Volume 616 Week 53 - Tuesday 30 March 2004(continued on Wednesday 31 March 2004) 
Volume 616 Week 53 - Tuesday 30 March 2004(continued on Wednesday 31 March 2004) 
[Volume:616;Page:12121] 
Tuesday 30 March 2004 
( 
continued on Wednesday 31 March 2004 
) 
Charities Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I believe that these measures will greatly benefit the sector. Firstly they will enable Government to look to a more generous regime in respect of tax rates for donations and imputation credits. Secondly they will increase public confidence in the bona fides of individual organisations. For example charities involved in street collections and similar will do so on the basis that their registered number is prominently displayed. That together with tax breaks will motivate New Zealanders to be more generous in the support they give to charities. 
Charities are the most efficient organisations on the face of the planet. Typically they involve highly motivated people at both board and operational level many of whom work for sacrificial salaries. They have an ethos that puts the needs of human beings at the centre of all they do. They can deal with sensitive issues such as hunger poverty and family breakdown in a compassionate and caring way which is impossible in the culture of a Government bureaucracy—and they do it far more cheaply. I think all of us would quickly decide that we would rather deal with the Salvation Army the Red Cross or the Society of St Vincent de Paul than with the Ministry of Social Development or the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. Research indicates that $1 of social service delivered through a charity would cost the Government as much as $2 were it to be delivered even assuming that a similar level of quality could be attained through a bureaucracy. 
The establishment of a Charities Commission will herald a new and exciting day for the charitable sector. When the commission has been established United Future will seek a substantial and significant increase in the level of tax rebates for donations given to charities by either individuals or corporations. That would bring New Zealand more into line with comparable generous regimes in the USA the UK and elsewhere. 
I shall give an illustration of that. A couple of years ago an expatriate Kiwi living in New York made a donation of $1 million to the Victoria University Foundation. He was able to deduct the entire amount of that gift—$1 million—from his US tax liabilities. Had he made that donation from New Zealand his rebate on that $1 million would have been only $1890. That illustrates the enormous gap between New Zealand and other countries. 
That step would boost the income of charities by at least $60 million per annum but would cost the Government just $20 million and it would encourage an enormous boost in the nation’s social services. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 By way of interjection I asked the previous speaker Mr Gordon Copeland a member of United Future which supports the Government on confidence whether his party’s objective of an increased deduction or tax credit would be achieved in the Budget this year. He studiously ignored that question which makes me wonder whether United Future has any knowledge whatsoever about the Government’s programme in the Budget. Does it have anything other than a vain and pious hope that that could actually be achieved or is the Government treating it in a cavalier fashion? Who needs to take United Future into account would be the Government’s attitude. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will come back to the bill. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: We in the National Party are opposed to this bill. The reason we are opposed is that we are asking a basic question that apparently is not being asked by the Government itself and it is this: what mischief is this bill designed to cure? Is there large-scale fraudulent activity by charities that this bill would otherwise cure by its egregious and excessive regulatory procedures? Exactly what will the Charities Commission be doing that is not already being done by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue? We see this legislation as fundamentally spurious. This Government has an obsession to create by excessive regulation new institutions and new compliance costs so that it looks busy. 
Apparently a speaker for the New Zealand First Party said that this was something it had been seeking for years but I do not recall anything in New Zealand First’s past statements that show this to be a deep and pressing concern on its part. Again I ask what mischief does this legislation seek to cure? The reality is that there is no mischief. This legislation is simply not necessary. If there were substantial scandal in the charity sector I would have expected the Minister in charge of this bill or Government speakers—of which there have been precious few—to state the reasons and set out in detail that this has to be done because of those particular defaults. There is nothing whatsoever of that—just a recitation of the provisions of the bill itself. 
I want to turn to some of those provisions. One of the roles of the Charities Commission will be to give effect to Government policy. That is specifically stated in the legislation and is noted specifically in the explanatory note. That is presumably an important point. The role of the commission is then to deal with proposed Government policies. It makes one wonder what the intent could be. We have a bill that ostensibly is about registration and not changing the definition of charities—and I note that the legislation has included the traditional definition that as previous speakers have noted goes back hundreds of years to the 16th century. But this Government also has a record in the past of floating papers in which it wished to change precisely that definition—the definition of the bill for Mr Mallard’s edification—and the reality is that the Government intends expanding its tax take from charities. 
People might ask what on earth that means. It means attacking companies like Sanitarium and the business operations of charities which of course are undertaken to increase their wealth and cash-flow basis so that they can undertake their charitable purpose. That was the intention of the Government back in 2000. Now 3 years later it seeks to promote a bill that whilst that is not contained within it then makes reference to Government policies and proposed Government policies. I have to ask what the true motivation of this bill is. I simply do not believe that it is merely a matter of registration which of itself is unnecessary. The Government has not provided any basis of its need other than the fact that it will take place so one has to wonder whether there is not a more serious issue. 
Mr Jones spoke last night about a registration system in Britain. Whilst he proudly proclaimed the British system he failed to point out whether there were any failings in our current system. The reality is that he did not. As is perhaps the wont of New Zealand First he seemed to just like the legislation because it was legislation. One would have to say that New Zealand First has never been particularly rigorous when it comes to dealing with compliance costs. That party comes from an old-fashioned perspective of New Zealand’s economy. They think that what the Government does is always a good thing. They applaud big government and indeed they acknowledge that. 
I want to refer to one point of merit in the bill and that is the reference to the terrorist provisions—that a charity that has been deemed to be a terrorist entity under the terrorism and counter-terrorism legislation cannot be registered as a charity. I imagine that is a belt-and-braces exercise because clearly any entity categorised as a terrorist organisation would have its members prosecuted and its activities proscribed in any event. So putting that in the Charities Bill is of itself not a sufficient justification for the bill. 
We come back to the opening question: what actually is the mischief here? No Government member sought to describe it. They simply sought to describe the provisions of the bill but not the underlying purpose of it. Therefore the National Opposition sees no point and no merit in this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Charities Bill be now read a first time 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Social Services Committee. 
Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is one that has been sitting around for a period of time. It is one around which there is very little controversy. The Early Childhood Development agency had around 85 staff and had operated as a Crown entity since 1990. I think it is fair to say there is general agreement that it did not help with the coordination and the quality of work in the early childhood area to have it at a distance. That is not to say there was not a lot of very good work done by the board. A lot of good work was done but it was complicated by the fact that it was quite a long way removed from the policy area. 
The decision flowed from the Review of the Centre and it became clear there were a number of anomalies. The classic one was in the delivery of Parents as First Teachers services where the Ministry of Education would contract Early Childhood Development to deliver the services. We discovered that the board would then subcontract the delivery of services—in some cases for a big chunk of it to Specialist Education Services which was another Crown entity. However that agency did not deliver those services. They were further subcontracted to community groups. That was something I did inherit. I looked at the transaction costs because at each stage it went down the chain there was less money available for the delivery of Parents as First Teachers services and that was a real complication. 
I want to report to the House because the actual integration took place some time ago. It is working well. It is clear that the Early Childhood Development staff who have come into the Ministry of Education have added a lot of value to the ministry. It is also fair to say there has been some real progress in the regularisation of some of the arrangements that were made. 
Early childhood education is a major priority for this Government. We have made real progress in participation in early childhood education with a significantly higher proportion of children now having experience in the education system before they go to school. Early Childhood Development was a big part of that; the workers are an even bigger part of it now. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Readers of the commentary on this amendment bill will have noted there is a minority view and that National opposes the disestablishment of the Early Childhood Education Board. We do so for two basic reasons. The first reason which is essentially constitutional is that the board was disestablished and the employees therein transferred to the Ministry of Education prior to the intended enactment of the bill. So it seems quite extraordinary— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why don’t you let Phil Heatley speak? He knows about early childhood development. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Because I am on the Education and Science Committee. It seems an extraordinary step for the Government to pass legislation that is in effect retrospective. It is its usual scant regard for constitutional principle that we are seeing in operation here whereby the Government acts without legislative authority. They are the very sorts of things that I am sure were raised in a particular case back in 1976 where the Government of the day acted without constitutional responsibility. Here once again we see an example of a Government that ought to know better because it proclaims itself as the authority on constitutionalism yet it has fallen into the trap. 
So now it is wanting this Parliament to rectify its egregious behaviour by effectively retrospective legislation. I find that and so does the National Party quite appalling that this Parliament is called upon to rectify an appalling constitutional breach. 
The second reason for our position is based on educational philosophy itself. It is not surprising that the Minister of Education is a centralist. He is the sort of man who is focused on union politics. He no doubt was an active member of the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute—their fellow travellers. The Government’s whole style of operation is to centralise and bureaucratise. That is the way it views the education sector. It cannot stand the thought of a stand-alone unit. It simply cannot stomach the sense of some form of autonomy. The Minister wants to be able to sit in his office in the Beehive and control things from the top. That is the philosophy of education that the Minister brings. So it is not surprising the unit was disestablished. No one has ever and the Minister has certainly not put up a case as to why it had to be disestablished—on the basis of poor performance or something of that nature. 
 No this all stems from a zealot’s approach to aggregation and centralisation. National’s view of education is fundamentally different. We say: “Trust the people.” Let the people determine how to govern the educational sector and if that means independent and autonomous units well so be it. That is how it should be because that is how one effectively delivers education in the way that citizens want. 
This will be an issue that will be tested at the election: the choice will be the centralising bureaucratic control mentality that is such a feature of this Government; or trusting the people and letting parents decide—letting people who send their children to pre-school primary secondary educational institutions have the say. 
Frankly I am surprised that this kind of legislation does not have mandatory kindergarten provisions in it because that is the sort of thing one would expect from this Government. Government members do not like the idea of private educational providers in the pre-school sector. They know full well that when people have the ability to make a choice there is diversity and that is why there has been such a growth in the early childhood sector away from the kindergartens. That is not a critique per se of kindergartens but having visited them I would make this one observation about them. They simply lack flexibility. They simply lack the necessary flexibility that recognises the way people really live with rigid starting and ending times. They have no flexibility about starting early to take into account that many parents have to work. One has to bring one’s child to a very particular place. That is very different to the private providers who have understood what parents want. 
I want to conclude on this point. The reality is that the Government needs to take note of the desire of people to control their lives rather than having the centralisation and bureaucratic control of this bill which though in a small part only nevertheless represents the deep-seated motivation within this Government to centralise to control and to stamp out initiative. 
Debate interrupted. 
