Volume 660 Week 33 - Thursday 11 February 2010 
Volume 660 Week 33 - Thursday 11 February 2010 
[Volume:660;Page:8811] 
Thursday 11 February 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 16 February it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement and on other bills on the Order Paper. It is expected that the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement will conclude on Wednesday 17 February. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give us an indication as to the status of the Wanganui District Council (Port and Harbour) Bill which is due to come up for consideration as a local order of the day on the next members’ day which I think will be the third Wednesday of this sitting. 
With your indulgence may I just record the sadness of the Labour Opposition at learning the news that Gray Fuller who was a Chamber and gallery officer for our Chamber from 1995—nearly 15 years of service—passed away over this summer adjournment. I am sure all members of Parliament would like to record our sadness and the service that he gave to all members of Parliament. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Coming to the latter point first I was unaware that the gentleman had passed away. He was indeed a great gentleman and I extend the Government’s condolences to his family joining the shadow Leader of the House in that regard. 
The Wanganui bill that the member refers to is of course a local bill that has been advanced by the Wanganui District Council. It would perhaps be better for him to speak directly to the council to see whether it is its intention that the bill should stay on the Order Paper. I would hope that if the bill remains on the Order Paper it is because there has been a certain amount of other order put in place that might lead to its speedy resolution and its even passage through the House. 
Questions to Ministers 
GST Increase—Effect on Families 
1. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What advice if any has he received on the likely impact of an increase in GST on New Zealand families? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The advice I have received is that that would depend on the details of the switch between GST and income tax and also on the impact of changes in the taxation of property which tends to be owned by higher-income New Zealanders. 
Hon Annette King 
: When he said yesterday that most people will not be worse off under his proposed tax changes and the Prime Minister said that the vast bulk of people will not be worse off who will be worse off? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I just told the member the impact on families will depend on the details of the income and GST tax switch and also on the impact of the taxation on property. I have to say the data about the ownership of property is a bit less certain but it does show that property is owned mainly by higher-income New Zealanders as one would expect. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very direct and was based on the Minister’s own quote yesterday where he said that few would be worse off; having said that he must have some idea as to who is worse off. He did not answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well in fairness I do have to say to the honourable member that the Minister in replying pointed out that that would depend totally on the detail of the final measures. He clearly does not have that detail at the moment. I do not believe it is possible for me to ask him to answer any more precisely. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to be a little bit careful because I am I think disputing your ruling. But it was very clear in the House yesterday that the Minister of Finance said that few people would be affected. For that to happen he had to have at least a decision that involved a range of people. I think for him to continue to mislead the House as to pretending— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not mind the member raising his point of order but he is now getting into dangerous territory. The English language is a fairly simple language. When someone says “The vast majority of people will not be worse off” that does not necessarily mean that he or she has the detail of who may or may not be worse off; it means the intention in setting the final policy is that the vast majority will not be worse off. That is my understanding of what the Minister said. That is why I am not asking him to answer further. It was perfectly clear to me what he said. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Following on from the exchange that has just occurred and fully accepting that the Minister may have in his possession a range of scenarios but no final decision has yet been made to choose between them and thereby accepting your point it would seem to suffice if in his answer to my colleague he were able to give just one example of an individual— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: But he has made no attempt— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I think I have listened to enough on this matter. 
Hon Annette King 
: As New Zealand Superannuation is adjusted annually only what action will he take to ensure a pensioner whose meat bill went up by 3 percent whose milk bill went up by 5 percent whose power bill is going up by 5 percent and who now faces 15 percent GST on top of all that will not be worse off under his proposed tax cuts? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would simply repeat the answer I used before. But I point out to the member that in a GST - income tax switch superannuitants are a group who would find that they benefit from income tax cuts because as she knows superannuation is tied to the after-tax average wage. The member might reflect on the fact that during her term in office most annual CPI increases were greater than 2.5 percent—during her term in office. She did not seem worried about it then. 
David Bennett 
: How will the Government make the tax system fairer? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We will certainly do a better job than the previous Government. Under the previous Government an Inland Revenue Department survey showed that of the 100 wealthiest taxpayers in New Zealand half of them were not paying the top tax rate. Inland Revenue Department information also shows that under the Labour Government in 9 years the number of people paying tax on $1 million actually dropped—it actually dropped— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Point of order. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —so for the Labour Government to say they are all about fairness— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is sailing close to the wind when he ignores the Speaker on his feet. The Hon Pete Hodgson had called a point of order. I am not surprised that members could not hear that he had called a point of order because the noise was just unacceptable. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was “How does he intend to make the tax system better?”. Now 1 minute into the answer it seems to me that the question ought to be addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was pointing out what he saw as a problem with the tax system which he I presume intends to try to fix up. It seemed to be a reasonable answer to the question asked. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he seen Treasury’s assumptions on GST which showed that if GST were reduced only a fraction of the reduction would be passed on to consumers; if so has Treasury given him assumptions showing that if GST is increased retailers are likely to add a margin for themselves; and if so how will he compensate New Zealanders for those increases in prices? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I thought that that member would know how it works because she has been a member of two Cabinets that dealt with GST—the first one to bring it in and the next one to increase it to 12.5 percent with no compensation at all. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I suspect I know what the point of order will be. The Hon Annette King asked a reasonable question and I think the Minister should have made some attempt to answer it rather than just say that the member has been involved in increasing GST in the past and therefore should know about it. I think the House deserves a little more focus on the question than that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I expect that the advice Treasury has given me—and there will be more to come—will be the same as was given to that member as Minister when her Government increased GST from 10 percent to 12.5 percent with no compensation whatsoever. That advice is to the effect that a significant part of the increase is not passed on and that retailers have to absorb it because of the competition in the market. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: What compensation for any GST increase does the Minister have planned for the 348000-plus tertiary students who if they are employed at all are typically in low-paid and part-time positions so therefore will not benefit from tax cuts for the rich and are neither superannuitants nor beneficiaries who may receive some compensation so they will simply have to bear the increase in GST? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Those matters are all under consideration. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he seen a report that the Maori Party members are looking at ditching their support for the Government over the proposed increase in GST; if so was he as finance Minister aware of their intentions and what does such a threat do to his tax proposals? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am aware that the Maori Party members have points of view that they want to advance and we are in intensive discussions with them so that we can all understand. We all have an interest in understanding the impact of any rise in GST just as we all have an interest in understanding the impact of lowering income tax rates so this country which spends more than it earns can get around to earning more investing more saving more and increasing incomes. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Effect on Natural Environment 
2. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement: “if there is an increase in mining … New Zealand’s natural environment would also be improved”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister stands by the full statement which is this: “the Government is also proposing to establish a new Conservation Fund potentially drawing on royalty revenue from mining operations on Crown land. The Conservation Fund would resource special conservation projects around the country. That means that if there is an increase in mining activity New Zealand’s natural environment would also be improved.” 
Metiria Turei 
: Which part of Mount Aspiring National Park would be improved by mining? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I advise the member to wait until the discussion document is released very shortly when public opinion will be sought and public opinion will be listened to. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Does he recall saying as Minister of Tourism: “I’m not going to do anything silly.”; if so why is he pushing ahead with significant changes to schedule 4 despite concerns from the tourism industry which fears that such a move would put a $20 billion industry at risk? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The discussion document will go out to the public for consultation. Although it might be convenient for Mr Jones to jump ahead of the pack on this particular issue it is in his case just normal behaviour. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: When the Prime Minister said that notwithstanding public consultation he expects there to be significant changes to schedule 4 had he predetermined that mining would take place on the Coromandel Peninsula given that his Minister of Energy and Resources has already stated that there are interesting areas in the Coromandel where there could be further gold-mining activity; if so what is the point of public consultation? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is evident that the Government does want more mining activity in New Zealand. The question is how extensive it should be in the conservation estate. A discussion document is being prepared jointly by the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation and it will go out for public consultation. It is inappropriate for me to make any further comment. That kind of comment is disingenuous and frankly scaremongering on behalf of the Opposition. I suggest that anyone in the Opposition who really does not like this stuff should take off watches throw away cellphones stop driving cars and not to use computers anymore. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by the statement of his Minister that the Government has no intention of mining high-value conservation land? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. 
Metiria Turei 
: Which parts of the Coromandel Forest Park are of such low conservation value that they would be improved by mining? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I again suggest that the member waits until the consultation document is released when all will be revealed and she and other members of the public in New Zealand can have their say. 
Metiria Turei 
: Perhaps the Prime Minister could tell the House and the public which parts of the Te Wai Pounamu world heritage area are of low conservation value and therefore would be improved by mining? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I again say the same thing to the member and I will continue to say it: no matter how many parts of New Zealand the member tries to scaremonger over the reality is that a document is coming there will be a public consultation process and then there will be some decisions. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Tourism Industry Association chief Tim Cossar that New Zealand is internationally recognised for the leadership it has shown in managing one-third of the country as conservation estate and does he believe that his Government can improve that international reputation and New Zealand’s clean green brand by mining that conservation estate? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Again the member tries to suggest there is activity coming of such enormous scale that it would see the destruction of the conservation estate. That is utter rubbish and it is scaremongering. It is irresponsible and adds nothing to the debate. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I seek leave to table a landscape assessment of the Coromandel Peninsula which demonstrates that large parts of Coromandel in schedule 4 are considered outstanding not low-value as the Minister of Energy and Resources called it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I seek leave from the House could we be informed of who prepared the document. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: It was published by Stephen Brown Environments and was prepared for the Thames-Coromandel District Council. 
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. 
GST Increase—Compensation for All Income Groups 
3. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How would the Government ensure that all income groups are compensated for with any increase in GST? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The impact of any increase in GST on any particular income group will depend on the details of the swap between income tax cuts and a GST increase and how that group is affected by any taxation of property. Certainly in the case of people on benefits New Zealand superannuation and Working for Families payments the Prime Minister stated in this House the other day that there would be automatic adjustments to compensate for any increase in GST. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: How would any increase in GST fit within a package of lower personal taxes to help people get ahead and to improve New Zealand’s economic growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: New Zealand’s economy needs significant improvement and that is why the Government is considering tax measures in the first place. This economy spends more than it earns and its export sector has been in recession for the last 5 years. We want stronger incentives for people to get ahead to save and to invest. We want weaker incentives for people to spend more than they earn and to borrow too much to fill the difference. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Why is the Government considering a modest increase in GST? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is considering a modest increase in GST as part of a package designed to help this economy get up and out of recession and to grow strongly in the future so that we can have higher incomes and better public services and so that the Government’s books are in better order. We want a package that is fiscally neutral—we cannot give away revenue; this is no lolly scramble—but improves the incentives in the economy so we can rebalance it in favour of earning investing working and saving. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Does the need for tax reform have broad-based support? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes it does. The Opposition seems to have discovered in the last couple of days that the Government has been considering changes in the tax system. In fact we ran a very transparent process which was announced last May. In August the Tax Working Group put its first GST scenarios on the website which the Labour Party found yesterday 6 months after they were published. There has been widespread public discussion and I think there is a broad base of support for changes in a tax system that is creaking and more important for changes in an economy that needs to do a better job to realise New Zealanders’ aspirations. 
Tax System—Response to 2008 Treasury Briefing to Incoming Minister 
4. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What was his public response to Treasury’s suggestion in the 2008 briefing to the incoming Minister that he consider a “move towards a tax system more heavily weighted towards consumption taxes”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I do not recall exactly what was said or what I was asked about that. The Government is working with the economy in the state that it finds it in. We set up the Tax Working Group in May last year. It started to publish its proceedings in August last year. Its very thorough and openly debated public report has drawn the Government to the conclusion that it should consider the option of cutting income taxes offset by a modest increase in GST. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: To assist the Minister’s recall does he still stand by his statement “… we won’t be doing anything with GST. We are focused on personal tax cuts as our top priority.”; or should that now read “Keeping our word is no longer our top priority; raising GST is.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that the latter part is not an appropriate way to frame a question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The fact is that the incoming National Government did campaign on tax cuts. We put in place the first tranche of them and then we had to cancel the second tranche of them because of the effect of the global recession. At the same time we set up the Tax Working Group which has openly discussed an increase in GST for 6 months. It took till yesterday for that member to think to ask a question about it in this House. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How can he expect New Zealanders to trust his Government’s promise of some kind of compensation for GST when he said “We want to maintain GST as it is. … We want to keep that rate” only to break that promise a year later? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have outlined to the member the circumstances. National campaigned on income tax cuts. In fact in Budget 2009 there was the option to increase GST in order to fund more of the tax cuts. But we decided not to proceed with income tax cuts because the country could not afford them. Since then the Tax Working Group has put in front of the Government advice that changing the balance of tax or cutting income taxes funded by a modest increase in GST would result in a better tax system and from our point of view would result in a better economy. 
Amy Adams 
: Why is the Government considering a small increase in GST as part of a wider package of tax changes that will help New Zealanders to get ahead? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: New Zealand is still a country that spends more than it earns. In fact our total debt to overseas lenders has now reached $160 billion— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: You’re going to make it worse. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —and it got significantly worse in the last 4 or 5 years. It is time that we took stock and created incentives in this economy that favour working earning saving and investing because we cannot continue with overspending and borrowing to fill the gap as happened under that member’s economic management. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If the Minister believes that that was then and this is now given that he is a former leader of his party and a former finance Minister how can he expect the public to trust him on GST when he has now broken two promises on tax cuts since taking office this time around? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member will just have to wait and see how the details of the package shake down. Those decisions are ahead of the Government. When we have made them we will announce them and people will be able to see what impact they will have on them. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he now accept that his pledge to maintain GST at its current rate made in February 2009 after the election means that his leader’s defence which was different from his own yesterday on his GST flip-flop could now have been better considered? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I do not accept that. 
Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Progress 
5. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What progress has recently been made towards achieving the Government’s goal of settling historic Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Great progress has been made since the House rose late last year. On 22 December I signed agreements in principle with Ngati Whatua o Kaipara and Ngati Manuhiri signalling a breakthrough in the settlement of historical claims in the Tamaki-makau-rau region. On 15 January I signed agreements in principle with the five iwi of the Te Hiku Forum: Te Rarawa Te Aupouri Ngai Takoto— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Very clever people. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —Mr Jones—Ngati Kahu and Ngati Kuri. The Crown has also recognised the mandates of Mana Ahuriri Incorporated and Te Au Maro o Ngati Pukenga. On 25 January I signed terms of negotiation with Ngati Pukenga and I think this work represents real progress. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How does this recent progress fit in with the Government’s commitment to advancing the settlement of historical grievances? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Since the beginning of 2009 the Government has recognised eight deeds of mandate and signed seven terms of negotiation 12 agreements in principle and four deeds of settlement. Although the Government has made significant progress towards achieving its goal of just and durable settlements of historical Treaty claims by 2014 the previous administration achieved the somewhat less than stellar average of 1.6 settlements per year—a pace that would have seen iwi still in negotiations in 2048. [ 
Interruption 
] That is why those members are braying like jackals as I speak. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Is the Minister aware of any instances where new grievances may be created in the process of resolving historical ones; if so how does he propose to address them? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The member alluded to this allegation in an interview on Radio New Zealand National the other week. I say for the benefit of that member that I am acutely conscious of the need to proceed very carefully when dealing with the move from agreements in principle to deeds of settlement. I am particularly aware of the issue that she has raised in relation to Te Tau Ihu. That issue results from intra-iwi differences that go back many years which need to be handled very carefully indeed. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What recent reports has the Minister seen regarding the pace of Treaty settlements? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: In my answer to a previous supplementary question I referred to an interview that Ms Street had on Radio New Zealand National where at times she seemed to be arguing that rather than resolving matters in a timely manner the Government should slow down. Perhaps this interview explains why Labour’s record was 1.6 settlements per year over 9 years. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I apologise Mr Speaker I should have sought leave to table this material after my earlier question. I seek leave to table a graph showing the equity distribution of current tax arrangements It is based on Treasury data presented to and released by the Tax Working Group. 
Hon Simon Power 
: It’s already on the website. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It has not been made available to the House Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not waste time on that. It is part of a document. Leave is sought to table that part of the document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I wish to table some graphs that are particularly on point here from the Tax Working Group. They show that even with full compensation for the increase in GST the massive gain is made by people at the top end of the tax scale and— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I see the member has a number of pages. I will not have the time of the House wasted by the member going through a number of pages from a document that is available to every member of this Parliament. I was tolerant when the member first sought leave to table part of that document—and he will sit down while I am on my feet—and that leave was denied by the House. I am not going to have time taken on going through a series of pages from a document that has been distributed to all members. Members have the document. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In taking heed of your ruling Mr Speaker I seek leave to table as a group all of the remaining scenarios produced by the Tax Working Group all of which show a massive gain by people at the top end which would have— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not make a speech while seeking leave to table documents. I will be tolerant. Leave is sought to table this section of the Tax Working Group’s report. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection. 
