Volume 651 Week 1 - Tuesday 9 December 2008(continued on Friday 12 December 2008) 
Volume 651 Week 1 - Tuesday 9 December 2008(continued on Friday 12 December 2008) 
[Volume:651;Page:449] 
Tuesday 9 December 2008 
( 
continued on Friday 12 December 2008 
) 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Clauses 1 and 2 ( 
continued 
)  
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am very happy to take my additional 4 minutes and 30 seconds of speaking time and probably a couple of other calls as well because this is a very important opportunity to finally get answers from Minister Kate Wilkinson on the questions we have been asking throughout the Committee stage. Of course because the bill has not been to a select committee we are entitled to scrutinise it in a very in-depth way in the Committee stage. There is a wide-ranging debate on clauses 1 and 2 when a bill has not been to a select committee. 
I believe there are a number of questions that the Minister should respond to. The first one is why does this legislation have to go through all its stages under urgency when it does not come into effect until 1 April next year—the April Fool’s joke as we have described it in this House over the last day? It is important for the Minister to explain why the bill is going through under urgency. Even the  
New Zealand Herald  
cannot understand why it is going through under urgency “other than to give the perception that the Government has ‘momentum’ ”. Well that is not very satisfactory and I believe that the Government should explain why this bill is being rushed through all its stages without going to a select committee and without democratic input. Because the bill is not coming into effect until 1 April there is plenty of time to send it to a select committee to call for submissions and to have it still take effect from 1 April next year. 
The second question that the Minister has not yet responded to is the question of immigration visa status. One of the subsequent questions that really follows on from the one I have asked is whether the Immigration Service will now decline to accept as a job offer anything that contains within it a trial provision. Of course if the Immigration Service continues to accept job offers for the purpose of allocating points under the skilled migration scheme then the trial provision actually negates the whole purpose of having a large number of points attributed to the job offer because it does not mean anything. After 90 days the person may not have a job and the whole point of having a high number of points allocated to the job offer is to ensure that people are actually able to settle well in New Zealand and bring their skills into New Zealand and into skilled employment. That is a very serious question; the Minister has not responded to the question of how the Immigration Service will respond to trial provisions within an employment agreement. The Minister has stood up in this House on other occasions and said that it is just a matter of choice and that people can freely negotiate one of these provisions into their agreement. But when people are desperate to find their way into New Zealand and are prepared to accept any terms and conditions—and the Minister will find that out in her role as Associate Minister of Immigration—they will sign up to trial provisions if that requirement is placed upon them. 
The third question that the Minister has not responded to concerns the particular vulnerability of young people going into their first jobs. They are entitled to know what their employer expects of them. It is not good enough that we let employers off the hook by saying they do not have a human resources department so therefore they will be let off the hook or by saying they do not have to tell new employees what they expect from them and they can simply let them go. I think that the point I was making last night was a very serious one. When employers can simply let someone go without any explanation without any reason being given they could have breaches of our human rights laws at the back of their minds but they will certainly not bring them to the forefront. They may want to dismiss people when they turn up at work on Monday and find out that their manager has hired a Maori someone from an Asian country or a woman—God forbid. So sexism and racism can occur under this legislation. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 In listening to this debate people would believe that only trade unionists trendy lefties and Wellington’s useless bureaucrats were interested in this bill. But I have to tell the National Government that there is a lot of interest in this bill around New Zealand and that came home to me last night when I went to the Rongotai College prize-giving. The first person I spoke to was a National Party member and campaign organiser. He said: “I do not like the bill the National Party has brought into Parliament. I do not like it and I don’t think it is fair.” One of National’s own members said that last night. National members think this is just our issue but I tell them that it is becoming their issue. The second person who spoke to me was the wife of one of the people there last night. She said that she had been listening to the debate and that she knew how it worked. I said: “Do you?” and she said: “Yes. My daughter is in the UK. She got a job under a 90-day rule. After 2 months they came into her office and said ‘We don’t think you’re enjoying the job.’ She said ‘But I am enjoying the job.’ They said ‘We don’t think you’re enjoying the job; please pack your bag and go.’ ” This woman had no rights. She had to go and she left on that day. That is exactly what will happen to New Zealanders under this legislation. 
I know that Kate Wilkinson has not been taking calls in this debate. She has not been undertaking her duty as a Minister. I know that when in Opposition Kate Wilkinson liked to ask multiple-choice questions to Ministers on the Government side of the House. I do not want to bring the Chairperson into the debate but I happen to know that the person sitting next to the Minister faced quite a number of such questions from her. So I have a few today; they are quite easy to answer. The Minister can put up her hand if the answer is yes or she can at least move in the chair. Can the Minister tell this Committee whether teachers in schools with fewer than 20 staff will be covered? Is the Minister right that they will be covered is Anne Tolley right that they will not be covered or does nobody know? What is the answer? Does the Minister know? Is Anne Tolley right or does nobody know? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: She is doing a written answer! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh she is doing a written answer to me. Well I hope it will not come by snail mail. 
How about another question then? What did the Human Rights Commission say? It said: “Rushed legislation is potentially risky legislation and this is a fundamental change to employment law which requires serious consideration.” Can the Minister tell me whether the Human Rights Commission is right—yes no or does she not know? Just one of those answers will do. For those who are not watching the television but listening to the radio I can say that the Minister’s mouth is not even moving; she is not even whispering. Her head is down she is reading press releases about herself and she is not answering any questions in this Chamber. 
What about this multiple-choice question? Is the Human Rights Commission correct when it says that “There appears to be no compelling need given the current economic conditions to take short cuts in the political process or for such urgency on this proposed legislation”? I ask the Minister whether the Human Rights Commission is correct—yes no or does the Minister not know? I ask the Minister whether we can have an answer on that one. Is it too much to ask for the Minister to get up on her feet and answer some questions? 
What about this one? The Minister said that access to mediation was a privilege—access to mediation was a privilege—for workers so I want to know the answer to this question: does she believe in rights for workers or does she think that rights exist only for employers? Does she think that only employers are allowed privileges? I ask the Minister whether we can have an answer on that please. There is no answer. 
I tell the people of New Zealand that it is a downright disgrace that we have a Minister being asked questions about a bill that will not go to a select committee and that the public of New Zealand have no right to look at but that the Minister will not get out of her chair and answer a single question about on behalf of New Zealanders. Shame on this Minister! I always thought that this Minister this person this member of Parliament had more integrity than that. I ask the Minister why she will not answer these questions. I have been told by members on this side of the Chamber and those who have been debating this bill on behalf of New Zealanders that she has refused to answer. There can be no excuse for not following a process at least this process of answering questions. 
I think that National members ought to hold their heads in shame. They said that when they became the Government they would do things in an open and transparent way. This Minister said that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill was not even included in National’s 100-day plan. She misled the public on that. How can we have trust in a Minister who tells the public one thing and then is party to a deceit in this Parliament by bringing in a bill that she said would not be in that 100-day plan? She did not tell the public that they would have no say on the bill at all and that the bill would be rushed through under urgency debated to midnight last night and come back here today. And National was not able to say a word. 
This legislation is as the Human Rights Commission has said a major change to the rights of workers—it is a major human rights issue. The commission wants to make a submission on it. The Minister was very pleased to have its submission on the Electoral Finance Act. The Minister said that the commission was absolutely right on that so why is it not right on this? I call that double standards. She thought that was OK then but it is not now. I say to the Minister that she must take a call and answer the questions of my colleagues—the ones that I have put repeatedly to her. Either she does not know what the answers are or she is refusing to tell the public of New Zealand. 
This is not just about members on this side of the Chamber; this is about thousands of workers up and down New Zealand. This is about their families their partners and their children. It is about parents who worry about kids in their jobs knowing they will be vulnerable and likely to be the first to lose their jobs only to be taken back by some other employer for a bit of a trial period before being told: “We do not think you are enjoying this job so we think you should pack your bags and go.” And when I hear National say that it has legislation against discrimination I ask how the Minister will read the minds of employers who say “I don’t think you are enjoying this job.” while in a little bubble above their heads they are saying “Yes and you are 3 months pregnant and we don’t want you here.” How will the Minister prove that that was not the real reason? That will not cover what an employer can do when there is no protection for a worker. 
All I can say to the Minister is that she should get up on her feet earn her money and answer the questions. She should stop smiling and smirking to her mates over there and answer the questions. The Minister has a duty to New Zealand to New Zealanders and to New Zealand workers. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I want to pick up where my colleague Annette King left off and raise a couple of other points. I made a statement to the Minister who resides occasionally in my electorate of Waimakariri. In my electorate there is a two to three-teacher school called View Hill School. At a candidates’ meeting in the Rangiora War Memorial Hall the issue of what Anne Tolley had said was raised. Anne Tolley said that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill would not apply to teachers. I recall the member who is now the Minister of Labour addressing the meeting with a lot of weasel words. I think Kate Wilkinson might have called me a liar at the meeting; in fact I am sure she did when I addressed her about her ambiguous statements. She said at that meeting that those provisions would not apply and that I was lying. If that is the position and they do not apply then I ask her to tell us now as the Minister—she has the warrant the authority because it is her bill—to confirm what she said. The Minister should get up and do that now because if she does not the counterfactual prevails and then we will know that those provisions do apply to teachers. 
Why will the Minister not get up and confirm an answer to such a simple question? Surely if the Minister is not bright enough she could turn to her officials and ask them. They will give her the answer they can pass a note and then the Minister could perhaps put at ease the student teachers and the teacher population of New Zealand. 
I will raise another issue in respect of occupational safety and health. What happens to a worker in a sawmill who is employed under the 90-day probation provisions and maybe there is a shonky employer? The worker does not want to use the saw because it is not safe as there is no guard on it so he says to the boss: “I don’t feel right about this. I might cut my hand off. I might injure my mates when I am using it.” The worker may say: “You have not trained me within the 90-day probation period to use it properly so I am concerned that I might injure myself or injure my mates. Will you train me?”—because we know there is a cost in training. The boss then gives the worker a pink slip and tells him to take a hike. 
How will the Minister and her department police that? When that person has been sacked it is his or her word against the word of the boss. How will that worker be protected? He or she has no personal grievance rights no rights to anything—they have gone—and all the worker asked for was a safe workplace. 
I remember that Minister bleating at every candidates’ meeting in my electorate when we talked about things like workers having safe workplaces. It actually makes sense to a boss to have a safe workplace and most bosses have safe workplaces because it saves them money of course. That member bleated that this was all nanny State. She loved going around saying “nanny State”—that to have a safe workplace is to have a nanny State. She said: “Nanny State it’s time for a change choose a brighter future.” but she will not actually get up now and answer questions. The lips flapped away during the election campaign but she will not get up now—on her quarter of a million dollar salary with the cars and the offices and backed up by all the officials—and confirm two questions. The first question relates to occupational safety and the second relates to the status of migrants on specific work permits. They are basic questions. There are several reasons why she will not confirm them. Either she is horribly embarrassed and ashamed but I would say she is embarrassed because she is not ashamed of anything or she will show up Anne Tolley big time or she does not know or she is weak. The truth is probably that she does know. We are right she knows we are right and she does not want to tell the people of New Zealand and have it on the record of the House that National is seriously vulnerable on all counts on this legislation. Those can be the only answers. 
I invite members opposite some of her more experienced colleagues to give her advice and to say that the job of a Minister is to confirm critical legislation so as to give stakeholders in the community certainty. The Minister is all for giving the bosses certainty—absolutely! Fire at will! But she will not give certainty to any of the stakeholders—the teachers migrants and people who are concerned about occupational safety. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I had intended last night to ask the Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson about an important question but she must have been reading my mind because she answered it this morning in the  
Dominion Post 
. She said the Government was open to the possibility of extending the provisions of this bill to other workplaces other than small and medium-sized enterprises. She said: “At this stage we are focusing on the small and medium-sized enterprises because they are struggling with compliance. Like anything we’ll see how it works out and we are always open to ideas.” I want to make sure that people—especially the workers of this country—understand that they need to be very worried about this as the Minister signals the extension of this provision that will remove rights for all New Zealand workers. I think the Minister needs to wonder about the way workers will react to this news. We will certainly be making sure that we can provide her with the answer. 
The Government’s arguments in favour of this bill have been that small businesses need this sort of provision. In the area of labour rights clearly compliance with legislation is not a key factor. Unlike other provisions such as taxation where small businesses are expected to get on top of the issues and comply in this area perhaps it is OK not to comply and it is too difficult. Much has been made of the recommendations of the Small Business Advisory Group. I will refer to its most recent report because the Minister spoke to us last night about the 2003-04 report. I had been an advisor to that group so I was present for the discussion on the 2008 report. A specific recommendation of that report was: “That information on good practice in employment relationships tailored to small business owners and managers preferably endorsed by employer organisations be made more readily available and be better promoted. This should include easier access to educational material and to support mechanisms (for example free access to knowledgeable people who can provide practical and balanced advice to employers or employees on handling employment disputes).” This was an attempt by the Small Business Advisory Group to get past just calling for the removal of rights so as to look at a more responsible approach to getting on top of their employment relationship responsibilities. 
The other reason the Government appears to be giving in favour of this legislation is that some workers may be more likely to be given a chance if they have their rights at work removed. I note that removing unfair dismissal rights for all workers was not signalled by the Government before the election so I think that the comments this morning will cause some concern. Likewise will the comments about choice that have been made by those on the other side of the Chamber that this will be a choice—people can choose at the start of the employment relationship. I want to know why the Minister is disregarding the advice of the Human Rights Commission which notes its concern that the proposed legislation could impact negatively on school-leavers seeking their first job and on other vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. The commission recognises that at the point of employment many people will not have the knowledge or the confidence to make a fair choice on this matter. I would like to know the Minister’s view on that. 
I am aware from my many years of experience in the union movement that “take it or leave it” propositions are quite common. Again I would like to know whether the Minister is aware of that or perhaps that is something that has never been raised with her by anybody. Especially in times of high unemployment the bargaining power of workers is reduced. In fact the Employment Relations Act to which this bill is an amendment specifically in the objects of the Act recognises the inequality of bargaining power between workers and employers. It is a specific provision of this Act. In the real world we know that that is the case. We are amending an Act that in its objects specifically recognises the inequality of bargaining power. The Employment Relations Act also talks about building mutual trust and confidence and good faith in the workplace in order to develop productive employment relationships. That is certainly very important. I imagine that members on both sides of the Chamber recognise we need to lift productivity in this country. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 This is a wide-ranging debate and it is the last opportunity in the Committee stage to get some answers to some very important and very detailed questions which the public have the right to know. This is their only chance to have those questions answered because the Minister in her wisdom has decided to shortcut the democratic process to rush this legislation through and to ensure that the public and the practitioners in this area do not get a chance to ask these questions themselves through the select committee process. These questions must be answered in the Committee stage because this is the last opportunity for the New Zealand public to learn and understand what on earth was in the Minister’s mind when she proposed this bill and proposed it in such haste. 
This is the opportunity to talk about the bill’s title and commencement date. The title is the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I am sure that sounds like quite a benign title to the many people who are listening to this debate— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Innocuous. 
SUE MORONEY 
: It is an innocuous title—the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I say this in the context of people having become used to a Labour-led Government amending the Employment Relations Act. In that context over the last decade New Zealand workers have known that every time the Employment Relations Act has been amended by a Labour-led Government it has been amended in favour of workers. The Labour-led Government has amended the Employment Relations Act in order to enhance protections for workers. So I would not blame people if they thought that another Employment Relations Amendment Bill was going to enhance protections for workers’ rights because that is what has been happening for the last decade under a Labour-led Government. But they would be quite misled if that is what they believed. That is why I think the title does not really tell the public what is going on. In the context of having had a Labour-led Government protecting and enhancing workers’ rights for almost a decade now why would people think that an Employment Relations Amendment Bill might come along and take away workers’ rights? 
They need to understand this because the Government has changed. This is an amendment to the Employment Relations Act under a National-led Government. Guess what? It does take away workers’ rights. This is the first time for almost a decade in this country that workers’ rights have been depleted by amending the Employment Relations Act. 
The Labour-led Government has been enhancing workers’ rights be it by the introduction of paid parental leave and increases and enhancements to it; 4 weeks’ annual leave; or amendments to the Employment Relations Act to give protection to vulnerable workers whose jobs have been contracted out. The last time previous to this that the Employment Relations Act was amended it was to give workers the right to have meal breaks and rest periods while at work. That was the very last time this Act was amended so it is no wonder that some people will be fooled into thinking that an Employment Relations Amendment Bill is something that enhances and protects workers’ rights. But this one does no such thing. 
In talking about the meal breaks and rest periods that most recent amendment to the Employment Relations Act I recall the select committee deliberations held on that particular amendment. The Minister in the chair was at the time a member of the select committee that heard the submissions. One submission that really sticks in my mind was from a young man from Hamilton. He came to the select committee to tell us that he had been sacked because he had dared to take a lunch break from his job at Subway in Hamilton. That was the evidence we heard. I still recall the Minister in the chair Kate Wilkinson when she was a member of that select committee saying to this young man: “Yes but that’s illegal and you can take a personal grievance to address the wrong that has happened to you.” Yes that was said by the very Minister who is now sitting in the chair. We asked this young man: “How long have you been working at Subway?”. Guess what? It was for fewer than 90 days. Under this National-led Government he will no longer have the right to take a personal grievance. The same member of Parliament who is now the Minister and sitting in the chair calmed down the young man by saying: “Never mind you’ve got the right of legal redress.” She advised him that he should take a personal grievance. But now she is the Minister she is taking away his right to a personal grievance in his first 90 days of employment. There is a word for that but I am not allowed to use it in this Chamber. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 When National Party members went out campaigning during the election and were focusing on the things that really matter I wonder whether any of them said that the things that do not matter are jobs for ordinary people. The thing that matters most to every family in New Zealand is the chance to have a job to earn wages so they can pay the family bills. Those are the things that really matter. The National Party MPs sitting over there spend more time giggling about light bulbs than saying what they want to do before Christmas to working families in New Zealand. Politics is not just a big joke. I see one of the new National members over there in the back row—Amy Adams who gave her maiden speech earlier in the week. She is already giggling and laughing about how fun politics is as she sits there using her votes to rip away rights from working people in New Zealand. She is proud of it but this was supposedly one of the things that really matters. We say that these things matter hugely to New Zealanders and we are going to fight all the way to make sure that we get answers out of this Minister. 
It is a disgrace that this Minister Kate Wilkinson was so excited to accept a ministerial warrant but now will not get up in the Chamber and answer simple reasonable and rational questions from the Opposition when we represent many hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who voted for us to make sure that we hold this Government to account—and we will because this is so important. She will not answer us. We have been in the Committee stage for around 5 hours. We are at the beginning of scrutinising this bill which has not been to a select committee. We were told that it was not going to be part of the Government’s first 100 days but we now find it on the floor of the Chamber. I ask members if they know how many times the Minister has deigned to get up on her hind legs and address the country about this bill in that time? The answer is three miserable times. There are Opposition members of Parliament who have spoken more times on this bill in this Committee stage than its Minister has. She is letting this country down and she is not earning her money. 
I want to ask the Minister some questions to join the questions of all my colleagues. I ask her whether she believes that anyone will suffer as a result of this bill. Does the Minister believe that any worker will suffer as a result of this bill? She has nothing to say on that. Will the Minister even concede that this bill might have some negative consequences? There is silence from her on that as well. There is nothing. She is not prepared to answer a single thing. There is not a whisper a murmur a knock at the door a text message an email or even a fax from this woman; she will not tell us what she believes about this bill. We know that the Government is divided on this bill—it is deeply divided. That is why Mrs Tolley is being hidden away. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: In the attic! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: She is in the attic. She is up in the civil defence room in the Beehive hiding away from Gerry Brownlee. He is very grumpy at the moment on a whole multitude of fronts and for good reason. The point is that Mrs Tolley is divided; the front-bench Minister is not allowed to give her opinion. She has misled the public on this bill. We know that the Maori Party does not support this bill. As soon as its members were free from the shackling confidence and supply agreement that forced them to vote to put taxes up on low-income people and as soon as they had a free choice they abandoned the Government within its first week in the House because they know that this is unfair. I acknowledge the Maori Party for that. I think it is great that it is voting against this bill because it is bad for ordinary people. This Minister must take a call because I know that she is a believer in the parliamentary system. 
We have heard some maiden speeches this week. Those speeches tell us what people are really going to be like in politics. I want to quote to the Minister her own maiden speech from 17 November 2005; members will be interested in this. She said “It is an absolute privilege to be part of our parliamentary process. It is also a huge responsibility—a responsibility that I take very seriously. I hope that when it comes to my valedictory speech”—that will be in November 2011—“I will be able to say I exercised that responsibility well with integrity with enthusiasm with soul with spirit and with my arsenal still intact.” 
This Minister is using her arsenal today to ram down the rights of working people in New Zealand. She does not have the integrity the soul or the spirit that she talked about in her maiden speech to get up to defend the parliamentary process that she was so pious about just 3 years ago as quoted in  
Hansard 
 when she was asked what her real views were. Now that she has got the car the job the house the warrant and the staff all those things do not matter. The National Party reverts so quickly to type. We now know that she did not mean what she told the House when she talked about her great respect for the parliamentary process that she wanted to treat with integrity soul and spirit so she could leave with her arsenal still intact. We now know that she did not mean any of that; or she is being muzzled and is not allowed to defend legislation that we were not told would be in the first 100 days. It has not been to a select committee and she has only bothered to get up on her pins three times to defend it. She is a disgrace. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on clauses 1 and 2. We Labour members find ourselves in an extraordinary position: none of the many questions we put to the Minister in the chair last night—Kate Wilkinson—in the debate on Parts 1 and 2 have been answered. Those questions might have been answered had the Government allowed this bill to go to a select committee. If it had allowed the Opposition the media and the people of New Zealand to have their say on this bill then maybe we would not be demanding so many answers from the Minister of Labour who is ramming this bill through the House under urgency. 
She is ramming it through before Christmas although National said that it would not be put through before Christmas. This bill does not come into force until 1 April next year. There is no need for this rush. Rather than the Minister sitting there as though she has been struck deaf and mute all of a sudden she should get to her feet and answer some of our questions. It was her decision to ram it through and now she sits there as though somehow she has no obligation to the people of New Zealand despite drawing a quarter of a million dollars in salary from them. I think it is an absolute disgrace that the first acts of this new Government are to raise taxes for low-income families destroy their retirement income earnings and take away their rights at work in their first 90 days of employment. The Minister does not feel that that is important enough for her to get to her feet and answer some simple questions. 
I ask the Minister how she is going to police this legislation. How is she going to know the reason why someone was fired when employers do not have to give the worker they have just fired a reason? The Minister said she has put human rights protection in this bill. As my colleague Annette King raised how is she going to know that an employer who says “You look like you are not enjoying the job so off you go.” does not have a far nefarious reason at the back of his or her mind for letting that person go? What if an employee turned up to the staff Christmas party with a partner and the partner turned out to be of the same sex as the employee? The employer suddenly realises that the person he or she has hired is gay and does not like that so the employee is told “I’m sorry but you don’t fit in here. You don’t seem to be enjoying the work you are doing.” I seriously want the Minister to get to her feet and explain to the workers and the people of New Zealand how this bill will be policed. She has just opened a huge door to discrimination against many different groups in this country. She got up on her feet and talked about— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are dealing with the title part of the bill. I am asking that you ask the speakers over there who include a long-standing member of the House to actually speak to the title and to focus on the title part of the bill. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There already are rulings about what people may speak to even when bills have been to select committees. Of course the Standing Orders changed in recent years; previously the title clause was taken at the start of the Committee stage and now it is taken at the end of the Committee stage. That is because the debate on the preliminary clause has become a summing up of what has gone before. There already are rulings that indicate that people speaking to these clauses may bring together what has been raised before. On top of that there are a range of Speakers’ rulings that where a bill has not been to a select committee and has not had the scrutiny of a select committee then the title debate and the preliminary clauses debate can be wider in scope than would otherwise have been the case. The effect of those two combined sets of rulings is that the preliminary clause debate in the Committee stage is a fairly broad debate where one can cover the scope of the debate and of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Thank you. The point is made that people should be speaking to the title and the commencement date. In normal circumstances one would expect that debate to be a relatively narrow debate. I accept the submission of Dr Michael Cullen that in these circumstances the Chair should be slightly more lenient than would otherwise be the case. But I encourage members to focus on the title the commencement and the summing up aspect because this is the last time the House in Committee will have the opportunity to speak on this bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: For the peace of mind of Mr Chris Tremain how about this: given that employers do not have to give any reason maybe we should call the bill the “It’s Not You It’s Me Bill”. Maybe that would be an adequate description because workers are not going to have any idea why they have been fired. 
The Minister in the chair in one of her speeches in the first or second reading said how great this legislation would be for young people starting out on their working lives as if they should be grateful for it. I ask the Minister in the chair how they will know what they have done wrong if employers do not have to put down their expectations of the job before those young people start and do not have to tell them why they were fired. What will that mean for those young workers when they go to their next job and the employer asks them what their last job was and why they left? What are they going to say? Do they say that they do not know because there is a law in this country that says that employers do not have to tell employees why they are being fired? It could have been because the employers did not like the colour of their skin. It could have been because the employers did not like who the employees were married to. It could have been for a perfectly legitimate reason but the employees do not know. 
Hon Member 
: Vote Labour. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It could have been because that person votes Labour. It could have been because he or she is a member of the union. It could have been because the employee was organising staff members of the workplace to join the union. The employee just does not know because the Minister has deliberately drafted this legislation so that the employee does not have to be told the reason why he or she was fired. 
The second question I have for the Minister is why she has told two stories to the public on this bill. She went out and said that the public did not need to be worried about this legislation because it is not Wayne Mapp’s bill; it is a different bill. But in this House she said that it did not need to go to a select committee because it is Wayne Mapp’s bill. I want to know which one of those two stories is true and therefore which one of those two stories she was misleading the public with. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 To quote a distinguished member of this House it is an absolute privilege to be part of this parliamentary process and a huge responsibility. It is just unfortunate that it is a bit more of a responsibility than usual because we do not have a select committee process for the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Like my colleagues I ask myself what is so urgent about this bill that we have set aside the normal constitutional processes that colleagues ostensibly hold dear. We could call this bill the “Goodbye to Diversity Bill”. It rather sticks in my craw that Mr Bakshi the poster boy for the Sikh community’s new-found love affair with the National Party is going to be voting for it. What if someone with a turban does not meet the cultural predilections of their employer? It will be: “Goodbye! Hasta la vista! You’re gone!” and no questions asked. 
At the moment in the existing law there are grounds for termination of employment provided that they are fair and subject to due process. It is not like one cannot fire someone. It is not like there are no protections for employers. This bill makes it perfectly all right for a sexual predator to dismiss a young female employee who decides she does not want his advances. So will we call this the “Protection for Predators Bill”? This bill is insane. It is unethical and it is immoral and if this is part of the new Government’s arsenal then I would not want to look too closely at the rest of it. 
It is a matter of deep regret that this “Goodbye to Diversity Bill”— 
Amy Adams 
: Aw! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Well the member from the Canterbury Plains may not be big on diversity. She may think that everybody sits behind a tractor or a haystack. Guess what? I came from the Canterbury Plains way back too so I understand. Diversity in Canterbury when I was growing up was when the Catholics played on the back line of the local rugby team and the Protestants were in the forward pack. That was what diversity meant to us. We thought multiculturalism was a joint social between the two youth groups. That is the perspective of that member. I say to members that the War of the Roses is over and now modern diversity— 
Nikki Kaye 
: Come on read the bill. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There is Nikki Kaye whose main claim to fame is doing a lot of door-knocking in Auckland Central. Well good on her; it is good to see hard work. But Nikki Kaye will have to answer to the multicultural electorate of Auckland Central about why she has put the predilections of predators ahead of the human rights of new New Zealanders. 
What about migrants? What about people who are a little bit different? What about people of different religions? How will the Exclusive Brethren feel about hiring a Hindu? They are not known for their religious tolerance are they? They do not even take on the non - Exclusive Brethren. They do not even have a window in their meeting houses in case they see the polluting outside world. How will they feel if someone like dear Mr Bakshi rocks up and asks to work in their small business? Perhaps they will not treat such a person as well as they could do and this bill gives them licence for this. It is reprehensible it is disgusting—disgusting that we are rolling back human rights in the first week of this pathetic excuse for a Government. It is absolutely disgusting. 
What about the “This Bill Substitutes for an Economic Strategy Bill” for a title? I ask members opposite where the strategy is. What have they done to turbocharge our economy in their first week on the job? Let us think about that. They have just nixed the incentive for innovation. They have just undercut the best savings vehicle New Zealand has ever had since Muldoon canned the last one and now they are topping it off by making labour markets more sticky. What do we mean by sticky labour markets? The Government has talked about making it easier for employers to hire and fire and it has put up the argument that some employers have been reluctant to take on new people. Well that is very unlikely to be the case because employers are driven by their business needs not by some sort of employment programme. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to take this call and I congratulate you on your elevation to the new office that you now hold. The title of the bill is the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and I say that title is very deceptive. The communities that are listening to this debate will be wondering what the big deal is and thinking this is simply just a minor adjustment to the Employment Relations Act. But the big deal is that this bill removes a basic and fundamental right that workers currently have. The sad thing is that 2 days ago we celebrated the 60th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and here we are under a National-ACT-Maori Government sending a message to the rest of the world that New Zealand no longer respects workers’ rights. That is the kind of message we are sending with this particular bill. 
Chris Tremain 
: What about all the other OECD countries in the world—they have sent that message as well have they? 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: That is the kind of message we are sending I say to the junior whip. That is the kind of message we are sending to the rest of the world and that is quite sad. 
The Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson has stated in a ministerial release that this bill is about opportunities. I ask opportunities for whom? How many opportunities will be created as a result of this bill? Sixteen thousand people lost their jobs a month ago. How many jobs will be created out of this bill? I ask whether the Minister can answer that question. How many jobs will this bill create? There is no response from the Minister. I say the only opportunity that will be created from this bill is the opportunity for unscrupulous employers to fire at will any new worker who comes on board. 
And here is the thing. I listened to the Speech from the Throne and there were nice words that came from there— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Inclusive Government. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: —inclusive Government mana-enhancing working relationships growth in our economy and higher incomes. How will this bill create all that when workers will have to compete for jobs? When workers compete for jobs in bad economic times it means that wages will go down. It means that wages will be driven down. This bill reminds me very much of the old National attitude and behaviour towards workers: attack the workers. 
But more particularly the Government is targeting under this legislation—and I quote from the press statement released by the Minister—long-term unemployed people young people people returning to work after absences for child rearing or sickness people with disabilities or mental illness migrants people with overseas qualifications and people with convictions. Those are young people who are fresh out of school and new to the job site. They do not have any rights under the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Those are women returning to the workforce and new employees wanting to make ends meet. They lose their right to take a personal grievance under this law. Those are migrant workers Maori workers and Pacific workers and if the constituents of Mangere the community that I am proud to represent are listening to this debate they will say they are grateful they did not vote for a National-ACT Government. Those are the communities that this bill targets. 
I ask the Minister of Labour the Hon Kate Wilkinson how the rights of the people in those communities will be protected when they can be sacked for any reason without notice without explanation and without protection. I ask who will protect workers when an unscrupulous employer sacks them because they do not understand the language that is spoken by the workforce or because they wear a turban or because they pray in the bathroom or because the employer does not like the colour of their eyes? 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 We are sitting under urgency to consider the Employment Relations Amendment Bill that comes into force on 1 April and I ask why. It is because this is part of the 100 days of action. The 100 days of action comes to an end on 25 February and the House meets on 10 February for 2 weeks so basically anything that needs to be done to legislation in the 100 days of action needs to be done this week or next week. 
Let us refer to the Speech from the Throne which stated that the Government is “going for growth”—a slogan recycled from Ruth Richardson. What is the secret of growth? What is the National Party’s answer in this 100 days of action? It is a $10-a-week tax cut for some people the ability for employers to deny employees the right to a personal grievance claim if they are dismissed within 90 days of employment and for teachers it is having to tell parents whether little Jimmy is in the second or fourth stanine in reading. Most of the members opposite will not even know what a stanine is so we will try to enlighten them about that later on today or tomorrow. 
This adds up to “going for growth.” This is the growth strategy of the National Party. Temporary and part-time employees could be taken on after coming out of prison. I do not know how they will get out of prison under National Party policy because they have been told they will be staying in for ever. Eventually they are finally let out of prison at 73 years old and “rock up” as Mr Key would say to their local baker and say: “Can I do some dough for you?”. The employer will take them on for 90 days and then will tell them: “Sorry we don’t actually like the bread you made and we don’t feel you are happy here and anyway you only get crumbs if you are a member of the Labour Party so you are going to leave the job.” And this is going to turbocharge the New Zealand economy—[ 
Interruption 
] Turbocharge I say to Mr Bakshi. 
No reason for dismissal has to be given. All this bill does is take away the right to a personal grievance claim. It does not create a provision for a probationary period—that is already in the law. It actually makes the law more rigid. It confines the probationary period to 90 days. That is what the bill does. 
I take the case that my colleague Mr Cosgrove put forward of the person working in a sawmill who does not like the safety procedures. We now have a whole new slogan from National—it is now “a hand off not a hand up.” It used to be “a hand up not a hand out.” Well if employees are not prepared to have their hand off they cannot keep their job. An employer will say to an employee: “You are clearly not happy here. You do not like the idea of having a bleeding stump—you had better go somewhere else where you are not at risk of that happening to you.” That is the National Party approach to this area and it is going to turbocharge the New Zealand economy. People know that their kid who is 6 years of age is in stanine 2. Is that going to make something turbocharge the economy? Maybe in 25 years’ time. People know they can have their jobs taken away from them in 90 days. That is not going to happen so much in highly skilled jobs where people have bargaining power. It is going to happen in the unskilled jobs. And this will turbocharge the economy? I ask what else will turbocharge it. Well people might get a $10-a-week tax cut next year and that is going to turbocharge the New Zealand economy. 
After 9 years in Opposition this is all that the intellectual giants of the National Party have managed to think up between them as an economic strategy. It is no wonder that Gerry Brownlee has been the secret master behind National Party planning strategy and tactics both in the House and in terms of policy over that period of time. Meanwhile over in the cathedral Mrs Tolley is still in sanctuary still not wanting to come out and admit the fact that she got it wrong that teachers will be covered by these changes and that small rural schools will have trouble retaining teachers. Teachers will not want to be put at risk of being sent down the road again because oh my God here they are in the back country in Hawarden or somewhere like that in Canterbury and their employer has found out that they voted Labour in the 1984 election and that is not something teachers should be allowed to do. After all we all know what happened when the local teacher was the one Labour Party voter in the area and the witch-hunt that went on to find out who that Labour Party voter was within that area. Now that employer will be able to tell that teacher: “Sorry about that. Down the road. Off you go. That’s the finish of your job. We will turbocharge the economy by bringing somebody else in.” 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a copy of a DVD showing Anne Tolley promising that teachers would be excluded from this legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 1 in the name of David Garrett to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to have to intervene but can I just be clear that the National Party is aware of what this amendment is—to bring the implementation date forward to 1 March—and that it is voting for it. The reason I raise this of course is that the vote result is not declared at this point and it is possible for a party to correct its vote. The National Party at no stage has indicated that it is supporting an amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The Government has the opportunity to clarify the matter but as there is no call to clarify it I must accept that it understands exactly what the amendment is. I will therefore continue the vote. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Recommittal 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be recommitted to reconsider clause 2. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Third Reading 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I firstly thank the officials for their hard work advice and efforts in bringing the bill to this stage to the third reading. 
The Government is committed to improving employment opportunities for all New Zealanders. The proposed trial period enacted by this bill will allow greater certainty and flexibility for small to medium businesses when it comes to taking on staff. Additionally employment opportunities will increase for some marginalised groups of employees who are struggling to break into a crowded market. This bill has been drafted carefully and reasonably and with caution to ensure there are safety mechanisms so that workers are not exploited. 
I remind the House that we have specifically retained the provisions of good faith. The legislation is subject to the overriding principles of good faith. Perhaps I should remind the House what good faith actually means. Good faith requires the parties to an employment relationship to be active and constructive in establishing and maintaining a productive employment relationship in which the parties are among other things responsive and communicative. Good faith requires an employer to provide to affected employees access to information relevant to the continuation of their employment and the decision and to give an opportunity to comment. This bill expressly protects and is subject to that overriding provision of good faith. 
The trial period under this bill is also subject to agreement; it is not compulsory. It is subject to the prospective employee wanting to be given a go—wanting to be given the opportunity—to get his or her foot on the employment ladder. This bill is subject to existing protections under human rights legislation— 
Hon Annette King 
: Like what? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: —like racial discrimination sexual discrimination and duress. It is also subject to the protections afforded by health and safety legislation. It is subject to those protections. And the provision of mediation is available through the Department of Labour. 
It is interesting to note that the editorial in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 this morning said: “New law creating opportunities”—and that is exactly what it is meant to do. About objections the editorial states: “Such objections however are astray”—objections are astray—“because the new law is moderate sensible and crucially will encourage the creation of jobs.” I repeat: “the new law is moderate sensible and crucially will encourage the creation of jobs. 
The editorial goes on: “several safeguards have been added without undermining the basic intent. … This move is especially important in a recession hence the urgency with which National is proceeding.” These are the words of the  
Otago Daily Times 
 editorial. It goes on: “Employers at the moment will be particularly wary of risk because an employment mistake can decimate a small business even at the best of times.” But it goes further than that; it states: “Imagine the benefits if just 2% of the many thousands of small businesses in this country decided that they could now take the gamble on an extra staff member.” 
The editorial further goes on: “At present many small business owners say it is better not to employ anyone than take the risk of a dud. Yes there are dismissal procedures under current employment law—and even a Clayton’s probation provision in the Employment Relations Act.” We have heard throughout the debate that we already have a probation period. Yes but this is a Clayton’s probation period and now we have a true trial provision that will give employees the opportunity to get their foot in the employment door. 
Why have we limited the legislation to small businesses—those with fewer than 20 employees? Again the  
Otago Daily Times 
 states: “But what small business person has the time energy expertise and expense to go through the difficult processes? And how much damage has been done in the meantime? The new law as well as improving overall job creation prospects promises to enhance the outlook for those who find it especially hard to get a job; the young immigrants those out of the workforce for a long time minorities.” Those are not our words; those are the words of the  
Otago Daily Times 
 editorial this morning. 
We are aware that there are some unscrupulous and unfair employers but bad employers are likely to ignore many of the current rules anyway. And I say that in relation to those unfair bad unscrupulous employers we will condemn any employer who is unscrupulous and unfair and who abuses this process. 
This bill is a win-win for employers and for employees. It is not about taking away rights; it is about giving opportunities. This bill protects the rights of employees. It gives businesses the confidence to take on new employees. The bill dramatically reduces the compliance costs associated with recruitment and dismissal for small to medium businesses and the compliance costs for all businesses resulting out of trivial and unnecessary personal grievance actions. This is a moderate considered fair bill and I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I have seen unusual approaches but a Minister who cannot make it to 8 minutes on a controversial bill on a third reading is just pathetic. To try to fill the time until the bell rings with a bit of clapping to make it look like she knew what she was talking about is even more pathetic. But I must say it was very good to see Kate Wilkinson on her feet. It was good to see Kate Wilkinson on her feet because during the Committee stage she appeared to be pinned to her chair. In fact there was a disgraceful episode of Gerry Brownlee telling her not to speak—an outrage; a senior member of the House clearly breaching privilege in front of many many members by telling a Minister not to speak. I am not going to test you Mr Speaker through the formal process but you should know that under your watch members of the Government are blatantly breaching the traditions of this Parliament. 
In another way traditions have been breached and that is that there has always in the past been a focus on having controversial bills—significant bills—go to select committee especially in the employment relations area. Did this Government have the backbone to do that? Did it have the backbone to do what was recommended by the  
New Zealand Herald 
—its rag its cheer squad—that the bill be sent to the select committee? Business New Zealand suggested that it should go to the select committee to get it improved but did the Government take any notice of that? No it did not. 
It was almost unbelievable in the final stages of the Committee process when an ACT amendment on which the Minister had not commented was voted for by the National Party. I must say that at that time it is fair to say between the Minister and the Government whips there was a lot of confusion. They were not clear whether they should have been voting for it—it was back and forth yes and no and “I am not sure.” In the end National voted for it. I say that never never in my life in this House—and it has been quite a long time—have I seen a non-Government amendment accepted by a Minister in the chair without comment. We do it occasionally. It happens—often to improve bills. This is a substantive amendment. It is an amendment that will cost the Minister’s department money. An enormous amount of overtime will have to be worked over Christmas bureaucrats hired and paid overtime during that time boosting the economy of Wellington central as a result of this bill being brought forward to get the call centre set up and to get all the work done that will be necessary for the bill’s implementation. Was there a comment from the Minister? No there was not. National members accepted that amendment in a very confused way because it was not clear whether they were going to. 
But there were some amendments during the Committee stage that National members did not accept which were pretty simple such as giving people notice in writing. So an employer who does a “don’t come Monday” has to give the employee a note rather than just say “Don’t come Monday.” That was refused by the National Party. Also refused was an amendment requiring people to give reasons for termination of employment. No! There is no requirement here whatsoever to give reasons. The member says that people can go to the Human Rights Commission but how can a person go to the Human Rights Commission on a gender issue a religious issue or on an age issue if the employer does not have to say why he or she is sacking someone? How does one know? How does a person get to the Human Rights Commission? 
National members rejected an amendment that guarantees mediation. They said there was mediation but as we pointed out the clause is very very badly drafted. They rejected a clause that said that young employees or new employees should be given notice given a warning of the likelihood of this clause being triggered. They rejected that. They rejected a proposal to put that in the advertisements. They also rejected the amendment designed to stop making Anne Tolley a liar. The passing of the bill if it does pass and is assented to will make her a liar. I am not saying she is yet and I will not say in the House that she is but when this passes she will be. 
What I want to do—because the National Party was not prepared to table the DVD under the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings allowing visual aids—is use a visual aid which is a video. It is a video of Anne Tolley promising— 
Hon Member 
: Good one Trev. Going well eh! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is all right; the public can hear it. The public know that Anne Tolley has told teachers right around the country that they will be excluded from this legislation. But to be fair to Kate Wilkinson I point out that she did say before this debate that Anne Tolley was wrong. Was she prepared to say in this House that Anne Tolley was wrong? Was she prepared to be honest in here the way she was honest outside? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Kate Wilkinson was not prepared to be honest in this House in the way that she was outside. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not saying she was dishonest. All I am saying is that she did not have the backbone to stand up in this House and say in here what she said outside which is that this legislation made Anne Tolley wrong and she will be a liar when it passes. Clearly Kate Wilkinson did not say that but Anne Tolley will be a liar when it is passed. The Labour Party moved an amendment basically to save face for Anne Tolley to make her not a liar and to ensure that that does not occur in the future. Unfortunately members of the National Party did not care about Anne Tolley’s reputation in the way that people on this side of the House do. We take Parliament seriously. We think that this House should not make people liars and if it can be avoided we like to avoid it. We tried very very hard but the National Party did not care for Anne Tolley’s reputation and therefore they rejected the amendment. 
There is absolutely no reason for this legislation to go through now. The way it is framed at the moment it applies from 1 March. There would have been no problem whatsoever sending it to a select committee. The committee could have considered it in late January reported it back when the House comes back and then passed it if the Government still had the backbone to do that after it heard all the evidence. The Government was not prepared to hear the evidence because it knows that what would occur is what happened when Dr Mapp’s probationary period bill went to a select committee. His bill was rejected by Parliament on the evidence. When people got the evidence of the young people who have already under current legislation been badly treated people knew that not having the rights of appeal not being able to go further than mediation—and even mediation is doubtful—is something that would just not be acceptable. 
People in New Zealand accept probationary periods. They are in the law and I think they are a good thing. I have helped people get probationary periods in the past as a way of getting into jobs and they can be a good thing. But those people have always had protection and this bill strips away that protection from people who are having probationary periods or trials in jobs and it puts the power in the hands of employers. I say that for most employers that will not matter. Most employers are good employers. Most employers are very reasonable. But the scumbag employers—people like the Exclusive Brethren whom Kate Wilkinson is so proud to represent—will be the people who will take advantage of this legislation and sack young people. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members—[ 
Interruption 
] When I am on my feet members will cease their interjections. Before I call the next member I want to refer to an issue raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard. When he suggested that there had been improper behaviour in a member seeking to influence another member he inappropriately suggested that that was a matter of privilege. I will not have members raising in the Chamber issues of privilege and I just alert the member to that. In fact if members look at Speaker’s ruling 174/5 they will see that Speaker Harrison made it very clear that there is nothing improper in members seeking to influence other members as long as no implication of bribery or improper practice is involved. I just mention that to members. I also say that this is a debate where members feel very strongly about the issues—and that is very important; it will be a robust debate—but the Hon Trevor Mallard walked down a very fine line within the Standing Orders. I do not like interrupting members so I urge members to be careful not to breach the Standing Orders. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 One of the issues that the other side has never really grasped is that 90 days as a trial period is at the moderate end of what occurs in the OECD. I guess members opposite would object if the trial period were 30 days or 1 week. They would object on ideological grounds. They have a totally blinkered approach to this issue even though they know that New Zealand is one of only two countries in the OECD that does not have a proper probationary period where the full personal grievance processes are triggered. They know that. They also know that they have to be seen to do something. I guess they cannot just sit in their offices signing their Christmas cards. So they say: “Oh well I suppose we have to show our allegiance with the union movement. We have to be able to tell Mr Little that we did our bit.” 
So Labour members have come down to the House and spent all their time hyperventilating and pretending that some sort of industrial dark age is about to be visited on us even though they know that this is actually a very moderate measure. That is why the  
Otago Daily Times 
 says it is moderate and sensible. Those members know that but they have to pretend to take a different approach. So we have heard all sorts of absurd hyperventilating as if that would give some substance to their objection but all it has really done is make them look ridiculous. 
The public have had the opportunity to judge the Opposition and the absurd approaches it is taking to this legislation. One of the odd things I have to say about this whole process is the spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition taking call after call as if he is some kind of new backbencher who has to establish his reputation. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is not really the way to have any long-term future but I guess that is why everybody is calling him “Phil-in”—and he has been demonstrating that here day by day. He thinks that the best thing he can do is rally all the troops make sure all the seats are filled and make sure he is with the team. I wonder what some of those members are really thinking about this. Perhaps they are thinking “Is this really the issue we want to be going into Christmas on? Is this really the issue we want to say we stood strong on? Is this really the issue we made sure the Parliament was held to account on?”. 
I want to say just a couple more things. This issue was comprehensively debated in the select committee process on the bill that I put forward 2½ years ago. As a result of those submissions this bill has been introduced in the way it has been. So I remind members of two things. Firstly the mediation process is available. We have given that assurance. It is already part of the law and it does not need further amendment. That was one of the outcomes of the select committee hearing. 
The second thing I remind members of is the issue of teachers. This is a voluntary measure. When I listened to delegations from teachers I asked whether it was realistic that a collective agreement involving the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers Association would include probation provisions. The answer logically is that it will not and that is effectively what the Hon Anne Tolley was saying. We understand the logic of the situation; it is just a pity that Mr Mallard does not. 
I close on the point that although the 90-day trial period is voluntary it is also about opportunity—opportunity for immigrants opportunity for young people and opportunity for people who have been out of the workforce for some time. It is just a pity that the Opposition does not understand how this bill will build opportunity. New Zealand was ranked 20th in the OECD when it came into office and it is ranked 22nd in the OECD now. All the other countries in the OECD have this provision and that has been part of their success in a flexible modern 21st century economy. Why does the Opposition not understand that? I tell members opposite just to get with the programme. They should do something good for New Zealand by supporting policies that will promote growth. Thank you Mr Speaker. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am very disappointed with the Government’s attitude to ordinary working New Zealanders who will be disadvantaged by the passage of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I actually found it a bit galling to listen to the Minister of Labour the Hon Kate Wilkinson give us a lesson on good-faith requirements when she knows perfectly well that with this legislation she is exempting every employer from the obligation in the first 90 days of employment to treat an employee with good faith. An employer does not have to be open and honest with the employee at all. Employers do not have to treat employees with respect and dignity because they can simply let them go if they do not like them. “Don’t come Monday.” is all employers have to say; they do not have to say a single other word. They do not even have to explain why the decision has been taken. 
Annette King used a very good example in her comments in the Committee stage. She said it would be very easy for an employer to shoulder-tap an employee and say: “Look I don’t think you are very happy in your work. On that basis I think we’ll just let you go.” That is what will happen. The problem is—and the National Government has not acknowledged this at all—that the provision covers a multitude of sins because the employer does not have to say what the real reason is. Let us look at people for example who do not mention that they are gay. An example was raised by I think the senior Opposition whip of a person who does not mention he or she is gay when hired and suddenly in a conversation the employer finds out that the employee’s partner is a male or in the case of a female that her partner is female—that is that the employee has a same-sex partner and has had a civil union. All of a sudden this employer says: “I don’t think you are very happy in your work.” The employer does not actually have to say what reason really lies behind the termination of employment and can just say: “I don’t think you are very happy in your work. Don’t come Monday.” 
What if the employer is away on holiday and the manager has to bring in somebody on a trial period? When the employer comes back and finds out that the manager has hired a Maori a Pacific Islander an Asian or a person with a disability—somebody the employer has a deep sense of disquiet about and would not have hired—what does the employer do? The employer says: “Actually I don’t think you are very happy in your job. Look don’t come Monday.” That is the real concern that we have about this legislation: it will hide a multitude of sins. Clayton Cosgrove used the example of a worker asking for health and safety training or for a guard for the saw at the sawmill. The employer will not say to the worker: “I’m sacking you for insisting on your rights to a healthy and safe workplace.”; the employer will say: “I don’t think you are very happy in your work. Don’t come Monday.” That is all the employer has to say under this bill. 
The Minister of Labour will look at whether this bill should be extended to apply to all work places; she has announced this morning that she will be giving consideration to that recommendation. I wonder whether the Minister has realised that the compliance costs for business will go up as a result of this legislation as they did in the UK when legislation of a “don’t come Monday” style was introduced. The UK legislation does exactly what the Minister’s legislation does: it allows for exceptions under the Human Rights Act such as sexual harassment discrimination based on racial grounds sexism and all of those things. In actual fact when there is a termination and the employer does not say what the reason for the termination is people with genuine grievances try to assert that it was for one of those reasons. Therefore a lot more cases are taken as a result of the change in the law in the UK not fewer. I think the Minister will find that this will add to compliance costs because employers will have to prove that they did not terminate employment for one of those reasons. 
Hon Member 
: They’ve gone very quiet! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes they have gone very quiet. They had not thought that this legislation might have the total reverse effect to that intended and that employers will still get out the cheque book to pay off somebody because they do not want to experience the cost of going through the process even though this bill was apparently designed to protect against that. The Minister has not really done her homework. The Government wants to look as if it has done some action on its action plan for 100 days even though it forgot to mention this bill in its 100-day action plan. The Government has just thrown it into the mix and is pushing it through all of its stages. 
It is quite amusing that the Government has accepted the ACT Party’s amendment. We know why the ACT Party moved that amendment. It is because the new Minister for Regulatory Reform the Hon Rodney Hide is from the ACT Party and he has now allowed two bills to go through without an adequate regulatory impact statement. The only way the ACT Party could do anything to assist the new Minister—its leader—was to bring forward the implementation of the bill to 1 March to make it look as if the bill could not be implemented in time if it was sent to a select committee and to make the bill look a little more urgent. But I have never seen a Government vote for a tabled amendment from another party in that way—without taking a single call on it. I have never in the 18 years that I have been in Parliament seen a Government vote for an amendment from another party without taking a single call on it. It is absolutely extraordinary. 
I also want to look at the question of who is really disadvantaged by this bill. I make the point—as I did in the Committee stage—that as a former trade union organiser I know there are many many excellent employers. I dealt with many many employers who treated their staff with the utmost respect and dignity and who supported their staff in an excellent way. But when the union got called in it was usually because something had gone terribly wrong. I thought I would mention one of the cases because it struck me as one where it was difficult to determine whether there had been sexual harassment. This particular employer—I could name the particular place but I will not—was having a few drinks at the end of the day; of course our union covered the hospitality industry. One of his staff members joined in. He had a few of his mates there and they were having a few drinks quite late at night. The employee made some comment and the employer said to her: “You need to lose weight.” She said: “I beg your pardon?”. He said: “You should go home take off all of your clothes look at yourself in the mirror and think about what other people look at.” She decided that she was not happy in her work and that her employer was not very happy with her. 
That is what happens in the hospitality industry when people’s weight fluctuates they get pregnant something happens in terms of their appearance or they have an accident. I had a friend who had a major accident and had cuts on her legs. She could not wear pantyhose and her employer at the retail store where she worked said that she could not work without pantyhose on. I know these are individual small examples but these are the people who will be affected by this bill. That is what will happen to those who have no ability to defend themselves against the requirement to have this clause included in their agreement. It will be a “take it or leave it” option. 
I want to end on the question of young people. People going into their first job are entitled to know what is expected of them. Young people can be very vulnerable in their first job. As I said I know I have used an extreme example but it does happen. What happens to those young people in their first job can either set them back or set them on the pathway to a very successful career making them a constructive part of the workforce. It is utter sophistry on the part of National to say that this legislation will help young people. National says that small-business people do not have to know how to manage their business because they do not have human resource departments. But what about young people? Are they not entitled to a first job that gives them the ability to develop themselves into good employees? Is it not fair that they have support as they enter the workforce? That should not depend on the number of employees they work with. We all know what freedom of choice means when there is no equality of bargaining position and we know that in this case freedom of choice will mean “take it or leave it”. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 As members will be well aware by now the Green Party is totally opposed to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. It is an affront to the rights of hundreds of thousands of New Zealand workers. The Council of Trade Unions estimates that around 100000 workers at any given moment are in a position where they will be affected by the impacts of this legislation and that over the course of a year the figure is likely to be around 700000 workers. There is also the fact that in this age people change jobs a lot more than they did in years gone by which means that people will over and over again be affected by the fact that they are in the first 90 days of their employment. 