Voting 
Correction 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 On the last vote on the Charities Bill the New Zealand First vote should have been 13 and not 12. I seek leave of the House to amend the vote. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to amend that. Is there any objection? There is not. The voting lists will be amended accordingly. I restate the result of the voting: the Ayes are 84 the Noes are 36. 
Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 The last speaker Wayne Mapp is an indication of backward thinking by the National Party that proved to be disastrous in the past decade it was in power. We are supportive of this move because contrary to what the previous speaker talked about—centralisation—this move goes towards a more effective and consistent approach to improving participation levels in early childhood education. This is critical to my communities of Pacific people because our children have the lowest participation levels and it is only this Government’s policies approach and up to date thinking that has resulted in significant improvement in those participation levels. 
Under National it was around 60 percent—appalling—compared with everybody else who had around 85 percent participation levels. This Government has significantly improved that and it is now approaching 80 percent which is nearly a 20 percent improvement from the situation under the National Government. So I am very supportive of this move where there will be a more consistent approach throughout the whole Ministry of Education to work together to improve those participation levels. 
I want to acknowledge the work Brian Donnelly did in this area when he was Associate Minister of Education. Unfortunately it was probably too little too late although it did establish some improvement in my electorate. I congratulate him on his support in the establishment of some of the early childhood education centres in my electorate. But nevertheless— 
Hon Member 
: It was done years ago. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: That is right but I also want to acknowledge the work of the current Minister of Education Trevor Mallard because only a few months ago he set a record of over $1 million dedicated to the establishment of three pre-schools in the south Auckland - Mangere area. That is a continued approach to improving participation levels. I think that this move will significantly— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: After David Tua lobbied me I had to do it. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: But I think it was justified despite the little bit of influence from certain prominent people in the community. I would say that this move means better coordination better consistency and people working together to benefit everyone and particularly our children who are not yet at school. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 This legislation I mooted was not going to inspire or create a lot of really inspirational speeches—certainly not if members stuck to the topic—and the member from National proved my point because he did not talk to the bill at all. It has nothing to do with public-private partnership whatsoever. 
What I do have to say however is that there has been quite a large amount of comment recently—most of it coming from the National Party and ACT—about the misuse of taxpayers’ funds. That in fact is what this bill is about: not the misuse but the duplication of usage of taxpayer funding. That is the situation with Early Childhood Development or the Early Childhood Development Unit as it originally was and the Ministry of Education essentially doing the same task. As Early Childhood Development reported to us the irony was that it was having difficulty recruiting staff because the Ministry of Education was able to pay a lot more money to staff who had exactly the same qualifications and experience that Early Childhood Development needed and this seemed to be a ridiculous situation. 
The genesis of Early Childhood Development was in the reforms of the late 1980s and early 1990s and both the larger parties were involved in those reforms. Under those reforms the Ministry of Education was to be a policy ministry. It was hands off it did the policy making it decided how much funding would be given and then early childhood providers and school providers put things into practice. It was part of an ideology about how public service operated in that particular case. One Minister of Education is known to have told officials from the Ministry of Education: “Whatever you do don’t get out there and talk to the people in the field because it might taint your policy.” How ridiculous can one get? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who was that? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: I will not mention his name but I think it is well known by people in the educational field which Minister it was. Is there any wonder that by late 1996 there was a huge gap between the reality of people at the chalkface and the policy that was emanating from the Ministry of Education? 
Early Childhood Development was set up as a separate entity outside the policy division of the ministry to promote and support the development of early childhood education. That was the philosophy of the times and I think both Labour and National would have agreed with that particular model of public service development. However it did not quite work out that way. To start off with Early Childhood Development had some difficulties in covering the full gamut of early childhood needs and aspirations. It was not really able to extend itself across the full range of the population with its diversity of aspirations. It is fitting that Taito Phillip Field spoke of the area of need with the population he serves because Pacific Island early childhood education was not necessarily well served in the early 1990s as a result of the model that was put in place. 
 I have to give credit to Early Childhood Development which made some very large changes and grew tremendously by providing a much broader range of advice and connecting with a much broader range of population groups. However at the same time the Ministry of Education never gave away its hands-on approach to early childhood education. As distinct from schools where there was very much a split in the early 1990s that never happened with early childhood education. The opposite occurred in that as the 1990s moved on the ministry became more hands-on rather than less. So we ended up with two separate entities doing the same tasks with a duplication of function and costs. The irony is as I said that the Ministry of Education was able to pay its workers more and could attract the staff that Early Childhood Development needed to carry out its tasks as well as it could. 
So the decision to close down Early Childhood Development is really a logical conclusion to the events of the 1990s and to how they played themselves out. It is interesting that there was only one submission about this at the select committee stage. It was not as if people were marching in the streets saying that this was terrible. Early Childhood Development itself had come to the conclusion that a new way of organising the whole thing had to be found. Although employees were upset at the process they worked constructively with the ministry and we have to give them credit for that. Rather than being destructive or putting up obstacles they worked constructively for the benefit of early childhood education in order to bring about this legislation. 
Those parties that will vote against this bill are really saying to taxpayers that they do not mind taxpayer money being frittered away on inappropriate models because they want to play games with it. If they said that they opposed the bill because of Fitzgerald—as Wayne Mapp mentioned—then I would say that that is a much more solid ground than education or economic grounds. It has to be recognised that the changes we are now legislating for have already taken place quite some time ago. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Still on the board. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: In name only. This issue did not come to the House and it was not Parliament’s decision to make these changes—this bill should have been through Parliament before this stage. All we can say is that it was bad management by the Government because the Government obviously had this on its work programme but it advanced the work programme in advance of its legislative programme. The Education and Science Committee made only one change to the date on which this bill becomes law. The original bill was supposed to become law on 1 October 2003. I do not think it was even at the select committee before 1 October 2003. This is my first experience of legislation that was supposed to become law before it had gone through its first reading. It was untidy and messy probably because the Minister was so busy closing down lots of schools that he could not get on with pushing forward these legislative and work programmes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You support that work. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Some of it. Nevertheless to summarise New Zealand First will support this bill. We think it is a logical and sensible step. We despise the unnecessary duplication and expenditure which certainly does not further advance the cause of early childhood education. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 As the last speaker mentioned this bill emerged from the Education and Science Committee with minimal changes that do not alter the whole discourse too much. United Future notes that both the National and ACT parties have signalled their opposition to this bill saying that it represents “an aggregation and centralisation of function into the education bureaucracy”. To me this is a statement of the obvious when one of the stated goals of the Review of the Centre was as I recall to try to reduce fragmentation of public service agencies when they are essentially performing synonymous functions. 
As we all know the State sector reforms of the 1980s and 1990s led to a multiplication of agencies and the actual State sector shrank as part of a desire to decouple the whole area of funding from providers. I am told that in practice we have ended up with more than 30 ministries and more than 100 Crown entities as a result of all that reform. A very real problem is that we fail to get any coordination when ministry policy shops are split from their satellite provider entities. For that very reason United Future supports the amalgamation provided for in this bill. Early childhood education is too important not to be addressed as part of a coordinated strategy. 
In addition to the Review of the Centre it could be argued that this merger is warranted by the Government’s 10-year plan for early childhood education called  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
. According to a speech the Minister made to the early childhood symposium last July the goals of the plan required a cohesive streamlined approach with all the relevant early childhood education experts in the public sector under the same roof. In the context of the State reform sector United Future does not see much sense in continuing to run two or more agencies that operate in the same field with the possibility that policy work and provision are being duplicated and certainly the costs multiplied. 
Since it was established Early Childhood Development has been challenged through policy changes that introduced contestable service delivery. It has been faced with issues of financial viability and has used a number of third party contracts to support its infrastructure. Hopefully this bill will put it on a firmer financial footing. As I outlined United Future supports the second reading of the bill and its passage to the Committee stage. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will vote against this bill because we think the Minister has done a really bad job in bringing this bill to the House a year after he closed down the Early Childhood Development Board and brought it into the ministry. As ACT said in the minority report that is totally unparliamentary and unconstitutional. The Hon Brian Donnelly talked about the benefits of this legislation in that it would get rid of the duplication of taxpayers’ money. That is exactly what it will not do because when the Minister announced he was bringing the board into the Ministry of Education he said that no jobs would be lost. We will still have a bloated bureaucracy and more people employed even though in April last year the chairman of the Early Childhood Development Board Michael Morris told the Education and Science Committee that contrary to what the Minister had said he did expect some staff redundancies. To date there has not been any. 
There has also been little if any consultation with the early childhood sector. The New Zealand Education Institute was not consulted and the Early Childhood Council—the biggest organisation that represents those who work in the early childhood sector—has not been consulted at all. It demonstrates once again this Government’s contempt for that most important area of children’s education the under-6-year-olds. It gets the least amount of money from the education budget is pushed around and ignored and is not consulted with at all. 
As I said the reduction to one agency will enable the Minister to exercise control from Wellington which he loves doing. In a speech to the early childhood symposium in July last year he grandly announced that his 10-year plan for early childhood education  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
 was: “…why I decided to integrate Early Childhood Development (ECD) into the Ministry of Education. The expertise of the Early Childhood Development agency staff will be critical to work on Pathways to the Future.” 
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
 was going to focus on the needs of groups with lower participation rates. It would increase participation and quality and promote collaborative relationships. What has it done? It has produced a rort of bounty hunters. Talk about duplication of funding! I have lists and lists of community agencies revealed through parliamentary questions where two or three of them are owned by the one organisation claiming several times for the same children. What did “participation” mean as championed by the Minister bringing Early Childhood Development into the ministry under this legislation? It meant that those organisations cruised around the neighbourhood looking for children signing them up and collecting the money. The bounty on those children’s heads was $1000 per child. No checks were done to see whether they remained enrolled for more than 3 months—or even up to 3 months. No cross-checks were done to see whether those children were enrolled in two or three different centres or to see whether they actually existed. It was just a feel-good look-good  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
. It even had a feel-good look-good name. 
The ministry had a meeting in Auckland last week as a result of the  
New Zealand Herald’s 
 story on the bounty hunters. It decided to “facilitate dialogue” to try to stop the rort from carrying on. The amount of money will be reduced by $200 per child so the agencies will get $800 instead of $200. Audits will mean that 10 percent of enrolments will be audited. I suppose that is an improvement from none being audited but why 10 percent only? Why not audit all of them? The targets of greater participation that the Minister boasted about when he announced the disestablishment of the Early Childhood Development Board will not now be met because the contracts have all been frozen.  