Health Services—Cuts to Front-line Services 
6. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Have there been any cuts to front-line health services since he became Minister? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Government’s goal is that New Zealanders will have better sooner more convenient health services. As we improve the public health service over time patients will see changes in how front-line services are provided. Demand for services changes over time as populations change and providers change. There will be more of many services and occasionally there will be fewer of other services but more money will always go into the health budget and into more services overall. We have increased the health budget and front-line services are increasing. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Is he satisfied that 86-year-old Miss Muriel Mouet of Lower Hutt who cannot change the sheets on her bed hang out her washing clean the bathroom toilets or floors or vacuum her home has had her home support hours cut in a move described by her nephew as bullying; and how does that stack up against his promise to have no front-line health services cut? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not have the details of that case but I can advise the member that I have been assured that no one will be unsafe or unable to stay in his or her own home as a result of this review of home support services. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What reports has he seen of claimed cuts to health services and what response if any has he seen to these claims? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have seen a number of recent claims of cuts to access to general practitioner services including one from a Ms Ruth Dyson. This wrong claim was discussed in an editorial in the influential magazine  
New Zealand Doctor 
 which stated: “Why does Labour health spokesperson Ruth Dyson act as though she has no understanding of GP fees? … I find it hard to understand why Mrs Dyson persists in spreading misinformation. Labour appears so disingenuous it must leave people wondering how strong a grip it has on … health policy. It’s all a bit fishy.” 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What does he say to the district nurse who said publicly that she has been forced to cut hundreds of health checks for the elderly and was now seeing those same people being admitted to hospital costing the health board even more in the long run; and how does that stack up against his promise to ensure that nurses have more say? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: How it stacks up is that this Government put an extra $750 million into the health budget this year. We have produced a record number of elective surgeries we have more people getting cancer treatment and we have faster emergency departments. We are investing in the priorities that New Zealanders have. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Did the Minister realise that in making his unreasonable demand on the MidCentral District Health Board to find $9 million worth of cuts those cuts would be to front-line services such as rehab for under-65s sexual health services diabetes intervention and support dialysis services to older people and 24 assessment treatment and rehabilitation beds in Horowhenua? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The member is quite right to identify that we have inherited a badly worsening situation at the MidCentral District Health Board. I have to say that this financial uncertainty is making it hard on the staff and the community despite the Government increasing the MidCentral District Health Board’s budget by $26 million last year. I must advise that member that the best way to secure the long-term future of health services in the MidCentral region is to get that district health board on to a solid financial footing. I am not prepared to let the MidCentral District Health Board limp on and put its long-term sustainability at risk. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: How many more front-line—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. I just cannot hear; there is too much noise and I say that to the Government benches on this occasion. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: How many more front-line jobs will the MidCentral District Health Board need to cut before the Minister is satisfied that it is abiding by his demands? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: All district health boards are required to get better value for money and improve front-line services. We have given the MidCentral District Health Board another $26 million but it has been unable to reverse the decline we inherited from the previous Government. The best way that the member as the Opposition’s most effective associate spokesman on health could do something for his region is to support getting those services on to a long-term sustainable footing. Harping on about the problem will not fix it and secure the services that he and I want for his community. 
Prisons—Management of Inmate Population 
7. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Can she provide an update on efforts to manage New Zealand’s growing prison population? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes. Last week I inspected the development of a 60-bed container unit at Rimutaka Prison. I am very pleased to report that the project is proceeding on time and on budget. The container cells will provide secure basic and functional accommodation for prisoners at 30 percent less than the usual cost. Due to a lack of planning by the previous Government we needed to move quickly and decisively to ensure that there were enough beds for the forecast numbers of prisoners. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What other steps are being taken to manage New Zealand’s prison population? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am pleased to report that the Department of Corrections is now proceeding to implement double-bunking following a judgment delivered by the Employment Court prior to Christmas. Double-bunking will deliver nearly 900 additional beds later this year and another 104 beds next year. By proactively managing our prison population we are averting the looming crisis that was left to us by the previous administration. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What advice has she received on what effect the amended “three strikes” policy will have on the prison population and is that advice part of the reason that the Minister of Justice Simon Power no longer wants to have anything to do with that policy? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The advice I have had is that after about 5 years we will need about another 50 beds and we can certainly deliver that. 
Maori—Te Puni Kokiri Advice 
8. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: What advice if any has he received this week from Te Puni Kokiri on issues crucial to Maori? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Te Puni Kokiri advises the Minister on a wide range of issues crucial to Maori every week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the honourable Associate Minister that the question has been on notice and it asked what advice if any the Minister has received this week. The Associate Minister in replying has said that the Minister receives a wide range of advice on an ongoing basis. I think a little more specificity to the question asked given that it has been on notice would be appreciated by the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Te Puni Kokiri has advised the Minister on a wide range of issues crucial to Maori this week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Parekura Horomia has further supplementary questions to pursue that answer. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What advice did he receive from Te Puni Kokiri on the definition of the Whanau Ora programme and the proposal to have a separate Whanau Ora Minister and a Whanau Ora trust which is to hold the $1 billion worth of funding it has been promised with minimal accountability for what it spends the $1 billion on? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: All of those matters that the member mentioned are speculation at this point. The report from the Whanau Ora task force was handed over today. Te Puni Kokiri has advised the Minister that it is a constructive and useful report. The Minister continues to be very enthusiastic about the movement that is occurring to develop Whanau Ora as a new approach to the delivery of social services—something that that member did not do when he was a Minister in Government. Discussions among Ministers continue the outcome of which will form part of Budget 2010 at which time that member will know along with everybody else. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Does he as the Minister of Maori Affairs support the Maori Party’s member’s bill to remove GST from food; if so how does he reconcile the conflict with his Government’s plan to increase GST across the board? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: As indicated yesterday on a similar question the Minister is part of wide-ranging discussions with other Ministers on the total economic package. The Minister is very well aware that the issues that he has raised need to be considered in line with other issues that are also part of the package. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a relatively simple point of order. The Associate Minister is answering on behalf of the Minister of Maori Affairs. She should be answering I think in the first person at least and giving his perspective on it rather than a National Party perspective on it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think there is any need for me to hear further. The point of order raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard is quite correct. When a Minister is answering on behalf of another Minister he or she is answering as that Minister. The Minister should not be saying that he—referring to the other Minister—is going to be doing something because the Minister is answering on his behalf. The point raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard is correct. I did not want to intervene unless members were finding it unacceptable. A member has drawn attention to it as being unacceptable and I would ask the Associate Minister to be mindful of that in answering any further questions. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: What advice has the Minister received from Te Puni Kokiri on what option he should take if given an ultimatum between repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act or stopping the increase in GST? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Again the Minister of Maori Affairs receives advice on a weekly basis on a lot of matters including the foreshore and seabed matter. Along with a team of other Ministers he is considering all of the issues that are involved in this matter. At a stage appropriate that member and everyone else will be advised. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: In that slew of advice what will she or he say to the 244000 Maori who earn less than $30000 a year—[ 
Interruption 
] Obviously there is a candidate for Whanau Ora over there— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise for interrupting. It is not very acceptable to have a member asking a question and other members yelling continual interjections. We saw that it led to disorder. I ask the Hon Shane Jones to be a wee bit more moderate in asking his question. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: What advice will the Minister give the 240000 Maori who earn less than $30000 a year as to why GST increases will be good for them? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The member will have to wait and see what advice in the end the Minister will give. As was stated earlier he is considering all of these matters as part of a total package of economic reform which as a partner in a coalition he knows he should do given that he works very well with National. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I could probably just say “ibid” from the last one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly correct. I remind Ministers that when they are answering on behalf of another Minister they are speaking as if they are that Minister. Ministers should be mindful of that and when they are answering on behalf of they should not refer to what another Minister might be doing. They are answering as if they are that Minister. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It would be good if there were some consistency in this because answers were given yesterday on behalf of the Minister of Maori Affairs but the statement “on behalf of the Minister” was not made. That member did not seem to object yesterday. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we will not waste House time on this. The Standing Orders are fairly clear on this matter and the Hon Trevor Mallard is quite correct. I do not want to intervene and it is not as if it is a huge issue but the reason it is quite important is that Ministers answering on behalf of another Minister cannot evade a question by saying that some other Minister may or may not do something because they are answering as if they are that Minister. That is why the Standing Order is drawn that way. 
Aquaculture—Offshore Opportunities 
9. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What measures has the Government undertaken to help New Zealand aquaculture companies take advantage of emerging offshore opportunities? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Last month I announced the addition of $550000 to the aquaculture market development fund. It is a contestable fund administered on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis. It is available to eligible companies for approved projects. That is in addition to the $600000 announced last year for five projects that are focusing on opportunities to grow the markets in Asia and North America. Investment in New Zealand’s fastest-growing seafood sector will accelerate the industry’s programme to drive growth over the medium to longer term. 
Colin King 
: What is the opportunity for the aquaculture industry in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I believe that the opportunities are very very considerable indeed. One thing I have noticed is that in the year 2000 the aquaculture industry was about the same size as the wine industry in New Zealand. In the year 2009-10 the wine industry hit over a billion dollars in its export markets. The aquaculture industry had been about the same size as the wine industry so for 9 years it has been an industry suppressed by the previous Government given no encouragement and asked to operate in an environment where it effectively went backwards. It did not grow in 9 years because of Government policy. Well we are changing that; we are putting a resource into that industry to ensure that it can grow— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What about the unemployment Gerry? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —and provide lots of employment particularly for Maori. 
Unemployment—Minister’s Statement 
10. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she stand by her statement that “This Government has made unemployment our No. 1 priority during the course of this recession”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes I do. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Has the Minister seen today’s  
Sydney Morning Herald 
 which reports that unemployment figures in Australia have dropped to 5.3 percent falling for the fourth consecutive month and that 52000 jobs were created there in January alone; if so what comparable action is she taking to close the gap with Australia? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No I have not read the  
Sydney Morning Herald 
. I have been concentrating on New Zealand and being very busy in that job.  
Kelvin Davis 
: What is she planning to do to help the 25000 Maori who now find themselves unemployed unable to find work and facing increases in electricity and food prices? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: What we do have within the Ministry of Social Development is assistance for some people through hardship assistance. We have certainly seen an increase in people looking for that over the last year. We are certainly seeing more emphasis on Community Max in areas like that. Nearly 50 percent of take-up in Community Max has been for Maori. We are seeing $1.5 billion in infrastructure with broadband. We are seeing roading programmes that are creating jobs for those very New Zealanders. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Has the Minister seen the analysis that shows that the doubling of youth unemployment since April 2008 is far greater than usual during a recession with two out of five Maori youth now unemployed; if so does she agree that the abolition of youth rates has been a major contributor to this unusually large increase? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I have seen evidence that youth have been most affected by this recession. I actually put it down to the fact that for 9 years under Labour the education system left those people behind so when they came out looking for jobs they did not have the education and skill level that would keep them in the market. That is why national standards are so important. 
Hekia Parata 
: Tena koe e Te Mana Whakawa huri noa i to tatou Whare. Nga mihi o te tau hou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker and throughout our House. Greetings of the New Year. 
] 
Can the Minister give an example of how this Government has assisted— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member; I thought she was raising a point of order. The point of order I want to raise is that Sir Roger Douglas’ question was about youth rates of pay in the employment market and there was no attempt to address that whatsoever. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any further help. The Minister answered the first part of the question and then offered a different view in respect of the second part. 
Hekia Parata 
: Can the Minister give an example of how this Government has assisted those struggling in a difficult employment market? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As I referred to yesterday it is a big list and one that takes quite some time. The $348 million that has gone into home insulation has provided 2000 jobs. The $1.5 million this year for Healthy Homes has provided another 1500 jobs. Job Ops and Community Max have provided another million dollars just for extra support for Student Job Search. Another million dollars is going to local councils for youth development partnerships There were 1600 summer scholarships for students. The list goes on. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Does the Minister agree with the Hon Kate Wilkinson who yesterday stated that the abolition of youth rates priced young people off the market; if so will she support my member’s bill being released this afternoon to reintroduce a youth minimum wage? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have not seen any evidence in both my role as Minister of Social Development and Minister of Employment through Vote Employment that shows evidence that young people are losing their jobs because of the youth rates. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Given that even if the Minister combined all of the placements and Job Ops Community Max and the like she will be assisting only a mere 5 percent of the 168000 New Zealanders looking for work what additional measures does she propose to help the high proportion of over 12000 Pacific people who are now unemployed and will not gain places in these schemes? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think there is a key difference between us—and it is quite evident. We believe that growing business helping businesses will actually help them have the confidence to take people up on jobs. That is what this Government is doing. It is about growing the economy instead of dividing just that piece of pie differently. That is going to create jobs. That is going to give jobs for those very people. 
Moana Mackey 
: What is she doing to address the nearly 10000 people in the Gisborne - Hawke’s Bay region who are currently unemployed especially the nearly 2500 people who have lost their jobs in this region since National took office? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is true that that area has been particularly hard hit. But we are seeing seasonal work come on and the numbers there starting to move. The Work and Income office has had good reports of people turning in to work as well. But we are certainly seeing that our rural areas are some of our hardest hit—there are no two ways about it. But that unfortunately is the effect of the global recession. 
Tax System Changes—Effect on Inequality 
11. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Will he guarantee that any changes to the tax system in this year’s Budget will decrease inequality in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As the member will be aware the Government has not made decisions in detail on this matter and any measure of inequality will be affected by the actual details. I might say that the Tax Working Group with encouragement from the Government paid a good deal of attention to issues of equality and different measures of inequality as it analysed different scenarios. The part of that analysis that is the most difficult to deal with is the impact of any significant tax revenue from property. By and large property tends to be owned by New Zealanders on higher incomes but none of the current databases can accurately pin down exactly who owns property and has interests in property-type vehicles. So it will be a bit difficult in the end to tell exactly whether inequality has decreased or not. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will he then guarantee that by the end of this term of Parliament the gap between the top 10 percent and the bottom 10 percent of income earners will be smaller than when his Government took office? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That would probably depend more on factors outside of a tax package. For instance the speed of decrease in unemployment will make a big difference to the earnings of the bottom 10 percent as compared with the top 10 percent. Equally the continued build up of long-term beneficiary numbers which has been going on for a while has created a group of a quarter of a million people who are locked into very low incomes. If the Government can make progress on those issues then it may be possible that inequality is decreased but that is yet to be seen. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a serious point of order. I contend that the Minister has not sufficiently addressed that question. The Minister— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The Minister and his colleagues earlier blocked the tabling of a number of scenarios any one of which—and all of which—would have conclusively answered the question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Nice try but no. The member will resume his seat. He will not use a point of order like that to litigate further or to further debate matters in the House. That is what the member was doing. 
Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Tamaki Makaurau Collective and Te Hiku o te Ika Negotiations 
12. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Kua whiwhi i a ia he ripoata e pa ana ki nga whiriwhiringa o te Kotahitanga o Tamaki Makaurau me Te Hiku o te Ika? 
[ 
Has he received any reports regarding the negotiations involving the Tamaki Makaurau collective and Te Hiku o te Ika? 
] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes. I have seen numerous reports about the agreements in principle signed with the five iwi of the Te Hiku Forum on 15 January. These reports are focused on progress in the area and the economic benefits likely to result from the settlements. I very much want to acknowledge the assistance given to me and to the iwi by Hone Harawira. He did a great job. I have also seen reports about the Crown’s offer to the Tamaki collective that noted that the Crown had made a breakthrough in the tangle of overlapping interests in the region which were highlighted by the Waitangi Tribunal’s 2007 report. Tomorrow the Minister of Maori Affairs and I will be signing agreements in principle with the Tamaki collective Ngati Whatua o Orakei and Te Kawerau-a-Maki. I acknowledge the great help I have received from Dr Sharples in this regard. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Na te aha i tatu ai nga tono a Te Hiku o te Ika mai i te wa tuatahi i tukuna to ratou tono a e 23 tau ratou e pukukaha ana kia tatu aua tono? 
[ 
In the case of Te Hiku o te Ika what factors are responsible for this Government being able to achieve the breakthrough towards reaching a settlement after 23 years of hard work since claims were first lodged? 
] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There are a number of factors. First I want to acknowledge the Chief Crown Negotiator Pat Snedden who has done a great job. Secondly I want to acknowledge the leadership and vision of those iwi negotiators who have represented their people at the negotiating table for many many years. Thirdly we have trialled new ideas an example of which is the pilot scheme that places public servants back in their iwi so that they can help their iwi with negotiations. I also have to say that a key factor has been the very positive contribution of the Maori Party. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: He aha ta nga hapu o Ngati Whatua me nga iwi ara a Te Kawarau-a-Maki a Ngai Tai ki Tamaki a Ngati Te Ata a Te Aki Tai a Ngati Tamaoho ratau ko Hauraki Marutuahu kia whakarauikahia ratau ki raro i te ropu hou kua tapaina ko nga Manawhenua o Tamaki-makau-rau a he aha nga korero kua wanangahia e raua ko te Minita mo nga Kawana a-Rohe mo tenei ropu rangatira? 
[ 
What has been the response of various Ngati Whatua groups—namely Te Kawarau-a-Maki Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Ngati Te Ata Ngati Tamaoho and Hauraki Marutuahu people—to the establishment of a new collective body called Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki-makau-rau and what discussions has he had with the Minister of Local Government about this special entity? 
] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I think there has been very good support for the establishment of the collective and in my discussions with the iwi they have acknowledged that this is a vehicle that can really help them move ahead after the years of division. I have also worked very closely with the local MP Dr Sharples in developing this proposal with Sir Douglas Graham and his support has been invaluable. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Ka aha te Minita ina puta nga hamumu me nga whakahe mai i te hapori Pakeha ki te tinihanga o te ingoa ki Te Oneroa a Tohe mai i te Ninety Mile Beach? 
[ 
What will the Minister do if complaints and opposing views are made by the non-Maori sector of the community about the change of name from Ninety Mile Beach to Te Oneroa-a-Tohe? 
] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister will say to those people that public access is guaranteed and that the very historical rights and interests of the local iwi need to be respected. If the member had turned up at Ahipara on 15 January—I was hoping he would because I was looking forward to seeing him—we could have had that discussion. 
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Debate resumed from 10 February. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I am very very pleased to stand and speak today in support of the Prime Minister’s statement tabled in this House on 9 February. This document outlines the Government’s ambitious plans for the year ahead. It recognises that if New Zealanders are to be better off the Government needs to do some things to ensure that the income is there to make them better off. The document says that if we can be fairer to New Zealanders through the tax system then we will look at that. If we can be fairer to New Zealanders through the benefit system then we will look at that too. There will of course be announcements on both of those matters later in the year. 
This speech is traditionally given each year by the Prime Minister and normally the media are able to comment on the way in which the Leader of the Opposition responds to it. The expectation is that the set piece from the Prime Minister will be somewhat dismantled by the free flow of speech from the Leader of the Opposition. That did not happen this year and it did not happen because the Leader of the Opposition has no answer to this particular work plan. Opposition members in fact to a person have no answer to this particular work plan other than that they do not like it. 
The only response that we have had this year from the Leader of the Opposition to the current economic difficulties this country faces is for there to be a cap on the salaries of those who lead Government departments. He does not tell us of course that 31 of those 35 people were appointed by Labour 31 of those 35 people had their salaries approved by Labour and what is more they were signed off by Annette King who was the then Minister of State Services. I will not say any more about that because I think that just shows the politics of envy that the Labour Party has got itself caught in and the fact that it is a party that has exceptionally low aspirations for New Zealanders. 
I will speak today though about the section in the Prime Minister’s statement that talks about New Zealand making more of our oil gas and other minerals available to us throughout this country. It is a little-known fact that New Zealand’s third-largest export product is now oil. Last year we exported some 21 million barrels of oil from this country and that is adding to the value that we have inside our economy in quite an extraordinary way. Most people do not see it most people do not know it is there but they understand its effects because it has a positive effect on making sure that the balance between what we spend and what we earn is kept within a fairly tight band. It is one area where we can rapidly increase the national income if we are bold enough to have a go at it. 
This summer due I think to the encouragement of the National Government over the previous year we are experiencing the biggest drilling programme in the oil and gas sector in both offshore New Zealand and onshore New Zealand that we have ever seen. I am told that the results coming through so far are extremely encouraging and later this year I expect that the size of New Zealand’s confirmed oil and gas reserves will be greatly expanded. That is very much a good news story. 
On the mineral front I can sense that the various Opposition parties are starting to gear up for a scaremongering campaign aimed at getting New Zealanders distracted from the benefit that can be accrued from very very minimal intervention in the landscape and from the extraction in a surgical fashion of the minerals available to us in this country. I want to make it very clear that right now there are 82 mineral concessions on Department of Conservation land— 
Hon Member 
: How many? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —82 concessions on Department of Conservation land—and most of those were granted or re-approved by the previous Labour-Green administration. In total mining occupies 40 square kilometres of this country’s entire land mass of some 2 million square kilometres. Not all of that area is actually involved in mining; it is taken up as areas where mining could take place. The return to the New Zealand economy from that activity is around $175000 per hectare. We can compare that with dairying. Dairying covers some 20000 square kilometres—so that is 40 versus 20000—and has a return of $3500 per hectare versus $175000. I think the Green Party in particular needs to consider the economics of that. 
One of the interesting things is that as these organisations gear up supposedly to fight the Government and threaten civil disobedience and all sorts of other things I notice they are using every modern media communication device available to any one of us such as cellphones computers and all that sort of stuff. It is all being used yet those parties are not prepared to recognise that none of it would exist if someone had not extracted minerals somewhere to make the products—to get the minerals that make the materials that go into the manufacture of those communications devices. Millions of people throughout the world are alive right now because they have surgical assistance—implants or other such—all because somewhere someone extracted some minerals from the ground. There are virtually no households in New Zealand that could survive today without the good effect of some mineral extraction somewhere in the world. 
The question is why are these parties so excited about using all of this equipment—so excited about modern medical technology etc. some of the educational equipment that is around these days and the energy-saving technologies that are developing throughout the world—but then saying: “Well not us. Let someone else do that.”? That seems to me to be a position that has two sides to the argument if members get my drift; there is a word there that we do not use in Parliament. In my opinion it is unacceptable for people to rail against this sort of consideration—because that is where we are at the moment—but then take all the benefits of the activity at the same time. That is completely inconsistent and I have to say that I think it is somewhat hypocritical. 
New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that is blessed with large deposits of what are called rare earth elements. They are a range of metals that have names that most of us have never heard and frankly that most of us cannot pronounce. The reality is that they are used in compact fluorescent lights hybrid vehicles wind turbines and catalytic converters as additives in some fuels to reduce consumption and in flat-panel screens disc drives digital cameras and all sorts of medical appliances. The interesting thing is that the one other country in the world that has significant deposits at the present time is China. We can ask ourselves whether we should say: “No we will not avail ourselves of the opportunities we have in this country. We’ll leave it to China.” But I ask members how New Zealanders will improve their incomes and their way of life by leaving it to another country to corner a monopoly on these very very important rare earth elements. I have to say that I do not know. If anyone on the other side of the House knows they should be saying so because this is an opportunity that is unique to this country. 
We are putting out a paper that indicates where these metals are inside the New Zealand conservation estate and we will be asking New Zealanders to make a choice. I make a suggestion to those who want to fight that: if it is all so very important they should not use any media or communications equipment that relies on those metals. The message I tell those members is to prove themselves to be true to what they saying. 
Hon Members 
: Don’t be ridiculous! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Oh over there they are telling me not to be ridiculous because the hypocritical stance is OK for them. That is what they are saying. This decision will be interesting for New Zealanders. It is about our deciding whether we want to grow the wealth base of this country or whether we want simply to sit around and accept the crumbs off another nation’s table. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In full flight the Leader of the Opposition made a couple of comments one of which at least is factually incorrect and one that he may wish to correct. On the first occasion he referred to the previous Labour-Green administration. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to inform the member that that is a debating point; it is not a point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The one that I thought the member was going to raise was when the previous speaker called the Greens’ stance hypocritical and that is certainly out of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will give the member with the point of order an opportunity to explain exactly what he wanted but any comparisons of agreements between parties are not points of order; they are debating points. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The first point I was making was that there was a factual assertion that there had been a Labour-Green administration. That is factually incorrect. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No that is a debating point and we will not entertain it further. It is not a point of order. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: Thank you for that clarification. The second point I was going to raise was that the Leader of the House declared explicitly that those who availed themselves of certain minerals but who criticised their extraction from the earth were hypocritical. I ask for a clarification as to whether he was referring to any political party in that respect. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Yes I was. I was referring to any political party that wants to oppose the consideration of these things. It is exactly as I have said it. But I also said— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you; that is enough. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. He has withdrawn and apologised. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed his seat Gerry Brownlee spent 10 minutes trying to justify mining in national parks and not once did he mention his or his Government’s commitment to any job creation. That is because his Government does not have any. There is not an ounce of commitment in that whole member’s body to doing anything towards addressing the fact that we now have 168000 people in New Zealand who want to work get up in the morning want to go to a job but do not have a job to go to. The other thing that member did—which I was surprised at because in the past I have heard better contributions from him—was resort to a tactic that I do not think this Parliament should accept. When a member runs out of decent policy debate the member attacks the person. The member introduces red herrings starts mocking the Opposition and totally avoids having a serious policy debate. In my view this Parliament should be better than that. Kennedy Graham took exception to it on behalf of the Green Party. Well I think every single person in the country who was listening to that speech would have taken exception to it. 
I have a message for Mr Brownlee: I am not opposed to mining. I enjoy the benefits that mining gives to us as individuals and as a nation despite the fact that the mining industry actually loses money in New Zealand—most of the money goes offshore. We still have a lot of benefits from it and I enjoy them as well. But I am opposed to mining in precious areas of New Zealand that not only are viewed as precious but have been designated as precious by this House. There are some parts of our country that should be kept precious because that is what they are. There is no such thing as restoration of untouched land once it has been touched. We do have rare-earth minerals in New Zealand but we also have places of rare beauty. When those two coincide we have a moral responsibility to ensure that that rare beauty is protected for future generations. That is the message that I want Mr Brownlee to hear. 
The message that the public of New Zealand wanted to hear on “Big Tuesday” of this week on the day we had all been hyped up to hear the big plan the big message and the big salvation from our Prime Minister was the message about a step change. The public wanted to hear about a commitment a plan and some action from the Government about employment. There was not any mention of employment in the whole statement. It was not a step up; all we got was tiptoeing around the issues. “We’re going to consider that we’re going to review that. We’ll set up a committee.” I think this year will be a competition as to how many reviews considerations and committees can be done compared with last year. Last year was full of them. We did not have any step change in the statement; we just had tiptoeing. 
The Prime Minister’s statement was confirmation as has been speculated in the House and in the media that there is no plan for the future of our nation from this Government. There is no leadership from John Key and no plan. There is no plan to catch up with Australia. Up and down the country the National Party paraded the statement that we will catch up with Australia. There is no plan to do that. There is no plan for growth in our nation. Does the National Party believe in growth any more? Perhaps it does not. If it does not I am happy to hear that but there is no plan for anything. There is certainly no plan for job creation. It was a bit like my colleague Grant Robertson the member of Parliament for Wellington Central said. He said that it was like watching TV in January—repeat after repeat. How many times has the Kopu Bridge been opened? It is just extraordinary that we can hear over and over again re-announcements by the same Minister. Sometimes he makes re-announcements of things that the previous Labour-led Government had introduced. 
I will have a closer look at the tax package. We had some very solid attempts by David Cunliffe today to get some answers out of Bill English but he was totally unsuccessful. Bill English slid around. It was like watching someone try to pick up mercury with chopsticks. Bill English was sliding all round the bowl unable to answer any of the questions. We know that people on lower incomes people on benefits people in low-wage jobs students who are working part-time and superannuitants—people who have given more to their country than most members in this House ever will—spend a larger proportion of their income on things they have to spend it on. They have to spend a large proportion of their income on things that attract GST. They do not have a choice. People in this House have a lot of income left over because we get very high salaries. Increases to GST will hurt the lowest income earners because they have to spend a higher percentage of their income on things that they have no choice about. So they will be the most disadvantaged from the National Party’s proposal to put GST up to 15 percent. 
But Bill English makes it sound like we all will be better off. That is what he is saying—[ 
Interruption 
] No sorry he is implying we will all be better off. What he actually says is: “Most people won’t be worse off.” I am not sure what “Most people won’t be worse off.” means but he is deceiving the public by not explaining that people on low incomes pay more on goods that will sell for a higher price now—because they will have a higher level of GST—and also that they will get nothing out of a lowering of the top tax rate. If the top tax rate is lowered as was floated in John Key’s speech people who earn less than $48000 a year—and that is a lot of people in New Zealand—will get not one cent. Lowering the top tax rate will not give them one cent and if they do not have children if they are not on a benefit and if they are not superannuitants then I ask how they will have that increase in GST compensated for. There is no compensation at all for those people. 
If the top tax rate is cut John Key will get $509 more a week. Paul Reynolds—I am not having a go at him personally—and anyone else who is in Paul Reynolds’ position will get over $2500 a week. I ask who needs more money in their pockets. Is it people who are on a pension people who are on a benefit students who are working part time and trying to put themselves through university or polytech—people who are on $48000 or less—or somebody who is on $250000? The National Government is proposing to make the lowest income earners pay more in GST and give the highest income earners the biggest tax cuts. 
I will just make some comments about the other broken promises that have been confirmed this week. In addition to the broken promise on GST we have also had confirmed in the House today the broken promise on cuts in front-line health services. The 2008 National Party health policy document states: “Less bureaucracy more frontline care for patients.” But day after day we hear the anguished cries particularly from the most senior members of our community about the savage health cuts that they are having to bear. An 86-year-old who cannot hang out her own washing change her sheets or do her cleaning wants the dignity of remaining in her own home. She got a phone call from somebody who said: “I am ringing to see how you are doing. I am from the health board.” Then at the end of the conversation when this woman said: “I am doing very well. Thank you for ringing.” she was told that her home support was cut. Where is the respect for that elderly person where is the dignity that she deserves and where is the support that will enable that woman to stay in her own home? Her home support is what is keeping her independent and in dignity in her own home rather than going into a rest home where she does not want to live and which would actually end up costing the State more. 
Health cuts charges in public hospitals and GST increases—that was probably the most disappointing speech that I have heard from a Prime Minister in my time in the House. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 The John Key opening address was a jobs machine. It was a jobs factory a machine that will create jobs throughout this country. The Hon Ruth Dyson stood up and said in her speech that no jobs were planned. That is absolute rubbish and it shows the distinct difference between members on this side of the House and members on that side. You see on this side of the House we know that businesses create jobs. Members on that side of the House think that only the Government does that. That is absolutely crazy. Those members want programmes but it is actually businesses that create jobs. They quote Australia and the jobs that have been created over there. Are those jobs coming out of Government programmes? No way. It is because that economy has grown and because those businesses employ people. 
The only small thing I would give members on that side of the House is to say that they created some jobs through the bureaucracy over the last 9 years where they lifted it by 11000 jobs. The reality in any economy—it does not matter how big or how small it is—is that businesses create jobs. We need a plan that gets out there grows the economy and makes it easier for businesses to grow. 
I will talk through this jobs plan this jobs machine that John Key outlined. It is not just some whimsical small plan; it was in a 9000-word document that covered all sectors of the economy. It is a jobs machine something that will help to grow this economy and take us forward. Let us look at the various parts of that jobs machine. I will relate it to how it will affect a regional economy like Hawke’s Bay and talk about how it is creating jobs in places like Hawke’s Bay Tauranga Rotorua the Waitakeres and all around the country. This plan is a jobs machine. Firstly let us take tax. The Opposition spokesman on finance said that there was no step change. This is a $4 billion tax package—$4 billion. There was only just over $1 billion before the last election. If this is not a step change then I do not know what we are looking at. 
We are looking at addressing property owners and for the first time we are looking at that area for taxation as part of the economy. The working group made it pretty clear. There is $213 billion invested in residential property and only $50 billion invested in the New Zealand stock exchange. Tax regularly comes out of the stock exchange and we have $500 million in tax credits coming out of the residential investment market. That whole property market—and I have been part of it for much of my life—is not paying the tax that is fair to the rest of the economy. In the Prime Minister’s statement he said that this is not fair and that there needs to be a rebalancing of the economy. There needs to be a change in the incentives a shift from that investment to hard-working Kiwis who are out there in jobs to get them to work harder. We will be lowering the middle-income tax brackets and the higher-income tax brackets and improving the incentives for people to get out there and work. This is a jobs machine. 