This is a disgraceful attack on workers’ rights at a time of rising unemployment and job insecurity. Sadly we see every day now newspaper reports of jobs being lost. We have just had the report over the last 24 hours of what is happening in the manufacturing sector. We know that retailing is really under pressure—and who knows what is going to happen there once Christmas is over? The wood industry is being decimated around the country at the moment. We have had job losses just this week from the ANZ the BNZ Tritec Manufacturing the Warehouse and other employers and a whole lot more jobs that we actually never even hear about are being lost. That means that the impacts of what will happen once this legislation takes effect will really be accentuated because people who are unemployed and seeking work of course will be in this position—if they are lucky enough to even get a chance at a job. This bill will make their situation even worse. 
Within the people who will be affected as the Maori Party has recognised will be Maori who are among the groups of people most affected by the bill. Once again I would like to say “Good on you!” to the Maori Party members for being willing within just the first couple of days to stand up to their new ally the National Party and their ally the ACT Party and to just say no they will not support this legislation. They are sticking to the principles they had when they earlier in 2006 finally made the good decision to oppose Dr Mapp’s bill at that time. It is great that the Maori Party members are sticking to that decision and understand how this bill will really affect their own people. 
Another group who will be disproportionately affected of course will be migrant workers who often find it really difficult to get into the New Zealand workforce and who are still sadly subject to a lot of racial prejudice in the workplace. Women too will be affected and I note that just last night there was a press release from the Federation of Business and Professional Women. That is not a left-wing radical trade union but a group of women who work in the business and professional community. The federation says this bill is a huge step backwards for New Zealand women. It is horrified that the bill is not going through the select committee process when it is something that will impact on workers so adversely. The federation says: “Employers should have robust employment processes and administer them competently to ensure they employ the right person rather than rely on being able to sack someone if they find they’ve got it wrong.” 
In respect of young people National promotes the myth that this bill will assist them to get work and that somehow this measure will be great for the young people of this country who do often find it hard to get their first chance in the workplace. In fact the bill is likely to have the opposite effect of that on young workers. For example those who get a job and are full of hope and enthusiasm because it is their big chance may then within the first 90 days for some reason or no reason at all find themselves out of the workforce. That is very damaging for people in their early years of employment when they are just adjusting to the workplace and learning how it all works. 
The National Government has for some reason talked a lot about the benefits of this bill for ex-prisoners. That is quite ironic as others from Labour have pointed out given National’s stand during the election campaign on law and order. But it is great that National does care about the fate of ex-prisoners and their need to find a place in the world of work. I cannot quite understand how National thinks this legislation will in any way particularly help ex-prisoners. In many cases now ex-prisoners who find work do so only through a probationary employment situation which is allowable under the existing employment law. In fact the bill will do nothing for ex-prisoners. I think it will make matters worse for them because employer prejudices against criminals and former criminals are very high for natural reasons. This bill will make it easier for employers to follow their prejudices and get rid of people in that situation if they want to without having to give any reason at all. 
But it is a myth that this bill will affect only categories of people like ex-prisoners migrants Maori young people and so on. This legislation can apply to anyone who takes a job with or moves jobs to an employer who has fewer than 20 staff. I note a release this morning from the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists—again an organisation that is not really at the low end of the workforce—which is very concerned about the impact this legislation will have on doctors who for example work in places such as union and community health centres and in other places for small employers. A doctor may move to a rural district. He or she may uplift the family and go to Kaitaia to work in the local primary health organisation and for some reason be dismissed within the first 90 days. The association is very concerned about the impact of this legislation on its sector. 
We are only just beginning to hear such stories because of the lack of process around this bill. If we had had a select committee process I am sure we would have literally thousands of submissions telling us all these stories that are just starting to come out now. If we had had a select committee process we would have had a chance to get really good advice on amendments to the bill. The Labour Party and the Green Party valiantly attempted last night to put up really good amendments that would have helped the bill and some of them I believe National members could even possibly have supported if they had the time to consider them. But when one rushes a process like this one does not end up with good legislation. One ends up with a shambles. 
An area that the Green Party has been particularly concerned about and where we put up a Supplementary Order Paper was around the issue of what will happen to people who lose their jobs as a result of the “fire at will” bill then register at Work and Income and are asked why they left their job. If there is any allegation of misconduct they are subject to the 13-week stand-down. Now that puts a whole heap of workers into a double-jeopardy situation. Not only are they losing their job for whatever reason; they are also possibly subject to 13 weeks without any income at all at the whim of Work and Income. 
The Minister Ms Wilkinson—and I am grateful for her clarity on this—over and over again said that is not actually the Government’s policy intention with regard to this measure. National did not support the Green Party’s Supplementary Order Paper which attempted to make it clear that that could not happen but I invite the Minister to watch the situation with the Ministry of Social Development very very closely—as I will be watching it—once this bill comes into effect to ensure that the negative impacts that we have been talking about do not occur. I really hope that we will not see people who have been laid off as a result of this bill then enduring a 13-week stand-down. There is also a real problem area where people have an allegation of misconduct made against them but then have no way to clear their name because there is no access to the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court and then it is up to Work and Income to make a judgment over whether the misconduct happened. Who knows! Work and Income case managers are not the people best placed to make those kinds of judgments. 
One of our biggest concerns around this bill of course is that no one ultimately is safe. Although at this stage its application is limited to workplaces of 20 or fewer people there is a statement which a number of us have referred to in the explanatory note of the bill that basically the Government is looking in the future to extend this measure out to all workers. Now that is something that everyone who cares about workers’ rights in this country will have to be very conscious of in the months ahead. We are very concerned about this legislation being the thin edge of the wedge of a whole series of potential attacks on workers and beneficiaries. Of course we hope that does not happen. We hope that the National Party does not go down that road. But I think we all have to be very alert. 
There are many many reasons why this bill should not go through. For example because the new Minister is Mrs Kate Wilkinson I was reminded the other day of the human resources professionals meetings a number of us spoke at early in the election campaign. Mrs Wilkinson spoke about KiwiSaver; that became the only story about that meeting. But those of us who were there will remember that there were hundreds of human resources professionals in the room. That profession has done a lot of work in the last decade or so around uplifting employment practices and trying to improve how employers treat workers in the workplace for the benefit of both employers and workers. I believe that this bill actually undermines all the good work that those human resources professionals have been doing because they are about helping people to learn how to do jobs well treating workers well and explaining issues when things go wrong: if a worker is incompetent does not turn up to work on time or whatever the issue is. They actually work with people so that they become better at their job rather than simply firing them at will. 
This bill will not reduce unemployment. Instead it will increase unemployment as employers find it much easier to fire people for any reason or no reason at all. It is a disgraceful attack on the working people of this country and it will not be forgotten when the next election comes around. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 As a new member sitting here this debate on this bill illustrates a division in attitudes between the two sides of the House. On the Government side of which ACT is a part the majority of employers and employees are seen as good people. Both parties to the employment relationship by and large try to make things work. In that world employees do not run off to the Employment Relations Authority or the Mediation Service at the drop of a hat and employers do not sack people unless they really have to. The reason is that it is too much trouble apart from anything else and costs too much money. 
In the Opposition view of the employment relationship all employees—sorry it is still “workers” is it not—are downtrodden beings cowering under the yoke of the lord of the manor; all or at least most employers are willing to sack employees at the drop of a hat; many employers are sexual predators who put the word on young girls and if they turn them down they sack them; and many employers come to work and decide that they do not like the hairstyle or the eye colour of their employee that day so they should go home. Well in the real world—and by the real world I do not mean down at whatever today’s equivalent of Trades Hall is but the workplace that most people inhabit—the truth is probably somewhere in the middle but in my view it is a great deal closer to the Government’s view of things. 
As for the amendment I must confess as a new member to being totally bemused by the cacophony that erupted when it was passed. No doubt someone will explain to me later just why that was; I have been sitting here trying to work it out. From my perspective if it is a good idea on 1 April it must be a better idea on 1 March. It makes logical sense to me and I think that other than those watching and listening at Trades Hall it will make sense to the rest of the country. To me it is an example of the parliamentary process working. Amendments were put up on the Opposition side of the House but they were unpersuasive. I modestly say that it seems mine was persuasive. I thought that was how Parliament and democracy supposedly worked. There seems to be no point in delaying the implementation of a good idea. 
We have heard from the other side of the House extravagant predictions of what will happen. We did not quite get to predictions of suicide but we were close. This reminds me of the predictions that followed the passing of the Employment Contracts Act in 1991: extravagant predictions of mass sackings and all those kinds of things none of which came to pass. With the passing of time we no longer think that the removal of compulsory unionism is any big deal; it is just common sense. 
I am old enough to remember the last days of demarcation—that is a word that no one has heard for a while. In 1983 I was a trades assistant at the methanol plant for an engineering company. Yes some of us got our hands dirty. But I could not touch a strop because that was riggers’ work—that was demarcation. We no longer think about that because it is silly. It seems to me that before very long curtailing personal grievances for a short period will no longer seem very unusual at all and will seem an entirely sensible idea. 
As I said I have been bemused and confused—but I will work it out—as to why there was such a cacophony. I guess it can be only that the Labour Party was performing for another audience outside this House. Someone asked why we should not bring it in tomorrow or after the Royal assent—I think it was the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Well from my perspective that would be a good idea but I understand that in these days—where workers can no longer just read employment news in the paper—some logistical exercises need to be gone through to set things up so a period of delay is considered reasonable. The Government being made up of reasonable people would have rejected its being assented any earlier. 
It seems to me that this is a very sensible idea. It will be seen as unremarkable very shortly just as now is seen the idea that a trades assistant for a fitter cannot touch a strop because that is riggers’ work. Thank you. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 This is a week of shame for this new Government—a week of shame by turbocharge—and today caps it all. What a great way to acknowledge human rights anniversaries! This is the 60th anniversary of the adoption in New Zealand of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When other countries are enhancing human rights and working hard to make life better for people in their countries and their communities and for their workers this country is taking a major step backwards—a major step backwards. 
National members say they are from the National Party and they are here to help. They are here to help vulnerable people young people older people and ethnic people. They are here to help them by helping them to get sacked in their first 3 months of employment. They are somehow helping their employment rights! Members should look at Kate Wilkinson: Kate Wilkinson who did not have the guts to stand up and defend this disgusting legislation; Kate Wilkinson who said: “National is not the party of compulsion.” That is the “Kate Wilkinson-ism”: “National is not the party of compulsion.” Well let us look at it. If someone goes to a job and is told to take it or leave it is that not compulsion? Job or no job—is that not compulsion? If someone does take the job within 3 months he or she may be gone—no reason given no discussion; that person has just gone. Is that not compulsion? I think it is a great way to indicate the National Party’s understanding of workers in New Zealand and where their needs their rights and their entitlements are. To me it smacks of the 1990s. 
The world is coming into difficult and challenging times—very difficult times. We in New Zealand now—workers and all New Zealanders—are coming to the ghastly realisation after 1 week of debate in this House that we have a totally inept and incompetent Government. 
Darien Fenton 
: And an unjust Government. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: And an unjust Government as my friend and colleague Darien Fenton said. It is an absolutely unjust Government. Wayne Mapp’s bill went to select committee. It was rejected big time by New Zealanders it was rejected by that select committee and it was rejected by the Parliament. So what did National do? There was no warning whatsoever to New Zealanders. Where was the media coverage on this? Where was this mentioned in the incoming Prime Minister’s statement? Where was it when National did its deal with the poor old Maori Party? Where was it when National said: “Oh by the way come in with us; we want your support.”? Aside from slashing taxes—and I do not think the Maori Party looked closely at that—where was the warning to them about what National was going to do to workers in New Zealand? 
With no warning whatsoever National has belted this bill through in urgency and the Minister does not even have the honour and the integrity to take a call and defend that Government’s position— 
Hon Member 
: Or answer the questions. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —or answer the questions—or in fact give a response to the matter regarding Anne Tolley and what the true position is. It is not too late now; the Minister can stand take a call and explain what the true situation is. 
The most insulting thing to me—and I am sure to my colleagues—is National telling this House and all New Zealanders that this bill is about opportunity! It is about opportunity and it is also a bill of compassion! It allows compassionate employers to be so visionary that they can see how unhappy their employees are before their employees can actually see it! They can say to them—compassionately and in a caring way: “You are just not happy in this job and we are going to let you go.” How often have we heard that statement: “We are going to let you go.”? The compassionate employers in New Zealand will let you go. 
Hon Simon Power 
: They will not let the Chairperson go. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: They are going to let these workers go. I thank Mr Power very much. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Here to help! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: This Government is here to help! Who will this bill affect? National opposed Sue Bradford’s bill. I acknowledge Sue Bradford and her youth workers bill. What happens to young people when they get a job? It might be in the hospitality industry it might be office work it might be in a service station—there are all sorts of different jobs. As we know that first experience in the workplace is very very important. What happens to those young workers? They will start perhaps on a lower rate of pay but they know that once they fulfil their 200 hours they will go on to $12 an hour. They will get this pay rise courtesy of Sue Bradford—let us acknowledge the Green Party and Sue Bradford and the Labour-led Government; they get that right. 
But what happens when they build up to their 200 hours? Let us acknowledge firstly that there are many good employers in this country but this bill is not about giving rights to good employers; it is about giving rights to bad employers. What happens when employees build up to their 200 hours? It might be a full-time job and they will be there in a few weeks or if it is part-time work it might take nearer to 3 months. What happens just as they get there—just as they are on that promise of getting $12 an hour which is not a high wage but it is one that will make quite a difference to their incomes? Suddenly that worker will be let go. That compassionate employer will see that the worker is not happy and that he or she can be let go. 
It could also be parents who have to take time out from their job. They might get into a job and then one of their kids might be sick. The previous Government supported flexible working hours. Did the National Party do so? No it did not. So mums or dads go into work and their child gets sick and they say they need to take some time off—it would be unpaid—to take care of their child perhaps for only a day or two. That might indicate to the employer that that worker is not really very happy in the job and he or she just might have to be let go. It might be just taking breast-feeding breaks. The employer might realise that that is actually quite inconvenient and he or she might be sure that that the mother is not really very happy taking those breastfeeding breaks. 
Hon Member 
: She might have got pregnant. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right; she might have got pregnant. This bill is the dream of an employer with prejudice. The employer does not have to justify in any way why he or she is sacking a worker. It could be because English is not the worker’s first language. It could be as I said before that someone is pregnant breastfeeding too young or too old. It could be that the worker has too many family commitments. Or and how often have we heard this it could be that the worker is just not a company person. A worker might say: “I’m sorry I can’t stay tonight; I have to go home and look after the kids.” That worker may then be told: “You’re just not into the work culture.” You just don’t fit. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member should restrain herself from using the word “you”. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I also want to acknowledge the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust which has produced a pamphlet with a great picture of a worker. The caption states that the worker has gone from inmate to workmate. The worker said: “If I had come out of prison and had no job I would have gone back to the old crowd and done crime to make money.” Well what about this worker who gets a job who has hope and aspirations again and who is sacked a couple of months into the job? What does that do to that worker’s self esteem job prospects etc? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare i tenei ata kua rarauika mai ki roto i te Whare nei ki te wananga i nga take o te wa. E te Kaihautu koia te pai o tenei kirimana i waenganui i a maua te Pati Maori me te Ropu Nahinara he ra tona kotahi te korero he ra tona kua rereke te korero. I tenei rangi ko te mea tuarua te mea ka whakaarahia ake i tenei ra. Penei taku korero i etahi rangi e orite ana te korero o te Pati Maori me te Ropu Nahinara. I etahi wa kua rereke te korero. I te rangi kotahi tera pea koi nei te ara. Koi ra. Hei whaiwhai haere i tera korero me haere tonu nga korero mo te wa poto. Te tikanga o tenei pire he tautoko i te hunga kua roa e noho ana i te koremahi me te rangatahi me te Maori.  
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us all the House gathered here this morning to debate the business of the day. The good thing about this coalition between us the Maori Party and the National Party is that there will be days when we will be of one mind and days when we will agree to disagree. The second option will apply today. Indeed the situation could well change throughout any given day. But that is what the coalition between us is about where we will work together some days and against each other on other days. To pursue that line of thought I will continue for just a little while longer. The purpose of this bill is to support those as well as young people and Maori who have been without work for a long period of time 
.]  
I do not want to take too long a call. The purpose of this bill from the Maori Party’s perspective is supposedly to assist the long-term unemployed the young and Maori—the assumption being I suppose that our people are being done a favour by being given some expectant belief that there will be some benefits down the line. Our fear however is that the economic downturn we are facing will in the near future have long-term effects on the unemployed and the young as well as on the new group of the middle-aged recently made redundant the majority of whom are likely to be Maori. According to some korero i roto i te reo Maori tera pea kua whiua te kumara kua pirau; some might say—and I am translating—that we have been thrown a fermented kumara. Drips from the roof have fallen on the kumara it has become wet and it has become fermented. 
The Government is trying to convince us that this bill is a good deal but to us this bill is no different from the one the Maori Party has referred to in the past as the “mini-Mapp bill” or indeed the 200-hour new-entrant legislation passed by the last administration. From our perspective the 200-hour new-entrant legislation discriminated against the young. It was promoted by the Greens and was taken over by Labour. We voted against that legislation and we got criticised by Labour for it. We are now voting against the legislation before the House and look who is coming with us! The one thing I hope we can say is that we are being consistent. 
We opposed Mr Mapp’s 90-day bill. We did support his bill’s first reading for the purpose of it being scrutinised by the select committee. Unfortunately we are not able to do that at this point in time because this bill is being dealt with under urgency. We would have hoped that that scrutiny would happen again to give the public an opportunity to make submissions. 
We supported young workers in seeking their rights and ensuring that they were not discriminated against and we were unfortunately criticised by Labour speakers. Darien Fenton criticised our stand in supporting rangatahi workers. In fact she criticised us because we had principles. Well that is a criticism we are happy to bear. At the time we asked what was wrong with the notion that if a person does adult-type work that person should get adult-type pay. We do not need a 200-hour new-entrant rate to prove that sort of stuff. 
As I said at the beginning of this short call with the economic downturn heading our way we believe that there is likely to be a huge pool of unemployed people. There will be a recycling of the pool of recently unemployed and redundant workers. The only opportunity from the Maori Party perspective that this bill offers is for unscrupulous employers to exploit the huge pool of vulnerable ex-workers. Many of these people are our people and now is not the time for legislation that exploits one group of people the vulnerable—the people I spoke about yesterday. It is more a time to show some compassion and uphold some rights for those workers. That is what we call manaakitanga. 
In conclusion I simply say that the Maori Party will not support this bill. But in line with the terms of our agreement with the National Party we will be seeking ways in the future that we can work on legislation that allows the Maori Party to contribute to better legislation for the country. Tena koutou katoa. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am glad of the opportunity to take a call in the third reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. This is my first time of standing up in this House in this new Government so I thank New Zealand for the mandate they gave us and say that we are humbled by that. 
I stand up today and thank John Key and in particular Kate Wilkinson for believing in New Zealanders—for taking back that mandate and having belief in New Zealanders and their abilities to get ahead. This is a great day for New Zealand. It is a great day for moving forward and a great day for us to recognise the abilities the talents and the skills of New Zealanders. This is a day when we actually take back a belief in their abilities to get ahead and understand what this country is about. It is about reward for effort it is about guts and determination and it is about people standing up for themselves. It is about recognising that a person has a part to play in society—an individual responsibility—but that a collective mentality comes with that and an acknowledgment that we all have a role to play. 
This National-led New Zealand Government believes in peoples’ abilities to get ahead and make the most of themselves. We understand that we have had 9 years of Labour. We understand that we have had 9 years of beating people down. We understand that we have had 9 years of people being treated like victims and of their having no belief in their abilities to get ahead and make something of themselves. We understand that all some young people know is an interventionist Government that can only control them and that actually controls all aspects of their lives. But they are here and they have given us a mandate to stand up for them and believe in their abilities and back them to make a difference in their lives. 
I actually do not feel sorry for New Zealand employees. I actually believe in their abilities and believe they can advocate for themselves in a way to go forward. I acknowledge that not everyone has a strong voice and a way to go forward so I actually believe that unions have a place in standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. I am thrilled that this bill stands up for New Zealand rights and for New Zealanders to stand against racial and sexual discrimination. I say to the New Zealanders out there who are wondering where they are going and what they will do: “Step up!” and I am proud of a bill that gives them the ability to step up. To those people who want to give it a go who want to get ahead who want to take a bit of a risk and a chance and who want someone to take a risk and a chance on them I say we the National-led Government will back them in that. We will support those people to get ahead. We will back them to step up and to take that risk and this bill is part of that process. This bill will play a vital role in recognising that New Zealanders know how to get ahead—know that it takes a bit of guts determination and hard work—and that they want to step up and be counted for it. 
I understand that for some of those young people this will be a little bit nerve-wracking. They are used to being told what to do how to do it and how to live under a prescriptive regime. This is a new Government this is a new way forward but it is one that backs them. It backs them in their abilities instead of backing a socialist regime that will tell them what to do. In fact I say thank you to Kate Williamson for recognising that New Zealand employees want an opportunity and want to step up and be counted. They want to get a shot at that and I tell them that their rights will be treated respectfully. I say to those New Zealanders who find there are ways in which the situation is not working out for them to stand up because we will back them. We will back them for those odd things that are a problem. 
New Zealand delivered us a result on 8 November; people delivered a result that said they wanted to stand up for being New Zealanders and for their way forward. New Zealanders said they wanted to get back to some of the basics of “a good day’s work for a good day’s pay; give me a go and I will step up for it.” That is what this bill is delivering to them. I say to beneficiaries out there and to those who are dependent on the Government for their income that we will back them to take a chance to go for that job and to get an employer to give them a go. There will be no stand-down periods for them if that relationship does not work out. This bill will open up opportunities for people to get up and give it a go. I will back them every time to do that. 
I finish by saying thank you to New Zealand. I say thank you to John Key and to Kate Wilkinson for leading this—for showing us the way forward and for backing New Zealanders who at the end of the day know how to move forward and how to make a difference. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Three words came to mind as I listened to that speech made by Paula Bennett—humbug hogwash and poppycock. On the eve of Christmas and we have 14 days before Christmas Day when most families throughout this country are preparing themselves to find gifts and to celebrate the Christmas spirit of gifting to young people what do we have from the National-ACT-Maori Government? First there were tax increases for those on $44000 or less. Second there was the 50 percent reduction in the employer contribution to KiwiSaver. Now we have the “fire at will” bill. 
This bill will create a group of unscrupulous employers whose only desire is to abuse and make use of workers for 90 days then get rid of them. This bill will enable new workers to be sacked without reason without notice and without a written warning. Employers will be able to sack new workers and those workers will not be given the right of a personal grievance which is a right that they currently have. In short the bill will strip workers of the certainty and confidence in the workplace that they currently have. 
Those most affected are the vulnerable workers whom the Government is targeting. I say that the vulnerable workers whom the Government is targeting are generally Labour supporters. The Minister assumes that the working relationship in the workplace is equal—that both employer and employee are equal in the workplace. That is the situation that currently exists under the law that Labour put in place. But what will happen now? This new law will strip workers of their rights and it will undermine the relationship that currently exists. 
The most affected are the vulnerable. Sadly they are from my part of the world Mangere Manukau City Manurewa and Otahuhu. The Government is targeting young people and in that part of the world we have more young people than throughout the rest of New Zealand. Young people who are taking up a new job young people who are unfamiliar will be keen-as to take on new roles and they will be working hard to try to ensure that they keep them. What could happen to them? They could be sent a letter saying “Don’t come in on Monday” or they could receive a phone call—or they could be given not even a word. They will simply lose their jobs because that is what this law provides for. There can be no reason and no notice. They can work all they want for 90 days work hard but can lose their job at the flick of a finger from an unscrupulous employer. I say “unscrupulous employer” because not all employers are inclined towards what this bill will create. 
The other most vulnerable group that this bill targets is womenfolk—women who are coming back into the workforce and women who want to make ends meet and to contribute to the finances of their families. What happens if my sister or my aunt decides for some reason during the month that she is not able to go to work? She can be fired. That is what this bill provides for. What happens if during those 90 days she calls in sick or says she has to visit the local school because her child needs some support there and she cannot go to work on that day? She can be fired. That is what this bill provides for without any notice and without any ability or opportunity to put her case forward. 
Elderly folk will be targeted and they are being targeted under this law. What will happen to the elderly folk who want to come back to work and make a contribution to the economy if for some reason or other they have to visit the doctor go into hospital or need to go home and have a bit of a rest? What will happen to them within those 90 days? They will be fired at will. That is what this bill provides for. The most vulnerable in our communities those who are protected under the current legislation are being targeted and being stripped of their rights to be able to take a personal grievance if they feel they have been unjustly dismissed. I refer to migrant workers Maori and Pasifika workers. All of those workers the most vulnerable in our communities are being targeted. 
The Minister said that there will be opportunities. The only opportunity that I see being legislated for here is the opportunity to take away workers’ rights—to be able to sack a new worker without the employer taking responsibility for making a bad decision. That is what this bill provides for. It provides the opportunity for unscrupulous employers to undermine the union in the workplace. They can sack a worker within that period if that worker wants to join a union and if he or she wants to be able to meet with a union official. Employers can sack a worker for those reasons. 
I also feel that as more and more workplaces close and more people are unemployed as a result of the economic crisis that we are experiencing at the moment we will have a pool of unemployed workers competing for whatever these jobs might be. If they are competing for those jobs what will happen to them if after 90 days they have no guarantee of a permanent position? It means that some unscrupulous employer might say: “Look I will keep you on here if you are prepared to forgo some of your other conditions and terms.” That is a strong possibility under this legislation because this legislation creates fear and uncertainty and takes away the confidence of workers in the workplace. 
It is wrong for this Government to use the economic crisis as an excuse to take away the rights of workers. Workers want certainty in their employment relations and workers have fundamental rights that are enshrined in the United Nations declaration. They have rights to redress and this Government is stripping away the right to a personal grievance. The Minister also said that this bill will enable the creation of jobs. That is laughable I say to the Minister. This bill does not create a single job. It creates bad employers and bad business practice and it takes away personal grievance rights from the workers. During the Committee deliberations I asked the Minister how many jobs this bill will create. There was no answer. That was because that is not the intent of this legislation. The intent of this legislation is to fire at will the most vulnerable workers in our communities. 
The Minister said that employers and employees will maintain active relationships and subject themselves to mutual agreements. That is hogwash. In this competitive global economy the key issue facing our labour market now is how to attract new workers not how to sack them. It does not matter what they say about opportunities job creation and equality in the workplace. When people use words like that to cover up something my grandfather would say: “E fiu lava e u’u le tae pua’a e pipilo lava.” I will translate that for members. It means: “It doesn’t matter how much perfume you pour on pig shit it still stinks.” That is what this bill is about. It stinks. It stinks for our communities and it stinks for workers throughout New Zealand. 
The Government wants to take us back to the 1990s whereby workers are stripped of all rights in the workplace. With those words Labour strongly opposes this bill and will vote accordingly. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 After listening to the speeches from members on the other side of the House we can understand why New Zealanders voted on 8 November for a brighter future. The dirges from the members on the other side have indicated the controlling nature of the Government of the last 9 years and the effect that it had on New Zealand. When we look at the performance of New Zealand in the last 9 years during the best economic times in the last 30 years we see that that lot over there squandered that opportunity. We are talking about creating a brighter future and that is what we intend to do. The most important step in a journey of a thousand miles is the first step. Labour when in Government dug a big hole for New Zealand. It tried to bury New Zealand’s aspirations goals and visions in it. This John Key - led Government is determined to lead New Zealand into a brighter future. 
It has been an insult to sit on this side of the House and have to tolerate the dirges and pointless discussion that have occurred from last night onwards. Fortunately the other night I had the privilege to go to a very upbeat prize-giving at Queen Charlotte College and I can tell members that people there were over the moon that they were being presented with an opportunity. In simple terms this bill has been well and truly canvassed. 
I would like to finish with a little comment from a blog site because I do not think this bill deserves to be ridiculed in the way it has been by members on the other side. It is a visionary bill and it is something that has been long overdue. This comment is from a blog site and I would like those members to listen: “This is an interesting announcement from National. I think it is one of those policies which people will be ashamed to support in public due to the ‘left’ interpretation of it but which most people in the privacy of the polling booth will support because it is an actual common sense policy from National.” The second point is “This debate may be cast as a evil-capitalist’s charter by the left. It could also be cast as an ‘anti-deadbeats’ charter by the right.” Finally: “I think National will do well on voting day with this policy. It appeals to the kiwi sense of fair play. Let the people decide.” 
And they did on 8 November. Let this bill stand. I congratulate Kate Wilkinson; she has done a fine job. I take great pleasure in supporting this bill. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Well well well those members could not wait could they? They could not wait to put the boot into hard-working New Zealanders. The very minute that this National Government gets into power on day two they use it to take away workers’ rights. When have we seen that before? That is right it was the last time that the National Party came into power. One of the first things National members enacted was the shocking Employment Contracts Act that took away workers’ rights. It not only took away workers’ rights but it also reduced workers’ wages. It took away their rights to have penal rates. It reduced their take-home pay. Here National members are back in power and they are at it again. They are straight into it straight into taking away workers’ rights. 
All of the speakers from that side of the House got up and said that this is about opportunity and that we had it wrong. Where is the opportunity in workers one day having the right to take a personal grievance if they are unfairly dismissed and the very next day not having that right if they are unfairly dismissed? The date has changed during the course of the debate because it turns out that it will now be until the last day of February that workers will have the right to a personal grievance if they are unfairly dismissed at work. Suddenly on 1 March overnight all of those many workers who are in their first 90 days of employment in a company with 20 or fewer employees will lose that very basic right to have legal redress if they are unfairly dismissed at work. That Minister knows it. She knows that having a legal remedy the backstop of taking a personal grievance case is at the heart of a worker’s right to fairness at work. 
The people of this country voted for a new Government and by gosh have they got a shock! They thought it was going to be business as usual. That is what National Party members went out of their way to say on the election campaign trail. They tried so hard to make it look like there would not be much of a change. They said that it would just be business as usual. Workers in this country are already reeling. They now know that it is not business as usual. I have an interesting graphic here that I think says it all. Members will want to have a look at this. This is the smiley face of John Key. Here he is. This is the smile that people voted for. They thought they were getting a nice guy. They thought they were getting someone who would continue with business as usual. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The smiling assassin! 
SUE MORONEY 
: This is it. He is the smiling assassin. Here he is saying “Merry Christmas. You’re fired. Love John.” Here is his Christmas gift to all New Zealand workers particularly those who change jobs. To the New Zealand workers who are listening to this and thinking “Oh well it probably will not ever affect me” I say to listen to this. How many workers actually change jobs? This provision affects all workers who will be changing jobs not just young people. It does not matter what age the worker might be. We know that the effects of this bill will be widespread. We know that every 3 months a quarter of a million people in New Zealand start a new job. 
Moana Mackey 
: How many? 
SUE MORONEY 
: Every 3 months 250000 people start a new job. We know that 96 percent of New Zealand companies employ 20 or fewer employees so we know how widespread are the people who will be exposed to this unfairness at work. It will not be a small number of people; it will be a significant number of people. They will be people who you Mr Speaker and I and everyone else in this House all know. They will be our children and our brothers and sisters. Good grief it might even be members in this Chamber. 
Even though I did not agree at all with the ACT amendment that was snuck in—and National members never admitted that they were going to support it but they did and they brought it forward—I wonder about the timing of it. It is interesting that this bill does not come into effect until after 90 days of this new Government. I think that is quite deliberate because if it came in within the 90 days of this new Government those members might be up for their jobs. The New Zealand public would be saying “Good grief what have we done? We thought we were voting for the smile and we have ended up with the same old National Government that comes in and puts the boot into workers in its first 100 days of action.” 
I want to talk about the 100 days of action because it is supposed to be turbocharged. As recently as only a week ago the Minister in charge of this bill Kate Wilkinson said that this bill was not part of the 100 days of action. Clearly those members have already run out of ideas for their 100 days of action and they are pulling in every other bill that they can literally think of. That is what is going on here. They are already on day two of business in this House and they have run out of turbocharged ideas for their 100 days of action. 
Workers will be reeling because they have become used to almost a decade of a Government that has stood up for workers’ rights. The Labour-led Government enhanced workers’ rights. It was the Labour-led Government that introduced the idea of good faith into our employment legislation. It was the Labour-led Government that ensured all workers in this country are entitled to a fourth week of annual leave. It was the Labour-led Government that introduced paid parental leave and what a difference that has made for many New Zealand families. It will be interesting to see what the new Minister does about paid parental leave because I have not heard her say anything positive about it at this stage. She seemed to not react too well to hearing that the Labour-led Government introduced paid parental leave so it will be very interesting to see what she does in that regard. 
It was the Labour-led Government that introduced legislation by amending this same Act of Parliament to ensure that vulnerable workers had their rights protected if their jobs were contracted out. It was the Labour-led Government that ensured all workers had the right to bargain collectively. It was the Labour-led Government that ensured workers got paid decent wages when they were required to work on statutory holidays. Breastfeeding breaks meal breaks rest periods—you name it; all of these things were enhancements to workers’ rights. They were enhancements to family life and enhancements to fairness at work. It is no wonder that New Zealand workers thought: “Well gosh it sounds quite good really doesn’t it this business as usual. Let’s have a change but it is going to be business as usual.” What a rude shock they have received already. For the first time in almost a decade there is legislation before this House that is reducing workers’ rights. That has not happened in almost a decade. The last time it happened was the last time the National Party was on the Treasury benches and it is happening all over again. 
Well here we go. New Zealand workers need to start learning to stand up for their rights again because they are under attack and they have been under attack from day one from this National Government. They are so much under attack that the National Government did not even want other organisations or any members of the public coming and telling it what they thought about this attack on workers’ rights. The Government has rushed this bill through all its stages under urgency so that no organisations can come along and say what they think of this reduction in workers’ rights. A few organisations have made press releases over the course of the last 12 hours. In fact that is the only opportunity they have had to say what they think—by pumping out press releases. That is not a great democratic process but that is the only thing those organisations have been able to do. 
I will read just a couple of those statements from those organisations. We did not have a select committee process but this is what they would have come along and said. This is from the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women which is hardly one of those lefty union organisations that Dr Wayne Mapp talked about. It said that the bill is a step backward for all employees particularly women. Is that not a great legacy from the new National Government to particularly attack women workers? The federation stated: “We have worked hard to improve the status of women in New Zealand over the past 70 years and to hear that New Zealand might soon have a law that would allow employers to fire an employee without reason or redress horrifies us.” The business and professional women of New Zealand are horrified by this law change and so is the Labour Party. 
Debate interrupted. 
Tabling of Documents 
Urgency Motions—Labour Governments 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a schedule showing the number of urgency motions over the last three Labour Governments. There were 47 urgency motions and three— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a list of urgency motions under the Labour Government where the bills were only released to the Opposition at a quarter to midnight on the night before the bills were to be debated. This is the list here. It is actually a blank piece of paper; it never happened. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? There is objection. 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time. 
Bail Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 This bill is the first of a number of pieces of legislation in the justice portfolio that the new Government will bring to this House in its first 100 days in office. The overriding principle in taking these swift actions is the need to put public safety first. 
Unfortunately public safety was not always at the forefront of policy making in the last term of the Labour Government as the directive to reduce the prison population not only took priority but also often ran counter to the protection of the public. Last year’s changes to the then Bail Act were one example of this. As part of the Labour Government’s legislation to “arrest the sharp increase in the prison population” it increased the threshold for remand in custody from a risk that the defendant may abscond interfere with witnesses or evidence or offend on bail to a real and significant risk. This meant that even if a defendant had repeatedly breached his or her bail conditions in the past that defendant may not necessarily have been remanded in custody. To underscore this another provision was inserted that prevented the court from being able to remand a defendant in custody for breaching bail conditions unless this meant that the defendant was a real and significant risk. The New Zealand Law Society the Police Association the Police Prosecution Service and even a defence lawyer have all said that the 2007 changes effectively made it easier for people to get bail. 
The Bail Amendment Bill I have introduced today reverses those changes. Initial estimates from the Ministry of Justice suggest that changing the law will mean that another 50 to 100 prison beds will be filled. However the ministry has also signalled that this is likely to be an underestimate because repealing the 2007 amendments will send a clear signal to the judiciary that the threshold for bail has been raised. This group of accused represents the type of line calls on who is being granted bail under the previous Labour Government’s law when those people would previously have been remanded in custody. 
The Government recognises that a person charged with a crime has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty and has the right not to be arbitrarily detained. Everyone charged with an offence also has the right to be released on reasonable terms and conditions unless there is just cause for continued detention. However those rights must be balanced against the safety of the New Zealand public. In his previous spell in Opposition the Hon Phil Goff proposed legislation that would have limited access to bail for repeat offenders. He argued: “At a certain point the safety of the community comes before the rights of alleged offenders.” In our view the previous risk test drew an appropriate balance between these competing considerations. Labour’s test raised the bar for remand in custody. The people who will have benefited from this amendment are not low risk. They are people who would previously have been remanded in custody. In those cases giving the benefit of the doubt to the public rather than the accused will come at a cost. However that is a price we are willing to pay to keep New Zealanders safe. 
I want to make it clear that the Government will be implementing further campaign pledges regarding the bail system. We will be reviewing the Bail Act in order to improve compliance with bail conditions. In particular we are concerned with the number of people failing to attend court. Between 1999-2000 and 2007-08 the number of defendants failing to answer bail increased by 155 percent. As at 30 September 2007 more than 18500 cases were put on hold due to outstanding warrants to arrest. This suggests that many of those on bail already treat the system with some degree of contempt and the pressure this puts on an already overloaded court system is unacceptable. 
We will also be progressing work to make sure that bail is not granted in return for information that a defendant provides regarding a criminal investigation. This measure aims to preclude further abuse of the bail system as occurred in January 2008 when a gang leader was released on bail after negotiating the return of stolen war medals. 
Under this Government public safety is the priority and will not be sacrificed. As part of our work programme on gangs and P we will also assess whether it is appropriate for people charged with drug offences to be eligible for electronically monitored bail in addition to home detention. The public of New Zealand deserve bail laws that put their safety first. This bill is the first of a number of measures that will restore public safety to its rightful place as the paramount consideration in justice policy and I commend it to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 This is a serious issue and should be treated as such but on examination of the Bail Amendment Bill—and I will show it for those who are watching at home—we find it consists of one page plus the explanatory note on the front. It is four clauses long. This bill can only be described as a classic National Party hoax. Before the election National members talked tough looked tough and tried to stamp their feet. National stirred up as much fear in the community as it possibly could then it comes into the House and produces this bill its fourth bill which is a hoax and which is flimflam. When this bill is passed at the end of this urgency there will not be one New Zealander who is any safer in this country than he or she is now—not one. 
This is the level of in-depth analysis that National is engaged in. This bill of four clauses just creeps over the page with one line on the last page. That is it. National is trying to say to the people of New Zealand that by altering a couple of words they will be safer. This bill is predicated on a number of deliberately false and deceitful— 
Chester Borrows 
: If it’s so insignificant why didn’t you do it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I think the member is going to blow over there Mr Deputy Speaker; you might want to get the men in white coats. 
This bill is based on a couple of very false and deceitful premises. The first premise relates to the use in the Bail Amendment Act 2007 of the words “real and significant risk” which of course were put into section 8 of the Bail Act based on a body of common law precedents in order to give more precision and consistency—and later in this speech I will quote from a member of the judiciary to substantiate that point. National members say that this change made it easier to get bail and that it was done in some way to try to get the prison population down. 
Let us deal with the latter point first. Here are the remand figures and we know that the number of prisoners on remand went up by 30 percent between 2004 and 2008. I will give members some specifics. The remand prison population has continued to grow at a rate greater than the sentenced population despite of course the 2007 amendment to the Bail Act. In July 2007 the number on remand including prisoners held in police stations totalled 1733 and comprised 21 percent of the total prison muster. By July 2008 the number had increased by almost 6 percent and constituted 23 percent of the total prison muster so that puts the sword into the silly accusation National still tries to run out that this was some sort of sneaky way to get the numbers down. 
National’s second point is that the Bail Amendment Act 2007 strengthened people’s ability to get bail. The real and significant threshold was chosen after examining judicial decisions on previous risk thresholds. In its 2002 decision on  
R v Hines 
 the Court of Appeal implicitly agreed with the High Court that to amount to just cause for a defendant’s continued detention the risk that a defendant may interfere with a witness should be more than a nebulous and insignificant risk and should be a real and significant risk. That was the decision of a learned judge. 
The Kahui case at the High Court was one of the first decisions after the changes came into force. In that case Justice Heath stated that the change to a real and significant risk “does not seem to me to put the test any higher than was under previous legislation but rather to emphasise the need for a proper inference to be drawn from proven facts; as opposed to the Court engaging in speculation or guesswork about the possibility of a risk.” That is not from a politician or a political party. That is from a learned judge Justice Heath in a terrible case as we know the Kahui case was after these changes had been made. That puts the sword into the idea that the real and substantial risk threshold a form of words based on common law precedent somehow allowed a weakening in the bail laws. 
In its explanatory note on the National Government notes that the changes the previous Labour Government made were intended to clarify rather than make significant changes. This bill has been dressed up as a turbo-boosted effort. Simon Power is the hard man now it appears on law and order. I presume National will roll out Judith Collins at some point in the debate but maybe we have here the kinder and gentler face the baby-faced assassin on law and order who is here to soften us up. 
In December 2007 the Ombudsman put out a report which I am sure the honourable member Mr Power has. The Ombudsman conducted a review of the criminal justice sector at the Prime Minister’s request. He stated: “I express doubt whether this amendment”—this is the Labour Government’s amendment—“will have a major impact in reducing the number of custodial remands.” We know from the remand figures that it did not reduce the numbers; actually those numbers went up. The figures he obtained from the Ministry of Justice which is now Mr Power’s own ministry showed that in 2004 2005 and 2006 the percentages of custodial remand cases given a custodial sentence was 41 percent 43.8 percent and 44.3 percent respectively. 
That is what we have learned judges saying contrary to Mr Power’s spin and to the ACT Party’s tactics of trying to scare the living daylights out of people. I remember that during the election campaign Ms Wilkinson ran around the Waimakariri electorate saying that it was easy to get bail. Well Justice Heath and the Ombudsman disagreed with that and the remand figures show that it is not true but I suppose it was a good one-liner to try to scare ordinary New Zealanders with. In some respects I suppose it worked but we have to deal with reality. 
What is National’s big hit on its first law and order bill? This is flimflam this is propaganda and this will not make one New Zealander—if we pass it tonight—safer out there in the community. If the National Government was really serious and not just talking tough with Judith Collins wandering around like a latter day John Wayne it could do something that would not cost any taxpayers’ money. The Government could call the Governor-General and trigger by Order in Council our parole legislation of two-thirds and that would make people safer. That would make our communities safer. National would not have to bring it into the House because it has been done. It could simply ring the Governor-General ask for an appointment and ask him to trigger it through Order in Council. That would be a serious and substantial move because the legislation that Annette King and Phil Goff put through is ready to go. It sits there now raring to go. 
My question to Mr Power is why will he not trigger that process. He comes to the House with this four-clause one-page bill and he will stand up over the next few hours and try to convince the people of New Zealand that they will be safer in and out of their homes once this bill is passed. He will try to convince the people of New Zealand that Justice Heath was wrong that the Ombudsman was wrong and that his own ministry’s figures are wrong. He will try to say to the people that the remand population went down when the facts from his ministry show that is wrong and he will try to build a case around this. I look forward to this debate because it will be a lengthy one. This bill is flimflam. This is National talking tough stamping its feet yelling out scaring the community before the election and then trying to dress up a weak bill. 
I ask Mr Power why if this legislation is so good he does not drop it into a select committee. If he wants to turbo-boost it through then OK he could give it to a select committee for a couple of days because it is only four clauses and one page long. It would take only about 10 seconds to read it and maybe 1 minute to read the explanatory note. 
Chester Borrows 
: Oh come on you had help. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well maybe it would be 10 minutes for that member and that is just the first page. 
If those members are so proud of the bill then why do they not give it to a select committee and let it go through an examination? They could call in the stakeholders whom they say feel this is a good thing. They could call in the Law Commission and others and ask for their view on it. But oh no that will not happen because then I suspect we would start to see the overlocking being unpicked on this legislation. We would start to see the cloth beginning to unravel and fray legislatively speaking around this legislation because this bill is their big hit their big turbo-boost to be tough on law and order. I say again that if they wanted to be tough on law and order and if they wanted to make people safer in their homes tonight—and they could do it now; I am sure the Governor-General would make himself available—they could trigger the Parole Act through Order in Council in one hit. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition can scarcely be surprised by the Bail Amendment Bill coming as it does in the context of clear policies announced by National whilst in Opposition. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. It may have overlooked your attention but the previous speaker in his contribution in the House failed to tell Parliament or the people of New Zealand whether Labour would be voting for or against this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. There was no point of order in that. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Perhaps if I may I will start again. The Opposition can scarcely be surprised by the passage of this legislation in the context of urgency today because the National Party whilst in Opposition clearly telegraphed its position on a number of significant law and order issues and this was assuredly one. I am a bit surprised by the comments of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove when he suggested that somehow because this bill is short it might lack some element of merit. This legislation is a significant substantive change and that is to be so clearly seen by the apparent opposition of Opposition members. It is a reality in the criminal justice system that it is necessary to balance a whole lot of interests and they are the interests of justice in that broad sense and in the interests of victims offenders and issues relating to court process. It is scarcely surprising that this trial which the Opposition embarked on when it was in Government has lamentably failed. It lamentably failed because it was for an improper purpose and that purpose which was unsuccessful in the outcome was to reduce the prison muster. That is clearly not what this legislation is about. 
This is legislation that is substantially concerned with process and substantially concerned with public safety. If we look at the original provisions of the Bail Act 2000 it can be seen that if a person is not bailable as of right then there has to be just cause for continued detention. And what should that just cause for continued detention be? That is not a very difficult question at all; it is whether a defendant may fail to appear at court on the date to which he or she has been remanded whether there is the prospect of witness interference and whether a defendant may offend whilst on bail. We have seen this trial which the Opposition when in Government embarked upon fail. We have seen it fail I think for substantially the reason that it was based on improper purpose. It is important in the context of law and order policies having an effectiveness and substance that we have legislation of this type. That is why the Government has introduced it. That is why the Government is determined to see its speedy passage and its effective implementation. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 That speech had the length and substance of the Bail Amendment Bill; it lacked in both categories. But the member in his brief address got the situation absolutely wrong as did the Minister in charge of the bill. The Minister said Labour was about reducing the prison population. Well I will tell him the facts which are that under Labour the prison population went up by over 3000—the biggest increase in the prison population in this country’s history—and four new prisons were opened. But then both Mr Worth and Mr Power said the intention of the 2007 amendment to the Bail Act was to reduce the prison population— 
Hon Simon Power 
: That’s not what the explanatory note says. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The explanatory note of the bill says absolutely the opposite of that. It gives the lie to the Minister’s repeated claim that that was the purpose. Let me read to him from the explanatory note of the bill in his own name. It states: “The amendments were intended to clarify the law rather than make any significant changes.” If the Minister does not believe that why did he put that statement in his legislation? What he has put there contradicts in black and white what both he and Mr Worth have just said. 
The comment was made that this is a short bill. I have no objection to legislation being short; what I object to is that this bill is entirely without substance. I say to Mr Power that this bill is simply window dressing. The Minister may say that is a political comment from the Labour Party but no I am quoting from Professor Geoffrey Hall who is the expert in New Zealand on sentencing and criminal law. He was talking about the companion bill but that comment applies to both bills. He says the stuff is already there and “It sounds to me like it’s window dressing”. That is what Professor Hall the foremost expert on New Zealand criminal law says about this Minister’s effort to demonstrate that he is doing something. 
This bill is a pathetic effort to show that the Minister is being tough on crime when by his own admission and by John Key’s own admission this legislation will at best affect a handful of people. I ask Mr Power to tell me how many people will be affected by this legislation. He will not answer that question but John Key did. John Key said it might affect 75 people. Does Mr Power know how many people are remanded into custody each year in our system? Does the Minister know that basic fact? He does not so I will tell him. The number of New Zealanders who are remanded into custody each year rather than being given bail is 15000. Mr Key says this bill might affect 75 people but we were told in the justice briefing that this measure would affect 10 people—10 beds—next year. That is 40 people over the next 4 years. So here we have this legislation which Mr Power struts into the House with and says is his top priority in criminal justice to make the country safer and it is to affect 10 people. Frankly that is pathetic as is the fact that this legislation is being put through the House under urgency. 
We want to have criminal law that is carefully considered. That means law that is considered by a select committee. That happens with regard to all legislation relating to criminal justice. Every bill relating to criminal justice goes to a select committee because when it comes to criminal law we want to have proper scrutiny and we want to get the legislation right the first time around. Every New Zealander has the right to be heard on important legislation. This bill will affect 10 people in the next year but Mr Power as Minister contrary to what he has said in the speeches he has given in this House year after year is prepared to ram this measure through and to deny the opportunity for ordinary New Zealanders and experts like Professor Hall to have their voices heard. I know why the Minister does not want this bill to go to a select committee. It is because a select committee would reveal that this measure is flimflam that it is window dressing and that it has no impact. 
If the Minister wants to do something that has an impact then he knows he can go to the Governor-General today and ask him to bring into effect the 2007 amendment to the Sentencing Act which would require a minimum detention period of two-thirds of a sentence before parole is granted. Will the Minister do that? That would affect hundreds of people; it would keep criminals locked up for a lot longer than they are at present. The Minister does not need legislation to do that. He could do it tomorrow; he could do it today. But that would have substance and a cost so this Minister this show pony struts into the House to say this bill is his big deal in criminal justice and it will affect 10 people in the next year. Well frankly that is farcical. 
You see the problem is that the National Government has to be seen to be doing something in its first 100 days. It said it would make an impact. The difficulty is that after 9 years in Opposition National gets elected and whether one is talking about the economy or law and order it has no plan. It has no plan and it has no policy. So we get the show pony coming into the House with this piece of window dressing that does absolutely nothing. 
Now Mr Power ironically is changing the legislation to put back in place the legislation that I passed in 2000 which National opposed then. It opposed that legislation in 2000 and 2002. Now that legislation the bail law did toughen the situation up. It resulted in an extra 2000 people a year being locked up. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Hang on what’s happened since then? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I tell Mr Power since he has asked me that what has happened is that we have significantly reduced the rate of offending while people are on bail. The Minister’s own explanatory note sets that out. The Minister says Labour was soft on law and order and it did not make any difference in this area. I tell Mr Power that between 2004 and 2008 the latest figures that I can give the Minister the number of people who were remanded into custody went up by 30 percent. That Minister is trying to tell the House there was something inherently wrong with our bail legislation and we were soft on law and order. But the number of people who were remanded pending trial went up by 30 percent. That 30 percent figure is 2½ times more than the fast rate of increase in sentenced inmates. We did that yet this National Minister comes in and says National is going to make a real difference with legislation that will increase the need for remand beds in the next year by 10! 
I tell Mr Power that that is a joke—an absolute joke. We will get to the sentencing legislation in the next bill and I say that is a joke as well because Mr Power knows that it makes no difference. Professor Hall said that. This bill makes scarcely any difference. Just as the Minister said that the 2007 amendment to the Bail Act does not substantially change the test for denying bail this bill does not change the test. So this Minister after the National Party campaigned on law and order and how big a difference it would make comes into this Parliament with no plan to do anything substantial. He refuses to implement the legislation that requires two-thirds of the minimum sentence to be served before parole is granted when he can do that right now and he brings us two pieces of flimflam that will not make a single New Zealander feel safer in his or her bed tonight or next year. 
That is a disgrace. That shows just how shallow the incoming National Government is. It has had 9 years to prepare for what it would do to make New Zealand safer and it brings into the House today two bills that by National’s own admission will not make a difference. The Government brings this legislation in under urgency denying the right of New Zealanders to examine that legislation because it knows that on any examination it will be shown to be flimflam. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Following the Leader of the Opposition’s speech I point out that he has once again failed to tell the House and the public of New Zealand how Labour will be voting on this legislation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; it is a debating point. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 Once again I find myself as a new member sitting here totally bemused by the Opposition’s position on a bill. What the Bail Amendment Bill does is return us to the status quo in 2000 after the Bail Act that the former Labour Government had introduced was passed. If one follows that logic the speakers on the other side are opposing this bill because they got it wrong in 2000. Is that right? That is the only thing they can be saying if they oppose this bill. 
Frankly we have had some quite silly comments about its length. Does the Hon Clayton Cosgrove write a 25-page bill when a 2-page bill will do? It is very short because all it does is remove the “real and significant” risk test and return us to a risk test—a test that was put in place in 2000 by the then Labour Government. 
The speakers on the other side referred to judicial pronouncements on the Act and I see in the explanatory note that as usual with judicial pronouncements they were divided. 
There is of course a need to balance the presumption of innocence with the risk to community. That is what bail is all about. There is a presumption of risk with all offenders—of course there is. But I say that any risk even remote risk is too much. The Hon Phil Goff has made much of the fact that only 10 people may be affected. Well Graeme Burton is only one person. Thankfully he killed only one person but he darn near killed three. Those 10 people whom the Hon Phil Goff has referred to are 10 potential killers. One gets bail these days unless there is a darn good reason why one should not. All this bill does is return us to Labour’s position in 2000. 