I say to the member on the other side of the House who stood up and talked about how wonderful that was for his people who would be having more of their children participating in early childhood education that it will actually not happen at all. Why? Because it has been stuffed up by this Minister not keeping control of what has been going on. Now as a result of those bounty hunters all the contracts have been frozen. The targets for 2003-04—1278 Maori and 450 Pacific children enrolled—will not be met and the Minister has admitted they will not be met. At the Ministry of Education’s meeting last week officials admitted that the eligibility criterion is for people to have some Maori or Pacific Island ancestry. When asked whether they were considering extending it to other ethnic groups shown as being under-represented in early childhood education such as Asian they did not have an answer. That is another example of this Government’s race-based policy when it keeps insisting that its policy is based on need.  
There are people in poor areas who cannot afford the fees of early childhood education. They do not send their children to such centres. Why do they miss out? The reason is that their children are not of Maori or Pacific Island ancestry. That is the only way people can get help from this Government in terms of getting their children into early childhood education. What will the Government do? It is going to set up a discretionary grants scheme which will mean that organisations that no bank would formerly lend money to will now get taxpayer money for new buildings in areas where there are already vacancies in existing providers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will come back to the bill please. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I am. That is why we are voting against it. The Minister brought in this bill to increase participation in early childhood education. That is what he said when he announced it and that is why I am showing why we will not vote for it. It is not increasing participation in early childhood education. It is not even increasing it for Maori and Pacific children because the Minister stuffed it up so much. Instead what will he do? He will give out taxpayer money to build more buildings in areas where parents cannot even afford to send their children to early childhood education because that Minister has raised the standards for qualifications and brought in pay parity for kindergarten teachers. That is why we are voting against the bill. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not interrupt while my colleague was speaking but I do not think it is acceptable for the Government whip to be shouting out abuse at you while someone is speaking in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do thank the member as always for telling on somebody else in the House. I have already chided her and told her she was wrong. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of the bill. It comes from the work the Government has been doing on the Review of the Centre to make sure Government services work more efficiently together. The key driver in this bill is to bring all the people who are working on early childhood education together in order to implement the Government’s very good strategic plan in that area:  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
 a 10-year strategic plan for an area of the education sector that this Labour-led Government takes very seriously indeed if we are to give all children a good start. I support the bill. It is about getting the structure around early childhood education policy right and I look forward to its speedy passage through the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 May I read to members the minority view stated in the commentary on the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill because I think it best encapsulates what the ACT party and the National Party are saying regarding it. It states: “The New Zealand National Party and ACT New Zealand oppose this bill. It represents an aggregation and centralisation of function into the education bureaucracy. Moreover the actual disestablishment occurred before the enactment of the legislation. It is a breach of constitutional principle for the Executive to implement a legislative policy without specific legislative authority.” I did not know before Deborah Coddington spoke that it has actually been a full 12 months from the time that that occurred in practice to the present when we are passing the bill that establishes the mechanism for that to occur. I would find a few weeks disturbing and I would find a few months of great concern but 12 months I fully agree is a complete breach of constitutional principle and is quite obscene. 
I have three issues that I would like to raise in the debate on the second reading that outline in more detail the general reasons why we oppose the bill. The first issue is that we have seen a drive by the Labour Government to see its philosophical desire to have centralisation and central control. We saw it in the merger of the Special Education Service into the Ministry of Education a few years ago. There was no real reason for that but the two were merged. The Special Education Service no longer stands alone. It is part of the ever-burgeoning Ministry of Education. Then there was the announcement members will recall of the merger of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and the Ministry of Social Development creating another super-bureaucracy. Again there was the issue of an agency the Ministry of Youth Affairs being off to the side author of its own destiny then becoming part of another superministry looked over by another Minister building his kingdom. Lastly in that series of course we see the disestablishment of the Early Childhood Development Board which also is being brought into the Ministry of Education. 
 The argument of this philosophical drive is that it will bring a decrease in bureaucracy but I have never seen a decrease in bureaucracy in the term of a Labour Government since I have been on this earth and that has been for some time. We always see an increase in bureaucracy. The Government also argues that centralisation will lower costs yet we hear from the Minister of Education himself that he will raise the amount of money he pours into the sector and the bureaucracy. He also says this measure will remove unnecessary personnel. That is the usual argument for centralisation yet we have seen a growing Ministry of Education. In fact percentage-wise the funding going into the Ministry of Education far exceeds the funding going into schools universities and early childhood education centres. So that is what we are seeing—a trend in the last few years to centralise and control under the banner of a decrease in bureaucracy lowered costs and removing unnecessary personnel. In practical terms we have seen an increase in bureaucracy increased costs and more employment of unnecessary personnel. 
There are some big issues facing early childhood education in particular the independent providers being hugely disadvantaged by this Government’s bias towards State-owned providers. We thought this merger would be used as an excuse to cut funding or divert attention from some of the big issues facing the sector. But in fact all we see is more funding being poured into the sector but not into the front line into educating kids; as I said before we see more funding going into bureaucracy and unnecessary personnel. We have been watching this merger. It has gone on for some time now and we can report back that that is certainly all that we have seen come out of it. 
The second overriding issue apart from that philosophical drive to centralise and control is a concern that the Minister through the disestablishment is actually now listening to only one stream of advice: his own little people. When he has a query or a concern whom does he run to? He runs to his little elves. He is not prepared to go to anyone else in the sector and listen to him or her. He does not get advice that is considered and he does not get advice without a bias. He talks to his own people. That is why a single bloated bureaucracy that is the inspection and enforcement agency the funding administrator the provider of advice and support the researcher and the policy adviser can only lead to confusion conflict and poor decisions. There is no accountability there is no contrary view and no one calling in the wilderness is being listened to by this Minister who wants to centralise and control. We point that out as one of our major concerns. 
The third concern is to do with resources. The country this sector in particular is quite confused about the messages sent out from this disestablishment and merger. We hear from the Minister that the integration would provide more cohesive service delivery in the early childhood education sector. In fact he said there would be more resources. In his press release of 12 March 2003 he stated that early childhood education is to be “boosted” by the merger. What did he mean by that? Did he mean more money for kindies and early childhood education centres? They do not have any more money. Did he mean more resources? They do not have those either. Did he mean more choice? He certainly did not mean that—and I mentioned that before—because of his love for public providers and his apparent hatred and distaste for private education providers. 
He said there would be more money and more jobs but according to a press release on the New Zealand education review the Education and Science Committee was told that job cuts would result from the Early Childhood Development - ministry merger. Early Childhood Development’s chair Michael Morris and its chief executive Caryl-Louise Robinson told the select committee that redundancies would result from the integration of the agency into the ministry. So has it been job cuts and unnecessary personnel laid off or more jobs for the boys and girls—as John Tamihere refers to them—in this ministry? We do not know. All we know is that in the last 12 months and even before that we have had an ever-burgeoning Ministry of Education with more resources going into the ministry and bureaucracy and fewer resources going into the front line into the teaching of our children. 
That is of serious concern to us. During the Committee stage members will hear detailed clause-by-clause arguments on these issues but those are the three concerns to us in the National Party and that is why we do not support the bill. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am going to take only a very brief call on this bill because in effect the intent of the bill is already in action anyway. It is about reflecting this Government’s desire to increase significantly participation in and the quality of early childhood education. Comments from members on the other side of the House that they will not be voting for the bill because of this or that reason are absolutely naive in the extreme. They are not voting for the bill because it is a Labour bill and they are ACT and National. For goodness’ sake they should get real. This is a very very good bill. It is about promoting one of the most important areas of education and that is the early childhood sector which is the platform on which education for our young people is built. It is a good bill. Let us get it passed through the House because after all it is for the young people of New Zealand not for politicians’ egos. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill. As my colleague says sadly that is exactly what it does. It is taking away something that focused on early childhood education which is so hugely important to this country. Yet the Labour Government is prepared to have this area which should be distinctive absorbed into the burgeoning bureaucracy of the Ministry of Education. 
There do appear to be some mild constitutional outrages in the way that the Government has done it. We have just heard that this bill is being brought in 1 year after the board was disestablished without consultation with the sector itself. I understand that neither the New Zealand Educational Institute nor the early childhood sector was consulted. That is the sort of excess we have seen from this Labour Government; it just takes things on without consulting the sector. 
It is particularly an outrage when it is to do with early childhood education because we all know just how important it is for the future of New Zealand and how very important it is to have choice in this area of education. As an obstetrician I am hugely aware of how important those first 5 years of life are particularly those years between 0 and 3 where there is no State sector involvement to ensure that all our children have the chance to achieve their full potential. If ever there is an area where there should be some degree of measurement to ensure that kids get a chance to achieve their potential it is the area of their first 3 years. We should be making sure that the outcomes of those kids are measured at that very early stage. I know of little work by the ministry despite its size to ensure the quality of the various programmes provided. 
But I think it is important to look at what the Government is doing in terms of the axing of this board. If we go back to look at the board’s function we see that it was “to promote and encourage the development and provision of high-quality accessible and culturally appropriate educational and development facilities and services for the benefit of children who have not yet enrolled at a primary school.” in accordance with the board’s document of accountability which the Minister must periodically negotiate. In that we have an instance of an absolutely appropriate function; a distinctive board concentrates on one of the most important areas of New Zealand’s education—early childhood education—yet the Minister wants to absorb it into the huge Ministry of Education. 
There are some remarkable conflicts in terms of what the Minister has to say. I look at his first reading speech when he stated: “Although New Zealand already has a relatively strong early childhood education sector compared with other countries the plan provides opportunities to build on its strengths.” Well already in New Zealand the State has a wide range of facilities that it resources. They include kindergartens playcentres education and care centres home-based services the Correspondence School te kohanga reo programmes and a variety of others. They are all there already but he is suggesting that by absorbing those functions into the ministry he will make them better. In actual fact the chance is that the very reverse will happen. We should have a distinctive early childhood area that we can focus on and can measure and to ensure there is continuous quality assurance and accountability so that that very important area will only improve rather than it being absorbed and made less distinct. 
In that speech the Minister went on to say: “I am the first to accept that the ministry has been very light in this area especially in the areas of Maori and Pasifika early childhood education.” That is not fact because what was set up by a very good National Government over 10 years ago—the whole variety of programmes that I talked about—was not a matter of being light in this area; it was a matter of having choice and diversity. But the Minister went on to say: “I want to make it clear that this decision in no way reflects on the work that the Early Childhood Development Board has done to promote and develop quality early childhood education.” Well he cannot have it both ways. After all on the one hand he is asking us to see that the Early Childhood Development Board has done a very good job and on the other hand he is saying he wants to disestablish it. 
