are not making it any more. The second is that climate change is the only area of politics where when the proof of the need to act finally arrives the ability to act will have long since gone. The third is that we do not have governance structures that are equal to the task. Disturbingly we may even have discovered the limits of nation-State democracies as an idea. In New Zealand we have an opportunity and in my view an obligation to contribute to agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation because we can and because success increases agricultural productivity. I commend the current Government’s commitment to continuing and expanding that science and I wish all involved in it success and patience in equal measure. 
Of course one way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to run out of cheap oil. Inevitably we will. That requires a public-policy response. Sure the market will play its part: when a tank of gas costs $300 not $100 behaviour will change all right. But the market alone cannot deliver that transition. Governments need to help. Most Governments have started. We have just stopped with fuel efficiency standards scrapped the biofuels sales obligation scrapped curtailed sustainability measures in general—indeed the very word has been scrubbed off documents in a frenzied cleansing of the lexicon. This is unfortunate expensive behaviour. I spoke with a New Zealand biofuels company recently just by way of example that is pulling out of here and investing instead in Thailand and in the US. We need to be smarter than that. 
That leads me to sustainable development in general. I view it as a uniting idea capable of creating wealth creating ecological room creating economic diversification and as important resonating strongly with the Kiwi ethos. Certainly cows and tourism alone are not a future precisely because those activities are not scalable. There are now three dairy cows for every one that existed when I was in rural practice. If three dairy cows are not a limit four will be or eight or some such number. Tourism is similarly not scalable in New Zealand; the Galapagos effect will see to that at some point. I define sustainability very simply: if we cannot do it forever then sooner or later we cannot do it at all. Mining national parks is a case in point; so is an energy strategy based on offshore oil and gas production; so is getting rid of public debt by selling public assets. These are all things that can be done but once. They are unsustainable by definition. 
Sustainable development is very strongly associated with technology—all sorts of technologies—but also with design with intellectual property and in some cases with different and new business models. Whether it is applied to a further advance in some primary product or whether it is headed in the direction of clean energy weightless exports the creative sector or whatever we want to call it sustainable development demands high skills. It is a hi-tech high-skills future. 
Here is another observation. There is a strong association between private sector research and development investment and exporting. An association is not a cause and not all exporters research. But nearly all research-intensive companies export. Look more closely and see those same companies are likely to be developing sustainably and usually very quickly. So policies such as cancelling the research and development tax credit make no sense to me. The Government said it could not afford it and that is fair enough. But the very next year it lowered the company tax rate from 30c to 28c and that cost even more. We must in New Zealand pay more attention to those firms that owe their existence not to local domestic demand but to some technology or some clever entrepreneur or to both. Their sandpit is global not local. They usually export; they usually grow quickly; they usually pay high wages. They are the game-changers. Not all firms are equal. 
But sustainable development does not address the rich-poor gap. It is growing inexorably all around the developed world for many reasons. One is the tension between global salaries and local wages. More than one labour market is at play. I think our approach to poverty—I hope our approach to poverty I should say perhaps—has just started to change. It has always been a social justice issue: poverty is unfair on the poor. I think it is now being viewed also as an issue of social dysfunction: poverty is bad for everyone. There are strong links between the rich-poor gap and many social ills: teenage pregnancy obesity violence—you name it. Research including New Zealand research especially out of the Dunedin and Christchurch longitudinal studies is beginning to unravel some of the detail. Addressing poverty matters. In my view we underuse and have underused the minimum wage as a tool. We were the first nation in the world to regulate a minimum wage back in 1894. Since then it has variously risen above two-thirds of the average wage—if I recall correctly back in Norman Kirk’s time—and fallen below the depths of irrelevancy on many occasions. Currently it is a bit below half the average wage. If we are to reap the benefits of a relatively flexible labour market which is what we have we should also provide a bunch of civilised minima that endure. 
In New Zealand the debate is usually framed around the idea that raising the minimum wage will throw the low paid out of work altogether and many crocodile tears are shed at that altar. But research suggests the opposite: that raising the minimum wage can stimulate local economies and reduce unemployment although usually only slightly. The current chair of the Council of Economic Advisers to the US President Professor Alan Krueger is one such researcher. He is a mainstream empirical researcher who deals in the practical not in the theoretical. I appreciate that this House is some distance away from doing for the low paid what we have already done for superannuitants—establishing an agreed floor—but I will leave folk with the idea anyway. 
The time has come to say thank you to Alicia Michael Ellie David Karen Pene Eric Margaret Les Fiona Don and Natalie. What a wonderful mix of talent and commitment. Looking back at me is the Hon Stan Rodger my mentor then and now. I say thanks to Stan. Over there are Mike Williams and Mike Smith who have been my friends for ever. They are not even written into the speech but they are great thinkers and great comrades. When we left Government in 2008 Keith Mason who was my senior private secretary for most of those years drew up a list of over 80 people who had worked in my office and many of those people are here. I cannot name them all but I thank them. If I think of the very many chief executives and senior officials with whom I have worked the numbers just get bigger—much bigger. So I shall say that amongst them are some of the finest New Zealanders I have met. For all that the Public Service has driven me to distraction and despair the Public Service has also filled me with uncomplicated respect. Thanks to those who work in this complex or who arrive at midnight to clean it. They are people who do their job well and then somehow manage to do a little bit more. They are a great bunch. Thanks to my colleagues from across the political divide for their comradeship engagement and wit in the non-adversarial parts of this job be that around the select committee table or around the world. 
Over recent months many people in Dunedin have stopped to thank me for my efforts on their behalf over the years. All of them have it the wrong way round. Representing Dunedin North has been a privilege pure and simple. It is an astonishing electorate in more ways than can be described. The Dunedin North Labour Party is one of the best organisations in the land. It has hundreds of clever argumentative wonderful people. It has depth it has breadth and it has fun. It is also a magnet for talent. I hope members will see what I mean should David Clark take his seat in this Chamber in a few weeks. 
Here is a story to finish with. Long ago I was attacking a piece of rough ground next door with a big self-propelling rotary hoe. Instead of selecting reverse gear I dropped it into top gear. It went over the bank and down about 3 or 4 metres to the stream bed below and I went with it. I do not know how but I got to the stream bed first. I know this to be the case because I remember very clearly the rotary hoe arriving shortly afterwards. Remarkably I was not badly hurt. I reached up I turned the machine off and I collected my wits. On the opposite bank a fine old bloke called Jimmy Hannah who is no longer with us appeared above me. He had a heart of gold a face like a raisin and a way with words. He was a retired wharfie. He shouted “Are you OK Pete?”. I said “Yeah I think so.” He replied “Good-oh I was just saying to her indoors ‘By jeez I hope that’s not a by-election.’ ” That event did not end my political career but this event does. It has been a hell of a ride. Thanks everybody for having me. I will see you around. Ka kite ano. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 Those who may wish to time my speech will note that I am starting 10 minutes late! I have heard MPs say that from the age of 14 years they wanted to be Prime Minister. I must admit I never had any ambition to be a member of Parliament. My early ambitions were to be a New Zealand cricketer or an All Black. And with Dan Carter out if Graham Henry is still looking for depth at first five-eighths I would be happy to pick up the phone. I did not have therefore a searing ambition to be a member of Parliament. That might be because I went to a school called Seddon Tech a school in those days—looking back now—for street kids of whom not much was expected. But educational planners were wrong to set their sights for us so low and some of our best teachers did not do so. 
One of my classmates was Bruce McLaren a polio victim who at 15 years of age was building a racing car in the school’s engineering workshop. He went on to win the New Zealand Grand Prix—not in that particular car I might say although he did win the New Zealand hill climb championship in it because it had only one gear and the car went 80 miles an hour in it. We did not know him as Bruce the famous racing car manufacturer; we knew him as just Bruce the kid with polio. I gained confidence from kids around me like Bruce who showed that we could be anything and do anything we wanted to be or do. So I grew up with a conviction that one person could make a difference. 
As Irish statesman Edmund Burke once observed: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men to do nothing.” Growing up in poorer working-class suburbs of Auckland I noticed that the power pylons were in Mangere Otahuhu and Mount Roskill not in Remuera Epsom or St Heliers. The sewage treatment plant was in Mangere off Puketutu Island in the Manukau Harbour not on Brown’s Island off St Heliers or Mission Bay beaches in the Waitemata Harbour where it was actually originally planned to be. There were no Maori in the All Blacks teams to South Africa. The proliferation of nuclear weapons and New Zealand’s involvement in wars that were clearly not ours—and in addition in the case of Viet Nam irrational in the context of the history of that country—were all carefully considered New Zealand Government policies. 
My own philosophic development through this period was heavily influenced by my conversion to Catholicism as a teenager and a resulting commitment to Christian teachings in support of social and economic justice. So I joined the Mangere Bridge branch of the Labour Party. On the first night they made me vice-president—at the first meeting I went to. I was appointed to be a delegate at the first meeting I went to of the Manukau Labour electorate committee and they made me president. I began to wonder whether at that rate I would end up in Wellington as the leader of the party by the end of the next week. 
At the tender age of 27 I stood for and was elected to the Manukau City Council together with my then socialist colleague Roger Douglas. We set about the public purchase of large tracts of land on which to develop our new city. The idea of selling public assets never occurred to either of us. We made the use of libraries and swimming pools free of charge. And later I was elected to the Auckland City Council and the Auckland Regional Authority and president of the New Zealand Labour Party. To the extreme annoyance of many politicians on all sides of politics who never forgave  
Time 
 magazine from completely out of left field the magazine selected me as “a New Zealand leader of the future”. Mike Moore in particular never forgot. 
I worked with Norman Kirk who was the greatest political orator I ever heard and later Bill Rowling when I was president of the New Zealand Labour Party. Bill was the most underrated politician I have ever known and one of the grittiest and most courageous politicians I ever met. I remember Bill and me looking at grim polling news over a beer in the lounge of his leader’s office in 1981. The poll trends indicated that if they continued like that until election day Labour would get no votes whatsoever. We actually went on to win more votes than the Muldoon-led National Party but still lost—an early cause of the electoral dissatisfaction that led to the change to MMP. My message to Phil Goff therefore is to hang in there—elections are not over until they are over! 
To beat the National Party of the day we had to catch and roll over the much-vaunted—justifiably in my view—political machine of Sir George Chapman then the highly effective National Party president and we did! By 1984 Labour had more than 100000 party members. I will not ask how many party members parties have got these days but I doubt whether it is mass membership like that. 
The year before I moved from the city of my birth Auckland to my adopted city of Christchurch. The people of Sydenham and now Wigram have been both loyal and generous to me through four political parties—which must be some kind of  
Guinness Book of Records 
 record—and nine consecutive general elections. The greatest satisfaction I have had in politics is to be able to help thousands of individuals and hundreds of communities in ways that almost no other occupation can make possible. 
But it gave me no satisfaction at all to see the Government we had all worked so hard to elect in 1984 sheet inequality into New Zealand in a way that I could never have envisaged. The gap between rich and poor widened by 127 percent in 6 years—or 14 percent a year—between 1984 and 1990 and in my view New Zealand has never recovered from that enormous chasm. GDP between 1984 and 1993 grew by half a percent a year on average while the world economy was growing rapidly. Compare that to the Clark-led Government of 1999-2008 where in real terms New Zealand’s GDP grew by 36 percent—an average of 4 percent per year or eight times the growth of the Rogernomics period. No one says change was not necessary of course but the scale timing and impact of the change were borne largely by poorer New Zealanders. We are still dealing with child poverty the decline in core services like education health care and housing and radical inequality. According to OECD figures poverty in New Zealand is highest among children—around 15 percent of them. None of us in this House can be proud of that. The top 10 percent of households in New Zealand now own 500 times more than the bottom 10 percent. That is the kind of society that our ancestors left in droves. 