The Prime Minister went on and talked about improving science and innovation and about taking that forward. He talked about trade. If there is anything that will grow jobs it is Ministers like Tim Groser and Murray McCully who are overseas creating free-trade agreements. They are improving the opportunities for New Zealand businesses to export. What does that do? It creates jobs. It will take this economy forward and help to reduce the unemployment level which none of us in this country are happy about. Minister Bennett is not happy about where unemployment levels are at but she understands that we have a jobs growth plan to take this economy forward. The Prime Minister outlined what we will do in housing justice law and order health and in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi and how we will take the economy forward. 
Let us look at our Treaty of Waitangi options. This Government is making settlements over and over again exponentially improving the number of settlements. What does that do? It empowers iwi with financial resources to create jobs. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh don’t be so patronising. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: It is not patronising; it is empowering iwi to create jobs. Is that a bad thing? I do not think so. The member is quiet now. Empowering iwi to create jobs is a fantastic thing. We need only look at what has happened down in Ngai Tahu with the way the empowerment of that settlement has taken them forward. 
I am going to change back to the Hawke’s Bay now in terms of what is happening there in Treaty of Waitangi settlements and what is going to happen over the next 5 years. What we are seeing up there is one iwi Ngati Kahungunu and five natural groups that are about to settle. Mana Ahuriri have got to a point now where they are in a position as result of the moves made by Chris Finlayson to actually get to a settlement and reach a mandate. I think it is a great step forward. What I am trying to show is how the overall plan has now been regionalised through the jobs machine. A number of things have been rolled out in Hawke’s Bay not only the improvements in the wider community. Let us a look at Community Max for a minute which is one of Minister Bennett’s initiatives. I was out with Denis O’Reilly who has 12 young men and women working really hard at the Otatara Pa. He is creating jobs for our youth. I was at the Rewi Smith Scout Hall with Sally Dunford where another 16 kids were working getting ready for the workforce and being taken forward. That is absolutely fantastic. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Out of 88000! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: This is where members opposite lose the plot again. I tell Mr Hughes that the way in which we will improve jobs in this country is by quadrupling their number as businesses go forward. 
I come back to a regional basis and some of the key things we have done locally. One of the latest announcements to be made in Hawke’s Bay is that of the cycleway. Fortunately that is another fantastic opportunity in Hawke’s Bay. There is also one in Rotorua and one in Tauranga. It is absolutely fantastic. The cycleway will be a huge opportunity in Hawke’s Bay and my constituents love it. We have three iconic rides in Hawke’s Bay and they will provide an opportunity for a number of jobs. It is a fantastic project. One ride is down the Tukituki Valley the second one is out to the Ngatarawa wine area and the third ride is down to Otatara Pa and around the back of the Taradale area. These rides will create not only tourism opportunities but also opportunities for small businesses and they will provide employment. Once again it is another jobs opportunity. In terms of the Community Max programme which is part of the jobs creation programme we are taking young Kiwis off the dole putting them into employment and really making a difference. It is absolutely fantastic. 
I want to finish this speech by coming back to where I started when I referred to the difference between members on both side of the House. Members opposite think that Governments create jobs just through programmes. On this side of the House we understand that a wider plan for the economy that addresses tax and creates incentives for businesses to go out and employ people is what makes the difference. That is what we have done. The Prime Minister has laid out a map for the economy for the year that will take the country forward and will be a jobs machine. Thank you very much. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. This will not be a happy New Year for many New Zealanders as they face the prospect of an increase in GST. In that regard I am particularly concerned for two groups: the elderly on fixed incomes and Pacific Island people. My electorate of Mana has a large proportion of elderly people on fixed incomes and a large number of Pacific people. Those are not the only groups who will not be looking forward to a brighter future. This year will be very gloomy for many New Zealanders. In my contribution to this debate and as Labour’s associate spokesperson on health—specifically aged care—and spokesperson on Pacific Island affairs I will focus on the elderly and on Pacific people who were largely absent from the Prime Minister’s address. 
During the Prime Minister’s speech I noticed no reference to the health and care of elderly people in New Zealand. This is very distressing because it shows that as this Government looks to the future it could not care less about the fate of older New Zealanders. During the 2020s the number of over 65-year-olds will reach over 1 million; we need to get aged care working properly now. I noticed that National’s pre-election discussion paper on aged care  
Choice Not Chance for Older New Zealanders 
 includes a measure to simplify and provide improved flexibility for home-based care yet home-based care is being cut. Elderly people across the country are receiving phone calls from their district health boards. Unbeknownst to them they are being assessed for the hours of home support they receive and in many instances those hours are cut. In a recent example on the Kapiti coast a woman in her 80s was told that her home help hours would be cut by 75 percent. Canterbury District Health Board has cut the home help services of more than 1200 clients. 
Home-based care is a vital part of the aged-care sector. Home-based care gives elderly people the choice of staying in their own homes and helps them to stay independent. A few hours of home-based support can spell the difference between an elderly person having some independence and dignity through living at home and moving into a much more expensive rest home. Reducing home-based care does not make sense socially and it does not make sense economically. The demise of home-based care will see thousands more elderly people needing to enter rest homes. 
This is dark news for older New Zealanders but it is made even worse by the Prime Minister’s statement which signals a rise in GST to 15 percent. Most older New Zealanders survive on limited fixed incomes. They will receive no tax cuts and will be greatly harmed by a rise in GST. In effect a rise in GST to 15 percent will represent a 2.5 percent increase in the cost of living for the elderly on fixed incomes. Older people are some of the most vulnerable people in New Zealand. The Prime Minister’s statement ignored the elderly. One test of the quality of a nation is the manner in which it treats its elderly citizens; the Prime Minister’s statement did not pass that test. It does nothing to give the elderly hope for a brighter future. The future looks distinctly gloomy for the elderly under this National regime. 
I now turn to another group of vulnerable citizens and to see whether the Prime Minister’s statement gives them any hope for a bright future. Another group who were largely absent from the Prime Minister’s statement was Pacific Island people. The Prime Minister’s statement takes three strikes against Pacific Island people. Strike one is an increase in GST. It is obvious to the casual observer of such a move that lower-income people will be hit hard by any increase in GST. It is a tax on consumption so those who must commit a greater percentage of their income towards buying goods and services food to the feed the family clothes to keep them warm and power to run a household—the basics—will be paying a greater percentage of their income in GST. An increase in GST targets the poor. For Pacific Island families most of whom survive on a much lower income than the average New Zealand family it simply means higher grocery bills a greater cost for day-to-day items and fewer savings. It is a greater burden on the people who can afford it less and that includes most Pacific Island families. It is not so bad for those of us on higher incomes. A slightly higher grocery bill will not dent our budget too much. We have a bit of room to move and to absorb the costs. But for those Pacific people and others on much lower incomes the ability to save may well dry up along with their future prospects. Many people even now are borrowing just to stay afloat. What happens to these people? 
Strike two is tax cuts. Pacific Island people already disadvantaged by the rise in GST will get absolutely nothing from John Key’s tax cuts. These cuts aimed at those with higher incomes will be of no good to anyone earning under the average wage of $48000. This includes the vast majority of Pacific Island people whose average wage is below the national average; Pacific Island people’s average income is closer to $35000. With no help from the tax cuts and a rise in GST Pacific people will be paying more in tax than before. This is of course consistent with National’s plan for Pacific New Zealanders which includes ongoing personal tax cuts. It is in their 2008 policy paper. It is written there as part of National’s plan for improving Pacific New Zealanders’ education health and employment. 
Strike three is unemployment. There is no plan in the Prime Minister’s statement for increasing employment. Unemployment is the biggest problem facing Pacific Islanders in New Zealand. Recent figures show that unemployment amongst Pacific Islanders has reached 14 percent; this is double the national rate. It is close to the 15 percent Pacific Island unemployment that we faced when Labour came into Government in 1999. It took us years to get Pacific and Maori unemployment down to low single figures. But under National Pacific unemployment has shot up again. In the past year 5000 Pacific people have lost their jobs. It is shameful that National has no clear plan in place to deal with the rapid growth in Pacific unemployment. 
“Three strikes and you’re out”—Pacific Island New Zealanders have been struck out by this Government. The Prime Minister’s statement was silent on Pacific people and the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs was nowhere to be seen. Where was her advocacy for Pacific people? Labour will not be silent. We will advocate for Pacific people we will advocate for jobs and policies that support the economic development of our people in this their mother region—the Pacific—and we will advocate for the elderly so that they may live lives with dignity and have respect for their hard work and sacrifices for our generation of New Zealanders. We owe them that. 
The Prime Minister’s statement gave no help for elderly New Zealanders. It gave no hope for Pacific Island New Zealanders. The Prime Minister’s speech had no details no substance no specifics and above all no conscience. The Prime Minister’s statement has bought him some time but time is running out for him. He cannot keep playing the nice guy; he will have to make some tough calls. Perhaps he is leaving that to his deputy. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. A few days ago the Prime Minister in his opening statement proposed that this year will be a busy and interesting one for local government. The local government scene is most certainly already busy and interesting in the Greater Auckland area where the resistance is well under way to Minister of Local Government Mr Hide’s demolition job on local democracy and his attempt to wrest control of some $28 billion worth of assets out of the hands of the public who paid for them and into entities that will be ripe for selling to private interests from July 2012. We in Auckland are becoming very busy and interested in resisting this “Rogernomics Round 2” that is being imposed upon us. The battle to protect local democracy and representation is being fought out currently in Auckland but we may be sure that if this Government succeeds in imposing that model on Auckland other constituencies and other regions will very soon be made subject to the same regime. 
Mr Key indicated that the reforms of Auckland governance commenced by the former Labour-led Government and picked up by this administration will continue with a new Auckland Council to be in place from 1 November this year. Clearly the Auckland region is significantly—in fact uniquely—important to the nation’s economy and any steps to improve its economic environmental and indeed social performance are to be applauded. Sadly however the process that is in train to reform Auckland’s governance and the all too predictable outcomes of that process are likely to be very destructive of the Auckland region’s economy and to do real harm to its environmental social and cultural well-being. 
The Prime Minister correctly notes in his statement that Auckland will elect representatives for the new council and local boards this October. But the reality is that Aucklanders have already been largely disenfranchised at the local level to the extent that most of the power has been taken out of the hands of the people whom we elected in 2007 to represent us and put in the hands of the Auckland Transition Agency—a group containing no elected person but rather people appointed by Mr Hide in his role as local government Minister. There is a real transfer of power happening under the guise of Auckland governance reform. This genuinely does constitute a step change notably the removal of direct control of public assets away from our elected councillors and the transfer of control into the dubious care of unelected directors of so-called council-controlled organisations. Those worthies are to be appointed by the Minister of Local Government if he manages to push through his latest reform bill. We have already heard those council-controlled organisations be referred to as “council-controlling organisations” and as “cash-cow organisations”. 
Polling tells us that a majority of Aucklanders do not want to have the super-city model that is being imposed on them. Over the last 2 weeks I have spoken to and listened to hundreds of people in communities all around the Auckland region alongside a number of parliamentary colleagues from the Labour Party. Of the hundreds of people who have turned out to local halls in the communities all around Auckland I can report that two individuals expressed some hope that the new model would deliver long-overdue infrastructure development particularly to the rural areas. I did not have to attempt to disabuse those two people of their belief as their own neighbours quickly dispelled their false hopes. It may be and perhaps ought to be of concern to some National members especially to those in marginal Auckland seats that the opposition to Mr Hide’s plan is both wide and deep. Even in the heart of Mr Key’s own Helensville electorate a few nights ago a very crowded hall of irate ratepayers expressed their distaste for being brought under this regime which is not of their making and of which they want to have no part. 
The Prime Minister suggest that: “The reforms will simplify and streamline governance structures within the Auckland region. This will result” he says “in better more cost effective public services for Aucklanders delivered through integrated planning and service delivery across the region.” This is presumably some sort of code for what is really happening which is the removal of most of the functions and virtually all of the significant assets currently managed by local authorities—some $28 billion worth of assets—which will be passed over to a number of council-controlled organisations. These organisations will be effectively beyond the control of the councillors whom we will elect. Mr Hide has reserved for himself the right to appoint the boards of directors who will run these organisations of which only one the transport organisation may have up to two elected members on a board of perhaps six or eight members. No other of the six or eight council-controlled organisations may have any elected people on their boards. 
We can readily anticipate that the veil of commercial secrecy will very quickly be drawn down which will deny Aucklanders the right to know how and in whose interests their public assets are being managed. This fact alone makes a mockery of Mr Key’s claim in his speech that the Government is committed to changes that will give all ratepayers better information about their local council and ultimately more influence over their council’s activities and spending. In fact residents and ratepayers will have very little information about what is happening to their hard-earned assets and they will have even less influence over the council’s activities and spending than they currently do. The legislation puts in place a moratorium on the sale of strategic assets but only until July 2012 which means that the council elected in a few months’ time would have ample opportunity to propose and implement privatisation plans before the next election in 2013. 
Returning to the claim that we will enjoy more integrated and better services I ask how seven eight or more corporate entities nominally publicly owned but in reality one large step away from public control or overview can possibly deliver cost-effective public services or the integrated planning and services that the Prime Minister talked about. 
The one tool in the third Auckland bill that ought to and might provide a coherent long-term strategic plan based on an extensive consultation process with residents is very obviously flawed. A spatial plan is proposed in order to facilitate growth and development in the new enlarged city. There are no qualifiers on those words like “sustainable” growth or “systems-based” development; there is just growth and development. To me and to many others of the hundreds of concerned citizens we have spoken to and listened to in the last couple of weeks this signals a return to the worst excesses of “Rogernomics Round 1” which saw the massive tearing apart of the physical social environmental and heritage fabric of Auckland and indeed of much of the country during the 1980s and the 1990s. Mr Key’s stated goal of lifting our country’s economic performance delivering jobs increasing incomes and creating better living standards will not be achieved by a return to those failed policies and Wild West development practices. 
Aucklanders will be denied the right to propose any reorganisation until at least 2013 a right that residents of every other constituency have. Aucklanders will be obliged to stay with the first-past-the-post election process unlike every other constituency in New Zealand which may propose a change to its electoral system. 
One thing that this legislation has achieved is that it has raised interest in local Government. It has certainly stimulated people’s interest in their local government but perhaps not in the way that the Government intended or would hope for. Thank you. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Child and Family Protection Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 10 February. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I do not intend to take all of my remaining time at all. Prior to the break last night I was making the point that it has been an excellent thing for me in my very short time as a member of Parliament to see this Parliament united against domestic violence. Certainly it is a topic deserving of our concern given the very serious problem we have in this country. 
As I said I will not take all of my time but I will just speak on one issue addressed in this Child and Family Protection Bill in relation to amendments to the Adoption Act 1955. The Adoption Act is reasonably comprehensive law as I understand it but it does not really live up to some of the international obligations that we have today. 
Charles Chauvel talked in this House about the phenomenon of child trafficking. Clause 30 of the bill before the House makes it quite clear that we are living up to our international obligations and in particular meeting our obligations under the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children child prostitution and child pornography by creating a new offence with this bill. We are increasing the penalty from a very low 3 months’ imprisonment to 7 years’ imprisonment. We are also making this legislation extraterritorial so that the offence will no longer apply just in this country but throughout the world. Certainly in my view that is very much a worthwhile thing to do. 
Human trafficking is a serious international problem. We may feel we are insulated from it and to some extent we are but my research has made it quite clear to me that human trafficking is the fastest-growing criminal industry in the world. The total annual revenue for trafficking in persons is estimated to be worth between US$5 billion and US$9 billion a year. The Council of Europe has stated: “People trafficking has reached epidemic proportions over the past decade with a global annual market of about $42.5 billion.” 
We could go into all the details but what we are dealing with here in relation to children is probably the saddest and the worst set of examples that we can think of. The trafficking of children often involves the exploitation of their parents and their extreme poverty. Parents may sell their children to traffickers in order to pay off debts or to gain income or they may be deceived about the prospects of training and a better life for their children. In West Africa trafficked children have often lost one or both parents to AIDS and thousands of male and sometimes female children have been forced to become child soldiers in that continent. The US Department of Justice in a study in 2008 found that more than 30 percent of the total number of trafficking cases that year involved children who had been coerced into the sex industry. 
The adoption process is fraught. As I say often a number of illegitimate factors are at work—coercion pressure financial incentives—that create this serious global situation. For example thousands of children from Asia Africa and South America are sold into the global sex trade every year. Often they have been kidnapped or are orphans and sometimes they are sold by their own family. I am talking about a wider problem than perhaps this bill deals with but nevertheless by living up to some of our international obligations in this area we are doing a good thing through this bill. 