He went on to say that the board “has had a particular focus on Maori and Pasifika communities which I know has been very greatly appreciated by those communities. Even in the past 12 months knowing that change was about to occur it has kept its eye on the ball and has licensed more non-registered services than its objectives in its annual plan required. I think the board is to be commended for that.” There he goes praising the board on the one hand and seeking its disestablishment on the other hand. One cannot imagine anything more contrary than that! It is absolutely inappropriate. 
To make matters worse the Minister stated that during the process of disestablishment “just to make it clear” he would form an interim board. That is classic Labour Party complexity—“We will axe the board and we will make an interim board.” Labour is up to its old tricks: “Let’s make it complicated.” 
Finally the Minister said: “I understand that there is a lot of support from around the House for this legislation …”. Well why was there only one submission on this bill? It is absolutely remarkable. The Minister did not consult with the early childhood sector. He did not consult with the New Zealand Educational Institute. The only response he got was one submission on this bill. How can he possibly say there was a lot of support? 
This bill is an affront to the aims of the Government in terms of it wanting to focus on the great importance of early childhood education. It is an affront to early childhood education which is something we all believe should be focused on because of its huge importance to New Zealand yet here we have the Labour Government doing the very opposite—absorbing this very important distinct entity into the ever-burgeoning Ministry of Education. 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister of Education 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the bill be taken part by part. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I turn to clause 2 the commencement provision in particular. In the second reading I alluded to why this was constitutionally inappropriate. The reason is that it is a fundamental principle that the legislature should not act or expend money without parliamentary authority. That was certainly confirmed in the well-known case  
Fitzgerald  
v 
 Muldoon 
 which went through the High Court—which at that stage was the Supreme Court of New Zealand. It is a fundamental constitutional principle deeply entrenched within our system. And of course a former Labour Party Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer made something of a career on constitutional behaviour. His first book was  
Unbridled Power 
. It was a very direct reference to the practice of Governments in New Zealand to act without legislative authority. He co-authored a book with his son some years later called  
Bridled Power 
 and the reason was that he considered that basic constitutional principles were being observed by New Zealand Governments. If only that were true. 
We had the extraordinary spectacle earlier this morning of the senior Government whip making a virtue of breaching constitutional propriety. She was basically saying that the board had already been established or disestablished more accurately so what was our beef? It is as though the means justifies the ends—that as long as the action was done that was all that was required and all that Parliament would be doing was acting as some sort of craven rubber-stamping body. That might be the view of the Government and I heard an interjection that the senior Government whip would vote for Parliament acting as some sort of craven rubber-stamping body. I guess that tells us a great deal about the sort of thinking that resides within the Government—a certain contemptuousness about parliamentary procedure. So the extraordinary spectacle we see today— 
Jill Pettis 
: Is that why that member voted for market rents? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I would like to hear from the Minister rather than the less than knowledgable senior Government whip as to why the Government thinks it is justifiable to pass legislation after the fact. Why could it not simply have waited? After all this is not one of the Government’s more important bills. One would have thought that the proper practice would be to simply leave the entity in existence then pass legislation then disestablish. What would have been the harm in that? But this is a Government that is now starting to get the sin of arrogance. It thinks it can do as it pleases when it pleases contemptuous of public opinion. This bill small though it is is merely a manifestation of that. I now draw back directly to clause 2—because this is what this is all related to—which refers to the implementation date of the bill 1 April 2004. The reality is that we are asked in this Parliament to vote for something retrospective. The Government— 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh goodness! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Again the senior Government whip says “Oh goodness!” Again she is showing that arrogance that we have come to associate with this Government. I ask the Minister to stand and justify why it is that it is appropriate to pass legislation like this. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First when it comes to bills like this believes a pragmatic approach has to be taken. We believe that taxpayers work too hard for the money they have taken off them by the Government not to see that there is duplication in expenditure of that funding and that is why we are voting for this bill. We think it is necessary. But we also believe in due process and if there is a criticism of this particular bill it is of the process—and particularly the timing—through which it has gone. To this extent we agree with the comments made by the previous speaker. 
The Government’s intention to disestablish the Early Childhood Development Board and integrate its business into the Ministry of Education was approved by Cabinet on 10 March 2003. The integration date was set for 1 October 2003 but the legislation did not get to the House until 26 August 2003 so it was impossible for it to achieve the intention that Cabinet had set out. Cabinet had said: “Here is the work programme. Here is how we will do it. We will get it all sorted out by 1 October.” It did not even put the legislation in front of the select committee until 10 September and the closing date for submissions was 31 October 2003. The commencement date for the legislation is 1 October 2003. 
I think the public listening would have to raise some very serious questions about the inconsistencies within those dates. Obviously members of the Opposition parties will say that this is a breach of the Fitzgerald principle but I believe it is more purely and simply mismanagement. It is simple mismanagement by a Government that sets up a programme and then cannot commit itself to the programme because it is so poll-driven that it is jumping all over the place responding to different issues. So here we have it and I guess in some respects it tells us all about the history of this particular Government in this Parliament. 
Everything was running so smoothly when the bill went to Cabinet on 10 March 2003. There were no obstacles in front of it. The Government thought it would be able to get this through but guess what? All those things started to go awry and what we now see is a record of things going awry with the Government. So if New Zealand First has a criticism of this bill it is that it has been so poorly managed and the times are so inconsistent that there are some constitutional niceties being overridden in this particular case. The question was asked: why we are bailing the Government out? We are not bailing it out; we purely and simply believe that what is inherent in this legislation is a necessity. Therefore rather than just play political games we will stick to our principles of doing what we believe is right under all circumstances. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I would like the Minister of Education to take a call to tell us why it has taken 1 year for this bill to get to this stage and why he disestablished the Early Childhood Development Board and put it into the Ministry of Education a year ago. The chief Government whip sits over there and in her dulcet tones calls out that everybody supports the legislation and that is why there was only one submission. But what is the point in wasting one’s own time—and taxpayers’ time—by putting in a submission on legislation when what it provides for has already happened anyway? These people out there are not stupid. The Minister knows that the Early Childhood Council opposes this legislation. He did not consult it— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The Minister asks “Who?”. That demonstrates exactly—he has done it himself—his contempt for early childhood education. The Early Childhood Council is the biggest representative of private providers of early childhood education. But this Minister is ideologically opposed to private ownership of any form of education at all. 
He is not content with just using legislation to get the board off the playing field; he rams it through first—he does it in practice. It is a case of “Let’s suck it and see if it works then pass the legislation.” This Committee is owed an explanation from the Minister today. He should stand and tell us why this legislation has taken so long to get through. 
But we oppose this legislation on more than those grounds. I turn to clause 3(b) which says that the new organisation will still be able to behave as a funding mechanism for certain early childhood centres to enable grants to be paid by the ministry. In other words the same grants will come out of the ministry as came out of the Early Childhood Development Board. But there is nothing in the bill about the monitoring of those grants—whether we will still see the rort which I brought up in the second reading of the payment of those grants. The ministry is desperately trying to backtrack on it and is putting in place some issues to try to rectify it. I raised this issue last year. The Minister in reply said he was very proud of what was going on with the grants from the Early Childhood Development Board. But there is nothing being done for instance on the potential conflict of interest. Kohanga reo have received over $1 million in grants under the early participation scheme. The Minister has done nothing in terms of conflict of interest. What is there to stop a provider from acting as a bounty hunter and rounding up kids collecting grants for those children then saying: “Look here there’s no competition. You will have to come to my centre.”? The provider collects all along the way. The ministry is very uncomfortable about that situation. The Minister should stand now and tell us why he will not put into place something to monitor that potential conflict of interest. 
So those are just two of the reasons why ACT opposes this bill. It is a very small bill but that does not mean to say it is not important legislation in terms of the sector. We are owed an explanation as to why this bill is coming in under urgency a year after it was first enacted in practice. Why have legislation if what it provides for is just going to be done anyway? Furthermore what is this Minister doing to ensure that taxpayers’ money for this participation scheme which is race-based no matter what he tries to say about it— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Where’s the participation scheme in the bill? Which clause? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I am talking about clause 3(b) which provides for the ministry to pay these grants. The Minister knows what I am talking about. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: But the ministry pays the grants. It doesn’t need this to do it. What a foolish member. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The Minister can take a call if he wants. He sits there interjecting as he loves to do but there is nothing to stop him from taking a call when I have finished speaking and telling us what he means by accountability and by the monitoring of these organisations. This Minister is unable to do that. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 1 of the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill I want to argue that the purpose as spelt out in clause 3 hides the real purpose of the bill. What is stated in this bill is not the real purpose at all. The real purpose of the bill is the building of the Ministry of Education bureaucratic empire. There is absolutely no question as to what has been going on in the Ministry of Education and in education since the Labour Government took office. I did a little bit of research. I was Minister of Education for 6 years and put a lot of effort into— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: 6 years or 5 years? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: It was almost 6 years. I put a lot of effort into taking money out of the central bureaucracy of education to enable it to be put into the actual providers—the early childhood centres the schools the tertiary institutions. I want to share with the Committee what has happened since. In 1996 after I had been Minister of Education for almost 6 years there were 482 employees in the Ministry of Education. My colleagues my successors the Hon Wyatt Creech and the Hon Nick Smith might have been kinder than me because when National left office in 1999 the numbers had climbed from 482 to 581. So there were 100 more employees in the Ministry of Education by the end of the 1990s. As of last year there were 1849 employees. When I was last Minister of Education there were 482 employees in the ministry and the number has risen to 1849 employees. That is damn near a fourfold increase in the number of employees in the Ministry of Education. If that is not empire building I do not know what is. If the Hon Trevor Mallard can sit there and say the Ministry of Education is not building a huge bureaucratic empire how come the number of employees has risen from 482 in 1996 to 1849 last year? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Because Specialist Education Services has come into it. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Admittedly Specialist Education Services has come into it but it is all part of the expansion of the empire. If we look at what has happened in education over the years which sectors do we find have been successful? The early childhood sector has been hugely successful. We have expanded the number of children in early childhood centres. We have seen an explosion in opportunity in that area. And tens of thousands more New Zealanders now benefit from a tertiary education. Those two sectors were not under the control of the Ministry of Education bureaucracy. There was a freedom in those sectors. The least successful sector the schooling sector was more tightly under the control of the Ministry of Education. It has been the least successful in adapting to the modern world. In the last 10 years we have seen far more innovation in the early childhood sector and the tertiary sector. It is the schooling sector that has lagged behind. 