Inequality affects everything about our lives it is unfair and it is avoidable. That is why I left the Labour Party in 1989 to form the NewLabour Party. I genuinely thought at the time—along I must say with almost all other commentators—that I was heading for personal political oblivion. Quite a few members of Parliament assured me with some enthusiasm that I was. But the lesson in that is that it is really worth sticking up for what you believe in. 
The promises broken by successive Governments both National and Labour from 1984 to 1993 led to the dramatic changes that have taken place in Parliament under MMP. I remember that 93 percent of the population was against the sale of Telecom in 1990. I was in this House when Richard Prebble got up and said that the country was “lucky to have a Government of such courage that it would stand up to a lobby group like that”. It was no wonder that people rebelled against an electoral system that delivered such outcomes and in choosing MMP they did in my view make the right decision. 
Between 1853 and 1984 when I first came to the House 1102 MPs had been elected to the New Zealand House of Representatives. Of those 1102 25 were women. Currently there are 38 women in this Parliament—more than were elected in a total of 131 years under first past the post. People would do well to think on those things when the referendum is held later this year. There are now more Maori as well as Asian and Pacific MPs. Parliament is now more like New Zealand and if people do not like it they should look in the mirror because they will see themselves reflected here. So MMP was the right choice for New Zealand. 
I have no doubt that I also made the right decision in joining with others to form NewLabour when I did then taking it into the Alliance with other parties and later when the Alliance was set to become a threat to an enlightened Government rather than a supporter of it forming the Progressives as a coalition partner for Labour. I have no regrets about any of that. In the same circumstances I would do exactly the same again today. There was no point being part of a party when I could not in all honesty ask my constituents at that time to vote for it. I ended up with a Labour electorate committee with 24 members 23 of whom were unemployed. How can you ask people like that to commit themselves to putting you back into Parliament? And there is no point in asking your constituents for their vote if you do not intend to take on the opportunity and responsibility of being in Government regardless of the risk of doing so that smaller parties face. Because only by sitting around the Cabinet table and helping to make the decisions can you make the greatest contribution to the well-being of those you claim to represent. As I have often said one bad day in Government is better than a thousand good days in Opposition and anyone who has been in both knows how true that is. 
I pay tribute to Helen Clark who had the clearest and most insightful understanding of anyone I have ever worked with in politics and to the positive difference the Government she led made to this country. 
My term as Minister of Agriculture as well as Minister for Economic Development and many others—as Pete knows too numerous to try to elucidate—demonstrated to me over and over again how the real strength of the New Zealand economy lies in innovation. Ernest Rutherford once said: “New Zealand doesn’t have much money so we have to think.” Our core industries—sectors like agriculture horticulture forestry and fishing—are contrary to urban mythology all high-tech science-based industries. Our food production ability and potential have never been more economically significant for New Zealand than they are today. Countries in our economic zone like India and China are the dynamic economic powerhouses of this century and we are on the ground floor ready to grow with them. They need high-quality food producers like New Zealand like they need no other partners. 
I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to my wife Carole who has stood with me through 27 tumultuous years and to my family and extended family—many of whom are here today—who know how much time energy and cost all this has taken and caused. 
My extraordinary long-serving electorate staff who started this journey with me in 1983 are still with me. I do not know anyone in the House who has had the same electorate organiser for 27 years but if there is someone I would like to know. In 1990 Jeanette Lawrence said to me that I was going to win Sydenham. I said: “Look don’t delude yourself Jeanette. No one has ever done this before and it can’t be done. I’ve booked a plane back to my manufacturing and engineering company on Monday and we mustn’t fool ourselves.” She said: “I tell you you’ll win by 4007 votes.” I won by 4003 and I swear to God she knew the four people who had not voted. Liz Maunsell Shona Richards Marty Braithwaite and dozens of volunteers help 1500 constituents every year through my electorate office. 
My parliamentary staff have worked tirelessly and well beyond what could reasonably have been expected. Sally Griffin David Cuthbert John and Josie Pagani and Tony Simpson you have all been valued colleagues. 
I also pay tribute to parliamentary staff the Speaker’s office and the Clerk’s Office the VIP drivers who will always be remembered by anyone who has held ministerial rank and the messengers. My thanks for your unfailing courtesy and assistance over so many years. 
And to my former NewLabour Alliance and Progressive Party colleagues who are present in Parliament today my grateful thanks for your invaluable contribution throughout what has been a remarkable journey: Sandra Lee—who actually led the first Maori party in this Parliament—Matt Robson John Wright and Grant Gillon not to mention Reg Boorman my former Labour colleague whom I once had to persuade not to engage in a fisticuffs bout with Richard Prebble at a particularly robust meeting of the Labour Party caucus in the Rogernomics era. 
Also my Labour Party colleagues particularly Phil Goff and Annette King. We have been on a long journey together and at the end are now on the same side again. We have Kiwibank and Air New Zealand to remind us that publicly owned assets can be run successfully by high-quality Public Service and other appointees of the Government in the interests of all New Zealanders. 
And as far as Kiwibank is concerned I will always remember Annette King’s contribution at a particularly vital final Cabinet policy committee meeting which I have never disclosed—and I will probably get hung for doing it but there we are this is my only opportunity I think. After months of exhaustive advocacy by me of the New Zealand Post business case for the bank—I had to knock down every objection and they were multitudinous one by one—Annette King finally turned to Michael Cullen after 3 hours of this and said these immortal words: “Michael Jim’s beaten back every argument against the bank we’ve ever put up—for God’s sake give him the bloody bank!”. And Michael Cullen in equally immortal words said: “Oh all right then.”! 
Finally I want to mention two areas that have been central concerns for me over many years in this Parliament where I hope that work will continue into the future: suicide prevention and prevention of drug and alcohol abuse. These areas are sometimes sidelined because they are complex and hard to solve. They are not sexy in the same way as many other issues that we front. Progress is often frustrating. Yet they are indicators of a community in that to the extent that it does not address the needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens nor has the will to make necessary changes it fails in its responsibility to care for all of our citizens. 
To those critics—who seem pretty voluminous these days—who constantly belittle and cynically demean political participation and representation in this Chamber I can do no better than quote the words of former United States President Teddy Roosevelt who said in a speech on citizenship: “It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs who comes up short again and again because there is no effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who knows at worst if he fails he at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall not be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” 
My task now is to do what I can to help my adopted beleaguered and loved city of Christchurch to recover from the disaster by which it has been struck. It has been a privilege to serve in this House and I want to end by again thanking my constituents for the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do so. Thank you Mr Speaker. 
Sitting suspended from 6.13 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Crown Entities Reform Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Tena koutou e te Whare. I will take what may be a brief call on behalf of the Green Party to say that we will oppose the Crown Entities Reform Bill and to set out some of our reasoning. This bill is one of those bills that is good in parts but overall we believe it is not worthy of support. 
I will touch on the elements of the bill that we like to begin with. The first element I want to acknowledge is the ending of the Crown Health Financing Agency. This agency has been extremely important to the health sector. It has been effectively the sector’s bank for some years now and I believe that Graeme Bell is deserving of considerable praise for the way he has carried out that work. Certainly it is an agency that was absolutely essential in times past but for the most part the role it has been performing is now over. We are able to move forward without that agency but we note the positive contribution it has made. 
The second aspect of the bill that I think is very positive on balance is the creation of a Health Promotion Agency. Again it is no slight at all on the various entities that are being rolled into this new agency because each of them has done some sterling work for New Zealand and New Zealanders over many years in some cases. What I hope will transpire should the bill be passed and this new agency created is that the new agency will build on the work carried out by those agencies rather than start from square one. 
One of the things that the new agency will have the potential to provide is a unified approach to health promotion. Health promotion I need to remind the House is all about keeping people well in the first place. There is a well-established formula for the actions that Governments need to take to be able to do that: the promotion of healthy public policy the creation of supportive environments the strengthening of community action the development of personal skills and the reorientation of health services. The most important of those from the point of view of the Government and the one where the Government is most directly able to change outcomes is that of developing and promoting healthy public policies. 
The new Health Promotion Agency will have greater clout and greater ability to be able to influence public policy although I note that that is one of the functions that is not explicitly set out in the bill. I hope it is one of the matters that is addressed during the consideration of the bill by the Government Administration Committee. 
I also want to draw attention to another function that is not clearly set out in the bill and that is the funding of health promotion activity and public health work. The bill transfers some functions of the Ministry of Health to the new agency but it is unclear about what will happen to the funding of public health. 
I urge the Government and the select committee to very strongly consider adding the funding of public health services into the functions of the new agency and I fear that the alternative may be for the ministry to devolve funding of public health services to district health boards. In my view and in the view of the Green Party that would be a grave error in that it would run some of the risks that have befallen mental health funding where funding intended for a particular purpose is in fact transferred over and used for another purpose. 
Perhaps I might move on to mental health funding now. One of the aspects that we oppose in the bill is the rolling of the Mental Health Commission into the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner. We oppose that for a variety of reasons. One is that it will weaken the focus on mental health. 
Mental health has had an interesting journey in the health sector. It was very clearly a Cinderella service in the health sector—one that was underfunded and under-recognised by mainstream services—but through the work of the Mental Health Commission it has developed a greater prominence. Our awareness of mental health needs is much greater and mental health services have become much better. 
The development of the blueprint for mental health services was a very important landmark event in health services development in this country. Still however at this point when the Mental Health Commission is to be rolled into the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner the Mental Health Commission has not completed its task. What we still see from district health boards is that money that is reserved—ring-fenced in fact—for mental health services is being used outside of the ring-fence and for other services. 
That is occurring at a time when all bar one I think of our 20 district health boards have not yet met their blueprint volumes for mental health services. In other words they are not yet providing all of the mental health services that the blueprint says they ought to be. So this is not the time to risk the Mental Health Commission’s mission by this kind of change and that is what the bill does. 
The Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner is another institution within the health sector that does a splendid job but it is a very different job from the one that the Mental Health Commission performs. Our fear from this party is that this change will undermine the work of the Mental Health Commission and we do not believe that is appropriate. 
The other significant change that is intended by this bill is to roll the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs. We believe that that would be a terrible mistake. We would be probably the first party in this House to have some criticisms of the way that the Charities Commission has gone about its work but nonetheless we believe that the institution of the Charities Commission is an important one and here is the reason. Charities—the community sector; that third sector—are explicitly not part of the State sector and part of the whole rationale for the development of a Charities Commission in the first place was to ensure that that third sector the community sector did not become hostage to ministerial whim. We said that the policing of that sector the regulation of that sector needed to be independent from ministerial intervention and ministerial control. By rolling the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs that separation is entirely lost. The door is again opened to political interference and to political decisions about that third sector and its own regulation. We believe that is inappropriate. 
So on balance the bill is a mixture of some things that have some promise and are actually very positive and some things that are the wrong way to go. On that basis we cannot support the bill. We hope that some changes will be made at the select committee to enable us to support the bill in its future stages and we are very happy to work with other parties to enable that to occur. Thank you. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak to the Crown Entities Reform Bill. I am not surprised that on the one hand the Green Party is supporting the bill and on the other they say they are going to oppose it. That is really in line with the muddled thinking that continues to be exhibited by the Green Party. 
I say that I am just delighted with the bill what it brings to this House and the changes it makes. The purpose of this bill is to amalgamate certain functions of existing agencies for greater efficiency and effectiveness. That is absolutely necessary. It is one of the hallmarks of the current Government. It is about the coordination and quality of public services and the streamlining of bureaucracy and we want to place a great deal of emphasis on this. I say that the changes are anticipated to save $19.6 million in the 4 years from July 2012 with an ongoing savings after that of $4.1 million. So although there will be small transition costs of about a million dollars I think that the savings overall will be of huge benefit to the Government and to the taxpayers of New Zealand. 