I have highlighted only one of a number of things that this bill does in relation to children and family violence. It has been a pleasure to be part of a united effort from all members of the House to combat this issue not only in our country but also extraterritorially in the world we live in. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the first reading of the Child and Family Protection Bill. Labour supports the bill but does so with some misgivings because we think this is an opportunity missed. 
The bill is very important and I certainly wish the select committee members well in their deliberations. I know that in deliberating on this bill they will hear many heart-wrenching stories. They will hear some facts and some information that will be difficult for them and for officials to comprehend and to deal with but hearing those stories will be incredibly important in terms of making the bill the best legislation that it can be. Labour already knows that this bill is not the best that it can be. It is a reasonable start but we are deeply disappointed that while this bill is being promoted the Domestic Violence Reform Bill which had been prepared by the previous Labour Government still languishes on the Order Paper. In fact that bill would address the issues contained in the Child and Family Protection Bill as well as many other bills. 
I will spend some time pursuing the other issues. It is appropriate that we debate this bill today as today the lobby group It’s Still Not OK took the opportunity to brief the Government on work that it believes the Government should be pursuing through legislative means on the issue of domestic violence. Sadly not many of those issues are covered by this bill but some of them are covered in the bill that sits languishing on the Order Paper. The Government has the opportunity right now to bring forward and debate that much more comprehensive bill which would address some of the issues of the lobby group that has been to see the Government. I hear the Government making some supportive noises about the recommendations that the group has made yet the Government has an opportunity right now to address some of the recommendations that the group has brought forward. A bill already sitting on the Order Paper which could be debated right now is stronger than the one we have before us and it would address some of those issues. 
I have not had a lot of time to have a look at the report that the group delivered to the Government; I have had access to it only over the last few hours. The group is mainly made up of women who are survivors of domestic violence. They were looking for someone to discuss their concerns with and interestingly when they approached the Ministry of Women’s Affairs they were shuffled off. That is appalling. It is a great shame. I would like the Minister of Women’s Affairs to take a call on this debate. So many times I have heard her say that family violence and domestic violence are a priority for her ministry yet when this very important lobby group went to see her ministry they could find no one. I will quote from the recommendations in the group’s report: “Women’s Affairs: We approached this department first when looking for someone to discuss our concerns with. There was no one who could discuss our issues with us. We were referred to the Ministry of Social Development.” That is a poor response from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Its Minister claims that she sees family violence as a top priority for her ministry yet it was not interested to hear what this particular lobby group had to say. So that is something that I would like the Government to resolve. Clearly domestic violence affects many more women than men. More often than not women are the victims and men are the perpetrators. On the odd occasion it happens the other way round but let us not fool ourselves for a minute: the gender analysis is very very clear on this issue. It is mainly women and it certainly is in the main women who end up losing their lives as a result of extreme acts of domestic violence. 
The It’s Still Not OK report talks about the group’s experiences as women who have suffered at the hands of people whom they thought loved them. It is an interesting observation that all of them found that Women’s Refuge singularly provided them with the support to leave behind domestic violence. I reflect on that and on their observation that Women’s Refuge is underfunded. Certainly in the area that I come from in Hamilton it has been significantly underfunded by this Government— 
Jo Goodhew 
: The Community Response Fund has had tens of thousands of dollars. Have you not heard about that? 
SUE MORONEY 
: The Community Response Fund? OK. Jo Goodhew thinks that the Community Response Fund has fixed the problem. Well I am sorry to give that member a dose of reality but it has not fixed the problem at all. 
Jo Goodhew 
: You clearly haven’t talked to people in women’s refuges. 
SUE MORONEY 
: If the member would care to listen to the story of Te Whakaruruhau the Maori women’s refuge in Hamilton then she might learn something about the very real situation that is happening on the ground. In this particular situation the women’s refuge in Hamilton had the money that other women’s refuges have but also they had additional funding brought about by the previous Labour Government through Te Puni Kokiri. 
Jo Goodhew 
: They’ve had $1.6 million extra. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I wish the member would listen to the facts. The Hamilton women’s refuge had additional money to provide a proper service. Every time the police were called to a domestic violence incident they were accompanied by a women’s refuge worker. That was trialled in Hamilton. The Labour Government gave additional funding to the Hamilton women’s refuge to trial that very successful pilot. As a result there has not been a domestic violence - related death in our city for some years since that service was instigated. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I don’t see what that’s got to do with the extra $1.6 million that National has provided to Women’s Refuge. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well I am sorry but if that member does not see what having a successful pilot that has stopped domestic violence deaths in my city has to do with the issue then she is missing the issue altogether. 
When the Te Puni Kokiri money finished it was to be replaced by the Pathways to Partnership funding that the Labour Government had put in place. When the election happened and National came in and took away the Pathways to Partnership funding then so went the money that that women’s refuge depended on to provide a proper service in terms of helping the victims of domestic violence. What has been the outcome of that? They have actually seen a funding shortfall of some $400000. As a result of a National Government being elected the Hamilton women’s refuge is $400000 worse off in terms of providing that service. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: That is not true. 
SUE MORONEY 
: That is true and that Minister knows it. The Minister for Social Development and Employment knows this because she has actually been told this information by Women’s Refuge. It meant that they had to make redundant 14 staff members. They also had to stop leasing some of the properties that they were using to keep women safe in the community. With that funding shortfall of $400000 14 staff members were made redundant. But those 14 staff members are so committed to dealing with the issue of domestic violence that they came back and volunteered their time over Christmas. They knew that rates of domestic violence over Christmas were going to be particularly bad particularly in an economic recession for our community. Out of the goodness of their hearts—even though they had been made redundant because that Government took away their Pathways to Partnership funding—they came back and volunteered and kept that service going over Christmas. That is what people do when they really care about the issue of domestic violence. 
I call on the Government not only to pass this legislation but also to deal with the recommendations that the lobby group came to talk to them about today. Part of doing that would be to actually proceed with the Domestic Violence Reform Bill that was put forward by Labour. Let us not play politics about this. Yes Labour came up with that superior piece of legislation but it is on the Order Paper so the Government should pick it up and run with it. I also urge the Government to sort out the situation in Hamilton. I am really proud that my city has not had a domestic violence - related death since the Hamilton women’s refuge started implementing this very good programme. I do not want to say to members in a few months’ or a few weeks’ time that I told them so. Not having that service in place will put women at risk. It puts women at risk. I think the Government should be not only passing this legislation which we support but also filling in the gaps of the other legislation on the Order Paper and making sure that Te Whakaruruhau the Hamilton women’s refuge is funded appropriately. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Child and Family Protection Bill. Since this National-led Government under the leadership of John Key was established it has passed many laws to make our society safer. The purpose of this bill is to focus on providing greater protection for child victims and from family violence in the home ensuring that the courts can act to protect children and families from all kinds of violence and abuse and addressing the risk of children being wrongfully removed from New Zealand. 
This Government is committed to looking after the welfare of children. The amendments proposed by this bill will include the safety of children in New Zealand. As most of us are probably aware police are called about 80000 times to domestic violence incidents every year. Over 200 women and children were killed from domestic violence over the last 12 years. That is a clear indication that New Zealand is facing an epidemic of domestic violence. 
During the past year I have visited many organisations including the Counselling Services Centre in Manukau City the Manukau Indian Association the Swaminarayan temple and the Punjabi Cultural Association and discussed this issue with them. There has been an increase in the number of cases of domestic violence in ethnic communities in recent years. This bill is aimed at reducing domestic violence in our society. The Child and Family Protection Bill is the continuation of this Government’s ongoing commitment to dealing effectively with family violence. 
This Government has not stopped working on addressing the issues of domestic violence. Within a year of coming to power the National-led Government passed the Domestic Violence Amendment Act 2009 which gives the police the power to issue on-the-spot protection orders and to take action when they have good grounds to believe that those orders are not being complied with. Another important Act was the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Act 2008 which sent a clear message that offences against children are not acceptable. 
This bill proposes three main changes. First it extends protection under the Domestic Violence Act 1995—which includes the Family Court process—by clarifying that a data protection order will continue to apply for a child of the deceased applicant who is under the age of 17. This will provide clarity so that when a protected person dies his or her children will remain protected. The changes proposed and added power will ensure that the courts can act to protect children and families from all forms of violence and abuse. Currently only a judge can direct attendance at the programme. This process can become problematic if the respondent has not been served with a copy of the protection order containing the direction prior to the date specified for his or her first attendance at the programme. The bill therefore enables the registrar to amend the direction to require attendance at the later time. 
The second proposed change is in relation to psychological abuse. The bill amends the Care of Children Act 2004. The aim is to increase the protection of children suffering from psychological violence by allowing the court to review the parents’ contact agreement within a week of a temporary protection order being made thus avoiding any opportunity for a gap between a temporary and final protection order which could result in the protected person having no protection. 
The third proposed change relates to adoption under the Adoption Act 1955. This change will strengthen the protection of children who are at risk of unlawful removal from New Zealand in order to ensure that New Zealand legislation fully complies with the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children child prostitution and child pornography so that it may be ratified. The bill includes a new offence under the Adoption Act 1955 of improperly inducing consent of the child to be punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to 7 years. The previous Government failed to progress domestic violence legislation despite in September 2000 signing the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children child prostitution and child pornography as part of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The previous Labour Government failed to implement the legislation necessary to ratify it. Now 10 years later the National Government is meeting those international obligations. 
In conclusion the ultimate aim of this legislation along with the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill 2008 is to ensure victims are placed at the heart of the justice system. The Government with this bill is working hard to reduce violence in our communities and is ensuring a focus on the best interests of children. We are a step closer. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 Labour will be supporting this bill. In fact the objective of this bill is to protect and enhance child and family safety and I am sure that that sentiment is shared across the House. It was great to see the member who has just resumed his seat speak out too. Ethnic communities in our country need to be part of the solution to the appalling rates of child abuse. 
Last year in the House I remember the Minister for Social Development and Employment standing up and haranguing Labour in Opposition saying that the previous Labour Government did nothing about child abuse in this country. I was hurt and I took great offence at that remark from the Minister; so did Annette King and so did all other Labour members. We had started a journey facing up to the fact that there were appalling levels of child abuse in this country and we did many things to start the journey that is now beginning to produce legislation to try to fix the levels of domestic and family violence in this country. We set up things like the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families which had Ministers of every portfolio overlapping in effort and an all-of-Government approach to address the systemic and complex issues of family violence. We also set up a cross-party committee. I have to state in the House today that Judith Collins as the spokesperson at the time was invited to attend those meetings but she did not attend even one. That is why I was so distressed when Minister Paula Bennett said that Labour had done nothing when in Government for 9 years. 
Labour was implementing the Te Rito family violence strategy very very consistently across all Government portfolios. We also facilitated a breakfast session of all parties called the Littlies Lobby which had good support. This Government has been in office for 1 year but has not set up or continued any cross-party forum like the Littlies Lobby to discuss issues that impact on children and families. That support stopped at the end of the election and here we are now 14 months later and there is no opportunity for us to network across parties with all those who care about the incidence of family violence and the protection of children in our society. We also thought that we would see a platform for Every Child Counts. When in Opposition National asked: “What are you doing about children? The five strategic planks of Every Child Counts matter to us.” But there was nothing absolutely nothing about our all getting together and getting experts and advocates to come to speak to us as MPs to talk about what we can do along programme lines and legislation lines to make a difference. I think that is a shame and I think it is arrogant; the answers lie with all of us here as legislators in this House. 
From the Littlies Lobby we moved on to do things like repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act. We brought in an assessment tool used by GPs midwives family doctors and accident and emergency staff to assess and diagnose the early signs of child abuse—that manifestation of family violence. Those early intervention models were well established by the Labour Government. I want to put that on the record to show that Labour certainly did not just sit on its hands. 
But the sad thing about this bill even though Labour will support it and it does go some way towards the legislative end of addressing domestic violence and the impact of child abuse is that it does nothing to address the causes and drivers of child abuse. That needs an early intervention model which we have not heard of from this Government. The Government just wants to legislate and then to sentence people and put them away. It is doing nothing about the development of early intervention models and community development models that make a difference in the lives of dysfunctional families. 
There is a wonderful resource Dr Annabel Taylor who is the chair of the Family Help Trust in Christchurch and she says that it is not just about programmes or resources; it is about everybody working together. She says that for every $1 spent on early intervention models the cost-benefit effectiveness is $19 saved by the State at the end on legislation like this that addresses offending and puts people in jail. Early intervention models work but we are not seeing any evidence. We look forward to Whanau Ora to see evidence of early intervention and community development because that is what builds resilient children resilient families and then resilient communities. It is no good just looking at legislation. 
I also want to point out that last night we saw that approach again in the “Boot Camp Bill”. What a great answer: just kick offenders in jail and put them on boot camps. That is not the way we should address the problem; we should address housing poverty and parenting. Those are the drivers of children who later on become dysfunctional—and that has been my lifework as a midwife. But here we are again with more legislation. 
In 2008 Annette King as a result of the ministerial taskforce introduced the Domestic Violence Reform Bill. It was a wonderful bill that was a result of our going out to communities with the National Council of Women and all of the intervention and support services to see how to make protection orders work. The National Council of Women came and gave lots of great ideas. That bill now languishes on the Order Paper as No. 45 yet here we are addressing a bill that has omitted so many aspects that were in Cabinet papers and that would address domestic violence. 
Simon Bridges 
: Steve you’re not in Government any more. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I will tell that member where the Government bill comes up short because I know that he too is committed to making sure that we address all of the multi-tenanted facets of family and child abuse. Five major planks are omitted from this bill so it is an imperfect tool but we will support it and try to make it a little bit better. Our Domestic Violence Reform Bill changed the age of the child but that provision is missing in this bill. There we were last night talking about children going into boot camps but this bill has a different age again. That is something so simple that it could have and should have been addressed in this bill so that the Domestic Violence Act could cover someone under the age of 18 which is in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Currently a child is anyone under 17. 
This bill does not provide the court with the power to direct attendance to an addiction treatment programme but Labour’s bill would have fixed that. How silly! Why did Government members not refer to the Cabinet papers in the drafting of this bill rather than put the bill forward and say that they will fix the drivers of domestic violence. 
There is another aspect here about information. This bill does not require people to have an information session when they have had a protection order issued against them. It would have been so good to have the victims of domestic violence know where to go to keep the other children in the family safe or the women themselves or in some cases the men. But in the paper today we see a manifestation of Government members sitting on their hands and doing nothing. The headline says: “Survivors speak out for family violence reforms”; we will go and listen to them. Everything in our Domestic Violence Reform Bill that was covered off to look after victims of domestic violence is missing in this bill and I think that that is terribly sad. It is an oversight. 
This bill is a response that shows that the Minister Simon Power who really is keen on law and order has moved too fast and has not looked at the detail in order to correct the provisions that have gone into this bill. If he had stacked up his bill side by side with Annette King’s bill which was the result of the ministerial taskforce we would have had a much more perfect bill. I think it is a shame that her bill is not the one we are talking about today. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: How can something be more perfect? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: That is right; it can because ours was. I thank the member for that. 
This bill falls short. When Judith Collins came in she ranted on in all the press releases about doing something for victims of family violence but this is a short order. It falls short for the victims for the women involved in domestic violence. We will support it and we will try to make it better but what a pity the Government has missed the detail. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 As this is the first opportunity I have had to address the House this year I extend New Year greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and your office. I also extend greetings to my many friends on the Opposition benches. I have spoken to many of them but there are some I still have to get to. So I give New Year greetings to all members. 
As the last speaker in this debate on the Child and Family Protection Bill it falls to me to capture if you like the threads of the debate bring it all together and sum up. I thought I would start by reiterating so that everyone in the House understands what this bill does. This bill amends the Domestic Violence Act 1995 the Care of Children Act 2004 the Adoption Act 1955 and it makes consequential amendments to two or three other Acts. Its purpose as many speakers have canvassed in their presentations to the House is to focus on providing greater protection for child victims of family violence in the home ensure the courts can act to protect children and families from all kinds of violence and abuse and address the risks of children being wrongfully removed from New Zealand. 
All those issues have been adequately covered during the course of the debate certainly by my colleagues on the Government benches and by some minor contributions from the other side of the House. I want to correct the record because a number of Opposition speakers have focused in their presentations on their disappointment at the lack of action in this area and they have criticised the Government. 