Part 1 which states that the purpose of the bill is to disestablish the Early Childhood Development Board just adds to the empire of the Ministry of Education. Those figures are staggering. In 1996 there were 482 employees in the Ministry of Education and in 2003 there were 1849 employees. No wonder there is less unemployment in New Zealand right at the moment! I suspect that the Government bureaucracy has had by far the biggest percentage increase in employment in the last 4 years in New Zealand—a far bigger percentage than the private sector. I think the purpose of the bill should be spelt out more honestly. The purpose quite clearly is to build the Ministry of Education bureaucratic empire so that this Labour Government can have more control over the entire education sector and particularly the early childhood education sector because it does not like private providers. This Labour Government does not like private tertiary providers. It does not like private early childhood education providers. It has already given more funding to kindergartens. There is absolutely no justification for it. It is pure prejudice. This Government has already advantaged the Government sector through extra funding of kindergartens. We will see more of that as the ministry will control the whole lot. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I think we have heard quite a lot of drivel. All that the change that the member is getting so upset about does is give to the Ministry of Education the ability to give grants to small groups around the country. It currently does not have the ability to give grants to non-licensed centres. [ 
Interruption 
] The Early Childhood Development Board has always had the power to make grants to non-licensed centres. There are obviously a lot of playgroups around that we would like to continue to get money. Sometimes they become licensed centres; sometimes they do not. I think the member protests too much. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on this part of the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill. During the second reading United Future pointed out that we supported this bill and we still do support it. But one of the things we had to overcome was clause 2—that is the commencement criteria. Like others on the Education and Science Committee we have been concerned about the timing of this bill and how it got into place. It seems to me—and the Minister of Education might be able to correct me on this—that as I recall the intended change was to be incorporated in a State Sector Amendment Bill but the Clerk ruled that it was outside the scope of that bill at that time and therefore it has been dealt with as this separate bill. Nevertheless the actual disestablishment occurred way before the enactment of this legislation which was intended to take place on 1 October 2003—the initial commencement date in Part 1. 
As the select committee pointed out that raises constitutional issues about the ability of the executive to implement policy requiring legislation before actually passing that legislation. We in this Committee are aware that in certain circumstances or even in the same circumstances with a more contentious bill that practice could attract some legal action to halt its progress. This is not the first time we have heard of that practice but it is certainly a surprise to me that this matter has taken place in the way that it has. 
As United Future has said we are happy to see this bill passed into legislation. It is a very practical bill and requires passing in order to inaugurate what has already taken place. So with that proviso on Part 1 we are happy for this bill to continue. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I have sat here quite intrigued while listening to the arguments surrounding Part 1 and in particular the commencement date and constitutional issues which as far as I can understand this Minister and this ministry have ridden roughshod over. We heard from Brian Donnelly the chair of the Education and Science Committee that this bill was presented in September which is some time ago and was expected to be reported back in late October. Having sent out information about submissions the committee received I suspect—or at least I hope—oral submissions in a period of only 6 to 8 weeks. That is quite appalling when one can argue that this disestablishment of the longstanding Early Childhood Development Board is very important to those involved in the early childhood development sector. 
But that is not enough; I then hear that the board has been disestablished for a full 12 months and we are passing the legislation only now. I thought there was an out for the Government. Members may recall that I asked why the Early Childhood Development Board needs legislation to be disestablished. Why do we have to pass a statute for it to be disestablished? The answer came back and it is a fairly obvious and fair answer. The reason is that it was established under statute. It was established under statute and it should be disestablished under statute. Interestingly enough it was actually established under a Labour Government and now it is being disestablished under a Labour Government. 
I thought that the Government might have an out—that this disestablishment by statute might just be window dressing. I thought that the board had not been established by statute but through window dressing the Government would disestablish it through statue and in that way avoid the accusation that it was riding roughshod over Parliament by disestablishing the board in practice then 12 months later on the tail of that actually providing the mechanism to do so. But no I discover in the purpose clause that this bill provides for the Early Childhood Development Board “… a Crown entity continued under Part V of the principal Act”—that is the Education Act 1989—“to be disestablished and for its functions assets liabilities and rights to be transferred to the Ministry of Education;”. In other words the Early Childhood Development Board was established under statute. Its functions its assets its liabilities and its rights were established under that principal Act. We then saw in practice out there 12 months ago its rights taken away without statute its assets taken away without statute its functions taken away without statute and its liabilities taken away without statute. In fact 12 months later the House got the bill that provides the mechanism for that to happen. 
That is appalling constitutional mismanagement. I would like the Minister to take a call and to challenge that: to tell us why something set up under statute has to be disestablished under statute and why that would happen 12 months after the fact—that is retrospectively. It is appalling that that happened. The Minister may think it is a minor matter to do with a minor sector of not much interest to New Zealand but it simply points to an arrogance that this Government is reflecting to us here in this Committee and to the general public. 
I am also interested in the other purpose of this bill—that is to provide a “funding mechanism for certain early childhood centres to enable grants to be paid by the Ministry rather than through the Early Childhood Development Board.” The board had the power to make grants to non-registered services. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I am pleased that Dr Wayne Mapp pointed out the constitutional issues over which the Minister has got himself into difficulties. However I want to talk about the purpose clause and paragraph (b) in particular. Clause 3 states: “Purpose—the purpose of the Act is—(b) to provide for other matters related to the reorganisation such as a new funding mechanism for certain early childhood centres to enable grants to be paid by the Ministry rather than through the Early Childhood Development Board.” This is what worries the ACT party because we have discovered that Trevor Mallard has spent some $5 million on bounties. We heard the Hon Taito Phillip Field say that Pacific Island and Maoriparticipation had increased. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Fairly early on in the member’s speech I would like you to rule on whether the subject of grants that have been made legally by the Ministry of Education and are not affected by this bill—and certainly not grants to licence-exempt centres which are outlined in Part 2—are appropriate matters to be raised. This is a very narrow debate in the Committee stage and I ask you to rule on whether it is appropriate for the member to continue to highlight issues that have nothing to do with this bill. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that we are discussing Part 1 and I think the Minister will agree with that. We are discussing clause 3(b) and ministry funding and early childhood education. The Hon Taito Phillip Field has already discussed this matter. This is one of our concerns. ACT is trying to explain what is wrong with this bill. If you rule out debate on the funding and the way the early childhood system is being run then what would we talk about? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Rodney Hide’s comments reflect the point I was making. Phillip Field spoke in the second reading where his points might just have been appropriate but certainly those matters are not appropriate in the Committee stage. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I certainly understood the member was talking to clause 3(b) but there has been quite a bit of straying during this coverage on Part 1. It does contain the purpose clause and such provisions allow members some latitude in the discussion of the issues across the bill. I would remind members to keep to the bill. The member was talking to clause 3(b). 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you. That was a very wise ruling and I support the Chairperson in that. We do have concerns about this bill and we have concerns about this Minister and the way he has gone about the business of early childhood education particularly as it relates to the purposes set out in this bill. This is a Minister who has blown $5 million. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I know he does not want that discussed in Parliament. I know he does not answer Official Information Act requests. I know he likes sitting beside the Chairperson and trying to shout down Opposition members who are raising issues. I am highlighting a problem with the Ministry of Education and with centralisation. That is the purpose of this bill is it not? 
The ministry had these contracts that involved phantom children. It also involved children who were pre-enrolled. Taxpayers’ money was used to the extent of $600 to $1000 a person. The ministry was paying these contractors who were ringing up pre-schools and asking for the names of the kids who were enrolled. Then the contractors were using those names to get money out of the ministry under this Minister’s contracts. He knows that. That was $1 million worth of fraud and that Minister is guilty of a cover-up. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am going to have another attempt. Some activities that happened in the 2002-03 year have been misrepresented by the member. They have nothing to do with this legislation. They have nothing to do with the issues of the transfer of the Early Childhood Development Board across to the Ministry of Education. I submit again that this is a narrow technical bill and it is not appropriate for the member to raise matters that happened under an entirely different function of the Ministry of Education over 18 months ago. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: The disestablishment of a very significant part of this country’s education sector is not a narrow technical matter. The purpose that is intended invites wide debate because there can be serious questions as to the wording of the purpose of this bill. The disestablishment of a very significant sector of our education system is a very big matter. 
Stephen Franks 
: The effective date is in Part 1. We are told that the changes will create an effective date that is after this change was made. It is relevant in that an institution that was functioning properly as far as we know is being transferred to a ministry that appears not to be under proper control. 
Although the Minister may not like to have the performance of the ministry appraised in connection with this bill what else should parliamentarians do when they have a bill that takes an existing organisation and merges it into another one? It is a natural debating point. These are natural questions that would occur to anyone—such as which one is working which one is defective which one is under proper control which one has a Minister who knows what it is doing? The organisation was independent before. There is no hint that it was operating with fraud or colluding in contracts that were fraudulent. We have a ministry that is tarred with that reputation and it is perfectly proper for us to debate it on those terms. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member on his feet can raise reasonable relevant matters. However he needs to stick to the purpose of the bill. The performance of the ministry in previous years is not absolutely relevant but the member can certainly discuss the ministry’s future role in carrying out its functions under this bill. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Again can I say that is a very wise ruling in support of Parliament. I thank the Chair for that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows he must not comment on rulings that are given. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: What we have in clause 3(a) is that the Early Childhood Development Board is to be disestablished and that all the functions assets liabilities and rights are sent across to the Ministry of Education. That is where our concern lies. The Ministry of Education has shown itself in this area to be incompetent incapable and the object of fraudsters. That is what has happened. The Minister knows it and has done nothing. That is why we like the independent board. That is why we are opposing this legislation. Four companies and the same people applying for the money got away with $1 million and the silly old Ministry of Education and the Minister did not know. 
If the Minister wants Opposition parties to support this bill why does he not honour his obligations and deliver on my Official Information Act requests instead of denying them instead of playing games instead of fighting the Ombudsman every step of the way? Indeed why has he had his own officials go into the file to reorganise it to try to sanitise what has gone on? What has happened here is fraud of the highest order. We oppose this bill. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Disestablishment of Board and associated matters 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 2 deals with the disestablishment of the board and associated matters. I think it is worthwhile to look again at what the board’s function is. That is to promote and encourage the development and provision of high-quality accessible and culturally appropriate educational and development facilities and services for the benefit of children who have not yet enrolled in a primary school. What is wrong with that? What is more important than ensuring there is a distinct entity for the children of New Zealand to be given the opportunity to achieve their full potential and that of course is with regard to the hugely important area of early childhood education. Yet this bill is removing that distinct entity. It is removing that distinct focus on the incredibly important function of having an independent board that focuses on early childhood education for the children of New Zealand. 