We want the State sector to be based on the following principles: clear priorities high-quality services and reduced waste. I cannot understand why any political party could not support that and vote for the bill accordingly but that is not the case of course with the Greens. Currently we have 38 Government departments over 150 Crown entities and more than 200 agencies and we need to make sure they are efficient robust and effective and that they provide quality services. We need to make sure that we get bangs for our bucks and get the best outcome possible for every single dollar we spend. That is why I absolutely applaud the provisions of this bill. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is interesting to follow on from that contribution from Sandra Goudie on the Crown Entities Reform Bill because in her short contribution the bulk of the content of the speech was about improving the efficiency reducing the waste and reducing the cost of the State sector. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Labour increased it by 50 percent. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It is true that Labour took a public sector that had been cut back to its absolute bone and actually put a little bit of meat and muscle on it again. I do not think there is much fat that can be trimmed from the public sector. But a public sector that is trimmed back to its bone is not capable of running efficiently and I think Labour had an excellent track record of restoring and rebuilding the public sector. It was not nearly the size it was when National first took the knife to it in 1990. All Labour did was restore it to a reasonable size and make it effective and efficient once again. 
In fact the sector is regarded as being so effective and efficient internationally that rating agency Standard and Poor’s said it does not regard the New Zealand State sector as being either bloated or inefficient. One of its analysts said: “Generally we look at the Government in New Zealand as being relatively small and compared to its peers it’s quite efficient.” So one has to wonder exactly what the problem is that the Government is trying to solve. [ 
Interruption 
] I know it is a minor detail like evidence as my colleague Charles Chauvel points out. But I would have thought that the Government at the moment would be trying its damndest to get into Standard and Poor’s good books. But again the Government has just completely overlooked what Standard and Poor’s had to say; it knows best and it has its ideology that it has to follow. That really at the end of the day is what this bill all about. 
I think most of the arguments about where this bill is lacking have been reasonably well traversed by my colleagues in Labour and I appreciate the excellent contribution from Kevin Hague from the Green Party as well. We do understand that Governments do not have a bottomless pot of gold and decisions have to be made about where a Government’s priorities lie. That ultimately is actually what this bill is all about—it is about priorities. 
We know that the Government does not prioritise mental health and it does not prioritise addiction treatment. We know that not just from this bill although what it does is disestablish the Mental Health Commission prematurely and also disestablish the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) of New Zealand. But we already knew that because where once the Government had targets for mental health and addiction treatment it no longer does. It no longer has those targets because neither of those things is on the Government’s health priorities. 
So we know full well from the Government’s own lexicon if you will that mental health and addiction treatment are not a priority for this Government. The result of the removal of both of those from the Government’s list of health priorities is that district health boards have in many cases—not universally across the country but in many cases—cut funding to services both mental health services and addiction treatment services. That is because the district health boards have to follow the priorities that are set by the Government. They will make their decisions based on what the Government will mark them on. Unfortunately mental health treatment and addiction services do not list on the Government’s league tables the outcomes and the effectiveness of those treatment services are not published in our daily newspapers quarterly as are some other things and therefore the district health boards quite understandably have retracted their funding back to the ring-fenced funding that is available—and Kevin Hague even indicated that in some cases beyond that—and that they have found ways to divert the ring-fenced funding into other areas. That is where the Government’s priorities lie and some district health board chief executives and chairs probably feel as though their job is on the line depending on how they measure up according to those things that are the Government’s priorities. 
So I suppose it comes as no great surprise that this legislation finds its way into the House and that the Government is actually legislating out of existence both ALAC and the Mental Health Commission. Both of those are considered to be I suppose by many people the poor cousins of the health system. Mental health is the poor cousin of the health system addiction treatment is often the poor cousin of the poor cousin and this legislation reinforces that view. 
We see plans by the Government to bury the country’s alcohol watchdog within the new Health Promotion Agency as being contrary to the advice we have heard from the clinicians who are working at the coalface. They see the usurping of ALAC’s role into a broader health promotion agency as positive as that concept is as undermining the focus we need in New Zealand both on the health promotion aspects of alcohol addiction and alcohol misuse and also on the treatment side. It seems bizarre frankly when we have put so much attention on alcohol abuse and when we have an alcohol reform bill making slow passage through the parliamentary process that at the same time we should be removing the agency that is specifically mandated to involve itself in health promotion activities and in education activities around the sensible use of alcohol and reducing the harms associated with alcohol. It just seems counter-intuitive given how important that issue is seen to be by the public in New Zealand. 
That is one aspect: ALAC is gone. The Mental Health Commission on the other hand is also going. It was supposed to be around until 2015. Mental health is I suppose unfinished business in the health system. The blueprint was an excellent step forward. It brought mental health up to the level of acknowledgment in the health system that it needed. But the job certainly is not done. We have done a lot over the last 15 years or so to focus on the 3 percent of New Zealanders whose mental health needs are most acute but we need to look beyond that into the 20 percent of New Zealanders who at some point in any given year have need for mental health services. This sends completely the wrong signal— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Honourable members there is too much background noise. It is discourteous to the speaker. If people want to have private conversations then they are welcome to do so but it is usually reserved for outside in the lobbies. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Closing the Mental Health Commission 3 years earlier than it was supposed to be closed sends completely the wrong signal to the health system about where mental health services should actually lie in the list of priorities for district health boards. I suppose that again is reflective of how seriously the Government takes mental health and addiction treatment services. 
With that I reiterate what my colleagues have said. Labour is opposed to this bill. We will work constructively in the Government Administration Committee to try to improve the bill but frankly I would be very surprised if we could improve it to the point where Labour would find itself in a position to support it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crown Entities Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Mana 1; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee. 
Victims of Crime Reform Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 29 September. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 New Zealand has some way to go before appropriately catching up with other jurisdictions in the way it deals with people who are caught up through no fault of their own in the criminal justice system. I instance Victoria which is a very comparable jurisdiction to ours in terms of wealth population and cultural background in many ways. I also instance the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal that operates in Victoria. 
I was fortunate in 2007 to get the opportunity as part of one of the select committee exchanges that this Parliament operates from time to time to go and observe the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal in action. It was an interesting trip I have to tell the House because the National members of the Justice and Electoral Committee—Chris Finlayson Chris Auchinvole and Nicky Wagner—decided in one of those endearing little stunts that parliamentarians decide to pull from time to time to boycott the trip protesting against travel on the taxpayer. 
Hon David Carter 
: He lives in the past this man. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Yes they were living in the past; Mr Carter is quite right. But the trip was interesting on another front and that is because we had the then Maori Party member Hone Harawira with us. But he decided to go up to the Northern Territory and have a look at the intervention going on there at the time. So in the end there was Lynne Pillay—who gave such an excellent valedictory speech earlier on—as chair of the committee; there was I think Ann Hartley the other Labour member; and there was Nandor Tanczos and me. 
We met with the deputy chair of the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal we met with a number of lawyers who had interaction with that tribunal we met with counsellors who were attached to the tribunal and we learnt about the very comprehensive regime that Victoria has put in place to try to help people who have become the victims of crime. 
Two aspects of the regime in Victoria really struck me. First of all victims of crime have an automatic entitlement to compensation and that compensation is designed to try to make them whole following the crime they have suffered. For example if there has been a burglary then one of the powers the tribunal has is to order payment for the replacement of the locks on the home or the broken windows that the homeowner or tenant has suffered as a result of the burglary. It is about making the victim whole again after having suffered what they have suffered. 
To an extent we have some of this system reflected already in New Zealand in the accident compensation regime but it is not a comprehensive system directed at repairing victims. It is by-chance compensation if people have an ACC entitlement by reason of having suffered personal injury by accident. 
The other thing that really struck me about the Victorian regime was the fact that the tribunal held hearings. The victim got a chance to go along to a safe judicial process and tell their story—to tell the presiding magistrate as it is in Victoria what it was like to go through the experience they went through. The magistrate could order counselling and the magistrate could order compensation and that was indeed the default position under the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal system. It is a therapeutic approach to the experience that victims have in the system. 
This legislation would replace or at least in many ways update and amend the Victims’ Rights Act 2002—a very good piece of legislation that the last Labour Government enacted through this Parliament. That legislation replaced the Victims of Offences Act 1987 which was really the first time—again under a Labour Government—that this Parliament comprehensively addressed the rights the needs and the interests of people who have been as I said earlier caught up through no fault of their own in the criminal justice system. 
I have reservations about whether this updating goes far enough. I wonder whether we will still be behind jurisdictions like Victoria once we have gone through this exercise and I have some other reservations frankly about the way in which we are approaching the debate around victims. Again I refer back to the words that we heard from Lynne Pillay earlier. She was a well-respected chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee for 3 years. She presided over the inquiry into victims’ rights and the officials’ recommendations from that inquiry led to the legislation that we are considering now. I do recall one thing she said which was that a bipartisan approach is needed on the issue of the interests of victims. 
I also recall the warning we received from the Chief Justice a year or two ago on the increasingly shrill rhetoric about trying to jam victims into our criminal justice system. Our system does not have a natural place for the victim. The old adversarial system consists of the Crown and the defendant and to try to graft a third player into the system without very very careful thought is to risk doing things to the system by way of unintended consequences that I do not think anybody in this House would find particularly desirable. 
Also I do not think there is any merit in attaching a consideration of the rights of victims to rhetoric around vindictiveness in our criminal justice system. No end of the political spectrum or the debate on criminal justice has a monopoly on caring about the rights and interests of victims and if we allow that sort of rhetoric to invade the debate then frankly I do not think we are doing victims any great service. 
I also think it is a shame that this legislation which would update an Act that is now 9 years old is coming to the House in only the last week of this Parliament. For all the rhetoric about victims this legislation can go nowhere until February at the earliest so I think it is appropriate to reflect again on the rhetoric around victims’ interests and on whether it is bona fide action or whether it is simply words. 
This legislation will come back to the next Parliament and Labour will evaluate it carefully either in Opposition or in Government. We will make sure that as we seek as a Parliament to advance the victims’ agenda we will do it in a way that is balanced and respectful of the way other parts of the system work. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I am exceptionally thankful that I have never been the victim of a very serious crime. I have met like others in this Parliament will have done a number of victims of serious crime and we can see how hard that is. There is not only perhaps hospitalisation and the physical pain of it all but also of course the emotional torture of looking behind one’s back nightmares and being fearful. Then sometimes in the worst of cases there is the re-brutalisation through the court process. I often think that the families of victims—because we know now that a victim is not just the person to whom the crime has happened; it is wider than that—certainly in the most serious of crimes can be even more badly affected. They can be the ones who have to live on while their loved one is gone or they are perhaps in a state where they can no longer communicate with their loved one or what have you. For those families it is even worse sometimes because they have no power to do anything. They may not be a witness or have any role in the court process. 
I have heard psychologists talk about this. They say that it is very difficult for victims to get their head around the fact that this may just be a random thing. They want to ascribe some sort of fatefulness to it—did they deserve it what had they done why them? It is all very well for others to say that they should move on; they cannot just move on. 
We come to this Victims of Crime Reform Bill and the history of victims’ rights in this country. We are implementing the Government’s reform package regarding victims of crime. The ultimate aim of any society should be not how we treat victims but to have fewer victims and I think that is probably why the crime statistics have received some attention in the last few days. Ultimately what they mean is fewer victims of crime and that should be the ultimate goal. But we live in a society where sadly I think there will always be victims and certainly in the court processes and at every step of the way we need to treat them with dignity and respect and where possible we need to give them a voice. 
I have talked before in this House about the history of victims’ rights in this country. I give credit to the Labour Government for passing the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. It is important legislation. It gave victims the right to make a statement in court and it broadened the definition of “victim” as I have said because victims are not just the people to whom crime happens in a certain time and place. There are also their families and sometimes other loved ones. This bill goes further and so it should. It strengthens existing provisions of the law and expands the rights of victims. It amends quite a number of pieces of legislation. There are many things that the bill does. 