Numerous tragedies have arisen from people on bail being released when they should not have been. We have heard statistics and I am sure we will hear more in this debate but I prefer to talk about examples. Michael Curran murdered 2-year-old Aaliyah Morrissey while on bail for killing 24-year-old Natasha Hayden. At the time that Curran killed Mrs Hayden a young woman with whom he was having an affair he had 22 criminal convictions including two for indecent assault on a girl under 12. He was released by Justice Cooper who said that a strong case was not enough; a strong case was not enough so he was released on bail. Not long thereafter he killed a young girl. I am more interested in those kinds of examples than 16 percent of this or 10 beds there. Those examples are the things that concern me. The Michael Curran case is not a lone case. I can bring numerous examples to this House and I probably will do that in my next contribution. There are many of them sadly. 
This bill does nothing but return us to the status quo in 2000 a status quo created by the former Labour Government. Labour members in arguing against this bill are simply saying they got it wrong—they made a mistake. If they want to say that fine. I do not agree that they did make a mistake as it happens; I do not agree that they did. This legislation takes us back to the status quo in 2000 and nothing more. 
I come back to the risk test. It is quite true that some people who are remanded in custody—in fact quite a few—are later found not guilty. That is because the test under our law of “beyond reasonable doubt” is very high. But we must remember that despite what is said in the newspapers frequently being found not guilty is not being found innocent. There is no such verdict in our law. I am expecting to hear a lot of figures on how many people in remand were found not guilty. I simply make the point that there is a difference between being found not guilty and being found innocent. I say that where there is any doubt at all—and clearly this is what the Hon Phil Goff thought in 2000—we should err on the side of caution and protect children like Aaliyah Morrissey from predators like Michael Curran. That is all this bill does. It returns us to the status quo introduced by the former Labour Government in 2000. The ACT Party is very happy to support this short and succinct bill which does just that. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will oppose the Bail Amendment Bill although we will be supporting National’s— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Good on you for saying which way you’ll be voting. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: I thank the member. We will be supporting the Sentencing (Offences against Children) Amendment Bill which is due to be debated in the House some time today or maybe tomorrow. 
The amendments to the bail laws in 2007 I understand were simply designed to align that legislation with the common law. We supported that legislation at the time and we see no reason at this stage to change our view. In fact the changes to the bail laws were of such minor consequence that the issue was not really debated when the legislation came back to the House after its select committee process. It is unfortunate that there has not been a chance for this bill to go to a select committee so that we could discover whether there is a need to change and revert back to pre-2002 circumstances. We have no evidence before us that that is an important thing to do and without that evidence it is very difficult to argue that it is necessary. I understand from Labour members that in their view the impact of the amendments to the 2007 legislation was not necessarily significant. Again it is very difficult to judge this without there being a select committee process that properly looks into the matter. 
In our view bail should never be granted when there is a risk to the safety of the public. David Garrett has raised a very extreme case of where bail was granted and we absolutely agree that granting bail is absolutely inappropriate in cases such as that. In the past the judiciary has made mistakes that have resulted in terrible tragedies as outlined. No doubt further mistakes will be made in the future because no matter how good or strong the rules that we establish in this House are mistakes will always be made. But it is a falsehood to suggest to the community that those mistakes are the norm or that those extreme cases are the norm. It is our concern for the majority of cases that raises our objection to this legislation. 
We need to have rational evidence-based criminal law changes not fearmongering for political gain—and much of the dialogue around extreme cases is just that. The fact is that the vast majority of bail is given in the correct circumstances particularly to younger offenders first-time offenders and those charged with minor offences. In those circumstances it is absolutely correct to keep those people as far away from jail as possible in order to protect the community. We know that reoffending rates are much higher among young and first-time offenders who are in prison. If young people and first-time offenders are put into prison they are more likely to reoffend when they come out. That is a fact that is not often talked about in public during the rhetoric about law and order that goes on. If our aim is to keep our communities safe—or at least safer—from crime then we must make sure that those categories of offender are kept out of prison. It is also a fact that the longer a person spends in prison the more likely they are to reoffend when they get out. So these are essential considerations to bear in mind when we are looking at bail law. If being in prison is a contributory cause of reoffending then keeping non-violent offenders out of prison is the best way to keep our communities safer. 
There are other issues too such as the unjustified imprisonment of especially our younger people. I found the comments of Beven Hanlon the president of the Corrections Association of New Zealand to be compelling. In commenting on the bail amendments he said his main issue was where we would put all the prisoners. Although the Bail Amendment Act of 2007 freed up beds in our prisons he said that the estimate of 100 or more beds in prisons was far too high in terms of what this law provided and that New Zealand would go back to having prisoners kept in police vans and police cells. We know that there have been many cases of violence and indeed killings in police vans and police cells. 
That point of course leads directly to the earlier comments made by both the current Minister of Justice and the current Minister of Corrections about double-bunking in our prisons. Those who are obsessed with retribution will applaud the idea of this practice but double-bunking—which is in fact overcrowding in our prisons—and the practice of keeping prisoners in police cells and vans are causes of violent assaults against staff and other inmates and also a cause of suicide. Also such practices increase the culture of violence and abuse inside prisons and this will spill out into our communities. In effect these are predictable and predicted outcomes of the National Government’s policy. Such policies will increase violence in our communities and make our communities less safe not safer. This increase in violence has been premeditated by this House and by those who vote for this bill. They must share some responsibility for that inevitable outcome. These policies put Department of Corrections staff in particular at direct risk. Staff in any environment have the right to be as safe as possible. Corrections policies that elevate the risk for staff are grossly irresponsible and the Minister of Corrections should bear some responsibility for any incidents that might occur. 
New Zealand also has a very high rate of youth suicide. It is higher for those between 15 and 24 years of age than for any other age group. The Maori youth suicide rate is nearly double that of Pakeha. The suicide rate among young offenders in adult prisons is extremely high. I understand that there are after all only four youth offender units in New Zealand. Increasing the remand rate for young offenders where the only place they have to go is into adult prisons will increase the suicide rate for those young people and those offenders may have been charged with fairly minor non-violent offences. For some remand will be a death sentence. 
For Maori the impact is even greater. All the research proves that Maori are more likely to be stopped by the police searched by the police arrested by the police convicted in the courts and denied diversion—more so than any other population in New Zealand. The Maori imprisonment rate is extremely high because of the racist filters in the legal system that target and punish Maori simply because they are Maori. Any amendments to the bail legislation will exacerbate that racism. 
I agree with Simon Power that corrections policy is failed social policy. During this spell of urgency we have already passed two bills relating to social policy that will fail Maori and our communities in general. The tax legislation will take money out of the pockets of our poorest families. It is the extraction of wealth from the poor in order to pad the wallets of the rich. The rich become even more fearful and aggressive in their attempts to keep their wealth and continue to punish the poor simply because they are poor. The poor struggle to manage increasing State intervention in their lives in order to make some headway all the while moving one step forward and two steps back. The increase in income disparity will lead to social unease as it always does. This action is pre-meditated. This House is choosing to create a less fair and less safe society. 
The employment relations amendments will increase the numbers of disenfranchised and vulnerable young workers. Those workers will find the constant employment to benefit roller coaster to be one that forces them into greater debt unstable housing and illness. The 13-week stand-down period—which will still apply because the Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson has been too naive to figure out how to fix it—will mean that families will face long periods without work or income support. Their children will move from school to school as their parents try to find secure employment. This will lead to reduced educational achievement and despair with the education system. 
The increase in truancy fines that is coming up in the new education bill—which is yet to be tabled I understand—will simply suck even more money out of the pockets of families who are desperately trying to find some stability for their children but are having to make the unpalatable financial choice between whether to buy food to pay the rent to pay the power bill or to get warm clothes and shoes for their kids and still have their kids able to attend school regularly and successfully. Of course the move to standardised testing that is coming up shortly with league tables for primary schools will as has been proved in the US increase the gap between the educational outcomes of the wealthy and the poor—and between Pakeha and Maori—advance the privatisation of the education system and further lock out New Zealand children from their rightful entitlement to high-quality public education. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of this legislation. It is something that has been called for by a number of people who work at the coalface of our judicial system. I have been approached by policemen prosecutors Crown prosecutors defence counsel and judges sitting in the District Court and I have spoken to judges sitting in the High Court and to victims. Every one of them says they need to have this change. 
Members on the other side of the House have quoted Professor Hall and Justice Heath—two people. None of them have quoted those judges at the coalface who sit in the District Court every day and deal with those people who present a threat to their victims on a daily basis. It is hard too to work out what Labour will do with this legislation because it has not said as yet. If Labour members are going to oppose it will they be opposing it because in their view it does nothing or will they be opposing it because of what they did in 2007 which did nothing? Those members cannot call it flimflam and they cannot say that it does nothing now if it really changed something back when they altered the phrase “risk” to “real and significant risk”. This legislation lines up very much with some of the changes that the Labour Government made earlier in its tenure. One of the changes it made of course was to take the time threshold for parole down to one-third of the sentence. Recently in the last few weeks we have seen Mr Shipton and Mr Schollum released on parole after serving just over 3 years of an 8-year sentence. They follow long after Mr McNamara who was released after serving about one-third of his sentence. Mr McNamara was not a prisoner who showed exemplary behaviour. Members may remember that he was the prisoner who fathered a child while he was behind bars—sentenced under the Labour Government—and then used as the reason for his parole application the fact that he had a child and wanted to be released so he could be with his child. That is the way Labour views the judicial system and the way it should operate. 
We have to remember too that under Labour we ended up with a system that in the last 12 months has seen 79 people charged with committing murder while out on bail. Who in their right mind believes that the place for accused murder offenders is out in the community? We heard a salient example from the ACT Party—an extreme example but salient—of someone committing further crime while out on bail. The previous Minister of Justice said it is not easy to get bail but we know that just about every offender who appears before the court does get bail. In fact the vast majority of prisoners who apply for bail have it granted. We know that a significant number of those people go on to offend while out on bail. We know for instance that while accused murderer Chris Kahui—who was later acquitted before the court—was out on bail for murder he breached his bail conditions on four occasions. We also know that the five offenders accused of the murder of Navtej Singh are out on bail and they have also breached their bail conditions. We know as can any idiot watching the television screen that the nature of that offending was something that happened spontaneously; it was out of control. We now know that those people are out on bail and we now know that they have breached their bail conditions on several occasions. When we talk to the District Court judges the Crown prosecutors the police prosecutors and the police who have to enforce the curfew conditions of offenders out on bail they say: “For goodness’ sake change the law.” The National Party had the courage of its convictions to campaign on that and it will do it. 
I will finish with a couple more points. National members have been accused of jerking around with the rules procedures and conventions of this House by bringing this bill before the House under urgency. We want to look back at what the Labour Government did under urgency. I will never forget standing here and listening to Labour members put through the bill that retrospectively OK’d $800000 of taxpayers’ money that was taken away. As my colleague Simon Bridges will know I have spoken to and interrogated a hell of a lot of people who have told lies and porkies in front of me. I remember watching Dr Cullen and I remember thinking to myself that there was a guy—and all his body language indicated it to the House—who did not believe a damn word he was saying. He was wrong to do it. That showed that the Labour Party is prepared to pour scorn over taxpayers and over voters; it does not care. Well here is National which is listening to the voters. Here is National which is prepared to put its money where its mouth is. Is it good legislation? Let us hear Labour members give 10 good reasons why they are not going to support it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to be able to speak on the Bail Amendment Bill while David Garrett is still in the House. The member’s speech in this debate was the first time I have heard him speak. I congratulate him on now being a member of this Parliament. Coming in as the spokesperson for the Sensible Sentencing Trust he has come in with an agenda; that is fair enough. But I listened very carefully to Mr Garrett talking before the election about the “three strikes and you’re out” policy—a very strong ACT policy. Up and down New Zealand people listened to what he said. Those who voted for ACT heard it. They did not hear what he said after the election: that this policy should it be implemented would have no impact on the number of people going into prison for another 15 years. I say to Mr Garrett that that was not an upfront truthful approach to the people of New Zealand. That was not what ACT candidates said on the hustings where I was. That was not what ACT candidates said. Not for one moment did they believe that if this policy were implemented somebody might be affected by it only in 15 years’ time. All I can say is that that is not a straightforward way to start one’s career in this place. 
I listened to Chester Borrows and I ask why he is not the Minister of Police. He should be the Minister of Police. He has a lot of information and a lot of knowledge. I believe he would be a very fine Minister of Police but he was shifted to one side. I have to correct him however on one thing he said; when it comes to the justice area perhaps he is not so well informed. He raised the issue of people offending on bail. I suggest he reads this bill. I point him to page 4 of the explanatory note of his Minister’s bill where it states that offending on bail under a Labour Government was reduced—not increased but reduced. I point him to page 4 and ask him to have a read. It shows the drop in offending on bail under a Labour Government. The impression the member left for the public was that offending was going up and was out of control. That is not what is in his own Minister’s bill. 
There is no doubt that law and order was a major election campaign issue. In fact a campaign to make it a major election issue started I think almost 2 years before the election. It seemed that the National Party had decided that if it could not buy the election then—along with its backers those who control the media and those who own the media—it would scare the voters into its camp. As so many commentators and academics have said whipping up law and order as a political issue is very much like using race as a political issue. We know how successfully the National Party used the race issue against Maori to lift its poll ratings: it almost won the 2005 general election by whipping up the race issue. Everybody on the National front bench—with the exception of Christopher Finlayson but including John Key—jumped on that race-based campaign. Those members had no qualms about taking the poll gains that Don Brash brought them with that campaign. Of course once John Key became the leader he then decided he needed to broaden his base so he popped down to McGehan Close and found a nice Maori family who became the poster for his now broadened approach to New Zealand. But National members banked the race-driven poll ratings; they never repudiated their basic assumptions and they moved on to their next target which was to whip up the same response on law and order for the 2008 election campaign. 
Do not get me wrong: safety in our community is very important. Every murder is a tragedy and every assault is wrong. Family violence in this country is a national disgrace. Street violence is unacceptable. The tools we use in this country like most other countries are a combination of legislation education and enforcement. We use these tools to try to combat crime in our society but the tools have to be effective. I say to Simon Power for whom I have great respect that this bill is not an effective legislative tool if it is intended to put more people in prison. That is the basis on which he has put up this bill—to put more people in prison. But this bill will do nothing of the sort. He is talking about a handful of people at the margin. 
David Garrett 
: 10 percent. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The advice I received as Minister of Justice is that we are talking about 10 more people— 
David Garrett 
: You got it wrong in 2000—what’s changed? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I tell Mr Garrett they would not have all been murderers or even have committed violent crimes. Ten more people by 2009 would have been in prison and 40 more people by 2011. 
You see the change to the Bail Act in 2007 was never about putting more people in prison. The changes made by Phil Goff in 2000— 
David Garrett 
: It was about remanding dangerous people— 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I tell Mr Garrett that I am correct. The changes made to bail law in 2000 by Phil Goff were real big changes. They were significant. The change made in 2007 was not about putting fewer people in jail—and I will go over that in a moment. That was not the purpose. 
This bill is just flummery and that distresses me. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Just flimflam. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is just flimflam as my colleague says. The 2007 amendments were about clarifying the bail law. They were never about remand beds. Mr Power has read his very short bill but I am surprised that he has not read the explanatory note. The explanatory note was probably written by the Ministry of Justice because it would have given him this advice. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask Mr Garrett whether he is listening. It states: “The amendments [of 2007] were intended to clarify the law rather than make any significant changes.” 
Why did we need to clarify the law? Well it became quite obvious. The ministry’s advice was that we needed to clarify what was considered a risk under the previous risk threshold. It came out of case law—out of a Court of Appeal 2002 decision the  
Queen v Hines 
. In that case it was stated that to amount to just cause to continue detention the risk should be “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk”. On the basis of that and other decisions we decided on advice to use those words in the amendment of 2007. 
It was not about more people or fewer people going to prison. That is why it is flimflam to be making this change under urgency. I tell Mr Power that this bill makes very little difference to the status quo. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: We won’t be voting against it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Therefore we will not be voting against it. It makes very little difference. It is flimflam. I believe that if the member had really wanted to make a difference then he would have picked up some of the tough measures that exist and are in law now. One of those is the two-third parole provisions. 
David Garrett 
: Pick up the phone! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Bail Amendment Act 2007 is passed I tell members of the House. I tell Mr Garrett that the law is passed. It need only be triggered by an Order in Council. It would make a significance difference. I say to Mr Garrett that the ACT Party as a coalition partner should put pressure on the National Government to implement that legislation. An Order in Council could be drawn up today could go through Cabinet on Monday and the Governor-General could sign it off in the afternoon. It would make a significant difference for the safety of people in New Zealand. But the National Government is not doing that. It wants this piece of flummery to be its flagship legislation. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is my great pleasure to rise in this House to speak in favour of the Bail Amendment Bill. It was good to hear the Hon Annette King say the Labour Party will support this bill. It shows quite clearly that Labour admits that it got the bail law absolutely wrong in 2007 when it voted to change it. Labour did not know what it was doing then and now it will not be opposing this bill which will change the law. I commend the Hon Simon Power for his courage in bringing before this House our first piece of legislation to toughen up the criminal law in this country and to bring it more in line with what the people want to see. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: This member’s easily pleased! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I tell the Hon Darren Hughes that I come to this House with a lot of experience in the bail laws. I have prosecuted and been involved in hundreds of bail hearings both before Labour’s law change and after and I have learnt a bit about this law and what it means with the life experience that I have. 
All I would say about the Labour Government’s amendments to the bail law in 2006 and 2007 is that they made it easier for crims. I say to the Hon Annette King when she talks about 10 cases affected that I have prosecuted at least 10 cases that were fine calls—where the judges made it very clear that because of this change made to the law in 2007 they were letting the people out on bail. I say also to this House that the measure by Labour when it amended the law was entirely fiscally driven. It was not about justice or about criminal law; it was entirely fiscally driven. 
I say to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove that I am glad he is still a member of the House. He shows that a little bit of knowledge is a very dangerous thing with his comment on Justice Heath in the Kahui case. Yes he was right; the learned judge did say the law made no difference. But what cumulatively the law is and what the various judges in this country have said is in fact expressed in the most influential commentary on criminal law in this country  
Adams on Criminal Law: 
 “Judges have expressed different views of the effect of the statutory amendment;”. It cites many cases that were in favour of the no-change position; but then goes on to say: “Others consider the amendment has set a higher threshold for refusal of bail.” That is actually what it did do in the District Court. The High Court judges did not know what the Labour 2007 amendment Act meant. This Government is changing the law back. I commend this bill to the House. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I believe that this bill should be renamed the “Wasting Parliament’s Time on Meaningless Legislation Bill”. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: In urgency. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: And we are doing it under an urgency motion. Again there is no opportunity for comment by the public. There is no ability to scrutinise this bill and say how effective or ineffective it is what it does or how it could be improved. There is no chance given whatsoever. This is another case of turbocharged legislation. It is a glowing example of the tough strong National Party. This bill has minimal effect but it is absolutely essential that it is rushed through under urgency. I want the Minister to take a call—certainly when we have more discussion in the Committee stage—to explain why this bill is being rushed through under an urgency motion. I think it is an insult. It is an insult to this Parliament but more important it is an insult to the good people of this country who are denied the opportunity to come to the select committee. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: “Sir Richard” shouldn’t treat us like this. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right. I am sure there will be people who support this bill; they should be given the opportunity to come to the select committee and make comment on it. 
But—and I think more important—people should also be able to come and say how they believe the bill could be improved: suggest things they think could be better and other actions this Government could take to improve the bill or to live up to the Government’s promises of getting tough on and cutting crime. I cannot wait to see the crime rate drop dramatically in this country in the next few months under a Labour Government—I am sorry; I meant under a National Government. It did actually drop under a Labour Government. That was a slip of the tongue but the crime rate did drop under a Labour Government. I cannot wait to see how under a National-led Government the crime rate will drop. This is a glowing example of the National - ACT - Maori Party Government having no substance and no style of doing things. A myriad of meaningful pieces of legislation could be before this House. We could be having a question time where we in Opposition could be fulfilling our role of holding this Government to account for all the terrible things it has done. 
Moana Mackey 
: That’s why they’re doing urgency. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right; this is why we are under urgency. Why do we have this flimflam piece of legislation before the House at the moment? Why are we going through every single stage at this point in time? What would we normally be doing? We would be having a question time. We would be asking the members on that side of the House why the Government has slashed KiwiSaver why the Government has provided tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of modest income earners and families and why the Government has brought in the 90-day bill without taking it to a select committee. Why has the Government done that at all? 
Hon Simon Power 
: I thought we were on to the bail bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Members will see how it all comes together. I thank Mr Power. If he follows this he will see that it will come together very soon. In response to Mr Power who is wondering why I will suggest what the National Government which is looking towards a brighter future could have done. It could have build on better legislation—on legislation introduced by the Labour-led Government. It could have built on paid parental leave. It could have built on 4 weeks’ holiday early childhood education apprenticeships KiwiSaver Working for Families and much much more. Instead it did not. 
When I chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee— 
Moana Mackey 
: The heydays. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That was in the heydays. I acknowledge that at times Chester Borrows was on that committee with me and I acknowledge that working with him now on the new Justice and Electoral Committee— 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: So lucky! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —he often makes pretty meaningful contributions. 
Moana Mackey 
: It’s nice to see Mr Worth awake. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Dr Worth is also on the committee and that is very good as well. I know that Chester Borrows as chair of that committee will comment on how impressive it is to see submitters come to select committees and be given—[ 
Interruption 
]. Well that is right. But I know that Chester Borrows would have liked and enjoyed people coming to select committees. The Law and Order Committee chair—who is the Law and Order Committee chair? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Sandra Goudie. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly. Under the expert stewardship of Sandra Goudie—oh that is why the bill did not go to a select committee; I get it now. I am sorry but I get it. The Government could have sent the bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee where I am sure Chester Borrows would have been happy to have it. I think that every chair of every select committee and any member of a select committee would acknowledge the committees’ robust debate and input—be it positive or negative—and how effective it is to have that submission process. To deny that process just because the Government has no confidence in the chair of its select committee is absolutely ridiculous. This bill should have gone to a select committee because I know that meaningful input from the public and from organisations would have only enhanced this bill. So why is the bill being rushed through? Why are the public organisations and the police not being given the opportunity to comment? 
In respect of Labour’s Bail Amendment Act 2007 which this bill seeks to repeal Justice Heath actually recognised that it did not raise the test; it was more a codification of what was practised. Remand figures—if I can talk about remand figures—show that the prison population has not decreased. In fact despite the 2007 amendment to the Bail Act—and I have some figures here that I will share with the House—the remand population totalled 1733 and comprised 21 percent of the total prison muster. By July 2008 remands had increased by almost 6 percent and constituted 23 percent of the total prison muster. So the Act certainly did no harm as the National Party is claiming; it really just shows that this bill is meaningless. And this bill does no harm. The harm as I said before is in its not going to the select committee and in the wasting of good time. The bill does not achieve anything. 
It is lightweight; it is a slogan—a slogan piece of legislation. It is a hoax on the public and it is another example of sloganeering where National is grandstanding on what is essentially just a repeal of the clarification of what is current practice. This is the National practice of smoke and mirrors. If National really wanted to get tough on crime it would bring into further effect the two-thirds parole law that Labour has already passed. 
Moana Mackey 
: When will the Minister do that? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I ask when the Minister will do that. Instead this bill is about the scoring of political points; it shows the wishy-washy sloganeering electioneering method of the National Party. National’s claims that this amendment will make it easier to get bail are not supported by remand figures. I look forward to members on the other side of the House in upcoming debates actually clarifying for this House what this bill will achieve. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I am surprised. I may be new in this House but I am surprised that the Labour Party seems to have forgotten that we have had the biggest submission from the public: it was called the election and those guys lost. Law and order was one of the major points on which New Zealand voted against Labour. 
I rise in support of the Bail Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill is to put public safety first. Fifteen thousand people marched in South Auckland to say that it is not right that people like Navtej Singh Joanne Wang and Yin Ping Yang died at the hands of people who had been bailed. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
MELISSA LEE 
: I will reiterate what I said before the lunch break— 
Hon Members 
: No! 
MELISSA LEE 
: Perhaps you have short memories; I will just remind you. You keep saying that public submissions were not made— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday and the day before we had long dissertations from the Deputy Prime Minister interrupting speeches when the word “you” was mentioned. I think it is only fair that if the Government wants to play that game all through the urgency motion the Opposition will respond. So I am doing that now. 
Hon Simon Power 
: In reference to the member’s comments I remind him of course that we had the same problem with Ms Pillay as you will recall Mr Assistant Speaker because you were in the Chair at the time. The Opposition did not interrupt her speech at that point. The member knows that the interruption of another member’s speech needs to be for a significant point of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Could I take this matter a stage further because at times when listening to these speeches and occasionally with some of the points of order there is a little bit of a problem about the ruling that has been given over many years on this matter which is worth exploring. 
There are two ways in which people use the word “you” in conversation and in speeches. There is the sense where we use the word “you” when it is referring to you and in the House that means you Mr Assistant Speaker. It cannot actually mean “you Mr Power” although if one says “you Mr Power” then that is actually slightly different. It is quite clearly not “you Mr Speaker”. However also in absolutely normal English usage the term “you” is meant as a substitute for “one”—in other words a general person who is not a specific person. I have listened to speeches a couple of times when people have used “you” in that respect. It is actually a bit trivial to raise a point of order when people have used the word “you” in that context or other contexts. “You did this. You said that. You you you …” is clearly referring to “yourself” but if it is used in the innate general sense of “one” or a person then it seems to me it is not worth pulling up the business of the House for interruptions. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Each member has made a very good point. It is not acceptable to use the word “you”. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen makes a good point—that in fact there are many uses of the word. I tend to be reasonable with its use because we have some new members here who need to learn the rules. But in response to the Hon Simon Power I say that simply because people do not object at the time it can only be taken to mean that they accept the rules. If people object they should say so at the time. An old pearl I learnt in history some years ago is “silence means consent”. 
MELISSA LEE 
: I support this amendment bill because we should never again allow the senseless killing of people like Navtej Singh. He was a hard-working father husband and son working at his liquor shop minding his own business behind his counter when people walked into his shop and shot him dead. Joanne Wang was run over while she was trying to stop the people who had snatched her bag. The bastards ran over her while her son watched her die. 
What about the Korean tourist killed in Nelson by Hayden Brent McKenzie? McKenzie was already serving a life sentence for murder when he killed Jae Hyeon Kim in 2003. Kim’s body was not even discovered until October this year. What anguish his family must have gone through not knowing and then to discover he was killed by this very hateful person! 
I would like Opposition members to read the victim impact report to see what kind of damage these criminals do to innocent families. Perhaps they do not actually have the emotions to understand what it is like to be a victim. I mentioned it in my maiden speech— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That is very patronising. What would the member know about anything— 
MELISSA LEE 
: I have worked as a reporter and I have worked as an adviser for the police in Auckland. In my experience and from the things I have heard the police say and watch them do I know they are chasing the same offenders over and over again—offenders who have been bailed. That is a waste of the police’s valuable time. We need to protect the hard-working law-abiding citizens of New Zealand instead of protecting the rights of these criminals. 
As I said and as the Opposition keeps forgetting we did not have public submissions apparently. But as far as I am concerned we had the biggest public submission on 8 November. It was called the election and the people of New Zealand said no to Labour. One of the very very important things on which they voted against Labour now in Opposition was the law and order issue. More than 15000 people marched in South Auckland because they were sick and tired of 9 years of non-performance by the then Government. Has the Opposition forgotten that? We are here doing something instead of wasting the time of this House and taxpayers’ valuable money so those members should just accept it. We are here to do a job and we are doing it. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Getting tough on crime is always the hallmark of a new Government. If we roll the clock back to 1999 one of the baby steps of the new Labour Government at that time was the introduction of the Bail Act 2000. Eight years down the track we have amendments proposed to get even tougher on crime by amending that 2000 Act. The effect of the Bail Act 2000 was immediate and severe. Between March 1997 and March 2007 the sentence muster increased 35 percent from 4493 to 6053. During the same time however the remand muster increased a massive 214 percent from 550 to 1724. 
Seven years down the track conventional wisdom assisted by case law suggested that the original 2000 Act should be refined to clarify that the risk should be more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk. It is a sensible suggestion one would think to articulate a clear and concise interpretation of the law. So last year the 2007 change was made to better clarify the law in line with case law on the subject particularly the Court of Appeal’s decision in  
R v Hines 
. In introducing the concept of a real and significant risk this brought the legal consideration of bail into line with how the Department of Corrections currently does its risk assessment reports. Again it was a useful initiative one would think to see links being made between two justice sector agencies. 
Perhaps the most salient point of the 2007 legislation was the obligation it placed on the police to provide evidence to the court on risk. Why is that so important? The onus to show one’s evidence means there is a process to counter any possible bias or prejudice. Decisions about granting bail are therefore made on the basis of evidence and a robust process. The responsibility to prevent prejudice or bias being of undue influence is vital in order to counter the problems that have emerged when there have been any elements of discretion in the system at large. 
The unintended consequences of the use of discretion in the criminal justice sector is an issue that has concerned the Maori Party but also is an issue of concern to many other commentators in the sector. The recent work undertaken by the former Government called Effective Interventions describes the fact that four to five times as many Maori as Europeans are apprehended prosecuted and convicted; six to seven times as many Maori are given a custodial sentence or were serving prison sentences; and 11 times as many are remanded in custody awaiting trial. To break the remand statistics down further in 2003 while 10 out of every 100000 European people were remanded in prison the figure for Maori was 110 out of every 100000. But it gets worse. Last year’s report by the Ombudsman Mel Smith which investigated issues involving the criminal justice sector revealed that there has been a marked increase in the volume of offenders who have been remanded in custody. Between 1991 and 2006 the number of remands as a ratio of all inmates grew from 9.7 percent to 20 percent. 
These statistics are all going in the wrong direction. Twenty years ago Moana Jackson in his groundbreaking research  
The 
Maori and the Criminal Justice System: a new perspective—he whaipainga hou 
 recorded that when all necessary variables have been considered Maori record instances where their sentences or the rejection of a Maori-based alternative can be attributed only to judicial insensitivity and prejudice. Ten years ago a joint Te Puni Kokiri and Ministry of Justice study found that the court system is meaningless to many Maori; too many Maori are receiving poor-quality legal advice; prosecution practices for Maori differ from those of non-Maori; lawyers court staff and the judiciary have been found guilty of culturally inappropriate behaviour; Maori offenders are receiving inappropriate sentences; and imprisonment has been proven to be ineffective. 
Less than one year ago the Ombudsman suggested that a royal commission of inquiry was urgently required to undertake a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system. The reason for his call for an inquiry is spelt out in black and white in the programme for action for Maori in the Effective Interventions programme pursued by the previous Government. In that report a specific recommendation was introduced to investigate the impact of the exercise of discretionary powers in the criminal justice system. The Ombudsman and the Chief District Court Judge have both publicly supported the value of the real and significant provision. Their argument is that without this provision too many people are remanded into custody unnecessarily and this is particularly of concern for people who are facing low-level charges or non-custodial sentences. 
Given all this background the proposal to remove the words “real and significant” from the Bail Act reverts the legal position back to that prior to 2007 and provokes further questions. Why would one want to remove specificity from legislation to deliberately return to the concept of risk and with it the attendant problem of loose interpretation? Why when the Ombudsman and key justice sector agencies all appear to agree that there is an element of discretion that works against Maori outcomes in the justice sector would anyone seek to take the risk to introduce the possibility around even more discretion? 
There is a very key issue that I believe every member in the House and every party represented would absolutely agree on. That is the fundamental importance of public safety. We must not expose the people to any element of risk and we must do all that we can do to restore a sense of peace within our communities. But we cannot agree to legislation that invites loose interpretation or an element of subjectivity or discretion when there is a real alternative in sight. That alternative was to tighten up the law and to make it more specific by defining risk as being real and significant as the 2007 amendments did. That was why when the amendment to clarify and tighten the provisions came before the House last year as part of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill the Maori Party supported the legislation. We supported that legislation then because we wanted to ensure that offenders are not unnecessarily remanded in custody rather than on bail. Our policy position has always been that we seek initiatives to lower the incarceration rate and to reduce the use of prison as a response to offending. We want to protect the public from harm and the clarification of real and significant risk does that in our estimation. 
But we are also keen to engage in a much wider debate around the Government’s law and order policy and we anticipate that Minister Sharples in his capacity as Associate Minister of Corrections will be an active participant in that debate. The debate must consider these three issues posed by the Ombudsman last year: the wide philosophical issue of what is the purpose of a remand and whether and when bail or custody is appropriate; that the increase in prison muster is undesirable in terms of the impact on offenders and families; and the demand for increased Government expenditure on prisons. The overrepresentation of Maori should be an area of significant focus. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 7 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a first time. 
Second Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank members of the House for their support for the Bail Amendment Bill despite some initial criticism from the lead Opposition party. I am pleased to see that sense has prevailed and that it has decided to vote for this legislation. Of course any position taken other than that one would be completely unsustainable in the medium to long term with the wider New Zealand public so in my view the right move has been made. It was interesting though that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and the Hon Phil Goff could not quite bring themselves during their first reading speeches to say how the Labour Party would be voting on this legislation. It was left to my good friend the Hon Annette King who was placed in the difficult position of being third speaker to have to declare after all that to-ing and fro-ing that “We won’t be voting against it.” I am delighted that sense has taken hold in the Labour Party and that it will be supporting this legislation. 
As the House is in urgency and this is a relatively simple bill I do not intend to talk for long at this point. But I will address one or two things that were raised by members opposite in particular during the first reading. In particular I will address Mr Cosgrove’s point about the length of this bill. I say to the honourable member Mr Cosgrove that the bill is short because it amends only one section of the Bail Act. That section is the main provision governing the decision as to whether to grant someone bail or remand that person in custody. I know that the member considers himself to be a bit of a fighter in this regard so I hope he will take the time to understand the legislation that he comments on from time to time when it comes before the House. 
As well as the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Annette King the member also raised the issue of Justice Heath’s comments and clarification around the tests for and provision of bail. [ 
Interruption 
] I take the Hon Annette King at her word; I refer these comments then to the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. The High Court has actually been divided over whether and to what extent the real and significant test changed the threshold for remand and custody. Members opposite were right to refer to Justice Heath’s comments on and discussion of that issue. However for example I am sure members opposite will know that Justice Gendall in the Crown and Williams 11 November 2007 granted the defendant bail “if only because of the rather more stringent test provided in the Bail Amendment Act.” This bill is designed to make it crystal clear what Parliament’s intention—not judges’ interpretation but Parliament’s intention—is in respect of the bail legislation. That is why I am pleased that such a large majority of the House has considered this legislation worthwhile to support. 
This bill does arise from a difference in opinion about what the law on bail is intended to achieve. As I said earlier although the members opposite have referred to the very honest explanatory note on the front page of this bill where it states: “The amendments were intended to clarify the law rather than make any significant changes.” what all three of the front-bench members of the Labour Party failed to do was to read the next sentence which states: “However the New Zealand Law Society the Police Association the Police Prosecution Service and a number of High Court judges have all said these changes have made it easier for defendants to get bail.” It would have been helpful if they had read the full passage. 
Bail is one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system. It impacts on the safety of the community and the integrity of the court process. It goes without saying that it is important to get it right. That is why this clarification is so definitely needed. In a civilised society people charged with criminal offending as I said in the first reading have certain rights. They have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty and the right to their liberty. However as I said earlier there comes a point where an individual’s rights must give way to those of the wider community. In an individual case the court is in the best position to decide when the risk that a defendant poses to the community and the administration of justice outweighs the defendant’s right to liberty. The court receives a range of information about the defendant from both the prosecution and the defence. That includes information about criminal history any history of breaching bail or court orders any history of offending on bail and information about the defendant’s personal circumstances such as family and living arrangements and employment. 
The Bail Act as originally enacted recognised that the court is best placed to make the decisions on bail or remand. The Act gave the court a wide discretion simply requiring the court to consider whether there was a risk the defendant would abscond interfere with witnesses or evidence or offend on bail. It was up to the court to decide whether the defendants’ risk justified remanding them in custody. In 2007 as part of the criminal justice reform suite of changes to three or four Acts—legislation that had in its explanatory note a stated desire to contain the prison population and that included the changes to bail I say to Mr Goff—the previous Government limited the court’s discretion in two ways. 
First the previous Government prevented the courts from remanding a defendant in custody unless he or she posed a real and significant risk—quite different from the legislation that Phil Goff often proudly tells the communities of New Zealand that he was responsible for. He was responsible but since that time the legislation has slid well away from the tests and standards that he set as Minister of Justice during the third term of the previous Labour Government. Second the previous Government limited how the courts could take breaches of bail conditions into account. Under the 2007 amendments breaches could be taken into account only if they were relevant to assessing a defendant’s risk. The effect of those changes on judicial behaviour is unclear. In particular the High Court has been divided on whether the real and significant test reflected existing judicial practice or raised the threshold for remand in custody. However it seems clear from the statistical changes that the result has been fewer people being remanded in custody. 
This bill repeals the real and significant test restoring the court’s discretion to decide whether a defendant’s risk is unacceptable. We trust in our courts to make the right decision based on a full assessment of the relevant information. Equally significantly this bill also restores the court’s ability to remand a defendant in custody as a sanction for breach of bail conditions. As I have said before in the first reading of this bill this bill is not all that the Government is doing in regard to bail. We will be taking a close look at the bail system to make sure that it achieves the level of safety the public expects and deserves and that it contributes to an effective and efficient court system. 
I finish by saying that despite all the yelling and screaming by the Labour Party members in their objections through the first reading of this bill we are delighted that they have seen the error of their ways and learnt from their mistakes and that they will be supporting this legislation through its stages. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The Hon Simon Power quoted a submission when he talked about the notion that High Court judges were split in their opinions. He quoted one judicial decision but I point him away from Justice Heath to the case outlined by colleagues the  
Crown 
 v  
Hines and others 
 where the Court of Appeal the higher court in the hierarchy implicitly agreed with the High Court that to amount to just cause for continued detention the risk that the defendant may interfere with the witness should be as stated: “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk.” Those are the words of the Court of Appeal the higher court in the hierarchy. So whether or not there are different views on the High Court bench and the member—being a lawyer I am not—would understand the hierarchy of that court system the higher court in the hierarchy the Court of Appeal held the same view. 
The reason Labour will not vote against this legislation is that it makes no significant change. That is the truth; it makes no significant change to the legislation. When or if this is passed in the next hour day week or months—depending how long we are here for—I do not believe that New Zealanders as a whole will feel any more secure than they do today. I am pleased that Mr Power stated that there are other things the National Party is planning in respect of law and order; we will wait with bated breath. 
Hon Simon Power 
: You won’t have to wait long! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He says we will not have to wait long. We would not have to wait for any time at all if he and his colleagues would pick up the phone ring Government House and ask the Governor-General if he could pop down here to sign off the Order in Council to trigger the two-thirds parole provision. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Why didn’t you go? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: We are not in Government—you are! 
Hon Simon Power 
: It was there for 3 months. Why didn’t you go? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Power has forgotten that if he takes the pay and takes the warrant as Minister of Justice he also has to take the responsibility and ultimately the flak. I say to the Minister that he is in Government. I cannot ring the Governor-General and ask His Excellency to pop down and I cannot give the Governor-General an Order in Council. But Mr Power could do that without any bureaucracy and without any time at all not even impinging on the time frame or scheduling of this Parliament because the Act is passed. It requires mere triggering through an Order in Council. 
Now the two-thirds parole provision that would do something substantial today. 
Hon Simon Power 
: All in good time. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I ask the Minister how much time? When is it—today? We heard Melissa Lee who apparently has a monopoly on sympathy and concern for victims. I say that is arrogant; I say that is patronising. Maybe when she has spent more than 5 minutes here she will know that every member of this Chamber has empathy and concern for the victims of tragedies when they happen out there. When the member has been here for more than 2 minutes she might lose the arrogant edge. I note that even her colleagues would share with me a sympathy and concern for victims. She does not have a monopoly on that. I ask the Minister of Justice when we will get a substantive action from the National Government that is not political piffle and propaganda as this legislation is. 
This legislation is designed so that National Party members can beat their chests to the public and say that they have done something in their first 100 days in Government knowing that it is meaningless. I ask Mr Power when we will get to the parole legislation. When will he ring the Governor-General? The phone is on the hook and the telecommunications work. Mr Brownlee could pop down there between lunch and afternoon tea and knock on the door. He could immediately trigger that substantive legislation. I assume that it would be supported by the Sensible Sentencing Trust the ACT Party and most of the parties in this Parliament. It would be supported by us because we passed the Act. I would like to know when we are going to see something substantive come out of the National Party. 
This is not substantive legislation. When we talk about the length of it maybe I should explain in slightly more detail what I mean. There is no substance to it. There are four clauses. There is no meaning to it. It contradicts people like the Ombudsman and the view of Justice Heath and it contradicts the view of the Court of Appeal. If we are going to play knock for knock with the odd High Court judge then go to the Court of Appeal the higher court in the hierarchy we see that it contradicts their view. It contradicts the view of the many case law and common law precedents that have been set to provide more certainty more consistency and more precision around what “risk” meant. I fail to see how one could make an argument against the definition of “real risk”. Does that mean we argue for “unreal risk” or “substantial risk”? Does that mean we argue for a lesser risk? That does not make sense. 
This legislation is about Mr Power saying to the communities that bail was easier to get than before. The remand figures show that that was not true. Even his own bill as Annette King referred to shows that the number of those offending whilst on bail went down under the previous Government. This is a bit of political propaganda so National members can all go out to their constituents after they have had their Christmas feed and say that they have done something. Many constituents do not have a legal frame of reference or perhaps a legal qualification to be able to look in depth into legislation although judging by the simple nature of this bill from “Simple Simon” they could probably get it in 5 seconds. They may well be hoodwinked for a time that this is something substantial and gritty. I tell Simon Power that we will wait to see the practical results of this legislation and when the next set of bail figures come out and the next set of figures after that and beyond I will look forward to questioning Mr Power and his ilk and to Mr Power trying to justify what material difference this legislation has made. 
This legislation is a hoax. This is really a hoax and in many respects it is a tragic hoax. Indeed the election provided a vehicle where people voiced their concern on law and order matters. We saw victims in the media express and note the tragedies that had occurred in their lives. The National Party promised huge results and very quickly. Its members promised real substantial and gritty legislation. To kick off that programme we have this which is propaganda. It is absolute propaganda. Those victims are out there—perhaps some of the victims that Ms Lee seems to have a monopoly of all knowledge on— 
Chester Borrows 
: Mr Speaker— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: False start Chester. Not only does Mr Brownlee—who was shadow Leader of the House for 9 years—not know the rules and obviously Mr Power’s tutorials using Little Golden Books and visual aids for Mr Brownlee did not work but that legend in his own lifetime Mr “Burrows”— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Mr Borrows. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —Mr Borrows does not know the rules either. The victims that Ms Lee referred to were crying out for gritty and substantial legislation based on National Party promises. If those victims are listening I say to them that they can have that today. They can have that immediately with a phone call from Simon Power that triggers a two-thirds parole scheme. They can have that now. The question for Mr Power is why he will not do that. If he wanted to he still could ram through this piece of flimflam and piffle and also ring the Governor-General to put through the parole legislation. He could do that as well. He could say: “OK we are going to ram through this bail propaganda this political pamphlet. But I am going to go down and ring the Governor-General today and put the parole provisions in place.” I ask Mr Power if he will do that today. The silence is deafening. 
Ms Lee may wish to go back to telephone the victims she represents and tell them that Mr Power has the power to trigger that parole legislation today but refuses to do it. He refuses to do it. She may then want to explain to those victims why it is that Mr Power will not exercise his ministerial prerogatives and put through substantial law and order legislation as passed when Labour was in Government. I ask Mr Power to consider it again. He may want to take another call in the Committee stage. Will he ring the Governor-General now and pass the parole provisions? 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I want to make two or three points in respect of comments made especially by the last speaker. I think it was a real shame to witness what happened when a new member of the House was making some very salient points in respect of this matter. Ms Lee was referring to an incident she had referred to in her maiden speech which was about a home invasion. In her speech just before lunch she came to a point where she was referring to her own experience. She caught herself and it appeared to be from an emotive point of view. Straight away those three in the front row over there jumped in and tried to turn the knife and she was dissuaded from what she was about to say. They were saying: “Oh you have the market cornered on victims.” and all the rest of it. She was about to amplify that but they turned her away from doing so. 
We all bring something to this House. We all bring experience to this House so she intended to bring before this House her experience in relation to this matter. The lack of respect shown to a new member by members from that side of the House is completely indicative of where they are and it shows the shallowness of their understanding around these issues. 
At lunchtime I wandered across the road to the High Court and I listened to the returned verdict in the Jhia Te Tua case—a case that got right to the heart of provincial New Zealand of gang activity and of offending in this country. That particular case turned the former Government’s mind round in relation to gangs. Its gang strategy that had been abandoned at the end of 2004 was all of a sudden picked up again. Legislation was introduced to the House in a rush because those members wanted to be seen to be dealing with it. 
Today Labour members want to be seen to be supporting the Bail Amendment Bill but they have done nothing but scoff about it since it was introduced this morning. They have given every reason in the world as to why no one should support it but they will vote for this bill for political purposes. It is not for any other reason whatsoever. They know that if they do not support this legislation there is no way they can stand on a stump or in a public hall or speak to a policeman a defence counsel or anybody else and try to explain to them that they have their heads around criminal offending in this country. 
I look forward to seeing them support this legislation. I would love for them to support this bill for the right reasons but they will not do so because they do not know what the right reasons are. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I begin by picking up a couple of comments from Chester Borrows. The reason this side reacted as it did to Melissa Lee was that she arrogantly assumed that nobody on this side of the House could empathise with victims. I have had relations killed by people acting illegally. I can empathise and I do not need to be told by one of the member’s colleagues that I do not understand how a victim feels or how the family of that victim feels. 
We had this speech from Melissa Lee. It was straight off the campaign trail and it was exactly what she had told the people of New Zealand: tomorrow—with a National Government—these things will never happen again! The rhetoric was: “We will never again have to see a case like Navtej Singh.” As a former police officer Chester Borrows knows that that is rubbish. Chester Borrows knows that the laws we pass in this country do not determine when a homicide will happen. I tell Ms Lee to use the empty rhetoric for as long as she as a member feels that that is appropriate but to know that if she has been telling her constituency that they will hold her to the expectation that all of these crimes will disappear tomorrow. 
The member knows—if she knows anything at all and maybe she does not yet—that the Bail Amendment Bill will do not one jot to protect a single New Zealander from homicide committed by a person on bail. The member Chester Borrows knows and the Minister himself knows that this legislation will have the most marginal effect of anything that happens in terms of protecting the community from crime. It provides for 10 extra remand beds in the next year. Each year 15000 people are remanded in custody on bail and at any one time there are 1800 people. This will affect 10 of them. The 10 people if that figure is indeed correct will be those whose level of risk is the most marginal. That is what this bill is about is it not I ask Mr Power. It is about those grey areas the marginal areas the areas where we really cannot tell whether the person will be a risk. That does not include alleged homicide offenders. That does not include people who have committed serious crimes. 
Let me ask the Minister another question. We are supporting this legislation—or we are not opposing it—because it does not make any real difference. It actually reinstates the legislation that I passed in 2000. After 2000 the Court of Appeal decided that the word “risk” without any qualification was a little vague. Therefore the court decided that it would interpret what the law said. Mr Power as a lawyer knows that when we pass law the impact that that law has depends on the interpretation of the court. 
This is what the Court of Appeal said in 2002 in the Hines case: “… to amount to just cause for continued detention the risk that a defendant may interfere with a witness”—but it could also apply to committing another crime—“should be more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk.” So what the Government is doing in the House today is taking the law back to my law. The interpretation of my law is that of the Court of Appeal in  
R v Hines 
 and therefore we have exactly what we have now—that the interpretation of the court is that it cannot be a nebulous risk; it has to be a real one. 
I ask which member of this House would say that we should make a decision to put a person in custody based on a nebulous risk—one that we cannot determine. The Minister in charge of this bill who is a lawyer would stand proudly behind the view that people are innocent until proven guilty but we qualify that by saying that we must protect the safety of the community. That is what I did with the legislation in 2000. In fact Mr Power knows that I reversed what his colleague Mr Ryall put in the legislation. I said that we judge a person’s risk on what his or her track record has been. I stated in the legislation in 2000 that if a person has been a hard-core and repeat offender then the onus of proof should change. It should change I say to Chester Borrows from the police having to prove to the court that it is not safe to have that person in the community to that person having to prove to the court that he or she is safe to be in the community. That is what made the difference. That is the really important law on bail in this country. That is what saw 2000 more people being held in custody while they were awaiting trial. That was the hard legislation I say to Mr Garrett. That was the tough legislation not this flimflam that we have in front of the House today that does not change things one iota. 
I say to Mr Power that this bill is simply window dressing—the accusation made against Mr Power by the pre-eminent expert on sentencing and criminal law at Otago University Professor Geoff Hall. It is window dressing. Why are we sitting here under urgency passing legislation that is simply window dressing? If the Minister wants to do something then why does he not go to the Governor-General today—this afternoon—and say that he has the Bail Amendment Act 2007 which states that anybody serving a short-term sentence will have to serve that sentence in full and that anyone serving more than 2 years will have to as a minimum do two-thirds of the sentence? That will be tough. That will put a few more hundred maybe a few more thousand into prison I say to Mr Power. His Government can do that right now. If the Minister really thinks he wants to be tough then why has he and his Government not taken that action rather than coming into the House saying that the Bail Amendment Bill is his top priority? This bill will not make any difference. It does not change the law. It might put 10 marginal people or 10 beds into the remand system out of the 15000 who go through it. Why is the Minister wasting the time of the House? I will answer that question because the Minister has his head down—he knows the answer. This is all for show. He is the show pony of the House today. He is there to persuade Melissa Lee and his other colleagues that he is tough. He is tough on something that makes no difference. 
I turn my attention to ACT for a moment. I went through the election campaign and the ACT hoardings—all over Botany all over Auckland and all over the country—that were saying “zero tolerance for crime”. The ACT Party told us: “Three strikes and you’re out—25 years without parole.” and everybody said: “By God they are tough. Gee they will really sock it to the criminals.” Then the day after the election I was listening to Radio New Zealand National and heard David Garrett speaking. He was asked whether this policy would have a horrendous impact on the prisons. “Oh no” he said “because it is not retrospective. It does not come into effect for 20 years.” I wondered what I was hearing. This is electoral fraud like the country has never seen before. The ACT Party was saying how tough it would be and the day after the election admitting that its tough law would have no impact for 20 years. 
Mr Garrett has thought about this a bit further because I later read in one of the newspapers that it is not 20 years—that was a mistake—it is 15 years! There will be no impact for 15 years. Here we have a Government supported by a tough law and order party that has just committed the greatest electoral fraud this country has ever seen. The greatest electoral fraud this country has ever seen—the promise was “three strikes and you’re out” but the day after the election that all changed. There was not a word from Mr Garrett when we were on a panel together debating the issue during the campaign and not a word before the election but after the election he admitted that his law would have no impact for 15 years. 
I ask Melissa Lee whether her constituents would want to wait 15 years before this measure has any impact. Now that she has heard the argument does she understand that this failed bill is nothing more than flimflam nothing more than window dressing? 
I am serious about protecting the safety of New Zealanders. My track record can be seen—the Bail Act the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. They were opposed by Mr Power’s party. And when I raised the matter of the Bail Bill Tony Ryall said it was too tough. So those members opposed it and they opposed the Sentencing Bill and the Parole Bill. 
This Government was elected on a lie—that it would make a difference that it had a plan. It had no plan; it still has no plan. That is obvious from this legislation and the sentencing legislation—it is all a fraud. 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 Labour has reverted to its old form. When those members have nothing substantial to say what do they do? They launch a personal attack. 
Is it not strange that the Hon Phil Goff and all his colleagues are attacking this bill as being a showpiece with no substance yet they are voting for it? Why are they voting for it? They should show the true spirit of their position. Suddenly the Hon Phil Goff has come into this House and said that this bail law is not tough enough. Well after 9 long years—9 long years—in Government and after losing the election suddenly those members have woken up and they have come back to the House to say they would have done a lot better. 
I will share some personal observations. My hard-working knowledgable and intelligent new colleague Melissa Lee MP is a lot more in touch with the New Zealand public than the Hon Phil Goff is. At a public meeting during the election campaign the then Minister of Justice was trying to tell people that rising crime was a figment of their imagination. He was telling them that New Zealand is safe when none of the people in the audience were feeling safe. I am not too sure what mandate and what message he has that makes him feel he is in touch. I can assure him that Melissa Lee is really in touch with not just Korean and Asian people but the New Zealand public as well. 
Before I sit down I congratulate my hard-working and stick-to-his-promise colleague the new Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power. What did he do? He went out and campaigned on a promise to bring in a raft of legislation to fulfil the promise of our leader the Prime Minister to make safe communities a priority. I am so glad that today I have had the opportunity to take a short call to support this great start to the National Government’s promise to return safety to our community. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to respond firstly to the Hon Phil Goff because before the lunch break he and his colleague the Hon Annette King accused me of “electoral fraud” which is fairly close to that forbidden “l” word. It certainly needs a response and I will give it now. I have learnt that if not the “l” word then certainly looseness with the truth is the case around here. 