It is really important to look at what the Minister said about the Early Childhood Development Board. The Hon Trevor Mallard is a man of complex contradiction. On the one hand he is disestablishing the board helter-skelter and on the other hand he wants to make it clear that the decision in no way reflects badly on the work the board had done to promote and develop quality early childhood education. The Minister of Education wants it both ways. In the introduction debate he said the board had done a great job but he is disestablishing it. He wants to have it both ways. 
The Minister probably had quite a good education. He went to Onslow College. Maybe his early childhood education was the problem; I am not too sure. Maybe it would have been much worse if he had not had early childhood education. Whatever the case the Minister is a man of contradiction. On the one hand he said that the Early Childhood Development Board was a worthy institution and had carried out its functions very well yet he wants to disestablish it. We heard about the process but in actual fact he disestablished the board about a year ago. That is a constitutional outrage yet we are debating the bill 1 year later. Furthermore he is wanting to absorb the board into the Ministry of Education. The education sector is absolutely fatigued as a result of restructuring done by the Labour Government. The Government has done it with the health sector and the science sector. Once again it is restructuring the education sector particularly in the area of early childhood education which is so vitally important. 
In the introduction debate the Minister said the board had a particular focus on Maori and Pasifika communities and that the work had been very greatly appreciated by those communities. So why is he disestablishing the board given that he said it had done such a good job? It seems remarkable that for the sake of his ideological bias against independent education he will restructure and absorb that very important distinct entity into that ever-burgeoning bureaucracy—the Ministry of Education. The ministry just gets bigger and bigger with every breath under this Labour Government. 
The Minister said that even in the past 12 months the board knowing that this change was about to occur had kept its eye on the ball and licensed more non-registered services than the objectives in its annual plan required. He said the board is to be commended for that. Now is that not great? The Minister is sitting there grinning away thinking: “Yes the board’s done a great job but I’ll axe it.” That is the kind of contradiction shown by the Minister of Education. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Comment has been made about this legislation removing the previous rights the Early Childhood Development Board had to distribute grants to the Ministry of Education. I point out that the legislation is very specific that the rights are purely and simply those that under present legislation relate to the Early Childhood Development Board it being the only entity that legitimately has the right to grant that money. It really relates to licence-exempt groups—basically play groups. The Minister will tell me whether I am right but I think it is about $1 per hour per child. It may be slightly more now I do not know; certainly it is not in the vicinity of $1000 per bounty head—as it were—that Mr Hide was talking about. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I can answer the question very quickly. It’s not $1; it’s $1.01. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: I got it wrong—the Minister has increased the amount dramatically since he got into power when it was $1. 
We need to reflect back to the reforms that created the Early Childhood Development Board which went across the early childhood sector and the compulsory sector. In the compulsory sector that involved getting rid of the education boards. The comment has been made that the ministry would be putting out grants that were previously put out by Early Childhood Development. People seem to forget that the money came from the ministry first. It then went to the Early Childhood Development Board and was distributed from there—just as in previous days the money went from central government to the education boards that had been established in 1877. They were the old provinces. Education could not be administered under the 1877 Act without the old provincial structures. Therefore the situation was that funding went from central government to territorial authorities then was distributed. 
The whole idea behind Picot and Tomorrow’s Schools was to cut out one part of the bureaucratic loop. In fact that is what this legislation is also doing. It is taking out one part of the bureaucratic loop. More money will be released to go directly to the providers. Therefore it is inexplicable that parties like ACT are trying to defend the continuation of this particular bureaucratic loop. It is almost like their arguing that we should bring back the old education boards. The purpose behind this legislation is to take exactly the same step as Tomorrow’s Schools took when it came to primary education—that is to take out one bureaucratic step and be able to make sure the funding is moved from the central provider to the providers of the services themselves with no encumbrances in-between. 
I also find it extremely difficult to understand why both National and ACT are critical of the Minister for not consulting fully with the New Zealand Educational Institute—in other words for not consulting fully with the union of workers in only a part of the sector we are talking about. The great protectors of unionism—ACT and National—are critical of the Government because it did not consult fully with the New Zealand Educational Institute! In fact there was a lot of consultation and this particular move had been flagged in the sector long before it came to the select committee. It was a little bit unfortunate however that the timing was such that quite genuine criticisms can now be made of the Minister and the Government. 
Once again we will be supporting this legislation because as I said—and the Minister can explain it—it will allow funding to go directly from the ministry to the providers without a duplication of service. That exists in the present system and it existed all through the 1990s when the National Government was in power. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Very briefly I thank the last member who spoke for his explanation. I reiterate that when I became Minister I found there were a number of occasions when funding for early childhood services went from the Ministry of Education to a Crown entity—theEarly Childhood Development Unit—and then to another—the Special Education Service—andthen to community providers. The transaction costs and legal costs of all of that were enormous. This legislation involves something that is much more straightforward— 
Stephen Franks 
: Quantify it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I cannot give the member exact numbers. However from memory something between 30 and 40 percent was going out in transaction and contractual costs. That was a total waste of money and just not acceptable. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Part 2 of this bill has the operative parts. It has a number of what the Minister has just explained as rationalisations—cutting the delivery chain short. He says 30 or 40 percent was getting consumed in transaction costs. It really must have more explanation than that. New sections 311A and 311B inserted by clause 6 allow grants to licence-exempt centres. These exempt centres can be created by the Minister simply gazetting that a centre does not have to have a licence. When it does not have to have a licence it appears to me that it does not necessarily comply with the stipulations that go around grants. 
Ordinarily this might be seen as something that was to give flexibility that did not matter but we have had experience of the ministry’s very poor performance in dealing with flexibility. My colleague Rodney Hide has mentioned the rort that has been associated with chasing up and enrolling Maori and Pacific Island children. Perhaps a million dollars has gone west through failure to specify contracts properly in the first place failure to supervise them and failure to check that the children are actually registered and attending or that they even exist. 
Section 311 of the principal Act stipulates the administrative requirements for early childhood centres—that is they must keep a register keep the date of birth keep the attendance keep a record of all fees and charges paid and keep evidence that the parents have regularly examined the attendance record. I wager that virtually none of those requirements is being observed by some early childhood centres and I would be very surprised if some of the exempt centres the Minister wants to be able to favour with his ministry’s direct grants are any better administered than the contractors the Minister’s servants engage to chase down unregistered children. 
When the Ministry and the Minister come forward with a proposal to replace an independent organisation—an organisation that has a board of directors who supervise knowing that they could be personally liable for malfeasance or misfeasance—with people in a ministry that does not even know whether it will chase the fraudsters with the police; that 10 days after the story broke still does not know whether— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The story broke in 2002! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Well why did the Minister not know more about the background and the facts? If that is 2002 why is the Minister sitting on the Official Information Act material—the file. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Because I am re-reading the old material. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: If it is that hard why has the Minister not handed it over to someone who can read it? He has had 2 years to do it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There are four boxes of the rubbish. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Minister has 1890 civil servants to read it for him. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Order! The Minister will take a call. He is not to interject like that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s an exchange of questions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The exchange of questions will be handled during a call. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Minister has just told us it was 2002 which brings us to another point in this bill. The effective date is the date the bill is passed. We understand that the legal dissolution might not have occurred but the functions have already transferred. Can the Minister tell us just how many reporting requirements and grants to licence-exempt centres have already been made and how many the ministry intends to make? Can he give the Committee an idea of just how significant this is going to be—what kinds of conditions does he envisage for licence-exempt early childhood centres? Is this provision to get around requirements that are onerous and imposed on the private sector to advantage State-sponsored organisations that could not hack it? Just exactly what is proposed by new sections 311A and 311B? Surely that is a matter the Minister can give us clarification on when he must know that we would have to come to this bill very suspicious of the ministry indeed. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I will focus on clause 11 in Part 2 because it deals with the final report and accounts. There will be a number of unanswered questions in the minds of a lot of folk and even in this debate today which deserve further scrutiny.I note that neither in the explanatory note to the bill nor in the Education and Science Committee was there any mention of the costs of this merger. It was raised as a question but nobody seems to know how much this will all cost—despite we were told the reasonable assumption of one-off expenditure associated with the integration. Unless this merger achieves some economies in the long term there seems to be little point in it. That is the point we are questioning. 
Much of the operational detail is contained in the organisational plan which as far as I am aware is still secret information. Clause 11 provides that when the bill is passed we will get a full accounting of what happened in the transfer of assets and money. We have been told that the integration is expected to be financially neutral. I have been able to look into that a little and was able to establish that the cost of transitions associated with managing the change and redundancies was expected to be somewhere in the region of $1 million to $2 million. But the Early Childhood Development Board had cash reserves of about $1.4 million to $1.7 million which I imagine will be used in the transition costs of early childhood education delivery. 
However it is expected that overlaying the work of the two agencies will mean that some efficiency in service delivery cost may be achieved down the track. Unfortunately this House and the public of New Zealand will have to wait until clause 11 takes effect—that is when the bill is passed and becomes an Act. So we are still left up in the air as to the efficiencies and whether this will be a neutral fiscal arrangement. That is the point I wish to highlight. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill of course is the part that deals with the disestablishment of the board and associated matters like funding unlicensed centres. 
I was fascinated by the contribution of the New Zealand First member the Hon Brian Donnelly. It is fascinating that New Zealand First seeks to cuddle up to the Labour Government. The poll fortunes of New Zealand First are reflecting those of the Labour Government. I say: “Good luck to New Zealand First.” 
This issue is serious. Mr Donnelly said—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister should not really interject when there is a live microphone in front of his mouth. He has a big enough mouth without needing that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: But not a smile like yours. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: That is true. The Minister could well do with a bit more of a smile as he seeks to undo the mess he has created in the school sector with his mergers. 
Mr Donnelly said there was advantage in removing the Early Childhood Development Board from the system because it was a funding conduit and there was a cost associated with Government money going via the board to early childhood units. Because of the snuggling up between New Zealand First and the Labour Government the Minister got to his feet instantly and thanked Mr Donnelly for helping explain this rather strange measure in the bill. 
What is fascinating is that if that is correct and true and that is the prime purpose of this legation— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s not the prime purpose. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: So efficiency and saving are not the prime purpose? The Minister claimed that 34 percent of the money for early childhood funding was chewed up in the bureaucracy of the Early Childhood Development Board. Now he is saying it is not the prime purpose and Mr Donnelly is saying it is the prime purpose. If they are snuggling up as much as they are they should at least agree on what the prime purpose of this legislation is. 