I want to just pick up on one thing. It is not necessarily even the most important thing but one thing the bill does is to widen the scope of the victim impact statements that victims of crime can give. I have talked already today about the fact that in courts victims can give victim impact statements about the effect of the crime. But there have been a number of limitations on victims. They cannot say anything today about disposition—that is about the sentence that they think the offender should have. They cannot be unduly emotive or even really emotive at all. As a prosecutor I have had to go through and Vivid out things that victims have said in statements before they go to the judge as if somehow the judge will be offended by these statements or something like that. In the past I have done that. There have been times when I have not been able to and the police officers have had to go back to the victim. As one might think the victim would say: “I thought it was my victim impact statement.” That is quite right—that is how it should be. We are amending the law so that victims can be much freer in their victim impact statements. 
Judges should not be swayed by the overly lenient or overly vexatious victim. It is right that a particular crime—say a wounding with a knife—in similar circumstances should receive about the same penalty at law. But I know that judges are up to the task of taking all that a victim has to say with the emotions and with statements like “I wish he would rot in hell.” or “I wish he would rot in jail.” They are wise enough—and frankly they are paid enough—to be able to take that. So that one small aspect of this bill is welcome along with many other things. This is an advancement for victim rights in this country. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I will speak to the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. Labour agrees that victims need to have a greater role in the criminal justice process because there is a lack of visible complaints processes and oversight of victims’ rights I say to Mr Ashraf Choudhary. In 2007 under the Labour Government the Justice and Electoral Committee conducted an inquiry into victims’ rights. It highlighted some of the issues that finally have been addressed by this bill. 
The Law Society has expressed reservations about some of the initiatives presented by the National Government particularly expanding the role of victims in the courtroom which might move the courts away from a dispassionate dispensing of justice. Labour will pay close attention to submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee to ensure that both the rights of victims and the rights of the accused are balanced to achieve an appropriate and fair outcome. As one of the Labour members of that select committee I assure the House that we will do that. The Law Society supports the move in the legislation to give adult victims the right to read their statements in court but subjecting children to further court processes might not be a particularly positive advancement of children’s rights. Furthermore the use of pictures could be misleading. 
The Ministry of Justice has identified three broad concerns that victims of crime face. First victims find it frustrating to deal with multiple Government agencies to get information about the criminal justice system their rights and services. Second the mechanisms for making criminal justice agencies accountable for the information they provide or the services they deliver to victims are weak. Third many victims find the current criminal justice processes bewildering and feel that they do not have any role in the criminal case involving them. 
My colleague Charles Chauvel spoke earlier and said that we needed to reflect on some of the rhetoric and we needed to recognise that New Zealand has some way to go in dealing appropriately with those caught up in the criminal justice system through no fault of their own. The rhetoric we have listened to from the National Government over the course of its 3 years in office has been concerning at times because the rhetoric does not necessarily match the action. We have seen examples where unfortunately victims have been re-victimised by that National Government. A good example was highlighted by the member Lynne Pillay in her valedictory speech earlier this evening. She talked about the re-victimisation of sexual abuse victims that was undertaken by the National Government through ACC’s denial of counselling to sexual abuse victims. She spoke of the incredible harm that was caused and the fact that these victims basically were re-victimised by the system by ACC and by the National Government. Lynne Pillay took over the victims’ rights portfolio but unfortunately the re-victimisation did not end. 
Continuing on from that time we saw even further re-victimisation when Dr Peter Jansen attempted to sue a victim of sexual abuse for a quarter of a million dollars. That re-victimisation was horrendous. All that occurred was that that victim of sexual abuse dared to speak out and dared to attack the Government and question Dr Peter Jansen Nick Smith and the National Government on their decision to deny sexual abuse victims the right to counselling. Although we have heard through the rhetoric that the National Government purports to stand up for victims and wants to legislate in order to ensure increased protection for victims in some of the actions that have been undertaken by this National Government one has to wonder whether the spiel matches what it is actually doing. 
Labour will be supporting this bill being referred to the select committee but we will be watching it very carefully in respect of the reservations that I have expressed and that were expressed more articulately by my colleague Charles Chauvel in his speech. Thank you very much. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has a broadly similar approach to the Victims of Crime Reform Bill as has been set out by all members here tonight. We recognise that the bill is part of a broader package that the Government is putting forward in terms of what it calls a comprehensive work programme to improve the status of victims of crime. This particular bill is generated by a concern that has been drawn from information from a range of sources that victims of crime find it difficult to understand criminal justice processes and their role in these processes that a number of victims would like a greater role in the criminal justice process and be better informed about the cases involving them and that a lack of visible complaints processes and oversight of victims’ rights have limited the accountability of agencies. So there is a variety of difficulties and problems that I think are well recognised across parties and there is a warrant for further reform legislation along these lines. 
The legislation proposes four or five particular broad areas. In respect of victim impact statements the bill gives victims greater freedom to express their feelings in their own words. It gives victims of serious crime the automatic right to read their statements in court. It gives victims of offending by children and young people the right to attend a Youth Court and to submit a victim impact statement and it would allow photographs and drawings to be submitted as part of such a statement. The bill also strengthens changes in the victim notification system in various ways. It widens the eligibility of victims who can receive notice increases the number of victims who receive notice about bail defenders and expands the information that victims receive about offenders on short-term sentences. The bill requires justice sector agencies to have complaints processes and to report annually to Parliament. It ensures that victims’ rights in the adult criminal jurisdiction are applied in the Youth Court jurisdiction. It gets the Ministry of Justice to develop a victims code in order to improve responsiveness and accountability. Those are all broadly desirable goals we think. As a result the Green Party is generally supportive of the bill. 
We think the clarity and slightly more expansive approach to victim impact statements will be helpful. The broadening into the youth justice area makes sense to us as does the increased focus on restorative justice. I think it has been mentioned already—and we certainly share some of the reservations that have been expressed—but we think there is reason for pause and that we should not proceed too headlong with this bill. It represents a diminution of the adversarial nature of our justice system that is based on a delicate relationship between the State and a criminal defendant. There are various questions that will need to be asked—for example what is the impact on a victim who can make these statements to an offender in a court but who might be denied a response from the offender? There is research that suggests that the victim can become more traumatised rather than less traumatised by that experience. We need also to consider the impact on the offender and the impact of being publicly denounced without a right of reply. 
As I think has already been noted this bill draws on the Justice and Electoral Committee’s report of 2007  
Inquiry into Victims’ Rights 
 which was initiated by the Green Party and in which we had a role. We are keen to assess the extent to which the bill—either as it is currently drafted or if it is amended by the select committee—might reflect the recommendations that came out of that committee report. That inquiry was a comprehensive look at what needs to be done to reform our justice system to become more inquisitorial and to focus on protecting those who have been hurt by crime. The bill incorporates some aspects of the goal of becoming a more inquisitorial system and it addresses some aspects that relate to protecting and helping those who have been hurt by crime so to that extent it reflects the committee’s report. But the bill directly incorporates only 12 of the 38 recommendations in the report as we assess it and most of the emphasis of the report’s recommendations that have been included in the bill are among the easiest kind to include. So there is a need to scrutinise the bill a little more thoroughly and we certainly intend to do that. 
In short we think the bill does not yet do enough to create support networks and to fully fund counselling and support for victims. There are perhaps privacy issues around the victim notification system for former criminals but we think that supporting the bill to the select committee will allow us to hear the evidence for and against the provisions of the bill. We are prepared to support it at its first reading but simply stress that there are flaws in the bill as it is currently drafted and that we intend to suggest constructive change. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe i tenei po. Kia ora tatou. As other members of the House have said tonight the Victims of Crime Reform Bill amends the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 the Parole Act 2002 and the Sentencing Act 2002. In establishing such a wide scope for the bill it is already legislation with a fairly wide brief. 
I will make a few comments that will provide an even broader context and that is to include the context of Maori victimisation as our starting point for change. If the Minister has not already come across it I refer him to an excellent piece of research that was compiled by Fiona Cram from Ngati Kahungunu Leonie Pihama from Te Atiawa Ngati Mahanga and Matewiki Karehana from Ngai Te Rangi under the auspices of the international research institute for Maori and indigenous education. Their report which is called  
Meeting the Needs of Maori Victims of Crime 
 is set in the context that Maori victimisation rates are high. In fact in the New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey 2006 the rate of Maori victimisation is 1.3 times the European rate. Assaults threats and damage to personal property were the major crime types contributing to the high rates of personal victimisation for Maori. Maori have a prevalence rate two to three times that of Europeans for all these offence types and especially high rates of violent offences by partners and other people well-known to the victim. But even more depressing was the fact that a person’s chances of being multiply victimised were higher if he or she was Maori. Irrespective of the type of crime or incident prevalence or crime concentration rates these differences for Maori victims were very real. 
These factors therefore form the foundation for how we should understand the key priorities and target areas to emerge from this Victims of Crime Reform Bill. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the existing provisions for victims of crime expand the rights of victims of serious offences and ensure victims’ rights in the adult criminal jurisdiction are applied in the youth justice jurisdiction. These are three very important factors which we naturally support as a consequence of the significance we place upon supporting all those who have fallen victim to the abusive crime. 
I will raise a few questions that Cram Pihama and Karehana first identified. They suggest to us that the term “victim” is often seen as problematic because of its association as a solely individual experience whereas a transgression impacts on those linked by whakapapa to the transgressed and to Maori as a whole. To put this in a simpler context when a person hits a Maori person they are in fact hitting all of those who are joined as descendants and ancestors to that individual. The damage to one is damage to all. 
Another issue they raised is that the term “victim” often implies powerlessness and as such the labelling of someone as a victim may hinder resolution. Cram Pihama and Karehana also challenged this House to consider that notions of both victim and crime must be viewed within the historical context. For Maori this context is the history of colonisation within this country. I think these concepts are really important to think about as we look at the proposals in this bill to enhance the victim notification system increase the rights of victims of offending by children and young persons strengthen the accountability of agencies in extending the application of general rights of victims and improve provisions for victim impact statements. 
We believe that what is most important and most needed is a holistic approach to the reduction of crime by looking at the perpetrator the offender and the causes of crime including poverty lack of education and institutional racism. We need to focus on the existing justice system to ensure that healing and resolution is acknowledged as a crucial platform for victims. 
The Maori Party seeks to promote restorative justice systems where victims are empowered and to advocate to enhance community involvement in the justice process. In many respects therefore the proposals included in this legislation help to strengthen the opportunities for support for whanau through care and concern for victims which we absolutely endorse. We are particularly pleased at the initiative to improve provisions for victim impact statements as covered by Mr Kennedy Graham. This is an initiative which of course came through clearly from the traumatic events surrounding the court hearing associated with the tragedy of Sophie Elliott. We think it is important to acknowledge that no family should ever go through the ordeal again of having their statements altered. 
I want to conclude my contribution to the debate with four key recommendations that arise out of the work quoted earlier namely  
Meeting the Needs of Maori Victims of Crime 
. These recommendations are that mainstream support services be encouraged to become more accessible user-friendly and culturally appropriate for Maori victims of crime; that a kaupapa Maori service be established for Maori victims of crime and a kaupapa Maori service be resourced as a one-stop shop for Maori victims of crime; and that the Maori processes of resolution be resourced. 
There are other ways and other matters that must be given due attention as well. Researchers demonstrated that ethnic minority offenders are more likely to be the victim of violence while in custody. We would like to know whether this is taken into account within the legislation. The validity of victim recourse studies has been widely questioned due to problems with victim memory decay a tendency for victims to revert to racial stereotypes of offenders and perhaps most crucially the fact that only a small subset of crimes are actually witnessed by the victim. We seek some response from the Minister and indeed the community through the select committee stage as to whether this issue is adequately addressed in this bill. 
Finally we note that the collection and use of ethnic data in the justice sector in New Zealand was recently reviewed by Statistics New Zealand. The review concluded that there is little need for all justice datasets to be able to be disaggregated by ethnicity age gender and location to establish and monitor the extent of offending by victimisation of Maori and interventions that work well for Maori. It was further noted that ethnicity data collected by New Zealand Police and also utilised by the Ministry of Justice did not comply with the New Zealand statistical standard for ethnicity. As a consequence the New Zealand Police data was not compatible with ethnicity data from other official sources. 