I did not speak the day after the election as the Hon Phil Goff said; I think it was a week after it. The reason for my comment about an impact being felt in 15 or 20 years was that I spent considerable time drafting the draft three strikes bill to avoid the injustices that have occurred in similar legislation in California and elsewhere. I went there last year specifically to look at what had been done in that state and in other states and to find out firstly if it was true that people were going to jail for life or 25 years for shoplifting burglary or whatever and secondly if it was true to find out why. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who paid for that trip? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I did—and the Sensible Sentencing Trust. I thank the member for reminding me. I am told that to accuse me of representing the Sensible Sentencing Trust in this House is improper but I will respond to it anyway. I am an ACT MP. I am not the MP for sensible sentencing as I think the Hon Phil Goff described me. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I thought legally you were their representative. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I am a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust yes and quite proud of it. 
In California I found that the law in that state had caused injustice and I bent over backwards to draft a law that would avoid any possibility of that happening here. In the draft bill that will be referred to the select committee under our agreement with National it is simply impossible for somebody to go to jail for life for shoplifting. However right at the end of the campaign it was pointed out to me that I had gone a bit too far and had made the bill a bit too liberal. It was explained to me and I had not actually worked it out myself before that the reason for the comment about the impact being felt in 15 years was that if the three strikes bill was passed tomorrow and the day after that somebody became a one-striker—let us say for an aggravated robbery—under current law that person would get let us say 7 or 8 years in jail. If that person came out 7 years hence and did it again the day after that then he or she would get another 7 years or perhaps 10 years. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You never told the people this before the election though did you? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: No I say to Mr Cosgrove; I had not worked it out. I had been too liberal in trying to avoid the unjust consequences that have happened in California. The reason for my comment about an impact being felt in 15 years was that the first three-striker would not in fact come before the courts for 15 years but he or she would have spent the previous 15 years in jail. To that extent that comment is correct but it was an attempt to make the bill more liberal that caused it. 
I commend both the Hon Phil Goff because he is right and the previous Labour Government. A lot of what the Labour Government did—prior to 2002 anyway—was excellent stuff and that is a good reason for me to support our returning to the status quo Bail Act of 2000. The Labour Government lost it a bit after 2002 but prior to 2000 it did a lot of good things. I should also mention that during the lunch break one of the Labour members asked me whether I was planning to be National’s poodle in this House. I have been called all sorts of things and even compared to certain breeds of dogs but a poodle is not one of them so the answer to that question is no. I commend the Labour Party for supporting the bill although as Mr Power said it could hardly have done otherwise. 
Finally I will make a comment about the Hon Annette King— 
Hon Annette King 
: Be nice. Be sweet. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: —certainly—who made a comment about the decision in  
R v Hines 
 and the changes made in 2007. As I understand our constitutional arrangements it is not for Parliament to follow what a judge has done not even the most august judges in New Zealand. Under our constitutional arrangements Parliament is sovereign. It is not for Parliament to say that as the Court of Appeal has come out with a decision Parliament had better change the law—the reverse is the case. Parliament is supposed to lead the courts. Having said that I can do nothing other than congratulate the Labour Party on supporting the bill. I commend the bill to the House and may the House continue to pass it with the most possible haste. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Here we are once again under urgency passing through all stages yet another bill that the public of New Zealand will have no chance to scrutinise or debate. We have done a complete 180 because we have just finished debating two appalling bills that will cause serious serious damage to our economy and families. We have now done a complete 180 to a bill the Bail Amendment Bill that does absolutely nothing. I ask members to remember that we are in the 100 days of action! I am sure all New Zealanders are feeling turbocharged because we are in 100 days of action right now! Law and order was one of National’s key campaign planks on the election trail and what is the first law and order bill that comes before this House in the 100 days of action? What is the first legislation from this tough-on-criminals good-to-victims National Government? What is it? It is a bill that does nothing. It is a flimflam bill that does nothing. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Watch this space. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am watching this space I say to Mr Power and at the moment it is completely empty. That is a shame because the member could have been a very good Minister if he had been given more senior portfolios. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Steady on! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am feeling generous. We have been in urgency for a few days I am sleep-deprived and I am feeling generous. He should have been the Minister of Police. He would have been a good Minister of Police. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No that would have been Chester. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh Chester Borrows. Minister of Corrections would have been good for Mr Power. Chester Borrows would have been a fantastic Minister of Police. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Because he knew everything. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well of course. When we were in Government and Mr Power was in Opposition he knew everything about corrections. We knew nothing and he knew everything. So if he knew everything I ask why National did not make him the Minister. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Because he was too scared. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well that is right. I will come back to the bill. Some of the contributions from the National members were interesting. Apparently because they now form the Government we no longer need select committee processes. Craig Foss called it “the select committee of New Zealand”. That is an interesting constitutional change in New Zealand’s history. 
I welcome Melissa Lee to the House and I congratulate her on delivering her maiden speech. She is certainly an extremely eloquent and intelligent member of this Parliament and I welcome her here but again she suggested that somehow because National won the election no bills need to be referred to select committees any more. The people of New Zealand should be very worried about this new approach to open honest transparent inclusive Government. Apparently according to the new National - ACT - Maori Party Government “open transparent and inclusive” has meant shutting the public out of discussion on every single piece of legislation that has come through the House in its first week in office. If that is the way it intends to go on then I think this will be a very very short-term Government indeed. 
The reason Labour will not be opposing this bill—but we are going to have our say—is that during the election campaign law and order was an extremely hard-fought issue. National members of Parliament got up on the hustings and accused Labour members of doing nothing. They said we had done absolutely nothing. Let us look at that claim because of course it was the present leader of the Labour Party the Hon Phil Goff who made all the changes to our sentencing bail and parole Acts that toughened the law. Tony Ryall who was the Minister of Justice before Mr Goff said that our laws were too tough. Do members know that under Mr Ryall’s and National’s laws for preventive detention—the sentence given to our worst offenders those on whom we have to put a sentence saying that if at any point in their lives they breach it they will have to go back to jail; effectively a life sentence—criminals could be sentenced to preventive detention only on the second offence. They got the first one free under the National Government. But as we know that would not have been the first offence; it would have been just the first time they were caught. Who knows how many offences these people got away with before they were sentenced to preventive detention. 
It was the Hon Phil Goff and the Labour Government that said no that if preventive detention was to be an effective sentence it needed to be available on the first offence if that offence was serious enough to have brought that sentence down on the second offence. It was a Labour Government that did that. It was a Labour Government that got rid of Tony Ryall’s automatic release at two-thirds. Under the last National Government criminals were automatically released at two-thirds of their sentence and it was the Labour Government and the present leader of the Labour Party the Hon Phil Goff when he was Minister of Justice who said no it should be based on the risk to the community. 
The context in which we find ourselves having this debate is that of a National Party that consistently when in Government did nothing on law on order and did nothing to increase sentences against a previous Labour Government that stood up and made the tough choices because we do not like the fact that there are a lot more people in our jails. We think it is a failure of our society that we have so many people in our prisons. Every person in our prisons is wasted opportunity. But we stood up listened to the public and said we know that people want to feel secure. They want to feel that the sentences people are being given for the heinous crimes they commit reflect those crimes. We listened and we did it. 
If we compare that to this first law and order bill of the new National - ACT - Maori Party Government what do we find it does? It does nothing—absolutely nothing. Not one person will be safer because of this Bail Amendment Bill. Nothing will change and it just goes to show that here we are all over again facing the same tired rhetoric from the National Party. 
Why did Melissa Lee not draw the comparison or connection between the two bills we have already passed? One of those raises taxes for our most vulnerable families and reduces their income after retirement. The second was the 90-day probation bill which means that people can be fired for no reason—perhaps their boss does not like them—and they could be sent back on to a benefit. And she does not draw the connection with crime. She does not think that the policies in the legislation they are passing—policies that will whack our working families in the guts that will lower incomes for those who are most vulnerable and that will drive people into poverty—might be part of the reason that people commit crime in the first place. 
David Garrett 
: Wrong! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: “Wrong!” says Mr Garrett. Apparently poverty has nothing to do with crime! When are we going to have a law and order debate in this country that deals with the causes of crime? Do members know why we do not? It is because there is no immediate political pay off for doing that. We are not going to see the benefits of the last 9 years of a Labour Government that poured money into early childhood education into at-risk families and into dealing with children in the first 3 years of their lives which we know is when they are set on a path that it is very difficult to bring them off without huge resources. We are not going to see the benefit of that for perhaps another 5 10 or 15 years. 
Let us look at where we are now. We are dealing with 17 and 18-year-olds who are committing heinous crimes. These are the 17 and 18-year-olds who were born after the 1991 “mother of all Budgets”. These are the children whose families were plunged into poverty overnight by a National Government whose slogan was “going for growth”. What was the slogan from Mr Key in the Speech from the Throne? It was “going for growth”. If we never learn anything in this country if we are going to drive our poorest families into poverty if we are going to remove people’s rights at work as the National Government has just done today if we are going to raise taxes on the lowest families and cut KiwiSaver if we are going to cut growth because we have just got rid of research and development tax credits—which the rest of the world has—just like the National Party has done today if we continue to do these things we will be here in 20 30 40 or 50 years’ time having exactly the same conversation and passing legislation that will do nothing to prevent crime. It might make victims of crime feel better afterwards—this bill will not—but we pass legislation to make the victims of crime feel that there is appropriate punishment for what has happened but none of this will prevent there being victims of crime. 
Ultimately that should be what all legislation in this House is about. All legislation in this House should be about preventing more victims of crime from being created. How do we bring these young people off the path to crime and when will we give up the short-term reactionary knee-jerk responses—those responses that do nothing to actually lower the crime rate those responses that do nothing to bring those young people who are on that path off that path and into a productive life those responses that do absolutely nothing to reduce our crime rates and keep our communities safe? I say to this National Government that it is on notice because the last time it was in office it plunged families into poverty and everything we have seen in this urgency motion shows that its intentions have not changed that its colours have not changed and that it will do exactly the same thing again. And it will take a new Labour Government to mop up its mess again. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the 1991 so-called “mother of all Budgets” which came 5 months after that lot got the boot in direct response to the state it left the country in. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 The heart of what we are debating today is public safety. As someone who has returned from London I say that the previous Labour Government has made New Zealand less safe. I say as a young woman who walks the streets of central Auckland that New Zealand is not the place it once was. That is why I stand to speak today and am proud to support this legislation. 
I want to deal with a couple of things. The first is that at the heart of this Bail Amendment Bill we are dealing with risk—the level of risk. Phil Goff stood up before and said that this bill is just window dressing. I make the point that clearly he did not think that in 2007 because why else would he have passed legislation changing the law? So yes he is reversing his position and I think he needs to stand up and explain why he is doing that. 
The second point is that a number of reputable organisations believe that as a result of this law change it has been easier for people to get bail and we need to acknowledge those organisations’ concerns. The New Zealand Law Society the Police Association the Police Prosecution Service and a number of High Court judges have all said that it has been easier to get bail as a result of that law change. I stand here and say that we should be listening to those organisations. They know what they are talking about. The Labour Opposition might not but they do. We should be listening to those organisations that believe that the law passed by Labour in 2007 has meant it is easier for people to get bail. 
The third point I want to make today is to ask those members opposite that if they do not believe this legislation is making any change whatsoever then why are they supporting it? 
Hon Annette King 
: Because it makes no difference. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: Exactly—why are they standing here supporting the legislation if they think it makes no difference? I will tell them why. They know very well that they changed the law and made it easier for people to get bail. New Zealand is a less safe place as a result of 9 years of a Labour Government. 
I am proud to stand here and to be part of a Government that believes in making New Zealand a safer place for all New Zealanders—like my constituents in Auckland Central—so they can walk the streets. New Zealand will be a safer place and I am proud to be part of a National Government that is serious about protecting the public. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 The second reading of the Bail Amendment Bill has been a very robust debate which is how we like it on this side of the House. I am sure many members on the other side of the House have enjoyed the debate as well and that is healthy for democracy. 
I congratulate Melissa Lee on her election to this Parliament but I say to her that one of the mistakes one can make in this place is to assume that other people have not had the same experience that we have had. People from all walks of life are in this Parliament whether they are in the National Party the Labour Party or any other party and we have all had different experiences. She should never assume that because we are in the Labour Party and therefore the member’s natural opponents people on this side of the House have never experienced sorrow despair or tragedy because that is not true. We have all had such experiences; let us respect that. When someone says “You won’t know what it is like to be a victim” that is not true. Everybody in this House at some time has probably been a victim of something so when someone says that it brings out the worst in people. That would be my advice to the member. 
The member also said the change to bail that we are making today will mean we will never again see a tragedy like the murder of a dairy owner in South Auckland. Well after this bill is passed today the Royal assent is given on Monday and it becomes the law when somebody is then murdered tragically in a dairy or on the street what will the member say to her constituency? National will pass the legislation and in 6 months’ time a tragedy may happen again but National will have passed the legislation. In a year’s time it may happen again after the legislation is passed. You see passing this legislation will not stop mindless senseless violence by people one cannot control. One has to have good law; I agree with that. But to think that the law itself will stop that kind of mindless violence is not correct. I think the member will grow to regret that comment because what is said in this House unfortunately becomes the record of this House and then is used over and over again—and we have all been victims of that. That comment will come back to haunt Ms Lee and the National Party because the Minister knows that when this legislation is passed it does not mean the end of mindless violence in New Zealand. I wish it did but it does not. 
Then we had Chester Borrows speak. He said National was supporting this bill because it wanted to be seen to be doing something. Well actually I tell him we are supporting it because it does not make any difference to what is happening now in terms of people going into prison. 
I tell Nikki Kaye that when I was the Minister of Justice I got the briefing papers as well. Our change in 2007 to the Bail Act was never about putting fewer or more people into prison. It was about clarifying the law. So it was not about suddenly seeing a whole lot of people going into prison or not going there. The 2007 amendment was designed to clarify the law because it was not clear and judges had made it clear to us that the law was not clear. In fact the estimate was that by 2009 there would be 10 extra people on remand in jail because of the change and they would not necessarily be 10 murderers or suspected murderers. They could be people charged with any crime for which they could be remanded on bail. The advice I got was that by 2011 there could be as many as 40 people affected by that amendment. So the issue was never about putting more people in jail or fewer people in jail; it was always about clarifying the Act. 
Pansy Wong said it took us 9 long years and we did nothing. Well for the information of this House I say the bail laws of New Zealand were toughened in 2000 by the Hon Phil Goff as Minister of Justice. That is quite clear and I listened to Rahui Katene’s speech where she pointed out what had happened since the bail laws were toughened up. She does not agree with what happened actually and that is fair enough. She thinks the bail laws became too tough. That toughening-up happened in 2000. The National Party members voted against the toughening-up of the Bail Act then. They did not agree with that. They said we were being too tough on people who would require bail. That was done in 2000. Then we looked at the need to clarify the law when the 2007 amendment was brought in. 
I now turn to David Garrett. He honestly said he had researched his “three strikes and you’re out policy”. He said he did the homework went to the United States at his own expense and that of the Sensible Sentencing Trust came back and did the work and then just before the election found he had got it wrong— 
David Garrett 
: Just after. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Just after the election. I do not know when the work finished then. So in the middle of the campaign the policy had been announced the billboards were already up and the member had made it clear that that was the policy—and just after the election he found out that he had got it wrong. It is good that the member did the work; that is very good indeed. I am pleased about that. But that is not the issue. 
The issue is that before the election the people of New Zealand were not told about the impact or the lack of impact of the very policy they went and ticked. They were not told that. So when my colleague says that this bill is an electoral fraud one has to admit that when the public is not told about the impact of a policy until after an election—just like the National Party has not told the public of the impact of the changes to KiwiSaver or the impact of its taxation changes—then one has to say that if it is not electoral fraud people were hoodwinked into believing that something was going to happen when something totally different from that is to happen. In fact we are on a go-slow on the policy that ACT campaigned on. 
David Garrett 
: It is going to the select committee. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I presume by that comment that when the member gets to the select committee he will change the measure and make it become retrospective because that is the only way he will be able to bring it in to do what he wants right now. 
Then we heard about how Parliament does not follow judges. The member is right; Parliament does not follow judges. Judges interpret the laws that Parliament makes. The reason why the amendment was brought in in 2007 related to the way judges were interpreting or thought they should interpret the principal Act. It was difficult to interpret and Phil Goff read out the comments that the judges made. So the aim of the change was to make the law clearer. That is our job: to make the law clearer so the judges can make the judgments that we require of them. 
As Minister of Justice I faced on a daily basis a barrage of questions on justice from the very effective then Opposition member Simon Power. I really look forward to being told what he is going to do with the justice portfolio. Of course there was the Ombudsman’s report into the criminal justice system. Of course that report is now with the Government and he is in the Government. I am going to be very very interested in that matter. In fact I have a whole series of questions to ask the Minister about what he is going to do with the Ombudsman’s report. I know that the Minister thought a lot of that report. He believed in that report and thought it was an extremely good report. Is that correct Minister? 
Hon Simon Power 
: Yes. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Is it a wee while since the member read it? 
Hon Simon Power 
: No. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think maybe it is because the Ombudsman said about the bail change of 2007: “I express doubt whether this amendment will have a major impact in reducing the number of custodial remands.” 
That is what the Ombudsman said of our change and the reason why we will not vote against this bill is that it returns the situation to what it was before that change. It was only ever going to have a marginal impact in terms of the number of people in custody. It was about clarifying the law so it makes very little difference at all. If the House wants to make the law less clear that is fine. It does not make much difference in terms of the beds in prisons. That however is the argument that the National Party went to New Zealand on: that the change we made had made it easier for criminals to be in society and that we did it in order to save prison beds. That is not true on the basis of the evidence given to the member as the Minister. It is not true according to the comments made by those who understand the 2007 amendment including officials judges and people in the Law Society. That is not the reason why the amendment to the principal Act was done. 
This bill is a piece of puffery and flimflam. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I respect the sentiments of the Labour members. They had 9 years to amend the law yet crime has increased. In those 9 years they did not do anything but National which has been in office for only 1 month has introduced this bill. I respect the sentiments of the Labour members and understand that that is why they are upset. 
There are really big concerns in the Indian community because over the last few years that community has faced three murders. Hard-working people hard-working Kiwis have been lost while working in their shops to earn bread for their families. In the case of Navtej Singh his family does not have a breadwinner right now and is really struggling to make a living. 
I support this bill because it is a great step. Within 1 month of becoming the Government National has introduced this amendment bill and the main objective of it is to protect the public and to give rights to the police and the justice system. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me some pleasure to rise to speak to the Bail Amendment Bill. The bill is interesting in that it deals with an important issue but in the end really does nothing about it. I think that is the essence of what the Opposition is arguing. 
Obviously the issue is important. I do not think there is anybody in this House—even the most liberal on penal policy—who regards seriously violent crime and indeed other serious forms of crime with anything other than abhorrence. Anybody here who read the material about the Nia Glassie case for example and many other cases over the years simply fails to grasp or understand how people can be so evil so cruel and so thoughtless about the actions they engage in. It is beyond the comprehension I think of anybody in this House to think about what kind of mind can bring itself to do that kind of action. Equally much less serious forms of crime can impact seriously upon people. Minor forms of burglary feel like a form of invasion for the individual. It is a disruption of one’s life. It is an invasion of one’s privacy. It can result in the removal of things that are perhaps of little material value but of great non-tangible value to families. 
People want to see those responsible for crime punished not least because the traditional reason why the State punishes crime is in part to prevent other people from punishing crime. It is to ensure that the Crown—the King or the Queen—keeps unto itself a monopoly if one likes on retributive power; otherwise we descend into a state of mutual retribution and endless cycles of retribution. We would also like to see more effective rehabilitation within the penal system yet I suppose we can say that successive Governments have failed to achieve as much in that respect as we would all like to see. I wish the new Government well with its plans for drug and alcohol rehabilitation within prisons. I hope it can get that kind of money for penal policy out of my successor as Uncle Scrooge. 
That is all well and good but there also is a lot of rhetoric on these issues that bears not a great deal of relationship to reality. There is an idea that simply by having ever stronger penal policy ever longer sentences ever more difficulty in getting bail and ever more difficulty in getting parole somehow or other these crimes will go away. I think Ms Lee fell into that mistake quite badly by arguing that this particular change—which as one can see if one stands not very far back at all is a very marginal change to the provision of bail—will somehow prevent people from committing serious crimes. Well it is most unlikely to do so. It is certainly most unlikely to prevent any first offender from committing a serious crime because the first offender is most unlikely to have the kind of record or the kind of experiences that will alert a judge to the possibility that he or she is likely to commit a serious crime if let out on bail. It will not necessarily prevent people from committing crimes after they are released from prison—prevent them from being second-time offenders—unless we say that for every kind of serious offence people are locked up for life and we mean life. If we mean that we had better start building an awful lot of prisons very quickly. That would create an awful lot of difficulty. 
All of those things really are true. As Annette King wisely said—and I think the Government would be wise to listen—making bold promises within a matter of weeks of becoming the Government that these kinds of actions will mean we do not have any more horrendous attention-grabbing headline-grabbing crimes that revolt the nation merely exposes one to enormous risk in the future. It means that even if we do not choose to visit those words back upon the Government the media will certainly choose to visit them back upon the Government at some point in the future particularly during the dead news season over the Christmas holidays and the new year when crime dominates the headlines on television and in other media because not a lot else is going on. That is why crime dominates in that period. It is not necessarily because there is more crime; it is because there is no other news for the media to cover. 
So what does the bill actually do? It basically is the equivalent of pressing the circle button on one’s Sky TV remote. It moves one back to channel 23 from channel 24 if one was on channel 23 previously. It simply removes a change and goes back to the previous law in terms of bail. What does that mean in practice? On the one hand it might mean slightly more confusion in that the changes introduced in 2007 were merely an attempt to clarify the intention of the law given the fact that certain members of the judiciary had arrived at certain views that did not seem entirely consistent with the law. But on the other hand there is a great deal of case law and many statements from judges already that can be taken as a guide and by and large the statements from judges on cases since 2007 have indicated that in their view the 2007 changes made very little difference to the interpretation of the law. In other words if we are to go by what the judges have said so far based on the 2007 changes we cannot expect the judges to make much of a change in interpretation based on this particular law. So again I say to Ms Lee that she should be very careful. 
Let us also remind ourselves of one quite fundamental point. Our system assumes that people are innocent until proven guilty. The presumption is that bail is given unless there is good reason in terms of the interests of protecting the public not to give bail. Otherwise one ends up with an increased risk of people who will be found innocent having spent considerable periods of time in jail. That of course is not a desirable outcome. People are innocent until proven guilty. 
Hon Annette King 
: 30 percent of them are not found guilty. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes 30 percent of them are not found guilty. That does not mean they are innocent of course; it means the Crown has not proven its case. 
But it is also very clear that sometimes people get it wrong. Sometimes people who should not be found guilty are found guilty. In the United States in particular a rather alarming number of people convicted of the most serious crime of all—murder—are subsequently cleared on the basis of forensic evidence. If they had been executed which is the law in most states in the United States the situation would have been particularly serious because it is rather hard to reverse an execution. It is a case of saying: “Sorry about that. We locked you up for 10 years which was bad enough but we’ve also actually topped you in the meantime so we can’t do very much about it at all.” 
We have to recognise that any of us in this room any of us in Parliament could find ourselves on a charge—not necessarily a serious criminal charge but even that is possible. Mistakes are made. Mistakes are made in the system. People are charged. If we have a system that does not provide bail at all then any one of us in this House is also exposed—seriously—to the risk of imprisonment perhaps unfortunately there is often quite a long time between charges being laid and the case actually coming to trial. People in New Zealand have made lots of money out of writing books about the injustices of the New Zealand criminal law system and people being wrongfully convicted. In some of those cases I am not always convinced by those books I might say but I will not go any further into those particular matters in case I commit an indiscretion—being a previous Attorney-General. 
There is a balance that always needs to be struck. The balance cannot be that we lock people up as soon as they are charged because that is to make assumptions that should not be made. Yes we have to somehow find better means of preventing crime. We are still putting far too little in the way of resources into trying to cut off crime at its roots. We need some very hard conversations in this country about what is needed in terms of the use of the power of the State in terms of early intervention and the power of State-supported community groups and other groups in terms of early intervention. I am not sure we now have that balance entirely right. 
But let us not rush off into rhetoric that somehow or other very minor changes of this sort will suddenly lead to a crime-free New Zealand. There was no past golden age when we had a sense of peace and community if I can quote Miss Katene nor was there a past golden age when there was no serious crime. Those ages have never been; they never were. We have had serious crime with us always and societies that have an extreme punitive approach do not have no serious crime at all. It is true that if we execute all criminals the rate of recidivism is quite low but beyond that nobody has found the perfect answer in these areas. 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 This is a new Government now getting on with the job in the first 100 days and rolling through legislation that is vitally important in order to keep our communities safer. The main objective of the Bail Amendment Bill is about making communities safer. It is about protecting the public from defendants who— 
Hon Annette King 
: For goodness’ sake stop reading the research notes. They are just rubbish. 
NATHAN GUY 
: No no; I am not reading the research notes I say to Mrs King. The objectives of this bill are actually very important. They are about making communities safer and about protecting people from defendants who are out on bail and who might be absconding or interfering with witnesses or evidence. That is why this Government is getting on with the job of making communities safer. It is vitally important. That is why members on this side of the House are supporting the bill and it looks like we have a great deal of support from across the whole of Parliament. That is why we are endorsing the second reading of this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 7 
Green Party 4; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Because this bill is such a small bill—both small in nature and small in substance—in addressing this clause I want to pick up on something that Mr Garrett said in relation to his party’s stance on law and order that I found astounding I must say. 
I think it was Mr Goff who challenged Mr Garrett in respect of his “three strikes and you’re out” policy. He said it was the biggest electoral fraud possibly in New Zealand’s history. People were told that after three strikes somebody would be inside for 25 years with no parole. The ACT candidate in my electorate Mr Aaron Keown rattled around the electorate with great aplomb and made that point. Mr Goff pointed out that after the election Mr Garrett who I am told—I ask the member to correct me if I am wrong—was at that time the legal adviser to the Sensible Sentencing Trust— 
David Garrett 
: A legal adviser. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —a legal adviser and a learned lawyer by his own admission I think. 
David Garrett 
: I didn’t say that. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well by Mr Hide’s admission. After the election he unveiled what the policy really meant which was that it would not apply or have any impact at all for 15 long years. That bowled everybody over including I suspect even the Sensible Sentencing Trust. Maybe the Sensible Sentencing Trust might want to ask for Mr Garrett’s salary back as a refund because then— 
David Garrett 
: I never got paid Mr Cosgrove. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh he never got paid—OK. He got paid to— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: They got value for money then! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes they got value for money. It was pro bono all right—serious “bono”. He then went on to tell us why he had told the people of New Zealand one thing before the election and another thing after the election and I wrote it down. It was he said because he had not worked it out. He had not worked out that the legislation is not retrospective. I will go through the same example he did. If somebody commits a crime and gets say 7 years then comes out commits another crime and gets 5 years and so on eventually he gets 15 years. He had not worked that out and he was a lawyer advising the Sensible Sentencing Trust! I am sorry but I do not accept the explanation. I suspect he is a bright guy. He has a law degree—I do not so I bow to his experience knowledge and expertise—he was working pro bono or otherwise for the Sensible Sentencing Trust and I see that its magazine that came out a couple of days ago was trumpeting this position. I do not accept his explanation. We worked it out in about 30 seconds. I think even National Party members worked it out. 
I say to Mr Garrett that he will regret that attempt to hoodwink New Zealanders. New Zealanders clearly read the billboards. The position was clearly enunciated by ACT. If it took him 3 months of an election campaign to get out the calculator and go 5+5+5=15 that says a lot about him. Maybe he ought to be a little quieter in this Chamber. His integrity is intact of course—no one would ever question that. But certainly one would now question that man’s judgment and certainly one would question his leader’s judgment in co-opting a person who made such outrageous claims to the New Zealand people simply to get votes who is here in this Chamber on the basis of what he had told people and who then broke that promise knowingly—in my view—after the election. If he could not hit 5 on the calculator then + then 5 then + then 5 and work it out— 
David Garrett 
: What promise are you talking about? What promise was that? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The promise on ACT’s billboards that this would happen now that there would be an immediate impact. At every candidates meeting that I went to people stood up and asked the ACT candidate whether that would happen and he said “Yep we are going to make it happen asap.” I invite that member to poll New Zealanders and ask them because that is the impression the ACT Party created. 
Hon Annette King 
: The candidates. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The candidates created it. Mr Hide created it Mr Garrett created it Sir Roger Douglas probably created it—every member of that party created the impression that almost the day after the election ACT would get some legislation up and bang it would come in and have an immediate impact. Then he says on radio and in print that actually it will not have an impact for 15 long years. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 During the first and second readings of this bill one of the common things that was said about its effect was that the community would be safer once it was passed. The bill will be passed today. No doubt the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power will have it ready for the Governor-General on Monday and it could be signed into law as soon as that. So what I really want from the Minister is an answer that defines for this House how the community will be safer after Monday. What difference will the passage of this bill make once the bill has the Royal assent? I ask the Minister to define for this Parliament so we can have it on the record of the House how the community will be safer. I think that is very important. Will we see after the passage of this bill fewer murders? Will there be fewer assaults? Will there be less violence? We need that definition because members in National have been programmed from new members through to experienced members like Nathan Guy. Those members who have just concluded their speeches have said that with the passage of this bill the community will be safer. 
That is a big claim; it is a major claim and New Zealanders will want to know how we can measure it. How can we measure the claim that when this bill is passed the community will be safer? That is a very important question I say to the Minister and I would like on the record how he will define that so we can measure his performance. That is not unreasonable because the National Party has made much of what it will do in the law and order area—how much tougher it will be and how it will ensure that the streets of New Zealand are safer for New Zealanders. We need the measurement of such a change because it is only by having that definition and that measurement that people will know whether what was said—and the rhetoric—on the campaign trail was right. That is the first thing. 
I wonder whether the Minister will also tell us how this bill will stop murders in the family environment. You see we heard from people today that this will stop murders on the street. Melissa Lee believes that this will stop murders in dairies and on the street and it will stop street violence. We have already asked for that definition but I would like to know how it will stop murders that happen in the family environment. Almost half of our murders now happen in a family situation and most of those people who commit murder have not murdered before. In fact about 16 women are murdered every year by a partner and about six men and 10 children are murdered in a family environment. So about 32 of the murders we have each year are committed in that family environment. The rest we would consider to be committed in a street or public violence situation. We have about 60 murders a year and have had for the last decade. There has been very little change in that time in the number of murders in New Zealand. So how will this change make a difference to that situation? One of the worst situations we have in New Zealand is family violence. How will the change in the bail law affect that? 
The next thing I want to know from the Minister is whether he believes that the streets of Auckland are less safe than the streets of London as Nikki Kaye said in her speech. She said that in London where she lived it was safer than it is in Auckland. I presume we could compare K Road with Soho for example. Well I do not know whether Nikki Kaye ever met the police in London but I certainly did. I went to Soho and I watched their video recordings of what happens on the streets of Soho and I can tell members that every few seconds there is a robbery an assault or a stabbing. That is not the profile of New Zealand so when extravagant statements like that are made they need to be backed up by evidence. So I want to know from the Minister whether he agrees with his member and whether he believes that the new bail law amendment will make K Rd safer than Soho. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to thank Opposition members for recognising me. My name is indeed Melissa Lee. I thank them for the lessons they have decided to bestow upon me in respect of my inexperience in this Chamber. However I remind those members that I have the right to comment on the issue and I was neither delusional nor arrogant in pointing out that we have a problem with criminals in this country. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You didn’t say that. 
MELISSA LEE 
: If members listened very carefully they would know that I did not say the bill would stop murderers. I said I would support the bill if it stopped another senseless killing—like the killing of Navtej Singh Joanne Wang and Madam Yang. Madam Yang was an 80-year-old woman who was murdered in her home. 
I also talked about my experience of home invasion. Yes Chester Borrows was right: I became rather emotional. This is the first day I have spoken in the Chamber since my maiden speech and I became rather flustered by members opposite—great! I thank members for making me nervous—I have subsequently been shoulder-tapped. I was the victim of a home invasion. When I spoke earlier I was not arrogant enough to think that I represented everybody in New Zealand; I was speaking from my experience. Two guys wearing black balaclavas came to my house and followed me into my garage. Those people were on bail when they committed that crime. If this bill can stop them from committing another crime then I will support it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 There are a number of questions I would like to put to the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power. The Minister ought to be quite well informed in this area; he shadowed it for 9 years or something close to that. So I presume that unlike his predecessor in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson he will actually take calls. 
My first question to the Minister is whether anything in this bill would have had any prospect at all of influencing the outcome of any of the cases raised by Melissa Lee. Were any of the cases raised by Melissa Lee ones that involved people on serious charges who were out in the community on bail where the marginal impact of this bill would have made a difference? I think that question is important because we are talking about this bill. I do appreciate the need for any New Zealander to feel safe in his or her home. A home invasion is a terrifying thing and I have sympathy for anyone who has gone through that experience. I am not knocking the previous speaker’s experience; I am just pointing out that her saying none of us knows what it feels like to be a victim is presumptuous arrogant and patronising. All of those things are fair criticisms. 
Secondly can the Minister explain why this bill is a priority? Yes New Zealanders are concerned about law and order but why does this bill need to be rushed through without a select committee hearing? Is the bill a priority because it will have an immediate and important influence on making the community safer? If that is the Minister’s argument can he explain to the Committee and the country how this will happen when the advice given to my colleague Annette King just a matter of months ago—by the same Ministry of Justice officials who are sitting at the front of the Chamber now—was that this might involve about 10 remand beds over the next year. Will this be really significant if as the law states at the moment the people whose cases might be influenced are those that involve less clear and significant risk than nebulous and insignificant risk? So is the nature of the people whom we are talking about—those who may be remanded into custody—such that a reasonably clear risk would be presented to New Zealanders and if he believes that can he provide the House with some evidence to sustain that argument? 
Does the Minister accept that the impact of this bill will be to take the law on bail back to where it was before the 2007 amendment? If so the case law that applied under the previous law will apply now. Does he therefore accept that that case law is set out clearly in  
R v Hines 
 in the Court of Appeal? That judgment says that the risk that the defendant may interfere with the witness should be “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk.” If that is the case how will the law now change in its interpretation from what it was before given that this bill will take us back to exactly the same law that we had and presumably the same case law? 
Were the Ministry of Justice people actually being really generous when they suggested that this change might involve the need for another 10 remand beds? And are 10 remand beds very significant when the number of people remanded into custody at any one time is over 1800? We are talking about well over 15000 people each year being circulated through the system and remanded into custody. 
Given that the bill states that the Law Society said the changes have made it easier for defendants to get bail can the Minister explain why this remark is not qualified by what the Law Society actually said. I think it was on the  
Close Up 
 programme that Jonathan Krebs who is the convener of the Law Society’s criminal matters committee said: “the threshold of the bail test has been reduced a little bit.”—a little bit. 
Hon Simon Power 
: So it has been reduced. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: A little bit. I am happy to take my seat if Mr Power indicates a willingness to answer all or even any of those questions. That would make a change from the other Minister who was in the chair. 
On the bill the Minister says that High Court judges have said these changes made it easier but he actually quoted very selectively. Justice Priestley—hardly a Labour-oriented judge given his background as an office holder in the National Party as the Minister in the chair will be aware—said it is clear that the threshold criteria when considering section 8(1) have not changed significantly. However of course Justice Heath said it “does not seem to me to put the test any higher than was under the previous legislation”. So there we go. A couple of High Court judges say there is not much change and those who say there is change say that there has been a little bit. 
Will the Minister acknowledge to the Committee that he is into window dressing rather than reality as he has been accused of by a professor at Otago University? Given that this legislation is patently window dressing will he acknowledge that it really does not change things? The Minister knows that in his heart; he will probably not admit it in the Chamber today but he knows that is the case. Why did he choose this legislation—as he said in the  
New Zealand Herald 
—as his top priority? 
I ask the Minister to explain something to the Committee—and to Melissa Lee because she will want to know this. The Minister has the immediate power through Order in Council to bring in legislation that has already been passed—after having gone through a select committee process—and that makes the minimum period before parole can be considered for any serious sentence at least two-thirds of that sentence. That means that people serving short sentences will have to serve the whole time so if he was going to be tough and really make a difference—actually this is a question that Mr Garrett should be asking him and maybe he will—why has he not chosen that as his priority? I say to Mr Power that it is sitting on the statute book now waiting to come into effect. Mr Power has said that this is really important and that the law is too lenient. I ask him why he has not done that as his priority. Secondly if that is not his priority I ask when he is considering doing that and what the reason is for his delay. 
I think members would agree those are all legitimate questions. I am happy to resume my seat and listen to the Minister’s answers on those questions. 
I emphasise that as this bill is not going to a select committee the only accountability the Committee actually has is what the Minister answers in the Chamber to questions legitimately put. I think members would agree that none of the questions I have asked are frivolous that all are pertinent to the impact of this legislation on the country and on community safety and that the Minister should be able to justify how this will make a difference to community safety. He has said that publicly but we know from his briefings that it will have a very marginal impact and a marginal impact on cases that were themselves very marginal. So if there was any real risk that would already be covered by the legislation. So we are talking about perhaps nebulous and insignificant risk as set out by Justice Heath. 
Why is this legislation the priority? Is the Minister misleading the country in suggesting that it will make the community safer? Were any of the cases raised by Melissa Lee relevant to the legislation passing through the House right now? I would really appreciate the Minister having the conviction to stand up and answer those questions. I give him now the opportunity to take the call. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 The Opposition is actually largely right: this measure will not reduce homicide by 50 percent or even 10 percent. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Or even 1 percent. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Or even perhaps 1 percent—that is right. I think I could even agree that the test was made a little bit more liberal; I can even accept that. 
I would like to give the Committee a few figures. Twenty-five percent of violent offenders reoffend while on bail. They do not necessarily kill anyone; probably almost none of them do. The reoffending rate for those whose previous major offence was rape unlawful sexual connection or attempted sexual violation is even higher: 27.4 percent 30.4 percent and 31.2 percent respectively. I am not a great numbers man—I do not have to be—but that means that out of every 100 people released on bail 20 to 30 reoffend depending on their offence or their past. If we can prevent even one of those who is released—who would otherwise not have been released as a result of the stricter risk test rather than the “real and significant risk” test—from killing someone or even raping someone is that not worth doing? 
Members should look at the case of Dean Wickliffe. He was a long-time loser. He was locked up in 1972 for murder. Later on retrial the crime was found to be manslaughter but significantly the court never let him out—the life sentence remained. Life sentences are available for manslaughter but are almost never used. Wickliffe finally got out in 1987 but within a very short time he was back again: a year later he was convicted of murder. He spent years and years arguing that he had been wrongfully convicted of murder in 1972. Finally the parole board said that he was right. One year later he killed someone. Sorry I should say that he was retried and acquitted. But as the Hon Phil Goff said quite correctly no one gets found innocent in this country. Acquittal is quite a different thing. 
Now Wickliffe is out again. He is out again “to care for his terminally-ill partner”. He is certainly not a nurse. He is not a hospice worker. Even his people in Maketu in the Bay of Plenty are “ambivalent about Wickliffe’s pending return. One said the community had done a lot to help Wickliffe settle into life outside prison but he had turned his back on them. ‘He likes to be a big hot-shot.’ ” I believe he is known as the “Big man” although he is about 5 feet tall. I hope I am wrong—I absolutely hope I am wrong. But Wickliffe is out there now and that frightens me. He is out there now on bail. If this proposed tightening of the test meant that some judge somewhere said “Well no—there’s a slight risk there; you’ve got to stay there.” I would feel a lot happier. So even if this measure reduced violent offending by a little bit—even by 1 or 2 percent—it would be a change worth making. 
But the Opposition is correct: in itself this measure will not reduce violent offending by a huge amount. It is very difficult to measure how much this will reduce it at all. A negative cannot be measured—it is very hard. But I would be much happier if Mr Dean Wickliffe was behind bars rather than in the community and if this change achieves that for others like him then it will have done something positive. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the member who has just resumed his seat David Garrett. I think he has put his finger on the nub of the issue which is that in itself the Bail Amendment Bill will not do a lot. In fact the very case he outlined—the kind of situation he outlined—is the exact reason why the last Labour Government changed the bail laws as soon as we became the Government and is the very reason we changed the Sentencing Act and parole laws the moment we became the Government: because we recognised the inherent unfairness and the danger to the community of existing legislation. But as I said none of us likes presiding over rising prison populations. It is a waste but at the end of the day the safety of the community and the safety of the public have to be upheld. It is important that when people come up for bail their previous history can be considered as an indication of the kinds of risks they might pose to the community if they were to be released. So strangely enough there is not a lot there that we disagree on and I think that the Hon Phil Goff who passed those amendments into law had that in mind when he passed them. 
But I say to members again that we cannot forget the other side of the equation which is that if we are constantly—to use a very overused cliché—the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than the fence at the top then parliaments in 20 30 40 50 or 60 years’ time will still be having these debates. There will still be far too many victims of violent crimes and nothing will change. 
I appreciate that this is not a large bill: it is fewer than 50 words I think if we take out headings and the contents page. It did not really need the contents page but that is all right—it is standard. I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power which clause in this particularly short bill will prevent crime. I ask the Minister which clauses in this legislation will prevent family violence. I reiterate that this is the first law and order legislation we are seeing in National’s 100 days of action; it is the top priority for the new Government in terms of law and order legislation in its first 100 days of action. It is significant: as a Parliament and as a country we can look at the first bill that comes up as an indication of the way that we will go forward. This is the bill that has come up first. I ask the minister which clause in this bill will prevent family violence and will encourage people to report family violence. I ask him how many crimes this bill will prevent. If this bill as he says will result in a large number of people being held in remand how much has he budgeted for that increase? How many extra beds has he budgeted for? 
I ask how he reconciles this legislation with the legislation his Government passed yesterday and today which increased taxes on the most vulnerable families and which took away the rights of workers in their first 90 days of employment to appeal against being sacked even if they were sacked simply because their boss did not like them or their partners. How does he reconcile that legislation with this? Does he agree with his colleague Tony Ryall who said in 2000 when Labour passed the Bail Act to toughen bail provisions that bail is a very important constitutional right and people should not have to be held in prison? The rhetoric that I heard on the election campaign certainly did not support that point of view. I think it is only right that as an Opposition party we come into this Parliament as a minority hold the Government to account for the rhetoric its members gave us during the election campaign and compare it with the reality of the legislation before us—the first law and order legislation of this new National - ACT - Maori Party Government. 
After going through an election campaign of fire and brimstone of hell to pay for criminals and of hell to pay for offenders this is the first piece of legislation we get. It really does not do much at all. It will not make a single person safer; a number of people have said that. We can play tit for tat over which justice said what and which academic said what but the fact is that this bill will not make anyone safer it will not live up to the rhetoric we heard during the election campaign and it is the role of the Opposition to hold the Government to account. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to address some of the questions that have been raised. I appreciate that although the Bail Amendment Bill is a short bill it is appropriate for the Minister to have a say on one or two things. I also appreciate the fact that my predecessor in this job often made the effort to respond to questions that were put to her when she was sitting in this chair so I am happy to do that. 
First of all I say it is our hope that Parliament will realise that it is its job to clarify the matter in respect of the interpretation of bail laws. It is important that this Parliament sends a message about any ambiguities that could be interpreted by different members at different levels of different courts. That is why I am pleased that the Labour Party has decided today to support this legislation: because if nothing else some of the issues of different interpretation that have been outlined by some of the Opposition members will hopefully receive some sorting out. In the end the matter of whether or not changes to bail contribute to the reduction in crime even in a modest way would have to be helped by clarification of and an end to confusion about the test that is to be applied in this area. 
The Hon Phil Goff made some comments in respect of the New Zealand Law Society’s criminal law committee spokesperson Jonathan Krebs who told the  
Press 
 on 20 November 2007 that changes to the Bail Act in that year had made it easier for people to get bail— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: A little bit. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No. Actually the quote I have here is “made it easier” for people to get bail; I tell Mr Goff that is the version I have in front of me. Yes the bar had been lowered a little bit he said but the safety of the community was still paramount and if a judge was concerned that an applicant might present a risk bail could be refused. That is why clarification is needed in that area. 
On the issue of the number of remand beds I say yes I have seen the advice that members are referring to around the figure of 10 or so beds. In fact I think I may have raised it in the House during the last Parliament. And just so that Mr Goff knows this I tell him I have been National’s spokesperson in the law and order area for only 3 years not 9 years. I know it feels like 9 years to members opposite but I have been there for only 3 years. But those members may be interested to know the latest figures I have available. As I said in the first reading initial Ministry of Justice figures talked about an extra 50 to 100 beds—maybe more. So we are talking about a reasonably significant change—well a change that is significantly more than the numbers that were indicated— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What percentage would that be of all bail remands? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Well I tell Mr Goff that he wanted me to answer questions and I am doing that in respect of matters around the number of beds. I hope that clarifies that issue. 
The other thing that I am concerned about is the practicality of the situation for individuals like members of the police and the Police Prosecution Service who on a day-to-day basis deal with the upfront implications of previous laws in this area. We know that it is the view of the police that in fact the law change did make life more difficult for them when it came to bail applications. We know for example from the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 21 October 2007 where this matter was written about that police prosecutors were shown a slide by Kelvin Campbell the legal adviser to the Police Prosecution Service. It stated that the Bail Act and Sentencing Act amendments were to ease concerns over prison numbers create new sentences short of imprisonment and make it harder for the police to oppose bail as a result of that. 
Frankly this is a time for us to tidy this issue up. That is why I am pleased that just about every party in Parliament has decided to support this legislation. It will make for a clarification of the issue. I think Dr Cullen’s contribution to the second reading debate was a helpful one. These are big issues and they are difficult issues; no one is saying they are easy. But at the end of the day if we can keep people off the streets who would otherwise have got bail by clarifying that test—thereby hopefully enhancing public safety—that cannot be a bad thing. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is not in the business of being in Parliament to make law that makes David Garrett feel better. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That has got to be a shock to him. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Ha ha! That is not our sole reason for being in Parliament. 
Moana Mackey 
: That’s not what you campaigned on. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: It is not what we campaigned on. Nor is it our business to be making law to make anybody feel better; we are here to make law that makes real change. There is an argument here as the debate goes on as to whether this legislation will do anything whatsoever. We are hearing from one side of the Chamber that it will do nothing and we are hearing from the other side that it might do a little bit. Either way it is an appalling way to approach legislation. We should not be wasting an extra day of taxpayers’ money on a Friday afternoon in having the whole House here to debate legislation for which there is no evidence of any description that it will actually do anything to keep people safer to make significant changes to the prison muster to keep dangerous offenders in prison as opposed to out to reduce crime under any circumstances or to impact at all on recidivism and reoffending. On that basis this is an absolute and utter waste of taxpayers’ time and money. Through this debate absolutely nothing will change and nobody knows—not even the Minister—whether this legislation will make any change anytime in the future. 
This is disgraceful behaviour and a disgraceful reason to be using the kinds of precious resources that our community needs when the community does need to be kept safer and the community does have real fears. Much of that fear has been driven up by political fearmongering during the election campaign. Law and order has been used for that purpose for quite a number of years but there are real concerns in the community and they should be addressed. 
So how will we deal with those concerns about reoffending reducing the amount of crime in our community and trying to keep people out of prisons? In many ways prisons are holding cells for the potential capacity of enormous development in this country particularly from a Maori point of view. Too many of our Maori people are in prisons for all the structural racist reasons that I set out earlier in my first reading speech and that Rahui Katene set out in hers. It is a huge waste of potential to have people trapped in our prisons but the law and order debate that is being held at this high level in Parliament and therefore filtered out into the community is one of doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. Of course as we all know that is the definition of insanity not rational evidence-based legislation and lawmaking. 
We need to change the debate and we need to change what we do to make this community safer. We know that if we keep people away from prison they are less likely to reoffend. We know that for a fact so surely there is room here for a serious discussion and serious debate and for legislation that looks at ways of keeping people away from jail because we know that if they stay away from jail they are less likely to reoffend. That is a means by which we can reduce the recidivism rate; it is a means by which we can keep our communities safer. But instead of dealing with legislation to keep people away from prisons we are debating legislation that will put more people in prison and we are somehow expecting despite the evidence to the contrary that this will keep our communities safer. 
It is of some interest—at least to me I guess—that this issue is not faced by New Zealand alone. New Zealand suffers from the problem of a failure both of the imagination and of rational evidence-based legislation in terms of finding the real solutions and of enacting and putting in place the real solutions to reducing offending and reducing reoffending. Australia is dealing with the same issues. It has recently had a number of law changes that have made it much harder to get bail over there and as a result its prisons are absolutely bursting at the seams. It is a particular issue in New South Wales. They are talking about having to build a new prison in New South Wales every 2 years just to keep the growing population of prisoners in jail. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am glad that the Minister took a call but I urge him to take another call and give a more comprehensive explanation to the questions he was asked. I acknowledge Metiria Turei’s speech because she made some extremely valid points in terms of the politicising of this really important issue the knee-jerk reaction and the going for the populist line on things. National has claimed that it would be tough and that this bill would be a really really important tool in terms of its commitment to dealing with crime. I actually think that National has almost committed itself to stopping crime in New Zealand—is that right—but by its very presence this bill implies that Labour’s 2007 amendment legislation had a detrimental effect on remand. By its very presence that has to be the case the Minister and the National Government are putting up. 
Labour knows that the figures show that that is simply not the case—that the remand prison population has continued to grow at a rate greater than the sentenced population despite the 2007 amendment to the Bail Act. In July 2007 remands which included prisoners held in police stations totalled 1733 and comprised 21 percent of the total prison muster. By July 2008 remands had increased by almost 6 percent and constituted 23 percent of the total prison muster. I agree with Metiria Turei that the measure of our effectiveness in crime prevention in New Zealand should not be in terms of the numbers of people on remand. But the Government’s argument is that this bill is so important—and this is what I still want the Minister to explain—that it has to be pushed through in urgency. 
I would very much like Sandra Goudie to take a call. As chair of the Law and Order Committee I believe that it would be very appropriate— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The law and order “tsar”! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Sorry the member was not listening; I will say it again: I would like Sandra Goudie to take a call on this bill. I am sure that she as chair of the Law and Order Committee—and I have sat very occasionally with Sandra Goudie on committees—like all other members values the input of submissions and the select committee process. I think everyone in this House would acknowledge that that process is a very good idea. We see that it is a very effective process. We see bills go to that committee that are at the very most thrown out that do not go forward. They may be unchanged but often and more appropriately they are changed because we get constructive ideas coming through. Those are not always criticisms; they are often technical points. Yes I hope Sandra Goudie is speaking to the Minister and I am hoping she can take a call. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Where is she going? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am not allowed to say what is happening now but I do hope she will take a call. 
I do not think the Minister has answered the question. In fact I made a note of one of his responses which was that part of the reason for the bill was to tidy up this issue. But I take Metiria Turei’s point. If we are tidying an issue up why are we in urgency depriving the public of a say and pushing through a bill that National and ACT it seems to me have acknowledged will really not have very much effect. 
I have not heard the Maori Party take a call on this. 
Hon Member 
: They did! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Sorry it did earlier. But if that is the case I am still completely perplexed as to why the Bail Amendment Bill is being pushed through in urgency. Given Labour’s 2007 amendment which was to clarify the law promote consistency in decision making and respond to judicial decision I would like to hear the Minister again explain how this bill will achieve that or improve on that. I think those are very important points. The Minister has talked about ambiguity and surely that scrutiny should have been made at a select committee. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Minister of Justice for taking one of what will be quite a number of calls I hope to answer questions put to him by members on this side of the Chamber and by the Green Party. I hope that David Garrett takes a call; I am quite enjoying his contribution here today. I believe that he is probably his own man but he might have some questions he would like to put to the Minister. He may even have some luck in getting some answers to them. 
I say to the Minister that he is certainly being a better role model than his colleague Kate Wilkinson who failed to get out of her chair hour after hour to answer questions. I think it is probably because the Minister knows that when a bill is taken through the House under urgency where there is no scrutiny then it is important that the members of this House have the opportunity to question the Minister and to get answers. 
One of the answers the Minister gave was I think partially in response to the question I asked: would he please define for Parliament and for New Zealanders how the community’s safety would be measured? The Minister said that the bill sends a message. But I say to the Minister that I do not think it is good enough for the bill just to send a message. I remember Clem Simich whom I am very very fond of say in 1993 that he would take a message to Parliament and 15 years later we still had not had the message even by the time he left. So for the Minister to say that the bill is sending a message is not a strong enough reason to have brought in this bill under urgency. I ask the Minister to tell us how we will measure the success of this bill because his members have been programmed to say that when it passes the community “will be safer” not “may be safer”. Examples have been given of how it will be safer; most of them did not relate at all to the bail Act changes. But National members have put those reasons up so I have to assume that the Minister or the research unit gave them the information or that it is what they said on the campaign trail. I believe that the Minister needs to tell this House and New Zealanders how we will be able to measure whether the community is safer because this bill will be passed by Monday. 
I also ask the Minister to table for us the advice he got from the Law Society the judges the Police Prosecution Service and the Police Association saying that the changes to the Bail Act in 2007 “have made it easier for defendants to get bail.” I have not seen the advice but it is quoted in the explanatory note on the bill. What I have seen and what I do have are the comments made by Jonathan Krebs on  
Close Up 
 on 19 November 2007. I do have that verbatim. He said: “The threshold of the bail test has been reduced a little bit.” That is different from what the Minister said that Jonathan Krebs had said so I would like the Minister to table that information. We will not be able to question the Law Society the Police Prosecution Service the judges or the Police Association because there is no select committee ability to do that. Therefore to back up what is written in the bill I think it is important that that advice to the Minister is tabled in this Parliament. I have only what is in front of me but the Minister obviously has more. 