The point I want to make is that if that is a serious purpose for this legislation why on the one hand is the Government getting rid of the Early Childhood Development Board and on the other hand establishing a Tertiary Education Commission? In the tertiary sector the funding used to go straight from the Ministry of Education to the tertiary education providers; now it is going via a Tertiary Education Commission which is itself a burgeoning bureaucracy. 
Whereas there used to be a very small team in the Ministry of Education involved in funding the tertiary sector there is now a rapidly growing bureaucracy in the Tertiary Education Commission that will chew up a far greater proportion of tertiary funding than the Early Childhood Development Board ever chewed up. I can see from Mr Donnelly’s and the Minister’s expressions that I am not totally wrong in that assertion. If this legislation is designed to create greater efficiency it is hard to reconcile those two positions of this Labour Government. 
What troubles me about Part 2 which disestablishes the Early Childhood Development Board is that the real motive is more sinister. When the funding for the tertiary sector used to be done by the Ministry of Education it was very transparent and clear-cut. The equivalent full-time student funding system did not lend itself to political manipulation. Basically the institutions knew that the funding they would get depended on the enrolments they achieved. Maybe some of the auditing was not as good as it should have been in some cases but it was a clear transparent system. 
What troubles people in the early childhood sector is this: with the Early Childhood Development Board there was a powerful voice for those beyond just the “State sector” because everyone knows that the kindergarten sector is sort of a surrogate State sector. The real worry about this legislation is that with the ministry now controlling the entire early childhood sector there is far more room for political manipulation in the funding of the system. What makes the sector nervous in my view is that it has already seen that. Prior to Trevor Mallard and this Labour-led Government coming into power the early childhood sector was funded in a pretty transparent and consistent way across the private and the quasi-public or kindergarten sector. Trevor Mallard became Minister when the Labour Government came to power and the kindergartens—the quasi-State sector—suddenly got more funding relative to the private sector. Once the whole lot becomes part of the Ministry of Education there is concern that it will be more vulnerable to political manipulation and that is the worry. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to carry on from my colleague Stephen Franks in talking about Part 2 “Disestablishment of Board and associated matters”. While Stephen Franks was talking to Part 2 he referred back to the principal Act and the Minister interjected and corrected my colleague. When Stephen Franks said that $1 million might have gone astray the Minister interjected and said: “No it was $6 million that might have gone astray.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I want to make it very clear that I said $60000 not $6 million. The member is quite wrong. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes all right but that is a debating point. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I hope that does not come off my time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No it does not. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The Minister said that he had known about this. It was not news and it had not just broken; he had known about it since 2002. Under the principal Act it says the management shall ensure in those early childhood centres that where a grant has been paid subject to conditions the conditions are complied with and the money is used specifically for the purposes for which it was provided. If the Minister has known since 2002 why have the police not been called in? 
The Minister has never ever given members a valid reason for this legislation at all. All members have had is press releases and announcements by the Education and Science Committee that the Early Childhood Development Board would be incorporated into the Ministry of Education. Early Childhood Development was given a glowing annual report in 2002. I say to the Minister: “If it was not broken why fix it?”. Was there someone on the board who offended him? Was this the International Rugby Board form of disestablishment or revenge for something? There has been no consultation at all. 
I just remind this Committee what happened when this Minister announced that the Early Childhood Development Board would be disestablished and drawn back into the Ministry of Education. Sue Thorne from the Early Childhood Council voiced her concern that the board was performing very well there was no need to integrate it and disestablishment would take away involvement at community level. Jill Pettis raised questions at the select committee. She asked the Early Childhood Development management who appeared before the committee whether programmes that were meant to increase participation in early childhood among Maori and iwi organisations were working and Ms Robinson said she could not confirm that was the case. That was at the announcement of the disestablishment of the board. 
The only reason the Minister has given for this legislation is that it would increase participation in early childhood. That is the only nebulous reason he has given apart from the fact that he favours centralisation. It was not increasing iwi and Maori participation at that stage. Why then did this Minister rush ahead before we had even passed this legislation and have increased participation schemes and grants that turned into as we have heard money being used to enrol phantom children? Why did he persevere down that path? 
One of the other matters raised at the select committee when this legislation was announced was that Donna Awatere-Huata asked whether there had been any research done on that participation. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I ask the member on her feet to forgive me for interrupting her speech but it is a longstanding tradition in this Chamber that the Minister in the chair does not interject. If he wishes to say something he should take a call because there is an open microphone next to him and it is unacceptable for the Minister to interject. If he wishes to say something in response to speeches being made he should stand and seek a call. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Although I have not been in Parliament quite as long as the member it is my experience that during the Committee stage of the debate there is generally an ability for a free flow between the Minister in the chair and the person who is taking a call. It is much less formal than when the House is sitting and that is the tradition. There have been a number of rulings to that effect. I do not have them at my fingertips but I have certainly been in the Chamber for them. I think members have to take care because members are aware that there is an open microphone but when members are being controversial and basically want some interjection to liven their speeches up I am willing to help them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I agree with the member Dr Lockwood Smith. The Minister cannot use the live microphone to facilitate more interjections than he would somewhere else. It has to be in moderation. There are times when it is reasonable to answer a question but there should not be an ongoing dialogue and I would say that to the Minister. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I conclude by talking about this so-called research that was part of the participation rates. I remind the Chair that the reason I am bringing it up in this Part 2 debate is that it is about the disestablishment of the board and associated matters. The Minister’s main reason for getting rid of the Early Childhood Development Board is to increase participation rates. These bounty hunters had to get parents to fill in a massive number of questionnaires as to why they had not participated before what their reasons were and why they had not enrolled their children and nothing has been done with those questionnaires—absolutely nothing. We do not even know how to fine-tune this policy. We do not have any information about whether it is working. We do not have any assurance that this Minister will do something by bringing in this legislation to make these sorts of grants comply with the funding section of the Act where the money is paid over for one purpose only. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 By way of an aside I am intrigued at how lightly the Minister took the issue over the disestablishment of the Early Childhood Development Board happening 12 months ago and being legislated for only today. Clause 7 “Consequential amendments to other enactments” relates to this disestablishment affecting the Official Information Act which has to be amended. The first schedule of the Ombudsmen Act the fourth fifth sixth and seventh schedules of the Public Finance Act and the Education (Change of Name of Education Entities) Order have to be amended. Not only does the original 1989 Education Act which was the statute allowing the set-up of the Early Childhood Development Board have to be amended but these Acts—and they are important Acts—have to be amended as well. All that is happening 12 months after the fact. 
That is concern enough but we move to clause 8 “Consequential changes to other references”. Gee I am struggling with words today but I am willing to acknowledge it. I notice that “Dazza” Hughes who probably left kindergarten most recently has not taken a call on this at all and perhaps he should. “Dazza” might interject but perhaps he should. [ 
Interruption 
] I did not realise. We learn every day. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. The junior whip may not object but I think we have to have some decorum in the House and members should be called either by their name or by the name of their electorate—in this case I understand it is Otaki where the member cleaned up Roger Sowry twice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that he must address members by their correct name. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I was interested by clause 8 which states: “If any other enactment or other thing refers to the Board and that reference is no longer appropriate because the Board has been disestablished the reference must be read as a reference to the Ministry.” Given that this has been on the Order Paper for some time now—it was at the Education and Science Committee some time ago—officials would have been able to identify where this board was referred to in statute. I find it quite unacceptable that we will take some sort of blasé attitude to its reference in statute and not identify where it does occur and where it should be amended. I wonder why that is the case and whether it is usual to take that approach. 
I did want to point that out but I move on to more important issues about the cost of the merger. That was raised by United Future. National members found it quite amusing that United Future members are willing to support this legislation yet put so many questions to the Minister were quite challenging towards the Minister’s approach to it and questioned the costs. In other words United Future acknowledges that it does not have all this information about the cost of the merger and whether it will do any good but it still supports the bill. United Future raised issues around clause 11 about the cost of the merger the final report and the accounting structure. 
I was disturbed to hear that United Future thought there would not be a full period of accounts to be scrutinised by those in the position to do that. It has been a year since Early Childhood Development was disestablished in practice. I would have thought that over that period we would have good insight into the costs of the merger and into how the new system is working so that we could compare. I would have hoped that the Minister might have brought that to the House to justify his actions all that time ago. I am disappointed that he has not. Perhaps the Minister will take a call to tell us how it is going financially and how it is operating. It was also stated that the Early Childhood Development Board was just a conduit of funding to early childhood centres. That is not the case. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This is the title of the bill. It reads: “This Act is the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Act 2003.” In fact we know that this bill is being passed into law in 2004 more than 12 months after the board’s disestablishment. This is a wide-ranging debate under the new rules and I want to draw attention back directly to Part 2. Clause 5 states: “On the effective date—(a) the Board ceases to exist;” and the effective date is the date on which the bill comes into force. We have the extraordinary situation whereby the bill declares that the board ceases to exist at the time the bill becomes law but the board has already ceased to exist. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No it hasn’t. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: In practical terms it has ceased to exist and the Minister knows that. We are in the amazing situation whereby the Government months after the board has been disestablished wishes to address its constitutional errors retrospectively. They are taking the attitude—[ 
Interruption 
]—and the Minister in a cavalier kind of way through interjections—and are being completely indifferent callous and careless about the constitutional process that is occurring here. What would one wonders their former hero Sir Geoffrey Palmer think of this? Would he applaud that paragon of constitutionalism Trevor Mallard? I suspect that no he would not. Will this lead to a footnote in  
Bridled Power 
—the later version of  
Unbridled Power 
—to show that unfortunately even his former colleagues have not learnt basic constitutional lessons? 
National will vote against the bill on the principle that we are opposed to retrospective legislation—legislation that is intended to perfect errors. The reality is that there was a different way of doing this. The Government could have introduced legislation and passed it into law then gone about the disestablishment in a procedural sense. 
That brings us to the second objection to the bill in the first place. Unlike New Zealand First we are opposed to the centralisation of power into the ministry in order to obscure the way that the sector can interact. That reduces transparency and largely takes away the autonomous entity that was the direct conduit for the sector—in short its own board. It has been buried in the ministry. 