The previous speaker my very good friend Steve Chadwick made a contribution that I was somewhat disappointed with. I enjoy her company. She has a lot of offer but one of the things she has not yet realised—along with all the members on that side of the House—is that the National Party is the party of Government. We are not implementing Labour Party policy. We are here to implement National Party policy and just because the stuff that Labour likes is not happening does not mean we are doing a bad job. I think that Labour members need to come to grips with the fact that we are doing what the people voted for us to do which was not to carry out Labour policy. 
This bill builds on the excellent work that has been achieved last year in terms of law and order under the leadership provided by the Minister in charge of this bill the Hon Simon Power. Let me mention some of that work. The Government has passed the Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and of course amendments to the Sentencing Act. A suite of other law enforcement measures have also been passed under this outstanding administration led by the Prime Minister. 
So I reject the accusations that have come from the other side of the House about this bill. I look forward to hearing submissions on it and making sure that it progresses through the House. Thank you. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the Child and Family Protection Bill. New Zealand has a comprehensive set of laws designed to protect children and families from violence and abuse. However issues have been identified with current legislation that restrict the ability of the State to protect the welfare and best interests of children and their families. Therefore I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Points of Order 
Domestic Violence Reform Bill—Leave to Refer to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for order of the day No. 45 the Domestic Violence Reform Bill to also be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
Judicial Matters Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the Judicial Matters Bill be now read a second time 
. This is an omnibus bill that amends the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 and also amends the Judicature Act 1908. The Justice and Electoral Committee has examined the bill and in May last year unanimously recommended that the bill be passed with one amendment. 
During the first reading National expressed its opposition to the bill and following the 2008 election we indicated that we would carefully scrutinise all reinstated legislation. I reviewed the need for the Judicial Matters Bill and was able to inform the select committee that the Government was prepared to support the legislation. Part 1 amends the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act. Last year before confirming our support for the bill I met with the inaugural commissioner Mr Ian Haynes and he confirmed the need for these amendments. His successor Sir David Gascoigne—like Mr Chauvel a former partner of Minter Ellison—was appointed on 3 August 2009 on the recommendation of this House and he too supports these amendments. I also met with members of the judiciary who recognise that the office fulfils a valuable role and in fact they are prepared to go so far as to say it enhances judicial independence. The Chief Justice in association and in consultation with the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief High Court Judge provided a written submission to the select committee and that was generally supportive of the bill. 
The Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner was established on 1 August 2005. The office provides the public with a transparent and accessible judicial complaints process. It allows a proper investigation of all complaints alleging judicial misconduct while adhering to the principle of judicial independence. The complaints process compliments the principal forms of judicial accountability such as conducting proceedings in public giving reasons for judicial decisions and allowing certain decisions to be subjected to appellate review. 
In the 4½ years to 31 January 2010 the office received 530 complaints and has determined 400 of them. Some complaints that have yet to be determined await the finalisation of court proceedings. Ninety-four percent or 374 of complaints have been dismissed. These were the sorts of complaints that were made because the complainant disagreed with the judge’s decision. In such circumstances the appropriate course of action is to appeal that decision. Fourteen complaints were withdrawn. Ten complaints were formally referred to the relevant head of bench and were resolved through the voluntary internal judicial complaints process. In 2005-06 a further two complaints were also referred to the head of bench with the consent of the complainant because the commissioner had a conflict of interest—the subject of the complaint would have been either a partner or a friend of the judge. To date there has been no recommendation for the appointment of a judicial conduct panel. 
The amendments proposed by this part strengthen the Act’s primary objective of the prompt handling of judicial complaints. They are based on the previous commissioner’s recommendations in his annual reports to Parliament. Clauses 4 to 9 create the position of a Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. Currently the Act does not permit the commissioner to delegate the power to conduct a preliminary examination of a complaint and this can cause difficulty where the commissioner has a conflict of interest as I said a few minutes ago or is unavailable. 
The bill enables the appointment of a deputy commissioner to whom the commissioner can delegate his or her functions concerning a particular complaint. Where the deputy commissioner has a conflict of interest he or she will be able to refer the complaint to the commissioner or the relevant head of bench. The Chief Justice’s submission expressed a preference for an ad hoc commissioner to be appointed to deal with a specific complaint where both the commissioner and the deputy commissioner had a conflict of interest. Although I acknowledge the concern that all complaints should be independently assessed certainly experience to date suggests that the provision is unnecessary but the Minister of Justice will monitor future developments to ensure that both the integrity of the complaints process and the independence of the judiciary will not be compromised. The deputy commissioner will be appointed in the same manner as the commissioner—that is by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House. 
Clauses 10 to 13 clarify the commissioner’s powers to dispose of complaints. They enable the commissioner to dispose of a complaint if in all the circumstances further consideration of the complaint is simply not justified. This is appropriate where for example the complainant is satisfied following an explanation or apology from the judge. However the bill clarifies that resolution of a complaint following an apology from the judge will not of itself justify disposal of the complaint. In such cases there may still be a question of conduct that the commissioner may want to refer to the relevant head of bench even if the complainant is satisfied with the particular outcome. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee has recommended that an additional clause—clause 12A—be inserted to amend section 17(1) of the principal Act. This amendment will clarify that where the commissioner has exercised his or her power to take no further action on a complaint the commissioner is not required to refer the complaint to the head of bench. Currently the Act does not allow the commissioner to dismiss a complaint on the ground that further consideration of it would be unjustified. 
Clauses 14 and 15 make necessary consequential amendments to the Coroners Act 2006 and the Official Information Act 1982 to recognise the new position of deputy commissioner. The schedules of the bill set out the necessary amendments to the schedules of the principal Act and that includes updating a diagram that provides an overview for the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the panel itself. 
Part 2 amends the Judicature Act 1908 to increase the statutory limit on the number of Associate Judges of the High Court from six to nine and that is the first increase since 1991. Since the office was established in 1989 associate judges have made a huge contribution to civil proceedings in the High Court. Their work has relieved pressure on the work of judges. Their jurisdiction includes dealing with applications for summary judgment dealing with insolvency proceedings and dealing with other types of civil proceedings. In the first reading debate I asked whether simply increasing the number of associate judges was sufficient to address the court’s growing workload and thanks if I may say so to your efforts Mr Assistant Speaker Barker many of those questions were addressed when the Judicature Amendment Act was passed in 2008 and the High Court Rules were amended. That has played a really great role in speeding up the conduct of civil proceedings. 
Since then I have also met with the Associate Judges of the High Court in Auckland and I have learnt that they are spending a great deal of their time on judicial settlement conferences and with pre-trial matters. I spoke to my colleagues about that and in July 2009 the Minister of Justice and the Minister for Courts announced the introduction of a court-assisted mediation pilot in Auckland. That will go a long way towards helping the associate judges to deal with judicial settlement conferences. 
I intend to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee of the whole House stage to make a couple of other amendments. These amendments are designed to enhance public confidence in the administration of justice just as the bill that we are dealing with this afternoon is designed to do and to ensure that people have confidence that if they are dissatisfied with the way a case has been dealt with by a judge there is an avenue that they can take to complain about that judge’s behaviour. I commend the bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I wonder Mr Assistant Speaker whether I could follow the habit adopted by the previous speaker Chris Finlayson and briefly make a reference to you in your previous role. I was standing outside the entrance to Bowen House yesterday looking across at our magnificent new Supreme Court and to see your name emblazoned there as the Minister of Courts responsible for laying the foundation stone was something to be very proud of. 
The aim of the Judicial Matters Bill is to amend the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 chiefly to achieve two things: first to provide for the Office of the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner; and secondly to provide that the commissioner in addition to the existing remedies that he can grant under the legislation may decide to take no further action on a complaint received by him. As we have heard there is another purpose to the legislation. It will amend the Judicature Act to raise the maximum number of associate judges who may hold office at any particular time from six to nine. 
As with much recent legislation in this sector including the Child and Family Protection Bill that the House has just read a first time the Judicial Matters Bill originated under the previous Labour-led Government. The history of the legislation is this. It was introduced on 25 June 2008 read a first time referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee on 22 July 2008 and as the bill was carried forward into the current Parliament the committee reported on 18 May last year. Today the bill comes back to the House. Mr Finlayson adverted to what I might call the irony in the fact that the bill is now sponsored by him as a National member because  
Hansard 
 shows that National opposed the bill on its first reading. 
It is interesting to read National’s objection set out in his customary learned fashion by National’s then shadow Minister of Justice Dr Richard Worth. Dr Worth thought that the bill would do nothing to improve judicial productivity and because in his view it would not improve productivity it was undesirable. Of course the reason that a Judicial Conduct Commissioner is constituted is not to speed the throughput by judges of their reasons for judgment; it is to maintain and if possible enhance public confidence in one of the three pillars of Government—the judicial branch. Accordingly it is something to strengthen confidence in the administration of justice. I have to say that there is every reason to suppose that under the able stewardship of David Gascoigne the present holder of the commissioner’s warrant the office will fulfil its purpose. 
The Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act established an office called the Judicial Conduct Commissioner appointed by the Governor-General after consultation with the Chief Justice on the recommendation of the House. The principal Act sets out a process for the receipt and processing of all complaints against judges to be managed by the commissioner. When the Judicial Conduct Commissioner receives a complaint about a judge he can dismiss it if it is outside his jurisdiction or if it is vexatious he can pass the complaint to a judge superior in office to the one about whom the complaint was made or he may appoint a Judicial Conduct Panel. The last course of action would obviously occur in only serious cases where there is a possibility of the dismissal of the judge. The membership of a conduct panel determined by the Attorney-General after consultation with the Chief Justice can consist of the following persons: two judges or a judge and a retired judge or a sitting or retired judge and a practising lawyer and a lay member. 
The bill now before us would establish the new office of Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House after the Governor-General has received advice that the Attorney-General has consulted the Chief Justice on the recommendation. Generally the function of the deputy commissioner is to carry out the functions of the commissioner in relation to complaints during the commissioner’s absence from office or the incapacity of the commissioner or in a vacancy in the office of the commissioner. It is probably sufficient for present purposes to say that the operation of the legislation to date has demonstrated the need for the deputy’s position and the manner of appointment set out by the amendment seems entirely appropriate. 
The bill also gives the commissioner the power to take no further action in respect of a complaint if the commissioner is satisfied that further consideration of the complaint would in all the circumstances be unjustified. This is in addition to the three current powers held by the commissioner which I listed earlier. Again experience with the legislation to date indicates that the amendment is highly desirable. It makes no sense for the commissioner not to have this power and it was an omission in the original bill. 
Section 26C of the Judicature Act 1908 provides that the Governor-General may from time to time by warrant appoint fit and proper persons to be Associate Judges of the High Court. Associate judges have a specialist and only civil jurisdiction and they undertake a range of company and insolvency work. They have extensive jurisdiction in interlocutory matters including summary judgment applications and they have jurisdiction to assess damages. Some lawyers present in the House will remember as part of their training going up to the Masters of the High Court for bankruptcy or call-overs. Others perhaps of a newer vintage will remember only appearing before an associate judge. I am not deliberately not looking at Kate Wilkinson when I make that reference. But associate judges were of course formerly known as Masters of the High Court and in those days they were appointed for fixed terms. I believe it was a 5-year term. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: I thought your practice was only Privy Council. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: As the Attorney-General has pointed out they did not have a role on the judicial committee where he and I both had the privilege of appearing. From 20 May 2004 Masters of the High Court were renamed Associate Judges of the High Court and began to serve on the basis of permanent tenure. The maximum number of associate judges is six although part-time associate judges may be appointed. Clause 17 increases the maximum permissible number of associate judges from six to nine. 
As we have heard in the speech from the Attorney-General the Justice and Electoral Committee received only one submission on this legislation. That submission was from the Chief Justice and it was generally supportive of the bill. As is customary her submission was made following consultation with the heads of bench of the other superior courts: the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief High Court Judge. In the end only one amendment was recommended by the select committee. As the select committee notes in its report new section 15A inserted by clause 11 would allow the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to take no further action in respect of a complaint on the grounds that further consideration of it would be unjustified. The select committee recommended inserting a new clause to clarify that where the commissioner has exercised his or her power to take no further action on a complaint the commissioner is not required to refer the complaint to a head of bench. Because the Judicial Conduct Commissioner is not entitled to dismiss a complaint on the grounds that further consideration of it would be unjustified without this amendment the commissioner would arguably be required to refer such complaints to the relevant head of bench. That clearly is a nonsensical situation. 
In summary Labour continues to support the amendment including the change recommended by the select committee. We do not know why it has taken the Attorney-General since May last year when the committee reported to prevail on his Cabinet colleagues to allow him to bring the bill back to the House. Whatever the reasons for that delay we are pleased to see its return and we look forward to its speedy enactment. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take a call on the Judicial Matters Bill. I want to talk briefly about the bill and then talk about some matters of principle. 
The bill establishes the office of the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. It is surprising in a way that this was not done under the initial law that created the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. One can think of any manner of reasons why a commissioner may have to rescind his or her position. There may be a conflict of interest or at least a perceived one. The legal community is relatively small. Any lawyer who has been in a big firm will have certainly worked with and amongst lawyers who have gone on to be judges at all sorts of levels and will undoubtedly have many friends who are lawyers—probably a few enemies as well but certainly friends. Perceived conflicts can arise so a deputy is a necessary component of the system. Of course there are other reasons: the commissioner might be absent overseas or incapacitated. My recollection is that there have been situations where that has arisen—certainly with the commissioner being overseas for periods of time. So it is welcome that we are doing this and it is timely. 
This bill increases the number of Associate Judges of the High Court from six to nine—at least potentially. I do not know whether those positions have to be filled but there is now scope for nine. The position of Associate Judge of the High Court is an important one. In many ways these judges are unsung heroes who push a large volume of commercial and civil work through our courts. The list before an associate judge can be like a supermarket list with many lawyers often some lay litigants and the like. The associate judges do an invaluable job not just for the court system but for our commercial community to ensure that business in this country functions. 
I certainly have some fond and not so fond memories of appearing before masters as a young lawyer. My first ever appearance in court was before Master Anne Gambrill a great trailblazer for female lawyers and judges. In the firm I was in I remember that a lawyer slightly older than me could not be bothered going up to court. I do not know what colour the shirt was that I was wearing but we had a policy at the time that we had to have a white shirt to go to court. I went to Hugh Wright’s and I bought a white shirt for about $29.99 and I had my first court appearance. I shakily got up and read to Master Anne Gambrill something like: “May it please the court the parties by consent seek an adjournment.” and I sat down. Fortunately she did not ask me any questions. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Your $29 worth. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: It was. She was good to me and I recall appearing before her many times after that when I got to say a bit more than I did that first time when I read out a sentence or two. 
It is good that we are doing this. Although this bill may in some ways seem a bit dry and—it is not quite the word I am looking for—minor behind it are some fundamental principles that are prerequisites for the rule of law in this country and more than that for liberal democracy and a functioning business community and economy. Behind all this is an independent judiciary where we have the rule of law not the rule of men—or women for that matter I say in order to save myself quickly. Where we do not have that independence and we have people simply working to their own standards democratic values and actually business values of open and fair conduct are threatened. We see that in a number of States where we cannot rely on any part of the Government and we cannot rely on anyone’s word. There is no ability to rely on food standards for example or any kind of commercial practice. 
I have digressed but I come back to the bill. An independent judiciary that has a watchdog in the form of a Judicial Conduct Commissioner is an important pillar of both our business community which is so important to us and our liberal democracy. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 It is always a pleasure to follow the honourable member Simon Bridges especially when we hear those stories about his youthful appearances in court. 
Hon Member 
: He got off lightly with Anne Gambrill though. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: He obviously got off lightly. It might have been a skill he was well versed in at the time but he has not quite managed to translate it to this environment. He is getting there. 
Of course Labour supports the Judicial Matters Bill; it was a bill that was introduced when we were in Government on 25 June 2008. I think the member who moved it on behalf of the Attorney-General was our Associate Minister of Justice at the time the Hon Clayton Cosgrove—an excellent member. He did a very fine job of presenting the bill and taking the House through its provisions. 
The bill is not extensive. It covers three particular areas. It establishes the office of the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. It allows the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to decide to take no further action in respect of a complaint and it increases the statutory maximum number of Associate Judges of the High Court from six to nine. It is relatively straightforward legislation. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee managed to report this bill back to the House on 18 May last year so the question I have for the next Government speaker is why it has taken the Government so long to deal with the bill given that it makes three relatively small adjustments to the principal legislation. Then the question is why on earth it has taken so long for it to come up on the Order Paper. I think I know the answer. Do members know who the Opposition spokesperson on justice was at the time that this bill was introduced? 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Richard Worth. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was Richard Worth—Dr Richard Worth. He was not Dr Richard Worth when he first became the then Opposition spokesperson on justice. He actually did his PhD while he was here as a member of Parliament. Well he had time on his hands obviously. 