I am not at all surprised at the Police Association. I understand the police. The police in most cases oppose bail; that is part of their job. They have gone out and done the hard graft. They have found somebody whom they believe is responsible for the crime and they are very determined to get that person into court. So I understand where the Police Association comes from but I have not seen that advice provided. I ask the Minister whether it is possible for him to table that information today or is it a collection of things sent to him that are hear say and not actually fact? I think that is important because in effect this will become our submission. The basis of the change that the Minister is making today according to the explanatory note is because of those comments made by those people. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I am just following on from my previous discussions. I was talking about the fact that in New Zealand the debate about law and order is stuck on retribution and punishment as opposed to dealing with the real consequences in terms of safety for the community and the real need which is to reduce reoffending and the recidivism rate. What we know of course is that what we are doing now—which we continue to do in this House—does not reduce the recidivism rate; it increases it and there is no debate in this Chamber or amongst the broader community to look at the alternatives the changes that we need to make to reduce reoffending and to keep our communities safer. 
In Australia and in New South Wales in particular they suffer from exactly the same problem—a massive increase in the number of prisoners due to toughened bail laws. Thousands of people are being held on remand as they await trial and that is blowing out the costs of the prisons. Over there they talk about holding a prisoner at a cost of about $200 a day. There is nothing in the prison process particularly for those who are held in remand to help them to deal with their reoffending whether it is in terms of rehabilitation or drug and alcohol treatments particularly in terms of treatment support. 
As is the case here very little is spent on rehabilitation or support for those who are on remand or even those who get bail. This is where there is a huge hole and others with more experience in the portfolio may want to make a contribution about that—that there is no real support for those who are bailed. A young person with a first offence may get into some trouble and run with people who are more dangerous older and more involved in crime then get caught for some kind of offence and get bailed to that same community of people—the same family the same home and exactly the same circumstances that brought him or her into that criminal activity in the first place. There is no provision for them to get any kind of support to deal with the issues that brought them there. 
For many prisoners drug and alcohol treatment is absolutely essential. Vast quantities of our prison muster have drug and alcohol addiction problems. Very few especially those who have sentences of 6 months get access to any kind of rehabilitation programme whatsoever. Then they are let back out into the community. And what do we expect as we do the same thing over and over and do nothing to provide any assistance? We expect that they will magically decide to change everything about their experience and their lives and find a whole new way of living. 
There is not only that. As some of my Labour colleagues have mentioned they may then go into an environment where they may well get a job which is often a life-saver particularly for these young guys to help keep them out of trouble. But what happens after 90 days? They will be fired and they will find themselves on a benefit and on a 13 week stand-down because as we have discovered the Minister of Labour has not been able to fix that problem because she does not understand benefit law. [ 
Interruption 
] National did not support the amendment to get rid of that stand-down. Young guys in particular end up on a merry-go-round of jail for further offending trying to get work finding themselves unemployed going on a benefit again getting back into crime and going to jail—round and round it goes. Where is the intervention? Where are the resources that would stop that roundabout? There are none. 
We have to bear in mind that for all the really nice words that Minister Power has said in the past about trying to put more money into drug rehabilitation programmes both in prison and out of prison the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have told their Ministers that there is no new money. There in no money for any of these kinds of programmes so how will the Minister fulfil that promise? I have a great deal of faith in Simon Power. I have spent some time with him in the last 6 years in this House and I know that he is a genuine person. I believe that he believes those things but he has no money to put into rehabilitation programmes restorative programmes and programmes like the Sycamore Tree programme. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 There is a real and very significant risk that by passing this bill this House will penalise hundreds of people on the off chance that we may—I stress may—stop one or even two people who stand accused but are not yet found guilty of the crime of which they are accused. It is important that we as members of Parliament remember as the Hon Dr Michael Cullen said that a fundamental tenet of our criminal justice system is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The rationale is that it is better to let one guilty person go than to imprison any who are not guilty. So it is important that we keep that in mind when we are remanding a person into custody—they have not yet been found guilty of any crime. They are still presumed innocent of any crime they have been charged with. To remand them into custody which is what this is about is a very heavy penalty. It is a penalty that should be used only rarely in very limited circumstances where the police have sufficient evidence to convince the court that the defendant is highly likely to be convicted of the crime for which he or she stands charged is on a serious charge or is a danger to the public by either interfering with a witness absconding or reoffending while on bail. There is a very real and significant risk that we could be causing injustice. 
The Maori Party is convinced that this bill is a knee-jerk reaction as the member Metiria Turei has said. It is not a well-thought-out response to what everyone agrees is a problem. This bill does nothing to fix the problem. As a House I presume of intelligent people we should be sitting down and thinking this through properly. We should be putting it to a select committee so that people who have more experience in this area than us can give it well-considered thought come to talk to us about it and give us some solutions that are well-thought-through. 
If this bill is passed our wallets will be hit because Vote Corrections no matter what the Minister has told anyone will have to increase in size to pay for the huge increase in remand prisoners—that is people who are still presumed innocent. They have not been found guilty; they are still presumed innocent of any crime. 
The Maori Party agrees that the bill should not be pushed through under urgency. We should give the public a chance to have their say and to put up their ideas for dealing with this problem. And it is essential that Parliament does its job of making laws and does not pass that duty on to the courts. There is a real danger here that if we do not do that then the courts will. It is not the court’s duty to make laws; it is the court’s duty to interpret laws. Parliament should be telling courts what the law is not the other way around. There is a danger there when we let the courts make laws. 
I read from Moana Jackson’s paper  
The 
Maori and the Criminal Justice System: a new perspective—he whaipainga hou 
 Part 2 where he says that “The judge occupies a position in the eyes of the Maori community which is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand judges are held to be worthy of respect because of their learning and wisdom; on the other they are responsible for injustice because of their service to an often prejudiced and unjust law.” As parliamentarians do we want to be remembered as the Parliament that passed unjust and prejudiced laws? We want to be making laws that will benefit all people and at this stage this law does not benefit Maori. It does not benefit anyone because it is a knee-jerk reaction. It is not doing what it is supposedly designed to do and we need to be able to say to our people and to everyone out there that we have thought this decision through—that we have done what the people say is the best thing to do. 
I continue from Moana Jackson’s paper: “Many Maori are aware of and continue to respect the frequent questioning of colonial policy by the first Chief Justice Sir Charles Martin. There is also continued anger and grievance at Chief Justice Prendergast’s dismissal of the Treaty.” 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I want to pick up on a couple of points that were made. Firstly I think that the fabric of the Bail Amendment Bill has started to unravel. Even the coalition partner—or whatever it is called—the ACT Party’s Mr Garrett made quite a valuable contribution. We finally teased it slowly out of him when he said that basically the changes proposed by Mr Power and the National Party do nothing—they do little. 
David Garrett 
: I didn’t say that. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes the member did; I wrote it down. He said that in itself this change will do “little.” That is what the member said. 
David Garrett 
: I said “little”. That is different from “nothing”. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I invite the member to whip out his  
Hansard 
 and have a look at it. That is what the Opposition has been saying for the last few hours. This is political puffery. This is propaganda. 
In response the Minister said to Annette King as the fabric of the legislation unravels and frays that this legislation is designed to send a message. We have an admission from Mr Garrett—he is a lawyer; I am not—that this legislation will do virtually nothing. We have been saying that. Mr Power says it is designed to send a message. Well by that admission we can see it is not designed to have any practical effect. At the start of this debate I said that the day after the enactment of this bill no one in New Zealand will be any safer because of it. This is what we have now come down to. This is political puffery. 
The Minister did get up and do what the Minister last night failed to do: he answered some questions. One key question that was put to him again was about his position on the parole legislation. His policy is the sentencing parole and bail policy of the National Party. Nowhere in there can I read of Mr Power sending a message. Under the heading “Our Principles” National’s policy states “Tough on crime.” Being tough on crime was the principle not the sending of a message. We now know not only because of what the Opposition said but also because of Mr Garrett’s admission that this bill does virtually nothing—very little. 
David Garrett 
: No I said “little” not “virtually nothing”. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: “Little” or virtually nothing. I do not have a dictionary in front of me but I am sure that we could get the  
Collins English Dictionary 
 out and have a debate about “little “very little” or whatever. There is another more colloquial way of putting it but I will not do that because it would be unparliamentary. Nowhere in the policy that the Minister sent to people before the election did it say National was going to send a message and that was all it was going to do. 
The question that Mr Goff Mrs King and I put to the Minister was about a practical solution. A practical effect that would make people safer would be to trigger the parole legislation. He was asked by me Mr Goff and Mrs King when he would do that. I tell the Minister to feel free to interject and answer that question. When will he ring the Governor-General and sign off the Order in Council? Today? Tomorrow? Next week? He could turbo-boost it if he liked. He could ring now; there is a phone in front of him. When will he actually do that? There is no answer. 
The other question that Mrs King put to the Minister was very interesting because he had rattled off that he had evidence from the Police Association the Police Prosecution Service and the New Zealand Law Society that our change had weakened the test for granting bail. She asked him was whether he could table the evidence of that. I am reliably informed that when he was asked in a side-bar conversation what the evidence of that was and whether he would table it the answer was that it consisted of news clippings and that he had never tabled news clippings in his life. So now we know there is no evidence. 
The hem is starting to fray on this bill because we have heard Mr Garrett say it is useless and does very little judges have said there is no change with this legislation and we know that it will not make one New Zealander safer the day after its enactment. I invite the Minister to change his mind get up in Parliament say “taihoa” go out to the phone booth behind him ring the Governor-General and do something that will be tough on crime. He could text him. I am told the Governor-General is well up on technology; the Minister could text him. He could do something that would be to quote his policy “tough on crime” and enact the parole legislation through an Order in Council. I wonder whether he will get up after this and answer that question. If not today then when will he do that? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Better than Kate Wilkinson. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He is better than Kate Wilkinson; I agree. He has actually got up and made a contribution. I know he is itching to make another but the whips have probably told him he is not allowed. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: No they’re not allowed to do that. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh they are not allowed to do that. But when will he bring into force the parole legislation? 
That is a fair and serious question I say to the Minister. It is a fair and serious question. The Minister knows—and all members from both sides of the Chamber who have made contributions and who have a view that we wish to help victims and to make New Zealanders and our communities safer know—that we cannot compare this piece of political propaganda with a phone call from the Minister to the Governor-General that would actually make a real difference to New Zealanders. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 48. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 5. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now move on to clauses 2 3 and 4. As these debates are not part by part debates but clause by clause debates they will be narrow debates. Members are to confine themselves to the words of the particular clause and issues contained therein. These are not wide-ranging debates and if members do stray I will call them to order. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 This debate will be a real test will it not for somebody who likes to speak on issues in a very broad manner. Clause 2 has the commencement date and for those who do not know what this clause says let me tell them what is in it. This clause states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” Well of course the obvious— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You read it too fast; I couldn’t understand it. Do it again. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: For the sake of those who did not hear what I said and were asleep it states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” The obvious and first question to the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power is when this bill will receive the Royal assent. It is quite obvious that the Government has been having some problems with dates and organisation with getting things organised and getting things down on paper as we have seen in the House. In fact I happened to see the organisational paper outlining what was going on in the House—Gerry Brownlee’s running sheet—and it was written on the back of an envelope. So I am worried that the Minister has not yet decided on which date he will get the Royal assent for this bill. Will he get the Royal assent for this bill on Monday? Will he have the Governor-General come up to Parliament on Monday to sign off this bill? 
You see I believe that it has to be Monday because this legislation is so urgent that we have to be here on Friday at a quarter to 5 to debate it. We have to debate this legislation under urgency so that it can be given the Royal assent on Monday because it will make an earth-shattering difference to the people of New Zealand. It has to be Monday; the Government will have wasted hours and hours of the public’s time Parliament’s time and taxpayers’ time if the bill does not get the Royal assent on Monday at least. Maybe Tuesday we could accept; maybe we could accept another day so that the Minister could write it out—so that he could get his officials to put the signature down for him and so on—but it would have to be no later than that. 
The other thing I want to know from the Minister is whether we will receive the evidence for the need for this bill before it is given the Royal assent. Will we receive and will we have tabled in this Parliament the evidence that the Minister used as the basis for this bill before we get the Royal assent on it which could happen on Monday? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Maybe. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Or maybe on Tuesday or maybe Wednesday or perhaps next Friday. But will we get the evidence? That is quite important because before the Governor-General’s signature goes on this bill I suspect that the Minister will have to write to the Governor-General to tell him what this bill does. That is what we used to do—we used to say what legislation does. When the Governor-General faces the Minister and is about to put his signature on it in order to give it the Royal assent he will ask the Minister to show him the evidence for this bill. He will have noted that the Minister said in the explanatory note that the evidence for this bill comes from the Law Society the Police Association the Police Prosecution Service and a number of High Court judges. The Governor-General will ask before he signs this bill to see the evidence. I ask the Minister whether we will see that evidence. Will Parliament the Governor-General or anybody else see the evidence that was the basis for this legislation before it receives the Royal assent? Is that unreasonable? I ask Mr Garrett whether it is unreasonable. I ask whether he would like to see the evidence that was the basis for this bill as stated in the explanatory note. That should be done before the Royal assent is given to this legislation—on Monday or maybe Tuesday because it is an urgent matter given that the House has been required to debate it under urgency. 
I say to the Minister who is getting out of the chair that I really thought we might well have that evidence before he finished his tour of duty— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have had a change of Minister in the chair but the Minister in charge of the bill is still in the Chamber. If the Minister in charge of the bill is in the Chamber he or she is required to sit in the chair. The Minister can be relieved only if he is to be absent. I see that he is still here. I think he should take this matter a little bit more seriously than having the member for Whangarei of all people sitting in the chair. We have the Attorney-General here who at least is knowledgable on these matters. The idea that Mr Heatley would be knowledgable is just preposterous. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Thank you Mr Hughes. The point is well made. Order has now been resumed. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. I do feel however my colleague— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The commencement date is exceptionally relevant because once the Governor-General signs the Bail Amendment Bill and it is enacted certain impacts will flow from it. We should not bring and I do not intend to bring the Governor-General into the debate but we know that he is a former judge. I have been a Minister and have attended Executive Council and I know that the Governor-General is often wont to ask questions around legislation—certainly with Orders in Council—before he signs them off. As my colleague Annette King has said I suspect that being a former judge he may well have questions. As a judicial official he was required to make decisions on evidence. 
I too would like to know whether as the legislation is packaged and sent up to the Governor-General there will be an attachment of news clippings because that appears to be all the evidence the Minister of Justice Simon Power has for the effectiveness of the bill—news clippings hearsay and opinion. I ask whether the impacts of this legislation will be summarised and attached to it as it is sent up to Government House for the Royal assent because once that Royal assent is applied we know what those impacts will be. 
Of course this point about the consequent impacts is very relevant. We have heard Mr Garrett say this legislation being passed and signed off by the Governor-General will have little impact and that little will change. We now know from Mr Power that once the Governor-General signs off this legislation all that it will do will be to send a message and nothing will change. I ask whether Mr Power might take this legislation himself in the limousine to the Governor-General and ask His Excellency: “Would you mind signing this other document?” which would trigger the parole legislation regarding two-thirds of a sentence. That would have the dual effect of making people safer and of being tough on crime. 
Hon Simon Power 
: You said this didn’t have an effect. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed—is the Minister agreeing with me? Will he take it up to Government House and trigger the parole legislation? 
I would like to know whether the Minister will be prepared to tell the Governor-General why the Government is passing this legislation before he signs it and to explain the evidence that legitimises the legislation and the consequent impacts that will flow from it. I ask whether he is prepared to commit to His Excellency that every New Zealander will be safer and that as Melissa Lee pointed out the day after this is signed there will be no more breaches of bail—it is almost as if no more crimes will be committed if we listen to National members—and I ask whether he is prepared to give those commitments to the Governor-General as the legislation is signed and therefore enacted on its date of commencement. These are legitimate questions Mr Chair as you will know being the previous Minister for Courts. 
As I say the Governor-General being a former judicial officer may well want to query his responsible Ministers from whom he takes advice as to the consequent impacts of this legislation. I suspect His Excellency will look at this legislation and conclude as we do that it changes nothing and that once it is enacted and has the commencement date put in place the status quo will effectively remain. That is what we have heard in speeches from the learned gentleman Mr Garrett in the evidence from Justice Heath and in the evidence the Opposition has put forward. 
Before we move on to the next clause I would again ask the Minister whether he is prepared to answer Mrs King’s questions about parole and whether he is prepared to table the evidence or if he will not table it with us then to provide His Excellency with it as the legislation is signed and given the Royal assent. Maybe then Mrs King and I could write to His Excellency and ask him whether he would release it and mail it to us. 
There is no evidence. Not one shred of evidence has been produced. We know that the consequential impacts that will flow when this legislation is given the Royal assent will be none—zero. There are no impacts and there are no changes. The status quo will simply remain. We have heard that from Mr Garrett. A little bit will change but in effect nothing will change. This is not part of National’s “get tough on crime” policy but I invite the Minister as he pops up to Government House with this legislation to simply lean over and say: “Here is another piece of paper your Excellency. Could you trigger the parole legislation?”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the next member I advise members that they should try to resist the temptation to bring the Governor-General into this debate and to speculate about the Governor-General’s motives and about how he might approach this matter. I want to make sure that members are aware of that. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The commencement clause debate is quite useful and it has been helpful to hear some of the more experienced MPs talk about it. I am interested in how the impacts of the Bail Amendment Bill are going to be measured once it commences and comes into force given that it has been only a year or so since the last lot of changes that this legislation reverses came into force. No evidence has been tabled or presented in the House during the debate about the impact of that legislation in the short period of time it has been in force. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You directed that the debate would be narrow and on the subject matter of the clause. I fail to see how measurement of effects has anything to do with a commencement date. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member was relating the date to impacts before and after but it is broadening the debate out a bit. I draw members’ attention to the point that the debate is about the commencement date and issues around the commencement date itself not a wide-ranging debate beyond that. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: We have no idea when the commencement of this bill will be. What we do know is that once it has commenced at some time in the unknown future there will be a significant cost associated with it. The regulatory impact statement talks about $7 million per year plus another $38 million in capital expenditure. Those costs will start to be incurred on the commencement of this legislation. 
I suggest to the Minister of Justice that it would be a wise move to invest the same amount of money as will be invested in the management of this legislation once it commences on some unknown future date in the alternatives that have been known and proven to be effective at reducing reoffending in the past. Should $7 million be invested in rehabilitation at the commencement of this legislation at some time in the unknown future we would then be able to assess within a year of this legislation commencing whether it made a difference or whether the alternatives made a difference to keeping our communities safer reducing reoffending rates increasing the support for young offenders and to the subsequent issues around drug and alcohol treatment and the opportunities that might bring. But without a clear indication from the commencement clause as to how the effects of the legislation will be measured and managed it will be impossible to tell whether this bill has any point to it whatsoever especially as we have no previous information about the changes this legislation makes. 
I suggest to the Minister that if he can squeeze some cash out of his Government which of course sounds completely impossible that would be a useful opportunity to take on the commencement of this legislation. There is no point in passing legislation that will do nothing yet will cost well over $40 million. In fact even the regulatory impact statement says that it is difficult to estimate the impact of reversing the 2007 changes and it is virtually impossible to know what the impacts of this legislation will be once it comes into force. We are talking about the lives of real people here too. We are talking about young people’s lives about their ability to be educated to have their serious issues addressed and to get jobs. All of those issues are affected at the time that this legislation comes into force. We are not talking about obscure people or obscure numbers. We are talking about real people’s daily lived lives. I am sure many members of this House know of people for whom this legislation will have that very serious effect. Those are the people whom we are here to protect and care for. Those are the people who are affected by this legislation coming into force at some unknown time in the future. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Just before I take the next call I remind members that the debate is about the words. To simply mention the words and then go off on this that or any other peripheral subject is taking the debate beyond what it is. The debate is a narrow one about the actual words themselves. If members do not address the words then that simply invites the Chair to accept a closure motion earlier than he might otherwise have done. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to make a small contribution in the Committee stage on clause 2. The reason Labour members feel the need to make sure we are examining each aspect of this legislation is that this is another example of a bill that has not been to a select committee. It was given to the Opposition at a quarter to midnight on Wednesday and its first reading second reading Committee stage and third reading are being rushed through under urgency. So unless we can debate this matter now there will be no other opportunity for this bail law to be considered by anybody at any time. 
In a way clause 2 is the clause that has the most important impact for the whole legislation. It is the trigger clause. It is the clause that will decide when all this will start. Up until now we have heard debates about the merits of this legislation about the changes to the bail law and about the way this bill is being held up as being some kind of great change when in fact the scrutiny we have been able to give it through this process has shown that it is as my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove said a bit of a hoax. It is a flimflam measure that we do not believe will have the kind of effect the Government has been saying it will have. In fact in saying it is going to be so serious about law and order and crime issues the Government has really been holding this measure up as being some sort of major huge change. Yet when we go through the meat of this bill and we see how small it is and what a small difference it will make it is hard for us to believe that this is part of a grand 100-day vision. But of course as clause 2 makes clear the day after the bill receives its Royal assent it will become law in this country. It will be held up as a measurement a yardstick as to how effective the Government has been in delivering on its crusade for sentencing parole and the effects of bail. 
I want to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power a few questions about what he is proposing to do in order to give effect to clause 2. Obviously he cannot sign the law as he is not the Governor-General although I suspect he will be as part of some future deal when he gets edged out in that last little rush. It will be a very sort of Jeffrey Archer moment we might say when in a decision made in a  
First Among Equals 
 kind of environment Mr Power will be put in as the Governor-General. But I am focusing on the present time when he does not hold that high office and we can be very clear that the bill will become law not on the day that the Royal assent is given but on the day after that date. The Opposition is very keen to hear from the Minister about what he plans to do in the time between the bill’s third reading and the time he submits it to the Governor-General for His Excellency’s Royal assent. 
It seems to me the Minister might like to consider a couple of things between the third reading and the date of clause 2 taking effect with the Royal assent. We would like to hear about some process issues from the Minister particularly around his ministerial responsibility in liaising with the judiciary. Throughout the earlier parts of the debate the Committee of the whole House was told about some of the more negative comments that have been made by people who are involved in the judiciary—who are lawyers or those working with judges—and who believe that this is an unusual step to be taking. What measures does he along with his colleague the Attorney-General plan to take to build the confidence of the judiciary in this bill before it receives its Royal assent so that the day after when it becomes the law he has built up a constituency of support amongst those who are going to have to use this law and give effect to it? 
I think it is quite important that the Minister can tell the Committee that. There has not been the chance for any external view to be taken because the bill has been rushed there has been no select committee process and the bill was tabled by the Leader of the House at a quarter to midnight as part of a very unusual way in which the Leader of the House is running the House. That scrutiny might be able to take place between the passing of the third reading and the time when clause 2 takes effect—in that brief window of opportunity the Minister will have available. 
We know the Minister is an efficient man. We read the newspapers. We see he does not keep any paper on his desk at all. We know from the feature articles that have been written about him that he likes to move things through very quickly. He is so efficient that he has written a bill that comprises only one page on such a serious issue as bail apparently but that is irrelevant. What is more relevant is what happens for the Minister so I have covered what needs to happen with regard to the judiciary and the legal fraternity in that period. 
The second period relates to stakeholder groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust. Mr Garrett touched on this in his contribution. He has been the legal representative of the Sensible Sentencing Trust and he came in at No. 5 on the ACT list because of an arrangement with that trust. It has delivered him into Parliament here. The Sensible Sentencing Trust this week said that it was the most effective lobby group in New Zealand. We received an email from Garth McVicar about this bill. So in between this period of the third reading and clause 2 taking effect with the Royal assent I would like to know from the Minister whether he plans not only to engage with the judiciary about this bill before he can recommend it to his Excellency but also to talk to stakeholders like the Sensible Sentencing Trust because it seems to me there is a very very close relationship between the Sensible Sentencing Trust and the National - ACT - Maori Party Government. We want to make sure there is actually some arrangement for that to take place. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move that the question now be put.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is that the question be now put. Those of that— 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to be very clear that I am not challenging your ruling at all—I am not going to do that—but the member did not put the closure motion correctly; she did not use the correct sequence of words. You cannot accept a closure motion that has not been put correctly. That is a longstanding ruling. She did not get the words right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call Moana Mackey. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to contribute to the debate on clause 2 the commencement clause which to some people might not seem to be a particularly important clause. In fact it is extremely important. For the benefit of those who have only started listening to this debate since my colleague the Hon Annette King gave her contribution I say clause 2 reads: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” For most people that is fairly meaningless because we are not privy to knowing on which date the bill will receive the Royal assent. Yet this bill is being introduced into the House in the 100 days of action— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Turbocharged. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —in the turbocharged 100 days of action. 
My question to the Minister is: on which day of that 100 days of action will this bill receive the Royal assent? The reason why that is important is that the Act comes into force on the day after the bill receives the Royal assent. So the day on which the bill receives the Royal assent is of critical importance to the people of New Zealand. I am not sure which day of the 100 days of action we are at now. Is this day one or day two? It may well receive the Royal assent on day 35 of the 100 days of action. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Urgency might make a difference. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Urgency might make a difference. 
The reason I ask these questions is that this bill has not gone to a select committee. It is not going through the normal process. Clause 2 does not tell us exactly what day it will be. We have had other bills in this urgency motion that have included dates in their commencement clause so we have known exactly when they were to become law. But when a bill simply states that the Act will come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent then the date on which it receives the Royal assent becomes of critical importance. 
I ask the Minister again to give us some indication because we have been promised 100 days of action. Will the Act come into force outside that 100 days of action in which case there will be no sentencing legislation coming into force in the 100 days of action as was promised during the election campaign? Once again I point out that it is the role of the Opposition to hold the Government to account for its rhetoric in the election campaign and if the Minister could give us some indication of when he intends to provide the evidence to the Governor-General as to why this bill should receive the Royal assent then the Opposition would be interested in hearing that. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Oh come on! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Mapp is not very happy. If those members had managed to read the closure motion properly then I would have been denied the opportunity to ask these important questions. 
Hon Annette King 
: And you did ask them. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is right. One of the reasons is that law and order was a key campaign plank for the National - ACT - Maori Party Government. It is the role of the Opposition to ensure that that rhetoric comes into some kind of reality or the Government will be held to account. So I say to the “National - ACT - Te Ururoa Flavell Government” that— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I bring your attention to Standing Order 107 about relevancy. The previous Chairman instructed speakers to be relevant and speak to the title because I think we need to bring this to a close. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I do not need any further assistance. It has been made very clear that this is a very narrow debate on the commencement. Would the member confine her comments to those points. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You are absolutely right about the question of relevance; you have to judge that for yourself. But one point I would make is there was a lot of noise in the Chamber while my colleague was trying to speak both from the Opposition side—we will take our responsibility—and the Government side and for a speaker trying to talk about a very narrow clause like this is difficult so maybe you could keep a little bit more order in the Committee. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am very happy to limit my comments to the commencement clause. I shall refer to the comments made by my colleague from the Green Party Metiria Turei about how important it is that the public knows exactly on which day this Act is to come into force. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It states it in the bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well no it does not state it in the bill and this is the point we are trying to make. Any indication from the Minister as to when he believes he will take this bill to receive the Royal assent would be greatly appreciated not only by the Opposition but I am sure also by the people of New Zealand who are listening to this debate because they were promised action within the first 100 days. The commencement date does not tell us whether this legislation will come into force within those 100 days and if it does not then the Government has failed in that respect to match the rhetoric of the election campaign in which it promised tougher sentencing and bail laws within the first 100 days. 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 47. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 106 Noes 5. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee to amend the vote of the Maori Party on the closure motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave has been sought for the Maori Party to change its vote on the closure motion from 2 to 3. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I apologise. I thought I did say 3 but we have been 3 consistently pretty much this afternoon. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The corrected vote for the closure is 63 for and 48 against. 
Clause 3 Principal Act amended 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Clause 3 amends the Bail Act 2000 and I am delighted that Tony Ryall is actually in the Chamber at this point because the passing of the Bail Act in 2000 was something that Mr Ryall was pretty much opposed to. In fact he said at that time that bail was a very very important constitutional right and people should not be held in prison. That was the quote from Mr Ryall at that time. 
Of course the Bail Act 2000 strengthened the bail legislation that had been previously there. I want to share with the Committee what the Ombudsman said in his report about the Bail Act 2000. He said that Act was enacted following an increase in offending while on bail and growing public political and media pressure for change. Well of course we all know 2000 was a few months after Labour became the Government after 9 long years of a National Government which had the opportunity to strengthen the bail legislation when it was in Government but which did not make the changes that were being sought. So the Bail Act was enacted following growing public political and media pressure for change. At that time two major changes were made to the legislation. It contained increases in the circumstances in which the onus was on the defendant to justify a release on bail rather than relying on the prosecution to justify a custodial remand—the reverse onus of proof. That is when that was brought in. The second change made at that point was to provide for breaches of bail conditions to be recorded and to be available subsequently when bail was an issue. 
At the time the National Party said we had gone too far we were being too tough and people had the right to have bail. We believed that people had the right to have bail but we were responding to the pressure at that time for there to be a tightening-up of the bail legislation. We made a substantial and significant change in 2000 in the Bail Act and that is recognised by the Ombudsman in his report. He made this point. In March 1997 the total prison muster was 4967 comprising 4417 sentenced prisoners and 550 people on remand. Ten years later the total sentenced prison population was 6053 a 37 percent increase. The remand population was 1724 an increase of over 200 percent out of a total muster of 7775. If the remand population had increased at the same rate as the sentenced population—that is by 37 percent rather than by over 200 percent—the remand population would have been 753 and the total prison muster would have been approximately 6786 which is nearly 1000 fewer than the actual muster. So the changes that were made in the Bail Act 2000 made a significant difference to those remanded on bail. At that time a real difference was made and it continues to be made regarding people who are remanded on bail. 
But in the Bail Amendment Bill we have a change to a small minor change made in 2007 in order to clarify the issue of significant risk. A small change was made to the Act then not for the purpose of putting more people into prison or out of prison but to clarify the issue as requested by judges. That was the purpose—to make it clearer—and the impact was estimated to be around 10 more prisoners a year. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Before we carry on I point out that this debate is a very narrow debate. Although clause 3 refers to the provisions of the Bail Act 2000 it does not justify talking about that Act. The debate is about the impact that this legislation before us has. It is not about the overall provisions of the Act. Clause 3 is a very narrow clause. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This amendment is to the Bail Act and I was setting out what the changes were and what this change is. I think that has to be made clear so people understand the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will be watching this debate very closely. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The change that the 2007 amendment made was not about putting fewer people in prison; it was about clarifying the Act. The Minister is nodding his head and agreeing with me. 
In fact it has been made clear during the debate that this amendment to the Bail Act 2000 makes very little difference at all. I think that one of the most significant things that were said during the debate was said by David Garrett of the ACT Party which is probably the strongest campaigner on law and order—it certainly had the biggest billboards and it certainly made the most noise in conjunction with the Sensible Sentencing Trust. David Garrett declared today that this amendment to the Act makes little difference. I can see Mr Boscawen looking at me and thinking maybe I am not quoting him correctly but I say to Mr Boscawen that that is exactly what he said. My definition of “little” is that it is not big so it must be tiny. It is little; he is quite right. It is a little change to the Act. It was clarified in 2007 and the change back according to the ACT Party is a very little change indeed. 
Well if this amendment is a little change indeed then one has to ask why we are debating it now. Why are we debating it under urgency? It is a little change a minor change— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Insignificant. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is an insignificant change in fact and it is being seen as so important that we are rushing it through under urgency. We are bemused by that. We are bemused by the fact that we have not been given the evidence for making this little change as the ACT Party has described it. We have not been provided with the evidence—and I have asked the Minister to provide it—as to why this amendment is so important that it has to be made now. And we have not been provided with evidence anyway—it is hearsay I believe and it is newspaper clippings. 
It is unheard-of for a Government to amend legislation of such significance as the bail legislation with this little change based on a few newspaper clippings. I cannot recall that happening before. I cannot recall the Ministry of Justice putting that forward as the evidence as to why we should make this change today under urgency. I do not believe that the professionals within the ministry would give the Minister a collection of press statements on which to base his decision to make this amendment to the Act. I do not believe that they said: “Here Minister is something from the  
Sunday News 
 and  
Truth 
. This is what you can use for your evidence. We’ll put that into the bill and say it is the evidence in the explanatory note.” I do not believe that is the case. 
I believe it is important that the Minister provides the evidence for this amendment to the Act today. It has to happen so that we can see why it was so important to make this little change now. We have heard that the National Party believes this little change will solve crime stop violence on our streets and make our communities safer. Simon Bridges should not be shaking his head. If he had been listening to the debate he would have heard his colleagues say that is exactly what will happen once the bill receives the Royal assent. They said this bill will make our communities safer on Tuesday. 
Simon Bridges 
: Reduce crime. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. I say to the member that one of the things about this House is that everything a member says goes into 
 Hansard 
 and we all get to look at it eventually. So I say to the member that he should look at what his colleagues were saying. They said the bill would make the community safer once it was passed. 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: Quite right. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh “Quite right.” says “Professor Worth”. I will hold him to that. If communities are not safer on Monday after the bill gets the Royal assent I can only assume that the member was hoodwinking the public of New Zealand with that comment. 
Everyone knows this bill is nonsense. Everybody knows it is rubbish. Everyone knows it is flimflam and part of a political agenda. It has nothing at all to do with the safety of the community. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Clause 3 “Principal Act amended” as my colleague Annette King just noted states that the bill amends the Bail Act 2000. In doing so there is a consequential impact. 
As my colleague and others have said the Bail Act 2000 its history and its content flowed from the loose arrangements that the Labour Government inherited in 1999. Serious measures were put in place. There was the provision to change the onus. Then came the addition of the words “real and significant” which were put in place in a revision of the Bail Act in 2007. They were intended to clarify the law to promote a very solemn common-sense thing called consistency in decision making in respect of the judiciary and to respond to a number of judicial decisions rather than to make any significant changes. That is why the amendment was made and that last point is completely germane. As my colleague said and as Mr Garrett and other members have pointed out the change that is now proposed to—as clause 3 states—the Bail Act 2000 in itself does little. That is what Mr Garrett said. When the Labour Government made that change it was attempting as I have said to provide some consistency. 
It is interesting that others share Mr Garrett’s view. Let us look at what Justice Heath said. He said that the change that Labour made to the Bail Act when we placed the words “real and significant” in it “does not seem to me to put the test any higher than it was under the previous legislation but rather to emphasise the need for a proper inference to be drawn from proven facts; as opposed to the Court engaging in speculation or guesswork about the possibility of risk.” The purpose of the amendment that the Labour Government made to the principal Act was to avoid as Justice Heath said speculation or guesswork and to provide guidance to the judiciary so that there was not speculation or guesswork. I am sure Mr Finlayson a learned lawyer would be able to talk to us in the Chamber for hours about his experience. I am sure he would share the view that we as a Parliament should provide our judicial officials with guidance so that there is where possible consistency of decisions and to ensure that judges are not put in a situation where they have to speculate and have to guess what Parliament meant. That is why Labour when in Government placed those words in the legislation. 
Today clause 3 states that that Act the Bail Act 2000 is to be amended again. As I said at the start of my contribution certain actions and impacts will flow from that. What we have attempted to do—the ACT Party ourselves and others—is to analyse what the consequential impacts will be once clause 3 has been dealt with and once the Royal assent has been given. We are told by the Minister in charge of the bill Simon Power and by members of his party—we have been told all day—that the impacts will be huge. I am sorry: we were originally told—I should be more precise—by the Minister in the chair and his colleagues that the impacts will be huge; that once this Act has been amended once those three words have been removed there will be no more murders nirvana will appear crime will end and bail breaches will end. And it is not about of course—so he said—the prison population. That was the original proposition that was put earlier in the day. Later on after I think Mr Garrett in addressing the actual impact of clause 3 noted that in itself this change will do little it was incumbent upon the Minister to come clean. He then I think in response to some very detailed deep and penetrating questions from my colleague Annette King stated to the House that what this change once the principal Act was amended was really about was—to quote him—sending a message. 
Sending a message to whom? Well I think the message needs to be sent to the criminals but I am assuming that the message that the Minister was attempting to send was to the general public. What he will be doing after the principal Act is amended as stated in clause 3 is sending a message to the community that claims that the National Government in its first 100 days has been really tough on crime and has made a huge impact with this legislation. That is what his message I suspect will be as he pumps out the letters and the press releases. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 As with my contribution to the commencement debate I will refer to the costs of this amendment to the Bail Act 2000. I want to read briefly from the regulatory impact statement which sets out what the costs will be once this amendment has been made: “If reversing the changes”—that is making the amendment—“has an equal and opposite effect increasing the number of remand beds by 75 this will cost an estimated $7 million per year in additional operating expenditure and a total of $38 million in capital expenditure (the actual costs will depend on wider factors and other policies).” Then it goes on to state: “However it is likely that the effect will be greater.” The statement later goes on: “It is difficult to estimate the impact that reversing the 2007 changes”—so making this amendment—“will have on the number of people remanded in custody because the impact of the 2007 amendments is itself uncertain.” 
So we simply have no information at all as to whether the pre-2007 provisions of the Bail Act 2000 had an effect and whether the changes in 2007 increased any risk to the community by having that apparently high threshold for bail applications. Since that original amendment was made in 2007 we have no information whatsoever as to whether those changes have increased the risk to the community by apparently lowering slightly the threshold for bail applications. And now this legislation is to amend the Act again and there is no assessment there is no evidence—there is nothing—that suggests that this amendment will make any changes or increase the risks to the community. 
So we are passing an amendment with absolutely no concept at all no information at all about whether any changes will be made to anything and in the process we are spending $45 million a year on a legislative change despite the fact that we have no knowledge at all as to whether it will have any effect. That is nuts and the public would be appalled if they were listening to this debate to discover that nearly $45 million per year will be spent on a minor and arguably very small technical change to the bail laws with no evidence whatsoever— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: To keep people safe! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: —I say to Dr Mapp as to whether it will make the community safer. 
The issues around law and order of course are far more important than money. Of that there is no doubt. This is a Government that likes to pride itself on frugality—at least that is what it says—and on being careful with the public’s money. But at the same time with the third piece of legislation it passes in its first week it proposes to spend $45 million a year on provisions even though it has no concept whatsoever as to whether they will be effective. That is $45 million a year down the drain. 
I am sure there are alternative amendments to the Bail Act that could be much more effective and cost a great deal less money. I do not know whether in the past discussions around amendments to the Bail Act whether this one or previous ones have really addressed the opportunities for alternatives—not radical alternatives but community alternatives where people who are put out on bail are given some support. In the UK people talk about bail hostels for example which are an alternative to prison and help people to deal with the issues. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move that the question now be put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will give Dr Cullen the call in a second but can I refer those who are moving closure motions to Standing Order 132. It is spelt out there what the words are. It is very clear what actually has to be said for the Chair to accept a closure motion. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I am prepared to run sessions on closure motions if Government MPs would like to have them. As you have rightly pointed out Mr Chairman clause 3 Principal Act amended” is a narrow clause and simply states: “This Act amends the Bail Act 2000.”—for those who might have had any doubt about what the bill is doing. Of course that immediately raises the question of why we have a clause to amend the Bail Act 2000—why do we have that bill at all in that form? Presumably there are a number of reasons why one has a clause that states: “This Act amends the Bail Act 2000.” Presumably there was an assumption that something was wrong with the Bail Act 2000 in some way or another. That argument has not been made so the primary reason for including this clause has not been given in this debate at all so far. 
Nobody has been able to point to any significant issue with the current Bail Act that will be remedied by the amendment before the Committee. It is not a question of whether there have been difficulties with bail—clearly there have been. Clearly people on bail have committed serious offences. Does that necessarily point to problems with the law? Not necessarily so. Does it point to problems with judgments made by judges? One has always to be very careful about that. By the very nature of things judges are being asked to make extraordinarily difficult decisions and sometimes they will make mistakes in making those decisions. Nobody is going to not make a mistake. Anybody who has ever studied science or social sciences knows that there are two types of mistake: the mistake of rejecting a correct hypothesis and the mistake of accepting a false hypothesis. In fact life is a balance between those two and nobody ever gets each of them 100 percent right. 
There are two hypotheses here: should somebody who is a danger be kept inside and should somebody who is not a danger be let out? Given the fact that there are those two hypotheses and the judge has to judge between them that judge is going to make a mistake sometimes. The consequences of the judge making the error of letting out a dangerous person who then commits a murder are clearly much more serious in almost every case than the error of keeping somebody in jail who should not be there and indeed who may subsequently be found to be innocent. Nevertheless the right of the assumption of innocence must be there right from the beginning; otherwise our system would make no sense at all—we would simply change the whole nature of our justice system in that regard. So I do not think that case has been made. 
Is there a case that judges are lacking sufficient guidance? On this issue very significant statements have been made by judges. They have gone carefully into the differences between what is actually in this bill because it was the previous Act and what is in the current Act. They have simply said quite clearly that what is now in the legislation provides clarification of what was previously there but that this does not change the essential meaning of what was there. So there is no need to clarify the essential meaning; the judges have determined that they are clear about the essential meaning of what Parliament intends. I do not believe that anybody could make a case as one can sometimes make cases—and I have never argued this either when I was Attorney-General or now when I am not—that judges do not sometimes interpret what Parliament means in a very strange way indeed and require perhaps some correction in that regard. 
So in that respect I think this clause should not be in this bill. Quite simply because the bill does not need to be there there is no need to amend the Bail Act. I am quite happy now to hand over to Hekia Parata as I see her preparing herself with the Standing Orders in front of her. I think she is going to say: “I move That the question be now put.” and if she does that is the correct wording. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 43; Maori Party 3; Green Party 2. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
METIRIA TUREI (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Having miscalculated how many votes the Green Party is entitled to overall I seek leave to change the votes made this afternoon where they are recorded as “2” votes to “3” votes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member needs to be more specific. Does this mean all votes cast since 2 o’clock? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There being no objection we will correct that. 
Clause 4 Consideration of just cause for continued detention 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 This is the final clause in the Bail Amendment Bill and it amends section 8(1)(a) of the Bail Act by omitting the words “real and significant”. This clause reverts the test to what it was before the 2007 amendment which was that there would just be a risk rather than a real and significant risk. So we go back to where we were. Somebody today said: “We go from 24 to 36 and back to 24.” Virtually we are returning to where we were before the 2007 amendment Act. 
One of the arguments that Labour has put up continually today is that this is a very small change in terms of the arguments put forward by National members. Those members have argued that the change they are making today will make a real difference to the safety of the public of New Zealand. They argue that in making this change by reverting to words that just state “risk” rather than “real and significant” risk it will make a big difference to the safety of the community. That was said not just by one speaker but by many speakers from the Government benches. 
Government backbenchers with the set of notes that had been prepared for them continually said this bill will make the community safer. We even heard the learned scholar Dr Worth say that is right; it will make the community safer. The public of New Zealand listening to this debate would believe from what the National members were saying that when this legislation is passed and receives the Royal assent the streets of New Zealand will be safer. The homes of New Zealand will be safer. 
As Melissa Lee said we will not have to face the sort of dreadful murder that happened in a dairy in South Auckland. In fact that is one of the examples she put up as a reason for this change to be made. This bill was played up as making a very significant change indeed by the backbench members of the National Government. On the campaign trail that is what National members were saying but during this debate it has become clear that this is not a major change—in fact it is window dressing. The test reverts back to “risk” rather than “real and significant risk”. The bill is window dressing indeed. 
What this will do as has been pointed out by the Minister himself is send a message. When this bill is passed it will not make the streets of New Zealand safer. It will send a message. That does not sound to me like the rhetoric of the campaign trail. That does not sound to me like the promises made to New Zealanders during the campaign. It does not sound to me like the sort of action one needs to take in the first 100 days that one is in power nor the sort of action that one needs to take under urgency on Friday night at 10 to 6. We and the coalition partners of the National Government know that this is a very small change indeed. 
As has been pointed out and as the Minister knows the change was never made to put fewer people in prison unlike what was said by National candidates when they were on the campaign stumps. In fact the “real and significant” threshold was chosen by examining judicial decisions on the previous risk threshold. It was decided by looking at judicial decisions especially the Court of Appeal 2002 decision in  
R v Hines 
. The Court of Appeal stated in that case that to amount to a just cause to continue detention the risk should be “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk.” That was the basis for the advice the previous Labour-led Government received from the Ministry of Justice. That is the advice we received in making the changes that we did. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I know where Mrs King was heading to— 
Hon Member 
: Carry on from there. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —so I will carry on from there. I touch on the point that as we have gone through this debate to this very significant point Mrs King was alluding to the fact that even the Minister in the chair had to admit that this bill was about sending a message not in essence about public safety. Mrs King also made the point just now that this did not sound like the pre-election promises that were made by the National Party. I just want to check that. She is right. In National’s policy document I have here its first principle is “Tough on crime”. As I said before Mr Garrett who is a learned lawyer and who has advised the Sensible Sentencing Trust for many years has said this will change little. The question is what then did the Minister say? He said: “Well I have said this will send a message.” But for whom is the message and about what? I do not want to interrupt the Minister’s conversation because I am sure he wants to listen to the debate that is happening but I suspect that the message the Minister wants to send is that he and his party have done something heavy-duty and gritty today—something very significant to make the people of New Zealand safer. 
Well they have not. The evidence that we have produced—because the Minister will not produce any evidence himself—is ironically via Mr Garrett who agrees with me. He has used the words “It changes little.” By the Minister’s own admission all it really does is send a sort of propaganda message—to whom and about what we do not know. If we look at the technicalities of this bill we see that we have gone from reverting back to the pre-2007 amendment where we had “real and significant risk” which was based as my colleague has said on the  
R v Hines  
decision to now taking out three words to go back to simply “risk”. This is based of course on the  
R v Hines 
 quote—and I am sure the quote is by this stage etched in Mr Power’s memory—“more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk”. So we have now just gone back to what was based on  
R v Hines 
. In that case “real and significant risk” were the words the judge used. 
I say to the Minister that this is an absolutely prima facie case—beyond that actually—of a hoax on the New Zealand people. This is smoke and mirrors this is flim and flam and this is political propaganda and puffery. I assume that the message the Minister is trying to send will try to persuade the New Zealand people that this legislation will keep them safer. Well it will not; it does nothing. From listening to Melissa Lee and others—as my colleague points out quite rightly—we would almost think that the day after this bill is given the Royal assent white doves will be released from Government House or somewhere olives will appear on trees and branches will be handed out because peace will break out in New Zealand and no crimes will ever be committed again. That is the way this bill has been packaged by Ms Lee and others. Well there is a word for that but it would be grossly inappropriate to use that term. 
This is propaganda. I think even now that New Zealand people will see through it. From the day after the Royal assent is given when the first bail breach occurs or when the next crime occurs we will be able to revisit this debate by asking the Minister some interesting questions and by quoting from Ms Lee’s speech and from those of all her other colleagues over there who have said that nirvana will break out the day after this bill is given the Royal assent. This Minister—members know it I know it and Mr Garrett has said it—will do nothing. This is a piece of political propaganda an attempt to talk tough look tough and sound tough Clint Eastwood - like. Before the election National members wandered around the country stamping their little feet—as every National Party candidate also did—and saying they would get tough but the first piece of legislation that has been brought into the House does nothing. 
Yet again I ask the Minister whether he will trigger the parole provisions. We have not been provided with an answer even though he has been diligent and provided us with I think three answers in one call to 50 or 60 questions that had been put to him; he is going for what we now call the “Wilkinson record of silence”. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is that the question be now put. Those who— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Without in any way wishing to challenge your ruling— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No you cannot challenge my ruling. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am not; I am not challenging it. As a point of information for you I say that we on this side of the Chamber strongly object because there have been only two calls from this side. There are only four clauses in this bill and there has been substantial debate on each of the first three of those clauses. Now we have come to the critical one and there have been only two calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are challenging the ruling. It is at my discretion that a closure motion is accepted. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Clause 4 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This Government was elected on a law and order policy that promised to put the safety of the public first. This bill is one of the steps in making that promise a reality. 
Labour Party members knew they could not afford to vote against this bill particularly because their leader has admitted publicly that Labour was beaten in the law and order debate during the election campaign. That left those members with no choice in effect because had they decided to oppose this bill it would have immediately laid the platform in this subject area for the next general election. 
In respect of this bill all too often we hear about serious offences being committed by people on bail. That does not mean of course that bail is a failure or that it should be abandoned. There are thousands of people on bail at any one time and only a small proportion commit serious offences. But what it does mean is that we must be vigilant about who is released on bail. 
Last year as part of a package in the Criminal Justice Reform Bill to reduce the prison population the Labour Government restricted the courts’ ability to remand in custody people charged with criminal offending. Under those changes defendants could be remanded in custody only if the court considered they posed a real and significant threat of absconding interfering with witnesses or evidence or offending whilst on bail. In addition the courts were restricted in the way that they could take breach of bail conditions into account in bail decisions. In a change the Labour Government inserted a provision that provided that the courts could take a breach of conditions into account only to the extent that it was relevant to the defendant’s risk. In effect that meant the courts could no longer use remand as a sanction for non-compliance. 
This Government recognises that the court is in the best position to determine a defendant’s risk and whether he or she should be bailed or remanded in custody. We will not let the courts be unduly constrained in those decisions. This bill restores the courts’ discretion to decide when a defendant’s risk is such that he or she should be remanded in custody and to take appropriate action when a defendant is not complying with bail conditions. 
Despite the lengthy debate that the House has had on this bill—and in fact the lead Opposition party ultimately voted with the Government after we had tried to pry that position out of it after its third speaker took to her feet—it is one of the shortest bills that the House will see. It has one operative clause of two lines. However those two lines are indicative of a new focus for New Zealand’s criminal justice system—one that puts public safety first. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Before I begin my third reading speech I would be interested to know whether the Minister of Justice who has just resumed his seat has the evidence he referred to for some of the claims he made about the weakness of bail from the prosecution service the Police Association and the Law Society. I noted that he had evidence and I would be grateful if he would lay that evidence on the Table or seek leave to table it. There has been no tabling of any evidence and I am told that he turned to my colleague Annette King and said that he has never tabled media clippings—his evidence—in his life. 
This has been a very interesting debate for a whole series of reasons. One reason that is relevant I suppose to the shambolic way in which the Government has conducted itself in the last 24 hours but not specifically connected to the bill is the fact that the senior Opposition whip counted 12 times that the geniuses opposite tried to take a closure motion. It eventuated that Tony Ryall the Minister of Health who I think did a stunning job was hauled out of his ministerial office. I am told that he cancelled all his appointments. He was asked to come to the Chamber to move the closure motion. He looked quite distraught because I know he is a well-mannered person who does not like to be rude to people he is supposed to be meeting. He cancelled all his appointments so he could come to the Chamber and move a closure motion. That is how organised these geniuses on that side of the Chamber are. 
This has been an interesting debate. It is a pity I have to say that in the final clause 4 debate the Opposition was cut down like a stump and could take only two calls given that the bill has been rammed through and has had no select committee scrutiny at all. We were cut down like a stump and allowed to take only two calls but that is the prerogative of the Chair and we should not challenge it. 
It has been an interesting debate. We will remember of course the nature of how it occurred. I am sure all those who were party to it in the Chamber and outside will be listening to that. This debate was interesting because a number of new National Party members told us unequivocally that once this bill is enacted there will be no bail breaches there will be no crime. Melissa Lee’s speech is etched on my brain. She said that there will be no bail breaches and there will be no crime. Doves will be released around New Zealand because crime as a proposition and problem will disappear. 
What we heard throughout this debate was political puffery and propaganda. The National Party came to this House with a policy that says as its first principle “tough on crime”. What was National’s first bill in the House? Its first bill in the House was one to try to persuade the New Zealand people by taking away the words “real and significant” from the risk proposition in the bail legislation that that would have a massive impact and everybody would be safer. Before the member says it the reason we did not oppose it was that it does absolutely nothing. It does not change the status quo. That Minister made a vain attempt. He is not a bad bloke old Simon Power—“Simple Simon”. He is not a bad guy and he did give it his all. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been called a lot of things in my life and I am pretty relaxed about that but in this House I would prefer to be called Simon Power or something similar. I am happy to have the reference used by the member opposite levelled at me anywhere else but I think this place deserves the respect of all members in an appropriate way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The Minister has taken exception; the member will withdraw. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. The Hon Simon Power who is a complex member not a simple member made a very very good attempt to try to sell this as the big ground-breaking hit for the National Party on law and order. He said that this would make a change and that after tonight all people in New Zealand would feel safer in and out of their homes. Then as we moved through this debate the fabric started to fray in legislative terms. Mr Garrett made a stunning intervention. He is a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust a lawyer— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Their man in Parliament. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well their man in Parliament maybe. He is a lawyer and a person who advised them on this bill. He said: “In itself this”—the bill—“will do little.” Then it started to unravel. The Minister late in the day hours after being asked questions that he would not answer—questions like why he would not do something substantive something real that would make people secure like ring the Governor-General and get him to sign the Order in Council to trigger a two-thirds minimum parole—then said what the real intent of this bill was. It is to send a message. That is code for propaganda. That is code to go out to the people and say: “We’ve been tough on crime and this is what we’ve done.” I have to say that the people will see through this because this bill changes very little. 
We heard Justice Heath’s comments. As I said in the first reading this bill is built on two malicious and false propositions—firstly that bail is weakened and secondly that this was done to somehow decrease the prison population. Well I remind that member that the remand prisoner population has continued to grow at a rate greater than the sentence population despite the 2007 amendment to the Bail Act. In July 2007 remands including prisoners held in police stations totalled 1733 and comprised 21 percent of the total prison muster. By July 2008 remands had increased by almost 6 percent and constituted 23 percent of the total prison muster. We have advice from the Ministry of Justice that says that by September next year the change we put in place would result in a decrease of about 10 beds and then go down to 40. 