These latter matters were raised in the very comprehensive research compiled by Bronwyn Morrison entitled  
Identifying and Responding to Bias in the Criminal Justice System: A Review of International and New Zealand Research 
 which was produced just last year. We hope that all of these issues may form part of the ongoing debate in supporting and protecting victims of crime as part of families and as part of our communities. We support this particular bill at its first reading. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Tena koe. Tena koutou e te Whare. It is pleasing to stand and speak to the introduction of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. Of course members will be aware that this is just another of the many steps that this National Government has taken in putting crime and the effects of crime at the very front edge of this Government’s policies. It is in fact salient to reflect that one of the first bills that we passed when we came into office was the bill that created the $50 offender levy to create funds for the victims of crime. As I stand here today over $3 million has already been collected to provide 13 new services to those victims. 
As the 49th Parliament draws to a close yet again this Government has at the front of its mind the victims of crime. We believe that the support they get during the process of grieving and adversity that has been impacted on them needs to be given even more support so this bill is aimed at filling that gap further. 
I was somewhat intrigued by the contribution of my good friend and honourable colleague Mr Kennedy Graham to this debate. Although he is supporting the bill he seemed concerned about the rights of the offender and concerned that this bill might create an imbalance between the rights of the offender and the rights of the victim. I was somewhat intrigued by that because he seemed to think that the offender might not have an opportunity in terms of a right of reply to the victim’s impact statement. So I look forward to having a conversation with Kennedy Graham when we return in the 50th Parliament at the Justice and Electoral Committee about issues like this because it is good to be able to thrash them out during the select committee process. 
I am very pleased to stand here—probably for the last time on this occasion under this Parliament—to support such an important bill in respect of a programme of activity of work that this Government has been focused on which is to reduce crime. Of course the latest statistics we have seen continue to support and enhance the outstanding work that the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice have done as a tag team to bring a safer environment to our communities. I for one am very proud—as I am sure Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson certainly all members on this side of the House and I suspect begrudgingly members of the Opposition are very proud—of the work that has been done in this area of activity. 
So with those few words it gives me great pleasure to support this bill at its first reading. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak on the Victims of Crime Reform Bill at this its first reading. Labour is supporting this bill as others will have said being referred to a select committee. 
The purpose of this bill is worth just outlining again because I think that it is always important at first reading debates to understand what we are dealing with. The objectives of the bill are to strengthen the existing general provisions in legislation for victims of crime to expand the rights of victims of serious offences to give victims more opportunity to be involved in criminal justice processes by ensuring they are better informed about their rights to increase the accountability and responsiveness of Government agencies providing services to victims and to ensure that victims’ rights in the adult criminal justice jurisdiction are applied in the youth justice jurisdiction. We will probably go through some of those in a little more detail but this is an omnibus bill and it amends four different Acts: the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 the Parole Act 2002 and the Sentencing Act 2002. 
Certainly Labour agrees that victims need to have a greater role in the criminal justice process because there is a lack of a visible complaints process and oversight of victims’ rights. I think that in recent times the debate has come around to a recognition that our justice system should obviously serve the interests of us as a society in ensuring that the rules on which we all agree are in place and are enforced; that those who break those rules should face some consequences but that the processes around that should be fair and just; but also that those who have been hurt by crime if you like should be part of that equation. We certainly agree with that and with the need to look closely at it. It was under the Labour Government in 2007 that the Justice and Electoral Committee conducted an inquiry into victims’ rights which highlighted some of the issues that are finally being addressed in this bill so to that extent this bill is a logical next step. 
It is interesting to be speaking about this bill having spoken earlier today on the criminal procedure legislation because alongside all of these types of initiatives there are very important questions of balance and very important questions about ensuring that justice is in fact served. We have a system that is set up in a particular way. We need to make sure that in trying to look at one group we do not severely disadvantage or undermine those fundamental principles that we have in our justice system. 
The Law Society has expressed reservations about some of the initiatives presented by the Government particularly expanding the role of victims in the courtroom which might move the courts away from the dispassionate dispensing of justice. Certainly I think all members on the select committee—and I am assuming; I am sorry but I do not know whether the bill will come to the Justice and Electoral Committee. But whichever select committee it is I think all members will pay close attention to submissions to the select committee to ensure that both victims’ rights and the rights of the accused are balanced to achieve appropriate and fair outcomes. I think that that sense of balance is really important. 
Despite the Law Society’s reservations that I have just mentioned it does support moves in the legislation to give adult victims the right to read their statements in court. But on the question of subjecting children to further court processes that might not be a particularly positive advancement of children’s rights. That is a live question I think and certainly again at the select committee close attention will need to be paid to what is best for children in this whole process. 
The Ministry of Justice in the regulatory impact statement has identified three broad concerns facing victims of crime. First victims find it frustrating dealing with multiple Government agencies to get information about the criminal justice system their rights and services. It seems to me that that should be readily able to be fixed. To start to make that access to information much more streamlined and effective for those victims seems a very sensible suggestion. After all victims of crime especially victims of violent crimes—domestic violence sexual violence and the like—are already traumatised by those crimes and we need to make sure that the agencies they deal with make the process as smooth and as supportive as possible for them. That was one of the three broad concerns of the Ministry of Justice. 
The second concern is that the mechanisms for making criminal justice agencies accountable for the information they provide or the services they deliver to victims are very weak. There is that sense of getting greater accountability in ensuring that victims do get good service from those agencies. Again I make the point that many victims are already traumatised by the crime they have experienced and it seems to me to be a reasonable proposition that there should be some accountability—that agencies dealing with victims do so in a manner that does not further victimise those victims or does not make the trauma they are already dealing with worse. 
The third concern that the ministry identified in the regulatory impact statement is that many victims find the current criminal justice processes bewildering and they feel that they do not have any role in a criminal case involving them. Again if people have been traumatised or really undermined by crimes that have been committed against them they do not want a court process that just reinforces that—a process that further makes them feel as though they are being undermined and that their confidence and self-esteem is being lessened. I can see that those three broad concerns are certainly relevant. I know for a fact that many women who have been victims of violent crime often find those things to be so. Dealing with those areas seems to me to be very important. 
I will talk about the main provisions of the bill. First of all in respect of the amendments to the Victims’ Rights Act some of the provisions relate to the definition of “victim” and there are questions around the duty to inform victims. These questions are about the agencies that provide information. Information about proceedings must be given to victims. I think this is a really good point. This makes sure that in dealing with the criminal justice system a victim of crime is clear about what will be happening what their role in it will be what they will be expected to do—all of those sorts of things—so that they know what will happen in advance. The bill also goes on to look at information in victim impact statements. It provides that information ascertained from a victim in a victim impact statement may include photographs drawings or other visual representations which is pretty important. 
Part 1 talks about a code for victims. It will require the preparation of a code for victims for the purpose of providing information about their statutory rights services available to them and duties and responsibilities of Government agencies. In preparing that code the secretary preparing it must undertake consultation. The code must be then approved and signed by the Minister of Justice before it takes effect. The Secretary for Justice must publish the notice of the Minister’s approval of the code in the  
Gazette 
. That sounds like a very sensible suggestion. That is in terms of changes to the Victims’ Rights Act. 
There are also changes to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. This bill redefines the term “victim” in that Act to align it with the definition in the Victims’ Rights Act. It also requires a prosecutor to make reasonable efforts to ascertain and convey to the Youth Court the views of victims of specified offences before an order is made releasing or detaining a child or young person in custody. There are also changes to that Act to the custody of a child or young person pending hearing. Those are the areas that are covered in that particular Act. 
The changes to the Parole Act are to section 4 again to update the definition of “victim” and to section 44 in terms of what information may be available to victims. So these amendments are about aligning those Acts. In respect of the Sentencing Act 2002 and restorative justice the bill requires the District Court in certain cases to adjourn proceedings at any time before sentencing to enable inquiries to be made to determine whether a restorative justice process is appropriate in the circumstances. So those are the main changes to those Acts. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am rising tonight to take a call on the first reading of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill which as we have heard will amend the Victims’ Rights Act. 
It is interesting that earlier this evening I was lucky enough to take a call on the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. In that contribution I spoke about some of the steps that this Government has taken to improve the lot of victims in our justice system. This bill really is another step along that path. I think it is worth just going through that because they really are part of a comprehensive package that National set out initially in Opposition when we said that if we had the privilege of becoming the Government one of our key priorities was to ensure that the victims of crime—the people who are in the system through no fault of their own—are treated considerably better than they had been treated to that point. 
That has taken a number of steps. We have been busy addressing drivers of crime and we have seen the success of that with the crime stats that have been released in the last few days. It is down 7 percent nationally and nearly 15 percent in Canterbury I am very pleased to say. We have seen the offender levy which the Opposition derided as a meaningless gimmick yet a full 5 months ahead of schedule it has reached its first-year target. As a result of that legislation victims are accessing right now real meaningful services and support that they would not otherwise have had. That is a meaningful step to make victims’ lives easier which the Labour Opposition derided criticised and clearly opposed. Police safety orders have been put in place to ensure that our victims of domestic violence get on-the-spot protection as they need it when they need it from the police. We have improved access to and funding for restorative justice. The last piece this evening which I mentioned earlier was to ensure that where we could we could reduce the cost and time delays of being involved in the criminal court processes. Anyone who has been involved in that process knows that it is tremendously stressful for victims of crime to have to relive the matter over and over again for months and months on end while our criminal justice system grinds away to a very slow outcome. 
The next step is to look at the issues that this bill addresses. Those issues relate to making sure that victims are far better involved in the court process as it is going through and making sure that they are getting the information they need about the process the proceedings what is going on before the trial what is happening during the trial and of course at the other end what is happening when the convicted person may be put out on bail and during their sentencing. It is about ensuring that victims can involve themselves in those proceedings in a way that is more meaningful for them particularly around reviewing the laws on victim impact statements. 
One of the parts that has not been talked about as much in some of the contributions tonight but which I think is very important is requiring the establishment of a code for victims to ensure that in the future when decisions are made in the justice system the rights and the entitlements of victims are at the very centre of those decisions. 
I just have to say in closing that I find it quite ironic that I have spent most of the past week as part of the Justice and Electoral Committee looking at the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill and as part of that committee process we have had certain parties in this House become very exercised about the rights of offenders and making sure that we looked after the rights of offenders. Well they do have a place but I can tell this House that the rights that I am far more interested in are the rights of the victims. If it is a balancing act between the offenders’ rights under our system and the victims’ rights my money is on the victims’ rights every single time. I would far rather this House put its energies its efforts and its passion into protecting the rights of victims every time and I am very happy to commend the bill. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 As has been mentioned Labour will support the Victims of Crime Reform Bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee because we think it is very important that every New Zealander has the right to present a submission in front of parliamentarians and because that is way that good law is made. 
We just heard an incredible speech from Amy Adams. She said that when it comes to victims’ rights versus offenders’ rights then it is victims’ rights the whole time. Well my personal view is that we must protect the rights of every New Zealander. Of course victims’ rights are paramount and that is why this bill is before the House and it is why we are supporting it. Having said that the rights of every New Zealander—no matter where they are who they are or what they are—are very very important. For me and I think for most New Zealanders we cannot say that one person’s rights are more important than another person’s rights. Amy Adams who is actually a lawyer said that one group of people’s rights are more important than another group of people’s rights. Personally I find that quite offensive because for me the rights of every single New Zealander are important. 
When we are talking about victims’ rights we are talking about law relating to crime which is where I think it becomes very very emotional. That is why we end up with groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust. We all want sensible sentencing—of that there is no doubt. But I do not think there are many people who say we should be locking people up throwing away the keys and letting them rot. I think most people agree that incarceration should also be about rehabilitation so that people can come out and become productive members of society. 