The next point I will make I think says a lot about this individual. Members know that we should play the ball rather than the player. Well after Clayton Cosgrove gave an excellent speech on behalf of Michael Cullen who was the then Attorney-General Richard Worth made the following comment. He said he thought that Clayton Cosgrove was very competent in his field but that certainly that was not his field. What an arrogant thing that was for him to say. He said: “I think it reflects a tragedy in the present Labour-led Government that those who have been put in positions of responsibility in respect of judicial roles do not have any legal training or any sense of what is appropriate or what is not appropriate.” What a funny thing that was for that gentleman to say. He went on to say: “It is not a particular criticism of the member—he has just been put into a position that is unenviable—but sadly it also applies to the Attorney-General. As others may well know we have not had a situation in the history of New Zealand where an Attorney-General without legal qualification has occupied that particular responsibility for so long.” 
Well I just think that that is arrogant nonsense. I think that was actually behind the current Government’s position on this bill. It actually thought that if it left the bill languishing for long enough on the Order Paper after it had come back from the select committee we might forget what the then Opposition spokesperson on justice had said. Of course National opposed the bill. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: National opposed it? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: National opposed the bill when it was introduced. Dr Richard Worth had some interesting things to say about that. Essentially he felt that there was not sufficient evidence that judges’ productivity would be improved by this bill. He said the system did not appear to be robust enough when a Judicial Conduct Commissioner could dismiss 72 complaints against judges without referring them to the bench. 
I just think that sometimes one should be a little cautious about the positions one adopts in Opposition because it may well be that it is not the position that one would want to adopt in Government. As the Opposition spokesperson on justice I have tried to take the line pretty clearly on this side of the House that when the Government is doing something that we agree with—if it makes sense—then I will say so. I will work with the Government to achieve the end that we have in mind if there is mutuality. On issues like domestic violence which we are debating now we did not oppose the bill; we support the bill. It is a part of a bill that in fact we introduced ourselves. I have worked with the Minister of Commerce who is also the Minister of Justice on issues when I was the Minister of Commerce and he was the Opposition spokesperson. There has been a little bit of that coming back the other way but not as much as one would have hoped to see. 
In the justice area—the drivers of crime stuff—again there is disappointment on our side that the expression of our desire to work with the Government on a collaborative basis has been pretty much put on hold. I think that is unfortunate. I think the problem that the Government has had with this bill was that an Opposition spokesperson who had the arrogance to say that one of my very fine colleagues did not have any sense of what is appropriate or not appropriate was leading the Government’s position on this when he was in Opposition. I just sound a little note of caution there to various members of the House. 
Obviously the proposals within this bill are very sensible indeed. The main reason I think that they are sensible is that the work of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner is absolutely fundamental to maintaining confidence in our justice system. With public confidence in the administration of justice comes the capacity for the justice system to respond to the needs of the community that it serves in a much more effective way. If people feel that there is no capacity to make a complaint about judicial conduct issues are then raised in the public arena that undermine confidence. We have seen some examples of those over recent years. I think that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner is doing an excellent job and to have a Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner is an obvious extension of that work and will enable that work to be undertaken more effectively and more efficiently. 
The fact that there are a number of complaints that require no further action is I think a positive—I actually think that that is a positive. It is a very sensible approach to have a provision written into the law to allow the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to decide to take no further action in respect of a complaint. Again the numbers speak for themselves in terms of the complaints that have been received and what is required to be actioned. 
There is an increase in the statutory maximum number of Associate Judges of the High Court from six to nine. I supported the establishment of the position of associate judge—I think they used to be called Masters of the High Court. I was certainly very supportive of the change of title to associate judge because I think that better reflects the role. It probably reflects a better gender balance too than the word “master” might have reflected. I also think that when we look at the ranks of our High Court judges who have been pulled from the ranks of the masters in the past we see the expression “associate judge” suggests the pathway that was not there. I think Sir John Hansen was the first master to be appointed— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Then Venning. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: And then Justice Venning after that. With that changing of the name to associate judge it really does give an indication of progression. One of the reasons for having conflict of interest provisions written into the law was to enable the employment of part-time judges and I think that has been a useful move as well. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to express the support of the Green Party for the Judicial Matters Bill. The principal objectives of the bill have already been spelt out and there is no need for me to reiterate them. I simply say that we are prepared to support them. In doing so I would like to advance two comments. The first is that try as I might I have to confess that I am struggling in my own way—and it has been picked up by colleagues in the House—to comprehend the thread of logic and consistency on the part of the present Government in its approach to this issue. 
When I look back to the first reading I see that it is not so much the thought processes of the departed Dr Worth that leap out at me; it is the thought processes of the current Attorney-General for whom I have a very high regard indeed. I look forward to having it explained by him or his colleagues. I will quote from him. Back in July 2008 he said: “Of course judges can be rude grumpy or discourteous.” and indeed he gave some very colourful examples thereof. He then continued: “In many cases one can hardly blame them given the quality of submissions they have to hear from lawyers. But are we” he asks “such a weak-kneed sissy society that if a judge barks at us we have to run off to some judicial complaints body? I do not think so.” Well today it is clear that he does think so. He continued: “We do not see any need for a deputy commissioner. In fact we do not see any need for a commissioner.” But that is enough on that point. 
He later said the following: “This bill will not be supported by the National Party. The material dealing with the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner is as misconceived as the contents of the substantive legislation. Secondly although National has great respect for associate judges and the work they do simply increasing their number is not the answer. … Of course ” he says “this Government” meaning the previous Government “not only does not know the answers; it is so hopeless that it does not even know which questions to ask.” Well with great respect it is clear that the Attorney-General now believes that the previous Government was asking the correct questions and providing the correct answers which are now being adopted by this Government. I congratulate it on doing so. All it has to do now is to acknowledge the inconsistency of its previous position. 
The second point I wanted to explore pertains to the proposed Supplementary Order Paper. It intends to provide three amendments and the Attorney-General identified them briefly. It is not my purpose to explore that paper in detail today because I understand that it will come before us in the Committee stage but I would like to raise one aspect for advance consideration by my colleagues. It pertains to the proposed second amendment which would authorise the payment of higher duties allowances to High Court judges serving in the Court of Appeal and authorise allowances paid previously. 
The explanatory note states that this administrative practice—that is High Court judges serving in the Court of Appeal and receiving higher allowances as a result—was agreed in 1998 by the then Chief Justice and the then Acting Secretary for Justice. In a 2007 judgment the High Court considered that the arrangement needed to “rest on a more secure constitutional foundation.” which is a large hammer with which to be approaching the nut. The explanatory note states that “The proposed amendment will provide that foundation by establishing in legislation the formulation for that higher duties allowance. The amendment also confirms that all allowances paid previously were authorised and valid.” I have raised this matter I have been assured that there will be a more detailed explanation forthcoming and I look forward to that happening in a constructive spirit; it is not my intent to create problems where none exist. But I do look forward to the “more secure constitutional foundation” that will authorise and validate previously paid allowances. Thank you. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I do not wish to speak a great deal on the Judicial Matters Bill but I make it quite clear that the ACT Party will be supporting its passage through the House. One question that we would ask relates to the proposal contained in the bill to increase the number of Associate Judges of the High Court from six to nine. Of course associate judges used to be Masters of the High Court. Masters or—now—associate judges are responsible for doing a lot of procedural issues. They look at cases coming up schedule hearings deal with timetabling and issue orders in respect of cases before they come before a High Court judge. We have spoken a lot in the last 10 days about the importance of economic growth and giving the country the turbocharger that it needs. It seems to the ACT Party that rather than increasing the number of associate judges from six to nine we should perhaps be looking at 12 or 15 or an even bigger number. We should be doing everything we can to oil the wheels of justice to ensure there is speedy access to justice and that parties that want to have their cases adjudicated can do so quickly and efficiently. The ACT Party certainly believes that that would add to the economic growth of the country. The ACT Party will be supporting this bill. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 One of the legacies of being a politician who was once a lawyer like all of those who have spoken so far is the unique perspective we bring to the debate on the separation of powers. I will not give any of my work experiences unlike Mr Bridges but I will focus on the boundaries between the executive the judiciary and the legislature and how they are an essential hallmark of our constitutional system. 
It is fundamental to this framework that the judiciary be publicly accountable for the administration of law while the sovereignty of Parliament should remain intact. In the Judicial Matters Bill we bring the two together. The aim of the bill is to amend the current legislation to enable the appointment of a Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner who can perform the functions of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner when the commissioner has a conflict of interest is absent from the office or is incapacitated. Due and proper judicial conduct is about maintaining judicial independence and integrity and this amendment does exactly that. So we are not surprised that the New Zealand Bar Association provided general support for the bill because it aims at maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the judiciary. 
The association was particularly supportive of the provisions that result in a more transparent process to deal with complaints about the conduct of judges. Before 2004 if anyone complained about the conduct of a judge it was referred to that judge’s Chief Judge who would take such action as the Chief Judge thought fit. It was an informal procedure without any statutory base. The old way was thought to be out of touch with the modern age so an independent investigation process was set up in 2004. Today’s amendments emerged from that process. 
I make a clear distinction between those who criticise the utterances of judges as coming from the school of judicial activism and the absolute right of judges to express an independent view. The House will be well aware that over the last decade the judiciary has come under attack from successive administrations. The first swipe came from Margaret Wilson’s description of Dame Sian Elias as the judges’ “shop steward”. The second was a challenge by the then new Attorney-General Michael Cullen against judicial activism. Indeed it has become so commonplace for politicians to criticise the judiciary that retired Maori Land Court judge Heta Hingston concluded that “attacks on the judiciary have become par for the course since the 2003 foreshore and seabed Court of Appeal.” 
The point I raise is that we must be careful to ensure that when considering complaints against the judiciary we consider them based on the genuine assessment of inadequate or inappropriate conduct rather than simply because we disagree with the things they say. Judges have been criticised for misconduct and so they should be. It is only right and proper that inappropriate behaviour should be open to scrutiny but it should not be a free-for-all. The Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier in a speech published in  
Butterworth’s 
Family Law Journal 
 in 1999 raised an interesting question that tests this out further. He said: “After all what would the public rather have: a statute firmly set in the social mores of the 1970s or a statute that lives and evolves within our society? Law does not exist in a vacuum but is an evolutionary process. Development of the law is dependent on counsel being prepared to push boundaries and challenge judges to find ways to flesh the bones of the Act and do justice to all parties.” 
I believe we need more judicial activism not less and that we should welcome the opportunity for the law to evolve in ways that meet the needs of our changing society. To do this we need judges who have demonstrated integrity. However it is one thing to act with independence and integrity; it is quite another to act in ways that could serve to threaten the very foundations of justice. The Maori Party believes there must be some mechanism established to identify judges whose sentences are so consistently harsh that they may be seen as criminalising youngsters without sufficient consideration for their rehabilitation. Anecdotally too we have all been told the stories of judges who treat the so-called underclass much more severely than they treat offenders from the overclass. Sometimes conduct that does not seem overtly serious in a particular case assumes the appearance of bias when it is so consistent as to demonstrate a pattern. Perhaps then there should be room for complaints about conduct based upon a judge’s overall record. 
The role then of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner is critical. The commissioner in carrying out an investigation of all complaints against judges is a vital means of upholding the dignity and the integrity of the role of the judiciary. Such a role is a critical safeguard to ensure that the principles of judicial independence are upheld and valued by all. Of course we recognise that within these amendments there is now the possibility that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in addition to existing remedies may decide to take no further action on a complaint. 
Another feature of this bill is that it makes the necessary amendments to increase the size of the judiciary across a number of levels. The Judicature Act 1908 is amended to raise the maximum number of Associate Judges of the High Court who may hold office at any particular time from six to nine. There are other amendments that increase the number of District Court Judges from 140 to 156 and that increase the number of Court of Appeal Judges from nine to 10. 
We note too the very wise advice of the Wellington Women Lawyers Association. It has recommended that the bill be amended to provide for permanent part-time appointments with a provision that a part-time judge may be appointed on a full-time basis at a later stage on a vacancy arising. Its recommendation was that the bill should enable an opportunity for an application to work part-time on the proviso that following advice from the relevant head of bench that the approval will not unduly interfere with the ability of the court to discharge its obligations in an orderly and expeditious way there should be no impediments to introducing such an approach. I will be interested to hear back from the Attorney-General specifically about these proposals for part-time provision to enable a more flexible and supportive workplace environment. 
Due access to justice the right to impartial and equitable treatment from the law and the commitment to fairness are what drives us in taking that extra look at this legislation. We are satisfied with what we see at this reading and we are pleased to add our support. Kia ora. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for inviting me to address the House on the Judicial Matters Bill. Although a number of people have referred to it as a bit of a clean-up bill—an omnibus bill just to tidy up things—it supports the work of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. 
At the start of my speech will I pick up on the invitation offered to this side of the House by the previous Labour speaker Lianne Dalziel to explain why this bill had taken so long as she described it to return to this House. It may have passed the members on the other side by or gone above their heads but in fact this Government in its first year in office has been focused on a number of very urgent issues that needed to be addressed starting with the mess that the previous administration left this country in when we took office. It was very important that we spent time addressing the urgent matters that needed addressing. We had a full work programme. In fact our programme has been so full that in 2009 we passed in excess of 70 Acts which is almost a record as I understand it. A number of those Acts were in the area of law and order along with others in a number of other areas. So it is pretty clear why it has taken a bit longer to reach this second reading. It was simply because we had a number of urgent issues to address which we have done very successfully as the Prime Minister traversed in his speech on Tuesday. He spoke of actions that everyone on this side of the House is very proud of. That is why it has taken so long; one does not have to be Einstein to work that out. 
But of much more seriousness I was disappointed in Ms Dalziel’s contribution. I suggest that the next time she wants to comment on people in this House she first look in the mirror. I suggest that she perhaps reflect on the time when she lost her ministerial warrant and the reasons for which she did so. She should stop looking accusingly at members on this side of the House. It is time that she stood in front of the mirror looked at her own behaviour and asked herself why she was sacked as a Minister of the Crown. 
Having set that matter aside I will briefly outline for the House the main purposes of this bill. Firstly as others have referred to it establishes the Office of the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. Clearly this change has been brought about because whether we like it or not the experienced law fraternity are closely linked and well known to each other. So when people feel that they need to lay a complaint there may be an occasion where a complaint is laid against for instance a firm such as Minter Ellison in which the current commissioner Sir David Gascoigne is a partner. It would be unwise for him to investigate a complaint against that firm because although he may not have any direct conflict the mere perception of a conflict needs to be addressed in that process. That is the first critical issue to be addressed. 
The second purpose is to provide the deputy commissioner with the powers to run his or her office more efficiently so that he or she does not have to deal with a complaint when really there is no need to proceed with it. With those few remarks it gives me great pleasure to support this bill at its second reading. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to follow on from my colleague on the Justice and Electoral Committee Paul Quinn and also speak to the Judicial Matters Bill. We were both members of the select committee that considered this bill. I acknowledge that the bill was considered in a very brief amount of time primarily because it was perceived within the select committee to be reasonably uncontroversial and there was only one submission. 
Basically I want to come back to the first principles which Paul Quinn touched on briefly in his contribution. The goal of this omnibus legislation in conjunction with the primary legislation was I believe to enhance public confidence in the judiciary. I think that is quite critical just as I believe that it is critical that people have faith in the politicians they democratically elect. The goal was not only to enhance public confidence in the judiciary but to ensure that there were adequate resources to meet the growing workload of the judiciary. I do not think any of us can deny that that is the case. 
We received only one submission on the Judicial Matters Bill and that was from Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias who made a submission after consultation with the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief High Court Judge. They were in support of the bill and made a few short suggestions to the bill itself. 
I will touch on the bill as it was reported back to the House from the Justice and Electoral Committee. We made one small recommendation. We recommended the insertion of clause 12A which amends section 17(1) of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act. That was to clarify that where the commissioner has exercised his or her power to take no further action on a complaint the commissioner is not required to then refer that complaint back to the head of bench. That is an acknowledgment that although what is key in all of this is that we have this system in place by the very nature of our justice system people may use this complaints process to complain about a judgment as opposed to complaining about the conduct of the judge presiding over the court at that time. We were mindful that a balance needs to be struck and that although this mechanism is key and important we do not wish it to be unnecessarily bureaucratic. 