Hon Annette King 
: 40 by 2011. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That would be the impact. His own leader said at the post-Cabinet press conference that this would have an impact of about 75 beds in a muster of around 15000. This is absolute bunkum. 
Hon Simon Power 
: What? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Over a year of course; has the member not read his own briefing papers? This is about trying to act tough talk tough and be the Clint Eastwood of the National Party which was Simon Power before the election. Then the first thing he does is nothing by taking three words out of legislation that relies on the  
Queen v Hines 
 decision which uses the words “real and significant risk”. So basically we have gone back to the status quo of risk and there is no change. 
Even Mr Garrett a lawyer said there is very little change if any at all—a complete waste of this Parliament’s time. That member and other members will ask why we stood up and made speeches and why we debated it for hours. Well I tell members that it is our job to do so and it is our job to show up this crew. We said we would not vote against it because it changes nothing but we have debated it and we have highlighted what these members have said. It is our job to hold them to account. They are in utter disarray and are disorganised—we can see that. I think Mr Brownlee has been taken off to the sideline to limber up for tomorrow or next week or whatever. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I haven’t seen him much today. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well I could not comment on that; that would not be appropriate. He is probably doing his callisthenics or whatever. But Simon Power was in charge and the Chamber just came apart. I say to the Minister of Justice that people are not stupid. The day after this is signed when we have bail breaches and we have people who commit offences whilst on bail when we have people who are released on bail—when perhaps in our view they should not be—then we will with great delight revisit the Minister’s speech Melissa Lee’s speech and all the speeches that were put up. The member for Tauranga whose name is— 
Hon Annette King 
: Simon Bridges. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He was I believe a Crown prosecutor. Is that correct? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He told us he knew all about the law. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He told us he knew all about the law. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: He got all the criminals off from the prosecution. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well I would not go as far as that but who knows? He is a Crown prosecutor who told us he knew all about the law. He could not move a closure motion though. That is how good he is. I do not know what sorts of arguments he has made on behalf of the Crown and in defence of the Crown in the Tauranga District Court or the High Court. 
I do not think the people of New Zealand have been well served by this Government today. This bill is small in stature and small on substance. This is a political pamphlet. This is Simon Power’s first big hit as the big tough Minister of Justice. It is a one-pager with a few pages of an explanatory note on the front. He is a show pony. He has had 9 years work—3 years as spokesperson on law and order—and this is what he has come up with. I do not object to the length of the bill; I object to its lack of substance. 
What our changes in Government were designed to do were to create some uniformity and some certainty. That is our job as parliamentarians. It is the judiciary’s job to interpret the law. This bill does nothing. This bill has no logic to it. This bill is propaganda—it is a political pamphlet. It is a pamphlet that tries to say National is tough on crime—well the veil has dropped on that one. National is loose and weak on crime and I invite the Minister or his next delegated speakers to tell us when they will do something substantive and activate the two-thirds parole bill. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It is always a privilege to follow the Hon Clayton Cosgrove because he is the ultimate exemplar of nonsense and foolishness. National is committed to effective law and order policies. We do that against the background of increasing levels of violent crime in New Zealand. These issues are not easily brushed aside and a number of Government members have spoken about particular examples where sadly for the community in the context of bail decisions things have gone badly wrong—badly wrong for victims badly wrong for families and I would say badly wrong for society. 
It was very interesting that when this debate first started Labour was equivocal about what its position was on this legislation. As events unfolded it became absolutely clear that Labour actually supports this change. I was interested in what Mr Cosgrove said when he spoke about how he saw the job of the Opposition. He said to us—and this will be recorded in  
Hansard 
—that it is “our job to fight it for hours”. I would say that that is simply not the task of an Opposition that actually favours the legislation that is before this House. It is right to say in the context of parliamentary time that we have seen substantial time wasted in speeches that are often characterised by misunderstanding and repetition. I think that is a tragedy. 
I would like for a moment to come back to what the purpose of this legislation is. Like it or not for the Government the gains that will flow from this legislation are significant. Like it or not for the Opposition bail will be harder to get. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Say that again! 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Bail will be harder to get. 
I would like to talk about just two aspects of this bill and I reflect with interest that comments have been made by Opposition members that this is a short bill. It may be a short bill but it will have significant impact. Why will it have that impact? There are two reasons for that. It will produce an outcome whereby bail will be harder to get with the consequence that there will be additional protections for the community in respect of those who offend in the community whilst on bail. We know the statistics; they are referred to in the explanatory note of the bill. 
The other aspect that I think is quite significant is that the bill will deal with a circumstance whereby a large number of defendants fail to appear in court. [ 
Interruption 
] The consequences of that as Mr Cosgrove should know from his previous experience are huge delays and congestion in the system. The numbers of those defendants who fail to appear in court when called are actually quite significant. Convictions for breach of bail—failing to appear—increased by 76 percent between 1997 and 2006 and it will be an outcome of the legislation that those denied bail of course will be there on the appointed day to meet their desserts. 
The reality is that delays in the court system are a hugely significant factor. Many will know that justice delayed is justice denied and the injustice that is done is an injustice to the victims to the system—in terms of congestion—and in some respects to those who are facing trial and have the consequence of having to wait and wait for their day in court for the opportunity of either vindicating themselves or being found guilty of the offences with which they are charged. So we have been treated to a time-wasting exercise. Maybe the Opposition justifies it in the context of seeking to show its mettle. Has it done that? Not at all. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 That was very interesting. Dr Richard Worth made a speech there— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: “Sir” Richard. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: “Sir” Dr Richard Worth OBE made a speech that was about three times longer than that of the Minister in charge of the Bail Amendment Bill. I think he is trying to prove his mettle. That was a front-bench bid from the member up at the back of the Chamber there. Now the Minister in charge of the bill assures me it is simply a matter of words per minute and he just speaks faster than “Sir” Dr Richard Worth. 
We have been giving the Minister a bit of stick about the lack of substance in this bill. The only thing in the House tonight that has had less substance than this bill was that speech from “Sir” Dr Richard Worth— 
Hon Member 
: OBE! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —OBE pardon me. I say to the member who has just resumed his seat that I am happy to stand here and just respond to his interjections if that is what he wants but if the member is complaining about the level of scrutiny that this Opposition shows towards legislation in the House then maybe he should have sent this bill to a select committee. If this Government continues to do what it has done under urgency which is to ram bills through that do not need to be passed urgently—there is no rush to get this bill through—and if it wants to do that by denying the people of New Zealand the right to have bills properly put before a select committee and for the people of New Zealand to come and speak at the select committee to bills and if it is going to table bills in the House at 15 minutes to midnight on the night before they are being discussed then the Government can expect that we will provide the scrutiny in this House that has been denied to the people of New Zealand. The power is in the hands of the Government in that respect because if it follows due process and allows bills to be properly scrutinised then the process through the House will be quicker. 
It is nice to have finally made it to the third reading of this bill. I thought we would never get a closure motion passed to close the last debate on the final part of the bill. It is nice to finally be here and I acknowledge the stamina of the Minister who was in the chair the Hon Simon Power during the Committee stage of this bill. I saw his head drop to his hands every time another closure motion was denied and we are happy to be here with the Minister to debate this third reading. 
In the Speech from the Throne and during the election campaign we were promised 100 days of action. It is clear that the only reason we are here in urgency passing bills that do not need to be passed and with no public scrutiny and no respect for process is that if we were not doing that the National members would have nothing to do in this House. Their 100 days of action would be shown up as the farce that it is. We have seen here tonight the very first law and order bill. During the campaign National told us it would get tough on crime. That was one of its primary campaign planks. So what is the first legislation from this “tough on crime” law and order National Government that we see in this House? It is a bill that does practically nothing that will not make a single person safer and that largely maintains the status quo. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: There is nothing about parole though. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: No that is right. And we say again to the Minister that if he is serious about being tough on crime he should pick up the phone. I am sure that he can call the Governor-General at home. It is a bit late but I am sure he would take the call—[ 
Interruption 
] OK maybe he would not. But to be fair we did raise this issue during work hours when the Minister could have picked up the phone and said to the Governor-General that a bill had been passed by the former Government about parole— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Two-thirds. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —the two-thirds of a sentence minimum parole provisions—and the Minister could have picked up the phone. He could have done that while he was in the chair; he could have sent a text message. He would have shown himself to be tough on crime in the first 100 days right there. 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has already been comment about drawing the Governor-General into these debates. I think it was you who gave an earlier ruling on that. It is completely inappropriate; it is outlawed by the Standing Orders. Why does the member persist in trifling with us? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Governor-General is not being brought into the debate by the member saying that the Minister has the power to get an Order in Council which of course involves the Governor-General in the process of issuing it. That does not presume any views that the Governor-General may have about the merits of that Order in Council. It is simply a process issue that is being discussed. 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: That is a completely inaccurate representation of what the member was saying. The member was offering a proposition that the Minister should call the Governor-General and somehow seek to influence him in favour of or against this bill. That is completely wrong. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member was not saying that at all. She was speaking slightly loosely about the process involved in issuing an Order in Council. The fact is the Minister recommends to the Governor-General. That is the exact form. Probably the Minister who has just spoken has not actually had one yet. Sooner or later he will have one—no doubt by 2010 or so. If the Minister recommends an Order in Council be issued the Governor-General agrees to that and does so. Surprisingly enough since 1707 it has been the normal behaviour of the Sovereign to agree to what is recommended by Parliament or the executive and that is done. That does not mean that the Governor-General is brought into the debate. When referring to the process of issuing an Order in Council the member is quite correct. One could be issued to bring in the provisions for parole after serving two-thirds of a sentence. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Members Standing Order 114 rules against disrespectful references to the Governor-General being made in debate. I also spoke earlier about trying to speculate on what the Governor-General’s attitudes might be. Again that is not in order. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the point of order that was being made by my colleague the Hon Dr “Sir” Richard Worth OBE MP interjected on my colleague. I think that is a very unhelpful way to perform and behave in the House this evening and you might want to call him to order in respect of that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I did note that there was a brief interjection. I was about to object to it but I let it slide in the hope that we could get to the end of these points of order and we could then address the issue that is before us: the Bail Amendment Bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I thank the honourable member for raising that point. I think it was a very good use of time for us to learn about the origin of that particular point of order. I thank the member the Hon Dr “Sir” Richard Worth OBE for raising that. I believe it was a good use of the House’s time to learn about that. 
As I was saying during the election campaign the people of New Zealand and the then Labour Government were subjected to constant cries of how National would get tough on crime. As I said we waited with bated breath to see the first law and order bill introduced into this House in the 100 days of turbocharged action of this new National Government because this is the bill that essentially sets the law and order tone of this National Government for the next 3 years. This is the bill upon which it launched its “tough on crime” platform. What does it do? It largely maintains the status quo as the Minister has admitted. 
We will not vote against something that maintains the status quo that we put in place—that would be ridiculous. But I say to members that the rhetoric we heard on the campaign trail is not matched by the reality of this legislation because not one New Zealander will be safer as a result of this legislation passing into law. We on this side of the House feel that it is our role as the Opposition to hold the Government to account for the promises it made to the electorate during the election campaign. Paula Bennett thinks she should not have to live up to the promises she made. In fact Paula Bennett made a speech in the House on the previous bill that was so full of clichés that it showed only that she must be related to David Bennett because their speeches were pretty much exactly the same. Either that or David Bennett gave her— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That is a terrible thing to say. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: OK I withdraw and apologise. 
But we must look at the context within which this bill came in. Of course it was the Labour Government that strengthened and toughened our bail laws. It was also the Labour Government that strengthened and toughened our Parole Act and our Sentencing Act. We acknowledged that the sentence needs to fit the crime and that often the victims of crime did feel that they were not treated well in the justice system. In the 9 years of the National Government for example someone could get a sentence of preventive detention only on the second offence. It was as though the first one was free. It would have been bad enough to get preventive detention if it had been for the second offence but people got it only if they had been convicted twice. So one of the first things Labour did was to make sure that the sentence of preventive detention was available on the first sentence so that if that was appropriate it could be applied then. 
So we had a National Government for 9 years that did nothing but talk big. It was loud in Opposition but it was quiet in Government. Then we had a Labour Government for 9 years that strengthened the bail laws the Parole Act and sentencing laws and that brought in the Victims’ Rights Act and strengthened victims’ rights. And now we have moved again to a National Government that has promised us it will be tough on crime. What evidence do we get of that? What is the first legislation we get? It is a bill that will not help any more people to avoid becoming victims. 
Amy Adams 
: Yes it will. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: According to that member yes it will. That will be interesting to see. I would like to know from the member—and I am sure she can take a call in this debate—how much money her Government has budgeted for this bill if it will result in a lot more people being held on remand. Does she know that? No I did not think so. I suspect that she may want to read a little more about this bill before she interjects. 
As I said in my previous speech this bill and this Government never speak about the things we need to do in order to make sure that young people who are on the path to crime get off that path. The former Labour-led Government put much resourcing into ensuring that our most vulnerable families were not living in poverty. We lifted 130000 children out of poverty. Yesterday we saw a taxation bill that kicks those families in the guts again and raises taxes on some of our most vulnerable families in order to pour money into the pockets of the chief executive of Telecom. How will that solve crime down the road? We saw a 90-day bill that will see people lose their jobs having been fired for absolutely no reason at a time when we should be protecting those people. Where will the children who are growing up in those households be in 15 or 16 years’ time as this new National Government reverts to form and plunges them back into poverty? I will tell members where they will be. They will be there with another National Government saying that a bill like this one will solve crime whilst doing nothing to address the actual causes of crime. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 In my contributions during the Committee stage of the debate one of the things I was interested in was the cost of the policy given the complete lack of information about its necessity and its effect. We have no information at all about whether the bill is needed or the impact it will have because the bill did not go through the select committee process. We have not had reports from officials and we have not had assessments from those at the coalface doing this work—those from the courts those involved with prisoner rehabilitation those involved with victims’ rights organisations those involved with the police corrections or with remand. No one who actually has to do the work that this bill will require and no one who will be affected whether it be the prisoners or the victims by this bill has had a chance to have any kind of say or make any analysis of the bill. That means we are passing legislation with a huge lacuna of information and that makes us highly irresponsible. The passage of this bill is fiscally and legislatively irresponsible and a disgrace. I am sure taxpayers around the country will be horrified to discover that this legislation will cost about $45 million a year to implement with no information no oversight and no scrutiny. 
The cost of this legislation is very interesting because it does beg the question of where the Minister and the ministry expect to get the money from. Earlier on the Prime Minister said very clearly that there would be no money for Ministers to spend. Where is the $45 million going to come from? It will have to come from somewhere within the ministry. That is what the Prime Minister has said that Ministers have to do. What else might that money be used for or where else might it be coming from? What we do know of course is that the most effective means of preventing reoffending is keeping people out of jail and providing them with rehabilitation services when they are in jail; and afterwards when they are out in the community community support and community transition from other kinds of sentences back out into the community. 
Those services are run by community organisations—by churches; by organisations and programmes like the Sycamore Tree Programme for example which does an exceptional job; by restorative justice organisations; and by the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society which is a fantastic organisation of people directly impacted. This community sector is absolutely desperate for funds to run the programmes for prisoners and their families for offenders and their families for offenders and victims to make sure that offenders do not reoffend and they are by and large very effective programmes. These are the community programmes that work. These are the community programmes that keep our communities safe because they deal with the actual issues that lead to reoffending such as drug and alcohol addiction and systemic lifelong physical psychological and sexual abuse. 
These community programmes provide education and find means for prisoners and their families—offenders and their families—to re-educate themselves so that they have skills that they can take out to the workforce. Support for offenders trying to get work support for victims to deal with the impacts of the crimes on their lives and to confront either their own offenders through a restorative justice programme or other offenders to understand what is going on is provided through programmes like the Sycamore Tree. They are desperate for funds. 
Where might the money to pay for this $45 million useless project come from? It may well come from the Ministry of Justice support that goes to those programmes. Why would that be? It is because this Government completely fails utterly and dismally to understand that to work to protect our communities to keep them safer we need to stop reoffending. That is where the resources need to go. This bail legislation will make no difference whatsoever to the safety of our communities. The National Government and the Minister need to take responsibility for that failure should there be any reoccurrence of the kinds of cases and the kinds of issues that have been described during the debate. 
The other question it raises for me is that if there is going to have to be an increase in remand beds then this policy begins to lay the groundwork for the privatisation of prisons and private sector engagement in the building and management of our prisons. We have had this fight in this Chamber before. My colleague Nandor Tanczos led the charge to oppose the privatisation of prisons and we were very pleased when Labour Government legislation was put forward that would prevent the privatisation of prisons. I was involved with Nandor Tanczos: we visited prisons to talk about remand issues. I went to Auckland Remand Prison a privately owned prison at the time. It was a lovely prison if there is such a thing. It was very flash. It had fabulous services and all these wonderful things. It was obviously a loss leader. There is absolutely no way that Australasian Correctional Management could possibly have provided those kinds of services for the money it was getting contracted to do it for. It was clearly a flagship institution to try to encourage people to think that private prisons were fantastic so that they could get more contracts and run the miserable violent terrible prisons that they are known for running around the world in Australia South America and other countries. 
These companies that run private prisons are known not only for the abuse that goes on within the prisons between inmates but also for the abuse between inmates and corrections staff and the abuse of staff by the institutions themselves. Their services are dismal; the rehabilitation is ridiculous and non-existent. These private prisons have an international record of the most appalling impacts and results. Yet at the time there was a huge outcry from the National Party about the elimination of private prisons because its whole ideology is around the increase in privatisation of public services. 
Not only are we concerned about the privatisation of prisons but also we are concerned about the practical implementation of having private companies making a profit off the imprisoning of our own people—and particularly the imprisonment of Maori for whom those rates are very high. The principle is that it is the role of the State to engage in that level of punishment and the role of the State to be part of that justice and legal process. For the community to then contract out those responsibilities to the private sector is a wholesale relegation of that social contact between the State and the community. So in principle it is absolutely appalling and in practice it causes huge discrimination huge abuse of offenders and actually of the staff as is known. 
Towards the end of my first reading speech I talked about the social impacts of legislation and about the comment that Simon Power had made that corrections policy is failed social policy. I reiterate that again because I think that was a very wise statement and it is absolutely true. Like Moana Mackey I too am terribly concerned about the social policy that the National Government is putting through in urgency. That includes the tax cuts for some with tax increases for the poor in order to pad out the wallets of the wealthy; the 90-day fire-at-will legislation which will mean that young people and vulnerable workers in particular will have a great deal of difficulty getting and keeping employment; and also the coming education legislation which the House will soon be debating. This not only contains an increase in truancy fines for the most vulnerable and poorest families who could not afford to pay the existing fines and certainly will not be able to afford to pay the $3000 worth of fines but also the move to league tables for primary schools which is a move towards the privatisation of the education system. 
This bail legislation like the other legislation that is going through under urgency signals the Government’s absolutely clear path towards the privatisation of public assets and public services. It is a disgrace. It will cause greater reoffending it will cause communities to be less safe than they would otherwise have been and it is a dismal disgraceful waste of taxpayers’ money. Thank you. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I have been listening with interest to the comments from the Labour Opposition this afternoon. I have a number of comments in response to the issues they have raised but before I make them I need to turn my initial comments to the Green Party member Metiria Turei. I think the House has just been subject to a huge amount of rubbish. The honourable member talked about the social contract. Well I say that the social contract Parliament and the Government of this country has with the people of New Zealand is to keep them safe. The member talked about the former private remand prison at Mount Eden. I ask the member how many escapes were made from that prison. She talked on the one hand about the superb services the good quality of the prison and the way the inmates were treated and then she turned around and tried to draw a comparison with prisons in South America. The social contract that the Government of this country has with the people of New Zealand is to keep them safe and to protect them from crime. I see Mr Cullen is looking. I do not believe that the members on that side of the House have actually understood why they lost this election but one of the key issues was law and order. One of the key issues in the election was law and order and the fact that the people of New Zealand want to be kept safe. 
But before I go back to that issue again I will comment also on Metiria Turei’s comments on the tax bill. The tax bill that has just been passed under urgency makes a significant reduction in the top marginal tax rate. I have said that it is not enough but it is the start—it is the start of a tax system that will reward people who want to work hard get on have a higher income provide for their families and provide a higher standard of living. It will stop the great exodus of people going from this country to Australia. Similarly the changes to the employment legislation are all designed to encourage employers to take on staff with the confidence that they can do so and to create wealth and improve the productivity of this country. 
Let me come back to you Mr Cosgrove; let me come back to you. As I say I do not think that you have understood— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I wouldn’t get that close. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: You would not get that close? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: To you? Hell no! 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: So you are frightened of me Mr Cosgrove? I am not surprised. You should be because—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am not the object of the debate. Please keep the conversation in the third person; do not bring the Chair into the debate. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I apologise Mr Assistant Speaker. I was referring my comments to Mr Cosgrove. Mr Cosgrove trivialises the very fundamental issue of law and order. He talked about there being no crime in the country. He trivialised the speech that Melissa Lee made. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No no no. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Yes he did. He talked about there being no crime in New Zealand. He said that the white doves would be free to be released that there would be no crime and that all would be good and well in this country. The member shows how he “trivilises” this issue. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: “Trivil” what? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: He trivialised it. Moana Mackey rose to say that this bill does practically nothing and then she went on to say that my colleague says that in itself this bill will do little. [ 
Interruption 
] That is what she said. David Quarrack has quite rightly said that in itself this bill will do little. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to be of assistance because I know that every member has the right to be addressed in the appropriate way. I think that Mr Boscawen was referring to Mr Garrett not Mr Barrett. I do not think we have a Mr Barrett in the House and I think that the member should show some respect to his colleague. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a proper point of order. I call the member to continue his speech. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. If members are concerned that this bill does practically nothing then let me just talk to them about some of the other bills that will come before the House on this issue. Let me talk about the three strikes bill. The ACT Party came to Parliament on a promise to introduce the three strikes bill. Members of the Opposition will have an opportunity to vote for that bill and to refer it to a select committee; members will have the chance to vote for that bill refer it back to the House and pass it into law. 
Moana Mackey 
: When will that be introduced? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: 15 years! 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: The initial effect of that ACT bill will be immediate because— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Immediate—no it won’t. Talk to Garrett. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: That is right. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He said 20 years. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Yes you can smile. Let me explain to you— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I cannot smile; please keep me out of the debate. Focus on the point. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I apologise. Let me explain to the member how that bill will operate. On the first conviction criminals on serious and violent offences will be convicted and sentenced and will serve the full length of the term that the judge sentences them for. So on their first conviction for a serious and violent offence offenders will have to serve the full length of their sentences. On the second conviction for a serious and violent offence they will have to serve the maximum sentence. So if the maximum for grievous bodily harm is 14 years then that is exactly what they will serve. 
The point that Mr Garrett was trying to make which has been misrepresented by the Opposition is that if criminals have two strikes they will in the first instance already have served the time set down by the judge for the first strike so they will serve the maximum time provided under the law for the second serious violent conviction. Then on the third conviction they will serve 25 years to life. So if members on the other side of the House are concerned that this bill does practically nothing if that is their concern then I can tell them that the ACT Party came into this Parliament to fulfil its social contract with the people of New Zealand to keep the people of New Zealand safe and to punish those who commit serious violent crimes. 
I say to Mr Cosgrove and Mr Cullen— 
Hon Members 
: Dr Cullen. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: —I apologise; the Hon Dr Cullen—that they and their colleagues will have the opportunity to refer ACT’s three strikes bill to a select committee. I welcome those members’ support and the support of the National members on that committee to hear the submissions of the public of New Zealand and then to refer the bill back and pass it into law. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What other bills are coming? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Well hopefully there will be a repeal of the emissions trading scheme. There will be future tax bills. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. I am pleased the member is clapping because the Hon Jim Anderton was having a crack at the National Government earlier this week and at the fact that there was no reference to research and development in the Speech from the Throne. Those members forget that the Labour Government passed emissions trading legislation that will introduce severe taxes for the rural sector in this country. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What else is coming? 
Moana Mackey 
: What else are you going to do? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I am very pleased to hear the interjections. I wish they would come just one at a time because then I could actually hear them and respond to them. It is actually a bit hard to hear. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What other bills are coming? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: We have the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill coming up later this evening. 
Hon Member 
: We? Those aren’t your bills. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Well I am happy to talk about the ACT policy on education if members wish because we certainly believe that parents in this country should be addressing— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member should be addressing the Bail Amendment Bill. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker I did not hear those comments. I am happy to sit down because the point I am trying to make is that the Labour Opposition is saying that this bill will do practically nothing. If members think this bill will do practically nothing they will have the opportunity to vote for the ACT “Three Strikes and You are Out Bill” early in the New Year. I can assure them that that bill will do something and that members of the ACT Party are committed to this Government fulfilling its social contract with the people of New Zealand. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: For the edification of the House I remind members that we are on the third reading of the Bail Amendment Bill. The Government’s agenda for some time in the future is not part of that discussion—interesting though it was to members. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I will take I hope a relatively brief call. This must be an awful day for Government members. Today they have found out that practically none of their backbenchers can move a closure motion correctly so the crusade for literacy starts there. They cannot even read: “I move that the question be now put.” I saw them: they had it in front of them and they could not even read it. 
Then Government members found out that their coalition partners give fruit cake a bad name. That speech really was a worry. Anybody who knows my background will know that I have been a rather staunch critic of Marxism as an intellectual theory but Marx had the insight that lots of groups have what is called false consciousness—they tend to argue what is actually against their own intrinsic interests. I say to Mr Boscawen that a large amount of the choice seafront property in New Zealand is owned by the supporters of the ACT Party so ACT had better be right on global warming because if it has got it wrong it will be a classic case of false consciousness. ACT is about to drown its own supporters progressively over the coming generations. 
Coming back to the Bail Amendment Bill I say that during the election campaign Mr Power flew around the country like some kind of superhero. He was “Justice Man” with a big “J” on his chest and great wads of cotton wool stuffed elsewhere on his body and he was going to deliver justice to the country. He was going to clamp down on crime. He was going to wipe out everything that everybody hated about crime. He laboured mightily in the vineyard and he brought forth—well it is flattery to call it a mouse. It is actually a little tiny bill that is not new as he said in his first reading speech of roughly 200 words I think it was at most. It is an old bill. It is what the Labour Government legislated for previously. It is not even a new idea; it is an old idea with a Labour stamp on it and it will not do anything of any significance at all. As a kind of law and order man he is now going around the country like Wyatt Earp with no horse and no guns and it will not be a good way to go I can tell Mr Power in that particular contest. 
We are told even in the notes prepared for us by officials that this bill will have very little effect. Very few people will be affected by this bill at all. If it keeps one serious violent offender from committing another violent offence then that is obviously an advantage of the bill but that will depend on the judges getting it right. As I said before there is a matter of difficult judgment. People have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The default position is that people have bail unless there is good reason for them not to have bail and that must be the position. Otherwise the presumption of innocence has no meaning because it means that any of us are liable in effect to serve a period in prison even if we are totally innocent of the charges that have been brought against us. 
This bill is all the Government can do in this first great burst of the 100 days in order to address law and order issues. That is not what people were led to expect during the election campaign. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Don’t worry. More is on the way. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well I ask Mr Power whether what is coming is what Mr Boscawen suggested—something that says people have to serve the full sentence. Mr Boscawen clearly does not understand how judges work. If a judge is faced with the position where whatever sentence he or she gives is the full sentence that must be served then the average full sentence will drop for any given set of offences. That is precisely what judges will do because they will take into account the fact that the full sentence must be served and there is no possibility of parole. It also means that prisoners will be less well prepared for release into the community and when finally released they will be more likely to reoffend. So that measure is very unlikely to protect the community better against violent offences. 
This is a classic case of the idea that if a party puts together enough bumper stickers it can make a car but it does not actually work that way—not even for a non-turbocharged car. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Oh they still laugh at his jokes. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am glad Jacqui Dean interrupted because one of the things I have not understood is why she is not the Minister of Finance. As the only member opposite who knows how to get money without borrowing it from overseas she is precisely the person we need to be Minister of Finance at the moment when the Government is in great need of money without having to borrow it. But of course she does not actually have a clue how to do that. 
Let me say to Mr Power that this is a trivial bill. It is a bill that will not achieve its stated effects. It will not reduce crime. It will not protect the public from violence. It may lead to some marginal increase in costs and—as Ms Turei quite rightly said—if that happens given the cap on spending that money will have to come from somewhere else and it may well come from the provision of rehabilitation programmes. At the end of the day we will support the bill because actually it does nothing but what a waste of time it is to pretend that this is the great measure under urgency in the first week of Parliament to deal with law and order issues. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is good to be able to take a call and make a few points in respect of the Bail Amendment Bill. It is good to know too that the Labour Opposition is supporting the Government in respect of this provision a provision that is no silver bullet in spite of what the Opposition says we have cracked it up to be. We know that there is no particular legislation that will do an absolute job on absolutely everything; everybody knows that. We are not under any illusions in that respect in spite of the hopes and dreams of those who come into this House as we all did. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Melissa Lee is. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: What is a bit of a shame to look at though is the way the Labour Party Opposition is prepared to take the mickey out of anybody who comes here with some sort of experience to bring to the table or some sort of energy or willingness to express desires in where the law might be able to take them. 
It is interesting to hear the former member for Otaki expressing a bit of humour and taking the mickey in that particular way. At least he does it with a little bit of class. He has some youthful enthusiasm—as I understand it he has been shaving for 10 years and he cut himself on both occasions. It is a totally different scenario for the soon to be former member for Waimakariri who wants to take a slap every time he turns. When he speaks like he does turning one way to the other it is as if he has the agitator from one of those old washing machines stuck in his nether regions because that is the way he does it time and time again. 
The fact is that this legislation is just a little bit of common sense which brings something to the debate around reoffending and the opportunity to reoffend. It is one small step that we can take. If those members are prepared to go out and back legislation which they say does nothing we look forward to them backing the legislation that we intend to bring before this House in respect of gangs and in respect of recovering DNA from every person who is arrested for an imprisonable offence. We look forward to hearing those members backing us on legislation that for instance will put 12 and 13-year-olds before the Youth Court and allow them to access the programmes and extend the sentences that that court will be able to impose upon those young offenders to make some real intervention and to provide some of the real rehabilitation that the Green member lamented the absence of. 
We look forward to hearing the Labour Party back us on legislation that will give longer sentences to those accused of crimes against children who are the most vulnerable within our society. No doubt there will be references to other cases that have been to the absolute shame of New Zealand society. We look forward to the Labour Party backing Government initiatives to remove the options of parole for the worst repeat violent offenders. If the Labour Party is prepared to back this legislation purely on the basis that the politics of not supporting it would only damn it within the headlines and over every bar leaner in the country then we look forward to the Labour Opposition backing the serious legislation that will soon come before the House that will deal significantly to repeat offenders. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 7 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time. 
Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 The Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill implements policy changes that this Government is committed to as part of our priority action plan for education. The National-led Government is absolutely committed to raising education standards. This bill delivers on that commitment by raising standards of achievement and attendance in compulsory education. The bill does two things to achieve that: it gives the Minister of Education the power to set national standards in literacy and numeracy and it strengthens truancy law. At the moment one in five New Zealand children leaves school without the qualifications he or she needs to succeed. 
Our Government wants all children and young people to have the basic skills they need in order to do well at school and to succeed in the workforce. The bill underpins that focus by giving the Minister of Education an explicit power to set national standards in literacy and numeracy. It adds national standards to the National Education Guidelines so that the Minister of Education may publish by notice in the  
Gazette 
 national standards in literacy and numeracy. The introduction of national standards in literacy and numeracy will provide an external benchmark against which to measure student progress. Making that explicit in the National Education Guidelines will sharpen our focus on the improvement of student achievement. 
I want to stress to all involved that this legislation gives the Minister of Education the power to set those standards; the legislation does not itself set the standards. In the new year the Ministry of Education will be leading a consultation round with the wider education sector. At that time the sector will be consulted about the design of the standards the benchmarks that will need to be in place in order for current assessment tools to be used against the standards and the form that reporting to parents to the community and to the Government will take. We have promised that consultation and we are keeping our promise. 
I will listen to the sector as we undertake that consultation. The process will allow the standards to be published late in 2009 and be ready for implementation in schools at the beginning of 2010. The bill also requires school boards to include in their school charters the boards’ priorities and targets for assessing students against national standards. Schools will report on those as part of their normal planning and reporting processes so as not to create more compliance costs. National standards will apply to all State schools in New Zealand and they will apply to students from years 1 to 8. They will provide a set of shared expectations about what students should be achieving as they move through primary and intermediate school. 
Many teachers already know how well their students are doing in their classes. Many teachers already use a range of assessment tools to identify where to focus attention and ensure better progress. Despite the availability of those tools the Education Review Office reported in March 2007 that 56 percent of schools recently reviewed were not using worthwhile achievement data. Our policy will ensure that all schools have that achievement data and the policy will also ensure that they use it to help their students. 
An important point is that parents do not always know how their children compare with others and neither teachers nor parents have a clear picture of how children are doing relative to their peers across the nation. An Education Review Office report published in 2007 found that 49 percent of primary schools were generally ineffective at reporting achievement information to parents and to their community. The aim of this policy is to ensure that parents get that information and that they get it in a form they can understand. The bill provides teachers and parents with certainty about whether a child is reading writing and doing maths at the expected national level. They will also know how many other children are meeting the standard. The standards will not affect those students who are exempt from enrolment in a State school—such as students who are home-schooled—and will not affect students enrolled in private schools as the National Education Guidelines do not apply to them. 
Truancy increased by 41 percent from 2002 under the previous Labour Government. On any given day under that same Government more than 30000 students were likely to be absent from school. Students who are absent from school miss out on class work and are at risk of falling behind. Persistent truants are at serious risk of leaving school without the literacy and numeracy skills they need. Urgent action is needed. Every parent who fails to ensure his or her child attends school commits an offence. If prosecuted parents are liable to a fine. At the moment the maximum fine for a first offence is $150. The maximum fine for a second offence is $400. This bill raises the maximum level of those fines. Parents will be fined up to $300 for a first offence and up to $3000 for a second or subsequent offence. Parents also commit an offence if they fail to enrol their child at school and the level of fine for that offence will rise from $1000 to a maximum of $3000. Although the maximum level of the fine will be $3000 judges will still have the discretion to consider a number of factors when deciding the level of the fine to impose. 
Some members may want the House to consider alternative measures to prosecution and fines. Let me assure members that prosecuting parents is a last-resort intervention used for persistent unjustified and parent-condoned truancy. Prosecution is for when other alternatives fail. 
As well as changing the law this Government will support schools to address issues of truancy. Our election policy outlined additional funding for schools to assist them to deal with truants. The bill allows the Secretary for Education to take prosecutions. The Secretary for Education may assist the school by taking the prosecution. The secretary may also take action if a school does not do so in cases where chronic parent-condoned truancy is identified. 
I ask that this House gives earnest consideration to supporting the two areas that I have outlined: the power to set national standards in literacy and the strengthening of truancy law. This is a priority area for education. It begins the task of raising the standards of achievement and attendance in our New Zealand schools. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 As I listened to the lacklustre new Minister of Education I wondered how that Minister would fare if the new 90-day rule applied to Government Ministers. That member Anne Tolley is the same new Minister of Education who was replayed on television last night telling teachers in the election campaign that the 90-day trial period does not apply to schools. We were told in the House yesterday that—what was it we were told I ask Mr Cosgrove—yes it does apply to schools with under 20 employees. That is about 800 schools and virtually every early childhood education centre in the country. 
Mrs Tolley the new Minister of Education has I venture to say already very little credibility in the job—just like the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. I have to say that when I looked at the legislation I wondered what it was for. It was supposed to be the great crusade for literacy. The bill acknowledges that the testing regimes—the assessment regimes—that will be used in New Zealand schools are already happening. The member may not know what NAGs are but most of the rest of us especially those of us who have been teachers know they are National Administration Guidelines. Point (ii)(b) of National Administration Guideline 1 which all schools are required to follow states that schools must give priority to student achievement in literacy and numeracy. National Administration Guidelines 1 and 2 state that schools must develop a programme of teaching literacy and numeracy in their schools and must set up assessment processes and that those processes must be explained and shown to students parents and the community. The schools are required to do those things and they are checked every 3 years when the Education Review Office visits the schools. 
What is the purpose of the bill? Is it a sort of fig leaf to cover up National’s election slogans that talked about the failure of New Zealand schools? Actually as I have said many times recently in the House New Zealand schools are extraordinarily successful. Indeed our students figure among the most successful in the world. I kept thinking about what the purpose of the bill was. I read it a second time and it became clear that this is actually an insidious and very dangerous bill. It is a Trojan Horse for right-wing policies in education. 
First of all it removes the ability for the Ministry of Education to use regulation to set up national standards. If the Minister publishes them in the  
Gazette 
 of course they cannot go to Parliament’s Regulations Review Committee. They cannot be examined to see how valid they are. This bill is about getting national standards by a dictatorial approach to education. It is about the standards not being scrutinised. Actually of course that is the process we are engaged in now. This bill is being rammed through. There is no ability for any of the stakeholder groups in education—the School Trustees Association the New Zealand Educational Institute the Post Primary Teachers Association the Principals Federation or the parents and the students themselves—to have an input into the bill because it is being rammed through in urgency. 
Secondly—and this is why the bill is very dangerous—it introduces the idea of national standards. I think that every member of this House who is interested in education will know that where national standards have been imposed—in places like the UK for example or recently in the United States under the Bush regime’s “No Child Left Behind” policy—they have been an absolute and utter failure. I know that some of my colleagues will be talking more this evening and tomorrow about the experiences of other countries and other education systems where national standards have been imposed. Of course teachers then teach to the test. They do not look at lifting students’ literacy and numeracy. Mrs Tolley has already totally discredited herself in her meetings with school principals. A principal rang me today to say that in his experience as a principal she must be the most inexperienced the most unsuitable person to be appointed as the Minister of Education. I would like to talk about what is happening in our schools. Is Mrs Tolley knowledgable at all about the programmes that are going on in schools? asTTle was mentioned. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Plays cricket! 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That is true; she probably thinks it is a cricketer. There is the reading recovery programme in which New Zealand has been a world leader. There is Project Probe and there are the literacy and numeracy progressions which are part of a developing pilot programme going on in every New Zealand school. Those are successful programmes. Indeed as I said before the bill itself acknowledges them. So why is the Government implementing these national standards? 
I remind the House again that the bill is about a different agenda in education. It is about saying that we will have competition between schools. One of the hallmarks of New Zealand education has been the collaborative and collegial approach both within our schools and between schools. One of the programmes that I as Minister of Education was very proud of was the Extending High Standards in Schools programme whereby secondary and primary schools collaborated to share best practice. They were not competing but cooperating together to get the best learning outcomes for their students. We were also doing fantastic work in networking for specific areas such as information and communications technology. That was building on a long tradition in New Zealand education of schools working together. Between 1990 and 1999 the National Government introduced bulk funding. Schools became extraordinarily competitive. I know there are some members of this House who were proponents of bulk funding but I have to say that the vast bulk of the education sector was very opposed to it. 
Our school system—a world-class cutting-edge education system—is about collaboration innovation and looking for ways in which we can lift students’ learning outcomes. This bill does nothing to achieve those goals. In fact it is anti those goals. The bill is about competition league tables and comparing schools. We already know that the greatest teaching challenges for New Zealand education are in our low-decile schools with lower socio-economic groups and with Maori and Pacific students. The success of those students is the future of our country. Some 21 percent of young New Zealanders have Maori heritage. It is in their interests and our country’s interest to lift those students’ learning to the best of their potential. 
What will this bill do? It will create league tables comparing schools. It will compound the perception of winner schools and loser schools. Low-decile schools will have the worst outcomes because of this bill. High-decile schools will be the most successful. The Government has already indicated to the House that it will be “flexible” about enrolment zones. We know that is code for weakening them further. We saw what happened when zoning was removed; we saw the growth of perceived winner schools and we saw the decline of the neighbourhood school which was perceived as not successful. We do not want that to happen again. 
I do not have a lot of time left in this part of my contribution so I would like to just touch on the truancy issue. Truancy is an issue that mostly affects students who opt to truant. We want to get those students engaged. A very very small number of parents actively collaborate in making their children stay away from school. The parents of most truants are in fact desperate to get their kids back into school. In principle I am not opposed to an increase in penalties for parents who actively collaborate with and assist their children to truant. What I am concerned about is that good parents will be punished for the behaviour of their bad kids. So Labour will be introducing at least one amendment which clarifies that this legislation applies only to parents who actively collaborate to ensure that their children truant. We do not want good parents punished for the behaviour of their bad kids. Everyone in this House who is a parent knows that parents cannot always be responsible for what our children do. We want the best for them but we cannot always be responsible for what they do. We do not want good parents being punished. 
So I say to the House that this legislation will not receive the support of the Labour Party because we think it will do nothing to assist literacy and numeracy outcomes in our schools. In fact it will be a barrier to that ambition. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I listened with some interest to Mr Chris Carter’s speech and I was thinking that I could have written it—it was so predictable. I suspect that for the Labour members who will follow I could do exactly the same sort of thing. That will be the tragedy of this debate. 
I observe that Mr Carter did not indicate to the House whether the Labour Party will be supporting the bill or voting against it. If Labour members are going to vote against it let me say what they are going to vote against. No child growing up in New Zealand at the moment who does not learn to read to write and to do maths has a place in the social and economic structure of a modern country. No child who is going to school and who is not being taught to read to write and to do maths and no child who because of his or her particular learning styles that do not fit in with established ideologies and methodologies does not learn to read to write and to do maths has a future in a country like New Zealand. That is what this bill the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill is all about. Finally at long last a Government is making an effort to deal to a problem that has undermined the New Zealand schooling system for far too long. We know and the Opposition knows that too many of our children are failing at school. 
You know one of the things that the National Certificate of Educational Achievement finally told us is that the percentage of our children who are not reaching minimum standards is far too high. The Opposition members who are going to take calls later need to be very very careful that they do not advance the argument that really says “Let’s continue to deny a fifth of our children the chance to learn. Let’s continue to deny them the expectation that they can and will learn.” It is absolutely beyond me how any member elected to this Parliament would want anything but to make every effort to ensure that more of our children learn. It is simple. It is not about ideology. It is not about methodology. It is not about the old arguments that relate to decile rating family background ethnic background or all that sort of stuff. It is not about all the old reasons that have been advanced to justify why some children are not learning. It is about a standard and an expectation that many more of our children than currently reach that standard can reach it and should reach it. 
It would be very wise for the members opposite to remember one thing: our national qualification system which I guarantee they all support—and when in Government they defended it and worked hard to develop and improve it—is a standards-based system. This bill is bringing the notion of an education system based on standards as to what children need to know and be able to do down into the primary sector so that there is a natural continuum in the way that children are learning how they have to learn and what they have to learn and so that we can be sure they are reaching those standards. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: That’s happened already. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I do not want to hear from the Opposition a whole pile of stuff about what is happening in America or what is happening in Britain. I do not want to hear badly quoted research. I know a lot of those researchers; I have spoken on platforms with some of them. The Opposition members should be very very careful about what they claim is happening in the United Kingdom and the United States in particular. 
I repeat that the most important thing about this legislation is that for the first time it will establish an expectation of what we expect and need our children to do. It is a statement of faith and confidence in the next generation of New Zealanders. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I am speaking in opposition to this legislation and I am doing that not because I think that the Minister has evil intents but because I think she is confused and probably does not understand what she is doing. She certainly has not— 
Hon Bill English 
: So patronising. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well she certainly has not read the National Administration Guidelines. I will read some of them to her because clearly her literacy skills are not at the point of reading them well herself: “Each Board through the principal and staff is required to: (i) … (b) giving priority to student achievement in literacy and numeracy especially in years 1-4 … (ii) though a range of assessment practices gather information that is sufficiently comprehensive to enable the progress and achievement of students to be evaluated; giving priority first to: (a) student achievement in literacy and numeracy”. It is a requirement: “(iii) on the basis of good quality assessment information [to] identify students and groups of students; (a) who are not achieving; (b) who are at the risk of not achieving;”. National Administration Guideline 2 states that it is a requirement to: “(iii) report to students and their parents on the achievement of individual students”. 
The point I am making is that there is already a requirement to do this and the Education Review Office is getting better at making sure that schools are meeting that requirement. This bill is unnecessary. 
If we move to a standards system then it is likely that the progressive achievement test will be the one selected. In my view that would not be a good thing. It is probably the test that is most widely used. It is a test run by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research but it is now generally regarded as being a bit old-fashioned and not up with the play or up with the modern world. We have instead had for 8 years now I think a development at Auckland University. The asTTle system under Professor John Hattie is one that is internationally regarded and used widely through New Zealand. It is working very very well at the moment. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You had better explain it to them. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not want to go into the detail on the asTTle system other than to say that it is mainly computer-based and that it does not give just a raw score but indicates where a particular student’s strengths are and where the student’s weaknesses are across a range of topics. As well as that it can work across a class and show the strengths and weaknesses of a particular teacher and therefore the need for professional development in that classroom in a way that the progressive achievement test being promoted by the National Government has no chance of doing at all. The progressive achievement test gives a raw score and it is essentially useless. What will happen is that we will have a lot more time focused on assessment which means less time for teaching and learning. What do kids go to school for? They go to school to learn; they do not go to school to be assessed. 
I will comment on the UK system. I know quite a lot about it; I looked at it when I was in Opposition before I was the Minister of Education. I spent a couple of our summers getting quite cold looking at the British political and education system. The point I got to was that the British have what is effectively a decile-based system of requirements for schools to meet particular levels of literacy and numeracy. If the schools do not meet them they are punished over a period of years and if they get it wrong substantially then they are disestablished. 
For example a school that is given a requirement that 85 percent of its students are to be assessed at a particular level or higher focuses on the group of students between about 70 percent and 90 percent to make sure that this group gets the school over its 85 percent because that is seen as being successful for the school. What happens if a pupil is in the bottom 10 percent? That pupil is essentially ignored. What happens if a pupil is in the top 70 percent? For a large period of the year that pupil is essentially ignored. What happens is that there is a lot of focus on that assessment but it is on only a very narrow range of kids rather than on kids from across the board. 
I will tell members a little about Wainuiomata and what has happened there in my electorate and in the town where I live over the last 4 or 5 years since we have had change there. We have moved in schools that are all either decile 3 or decile 4 towards literacy and numeracy results that are above the national average in New Zealand—sitting up around the results of a decile 6 school on average—as a result of intensive work and some very good assessment using the asTTle system. The schools have done it voluntarily and they share the information from school to school. 
One of the reasons the system works brilliantly in Wainuiomata is that schools share information vertically with the intermediate school and the secondary school and they share it with each other with schools next door in a cooperative way rather than in the competitive way that will inevitably result from the national testing and the league tables that will flow from this. I can tell the Minister that if schools are required to keep this information then it will be available under the Official Information Act and league tables will be appearing in newspapers all over the place. 
I also acknowledge Hekia Parata for the work that her family has done up on the East Coast in this area. Again enormous progress has been made in groups of schools there where there has been a special focus on teaching and learning and incidentally on assessment. It has been led by the teaching and the assessment is incidental to it. 
Hon Member 
: Are you supporting it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I am not supporting the bill at all. What I am saying is that it gives undue focus and it gives one system and there are quite a few systems in New Zealand that work very well. There is already a requirement to use one of them; it is in the national assessment guidelines. The Minister should read her own guidelines and then she will understand. 
I will go back to the Maori and Pacific Island students in Wainuiomata and tell the members of the House that throughout the valley this group of kids quite often on average progresses at twice the rate of the national average for that age group. Quite often the average gets 2 years instead of 1 year and that is very special and it is something I am very proud of. But the reason it happens is that people work in a cooperative collaborative way and do not have things imposed on them. 
I will do a little mea culpa here. A couple of years before I became the Minister of Education I contemplated policy of this type. I contemplated it I spoke about it I had an enormous amount of dialogue about it around the country and at the point of becoming the Minister of Education I was at the point where I knew that it would not be effective. That is why the previous Labour Government put enormous resources into teaching and learning and into the development of the asTTle system. 
I tell the Minister that the asTTle system is not ready to be introduced even in 2010 as a compulsory national testing system. It is not there it is not ready and it will not work for that. The only choice the Minister will have if she is really to have national standards will be to have national testing. I think all of us understand that—I think all of us other than the Minister understand that. If we are to have national standards then there can be only one system in New Zealand and that will be the progressive achievement test system. That will mean that we are working our way back to a system that was seen over a period of time as being very very good then good and then actually pretty average when compared with the rest of the world and it is now seen as being somewhat behind the times. Part of the problem with this approach is that we can have someone who is waving a flag for standards but she is actually causing those standards to regress as a result of the work that she has done. 
The last point I would make is that if I were the Minister of Education I would love to have the powers in this bill. There is excessive ministerial power in this bill in my view. Not having to properly gazette and not having to put things into regulation and have them subject to review or proper scrutiny is very bad and no Minister including myself should have that power. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 This bill proposes to test children more and to fine their parents more if they miss class. Changes to testing in particular have been made on the basis that this testing will give us more information. This would be a good thing if it were information that is lacking but that is not the case; we actually have a great deal of information about the children who are not succeeding in our education system. We know that many of them— 
Allan Peachey 
: What are we doing about it? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Testing them I say to Mr Peachey will not alleviate their poverty will it? Testing them will not insulate their homes so that they no longer get asthma I say to Mr Peachey. We know that many of these children are living in poverty and we know that they are more likely to be Maori than Pakeha. Whomever we might hope is looking after them is sometimes not there to take care of them in the way we would like and there is often a good reason for that. It is not a case of the parents just being neglectful; the parents are working several minimum wage jobs in order to pay market rents and to buy groceries to feed their families. 
These are parents who might well wish that they could be there when their kids get home from school but it is simply impossible for them to be in two places at one time. And of course if the rent is not paid or the power gets cut then they will have failed to provide the safe and secure shelter that parents all desire for their children. [ 
Interruption 
] People on low wages I say to Ms Tolley and Mr Peachey have to make decisions that people on high wages like the members do not have to make. 
People who are very rich can easily afford to have a parent stay at home either full time or part time to provide the framework around school-age children to make the healthy lunches and to supervise the homework and often—and it might be the case for some in this House—they can employ someone to do that very work. Some really rich people do that—and that is fine. Good for them! But not everyone has that choice and people generally make the best decisions that they can with the resources they have available. 
So what has National done to help make it easier for those families who are living in this kind of hardship—those whose children are living in the poverty that is actually the cause of the long tail of underachievement? 
Hon Member 
: What have the Greens done? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Well National just voted to make them pay more tax which I am sure will be very helpful to those families and those children. National voted to make them pay more tax so that it could give more tax cuts to the very rich. National has also consistently voted against raising the minimum wage even as prices increase and even as families face increasing hardship. 
Moana Mackey 
: What about the 90-day bill? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: The 90-day bill is another example. National members consistently voted against Working for Families and they resiled from that position only because they thought there were votes in it. Now they have come to this House and proposed that the answer to dealing with underachievement is to test kids more to find out which of these children are doing so badly and to fine their parents—take more money out of their pockets—when they fail to get their kids to attend enough classes. It is out of touch. It is insane. 
We know that kids with health problems sometimes do not do well in school. That is obvious. Often they will miss a lot of classes. Sometimes they cannot hear well enough to learn because they have something like glue ear or they might have asthma which keeps them at home and away from school. Sometimes they are malnourished on a combination of caffeine and sugary junk that is often bought from the schools themselves. 
We know that poor health is a factor in underachievement and we know what the solutions are. It is not rocket science but it takes money. We have too many cold damp houses which impact on the health of our population. Whether people choose not to live in a cold damp house or to insulate the houses they have generally depends on how much money they have. The Green Party fought long and hard to get a billion-dollar fund the Green Homes Fund through the negotiations on the emissions trading scheme and that would have paid to pretty much ensure that every home in this country—every low-income home—was warm dry and healthy. 
The benefits are absolutely clear. For every dollar spent on insulating cold houses there is close to a $2 benefit in energy and health savings which means less time off work less time off school and a better quality of life and health for the children for whom these are serious issues. Keeping kids healthy enough to get to school and to learn at school is critical to giving every single New Zealand child a fair chance at education and success. But of course National axed the fund. So National has made sure that homes will stay cold and damp and that as a result children will continue to suffer from glue ear asthma and eczema. National’s choice is to keep these children in poverty. 
National has vigorously opposed all moves to get junk food out of school tuck shops despite knowing that what children eat impacts on their ability to learn. National does not care about children’s nutrition and the impacts of nutrition on kids’ learning. It does not care about teachers having to deal with children who are so hyped on school junk food they cannot concentrate and keep getting into trouble. 
Then of course there are the teachers. We need more of them—of that we can be absolutely sure. We need to value them much more highly than we do. Lowering student-teacher ratios means teachers can spend more time with children who need extra time and support. More teachers also means that those who need specialist attention for whatever reason will get the needs-based support they are entitled to. But Treasury in its briefing to the incoming Minister has advised the Government to “Shift spending in compulsory education from investment with low returns (such as lower student-teacher ratios) to high returns (such as approved accountability for student achievement and development of teaching practice).” I am pretty sure I just read that Treasury said that improving student-teacher ratios has low returns. 
I presume Treasury must mean short-term economic returns because I guess giving every child enough one-on-one teacher time takes a while to pay off. It is hard to measure. It might in some cases even reduce the crime rate or it might in some other cases enable a child to excel in what he or she is good at leading to scientific breakthroughs that save millions of lives. That has happened in this country in the past. So I call on the Minister of Education to reject the advice of Treasury about the low return of lower student-teacher ratios. Teachers are not a low-quality investment. They are the lifeblood of our education system and our kids need more of their time not less. 