As mentioned the rights of every New Zealander are most important. It is interesting that it took until 2002 for the Victims’ Rights Bill to actually be introduced by the Labour Government of course. Ms Adams may be interested to know that under the Labour Government the Justice and Electoral Committee conducted an inquiry into victims’ rights in 2007 which highlighted some of the issues that have finally been addressed by this bill. I suggest to Ms Adams that if she was so passionate about victims’ rights then perhaps it should not have been left till the final week of the final year of this term of Parliament for her to get passionate about that. Perhaps Ms Adams should have been passionate about that in the first week of the first year. But it is good to see passion—of that there is no doubt. 
Of course everyone in this House stands up for those who are victims of crime. As the old saying goes “There is no such thing as a victimless crime.” Although we are hard on crime—and we are hard on crime because the people of New Zealand demand that we are hard on crime—we also must create a society and a system that makes it very easy for victims to access absolutely everything that is possibly available to help them through what is often a very traumatic time not only having been a victim of crime but also then having to relive this through the whole court process. I bet that can be quite traumatic for a lot of people. 
There is something called the New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey. It estimated the level of unreported and reported crime experienced by New Zealanders over the age of 15. This was undertaken in 2008. Some of its key findings are interesting: 36 percent of people experienced some form of victimisation; assaults made up 27 percent of all offences and threats made up just over 21 percent; 33 percent of all offences were reported to police reporting rates varied by type; and 6 percent of victims experience 54 percent of victimisations. The thing I suppose that is rather damning is that 33 percent of all offences were reported to police. That means that about 67 percent of offences were not reported to police. There may be a number of reasons for this but one thing we must make absolutely certain is that if victims are reporting crimes to police then as mentioned we need to make it very easy for those victims to access everything that is available and to work through the court system. 
The Victims’ Rights Act 2002 outlines the principles that guide the treatment of victims. The provisions of the Act are consistent with the current criminal justice system laws and processes and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Under the Victims’ Rights Act victims are to be provided with certain information about the services they are eligible for and about the progress of their case through the courts. Victims are also able to provide the courts with information on the impact of the offences on them. We see a lot of this and often this provides the dramatic footage we see on television about cases where usually the families of victims speak out and outline to the court to the people and also to the perpetrator of that crime what damage this has done not only to the victim but to the victim’s family friends and society in general. However in regard to victims of certain interpersonal offences the Act also ensures that victims are entitled to receive notification of certain events particularly custody and parole matters relating to the accused or the offender. As mentioned is it not interesting that it took until 2002 under Labour to get the Victims’ Rights Act? 
However what needs to happen and the reason for this bill is the improvement of the role of victims in the criminal justice system. For the purposes of the review that was undertaken by the Ministry of Justice the ministry identified the problems and issues and the potential solutions using information from a wide range of sources. So this bill is a consequence of a lot of consultation within the community and right across the country. 
The aim of this bill is to improve Government agencies’ responsiveness and accountability to victims of crime and to enhance the rights and role of victims of crime in the criminal justice process. What this will do is increase victims’ engagement in the court process ensure some court processes more directly address the needs of victims enable victims to be better informed about the progress of the offender’s sentence and ensure that those agencies that provide services to victims are more accountable to victims for the delivery of those services. 
The Law Society has expressed reservations about some of the initiatives presented by the Government in this bill particularly expanding the role of victims in the courtroom which might move the courts away from a dispassionate dispensing of justice. This is one of the reasons why we will be very clearly watching the select committee process. We are interested to see what the Law Society and other organisations involved in justice delivery have to say about this. We will pay very close attention to submissions to the select committee to ensure that both victims’ rights and the rights of the accused are balanced to achieve an appropriate and a fair outcome. 
The fundamental principle of our legal system is that one is innocent until proven guilty so everyone must have a fair trial. However the Law Society supports moves in the legislation to give adult victims the right to read their statements in court. But subjecting children as Carol Beaumont mentioned to further court processes might not be a particularly positive advancement of children’s rights. Furthermore the use of pictures can be misleading. 
The Ministry of Justice as mentioned has identified three broad concerns that face victims of crime. Victims find it frustrating to deal with multiple agencies and I can imagine that. Taxpayers find it frustrating sometimes dealing with multiple agencies. When one has to relive this trauma again and again it can be not only frustrating but damning and degrading. The mechanisms for making criminal justice agencies accountable for the information they provide or the services they deliver to victims are weak. As has been mentioned we often talk about the perpetrators of these crimes and we often forget about the victims. Often the victims are not only the person who has had a crime perpetrated on him or her; often it is the also the children the family or the wider community friends etc. So the victims of crimes can be wide and varied. Many victims find the current criminal justice processes to be bewildering and feel that they do not have a role in criminal cases involving them. 
That is about all I have to say on this bill. As mentioned we will be supporting its referral to the select committee. We look forward to hearing submissions on it. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to debate the first reading of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. National is focused on putting victims at the heart of the criminal justice system. They find that the criminal justice system is a confusing minefield to trawl through. This Government was elected to improve the justice system. The Government’s response is the Victims of Crime Reform Bill to enhance the rights and services provided to victims of crime and ensure they receive positive and encouraging outcomes. This bill builds on the eight additional services for victims of crime that were introduced last year and funded through the $50 offender levy. 
The purpose of this bill is to change the law relating to the victims of crime to enhance victims’ rights and to increase the accountability of Government agencies that provide services to victims. This bill will broaden the matter of what a victim can include in his or her victim impact statement allowing the victims to include a photograph or a drawing with their statement and provide victims of serious offences with the right to read their statement in court. This is an important and crucial provision to make victims feel more empowered confident and able to give a full and complete statement in court. 
This bill will also extend the opportunity and improve the effectiveness of the victim notification system such as notifying victims when an offender is convicted for breaching their release condition relating to their victim or their victim’s families. This is also a very significant provision. There have been many incidents recorded where a victim’s family feels threatened by an offender who is in breach of his or her release conditions. 
Before I conclude I would like to reiterate that this Government led by the Rt Hon John Key is committed to strengthening the existing legislation relating to the victims of crime and to expanding the rights of victims of serious offences. They should be better informed of their rights. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is a privilege to stand up and take a call this evening on the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. I do not intend to take up my full 10-minute speaking slot. One of the great privileges of being a member of Parliament is to come into this Chamber to present one’s views and to debate with fellow members of Parliament so given that I expect this to be my last week of Parliament and my last opportunity to do so having listened to the debate I felt honour bound to come down here and express some of those views. 
We have heard in the House this afternoon National members crowing about the reduction in crime. 
Hon Members 
: That’s right. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: They have been crowing about the 7 percent reduction in crime nationally as Amy Adams reminded us. As we hear from the interjections tonight that is right. It is right and this Government should be very proud of its achievement. 
It should be very proud of its achievement in that regard but it is a pity that Amy Adams did not mention one other thing. She talked about what the Government had done and about what National had promoted but it is a pity that she almost seemed too ashamed to refer to the ACT Party’s three-strikes legislation. The ACT Party campaigned on law and order and on keeping the streets of this country safe more than any other party in this Parliament. It remains one of the great achievements of the ACT Party in the last 3 years to pass that legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear the heckles but as we heard so proudly this afternoon from the Minister of Police crime is down 7 percent. Crime is down 7 percent and why is that? Why is that? 
We are debating this afternoon and this evening the Victims of Crime Reform Bill but we should actually be looking at how we reduce the number of victims. Yes we need to look at victims’ rights. There is probably no party that is more concerned about the victims of crime but what the ACT Party has done is actually try to reduce that crime. I remind the members of this House that one of the most important bills that were passed in this Parliament was ACT’s three-strikes bill. 
I remind members and the public that this Parliament has taken serious measures to punish repeat serious offenders. I remind members that when someone comes up on their first serious violent offence they are sentenced they serve what the judge gives and they get parole. When they come up on their second serious violent offence they are denied parole. They have to serve the sentence they are given. It may not be the maximum sentence for that particular crime but they have to serve what the court orders. That is very important but just as important the judge gives them a very serious warning. The judge gives them a very serious warning and the offender is told that if they come back before the court on a third serious offence they will serve the maximum sentence. In reviewing the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill I know there are many criminal charges that carry terms of 7 or 14 years in prison. 
Looking through the preamble to the Victims of Crime Reform Bill I see that one of the provisions of this bill is that it will widen the scope of what victims may include in their victim impact statements. It will widen the scope of what victims may include in their victim impact statements. When I think about victims and about victim impact statements it is hard to ignore the work of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. If there is any organisation that has stood up for the rights of victims it is the Sensible Sentencing Trust. It is a Hawke’s Bay - based organisation that is operating throughout New Zealand and that actually stands up for the rights of victims. I salute the people who lead that organisation—in particular Garth and Anne McVicar. But I would like to remind this House this evening that there is another person who worked very closely with the Sensible Sentencing Trust: my former colleague David Garrett. There is no person who did more to push the three-strikes legislation than David Garrett—his intimate knowledge of criminal law and the work that the former parliamentary leader of the ACT Party Rodney Hide did to put that legislation into place. I think we need to acknowledge those two people because reductions in crime do not just happen. There are things that drive them. 
We now have over 700 people who are on their first strike. There are 700 people who are on their first strike and who have appeared before the court been convicted of a criminal offence and been warned by the judge that if they come up before the court on a second occasion they will not be getting parole. Should they come up a third time they will be serving the maximum sentence. 
It was also interesting to hear Amy Adams talk about the fact that for a large part of the last week she and her colleagues in the Justice and Electoral Committee have been considering the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill. She said that she would much rather stand up for the victims of crime than for the offenders. She would much rather stand up for the victims of crime than for the offenders. Well like Stuart Nash I remind Amy Adams that all New Zealanders have rights. Yes if a person is convicted of a crime they should be punished and lose their freedom. If a person is convicted they lose their freedom but they do not lose their rights. 
It is interesting that we have been debating the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill this afternoon and one of the fundamental tenets of our constitution is that a person is not guilty unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt. They should not be required to assist in their own prosecution. 
The ACT Party has had two great victories in the last couple of weeks. We have secured significant changes to the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. We were instrumental in forcing the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill to a select committee and we will see the results of that on Thursday. 
Let me finish how I started. Probably one of our greatest achievements is passing the three-strikes legislation. National members can stand up and talk about the 7 percent reduction in crime but they should look at why that has happened. Those sorts of things do not happen by accident. The three-strikes legislation is another example of what the ACT Party has achieved in the last 3 years and why we should be returned to Parliament. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Road User Charges Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I think it is worthwhile making a few introductory remarks before we get into the substance of this four-part bill with some schedules. The bill replaces the Road User Charges Act of 1977 after a review identified several shortcomings. 
Darien Fenton 
: We know this. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: It is outdated and complicated. I am pleased that the member Darien Fenton knows this. It does not hurt the Committee to be reminded and educated. As a result this bill will modernise and simplify the road-user charges system. Overall it will reduce compliance costs and importantly it will reduce road-user charges evasion which is estimated to be around $30 million a year. That is a very conservative estimate as well. Of course as a result of that the honest guys are subsidising those who are choosing to evade the system. The bill also replaces the existing operator-nominated weights with all road-user charges vehicles having a permanent road-user charges weight. 
I thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for its contribution. Amongst other things Part 1 which I have mentioned sets the framework for the electronic management of road-user charges. It allows the road-user charges collector to be satisfied that the system will indeed be secure and reliable. It is also worth mentioning to the Committee that there is a Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of the Minister of Transport the Hon Steven Joyce. In essence the biggest part of this Supplementary Order Paper will allow an exemption for light diesel vehicles under 3.5 tonnes—those vehicles that are almost exclusively driven off public roads despite being suitable for use on a public road. 
The regulations will need to be consulted on and passed. Of course they will need to include all of the terms of exemption and no doubt there will be discussion on zeroing in on what would be an appropriate kilometre distance travelled in a radius of a particular activity that will be driven off a public road. Of course to safeguard this system the penalties will indeed have to be high because otherwise the system could be abused and the Government would not want that. 
I think it is important to note that if someone chooses to take up this option for a light diesel vehicle under 3.5 tonnes they cannot have it both ways. They need to firm up and say that yes this vehicle will be operated in this area and off the public road. They cannot suddenly choose to duck into town which might be 50 kilometres away and put a tonne of fertiliser on the back of the ute or indeed take mum and the kids on a long-distance holiday in their King Cab ute. 