I will come back to a few of the figures about how frequently this process has been used since its introduction in I believe 2004. But before I do that I want to return to some comments that have been made by my colleagues in this House not just this afternoon but when this bill was first introduced. In fact I want to go all the way back to the first reading of this bill in July 2008. A member of the National Party stated clearly and categorically: “This bill will not be supported by the National Party. The material dealing with the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner is as misconceived as the contents of the substantive legislation.” Not only the amendment but the whole notion of this process this backstop measure this measure of confidence was something National stood against. “Secondly although National has great respect for associate judges and the work they do simply increasing their number is not the answer. Reforming the civil justice system is the answer. Of course this Government not only does not know the answers; it is so hopeless that it does not even know which questions to ask.” 
I have a question to ask. If the key to everything including deeming the Judicial Matters Bill to be unnecessary was to reform the civil justice system why have we not seen that bill come before the House yet? Perhaps it is in the work programme and is to be introduced some time in the future. Instead National decided to support the Judicial Matters Bill. Just for clarity’s sake can I say was reading from Chris Finlayson’s first reading speech. Those were his comments. He clearly and categorically spoke against this bill. I would be very interested to hear from him further down the track as to why he has changed his mind on this bill. I would be genuinely interested. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: We didn’t get that in his speech. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: My colleague is right; we did not get that in his substantive speech and I would be interested to hear further from him. In fact I have a couple of follow-on questions for him which I will throw out now while I am reviewing his words. He also said that he saw this as “an unwarranted attack on judicial independence and that it would encourage ineffective and stupid complaints—in fact that it would encourage a culture of complaints.” So we should not have any ombudsmen in this country because then people might just complain to them! 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Who said that? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I added the ombudsmen remark but his final statement which I will read again was: “in fact that it would encourage a culture of complaints”. He went on to say: “And colleagues of mine like Judith Collins who spoke against the legislation were indeed prophetic because it has basically been a waste of time. We were right to oppose this legislation in 2004 and we are right to oppose this amendment bill the Judicial Matters Bill.” We have of course had a select committee process. That may have been the time to withdraw it. As a Minister perhaps he could have withdrawn the bill from the Order Paper. It has not happened. I would be interested to know why given the strength of feeling coming through in his speech. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: They’re flip-flopping over everything. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: It does appear as my colleague says to be a flip-flop or perhaps—I want to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt—he has had new information before him that has substantively changed his mind. I think the House would benefit from hearing that information. 
He did have one specific point on the deputy commissioner: “We do not see any need for a deputy commissioner. In fact we do not see any need for a commissioner. I noted from the commissioner’s report that it was said it would be helpful to have a deputy because of conflict of interest but Dr Worth has dealt with that. This person does not need a deputy because the prospect of conflict of interest is minimal.” I am sorry but in my mind that is not good enough. Saying that the prospect of conflict of interest is minimal and therefore there is no need for a commissioner at all again undermines that first principle of ensuring that we can all have faith in our judiciary. 
The fact that we are a small country is consistently raised when we talk about the criminal justice system and our judiciary generally in New Zealand. It was the argument made by some people in claiming that we should maintain the Privy Council—that we were too small to maintain our own truly independent judiciary and we could not do it on our own. Those were the kinds of arguments that were made probably by people who considered themselves to be royalists. But this provision is the kind of thing we put in place to pay heed to that; to acknowledge that yes we are a small country but we do have the depth the knowledge and the experience in our judiciary to be entirely independent but we should put in safety measures as well so that we can ensure that the public has faith and trust in our system. 
I do not care if there are two three or no cases of a conflict of interest for a commissioner at any one time; the amount is significant enough in my mind to require us to have the right people in place to deal with those cases and if that includes having a deputy commissioner to assist then I think that is something worth doing in order to maintain faith in the system. I want to reflect on the fact that in 2009 the Judicial Conduct Commissioner reported that the number of complaints about judges dealt with in the year ended July had increased from 132 to 189. According to Chris Finlayson they exist only because there is an ability to complain—that is the only reason there are complaints to be heard. Those complaints included 139 new complaints and 50 carried over from the previous year—so they were obviously worth consideration. The number of complaints against High Court judges increased from 19 to 44 and those against Family Court judges from 13 to 27. We have to acknowledge that some of those would have been frivolous but four complaints were significant enough to be referred to the head of bench to deal with compared with two in the previous year. The grounds for some of those were rudeness unfairness inappropriate remarks failure to listen bias and predetermination. I think those are significant enough grounds to ensure that we at least have a mechanism in place to consider those complaints on behalf of New Zealanders. 
I briefly mention that in December last year we had the first case of a judge going before the conduct panel in relation to a financial relationship. Details had emerged that the judge had presided over a case involving a Queen’s Counsel to whom he owed $250000. That is the kind of situation where it is important that we have this mechanism in place so that if there is a clear conflict of interest that has not been dealt with appropriately it can be dealt with. 
I commend this bill to the House. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Judicial Matters Bill. The purpose of the bill is to introduce measures aimed at maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the judicial system. The principal provision is to amend the Judicial Conduct Commissioner the Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 and the Judicature Act 1908; to increase the statutory limit on the number of Associate Judges of the High Court at any particular time from six to nine; and to allow for the proper investigation of matters that may lead to the removal of a judge. 
The Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner provides the public with a transparent and accessible judicial complaints process. This bill establishes the new Office of the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor-General after consultation with the Chief Justice of New Zealand on a recommended appointment. The deputy commissioner must deal with complaints in respect of which the commissioner has decided he or she has a conflict of interest. The bill covers complaints about judges of the Supreme Court the Court of Appeal the High Court Associate Judges of the High Court and coroners. This bill gives the commissioner power to take no further action in respect of a complaint if the complaint is deemed unjustified. The reason could be as follows: the complaint has been resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction; the complaint although genuine and made in good faith is based on misunderstanding; or a lack of enough information into the conduct of a person to form an opinion. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s office receives approximately 100 complaints a year. Of those approximately 80 percent are dismissed. In the commissioner’s annual report to Parliament he noted that the most common reason for dismissing a complaint has been that the complaint seems to arise from the complainant’s disagreement with the judge’s decision rather than from the judge’s conduct. To conclude I say that this bill will increase the limit on the number of Associate Judges of the High Court which in turn will improve the judicial system. I commend this bill to the House. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 The Judicial Matters Bill matters in various aspects including providing for transparency public confidence and an important constitutional process. The bill passed its first reading in June 2008 under the previous Labour Government and it has been brought to its second reading by the current National Government. The bill was introduced to establish a statutory process for the receipt of a complaint about a judge’s conduct and for the investigation of complaints that would raise a question of removing a judge from office. The bill addresses existing risks arising from the lack of procedure to support a decision to remove a judge and from the public perception of a lack of transparency in the judicial complaints process. 
Public confidence in the judiciary and judicial independence are fundamental in a democracy. Fortunately there have been few complaints so far and the removal of a judge has never been necessary in this country. As the Hon Clayton Cosgrove pointed out when introducing the bill in June 2008 the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner receives approximately 100 complaints a year. Of those approximately 80 percent are dismissed. In the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s annual report to Parliament he noted that the most common reason for dismissing a complaint has been that it stems from a complainant’s disagreement with the judge’s decision rather than from the judge’s conduct. In the first 2 years four complaints were referred to the relevant head of bench and were resolved through the voluntary internal judicial complaints process. So far the commissioner has not made any recommendation for the appointment of a judicial conduct panel. 
However it is worth noting that complaints about judges are increasing although most are dismissed. The New Zealand Press Association reported on 12 October 2009 that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner said in his annual report that the number of complaints he dealt with in the year ended 31 July 2009 had increased from 132 to 189. This included 139 new complaints and 50 complaints carried over from the previous year when 101 new complaints were laid. The number of complaints against High Court judges had increased from 19 to 44 and complaints against Family Court judges from 13 to 27. Complaints against District Court judges fell from 50 to 48 of the 189 complaints in that year. One hundred and thirteen complaints were dismissed compared with the 80 complaints dismissed in the previous year. This bill takes the precautionary step of setting processes out in law so that the rules will be clear if a situation ever arises. 
In New Zealand law a senior judge can be removed from office by the Governor-General following an address from Parliament. This bill does not change that. It does not change the grounds on which a judge could be removed. Instead it ensures that such a difficult decision will be well supported. In addition the bill incorporates measures relating to judicial immunity part-time service for judges the principal judges of the Family Court and Youth Court and other administrative matters. 
The bill is an omnibus bill which amends the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 and section 26C(2) of the Judicature Act 1908. The bill proposes to “establish the Office of the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner” “allow the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to decide to take no further action in respect of a complaint” and “increase the statutory maximum number of Associate Judges of the High Court from six to nine.” As the Justice and Electoral Committee report of 18 May 2009 pointed out the amendments to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act are in part the result of recommendations by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner considered that these amendments will better achieve the stated purpose of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act. 
This bill is about ensuring there is public confidence in the system. It is about ensuring there is transparency it is about an important constitutional process and is a prudent reinforcement of our constitutional principles. I commend the bill to the House. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe e Te Mana Whakawa. Na te mea koi nei te wa tuatahi ka whai wahi ahau ki te mihi ki te Whare ka tu ki te mihi ki nga kaitorangapu o tena ropu o tena ropu o tena ropu kua hoki pai mai nei ki te mahi i tenei tau me te tumanako kia haere pai katoa nga mahi kia oti pai nga mahi o tenei Whare. Na reira huri noa i to tatou Whare tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker. As this is the first opportunity for me to acknowledge the House I rise and extend greetings to political colleagues from each party who have returned to work this year refreshed. The hope is that everything goes well in the job and that the work of this House is completed well. So greetings to each of you and to us all throughout our House 
.] 
I will take just a couple of minutes for a call on the Judicial Matters Bill. I have become a new member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I am looking forward to learning about all the work of this committee and to participating in the development and the processing of further legislation. 
I am not a lawyer. I start by establishing what I am not in order to then introduce my support for this bill. I am not a lawyer; I am not a member of that august body of professionals who support the institution of this country. My colleague across the way Steve Chadwick knows intimately that there are far too many of that profession. I share an interest with one of the previous speakers from the other side of the House in maintaining public confidence not only in that profession but also in ours here in the House. It is important that we pass bills such as these that maintain transparency public confidence trust and integrity. 
It is important in a democracy that we have constitutional elements and institutions that we can rely on so that we order our society in a trustful way and people who participate in these processes and these institutions can repose their confidence in them. As my colleague Rahui Katene also mentioned sometimes on the surface something looks insignificant but it can develop somewhat more serious aspects to it. Therefore it is important that we have systems procedures and institutions that allow us to dig deeper into what may at first glance not require very much attention at all. 
As my colleagues have previously remarked this bill provides for such institutional integrity and processes as ensuring that where members of the public and members of the profession do not feel they have been accorded the appropriate fairness and integrity that they are entitled to expect they have the opportunity to take their complaints to an institution or to go through a process that will allow them to be heard. 
The role of Parliament is to ensure not only that its own processes are well regarded and transparent and enjoy public confidence and trust but also that other institutions that similarly contribute to the constitutional well-being and health of our society enjoy those kinds of systems and protections. This bill contributes to that. 
I do not propose to rehearse the particular detail that is set out in this bill. That has been well covered by speakers on all sides of the House. It remains only for me to say that I too commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a second time. 
Unit Titles Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I move  
That the Unit Titles Bill be now read a second time 
. The Unit Titles Bill received its first reading on 5 March 2009. It will repeal and replace the Unit Titles Act 1972 which is the primary legislation governing multi-unit developments such as apartment blocks town houses and office buildings. It was referred to and considered by the Social Services Committee which received 101 written submissions and heard 36 oral submissions. Overall there was widespread support for the changes especially for those parts of the bill that increase disclosure for buyers and bodies corporate and those parts that provide cost-effective appropriate and timely access to dispute resolution services. Submitters have written to the Social Services Committee and to me as the Minister responsible for the bill stating that new updated unit-titles legislation cannot come soon enough. 
I point out by way of background that the Unit Titles Act 1972 was designed for the simple small-scale residential flats that were prevalent at the time. Often such developments would number only two or three units but times have changed. Also there are now almost 120000 properties on unit title tenure in New Zealand. The trend is expected to continue and accelerate particularly in the Auckland region where it is estimated that within 50 years half a million people will be living in apartments town houses and high-rise buildings. 
The current Act’s inadequacy in the modern environment where some developments contain more than 100 units means among other things that buildings can be insufficiently maintained that bodies corporate can be hampered by time-consuming decision-making processes that disputes between owners are seldom resolved and that there is little consumer information or in fact protection. Furthermore the process for building developments can be inflexible and overly complex. 
The Social Services Committee reported back on September 2009 with several key changes to improve the bill. These changes were made in response to concerns from submitters that some provisions were overly prescriptive or onerous. I am very happy with the decisions made by the committee and I would like to communicate that. I support the committee’s recommendations wholeheartedly and I will go on to explain the merits of some of the recommendations made. 
An example of the select committee’s common-sense approach is a recommendation that the definition of “principal unit” be changed to explicitly allow for the creation of car-parks under title. This change follows views expressed by submitters that car-parks should be able to be traded independently. The proposed change to the definition of “principal unit” is an excellent one especially when one considers the number of car-parking spaces that are currently in the central city and urban areas. 
I also draw members’ attention to changes made in the long-term maintenance regime. When the bill was introduced it had robust and future-focused provisions mandating that bodies corporate prepare in advance for repairs and maintenance. However submissions demonstrated divergent opinions over the benefits of a mandatory long-term maintenance regime. Whereas some strongly supported the mandatory regime other people were keen to see an amendment to allow bodies corporate to decide to opt out reducing their compliance costs. Notably no submissions objected to the concept of a body corporate planning in advance for maintenance and repair. The Social Services Committee has taken what I consider to be a balanced approach retaining the mandatory requirement for the long-term maintenance plan but providing an opt-out clause for the long-term maintenance fund. 
I have said before that I am a supporter of measures that reduce regulatory burden and red tape. My final point explains how the committee has done this with the bill. Committee members have been over the financial monitoring and reporting provisions with a fine-tooth comb and this is commendable when one considers that a body corporate account sometimes involves millions of dollars. In particular the committee has had to grapple with the difficult question of how much financial monitoring is too much. Indeed in the light of submissions the committee has gone as far as making the financial monitoring options optional which means there is more choice for the body corporate to decide how much scrutiny of financial affairs needs to be undertaken. 
While I am on the subject I would like to advise the House that there are some technical aspects that I believe can be more clearly drafted. I am currently considering whether a Supplementary Order Paper will be necessary at the Committee stage to address these matters. I assure members that the amendments will be technical rather than policy-driven in nature. 
In summary I am pleased to see the strong support and public interest in the Unit Titles Bill. In respect of the new dispute resolution process I am pleased to see a requirement for increased disclosure reduced voting thresholds and clarification that the issues of rights and responsibilities have been addressed. 
Clearly this bill has hit the nail on the head regarding public opinion. Indeed public opinion is that the bill must proceed with haste. My office is full of letters from members of the public who are keen to see this bill become law and I am certain that select committee members can relate to that as submitters were enthusiastic that something should happen sooner rather than later. 
There are thousands of unit owners body corporate managers surveyors and legal professionals across the country waiting like Patience on a monument for these measures to be passed by this Parliament. The measures are sensible. They strike an optimal regulatory balance. They are both needed and wanted and I direct Opposition members to read my speech if they missed that. 
This bill brings our unit title law into the 21st century. It addresses the massive changes that have occurred in our built environment since 1972. I thank the select committee and all those who took the time to submit in order to help create an efficient effective sustainable bill that is relevant to the needs of modern-day New Zealanders. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Surely the Minister of Housing could have kept speaking for another 30 seconds. Labour is pleased to support the Unit Titles Bill because of course this is Labour legislation. Fifteen months into the term of this National-led Government the Minister of Housing is still passing Labour legislation. If people want this bill to be passed quickly why when it was reported back at the beginning of September have we had to wait until February in order to get any action on it? I also ask the Minister where the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is. That is another good piece of Labour legislation that the Minister said he would act on right away because people wanted it passed. The bill came back from the Social Services Committee in the middle of last year and disappeared into a black hole. The Minister of Housing has not done anything else in the last year so the least he could have done was progress the two very good pieces of Labour legislation he had inherited from the previous Government. All the work on them had been done. All the consultation on them had been done. All the drafting had been done. All he had to do is pass them. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.