This bill will tell us that some kids are not doing so well. We will find out that we have failing children failing teachers failing schools and failing communities. How helpful is that? What the next response from the Government might be is one of my concerns. Of course it leads to a league table of failures—a league table of the “bestest and worstest” primary schools—a long list of all the schools and communities that will fail this National test of wealth and privilege because that is what it is. 
What next after that? If we look at the international examples—and we will talk about those more in the coming debate—we see that we get vouchers so that those poor sad rich families can move their unhappy poor sad rich children from those underprivileged underfunded schools leaving those poorer families and those poorer communities to continue with underfunded poorly resourced schools. What might come after that? If we look at the international examples we find that private investors will go in and buy up those underfunded degraded schools for a song so that National can continue its policy of overfunding private schools with desperately needed public education money. 
It is very interesting to see that these educational testing standards will not apply to private schools but only to State schools even though private schools get lots and lots of public money—nearly double the money the Labour Government ever put in. National will increase it. So despite the fact that there will be public money investment they will not have to suffer the same kinds of educational tests and standards as State schools will. Make no mistake: National’s agenda is to privatise schools. That is alive and well and this bill is a first step towards that agenda. 
We will spend a lot of money finding out that underfunding schools and underfunding communities creates a long tail of poverty that causes underachievement. We already know that. Everybody in South Auckland already knows that. We have a lack of action a lack of vision a complete dismal failure by this National Government to put the resources into the schools and communities where it is needed. Instead National will privatise and put money into private schools. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. Anybody who listened to the contribution from the Green member would be about ready to leave the country I would think because it sounds like there is nothing positive at all about this bill. In fact what we have with this change of Government a National-ACT Government with support from the Maori Party and United Future is the start of a new era. With that comes not more talk about failing children failing teachers and failing systems but an opportunity to turn things round for our children in this country and to give them the opportunities they have not had in the last long 9 years under a Labour-led Government. 
We have the opportunity to do something positive in education and provide opportunities for those children from lower socio-economic homes and for those children who are not doing well in the current system—and there is very good reason for that. We heard talk from the Green member about damp houses the minimum wage nutrition the 90-day bill—I think for a moment there she forgot she was actually meant to be talking about education. Solutions do not revolve around more of the same failing system that has let down far too many of our children in New Zealand. 
The purpose of the bill which is worth looking specifically at is “to raise standards of achievement and attendance in the compulsory education sector.” and that is a laudable aim. I congratulate the National Government on that initiative. The bill sets out two major changes to our education system. The first is in relation to school enrolment and attendance. Penalties for non-attendance will be beefed up to help rectify the awful record of New Zealand’s habitual truants. Parents will become increasingly liable for the actions of the children in their care. Parents will be made aware that regular truancy will not be tolerated. That is nothing but a good thing. Our kids have no hope of learning and getting ahead if they are not even showing up for classes. 
Secondly and most important this bill will introduce national standards in literacy and numeracy. These standards will go a long way towards addressing New Zealand’s declining educational standards which have seen us plummet down international rankings. In the last 2 days we have seen articles in the newspaper with headlines such as “Primary kids get poor reports for maths science”. What about this one: “Kiwi kids behind Kazakhstan”? If that is where our children are achieving it is a jolly good thing for this country and our children that we have had a change of Government. It has not come a moment too soon. 
Instead of these changes and instead of recognising that there is a problem in our schools what has been the response of the Labour Party? What has been its response? Mr Carter has been standing up; Mr Mallard has just been reeling out the tired old lines that we have heard for the last 9 years that have achieved—what? Our kids achieving behind children in Kazakhstan. In their 9 years of power what was their solution? Well here is one of them. Setting up an expensive website Team-Up: Helping our kids learn to extol the importance not of anything to do with learning but of the importance of calcium in children’s learning might be good for their teeth and their bones but I do not think it has much impact on their ability to learn. As admirable as may be a goal to have adequate calcium levels in one’s diet it lacks a certain amount of reality and credibility. Thank goodness we have had a change of Government. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Say nothing of “Wassup!” badges! 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: That is right. Standards will help with national consistency—something that was sadly lacking under the last Labour Government—so that we have some comparisons we know which schools are performing well and we know which schools need some assistance because they are not reaching the levels of achievement and excellence that they should be. 
But I give just a word of warning—and this is coming from a purely ACT perspective I guess—that assessment alone is not enough. Hand in hand with this legislation must go work particularly on the curriculum. It has become burdensome and overly hefty in the lives of teachers who have to implement all sorts of things that bear no relevance to what our education system should include. As an Associate Minister of Education under this National-led Government I along with ACT will be advocating that we take a big picture look at education. Core amongst that is the introduction of school choice something that ACT has long talked about and campaigned hard on during this election campaign. We should never lose sight of what our goal is. Education is the key to our long-term prosperity. We need our next generation to have the skills and creativity to thrive in the 21st century—not in the 19th century. 
Times have moved on and we must move with them. Right now we are failing our kids. It is time for that to be turned round. We have great opportunities now to strive for excellence not just for kids who manage to do well no matter what but for children who are disadvantaged in terms of their upbringing or in terms of their abilities to learn and for children who are gifted and are currently falling through the gaps in a system that is letting down far too many of our young children. New Zealand’s future depends on a proper education system that allows everybody to achieve to their full potential. I welcome this initiative and ACT proudly supports this bill as a starting measure. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker tena tatau e huihui mai nei i te ahiahi po ki konei i tenei wa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to us gathered here this evening at this time 
.]  
I echo the Maori Party’s support for the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. Given that I have spent my whole life in the education system and watched the mainstream schools destroy the hope of many of my people for their children it is pretty hard to listen to some of the talk that is coming back from members on the other side of the House. I tell Mr Mallard that during his watch Maori children were not in forms 3A 4A 4B and 4C but were in forms 4M 4N 4O and 4P. Nothing has changed except that there are now different names for it. One in four Maori come out of school with little or no qualifications at all. This is real; this is life. These are my people whom I live with. 
Sue Moroney 
: There’s been a significant change in that and you should acknowledge that. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: The member can say whatever she likes about that but this is the reality. That is why half of the Maori boys come out of school with a lack of incentive to take hold of the world and with little qualifications at all. 
The reason for that has been exposed by Te Kotahitanga which shows that teachers are aiming too low for Maori children. That is why we should put the standards up there and teach the standards and if the children do not reach those standards we should fix the teachers up. Quite honestly— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no that’s not what Te Kotahitanga is. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Is that right? I tell Mr Mallard that in 1960 the Hunn report exposed a big gap between Maori and Pakeha achievement in schools. In 1970 we tried to introduce a programme called Taha Maori. That did not work because it was not owned by the people and it was not geared towards achieving within the school system. 
In the 1980s came kaupapa Maori education. Kaupapa Maori education showed a new way of teaching. It was user-friendly to Maori because it used Maori cultural customs—daily natural Maori customs—and it also used the Maori language. Unfortunately successive Governments have not supported it to the extent that they should have done in terms of the training of teachers. No matter how many submissions we made to various education ministry officials teachers were not trained in speaking Maori and in kaupapa Maori in order to carry on that kaupapa. Sufficient training was not given to parents. Half of the kura kaupapa Maori are struggling today and need support for the parents who run the boards and also for recruiting teachers who know what they are doing to work in kaupapa Maori. 
In the early 2000s two major reports were produced—and I think one was produced while Mr Mallard was the Minister—one from the Ministry of Education and one from Te Puni Kokiri. Both reports showed that the gaps that existed in 1960 were still there in the early 2000s. We had babysat Maori in education for 40 years and there was still no closing of the gaps. Then we had a programme called closing the gaps and suddenly that programme disappeared. 
We want to have the standards set so that Maori can be taught like every other child to reach those standards. If they are not achieving them then we should ask why and we should do something about it. That is why we support this bill. Let us not carry on hiding things. Let us not teach Maori children and ignore their names. The issue is about knowing their names and it is about respecting the words “tangata whenua”. [ 
Interruption 
] No matter how much the member yells he could not change the negative results while he was the Minister. He should not try to get out of that; he has to know that. It is now time that we moved. We need to take hold of kaupapa Maori and give it the lift that it needs. It is time that we looked at how teachers are teaching Maori and did something about it in Te Kotahitanga. We should front up—that is what the issue is all about. 
We support the implementation of these standards. We support teachers being trained to teach them and if they do not get it— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member supported second-class teachers. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: We support success and we support teaching people: recognising Maori as pupils and not teaching down to them. The programmes showed that people were not even calling Maori students by their real names. Students were getting upset because teachers were sitting on tables breaking Maori customs and rules. Teachers did not even know the names of students’ parents. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And which Minister funded it more and more because it was good? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I am trying to explain to the House why the Te Kotahitanga programme is successful. 
Sue Moroney 
: Who started it? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: That is the whole point is it not? It is Russell Bishop’s programme and we all support that programme. But we should listen to what it tells us. That is what I am trying to say. We should listen to it and have our teachers trained to teach up to Maori not teach down to them. Then it will be a success. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I thank the Hon Pita Sharples for his speech. He was absolutely right. His speech made clear the problem that the Labour Party has with the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. 
I am gobsmacked that Labour is voting against this bill. I look forward to parading up and down the country over the next 3 years and telling people that the Hon Phil Goff is opposed to education standards that he believes in low expectations and that he does not care about the bottom 30 percent of kids who are not reaching those expectations or those standards. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh rubbish! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Labour members cannot make up their minds. On the one hand they are saying that this is absolutely terrible and it will ruin everything; then their next speaker gets up and says that this is already happening. It is one or the other. Will it wreck the teaching of literacy and numeracy in our schools? Or is it as Trevor Mallard has said already happening? Actually unusually Mr Mallard is somewhere closer to the truth than Chris Carter. It is not unusual that Chris Carter is a long way from the truth. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Be careful. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Chris Carter should have been careful. That is why he was the least credible Minister of Education that Labour has had in a long time. Trevor Mallard was much more credible. Actually in this sector Trevor Mallard built up—picking up what Nick Smith started—a body of sensible policy about literacy and numeracy standards. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Nick Smith had no policy. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: He did actually. 
The next logical step is that every child gets the benefit of expectations and standards and of reporting to parents. About 40 percent of kids probably get it now. At a stretch it might be 60 percent. But as we should be used to by now it is the kids who need it the most who are not getting it. The schools that really should be doing it cannot be bothered. The only reason Labour did not follow the logic of its own policy to this point is that it did not want to upset anyone. Labour thought its relationship with the unions was more important than raising expectations for kids for whom education is the way out of the circumstances they are in. Labour put the interest group before the children. Until Labour starts apologising to the country for that the public will not take it seriously. 
When Labour votes against this bill tonight all that will do—in case it is not aware—is prove to so many parents why they voted against Labour and for National. It will confirm that Labour cares more about the system a fragment of union opinion and its mates than it does about the kids. If Labour is following the advice of Chris Carter to vote against the bill then it is doing the wrong thing. Those young new progressive MPs need to know what a dead-end they are being led to. [ 
Interruption 
] Well three groups matter more than the teacher unions: the first is the teachers and actually a lot of them voted for us this time; then there are the parents and an overwhelming majority of them voted for us this time; and then there are the kids and Labour thinks it can ignore the kids because kids cannot vote. 
We support this bill. We believe that it is the next logical step in New Zealand’s progress with literacy and numeracy standards. We find it hard to understand that the Labour Party is so arrogant and contemptuous about anyone else who has an opinion about education that it is making the biggest single political mistake it will make in the next 12 months by voting against this bill. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Once upon a time during the election campaign for National education was the most important thing in the country. That is what Mr Key said. I noticed that by the time he made his Speech from the Throne it had slipped well down the rankings—well down the rankings. By then the economy was everything going for growth was everything. Education had slipped well down the agenda. 
The Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill is another example of how far down the agenda of the new arrogant National Government education has slipped. It has already slipped down because this bill is meaningless. It is a meaningless bill. It talks about national standards that actually are already in place and that schools already teach to. The standards are there already in the National Administration Guidelines—those things called NAGs. They already exist. So this bill is meaningless. But it is worse than meaningless; it is— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: So why are you voting against it then? 
SUE MORONEY 
: I will tell Mrs Tolley; I will tell her right now. It is not only meaningless but potentially dangerous. That Minister has already misled the education sector by telling its members they would be excluded from the 90-day probationary period bill. That is what she told them; it is on video it has been on TV and everyone has seen it. She told them that. I ask Mrs Tolley whether that is correct. Did she tell them? [ 
Interruption 
] She is saying no. She was seen on TV saying that but she has come down to the House and denied that she told the education sector that its members would be excluded from the 90-day probationary period bill. She voted for that bill. She voted for the 90-day probationary period bill. An amendment was put to exclude teachers from it. How did Anne Tolley vote? How did she vote on that amendment? Anne Tolley voted against the amendment to exclude teachers from the 90-day probationary period bill. So she cannot be trusted. She cannot be trusted and the education sector already knows that. 
Why then would the education sector trust that Minister to decide what the national standards are without any right of redress? That is the potentially dangerous thing about this bill. This bill gives that new Minister who has already misled the education sector once—and we are only 2 days into the new Parliament—absolute carte blanche to decide what the national standards are. This bill says that the Minister can decide them for herself and she need only gazette them. There is no select committee process no regulations review process. That is far too much power in the hands of the Minister who has already misled the education sector once. 
I have had to defend that Minister already. The education sector has been asking me what her qualifications are to be the Minister of Education. I have had to defend her already. I have said that she probably does know something about the education sector; she may not know what a vice-chancellor is or what one does but she probably did go to school—she probably did; I have had to convince some of the education sector of that. That is the Minister whom the National Government is asking the country to trust to decide what the national standards are. 
We know that this bill is being rushed through the House. 
Hon Member 
: No it isn’t. 
SUE MORONEY 
: It is being rushed through the House. How much faster could it go through the House? I ask Mrs Tolley whether it is the case that this bill will go through all stages under urgency. Is that the case—yes or no? I believe that the answer is yes. That means that neither the public nor the education sector—no one—will have the opportunity to comment on what this bill does or does not do. I think that is wrong. If education is very important and I certainly believe our children are important then we should be taking our time over this bill. We should make sure that we get it right. My children are worth it. I do not know whether the Minister thinks that my children are worth it but I believe they are. I believe that every parent in this country believes that our children are important enough to warrant our looking at this process properly. 
Members opposite should ask for public submissions find out what the teachers have to say about this bill and find out what the parents think of it. Why is the National Government so frightened to hear what the country thinks about national standards? I would like to know what parents would like to see in the national standards because I do not trust Anne Tolley to decide what our national standards are. Goodness knows what she will come up with! These are the 100 days of action of course so National has to look busy and the bill has to look like it is urgent. I would much rather have a bit of democracy and I would much rather that this new Government actually put our children first. If National members really believe that education is the key to our future then why do we not take our time over this bill to get it right? Why not listen to what people want and get other people’s views—not just the Minister’s—on what should be in the national standards? There is a lot of nervousness around the education sector about this Minister and what she believes and what she does not believe so I think the sector would want to have quite a large amount of input. 
If we are not careful we could go down the slippery slope on this issue. Systems called national standards have already been put in place in areas like the United Kingdom. I know that some people do not want us to talk about evidence-based research. Well I think evidence-based research is important because these are our children we are talking about. 
Allan Peachey 
: Oh we’ve mentioned the word “children”! 
SUE MORONEY 
: I say to Mr Peachey that we should look at the evidence. 
Allan Peachey 
: You finally mentioned the word “children”. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Mr Peachey has finally woken up. I am sorry Mr Peachey but about 3 minutes ago I talked extensively about how important this issue was for our children. Our children are our most important resource and we must get it right for them. So we must look to the evidence. I want to talk about some of the research. Dr Pita Sharples talked earlier about Te Kotahitanga. I want to put right a few misconceptions because I think he misrepresented somewhat what Te Kotahitanga is about. It is a very very good programme that was started by the Labour Government. It started in Hamilton actually. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was started by Professor Russell Bishop. 
SUE MORONEY 
: It was started by Professor Russell Bishop whom I visited the other day. He is about to publish a book. In it he talks about the evidence-based research on national testing and national standards. He points out that a large body of research identifies that systems that promote accountability and/or provide incentives at the expense of capacity building are systems that do not result in successful educational reform. 
Let us think about capacity building. National has told us that its whole capacity building for literacy and numeracy amounts to $18 million. That happens to be half the amount by which National is prepared to increase the funding for private schools. That is the extent of this Government’s commitment to capacity building when it comes to literacy and numeracy. So we have to be very very careful about this issue. All of the educationalists tell us that if we are going to go into the national standards area we must do it very very carefully. What is the National Government doing? It is rushing a bill through Parliament and it is not having any process by which those national standards are set. No one else gets to have input into them; the Minister decides. I certainly do not trust that Minister and what she might come up with. She has already misled the sector once in her very early days of being a Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: She should know what a vice-chancellor is too. 
SUE MORONEY 
: That is right; she does need to understand what a vice-chancellor is. 
I come to the other end of the spectrum when it comes to education. Yes the compulsory education sector is very important but I believe that the fundamental area where this issue starts from is early childhood education. Increasing participation in early childhood education is an area that the Minister should be looking at and the recent Unicef report pointed us in that direction. It is not just about increased participation. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Who was the Government? 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well let us talk about what the Labour Government did to increase participation in early childhood education. I thank the Minister for the question. Labour provided 20 hours’ free education—20 hours’ free early childhood education which increased participation. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The speaker on the other side of the Chamber who has just sat down Sue Moroney spoke for 10 minutes and she will be remembered only for saying that education was potentially dangerous. I would have to say that this is a general reflection on the achievements of the Labour Government over the last 9 years. It has escaped Labour’s notice that at the moment we have inherited some major problems. We have nearly a million working-age adults who do not have the literacy and numeracy to be able to partake in a first-class economy and on that basis Labour wants to destine the coming generations into that same situation. 
The parents of our children today want their children to have a brighter future and that is why on 8 November the parents voted a John Key - led Government in because they wanted a brighter future. They could see when they observed the other side of the Chamber here that Labour was devoid of vision and devoid of any aspiration. Labour dug a big hole through New Zealand and it wanted to keep New Zealanders in it. So we want to see our sons and daughters aspire and on that basis I think the Minister of Education Anne Tolley is to be commended for bringing this bill into the House. She is a wonderful Minister who has done a lot of work over the last year. She has pulled together the visions the aspirations and the experience that is on this side of the House. 
When I hear Heather Roy Pita Sharples Allan Peachey and Anne Tolley speak I see that the combined wisdom on this side of the House is overwhelming. I am so pleased that I represent Kaikoura as a parent and a grandparent. I come from a background where my mum and dad never went to school and on that basis I made a bit of a promise to myself that when I had children I would sit them on my knee read to them go to school with them and be part of them. 
One thing that has really been a privilege for me in the last 3 years has been to sit on the Education and Science Committee. I learnt there that nearly 50 percent of schools do not report adequately to the parents. One of the designs of this bill is that teachers and schools report to mums and dads in understandable language. That is incredible. 
I support this bill wholeheartedly. I would like to speak for a lot longer on it but I have been allotted only 3 minutes. I think that time is appropriate because the wisdom that has been expressed on this side of the Chamber has been overwhelming. But I can say shame shame shame on the Labour Party for even considering voting against this bill especially those two members over there who are former Ministers. Shame on the Labour Party. I support this bill and I commend it to the House. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. As I said the other day in my maiden speech I come here after a 20-year career in education. Eight years ago I was appointed the principal of Kaitaia Intermediate School which is a low-decile school in the far north of New Zealand with 80 percent Maori students. At the time our assessment showed that 4 percent of our students were meeting the benchmark in writing. Over the course of the next 7 years—and I resigned at the end of last year—we were able to demonstrate that over 80 percent of our students were meeting the benchmark. As I said in my maiden speech gains for students can happen in a very short length of time. Obviously I am really excited to be part of anything and to be able to speak to anything that is based around education and achievement because as I said the other day it is my passion. 
However I am severely disappointed in a number of aspects of this bill—in particular the lack of consultation and the inability for the sector to have input into it. If there had been an opportunity for the sector to have had input into the bill through the select committee process we would have gained greater support from the sector but unfortunately that is a bell that cannot be unrung. 
There is a massive gap in this bill and the biggest part I saw is that it does not focus on the fact that what makes kids learn is not systems zones vouchers tests and all those other things; it is teachers. Every student in every class in every school across the country is entitled to an excellent teacher so there is a massive gap there. Whenever I stand to talk about education in the House I will always be pushing the point that it is excellent teachers that make kids learn. I remember a conversation I had with the member from Tamaki—I think it was last year or the year before—when he said that in his capacity as principal of Rangitoto College he would fly to England in order to recruit great teachers. I think it is commendable that principals would go to such lengths to recruit excellent teachers. If we are going to make a difference at all and raise achievement we need excellent teachers in front of our kids. 
So what does an excellent teacher look like? In my opinion there are three broad skills that an excellent teacher must have. The first skill is that they must engage in and use research-based best-practice teaching. We have heard examples today about that. Te Kotahitanga is one example. Another example is Professor John Hattie’s work with formative assessment. For those people who are not aware of what formative assessment is I tell them that it is simply that teachers first of all need to know their subjects. They need to be able to tell their students exactly where they are achieving and they need to be able to articulate to each child just the very next small step that child needs in order to progress. If that happens every day then over the course of a year there will be huge gains in achievement. Excellent teachers who engage in research-based best practice will raise achievement. I think that the Government needs to focus on teachers. 
The second point that I make is that— 
Hon Member 
: Standards! 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: A standard does not teach a child; a teacher does. This is what I was talking about with Te Kotahitanga. That has proved that a teacher who has excellent relationships not just with the student but with the student’s whanau will increase achievement. 
The third point is that the curriculum needs to be relevant to students. There is no point having a boring curriculum or a curriculum that is focused on just trying to meet a narrow standard and the teacher teaching just to an assessment or a test. That narrow curriculum will not engage students; it will just turn them off. Although standards are superficially attractive they do not teach kids. The thing that I have spoken about in relation to the education sector is that with the achievement objectives already in the curriculum we have standards already. If members are not aware of the achievement objectives in the curriculum I tell them that when a child enters school at year 0 or 1 that child should be working at level 1. By the time the pupil leaves—in an ideal world—in year 13 that pupil should be working at level 8. Each of those levels has a range of achievement objectives that are already spelt out for students to achieve. 
The point is that there is nothing new in this bill that is not already available for teachers to use. Because there is nothing new in this bill I cannot understand or get my head around why we have to rush this through in urgency. I do not understand what will be any different for kids on 5 February 2009 when they turn up to school because nothing will change. There is nothing new in it whatsoever. 
I have spoken about formative assessment which is really really important; it is the key. In fact Professor Hattie says that dollops of feedback are what is most important and that feedback is the factor that has the greatest effect in raising achievement. Feedback to kids is basically telling them where they are. The next step is feed-forward where as I have said they tell kids the next thing they need to learn. We have to focus on the skill of a teacher—that is what is most important in terms of raising achievement. Just setting up standards and assessment for the sake of assessment will not do anything. I said there is nothing that has not been done before. 
I took the liberty of getting Kaitaia Intermediate School to email me the format of the school report we have had for the last 5 years because we talk in plain English and tell parents exactly where their kids are achieving. In the report I have here the school makes the statement that year 7 pupils should be reading at curriculum level 3 or 4. That is the standard based against the New Zealand curriculum so the school is telling parents exactly where their child should be achieving. The second thing that is said here is: “She”—I will not use the child’s name—“is reading in curriculum level 4P”. That is telling the parents where the child is achieving against the standard where the child should be. The third thing it says is that this is above the New Zealand expectation. The parent knows that their child is achieving above what is expected of New Zealand kids. The fourth thing in this report is that the school tells the parent what the child has learnt. The fifth thing is that the report tells the parent what needs to happen next and spells out the things that the child needs to learn next. It says that in order to improve “this child and I”—meaning the teacher—“will concentrate on the following learning outcomes:”. This is a mid-year report but in the end-of-year reports the sixth thing it says is that: “This is the progress the child has made in the 6 months since the last report.” 
So we are telling parents what the standard is where the child is achieving whether the child is above or below the New Zealand expectation what the child has learnt what needs to happen next and the progress made since the last report. This has been going on at Kaitaia Intermediate School for the last 5 years so I cannot understand why all of a sudden it is a new buzz to be telling parents that they need to hear these things. It is stuff that is already happening and that is why I cannot understand this bill. To me it is just a rehash the same old same old. Because it is not happening in every school all that needs to happen is for resources to go into organisations such as advisory services which have experts going to schools to make sure this sort of thing happens. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe tena koutou huri noa i te Whare i tenei po. I rise to support the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill and I absolutely commend this bill to the House and to every member who purports to be in support of high-level education for all our students. This is outstanding legislation because it integrates all the players involved in the learning outcomes that students experience. Yes teachers are important; in fact they are critical and research supports that. But they are not the only part of the education system that needs to be involved. Parents need to have an opportunity to be involved. Parents need to understand how well their child is doing in an absolute sense as well as relative to children who are the same age as them in their school and across the country. 
The previous speaker Kelvin Davis has just given an outstanding example of a school that would respond extremely well to the system we are talking about. Regrettably according to the Education Review Office report of 2007 fewer than half the schools were reporting the kinds of achievements we are looking for. 
So yes we do need a systematic approach because we need to target which children require what kind of learning investment so they can get the support and the resources they need to achieve the best possible educational outcomes. Through this system teachers will understand better. I am astonished at what I keep hearing from that side of the House as if teaching and learning were the only formula to learning outcomes. Assessment is part of teaching and learning. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: It’s what you do with it. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: That is exactly the question. Unless teachers understand what the learning experience of the child is by assessment they are basically guessing at what they should do next in order to assist that student. We want to take guessing out of the game. We want to give every child in New Zealand the opportunity to be successful. Like the previous member in my maiden speech the other day I talked about the pursuit of quality citizenship and the importance of education in that pursuit. 
This bill ties together all the elements that will make it possible for students to be successful. It helps teachers to focus on what teaching and learning they should be doing; it helps parents to understand how well their child is doing; it helps schools at a school-wide level to understand where they need to be targeting their resources; and it helps the Government to understand where investments need to be made across the country in order to lift the level of achievement for all New Zealanders rather than just talk about it. As Dr Sharples was trying to point out fundamentally Te Kotahitanga respects the student. It attempts to call students by their names rather than saying “Rakaitemania have you got a nickname?” because they are not capable of addressing that fundamental respect to a Maori child who has a name that has come from his or her ancestors and is worthy of respect by the teacher who we have all agreed is so critical in their learning path. 
I absolutely support this. I acknowledge that the Minister is showing leadership here. Why is it in urgency? Because this side of the House believes that educational quality and success by students is an urgent matter. We are showing leadership in bringing it before the House now. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 3. 
Bill read a first time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68 Noes 46. 
Second Reading 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
 As I stated at the first reading this bill implements policy changes that this Government has committed to as part of our priority action plan for education. The bill delivers on that commitment by raising the standards of achievement and attendance in compulsory education. 
I start by first of all thanking all the speakers who have contributed from this side of the House in support of the first reading of this bill. Also I particularly want to congratulate Kelvin Davis on his very thoughtful and pertinent contribution. I could not disagree with anything that he said and I congratulate him on the work he has done with his teachers and his community for the children who have been under his care and guardianship. I think he has done an outstanding job. I ask him why he is so afraid of ensuring that every school throughout New Zealand is doing the sorts of things that he was doing for his community and his children. Why is he so afraid of that? How could he possibly vote against this bill when all it seeks to do is set in place the framework that will ensure that that happens so that all New Zealand children have the opportunity to be taught by teachers who respect them who care about their aspirations and who are prepared to work to those top standards that this bill enables the Minister to set. Why on earth could he not vote for a bill that would enable every child to get that sort of education? 
The previous Government ignored reality and the Minister ignored his own Education Review Office which reported that fewer than half of the schools in New Zealand were doing an excellent job like that. More than half the schools were failing to ensure that the children who were under their care had that quality of teaching— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Where are the resources? Are you going to put in more resources? How much? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes we have. The former Minister asks me whether we are putting in the resources. In our policy we have said that there is an extra $18 million a year going in to support the teachers once they have identified the children who are not meeting those standards. 
One of the speakers from the other side stood up and said that the introduction of national standards is potentially dangerous. We had the old secret agenda out again. Apparently it is potentially dangerous to set standards for children. We heard from Dr Pita Sharples what has happened to Maori children in this country year after year under that Labour Government. What is so wrong with lifting the sights of those children and setting the standards so that all children have an opportunity to get an excellent education? Why is the Labour Party so afraid of making sure that all children have the opportunity that a good education can give them and why is the Labour Party so afraid of making sure that parents know what their children are doing where their children excel and where they need some extra help? What is wrong with a parent knowing that? 
I tell this House tonight that I have been deluged with emails from people since this bill was mooted. I have been deluged with parents saying: “We cannot get that information about our children from our schools. We want to know what we can do to help our children and our schools will not tell us. Thank you Mrs Tolley.” They are saying: “Thank you for taking the opportunity under this new Government to be part of the education of our children.” They are grateful because they want the best for their children and they want the opportunity to take part in that. 
I again ask the members of the previous Labour Government why they are so afraid of a bill that lifts aspirations for children and includes parents in the educational process. Why is that potentially dangerous for New Zealand children? I think a Labour Opposition that is intent on keeping too many children and particularly Maori children uneducated illiterate and innumerate is potentially dangerous for this country. Those members will not accept that there is a need for standards in this country. We are committed to a policy of national standards but we are also committed to working with the sector to— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Why don’t you care what the sector has got to say? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have been talking with the sector for months about the consultation process that we will go through. 
This bill does nothing more than enable the Minister to set the standards. It does not set the standards; it enables the Minister to set the standards. We have stated that we will go out to people in the sector and consult them about how those standards are set and what they should look like. The literacy progressions are already out there. I have talked to the sector about the literacy progressions and they are not scary. They set out expectations of what children could and should be learning right throughout their schooling. That is the sort of thing that we are talking about with the sector because at the moment there are a whole lot of guidelines out there. There is the Literacy Professional Development Project the targeted achievement for Pasifika programme and a whole range of different benchmarks out there. Well this National Government is saying no. We will have one set of national standards that everybody understands that can lift every child and give every child the opportunity to get a good education. 
I do not understand how a former Labour Government could vote against that. I do not understand how the member Kelvin Davis who was a principal who knows how this works and who has proved what we can do with children with constant assessment and by putting support in around individual children involving the parents and telling them what they can do and where their children are could vote against this bill. It does nothing more than allow the Minister to set some standards that are agreed with the sector. I do not understand how he can vote against it. 
The second part of this bill is about truancy and we have not heard much about that tonight. We believe that it is important to send a strong message that if children are not at school then they cannot learn. A member opposite asked what will happen when the children turn up to school on 4 February. Well I will tell the member what will happen. If they turn up to school they will have an opportunity to learn. They will not be truant and therefore the truancy part of this bill will not apply to them. But there are children out there who are kept at home by their parents to keep their parents company. There are children out there who are kept at home to look after siblings. There are children out there who are deliberately kept away from school by their parents. Those children are being denied the opportunity of an education and National is going to make sure we send a strong message that that is not acceptable. 
Every child has the right to go to school and get an education because we know that a good education will lift children out of the poverty that the Green member Metiria Turei spoke so eloquently about. The only opportunity children will get is a good education and it is unfair if their parents are deliberately keeping them from school so we will put the fines up for truancy. Let me say this—I want to finish on this. If members think that $3000 is too big a fine I say that in this country we have a maximum fine of $3000 for failing to register a dog. I say that it is more important to send one’s child to school. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Before I call the next speaker let me just caution members—firstly about interjections. Members know that they should be rare and reasonable. At times it got close to a barrage of interjections and I do not believe that is appropriate. Rare and reasonable interjections are fine. 
The second thing I ask members to desist from is engaging in barrages that go backwards and forwards across the Chamber. They were quite apart from the exchanges with the member who was on her feet. I was reluctant to interrupt her speech but members need to desist from doing that as well. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 This bill is nothing more than a desperate attempt by the new National Government to cover up the fact that it has no new ideas on how to address underachievement in our schools. Those members have no new ideas about how to deal with literacy and numeracy problems. They have no new ideas about how to keep kids in our classrooms. This bill will do absolutely nothing to address those issues. It is completely unnecessary and it even states that it is unnecessary in the explanatory note of the bill. 
This bill will narrowly focus the education system on teaching kids a very very narrow range of knowledge. The teachers will teach to the test rather than teaching to the curriculum. It will grow the gap between the achievement rates of students at rich schools and the students at poor schools. This bill is completely unnecessary. 
Let me read from page 4 of the explanatory note which states: “The Minister of Education can set national standards through the existing provisions of the Education Act … either by way of the national education guidelines or by regulations. Regulating for this power could achieve the same policy objective as legislating”. So we are off to a ripper of a start with our red tape reduction! Instead of creating regulations we are going to create unnecessary legislation. The ACT Party is clearly doing well on its red tape reduction. We have already seen bills rammed through the House with pathetic regulatory impact statements. 
This bill will give parents no new information. It will give parents no more information than they can already get from teachers if the teachers have the opportunity to talk to them. I draw the attention of the House to the National Education Guidelines; the ones that the Minister seems completely unaware of. Paragraph (iii) of national administration guideline No. 2 states that each board of trustees with the principal and teaching staff is required to “report to students and their parents on the achievement of individual students and to the school’s community on the achievement of students as a whole and of groups”. So why do we need this bill? 
The requirement in the national administration guidelines specifically identifies a number of areas and it specifically requires schools to report on students who are not achieving or who are at risk of not achieving so the bill is totally unnecessary. It does not increase in any way resources going to the schools or to the teachers. It does nothing to help them. There is absolutely no evidence that setting national standards and forcing primary schools to set exams which is what this bill will effectively do— 
Hon Members 
: Oh rubbish! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I would encourage members to read the general policy statement at the front of the bill which states: “The changes will require State schools to assess students and to report the progress of students against the national standards.”. So this bill is very little more than national testing for primary schoolkids. 
The evidence from overseas suggests that national testing does nothing to lift student achievement. In fact it has a number of detrimental impacts. It encourages teachers to teach to the test—to train pupils to pass the test rather than to gain any understanding of what they are learning. It means that kids do not develop any higher order thinking skills. And if we want to see any evidence of the impact that has we need only to look at the benches opposite us. A research review in the UK found that national testing leads pupils to regard learning in terms of passing tests rather than in terms of gaining any understanding of what they have actually learnt. 
I would draw the House’s attention to another publication from overseas—a Demos publication called “Beyond Measure: why educational assessment is failing the test”—which concluded that the assessment system measures recall of knowledge rather than the depth of understanding and that it tests only a narrow section of the curriculum. The report goes on to state: “the notion of measuring a cohort of learners as a whole is absurd. We know children mature at different rates. What we need is assessment by demand.” This bill does nothing to increase the support for teachers to do assessment by demand. It does absolutely nothing. 
What about the students? What does this bill mean for students? A survey of parents in England where a similar system is being put in place found that one in 10—one in 10—7-year-old kids was reduced to tears and lost sleep because they were worried about sitting tests. The same survey found that two-thirds of 11-year-olds showed signs of stress in preparing for the tests with 9 percent suffering from anxiety attacks. And that is what this Government wants to do! In Oldham an 11-year-old was hospitalised for stress because of those tests. How is stressing out primary schoolkids going to do anything to raise standards in our schools? 
 Another report from the UK highlighted the negative consequences of national testing on teachers including overload and stress. It found that national testing distracted from teachers’ daily classroom performance and contributed to a number of teachers leaving the profession altogether because national testing does not tell good teachers anything they do not know already. As some of my colleagues have outlined there are far better tools that could be used instead. 
I noticed that Nick Smith has been commenting on it today. He said “I openly concede that the information can be used destructively.” It was Nick Smith who said that. One way it can be used destructively is to develop school league tables. The Minister was quoted in the  
Dominion Post 
 this morning as saying that that would not happen: “Education Minister Anne Tolley denied the results could be used to compile league tables saying the full data obtained would be available only to the Government.” I do not see anything in this bill that repeals the Official Information Act. I see nothing in the bill that repeals the Official Information Act and would stop people from getting hold of the data and using it to compile exactly that. 
We know from past experience that once the data is there people will get hold of it. In fact the National Party used to advocate for that data to be released publicly to create league tables. Bill English spent months and months arguing for National Certificate of Educational Achievement league tables to be created using the same kinds of data in secondary schools. This will drive a massive wedge between the rich schools and the poor schools. It will create an incentive for the good teachers to leave the poorer schools and move to the rich schools or leave altogether. 
We know that once the Government has this information it will use it to introduce performance pay for teachers. We know that is what the Government wants to do. It wants to introduce performance pay for teachers. It will put them on 90 days’ probation and it will give teachers the shove at the first available opportunity. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh the 90-day period does not affect teachers. Anne Tolley stood up and said that the 90-day period would not affect teachers and that they will not be covered and they will not be sacked. Well I have news for Government members because the bill that they passed does exactly that. So how long will it be before we are back in this House debating performance pay for teachers? 
This bill shows that the Government has no new ideas on how to raise student achievement. In fact the teaching profession knows that and does not want it. Ninety percent of primary school principals surveyed said they did not want it. They are opposed to the National Party policy. Eighty-seven percent of primary school teachers opposed it. Seventy-five percent of high school teachers opposed it. Sixty-nine percent of school boards of trustees opposed the National Party policy. They did not want it. Who wanted it? [ 
Interruption 
] Why does the member not stand up and take the next call and tell us who wanted it? In fact those people surveyed do not want the bill rammed through under urgency either. I quote from the Auckland Secondary School Principals Association: “It’s a matter of trust … When bills are rushed and the sector is not consulted it will create a wedge and a sense of suspicion with the Government.” 
Nobody wants this bill rammed through. The New Zealand Educational Institute said that it does not want it because it believes that openness is critical to ensure that any decision on teaching and learning is educationally sound and will lead to increased student achievement. Yet despite all of the blather from members opposite we have not heard at all about how this bill will increase student achievement. We have heard nothing from them about how this will increase student achievement. The New Zealand Principals Federation said: “National testing is such an old-fashioned idea … National testing is quite simply a backward step.” This bill introduces national testing by any other name. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 The young member for Rimutaka Chris Hipkins should fire his speech-writer because that speech will come back to haunt him in his time in this House and on the streets of his electorate. 
I take a moment to acknowledge my former colleague Mr Davis. I know Mr Davis to have been a school principal of the highest integrity. I had the great privilege of spending time with him in the far north visiting the school that he led and talking to him at great length about the nature of school leadership and how children learn. I can affirm as correct everything he said about the success of that school. I would like to say to that member that in this place it can be very very difficult for members to retain their integrity in respect of issues like education but the price they pay for doing so is one that is well worth paying. I would express the hope that within the member’s caucus the wisdom and the experience—and the common views that we share—will be heard. 
I will address issues raised by the former Minister of Education Mr Mallard. I spent years thinking that the reason the former Prime Minister dumped him as Minister of Education must have been that he jackbooted his way across the country kicking communities and schools. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe the Prime Minister recognised that his thinking in education was so backward-looking that even she could not retain him in that position and he demonstrated that backward-thinking tonight to perfection. What did he want to talk about? He talked about progressive achievement tests and national averages. 
In this debate when we are talking about setting national standards for literacy and numeracy it is important that we understand very very clearly some differences. There is assessing a child against a standard which is what we do now through the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. We tell children “Here is what you need to be able to do and as many of you as can do that get the standard and as many of you who cannot do it do not get the standard.” Members who want to keep talking about national averages are more concerned with statistical movements than whether children actually know anything or not. I would have thought that the former Minister would have understood that but in effect what he said reminds this House of just how far we have to go to make people in this House and in the education sector understand the significance of standards. I am sure the previous Minister of Education knows exactly what I am saying—and now I am referring to Mr Chris Carter obviously not to Mr Mallard. 
This is about children who through no fault of their own are not learning to read write or do mathematics to the minimum level required for them to find a contributing positive place in a society and in an economy. Right through the debate today in my view there has been insufficient acknowledgment of that fact. 
I listened with great care to the Green view on all of this. 
Metiria Turei 
: No you did not. You didn’t listen to it at all! 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Well I shouted a little bit and I am sorry about that. There are still parliamentarians representing parties in this House who do not understand that the single most significant driver to get children out of poverty is the quality of education they receive—and the previous Minister of Maori Affairs sitting opposite will understand that in terms of the constituency that he represented—and who are still prepared to tolerate unchallenged all of these social and economic excuses that adults make and that children do not need them to make. 
The statement in this bill about national standards is the statement of the National Government supported by our colleagues that the language around children’s learning and success must change. I am very very troubled and I suspect that my former colleague Mr Davis is equally troubled by the very seriously diminished view of schoolteachers that has been taken by some of the members opposite who have spoken particularly the young member from Rimutaka. All of this talk about teachers teaching to the test and all the rest of it is frankly offensive. People like me have spent 32 years teaching under a secondary school system where we taught youngsters to pass examinations. During the 16-odd years that I headed schools I knew that the performance of the school that I led would be ranked on the front pages of the newspaper in my community without fail. I had to manage that. That is how it is. 
If we listen very very closely to the arguments members opposite are putting up against national standards we find that one of the critical things they are saying is in effect that we must keep this stuff from parents. 
Hon Members 
: No no. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Opposition members need to go away and look at just how accessible truthful information about the performance of schools is to parents. One of the great things about having national standards is that there will be a clear standard and parents will know whether they are sending their children to a school where children learn. Members should just remember that this is not about teachers it is not about educational theory and it is not about left-wing researchers overseas. It is about our children and their future. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak in the second reading of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. The bill sets out to do two things: it allows the Minister of Education to set national standards for literacy and numeracy and it requires I notice State schools to assess and report students’ performance against those standards. It also requires that fines be imposed on those who refuse to enrol their children at school; there is an extra matter relating to that as well. So the overall purpose of the bill is to raise standards of achievement and attendance in the compulsory education sector. 
During the election campaign the public was promised a crusade for literacy and numeracy. Those are strong sentiments and that is a strong image to project—that there will be a crusade. I will talk a bit more about it in a minute but first I want to say that a crusade is a vigorous concerted action to promote or eliminate something. It is vigorous it is concerted and it is considered making it more widely acceptable. In this case the crusade is to eliminate poor achievement in schools and to eliminate truancy. If this bill is the crusade then it fails on a number of grounds and I shall touch on those in my comments. 
For the bill to have a good chance to succeed a good chance of being a crusade the problem should have been carefully analysed. For a crusade to be well developed advice should be taken from those with the best information. One should have gone about getting advice from a wide range of sources. And the crusade should include quite a detailed comprehensive plan which should be laid out so that one can see it quite easily. Each aspect of the plan of attack of a crusade should be clearly identified and again put before us. It should have been designed with some care then systematically implemented. The crusade that the electorate was promised to eliminate something as important as poor achievement and truancy still has some way to go. I think that if this bill is the crusade then it has faltered. It is not likely to achieve the high goals that we have been promised or the high goals that are identified in this bill. 
It is also important to understand the assumption on which this particular crusade is based and I have tried to understand it. I think it goes something like this. There are students in our schools who do not achieve in numeracy and literacy. Well there is enough research to show that; we cannot argue with it. They do not achieve because—and this is the second part of the logic of this particular bill—we do not have numeracy and literacy standards. Well OK that is the logic being followed. The third stage is to set those standards assess every child against those standards and report the results to parents and—voila—our children’s achievement will improve. 
With the greatest of respect and with all the honesty I can muster I have to ask: is that it? Is that the crusade? Is that what will get us there? Is that what the electorate was promised? Is this bill strong enough to do it? I shall develop my arguments around that in a minute but if this bill is all that it takes then I wonder whether we have understood the very basics of how to construct a question analyse it and consider the other factors I have identified. I have to ask whether this bill is the best we can come up with. One can honestly ask whether it is poorly designed policy given that the very people who will be required to implement it—and this is a serious test of a policy—do not agree with it. If they do not agree with it then as members opposite will know—because they have run organisations and done pretty demanding things—all kinds of impediments will be put in the way to confound it. 
Let us look then at the major assumption that schools do not teach to achieve particular standards at the moment. The explanatory note of the bill is quite helpful. It tells us that in— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: It’s not an assumption. There’s an Education Review Office report that says it. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Well I am going to quote it. If the Minister listens she will hear the argument in a minute. In 2007 14 percent of students left school without achieving the numeracy and literacy credits they needed to attain level 1 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. That gives us some idea of the percentage of school students we are talking about. It may be a little more than that—I think National’s figures in the election campaign were 20 percent. It also means that the system we currently have that the Government wants to change is working well for 80 percent of school-leavers. If the system is good for the overwhelming majority of students why is such radical surgery needed at this stage? 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: They’re not assumptions. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The Minister will soon follow the argument; it is a carefully constructed one. 
As any business person knows one must first identify the problem then look at all the alternative solutions select the best one—the Minister will soon get it—implement it and review it. I have serious doubts that that actually happened in this case. I have identified what such a process would reveal. Instead the Government is ramming through under urgency a set of proposals that at least in the view of quite of few people is not likely to achieve the very things the Minister wants to achieve and might even make matters worse. It might be that the small amount of dollars that is being put aside is gobbled up in just implementing these very proposals. There are plenty of examples of that in social policy in public policy and certainly in education policy. 
The Minister might like to listen to this. I spoke to several teachers today and this is what they told me. These are honest brokers; they are the people who will implement the Minister’s particular programmes. They said they were already reporting to parents and those reports are based on concrete evidence from the classroom from the records they keep and from early numeracy and literacy testing. They are doing what they are required to. The teachers I spoke to today told me— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: The Education Review Office says they are not all doing that. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Well maybe that is what needs to be fixed. I tell the Minister that one does not use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. One understands what the problem is looks at the options and picks the best one. I know that that is difficult for the Minister but there is science behind it and if she uses the science she will be a better Minister and she will make better decisions. It is not difficult. There are people around to help her to do it. 
The teachers tell us that testing will impose further burdens on them. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Maybe the member opposite should speak to some teachers. Maybe some members opposite have; maybe they have spoken to the teachers who teach their children. They should talk to them about what happens. The teachers tell me that they are interested in producing effective children rather than supporting a system that actually prevents them from doing the very things they want to do. The teachers also told me today that this type of testing can set children up for failure. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: This isn’t national testing. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The Minister should at least listen to what the teachers are saying. She has not consulted them; I am sorry but she has not. If she really believes that she should send the bill to a select committee and at least let us contest it. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Read the bill. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I have read the bill. 
The Minister will want to know about the next point I want to make. If this idea is the best thing around then why is so much research against it and why are so many people who know more about this subject than I and the Minister do not happy? Ninety percent of primary school principals surveyed opposed National’s policy 90 percent of high school principals surveyed opposed this policy 87 percent of primary school teachers surveyed opposed this particular policy— 
Hon Member 
: Who did the survey? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The Minister might like to look at the survey and the methodology—not at who carried it out. That is quite important. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: But look at the question they asked. What about our policy? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The Minister knows that the New Zealand Council for Educational Research is a reputable organisation with good methods. If the Minister would like to question them she should make a statement about that. Thank you. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I have been quite interested in the genesis of this policy which comes from national standards. It has been very interesting listening to especially Allan Peachey talk about it in the context of the US and the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act which was part of the Bush administration’s major educational reforms. I will talk about those especially in the context of the policy and how it impacts on disparities in education. I will talk particularly about the gaps between what in the US would be described as black and white populations and about the way in which such reforms might impact here on Maori and Pakeha populations and the difference in educational achievement between the two. 
Normally of course in a second reading speech we would be talking about the submitters who had come to the select committee to tell us about their experiences with regard to the legislation and their views of it. Just as an aside I have always enjoyed that part of the select committee process. It is the most valuable and probably the single most democratic process that this Parliament has—the opportunity for direct engagement by the public with MPs where people can tell us about their experiences and about the way they think the legislation will affect them. I find that process extremely valuable and I think it is disgraceful that legislation of such import as this Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill has not gone to the public. We have not had families the Secondary Principals Association teachers unionists the Post Primary Teachers Association or even school students tell us how they think this bill will impact on them. They are the ones of course who are affected by it. But I guess we might expect more of this from National—the secret rapid passage of legislation and policy that is actually based on ideology and I will go through that now. 
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 introduced standards and testing in US schools along with a whole range of Draconian measures—which National has not yet implemented but we will wait and see. For example schools that fail to reach the target standards and tests have a graduated level of punishments inflicted against them. In some circumstances they might be required to transfer or provide for the transfer of students from their school to another school to replace teaching staff or to remove or to decrease management in their schools if they did not meet the standards. Schools that fail to meet the standards can even be required to turn over their school administration to private companies which would then be able to run their schools for them. 
This is the part of the No Child Left Behind legislation based on the standards and testing regime. Because that policy has been in place for some time there has been quite a lot of analysis of its impacts. In particular I just point members to two reports. One is “Exacerbating inequality: the failed promise of the No Child Left Behind Act” which was produced in a race and ethnicity education publication. There was another one “Testing and Social Stratification in American Education” and I will just look at some of that analysis. 
The research done on the policy found for example that urban schools—predominantly poor schools and predominantly black schools—suffered the most from the policy suffered the most in terms of punishment as a result of failing to meet the test and had therefore the graduated levels of punishment enacted against them. There was a real concern that the standardised testing was unreliable had major negative consequences and was highly politicised. I think it is worthwhile remembering that with the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill the Minister has the right to define these tests and standards so it is a politicised process or standards test whichever way the Minister wants to spin it. The fact is that it will be a politicised process here just as it is in the US. 
The testing and standards regime set a benchmark so that even the schools that were demonstrably improving over time were still considered to be failures and therefore they suffered the consequences. That then impinged on their ability to keep on improving over time. So those schools that were trying to do better were being punished for their success at trying to do better to the point where many of them failed completely. 
There was an obvious correlation between the test scores and income. This system did not remove the disparities between test scores of the poor or low-income families and more wealthier families. In particular—and I note this for the benefit of the Maori Party which is considering supporting this legislation—the research has proved that the testing and standardised regime resulted in fewer students of colour and fewer students with disabilities completing high school. The dropout rate for the students of colour and students who had some form of disadvantage if you like increased by 17 percent in just 2 years after this legislation was passed. 
Teachers were required in effect to teach to the test and there has been some discussion of that with regard to this bill. Even in coloured schools poorer schools and urban schools where there was an attempt to teach to a much higher level of achievement the teachers had to teach to the test to make sure that their kids would get through it. So instead of having a more expansive and intuitive form of learning and teaching between teachers and kids teachers were forced to teach those children how to write five-paragraph essays so that they would meet the requirements of the standardised test. This led to a downgrading in the achievement levels and the downgrading of the quality of teaching of those kids particularly those from the poorest and the most discriminated against communities. 
Many schools had to reduce the resources for non-tested subjects and divert those resources into the subjects that were being tested in order to help make sure that their kids would reach those standards. Children for whom the standards or that area of learning was not their strong point and was not where they had their talent were then discriminated against because the schools had to divert resources away from other areas. Those children lost out in the process because the test took over from what was best for those students. I remind members that this research has been done on this policy over many years and members will have access to it when I table these papers soon. 
The other consequence—and we have seen it here in New Zealand with some schools—is that academically weak students were forced out of school or were kept back in their classes until the school determined that they were more likely to pass. That has happened here. I think that was what happened in Cambridge and there have been other places where it has happened too. In fact it still happens in secondary schools where schools will not allow students to sit exams if they do not think they will meet the high standards the school sets in order to keep those schools high up on what is the New Zealand version of the league tables. The dropout rate for the students who needed the most help to succeed and to pass the tests increased as well. There was a higher dropout rate for the students who needed the most help and who were the most disadvantaged. 
I repeat for the benefit of the Maori Party that in relation to the situation in New Zealand we are talking about the poorest students from low-decile communities. They are predominately Maori and Pacific Island students and they often have special needs because lower-decile schools have a higher ratio of special needs children than high-decile schools. They will be the kids for whom the policy fails and the research proves it. This policy increases the difference and discrimination disparity between those communities. It focuses advantages and privileges on wealthier kids in wealthier schools and it discriminates against poorer kids Maori kids and poorer schools. The research has proved this point. 
National’s policy is ideological. That is why it has not taken it out to the public. It really does not want there to be any real scrutiny of this analysis at all because this kind of research which proves shows and demonstrates the failure of this policy in other jurisdictions would come to light in the public eye here. Parents would know about it. The teachers in schools would know about it. They would know that this policy is a failure and that it is an ideological approach not one based on proper evidence proper science and proper research about what works best for the children at the bottom end. This policy will push our Maori kids who are at the bottom. 
I find the Minister’s condescending sycophantic description about how fabulous National will be for Maori students absolutely sickening when the policies and the law it has passed in the last few days absolutely discriminates against them. This keeps them poor keeps them in jail keeps them out of work and keeps them out of school. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the second reading of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. That was another interesting contribution from the Green member. It seems to have completely escaped her that the ACT Party and the National Party campaigned strongly on education and that was probably one of the main reasons the majority of people in this country voted for a change of Government. That fact seems to have escaped her completely. I am pleased the member mentioned No Child Left Behind because that is exactly what we should be aiming for in this country—no child left behind. In fact we should accept nothing less. 