I also draw the Committee’s attention to other amendments that are included in this Supplementary Order Paper which are mostly minor and technical in nature such as to remove certain operators’ requirements to have to retain time-keeping records. These would have created additional compliance costs and I am sure the select committee is pleased about that amendment. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson Tisch. I acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Transport and remind New Zealanders that he amongst other things comes from an agricultural background on the Kapiti coast. He has reminded us that those people who have four-wheel drive vehicles that are used both on the farm and on the roads will have to obey the rules. I shall go back and tell my father who is a farmer that there is a new set of rules coming. He will be distressed to learn that red tape is creeping upwards. 
But despite that small lapse Labour will support this bill. We will support this bill because irrespective of whichever party is in Government it is necessary to ensure that we have a way of funding the roads of Aotearoa. It is of immense disappointment to us that the money has been squandered on ideological trophies driven by Steven Joyce called roads of national significance. But that is an election issue and we will put it to the side. We are here on the serious administrative constitutional business of clauses 3 to 6 in Part 1. 
There are other reasons why we will support this bill during the Committee stage. We on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee had our differences. It is a select committee that works well. We have robust presentations from Tau Henare. We have an absent-minded chair occasionally in the form of Mr Bennett with a contribution from the member from Dunedin from time to time when the man is not bemoaning the fact that people in Dunedin are largely unemployed as a consequence of poor transport capital asset decisions and where they are made—not in Aotearoa but overseas. Let me come back to the clauses that comprise Part 1. But I must not forget the member for Botany. Although he is physically present we often feel spiritually he is elsewhere—possibly in the ACT Party or the Libertarianz party—but that aside he is a relatively new member and he has a great future ahead of him. As Mr Boscawen and “Mr ACT Leader” depart he will be able to occupy that space of extreme right lots of noise lots of heat but very very little lucidity. But I will come back to the bill because it deserves serious consideration and talking about those members is not actually in the spirit of seriousness. 
Modernisation is necessary and for those reasons irrespective of whoever occupies the Treasury benches we cannot have a system governing the collection of fees from our vehicle owners dependent on road-user charges because that is a key component of how we fund our roading system. There is an area that we will pick up on later because this is a rather broad part of the bill. We remain concerned if not distressed about what level of participation there will be once the regulatory power - making authorities are exercised. The actual road-user charges are levies and at the end of the day they will not be prescribed in the body of the legislation. They will be the products of subordinate legislation or regulation. Members may or may not know that our former deputy leader—indeed he was our leader—Geoffrey Palmer waxed lyrical about this in decades gone by. That remains a very timely reminder to those of us who are in the business of lawmaking that when we move beyond the parent legislation to passing regulations to please bear in mind—I say to the Minister—that for each regulation that is passed we should be confident about stripping two three four or five regulations off the statute book so that we are avoiding maintaining redundant regulation. Also it is a good discipline. Those of us who have come from a background where we have seen how difficult it is to run firms and seen how difficult it is to maintain compliance and are in parliamentary mode now should remind ourselves that as we put one regulation in place we should try to take two three four or five away. 
It is easier said than done and it may be said that I am being a tad frivolous in this regard but transport along with fisheries is an area that blights the legislative landscape because there are so many regulations. I doubt whether there is a single bureaucrat lawyer parliamentarian or indeed stakeholder who fully understands the breadth of all of those regulations. So I would like to say that it is important that that particular principle is borne in mind. 
The underlying debate in our select committee about this bill related to the fact that a number of carriers were concerned that they would not be actually paying for the load or lack of load on the vehicle at a particular point in time; rather it was going to be the carrying capacity. But let it be said we will support this bill throughout the Committee stage and will continue to highlight those areas that need further refinement or elaboration as time permits. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 First of all can I express a token of appreciation to the Hon Shane Jones for that little cameo performance in this respect. One of the issues that we should all have in the back of our minds when we introduce legislation to the House is what my colleague and cousin has termed getting rid of a couple of regulations at the same time as introducing a new piece of legislation. I actually think it is a very very good discipline to get into. 
However clause 3 of the Road User Charges Bill specifically says that its purpose is to charge vehicles for “their use of the roads that are in proportion to the costs that the vehicles generate:”. I think that is something we have to spell out in big letters. That is why we have a road-user charge system. It is not to tax not to be mean but to actually pay for the roads that diesel vehicles use. 
I just want to run through some of the words that I think are important in this bill. They are all based on our plan Building a Brighter Future; all based around having a brighter future for our nation. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that the lady from Dunedin would love to mock me but here are some of those words and maybe she can mock me later on after she has heard these words. 
The bill simplifies the regime of road-user charges. It modernises our system it is cost-effective it is efficient it is fair it is balanced and it is well managed. Now when we look at achieving a brighter future we see that those are all things that a company as Mr Jones says looks at to get that company going and to get that company moving so it actually can add to the total sum of our economy. 
Labour members can mock Building a Brighter Future but I tell members that people out there will not mock a brighter future for their companies and this nation. This bill is about simplifying it is about modernising and it is about bringing our road-user charge regime into the 21st century instead of having it lie in the past. There are so many things going on—[ 
Interruption 
] I will just wait for those fellows to finish their little talk. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: We’re trying to amuse ourselves. It’s so boring. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is so boring? Well I do not think that brighter futures are boring. I do not think that brighter futures are anywhere near boring I say to Mr Hide. I know he is getting out and so is his mate— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: The member is. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —and so is Stuart. But I believe in a brighter future for this country and it is not just about education it is not about the fluffy stuff; it is also about the nuts and bolts. It is also about the road-user charges. It is also about the man out there who maybe has two or three trucks and wants to be able to run a business. [ 
Interruption 
] It just goes to show what is going to happen on 26 November—those three will not be here. 
I served on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and it is a good select committee well chaired by the member for Hamilton David Bennett. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chair. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Obviously painstaking research from the member Tau Henare went into his speech on the Road User Charges Bill. Last week was probably dedicated to writing that speech and members could really tell. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: In big writing too. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: In big writing. I tautoko the sentiment from the member Tau Henare in regard to the Labour spokesperson Shane Jones but I will also mention the chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee David Bennett all the select committee members and all the submitters who came to the committee and who took the time to submit. I think we had a good process. 
This is a really important issue because every year $800 million is spent on road-user charges and 580000 vehicles are paying them. This legislation dating from 1978 is older than I am. It is a few years older than I am in fact. In this call I will look at Part 1 clauses 3 to 6. I will look at the purpose clause. When it comes to the purpose of the bill it is all about facilitating the trucking industry. We see the Government with a whole host of other legislative regulatory and financial support measures for the trucking industry and again this is another part of it. So I would like to look at the purpose of this bill—in particular the purpose to modernise the road user charges system to improve compliance and to establish a framework for electronic management. I contend that in fact all of these are quite inaccurate. The bill is talking about modernising at a time when we could have greater electronic management of our trucks and our vehicles paying road-user charges on our roads when in fact we are not using these tools of electronic management. What we are doing is going down an averaging path. In fact we are going down a dumber path one might consider and with it comes a dumber future Tau Henare might say. 
We are talking about compliance. I want to ask a question. One of the reasons why we do not have compliance is maybe that some of the decisions around our transport fund are of doubtful quality. We are looking at a whole bunch of roads of national significance with dubious business cases. Even the current leader of the ACT Party Don Brash and his 2025 Taskforce were criticising some of these roads of national significance just on their economics. So if we are going to look at compliance a key issue has to be actual quality spending in the transport portfolio. When we look at it we see that across the country for every dollar this Government is spending on all the walking and cycling on all the buses and trains and on all the coastal shipping it is borrowing and pouring $6 into more roads that unfortunately are benefiting only a small part of the country and are of dubious economic quality. 
I would rather invest in smart transport alternatives—things like the central business district rail link in Auckland which would actually reduce congestion on Auckland’s inner-city streets meaning there would be more space on the roads for those plumbers those tradesmen and those trucks using RUC the road-user charge scheme. We would like to invest money in safer roads. I would like to note and I am quite proud to say that the Green Party was the only party to score 10 out of 10 in the Automobile Association’s election ranking because of our prioritisation on safer roads. Our plan would reduce congestion and deliver better economic benefits. 
Essentially with this bill we have missed the opportunity. We have taken the opportunity to bring in a whole bunch of submitters to look at the road-user charge issue. It is important because the Government itself estimates that it will grow by 75 percent between 2006 and 2031. The problem is that if we are going to have all that freight carried on our roads be it by logging trucks in my home town of Gisborne with massive road safety accidents we are going to see more congested roads less safe roads greater emissions and a freight sector that is increasingly dependent on trucks. 
Everyone in this Chamber knows that the road-user charge scheme is one of the only ones of its type in the world. It has considerably huge administration costs. The Road Transport Forum estimated that $120 million a year is wasted in administration of this overly complex scheme which this Government in the aim of modernising with the bill is simply going to continue. Although the Green Party does support a user-pays approach to driving—in particular for commercial vehicles—we do think it is fair that they pay their fair share. But obviously that is not the case because when we looked at the Ministry of Transport’s own research from 2006—I believe it was—we found that trucks were paying only 56 percent of their costs. In other words commercial vehicles are being subsidised 44 percent by the taxpayer. We would like to see an actual user-pays approach when it comes to road-user charges. 
When we look at the purposes and the changes in this bill we see that they are not overly controversial. They are not going to make a huge difference. Hopefully they will make evasion more difficult overall. It is a very important issue. Part 1 clause 3 looks at modernising and simplifying the road user charge system. I wonder whether a fuel excise tax paid at the pump like we have with petrol would be much more effective in modernising the system and doing what the purpose of the bill is which is actually to increase compliance. We have something that is overly complex and very expensive to administer. 
The major change we are seeing in this bill is the changes around the maximum weight. On the one hand we think it is a good idea. We think it will provide an incentive for vehicles to be used to capacity. It is good for overall efficiency and from an environmental perspective. But sadly we are simply seeing this bill introducing only a framework for electronic payment. It does not actually go down the path where we could have taken some of the smart technologies that are on the market right now which we could have been using for full electronic monitoring and payment for trucks. I think we could have looked at trucks above a certain weight level. Obviously for utes it is probably not realistic. But we think it would have been desirable it would have helped us to plan the transport network more efficiently it would have helped the companies themselves with their data management and it would have helped the Government to reduce administration costs because it could have more accurately charged road-user charges. It is absolutely ironic that a bill that is in the name of modernising and simplifying the scheme when we want to access these smart technologies is simply going down an averaging path of averaging weights. So we think that was a missed opportunity. 
The major concern with the changes to the maximum weight was the impact on buses. I acknowledge the Bus and Coach Association which gave us on the committee a very compelling submission. I also acknowledge the committee members who helped to change the legislation in the select committee. Obviously it is a truism that a bus carrying schoolkids and the All Blacks bus are absolutely totally different weights and are a totally different kettle of fish from a truck carrying rocks from the quarry or whatever. I congratulate the Bus and Coach Association on its work in its submission. However it has been left up to regulation. I think this is something we could have looked at in the committee. What we have essentially done is kicked the ball up to the Minister of Transport’s office. That is a theme of this bill; many big decisions have simply been kicked up to the Minister’s office for him to decide and for him to make in regulations. 
The most controversial element in this part of the bill which could annoy literally hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders is that what we see when we look from the big picture level is that owners of small mostly efficient light diesel vehicles will end up paying more yet it is the owners of trucks at the heavier end of the weight spectrum who will be paying less. Officials continually reassured me that this was not true because of the way the Minister would do it with the regulations and the weight bands. I hope the Minister can commit to that because he will have 200000 or more angry light diesel vehicle owners chasing him around the country I imagine. 
The officials advised us that the rises were only in the order of maybe $32 for a light diesel vehicle covering 15000 kilometres and said that is not much. But it is a lot when we look across the whole country. The big fear for the Government of course is that it can be accused that this bill is simply about taking the costs from everyday Kiwis with their efficient light diesel vehicles and in fact subsidising trucks given the Ministry of Transport research that I have already quoted. I think it is critical that this Government does not disadvantage the small efficient diesel vehicle owners. 
Another area where we missed an opportunity is that this bill continues what we currently have in exempting electric car owners from paying road-user charges on our roads. It is great to incentivise electric cars. I think they will be part of the solution in the medium to long term. However electric cars have not been wildly successful. We have only 40 electric cars in the country despite all of the hot air we are hearing from Government members about how they are the answer. The main reason why we are investing or borrowing to invest $13 billion at a time of a deep global recession a deep debt crisis in New Zealand with credit downgrades is for new motorways and new roads of significance to National. We lament the opportunities to actually encourage greater efficiency of use. This will benefit our economy and benefit householders who for the average Kiwi family in New Zealand are paying around $6000 per year on average in fuel charges. 
It is disappointing that this bill seems entirely predicated on trying to help out these heavy vehicle owners yet we are disadvantaging smaller vehicle owners. I hope the Government looks at this in regulations and tackles it but we will be voting for this bill in the Committee stage because overall it is not controversial. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 1 of the Road User Charges Bill particularly in relation to the purpose. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Tell us about the Mad Butcher. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes well we can talk about the Mad Butcher but I would rather talk about this bill actually I tell Tau Henare. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Have you apologised yet? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well actually yes. If the member kept up he would know there have been apologies. But we are here to talk about the Road User Charges Bill. The member from Te Atatu might want to be a little bit more concerned about some of the people in his electorate who are concerned about this bill. They have been talking to me about the purpose of this bill and the concerns they have around the shift from nominated weights to gross weights as a basis for road-user charges. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How could you? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The member can yell and yell but I am here to talk about the purpose of the bill. 
As I said Labour supports this bill but we still have some major concerns that we want to talk about. The first concern is the shift from nominated weights to gross weights. The second part of the purpose of the bill that we are concerned about is the fact that we do not get to vote on the changes to this bill and the charges in this bill. Those were the things that came through from the select committee—the major concerns from the industry. The fact that the regulations will be sent off to the Minister—the regulations surrounding the charging of road-user charges; the changes to this—is a break in the basic democratic principle that there should be no taxation without representation. 
Tonight we are debating the Committee stage of a bill but we have no final numbers and the industry still does not know what is meant under Part 1 and the purpose when we start to talk about the changes to road-user charges—and in particular the changes a little bit further on in Part 1 around the road-user charges weight. That is in clause 5 where the calculation of weight in relation to road-user charges vehicles changes from a gross vehicle mass to a maximum allowable weight. 
I want to mention that there were a number of submissions. This is the controversial part of the bill. There are two parts to this; I will mention one in a minute but the second is about the fact that the charges will go through regulation and regulation will determine what the charges are for truck drivers who I thought were the friends of National actually. I thought they were the friends of the National Party but if those members think we have problems with the Mad Butcher they should start talking about their problems with the transport industry. I have been talking to a number of people in this industry. They came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. They made submissions on this bill and they have been ignored; they have been ignored. They are extremely concerned because what this bill will do is impose costs on the business—the business that the National Government says that it supports. This is road transport both small businesses and larger businesses. National members have not listened. That is one part of our concern with regard to Part 1. 
Part 1 is very interesting because it outlines all sorts of interpretations and other things but that is one concern. A little bit further on we will talk about our concern as I mentioned about how these charges from the National Government will be determined by regulation without any reference to this Parliament. Why should the friends of the National Party be having to sign up to the fact that there are— 
David Bennett 
: How hard is it? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: What? 
Hon Shane Jones 
: The Warriors. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The Warriors—oh look come on. Members opposite should be much more worried about their friends in the transport industry. They should be much more worried about that but they have no respect for them. Members opposite think that they can just sit there make rude comments and disgraceful comments about things that are completely irrelevant to this bill and at the same time ignore the major concerns in the industry about the shift from nominated weights to gross weights. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. We are actually not interested at this time about what is happening on the rugby field or with the Warriors. Just concentrate on Part 1 and can we just continue. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Thank you very much Mr Chair. As I was trying to say there are things that we support about this bill. We think that the purpose is sound but there are things we are concerned about as well. We want to make sure that we continue the road-user charges system by imposing charges on heavy vehicles and certain other vehicles for the use of the roads in proportion to the costs. We think it is good that we modernise and simplify the road-user charges system and that we improve compliance with and recovery of road-user charges. However there are issues which have not been resolved that were raised at the select committee. They are not resolved in the industry either and I think that the arrogant members on the other side of the Chamber will find that there are quite a lot of people in the transport industry who are not very happy about that. This issue has not settled down those people have not been listened to and I think members will find that there will be some agitation around a couple of proposals in this bill. 
We support the move to a 21st century electronic road-user charges system. We should be using whatever technology is available to us. But the move from nominated weights to gross weights for setting road-user charges is still causing quite a lot of angst. Members opposite can laugh sneer and do all the other things that they want to do. They can because they are arrogant and because they think that they do not have to listen to people any more. As we have seen in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee quite frequently when people bring issues of transport safety to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee— 
David Bennett 
: Great committee great committee. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No it is not a great committee. It has a reputation now for not listening to the people who bring their issues both through petitions and through their submissions on Part 1. Although we support the changes in this bill overall there are concerns. I think it is incumbent on the National Government to start to listen to the industry— 
Hon Member 
: Who to? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Maybe David Bennett thinks that he does not have to listen to anybody. Maybe he thinks— 
Clare Curran 
: He’s got nothing to say. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well maybe he has nothing to say and maybe he has nothing to say about Hillside railway workshops either. 
Clare Curran 
: Doesn’t know how to say yes or no. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well that is true—yes or no. He does not know the answers to either of those. But I find the Committee stage of this bill—Part 1 in particular—particularly interesting because Labour has concerns about two aspects of this bill. We have continued to say what they are. We will vote for this bill overall but we are concerned about some things in this bill. Submitters came to the select committee and there were very very strong submissions. The National Government has chosen to ignore them. Those two things are in Part 1: the shift from nominated weights to gross weights as the basis for charging for road-user charges and a little bit further on is the fact that we cannot actually vote on the level of road-user charges that will be applied because that will be established later by regulation. 
The conversations that I have had with those in the industry show that there is real concern about it and real concern about the fact that this Government is so arrogant that it thinks it can decide on charges without consultation and without any proper process through this House. The National Government is so arrogant about these things but underlying this bill there is some real concern about the move from driver-nominated weights to gross weights. Members of the industry are looking for some real respect from this Parliament with regard to listening to what they have said about the charging and the change from driver-nominated weights to gross weights. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 73 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1; Mana 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand Labour 42; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Road user charges 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We now move to debate Part 2 clauses 7 to 47 and schedule 1. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson Tisch. We are back here ploughing our way through this extraordinarily interesting legislation and members on this side of the Chamber unlike the chairman of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the other side and various other members have placed ourselves under considerable duress and actually read this part of the bill. 
Hon Members 
: Aw! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: This may come as a substantial surprise not to the member from Dunedin I must say who is on our committee. I want the Committee to note if there is a person who has told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee how much he has suffered as a consequence of poor transport capital allocation decisions being made and of items of vital importance to transport infrastructure being made in China it is that member opposite. Everyone in Dunedin should know that no one has been more critical of National than that very valuable member who occupies— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Really? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Unfortunately he has not shared it publicly but from time to time he does share with the select committee members how hoha he is. Now I understand that having suffered a wee bit of demotion myself over the last— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: —totally unnecessarily I have to say; it was almost gratuitous. 
But let me come back to the bill. Modernisation is a key feature of this bill and road-user charge vehicles must have a distance recorder but I want it to be noted that there are some dispensations or some concessions. During the select committee process some rather burly characters arrived. I think they were from Waikato or Hamilton and they run crane companies. They were characters and if one was unwise enough to shake their hand one found they had hands like a square-mouthed shovel. They were quite disinterested in the life of a parliamentarian but they were more disinterested in portions of this bill that might have had their paying inordinately large road-user charges although their vehicles were being used only for very specialist tasks. We had also my friends from the far north saying similar things. They were from the building relocation sector and the Heavy Haulage Association. It is good to see that as a consequence of the Labour Party advocacy during the select committee process and of listening whaitaringa to the various submitters who made the effort to come and use their constitutional opportunities to address the committee there will be some wriggle room and the people who operate those large vehicles will not be penalised disproportionately. In that sense that is another reason why we should support this bill through the duration of the Committee stage. 
In the far north and various other parts of the country there are a host of our road-user vehicle owners driving around on beaches chasing wild pigs and occasionally chasing other things that might take their fancy and they do not always pay the nana. They do not always pay their way. They are probably not the most egregious of the offenders but this bill in terms of ensuring that all vehicles have the appropriate road-user charge technology is designed to ensure that the net is spread widely enough to catch all users. There will be situations as the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Transport has said where for example vehicles are being used predominantly on a forestry road a private farm road or in the oyster industry and they hardly ever come on to a main road. They will not be disproportionately penalised but they will still require some technology so that the authorities can be assured and the broader community can be assured that all users of vehicles when going on the road make a contribution to the cost of maintaining our roading infrastructure. 
Those vehicles often use rural roads and it is sad that rural roads have been starved of funding as a consequence of the misallocation of transport financial resources by the current Government in its headlong pursuit of ideological trophies such as the “Holiday Highway” which will never be built—never. It will certainly never be built in the life of the Minister who unfortunately blights New Zealand by continuing to hold the transport portfolio. But wait; help is on the way; taihoa. That road will not be built during his time. The funds that have been tagged for that road need in many respects to be spread across meeting the costs of our rural roads. Before the milk tankers and the host of other road-user charge - levied vehicles whether they are logging trucks or stock trucks get on to the much-vaunted roads of national significance they are on rural roads and provincial roads. It is important when we think about the collection of this money that the technology is up to the task and more important that when the funding is applied to the roads they are using where these costs are incurred it is spread evenly. 
I will have more to say about that later—[ 
Interruption 
] I sense an air of anticipation from the chair of the select committee. He is just looking forward to a further iteration. Far be it from me to disappoint both of those men from Hamilton. They need to prepare for Sue Moroney and a host of our other colleagues sweeping all the votes into the kete. Now this political kete is not like the Maori Party kete which when we put a pipi into it the pipi comes out the bottom—no sir. Once those votes go in there it is like an eel pot—like a hinaki. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I am just introducing a bit of cultural education for the benefit of the Hamilton-based members. Your message is not wasted on me Mr Chairperson given that this is the second to last day that I will occupy this particular position during this parliamentary session. 
I need to come back to the importance of modernising technology as we go about the business of collecting road-user charges. The technology needs to be very efficient and effective because $2.7 billion is the overall amount. Not all of it comes from road-user charges but they are a key contributor. We will support the simplification and the modernisation. This particular part may not excite very many of our voters. I dare say it has not excited even the bureaucrats but unfortunately they are paid to suffer under this unwise Government—they are paid to suffer. But wait; help is on the way. 
This measure does outline the importance of ensuring that people who own these vehicles are not tempted to fiddle with the system in terms of collecting accurate data. I need to tell a story about someone in Ngati Hine one of the tribes of Northland that is unwisely trying to break away from the Ngapuhi tribe but that is another matter—that is another matter. I met a chap in Moerewa—Kawakawa—from Ngati Hine and he complained to me about whether the gadget measuring the amount of distance he had been travelling was consistent with the amount of miles he had purchased because the roads were so bad in that Ngati Hine area. They were so starved of transport capital that that had shaken the innards of this technology. So I learnt something very simple there. I learnt to make sure that the technology is robust in order to deal with the rural roads of Northland which have been starved of resources as a consequence of misallocation by the current Minister despite the fact that this road-user charge money is being levied and collected on a regular basis. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9 56 p.m.