The Opposition clearly feels very threatened by the thought of national standards in literacy and numeracy. All we have heard is attack attack attack about national standards but we have heard nothing about the first part of this bill which is also very important in relation to school enrolment and attendance. All that Opposition members are focusing on is national standards because they know that it is the right thing to do. Shame on them for standing up member after member and not supporting this initiative! Shame on them! Why are they doing it? Because they fear that it will show that we have an education system that is letting our children down. That is the problem for them—fear that it will show up the last 9 years as a complete failure for the education system in this country. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What a pathetic joke! 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: We have had a prescription in the last 9 years. They might joke about it but we have had a failed prescription for the last 9 years that has not worked. The current education system which is about to be radically changed is failing far too many of our children. Although it can be quite good for the academically able—those who will do pretty well no matter what—many children are not learning even the basics and are achieving poor qualifications or frequently no qualifications at all. We should not be happy or content to let this situation continue. Despite rising expenditure New Zealand’s education standards are falling and we have now been overtaken by other developed countries. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What nonsense! 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: Mr Carter should try reading the literature. The worst-performing schools are in the poorest areas and parents have limited choice as to the schools they send their children to. Too much is spent on the bloated bureaucracy when it could be spent on schools and on educating children at the front line. Teacher morale is low and many secondary schools suffer poor discipline. 
What we should be striving for is equality. Every single child in New Zealand regardless of family income should have the right to a quality education. No child should be left behind just because of where he or she lives or because of the parents’ financial position. Education is first last and always about children. It is not about the Government or bureaucrats. We need to increase the role of parents and decrease the role of Wellington. That is the commitment I see from the National Party and that is the commitment the ACT Party brings to the incoming Government. Parents have the right to send their children to the school of their choice. After all it is their money paid in their taxes and their children’s futures. 
Here is what ACT wants for all Kiwi kids in terms of education. It will be universal. All school students will get State funding. All schools will be held to account for the success of their students through an assessment system that is objective and transparent and that is what this legislation is about. That is why it is important that it is put in place as quickly as possible. There will be choice. Under ACT parents will be free to choose a school that best fits the needs of their children. It will not matter whether the school is public or private. ACT’s policy will allow diversity in education. It will encourage; it will not stymie hinder and put up road blocks. It will encourage different kinds of schools and new kinds of teaching. 
We will abolish the excessively bureaucratic system of classifying and funding schools according to their character and who owns them. That is not important. We want to see funding of all schools on the same formula and we will give them greater freedom to develop special characteristics. These are the discussions we should be having about education in this country. We should not be having discussions about who owns the school. We believe in diversity and we reject the one-size-fits-all approach to education as does every party on this side of the House. [ 
Interruption 
] Our critics these people over here should stand up and take a call. Our critics prefer State monopoly and State control to parental choice and diversity. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member for interrupting her speech. The reason I have done so is that she has made a series of policy statements using the word “our”—our position etc. I am not sure whether she is giving a position of the new National - ACT - United Future - Maori Party Government or whether she is giving the position of the ACT Party. Through you Mr Assistant Speaker I suggest that it would be helpful for order if she would tell us that for indeed if it is the former we are in some trouble. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The point Mr Hodgson has raised is a pure debating point. He is destructively breaking up a very good speech from Heather Roy and I think you should discipline the member for disrupting a speech in that way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I would say to the honourable member who has just made the point that if the Speaker disciplined every member who raised a point of order that was not a point of order there would be an awful lot of discipline in this House. The member though is correct. It was a political point. It is a debating matter. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: The member who made the point of order in the first instance clearly was not listening when I said: “Here’s what ACT wants to do for all Kiwi kids.” If he had listened a little more carefully he would have heard that from the start. But we have a Government now that is prepared to think that is prepared to look broadly for solutions to problems that exist—problems that have been caused by 9 years under the Opposition when it was in Government—and that is prepared to listen and think broadly about solutions to advantage the children in this country. Now the Opposition is rejecting striving for excellence rejecting expectations and rejecting having standards as a measuring tool so that parents know how their children are doing—as they ought to be able to expect. 
The Labour member Kelvin Davis actually made a very good contribution earlier I felt and several people on this side of the House have mentioned that. He talked about excellent teachers raising achievement and he is absolutely correct. He mentioned a whole number of initiatives that are very important—things that members will routinely hear from speakers on this of the House—and I would like to congratulate him on those comments. But I am sad he came to an absolutely bizarre conclusion after putting forward those very good points. I look forward to the member making some useful contributions on education but the conclusions he came to bore absolutely no relationship to the comment that he had made. 
I would say to the member that it is not a situation of “either/or”; we should be striving for excellent teachers to raise education standards and achievement at the same time as encouraging excellence in teaching. The two are not mutually exclusive; it is not “either/or” it is “both/and” I say to Mr Davis. I want to keep hearing that sort of initiative from his side of the House because that is the sort of thing that can further education and achievement in this country. 
The Hon Bill English’s first reading speech made some very good comments about expectations and this is what this bill is all about: it is about having the right sorts of expectations for our children in education. When we expect excellence when we expect every child to achieve to the best of his or her ability we will actually have excellent teachers excellent standards excellent schools and excellent education in this country. So how do we meet these expectations? ACT believes they can be met with school choice. I say to Mr Hodgson that the ACT Party is supporting the National Party—just in case in two sentences’ time he has forgotten I said the word “ACT” and worries about where this initiative might be coming from. ACT believes that the expectations can be met with school choice. We campaigned strongly on this and it played a large part in our negotiations which resulted in the National-ACT confidence and supply agreement. 
We are pleased that National has stated that it will work over time to increase the educational choices available to parents and pupils so that families have more freedom to select schooling options that best meet the individual needs of their children. We look forward to the setting up of the inter-party working-group which will be resourced as necessary to consider and report on policy options relating to the funding and regulation of schools which will increase parental choice and school autonomy. This bill we are debating tonight is a great start in that process and I welcome this initiative that has been brought to the House tonight by the National Party. The ACT Party will be supporting it through its entire course. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe tena tatau katoa. E te uri o Te Tai Tokerau ka nui te mihi ki a koe. Tautoko i nga mihi nga korero a enei ki a koe ehara wau korero he tika tonu me ki te ngako o era korero. No reira ka nui te mihi ki a koe otira ki a tatau i tenei po. 
[ 
Greetings to you and to all of us. Much admiration to you the relative from Te Tai Tokerau. I endorse the accolades and comments expressed by these ones to you. My word what you said at least the nub of it was on the mark. Therefore much admiration to you and indeed to us tonight 
.] 
The concept of setting standards—high standards—is something that is expressed in many whakatauaki Maori: “Ko te manu kai i te miro nona te ngahere. Ko te manu kai i te matauranga nona te ao—the bird that eats the miro berry can claim the forest but the bird that eats or feasts on education can claim the world.” And there are others of course. I believe that it was a theme that was referred to in the House just recently by my colleague Hekia Parata in her maiden speech. The aspiration of course is pretty easy but it is of no use if there is educational system failure. 
In 2006 more than 10000 16-year-olds did not achieve minimum requirements in literacy and numeracy. Is that a standard that we can feel proud of as a nation? I do not think so. For Maori 40 percent of our tamariki by the end of year 11 and 44 percent of Pasifika students did not meet the literacy and numeracy requirements of year 11. Can we feel proud of that national standard? Hell no! What are we doing so wrong? More to the point what are we doing so right for other students—namely 76 percent of Asian students and 79 percent of Pakeha who did meet the literacy and numeracy requirements for level 1? 
This bill cannot remedy these institutional and longstanding inequalities in its mere three pages but perhaps it is a kick-start to the conversation. This bill will enable the Minister of Education to set national standards in literacy and numeracy and then assess standards against them. The Maori Party suggests that the real test for us would be if the Minister of Education were able to assess the competency of schools themselves to respond to the unique and distinctive needs of their student population. The research by Professor Russell Bishop which resulted in the Kotahitanga project suggests that there is a lot to do here. 
In the Maori Party policy document  
He Aha te Mea Nui? 
 our priority is both to help young people to succeed and to improve the performances of schools. We want to ensure that the public be provided with better information on school performance including Maori and Pasifika achievement. To do that we suggest there are specific and tangible steps that the Government can take. The Government could support professional development for teachers particularly around the notions of cultural competency. The Government could invest in key support staff such as those focused on improving levels of literacy and numeracy. The Government could establish incentives that reward schools’ success and innovation in reducing underachievement and disengagement. The Government could invest in mobile literacy and numeracy services that can reach children parents and whanau in rural areas. These are just a few of the many ideas that the Maori Party—the awesome Maori Party—will be willing to contribute to the education portfolio with the appointment of Dr Pita Sharples as Associate Minister along with the honourable Minister Anne Tolley. 
Our ideas actually dovetail quite nicely with the recommendations presented in the report that the Education and Science Committee released to the House in February of this year. So they should. That inquiry lasted almost 2 years and I was pleased to be a part of that committee when we had a cross-party inquiry into making the schooling system work for every child. There are a whole host of recommendations that are useful in the context of raising standards of achievement in the compulsory education sector. 
An interesting observation of that report was the comment that teachers have plenty of suitable assessment tools at their disposal but that the schooling system as a whole is not using the huge potential of these tools to support programmes to improve student achievement. Our report recommended that more resources be devoted to the provision of comprehensive professional development in assessment practice so that by 2010 all schools have experienced appropriate training in the collection and use of assessment data. The committee believed that this would make a considerable difference to student achievement particularly among the so-called long tail of underachievement. 
The crucial thing is our estimation that not just the right assessment tools are used and teachers are supported with appropriate professional development but also assessments are reported to whanau. Whanau need to know where their children are. Such information is not to label tamariki but simply to assist in showing them that they may need assistance or that they may be doing very well. The gathering of evidence would also hold schools to account and the monitoring and reporting of achievement of Maori students is a policy statement that we intend to follow up over the next 3 years in our agreement with the National Government. Schools simply having information and not using it and not being accountable for a lack of strategy to lift student achievement must be considered in the near future. Having around half of young Maori men and women not achieving at least one single qualification before they leave school should no longer be tolerated and the Maori Party intends to work cooperatively with the Minister to address this matter. 
Although we are generally happy with the focus on national standards in literacy and numeracy I have to say we are concerned about the other set of changes proposed in the bill to do with truancy levels. Truancy rates have for many years now been highest among Maori and Pasifika students yet the problem continues to be ignored despite the inevitable disruption to learning that high truancy rates must create for Maori and Pasifika students. The implications of truancy are not associated just with underachievement. Several of our submitters such as Family Court Judge Becroft and others emphasise that many of those presented to the court were illiterate among other things. 
So we agree absolutely that something must be done but does that mean slapping a fine on those people hoping that increased fines will lower rates of truancy? We do not think so. There is no evidence to suggest that hefty fines will lead directly to improved attendance rates. The bill raises the level of fines imposed on parents who fail to enrol their child at school or who fail to ensure that their child attends school once enrolled. It also allows the Secretary for Education to prosecute parents for those actions. It doubles the daily rates of fines for non-attendance to $30 a day. It doubles the fine for first-time non-attendance offences from a maximum of $150 to $300 and it trebles the fine for parents who fail to enrol their child at school from a maximum of $1000 to a maximum of $3000. 
That is tough. The thing is will bombarding parents with fines make a difference? We say no. The parents whom we are likely to be talking about again according to the evidence in the select committee report are those who suffer from issues of poverty. Hitting them with a fine will we believe do little. In the United Kingdom the annual report of Christine Gilbert Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools grappled with many of those same issues around non-attendance and rates of educational attainment. The 2007-08 report indicated a number of circumstances for individual institutions and providers from which improvements may emerge. They included firstly leadership with a clear and ambitious direction for change; secondly objective open reflective self-evaluation of strengths and weaknesses; and thirdly dialogue and feedback to ensure that needs are being met in a culture of excellence. 
It can be done; all it takes is a vision for excellence. We do support the need for national standards. There should be reporting back to whanau; schools should be held to account. We do not agree that increased penalties will promote whanau engagement in schools and increase attendance rates. To that end our preference is that the changes proposed to address truancy levels could be separated out from the bulk of the bill and treated differently. We have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper for the Committee to consider and we believe that it might address this issue. With those words kia ora tatou. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Firstly I congratulate the new Minister of Education on introducing to the House a bill that I think will have a greater positive impact on the challenges facing our nation than probably any other issue that we will consider in the course of the next 3 years of this term of Parliament. This Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill is a litmus test as to whether members of this House are prepared to sit silently by and see one in five of New Zealand children fail basic literacy and numeracy and whether we are prepared to take seriously a 50 percent increase in the number of students who are truanting from our schools. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I do not think in all honesty there is a member of this House I say to Chris Carter who can put hand on heart and say that the long tail of underachievement shown up in every piece of educational research on our schools is not a serious issue for our nation. I do not think that even Chris Carter who is interjecting in his heart of hearts really believes that that is an issue we should not be concerned about. So the question we as parliamentarians need to ask is what we should do. The truth is that it is not members of this House who stand up the front of classrooms each day and do the really important job of teaching our students but we have to ask what we can do. 
I believe in a very simple principle not just in education but in other areas as well and that is that we manage what we measure. If we are serious about lifting educational standards then we should be prepared to measure them. I reflect on one of the really hot debates in this Parliament in the 1990s which was about the issue of financial performance. This country had a disgraceful record in the management of public finances. One of the reasons was that we did not honestly report the state of our public finances. I was proud to be part of the National Government that passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act which required independent honest reporting of our public finances. That Act resulted in the years since in a substantial improvement in the state of our public finances. I say that education needs the same honest reporting. 
Other countries have grappled with the same issues. Some countries that have been concerned about their literacy and numeracy standards have passed legislation that prescribes how teachers should teach. Some countries have passed laws—we have even had such a bill in this House—that require teachers to teach by phonics. Well this Government does not agree with that. I will tell members why. We trust the professionalism of teachers and it is not for this Parliament to prescribe how teachers should teacher—whether teachers should use phonics or whole language or any of the many other proper educational debates amongst the professionals. Other Parliaments around the world have prescribed the number of hours that schools should spend on teaching literacy and numeracy. The United Kingdom prescribes that teachers spend 2 hours on it; in other countries it is 2 hours and 30 minutes. Again Anne Tolley and this Government say that no that is not the right approach. This bill says that we do not mind how teachers teach—whether it is phonics or whole language whether it is for 2 hours a day or 2 hours and 30 minutes a day—but they do need to meet a national standard. I am proud to be a part of a Government that is prepared to say just that. 
Let us look at some of the arguments—or I should say “excuses”—that have been put forward by the Labour Opposition because they speak volumes about the difference between Labour’s values and the values that are held by this Government. I was very interested to hear the new member Mr Prasad say we should not introduce this measure unless teachers agree. Are we really so lacking in leadership so prepared to let down the children of this country that unless every teacher agrees we are prepared to sit by fail the leadership test and not set the standard? I say to Mr Prasad that the responsibility of this Parliament is not to the teachers of this land but to the young people—the students the children. I tell Mr Prasad that they are the ones to whom we owe our first responsibility. 
The problem for the Labour Party is that it is captured by the teacher unions. That is one of the reasons why over the last 9 years we have gone backwards in education. Labour members are more interested in serving the needs of their mates in the teacher unions than in doing what is right for the children of this country. 
I come to the point that was raised by the member who said that the provisions in this bill are wrong in that they give the Minister the power to prescribe national standards. What a facetious argument! Why did Labour members support an Education Act that allowed the Minister of Education to prescribe the full curriculum? They say it is OK to prescribe the whole curriculum but not OK to prescribe national standards of literacy and numeracy. What a pathetic argument! 
Then we heard the arguments in opposition to the issue of assessment. I ask members opposite what their answer is to the report from the Education Review Office that 58 percent of schools in New Zealand are not providing for assessment. What is their answer? I will tell members what their answer was. After 9 years the answer we got from the Minister of Education Chris Carter was the “Wassup!” badge. Well the new Minister of Education wants more for the children of New Zealand than a “Wassup!” badge and members on this side of the House are proud to back her up. 
I want to bring this debate back to the very practical experience of a constituent who came to see me in my electorate caravan. Her child had just gone on to secondary school to Nelson College. She was horrified to learn that her son had been put on a reading recovery programme. She brought to my constituency clinic every school record— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: School report. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —school report that she had received over the last 5 years. None of those school reports gave that parent any indication that her child was falling behind. I simply say to the members opposite that we need transparent reporting of school results. I say to members opposite that providing parents with honest reports on how well their children are doing is just what they need. 
The last point I want to make in this debate is that it is interesting that not one Labour member has been prepared to talk about the truancy provisions in this bill. I will tell members why. It is because they are embarrassed by their track record. The last 9 years have seen truancy rates in this country go through the roof and they are embarrassed and ashamed— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to members that when I call a point of order I expect there to be order and I expect members to let the person who is raising the point of order to have his or her say. I do not expect there to be an increase in the barracking from both sides of the Chamber. Let us have some order. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: The member Nick Smith in his usual extravagant and outrageous manner has just claimed that none of the members on this side of the Chamber talked about truancy. I myself did as did Dr Prasad and others. Mr Smith again is not telling the truth in the Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order; that is a debating point. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that no Labour member has debated at any length the truancy provisions in this bill. Chris Carter should hang his head in shame. He should hang his head in shame because during his watch thousands of New Zealand young people who should have been in school receiving an education were not there and he did nothing. The fact that Labour continues to have him as its education spokesperson shows that it is soft on standards soft on truancy and an apologist for failure. I am proud to back Anne Tolley and national standards which will make a difference for this country. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I congratulate the National Government and I call on my colleagues not to be quite so harsh on them because they are on a literacy crusade. I think I am on a crusade to give credit where credit is due. This is a kind of turbocharging of education in the first 100 days and education is very important—there is no argument from this side of the House that it is not important. We can listen to all the maiden speeches; I think every one of us so far has talked about how education is the most important thing we can do as a nation. 
Moreover the members on that side of the aisle are right to focus on the problem of underachievement. In spite of the very creditable performance of our young people in the OECD rankings in science literacy and maths the so-called long tail of underachievement is one of the major challenges this country faces. About that there is I hope no disagreement on our side of the aisle. So I congratulate the National Government for focusing on an extremely important issue. 
However it is not enough to identify the problem. It is not enough to campaign up and down the country spreading fear and anxiety. The members opposite are in the Government now and they need something more than slogans and fearmongering. They need good sound practical ideas that can be turned into policy and law but I have to say that at this point the National Government falls down rather badly. It is sad to say it but I would have thought that 9 years was long enough to come up with better ideas than are contained in this bill. 
What is the National Government’s response to this problem of underachievement? It is national educational standards. On the surface that is an interesting idea. We all want standards right? But let us think about this. There is no point having standards unless we test. Otherwise how do we know whether we are reaching those standards? What we are really talking about here if we are honest is standardised testing. That is the conceptual basis of this bill. The National Party has pulled a page from George W Bush’s playbook and his No Child Left Behind Act policy as Metiria Turei has explained. 
Paul Quinn 
: Saviour of the free world! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I say to Paul Quinn that standardised testing is the tired old cliché policy of conservative politicians all around the world. This bill is a Trojan Horse for standardised testing. I will say more about standardised testing but first let me make some other comments. There is a very interesting thing about this bill: it does not actually do anything. It is the National Party’s idea of virtual Government. It is very modern it is like a hologram it looks real and it gives the appearance of substance but in fact there is nothing there; it is a complete illusion. In this respect it bears an uncanny resemblance to the dreary bail bill that we spent the afternoon discussing. It is campaign rhetoric in drag. It does not introduce anything new it does not provide any resources for literacy programmes and actually it acknowledges— 
Paul Quinn 
: They won’t like that in Mt Albert. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: It acknowledges—I say to Mr Quinn—that some very effective assessment tools are already at work in our schools. 
This policy caused quite some confusion on the campaign trail. At a candidate debate in Devonport my opponent the honourable member for North Shore was asked by a very nice woman in the audience whether National would introduce standardised testing. He said that no they would have assessment. She asked what the difference was. I have to tell members that there was a lot of huffing and puffing but not much light shed on the issue. I had some sympathy for my opponent the member for North Shore. It is not surprising that he found it difficult to explain the difference because after all how does one assess without testing? Assessment is simply another kind of testing. 
I was talking recently with a literacy and numeracy specialist who works at a school in Auckland. She said that the real question about this debate asks why we are testing. What is the purpose? Is it so we can improve the quality of teaching and learning or is it so the school can publish league tables and market itself as being better than the school down the road? I think that that comment was very perceptive. The bill in fact requires State schools to assess and report student performance against national standards. This will inevitably lead to the establishment of league tables of winner and loser schools and compound the challenges that lower-decile schools are already struggling with. That is exactly what has happened under standardised testing regimes in the UK and the US. 
I lived for 4 years in the United States which is a happy hunting ground for standardised testing regimes. My son was 9 years old and in middle school in Maryland. He did four different sets of exams every year and all the teachers and all the parents complained that all they had time to do in the academic year was prepare for an endless round of exams and testing. After 6 years of George W Bush’s No Child Left Behind policy one commentator at the National Center for Fair and Open Testing said there was overwhelming evidence that the law was deeply flawed and doing more harm than good. It relies on “limited one-size-fits-all tools” that “reduce education to little more than test prep.” We hear exactly the same story in the United Kingdom. Introducing national standards and making schools accountable sounds good on a bumper sticker. It is very much like ACT’s “three strikes and you’re out” policy or the Bail Bill that we discussed this afternoon. It looks good on a bumper sticker but it is not really based on sound policy is it—is it? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What’s your answer? Give us an answer. Give us a policy. Give us a single idea. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: If this is the rigour the innovation and the depth that the National Government will bring to education policy the children of New Zealand should be very afraid I say to Mr Smith—very afraid. [ 
Interruption 
] Standardised testing I say to Mrs Parata is against fairness it is against accuracy and it is against quality. I will tell members why. For decades educationalists have complained that standardised tests are unfair because the questions so often require a set of knowledge and skills that is likely to be possessed only by children who come from a privileged background. And the member should know that. Can members guess which kinds of children are best able to prepare for the tests? Can members tell me? It is the kids who come from privileged families who are best able to prepare for those tests. The quality of teaching suffers inevitably. Testing encourages the temporary acquisition of skills and information— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This bill is about national standards. It has nothing to do with national testing. I ask you to remind the member on his feet to speak to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. It is a debating point and the member knows that. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: The so-called long tail of underachievement is indeed a very serious problem and it is one that I do not doubt that every member of this House on both sides of the aisle cares about. But this bill has nothing to offer. It is all sizzle and no sausage. It does not introduce anything new—actually it recognises explicitly that effective assessment tools are already at work in our schools. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Half of them aren’t doing it. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: But worse than that I say to Mr Smith the bill is based on shonky educational theory. It dignifies the concept of standardised testing as a valid educational tool for children as young as 5 years old and it lays the groundwork for a National Government to impose national standardised testing on our schools. And that is the objection I have. 
Finally the National Party has been dining out for months—actually years—on a line it got from Crosby/Textor about the nanny State. This bill demonstrates how shallow that rhetoric is. This bill is about the governess State. Do members know what? It is the National Government wanting to impose Victorian values of education on our children. It flies in the face of international best practice and everything we know about personalised learning. Next the members on the other side of the aisle will have us lining up in the classrooms rote learning. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill is very interesting. It is an enabling bill because it gives the Minister the ability to establish national standards. We can look at the explanatory note of the bill. For the benefit of members on the other side of the Chamber I will try to talk quite calmly so that we do not excite them and waken them from their numbing sleep. 
If we rely on regulation we will stay where we are. We find when we look at the Education Review Office reports that there is considerable inconsistency. We have heard from the fine member sitting in the back corner what a good school is doing. We know that that is just so incredible. That school is made up of a relationship between teacher pupil and parents and that is the way all schools should work. There are thousands of schools in this country and we want to see them all succeed. But relying on a regulation that is implicit is not good enough. I agree with what Dr Smith said: if we cannot measure it we cannot manage it. That is why the National Government will put it into law the standard that will have to be achieved. It is not appropriate that we are not all as a nation on a crusade to improve our children’s education. If we want to give people the opportunity of being able to put a foot on the ladder and go up and inspire we have to succeed and we have to do better. 
We could have a very very long conversation about this legislation but I believe that the weight of the argument is very much in favour of it. I must acknowledge what Te Ururoa Flavell said. I was also on that 2-year select committee review of making schools work for all our children. It was very very enlightening. There are some wonderful teachers around. One person who came to the select committee said that he trained teachers for another year. I have tried to remember his name but it escapes now. He had a private training establishment that was limited to taking only 100 full-time equivalents a year. He was limited because of the funding. Those teachers graduated and were all picked up by schools and they have all done remarkably well. 
I am just so convinced as a parent and now as a grandparent that we can do better and that what we must do is lay a solid foundation for that to happen and get on with it. That is what this bill does. It is an enabling and empowering bill and I support it wholeheartedly. I commend Anne Tolley for having the courage to bring it forward. I think we have to keep away from the rhetoric of the negativeness and on that basis I am very proud to be backing this bill. I recommend it to the House. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 The member for Kaikoura promised us no excitement during his speech and he was right. He has been right for the last 3 years. I rise to oppose the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. I think that this bill might be called the “Tolley Bus Bill”. It is ramming through radical legislation— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that Labour Opposition members always revert to name-calling because that is about as good as their debate is. But I think that as a new member he should be reminded that using such references to fellow members of the House is not appropriate. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I think it is a bit rich for that particular member to be talking about personal nasty attacks on members. He is notorious for his vicious attacks on members of this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I draw the member’s attention to the point that he should address members respectfully. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill is being pushed through under urgency with no consultation with the sector it most affects—that is the education sector. It gives the Minister the power to set education standards for every State school in this country but when the bill comes through the dark tunnel of night the Minister says that she will go back then to consult the education sector. That will be a bit late and it is a bit rich to offer consultation after the fact. 
My colleague Chris Carter acknowledged that the education system is largely collaborative. That is the strength of the system; that is what underpins the system. But this bill is about pitting teacher against teacher and school against school. It is a slippery slope. It is if you like a deluge. The member Hekia Parata has already referred to this bill as being the national standards/local testing bill so the Government needs to get its lines clear about what this bill actually aims to achieve. 
This bill has come about because during the election campaign the National Party had to present a moderate face to the electorate in order to be successful and win the election. It dropped the policy of bulk funding which had been a National Party policy in previous elections. It made no mention of education vouchers. This bill is now the thin end of the wedge. 
Hon Members 
: Oh no! 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Yes it is. Here is how this bill will work. It introduces standardised testing. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: It does not. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: The member opposite said that it will introduce local testing following standards. That will then I am sure lead to schools being required and forced to publish those results. That will of course then lead to funding being linked to those results. As we already know the National Government has indicated that it will weaken zoning and that will of course mean that rich schools will get richer and poor schools will get poorer. That is exactly how it works. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh the politics of envy! 
BRENDON BURNS 
: No it is not the politics of envy; it is the politics of reality which always ends up with the poor paying the price. That is a feature of National Governments. This policy borrows very heavily from the Bush administration’s first Act in office—the No Child Left Behind Act. What that Act did in the United States was take away from schools that were underperforming. That is not me speaking; that is from the US Department of Education. I will read from the preamble to the commentary for members opposite: “A key aim of the  
No Child Left Behind Act 
 of 2001 … is to provide additional educational options to parents of students in low-performing Title I schools specifically the opportunities to move their child to a higher-performing school or enroll their child in supplemental educational services.” The point about the educational services being provided in the United States as a result of that bill is this: I ask members to guess who is providing those supplementary educational services. Is it the State school sector? No it is not. The private sector is now providing most of those supplementary services in the United States. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: We have a State education system and that is what we need to fund rather than start to spin money out into the private sector. 
The other fact that comes through from the US Ministry of Education’s analysis is that the children who have done worse since the No Child Left Behind Act are those for whom English is a second language. In my electorate of Christchurch Central there are 35-plus schools. There are some very very good schools and they range from decile 1 to decile 10 but the predominant number of schools are in the low deciles. There is no comparison between a decile 1 school and a decile 10 school. 
David Bennett 
: You can’t say that! 
BRENDON BURNS 
: If members want to put assessments on them the comparison is that in a decile 1 school the primary importance for children might be something as simple as whether they had breakfast that day not whether they sit an assessment or a test. There are schools in my electorate that have up to 55 percent of their students coming from Pasifika Asian and other ethnic backgrounds. 
Hekia Parata 
: So what? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: So the point is that if the American experience has been that children from non - English speaking backgrounds fare the poorest under that programme then the likelihood is that it will apply here. I will come to the funding issue shortly. The point is about how a school with a 40 to 50 percent non-English speaking profile of students would feature under this bill. There is nothing in the bill about resources. There is not a mention about the funding that is actually what drives educational outcomes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s called a budget. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: That is right. It is about creating another level of bureaucracy— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Yes it is. It is about adding another layer in there. There are plenty of tools within the current framework to assess children as my colleague Kelvin Davis so eloquently pointed out. The tools are there already in the current procedures. The Minister says that it is about resources. I think I have the figure correct when I say there is $18 million once the assessment has taken place. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Extra. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: It is extra! I thank the Minister very much. The current funding for the primary sector is about $3 billion and if the Minister is talking about adding $18 million to $3 billion my calculations are that that is 0.00006 percent. So much for turbocharging educational achievement! 
The second part of the bill deals with truancy— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Your numbers are wrong. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: —I would be quite prepared to take one zero off—it is about holding parents accountable. I have no problem with the concept of holding parents accountable. The problem is that I do not think that parents are the key issue in terms of truancy. The greatest numbers of truant children are in secondary schools and the numbers increase as they go through the secondary schooling system. Trying to get a 14 or 15-year-old to go to school who does not want to go to school is not going to be solved by having $4 million more for truancy officers whose allocation I worked out on the number of schools would be about $30 a week per school or about two blocks of cheese. The other issue around the truancy issue is that it is strongly predominant in decile 1 and 2 schools—and again I say that comes back to issues of poverty and resources—and is not about decile 9 or 10 schools which have six times fewer chances of truancy being a feature. 
Pita Sharples from the Maori Party supports this bill. He wants teachers to be trained to lift up Maori. I ask what on earth in this bill does anything to lift Maori teachers or teachers teaching Maori students. If Maori are underachieving now what will happen when we mirror the American and British experience and force teachers to focus on lifting those students around the middle of the expected standard and keep those teachers focused on that rather than on delivering attainment across the board? 
I also acknowledge the comments from a Christchurch truancy officer Andy Parr who has been in the job for 8 years and who was reported in this morning’s Christchurch  
Press 
 as saying that tougher fines would have no effect on the families he dealt with: “We feel that the social stigma or the embarrassment is the main deterrent … The main ones we deal with are parents who have lost control and the student is usually calling the shots.” So putting the fines up to $3000 is not likely to make one heck of a lot of difference; that is from somebody who is actually working in the field. Thank you. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 What a great piece of legislation this will become when it is adopted later this week. Finally after 9 years of a Government whose members are now sitting on the Opposition benches we have legislation that will deal with the big issues. The big issues are the children of this country who cannot read or write properly. Is it not great that finally after 9 years we have a Minister of Education who cares about children in our country? Is it not great that we have a Minister who is willing to do the hard yards and who is willing to stand up and say that we believe promises are important? Promises are important. 
I can understand that Opposition members would be concerned. They would be concerned that the explanatory note states that the bill gives the Minister of Education the power to set national standards in literacy and numeracy. I can see why they would be concerned because how many Ministers of Education were there over the last 9 years and how many of those Ministers of Education cared enough to set standards so our children would be able to read and write properly? I can understand their concern. 
What is wrong with setting standards? What is wrong with parents knowing whether their kids are able to read and write properly? Every single parent in this country wants his or her child to do well and I tell the House there is nothing at all wrong with that. Schools will be required to assess students and report to teachers in plain English— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Report to parents—the member can’t even read. 
TODD McCLAY 
: —report to parents in plain English and not in text-speak I tell that member or in little slogans that say “Wassup”. It should be in real common English that people can understand. That is the important thing. 
This is about national standards and that is the three Rs. That is not Rip Van Winkle and his two sleepy mates over there; that is reading writing and maths—arithmetic. That is what we need in this country and that is what our teachers want to teach children in this country. I think it is disgusting that members on that side of the House firstly want to blame parents and say they are responsible. Then they want to say the children are the ones who are responsible. Finally tonight in this House we have heard that it is the teachers who are responsible. Well it is not the teachers; it is the system. And do members know who is responsible for that system? It is the Government of the last 9 years the party sitting on that side of the Chamber that has not cared enough about our children. 
As I sat here today I found a magazine in front of me  
The 
Economist 
 which has just been published. I was flicking through it because I am like a lot of other people around this country—mothers who are listening here tonight—who are concerned about the future of their children but all we are finding from the other side of the House is rhetoric and concern. No wonder so many of our kids are concerned at the moment. On page 51 of  
The 
Economist 
— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: They are awake at the start of the speech but they won’t be awake at the end of it. 
TODD McCLAY 
: I tell the Leader of the Opposition that it says “Hold your breath!”. I think that was written for him. It says “Hold your breath!”. Then when I moved over to the next page I thought “Oh look at this; someone must have seen what has happened in this country in the last month. Somebody must have realised what happened on 8 November.” It says “On your bike!”. There is another one—it says “On your bike!”. This cannot be about New Zealand but page 53 says “The Fading of Labour”. I thought “Well that must be it. There can’t be anything else in here at all.” But sure enough on page 56 it says “Stopping the rot”. This legislation is about stopping the rot that the Labour Party has allowed to develop over 9 years. 
I am proud to stand up and speak on behalf of the people of Rotorua. I had a great opportunity to talk to thousands of the people of Rotorua and they told me they like their teachers there but they do not like what this previous Government did over the last 9 years. Do members know what those people said after 9 years of listening? They said they wanted more for their children. They want more for their children in Rotorua and they want more for the children in many other parts of this country. I am glad that this Government has been able to help them get better things through this legislation— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Give an example! It’s on zero mate. 
TODD McCLAY 
: —and I am glad that member has finally woken up so that he can listen to a good speech. 
I received a text from the people of Murupara that said “Todd we’re looking forward to your speech but you can tell one of those members on the other side that we would like to see the colour of his eyes when the person behind him is speaking.” That was from the people of Murupara. The member is welcome to come to Muruapara with me and we can go and see those people. 
I went to Murupara 3 weeks ago when one of the smallest schools in my electorate held its annual prize-giving. Teachers are working hard at that school and parents come to the school to help their children. The parents in Murupara say to me that members on that side of the House not only should wake up but they should know they need some more help. Those members should be making sure that the parents know how hard the teachers are working and finally we have a Government that will help teachers support teachers and let them get on and do their job. How about no more complaining about the teachers from that side of the House? How about supporting the teachers? I think there is still a teacher in Rotorua who voted for the member’s party. I say to the member that he should still support him. 
I will finish here because the previous Minister wants to take the floor. When Labour came into Government—9 years ago—children were being born. This year when Labour was thrown out of office those children were 9 years of age. One in five of those children cannot read properly cannot write properly and cannot do his or her maths properly. It might have been all right for the last Government that New Zealand falls below Kazakhstan when it comes to maths but it is not good enough for this Government. 
I will conclude on something that is potentially dangerous. I have heard what is potentially dangerous tonight from members on that side of the House. They told us it is education. It is not education it is the lack of education that is potentially dangerous—the lack of education. The people in the Rotorua electorate had a choice this year and they stood up and said what was potentially dangerous for them was Labour Party sponsored underachievement. That is potentially dangerous for them. They also said Labour Party ignorance of mums and dads is potentially dangerous. But the biggest choice for people in Rotorua this year was whether to have another Labour Government that was potentially dangerous for our children. The people of Rotorua are wise and I thank them for letting me stand here as their local member of Parliament to make sure that this Government will do the right thing by their children. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 3. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Part 1 School enrolment and attendance 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 There has been an interesting and a frank exchange of views up to this point with regard to the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. I want to talk to Part 1 which deals with the truancy issue but I would like to preface my comments and then direct some questions to the Minister in the chair the Hon Anne Tolley. I preface my comments by saying I am sure that every person in this House wants to see in school every young New Zealand person who should be in school. That is a desire we all have. However in order to do that we have to engage with the students who are truanting. Very few parents want their children to truant school. I think all of us would be hard-pressed to find even what we might regard as the most difficult parents who do not want their children to succeed. 
However I will concede—and I know this as the former Minister of Education—that a tiny minority of people actively encourage their children not to attend school. There must be penalties for them. Raising the level of fine is not something that in principle we are opposed to. But we in the Labour Party are concerned that parents who themselves are victims of their children’s own behaviour will be impacted on by this legislation. I would not like to see and I am sure nobody in this House would like to see any parent who really wants his or her child to be at school and who is not aware that the child is truanting be hit by this change in the law and get a $3000 fine. We have put up an amendment to require that the proposed changes in fees will only impact on the most uncooperative of parents. I really urge the National members to consider supporting our amendment because I am sure that they like us do not want to see good parents penalised by the behaviour of bad children. 
I ask the Minister whether in addressing the issue of truancy—which is a subject that she has asked me many questions about in my former role as Minister of Education in the last 14 months or so—the increased fines are her only step to address the question of persistent truancy. I remind you Mr Chair and also the rest of the Committee and particularly the Minister that the previous Labour Government took a huge range of steps to try to address truancy. Indeed in 2006 when the Hon Steve Maharey was the Minister of Education we reviewed truancy services— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The vice-chancellor. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That is another subject 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Could Mrs Tolley tell us what a vice-chancellor is? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I know it has been reported to us by very reliable sources that the new Minister of Education had to ask the Tertiary Commission what a vice-chancellor does. I hope that Mrs Tolley knows what truancy officers do. We reviewed truancy services in 2006 and as a result of that review a whole series of resourcing actions were taken including the provision of both organisational and financial resourcing to combat truancy. That is the only way to deal with the real problem of truancy. The issue is not about parents; it is about children and young people who are disengaged from learning. 
Mr Peachey was a fine educationalist; we have different views but I respect what he did in schools. He was and still is motivated by a desire to have good educational outcomes in our country. He has in the past acknowledged to me and he will acknowledge the contribution made by the setting up of the electronic enrolment system with every school now on it. We put about $6 million into that so that for the first time ever we know exactly which children are in school and which are not. Every school is online and the staff report truants daily into a central computer database in our schools. For the first time ever we put that in so we knew exactly what the truancy problem was. We also put another $2 million into individual schools where there were particular problems that had to be addressed and the schools needed support to do that. Again the issue was not about fining parents because we are talking about a very small number of students here. We are talking about a much larger number of disengaged students. So there was another $2 million of funding for the individual schools that were most affected by truancy. 
We put another $4.5 million into district truancy services so that the contractors and people who work with the Ministry of Education councils and schools could deal directly with the problem. The 89 district truancy services that were set up worked very closely with territorial authorities to try to deal with the problem of truancy. We employed 10 officials—the bureaucrats we hear about from National which wants to get rid of them scale down the bureaucrats and use their salaries to enhance resourcing at schools—at the Ministry of Education to deal with very persistent individual hard-core cases of truancy as well as with children who were under the care of Child Youth and Family. Those are very special cases that needed very sensitive and professional care. 
The Student Engagement Initiative at schools was again very extensively funded with $1.8 million provided to help schools to deal with truancies. We introduced the Youth Apprenticeships scheme in schools. It started off in 10 schools in the time I was the Minister it was in 20 schools and 120 schools will have the scheme in 2009. Those are actual practical things that engage students in learning. Schools Plus was the flagship policy of the Labour Party at the election. We promised to commit $170 million to it in order to explore alternative pathways for learning for young people capture their interest deal with Youth Apprenticeships and set up the institute at Manukau Institute of Technology. Those are real concrete resourcing issues that deal with disengaged pupils. That is how we deal with truancy and get kids back into school. Yes we do need to punish parents but that is a tiny part of the problem. The real problem is disengaged students and how we deal with them. 
I ask the Minister Mrs Tolley how she is going to deal with persistent truants. We have left her a well-resourced sector. We have not solved the problem. We made good progress but we have not solved the problem. It is a really difficult issue in education. We are not unsympathetic to increasing the penalties but again I stress the issue of making sure that good parents are not punished by the behaviour of their children. I urge the Minister to look at our amendment that is on the Table over there. Hopefully she will look at it but I do not think she has done so yet. I am sure that she also does not want to have good parents punished for the behaviour of bad kids. 
I come back to the point I made at the beginning of my presentation that probably 99.9 percent of parents want the best for their children. They want their children to be in school and they want them to be successful. Children who are not in school are mostly absent not because of their parents; they are absent because they are disengaged from learning. The key to solving truancy issues is to engage children in effective learning keep them interested keep them at school liaise with homes and have professional staff in place to deal with that. Schools are really struggling with the truancy issue. As I have said we now know for the first time ever which kids are not at school because of our electronic system ENROL. That will be able to tell Mrs Tolley exactly what the truancy situation really is at the moment. 
I again ask the Minister to please consider protecting parents from the unintended consequences of raising this fine because we do not want good parents to be punished for the bad behaviour of young people. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise and talk to Part 1. I am rather sad to acknowledge that normally during the Committee stage of a bill as important as this we would be able to refer to the many submissions that we would have received during the select committee process. I am sure there would have been many submissions in the select committee process had the new Government allowed that opportunity for the public the parents the education sector and the many people who would have had an interest in this. I know we would have had a lot of very good submissions on Part 1 and the school enrolment and attendance issue. I feel very sad that we are not able to refer to those submissions but there have already been many fine contributions during the course of the debate on this entire bill. If we think about the passion energy and information that has come through this debate just from the members sitting in the Chamber alone I know we could have had so much more coming through had we had the opportunity to have public submissions on this bill. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: They wouldn’t want that! 
SUE MORONEY 
: I am not sure why the Government would not want that because I think it is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity to engage the broader community. All parties across the Chamber have acknowledged that education is the key to our future. Our children and their education are the key to our future and we should be taking some time to gather that information. 
However much has been made by the Government about clause 6. This is the clause that allows prosecutions to be taken by the Secretary for Education. I want to ensure that people listening to this debate know that prosecutions can and have already been taken over the issue of truancy in this country. I think it is really important to acknowledge that and it is important that the new Government does not make it look as though this is something that it is bringing in because this ability has been there all along. Sadly on 29 November the  
Waikato Times 
 reported on two families in the Waikato who were prosecuted for not having their children attend school. One was in the town of Morrinsville—a student from Morrinsville College—and the other was in Matamata—a student from Matamata College. It is rather interesting because I come from Matamata and my good colleague Jacinda Ardern comes from Morrinsville so we both knew those families. It was really very interesting to note that when we looked at the information and talked about those families we knew that there were many many issues going on for these families. Prosecution has happened in this instance. It probably is not the best outcome for those families; neither was the unavailability of their children—those students—from the education system. 
But it is not as simple as just increasing fines. It is not as simple as just having an outcome at the end after everything has gone wrong. Very complex issues are at stake here. It is really interesting when we observe the families who face prosecution. Often they come from the lower socio-economic ends of our communities and this was certainly the common thread that existed in those two cases. There has been the ability to prosecute and it has been happening. Certainly I think the initiatives the Labour-led Government put in place have helped to ensure that we know what the level of truancy is. 
Again there is a bit of a theme developing here. I think it is quite misleading to say that because we now know and can quantify what the problem is it means therefore that there was not a problem before and that it somehow emerged just over recent years. Of course these problems did not emerge just over recent years but the Labour-led Government was committed enough and was brave enough actually to quantify and measure these problems. The Labour-led Government implemented the ENROL system that my colleague the Hon Chris Carter talked about before and that helped us quantify what the nature of the problem was. That is a very important thing that the previous Government did. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to briefly mention the Maori Party’s position on this part of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill and its amendment that proposes to split off Part 1 and Part 2 into separate bills. We certainly support its intention to do that its reasons for doing that and its acknowledgment that although Part 2 is an ideological argument that we will no doubt continue to have Part 1 is about punishing the poor simply because they are poor and there is absolutely no justification for it. I am very pleased that the Maori Party opposes Part 1 of this bill. 
The fact is that the long tail of underachievement that is touted around here and was touted all through the election campaign is actually a long tail of poverty. Mr Peachey is wrong in his statement that somehow education is to blame for the increasing poverty in our communities. In fact it is poverty that is to blame for the impossibility of many of our young people getting ahead and getting the education to which they are entitled. I am not surprised that Mr Peachey is wrong about this but he is wrong and it is important to point that out. 
We are talking about communities where there are very low and very insecure incomes and where people are living in unstable and largely unsuitable homes. I think it was in today’s paper that we saw an article about 15 people living in one house—a family of seven in one room. There are ongoing health problems that arise from that level of poverty—for example skin infections that are treatable. In fact a large number of doctors who work in public health organisations say that one of the biggest disgraces of this country is the fact that so many children present with preventable diseases and illnesses like asthma glue ear eczema and scabies. Those diseases are all the result of living in poverty—for generations in many cases—and certainly that is the case for children living in poverty in those places. Poverty results in perpetual shifting as people with very insecure housing and very low incomes keep trying to find adequate housing that they can afford. If they find that they cannot afford it for whatever reason it leads to perpetual moving. 
This leads to children having to change schools very regularly. We often hear about this happening in South Auckland but it happens across the country. Hundreds of children every Monday change schools because their families have not been able to find secure employment and secure housing where they can set up a long-term base for the benefit of their children and their children’s education. 
What then happens is that children who are continually moving from school to school are really living lives of absolute turmoil over which they have no control. It is impossible for schools to then be relevant to the needs of those children and their ability to concentrate to stay well so that they can do the work to be socially connected to the school and to that community and to trust and have faith in and build relationships with teachers and other children. Those things are impossible when the children may well have to move in just another month or so because of the family circumstances. 
Those are all problems and challenges that schools have to deal with in order to find some way to be relevant to these kids who are living lives of turmoil over which neither they nor their parents have any control. This is not about families neglecting their children or wanting to keep their children out of school. It is completely reasonable to see why children would not want to go to school in those circumstances. Why would they want to try to go through the whole process of going to another school with more kids more teachers and more relationships only to have that stripped away from them again because their parents have lost their jobs they have not been able to keep up with the rent they have been evicted and they have to move and find somewhere else to live? This is the real lives of the people we are talking about. 
What is the National Government’s response to these real lived lives? Those members know barely anything about this issue and they have virtually no contact with the kinds of communities that we are talking about here. What is their response? It is not to deal with the causes of the poverty that leads to this kind of turmoil and instability is it? There is no policy here to deal with the dislocation of these children. In fact the priority for National is to punish these families by fining them three times more than they would have been fined otherwise—$3000 a family. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I rise to support the great speech made by my colleague Chris Carter in relation to what the Labour Government has done in the last 9 years. I see that Mr McClay has disappeared but he was huffing and puffing about those young people who were 8 9 and 10-year-olds and who are now 18 19 and 20. 
I would say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Anne Tolley—apart from congratulating her because she lives in Gisborne—that the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill is quite a fascinating bill. We listened to debate on the bill providing a 90-day trial period for employees where National took away workers’ rights and said that it was good for them and took 2 percent off KiwiSaver and said it was good for people. Now standardised testing which has been tested internationally is something that turns around to more bad practice. I wonder whether there is a hint of that in this bill because when boutiques and the Esprit Group tried that practice in France and when people tried it in Wisconsin it turned towards being a voucher system. I ask whether this bill is the lead-in to that because it is quite incredible: we started off with the teachers being blamed then the parents and now it has become a monetary issue. If we double or triple the fine will that fix up the issue? How cranky is that? 
Mr Peachey said that a lot of the practices from his time in the classroom are now antiquated. Steve Maharey understood that and he moved to modernise the classroom. As Chris Carter said the Labour Government put a lot of effort into solving the problem of truancy and that is why it declined by 24 percent. I am really happy and thankful that this Minister of Education Anne Tolley has said teachers will not be affected by the 90-day probationary provision. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Courageous! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It is courageous stuff—great decision-making. I thank the Minister for that because she knows she said that like that beleaguered statement that was being tossed around over the other side of the House. We see the failed national standardised testing in the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill and it is being linked to other activities that National wants to bring in. We know what bulk funding did and we know how that practice got around. This is incredible. 
In the last two days when the Opposition has performed remarkably against a Government that is still trying to find its way we have all said that education is the cornerstone to going forward. There was something in the Speech from the Throne about invigorating and turbocharging the aspects of enterprise. I see Hekia Parata over there and she is a great educationalist. I am so proud of the Maori members in here. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right she is my cousin and I am so proud of her. I am so proud of Nanaia Mahuta who will most probably become the vice-chancellor of Waikato University. I am so proud of Te Ururoa Flavell even though St Stephen’s School closed. He was the principal and he knows about it. 
Hon Members 
: What about Paul Quinn? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: And Paul Quinn went to Stanford University. I left school at 15 but I became one of the longest-serving Associate Ministers of Education in this country under the great Labour leadership so I learnt a fair bit. 
Few parents encourage truancy and members know that full well. We practised Te Hiringa i te Mahara which brought up the performance of schools up in the East Coast led by Parata and well resourced by this Government. If members go to the Tolaga Bay Area School—do members know where Tolaga Bay is?—they will see that every student who leaves that school goes somewhere. I say to Mr Bennett that at Turakina Maori Girls College where truancy was high and at St Joseph’s School all of those young ones go somewhere. They are not as privileged as he has been through life and Governments have to be careful in this standardised testing stuff not to create a bigger class distinction because a whole range of issues and ramifications both social and cultural are bound around truancy. 
Mr McLay talked about Murupara. We gave the people of Murupara a curriculum that was relevant to what the community wanted. They wanted to teach Ngati Manawa and we did that. Truancy came down through the Labour Government. Government members should be thankful that we supported the Education Review Office because if they want to construct frameworks of performance they should be sure about what they put into them. The Minister has not thought this through well enough she has just rushed this legislation and bleated and bleated about this being important. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I noticed twice during the member’s speech that he talked about “his Government”. I hate to remind him but there was an event on 8 November in which Labour lost the election. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I rise to speak in this debate this evening and I want to endorse the comments of the Hon Chris Carter that truancy is indeed a bad thing. No one in this House would regard truancy as a good thing and very few parents across New Zealand would regard truancy as a good thing. Tonight we are debating an issue that is sufficiently serious for the parents of this country to deserve a chance to discuss it and debate it. I am appalled that we are sitting here tonight when this bill has not gone through the select committee process. That is an outrage. There are parents out there with good and important views to be heard on the issue of truancy. 
I want to ask Minister in the chair Anne Tolley a number of questions. How much work was done to talk to parents about truancy before this bill was put in place? How much work has that Minister done to find out the real reasons behind truancy? What are the real things that are causing students not to go to school? I am looking for the Minister to take a call and let us know how much research she has done on what is causing truancy in this country. The parents of this country deserve a chance to have a say about this bill. 
This Government has come in and has been so arrogant within the first week that it is not even prepared to refer this bill to a select committee. There are important views to be heard from parents right across New Zealand on truancy and I simply cannot believe that this Government would not be prepared to put the bill before a select committee. Is it because it is ashamed of the bill? Is that why it is doing this? This Government needs to know the views of parents the views of teachers and the views of truancy officers right across the country. We need a proper discussion about this and the only conclusion I can draw is that the Government simply does not care about the views of parents. That is the conclusion I draw from the fact that there is no select committee process. 
Allan Peachey 
: Rubbish! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I ask Mr Peachey whether he wants the bill to go to a select committee. Would he like to hear the views of parents? We need to have a proper debate on this issue. Mr Peachey is the chair of the Education and Science Committee. It would have been a perfect opportunity for him to have heard the views of parents from right across New Zealand. 
I have a number of questions for the Minister. As I said I would like to know from her what work she has done to talk to parents and to students who have been truants. What work has she done to find out what the real reasons behind truancy are? On this side of the Chamber we want to know a little bit more from Mrs Tolley about what research is being done around whether increasing fines will actually reduce truancy. What do we actually know about the impact of increasing the fines on truancy rates? Has the Minister got an answer for that? I look forward to her taking a call on that matter. At the moment all we have is a bill that puts the fines up to $3000 to make sure that the National Government can show it has done something about truancy in its first week. This is all about the politics of the National Government; it is not about reducing the rates of truancy. 
I also want to hear from the Minister whether she has analysed any research from overseas about what has happened in the area of truancy. We do not know anything at this stage about whether the Minister has talked to educationalists around the world about what works when it comes to reducing truancy. That is the kind of information we would have been able to find out during the select committee process. But this Minister and this National Government do not want to hear real research and real information about what might work in terms of reducing truancy because they simply do not care about the views of parents. 
National has come in and had 1 week of shameful behaviour. It has been ramming legislation through the House and not making any time for the views of parents right across New Zealand. That Minister needs to stand up take a call and answer the questions. Has she talked to truants? Has she talked to parents of truants? Does she know what the international research on truancy is? Can she tell us whether there is any research internationally— 
Hon Annette King 
: She’s not writing it down. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: She is not writing it down? Do we think she can remember the questions? I will ask them again for the benefit of the Minister. Has the Minister talked to the parents of truants? Has she undertaken any studies of truancy internationally that we can learn from? Where are the experts whom we could have heard from on this bill? 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 It is very very clear that this is a punitive measure rather than a constructive one. This is not about making schools a place where students want to go; it is about punishing them when they do not make it through the gate. What is wrong with making schools places where kids want to go rather than places where they are forced to go? That is a much more constructive approach. 
Mr Flavell talked before about truancy being particularly high amongst Maori students so surely a big part of that and a big part of solving it is making school a place where Maori students feel comfortable and a place where they actually want to be rather than trying to make schools into one-size-fits-all places which is exactly what the rest of this bill does. National will impose these standards and tests and make school a one-size-fits-all place and if one does not conform one will just get shoved out the door. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Nanny State! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right. I have a number of questions as well and I hope the Minister will take the time to write these down. She has not written down any of the other questions—she will lose track I am sure—but I am certain she will give us a good explanation. I am sure she will not listen to Simon Power who put his finger to his lips to stop her standing up and taking the last call. 
Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. to (Saturday)