We had to listen to the extraordinary contribution earlier in the Committee stage by Dr Ogilvy who seemed to be of the view that that was inappropriate and wrong. Yet I would suggest that notwithstanding that United Future speech its members will be voting for the very thing that he spoke against. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister is looking puzzled. He is wondering whether he has United Future under control in the way that he would like to have. The reality is that it seems not. But on the votes I can assure him he has United Future members under control. They are his willing lapdogs on all issues even if in a mild kind of way they kick from time to time through their speeches. The reality is that they are willing cohorts of the Government in that process. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 It was interesting to hear from the previous speaker Dr Wayne Mapp that National opposes this bill on principle because it is opposed to retrospective legislation. That is somewhat different to a conversation that I had with National’s early childhood education spokesperson when this bill first appeared. The member rang me up and said: “What are we going to do with this bill?”. I said: “Well look New Zealand First is going to support it because we don’t believe in wasting taxpayers’ money but you guys will probably oppose it because you’re opposed to the centralisation of power into the education ministry.” And guess what? When Mr Heatley came down to the Chamber I heard him make a speech about how National was opposed to the centralisation of power into the ministry and it is interesting that Dr Wayne Mapp also just made that speech. The question really has to be just why it is that National opposes this bill. I will have to give more extensive explanations next time to Mr Heatley. 
However I believe that the bill should be called the Education (Belated Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill. We have gone over the point. It has been belated and there have been some costs pretty obviously. I know they are minimal but the fact is that members are wrong when they say that the board has already been disestablished. It is actually still there in a minimalist form and there have to be some costs associated with it. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Who’s there? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: It is Labour’s form of minimalist Government. They keep those boards going but doing nothing. It is a bit like the school up at Taipuha which was kept going for a term even though it had no kids. It could have been shut down and the board wanted it shut down but the Government had to pay out $30000. So it is a similar situation to Taipuha. We have continued to have a board since 1 October last year even though ithas in fact been disestablished for all practical purposes. 
I take the opportunity to congratulate and thank the members of the board. I referred in my second reading speech to the fact that in its early period the unit did have some difficulty in connecting with the broad range of population groups and needs in the early childhood sector. However it recognised its lack of capacity and made some very very genuine strides over that period of time to extend its capacities as it were and to ensure that the functions it had to fulfil were carried out. 
When it comes to early childhood education one of the things that National has been criticising is centralisation and the bias towards kindergartens over private sector providers. That occurred during the unit’s time. In itself and by its existence the unit could not prevent some of the great evils when it comes to early childhood education that members have been told about this morning. 
I finish off by saying that once again we do have to mention the mismanagement that has allowed a bill to come before Parliament calling for the disestablishment of the Early Childhood Development Board 8 or 9 months after the actual disestablishment of the unit itself. Nevertheless we would still be supporting the bill because of the organisation that is actually functioning behind it. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I am speaking to the title clause 1 of the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill. The Hon Brian Donnelly highlighted the issue of the constitutional problem of having the board already disestablished and then passing the legislation 12 months after it was first announced that the board was to be disestablished. He says that that is mismanagement and the Minister in the chair Trevor Mallard interjected earlier saying that he is a hard-working and overworked Minister but those are not excuses. They might be reasons for the strange—to put it kindly—process taking place but they are not excuses for the Government to behave in an unconstitutional way: when it does something and we then have the final reading of a bill under urgency as we will shortly that legitimates something that has already happened—something that has already been pushed through. 
If we were really seriously and honourably debating the title “Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill” we would not already have seen that board pushed into the Ministry of Education 9 months ago. It is utterly outrageous that the Government is allowed to behave in that way. [ 
Interruption 
] Seven months ago. I say to the Minister that it is a matter of degree. If it is 7 months not 9 months it is not quite as bad—Is that what he is trying to say? He should take a call to justify to this Committee how he can sleep at night when he uses Parliament to pass legislation to legitimise what he has already done by force. It is a very very bad precedent for this Government to be setting. 
We have a unique process here in this country where we allow people to appear before select committees with their submissions and have their say on legislation and how it should be improved. It is called consultation. The chief Government whip justified this legislation earlier on in this debate by saying that everybody supports it. She knows that that is not the case because she was on the select committee when it was announced that this board was going to be disestablished and she asked questions. The reason people have not submitted or appeared before a select committee the reason they have not gone through the usual process when legislation is brought in is that it had already happened and it happened without consultation with either the Early Childhood Council or the early childhood sector of the New Zealand Educational Institute. 
The Hon Brian Donnelly cynically asked why ACT should be standing up and backing the New Zealand Educational Institute. The ACT party does support people who voluntarily join a union. We have absolutely no problem with voluntary unions. We do support the people who are members of that union who are involved in the early childhood sector and who would have liked to have some say on this bill. But as they said in the Education Review magazine they did not get a chance. It is absolutely outrageous that we are now debating this after those people have been denied their chance to put in submissions and appear before a select committee because it has already happened. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: If the Minister does not believe me I have the articles here if he wants to read what the secretary of the New Zealand Educational Institute said at the time about consultation and about his view on disestablishing the Early Childhood Development Board. 
I would like to conclude by saying that clause 2 states that in this Act the Education Act 1989 is called the principal Act. I hope the Minister adheres to that and calls the police in. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Undoubtedly the title of this bill is hugely reflective of how little importance the Labour Government views early childhood education as having. Clause 1(1) states: “This Act is the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Act 2003.” That reflects absolutely accurately what the Labour Government has to say about the importance of early childhood education. I can think of no other area that is more important in terms of the outcomes for our children than early childhood education and it is important to have a special focus on it. It seems absolutely remarkable that on the one hand the Minister has praised the Early Childhood Development Board yet on the other hand in this bill he is callously disestablishing it. 
Let us put aside the constitutional aspects. Well we should not really put them aside at all because as my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp has pointed out there has been constitutional carelessness on the part of the Labour Government here. He is quite right in saying that Sir Geoffrey Palmer would be wringing his hands in despair over what his former colleagues are now doing in this bill. They are disestablishing a part of the education spectrum that was specifically designed to focus on early childhood education. It does seem extraordinary that as the Minister says the board was replaced a year ago and now here finally under urgency this bill is being put through Parliament. It does seem remarkable how careless the Government is how careless it has become and how carelessness is very much a trend that we are seeing in this Labour Government. My colleague Dr Lockwood Smith says it is arrogance. That is right. We must also throw in that quality and that is such a pity when this issue is all about the hugely important area of early childhood education. 
I was a bit surprised to hear New Zealand First’s Brian Donnelly say that the Government had behaved in a minimalist way in terms of the board. I think that is quite outrageous because there is nothing minimalist about it. The Government replaced the board a year before bringing in this bill and the title of the bill clearly reflects just how severely wrong it was to do that. If anything the early childhood area should be focused on strengthened and kept away from that ever-burgeoning bureaucracy the Ministry of Education. I can see the Minister smiling and he should not be because he knows about the excesses of absolute inefficiency that go on within his ministry. We have seen that up and down the country as the Minister does U-turns and weaves his way trying to defend the mistakes he has made over the last 3 to 4 years. 
The Minister cannot even tell us what sorts of outcomes there are from the interventions he has implemented in terms of early childhood education. That is an absolute outrage in itself. We should be measuring at the early childhood stage because that stage is fundamentally important for the children of our nation in terms of the chances they have to achieve their potential. But oh no the Minister intends to disestablish this board which he earlier said had carried out its functions very well. In fact let me repeat this: “I want to make it clear that this decision in no way reflects on the work that the Early Childhood Development Board has done.” 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to talk on the title of the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill. I would like to make a suggestion that has not yet gone down by way of amendment to this clause. The title should really read the “Education (Post-disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill”. I say “Post” because as we know although this statute provides a mechanism for the Minister to axe the Early Childhood Development Board that has actually been done already almost 12 months ago. In other words this bill by way of statute lags behind what has happened by almost 12 months. We have talked a lot about the constitutional ramifications of the situation whereby a Government can go out and act railing against legislation and regulation and then 12 months later come in and tidy it up—in other words make it lawful that it disestablished the board. 
 We have seen a lot of legislation in the last 12 months and I as National’s spokesperson on fisheries have seen lots of retrospective legislation regarding fisheries matters go through this House. I know that Damien O’Connor has registered concerns about the Ministry of Fisheries supporting such legislation year in and year out but now we see the Minister of Education getting into the same habit. A mistake is made or a gamble is taken—in this case the gamble was to disestablish the Early Childhood Development Board—and the Minister comes into the Chamber 12 months later and has legislation passed that allows him to do that. I do not know why in a Western democracy we should allow that to happen. That is why I suggest the title should be the “Education (Post-disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill”. 
I listened keenly to Brian Donnelly’s speech. He is a member of Parliament for the New Zealand First Party. I recall making a phone call to Mr Donnelly to ask his advice because I respected his opinion. I got Mr Donnelly’s opinion. He then came to the House a few weeks later and dogged me in this House basically mocking the fact that I had rung him and asked for his advice. Since that time and it must be a good 6 to 12 months ago I have not rung and asked him for advice—and I never will again. It is a very sad thing indeed that when a member of Parliament looks to a member of another party asks for help and suggests they work together on something the member who was approached would come to the Chamber and mock the member who did that. I am quite disappointed by that and I know that listeners to the radio broadcast of this debate and the people in the galleries will be also. Whereas we would have been able to share information no longer will we be able to—certainly not after today when Mr Donnelly decided to do that again. I find that quite appalling particularly given we both live in the same city. Working together we could achieve much more. It makes me sad that we cannot do so. I digress but I did want to make that point and I ask the member for New Zealand First to reflect on it. 
I go back to my original issue which is the fact that we are passing this legislation today. National will be voting against it for all the good reasons we have put forward previously. I wanted to highlight that particular constitutional issue because I do not want the Minister of Education to get into the habit in such an important area of having policy go into action and then for him to sweep things up afterwards with legislation. It should not happen that way. We are a democracy. This is a transparent nation and a transparent Parliament. To have him do that reflects only an arrogance that I hope is not growing in this Labour Government. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This is a good bill and the time for its passing has come. 
Bill read a third time. 
State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Second Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I move  
That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time 
. This is somewhat more controversial legislation. It essentially addresses the question of whether teachers should be paid when they are on strike. It is the view of the Government that they should not be paid and I expect there will be some discussion of that in the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) 
to be read today. It is interesting that we are speaking about this bill straight after debate on the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill during which we talked a lot about constitutional decisions being made and running roughshod over them. That has happened previously and we will be inspecting this bill particularly during its Committee stage as to whether that has happened in this case. It is highly likely; if so members will hear what the National Party feels about that. 
The bill was examined by the Education and Science Committee. The committee recommended that it be passed with various amendments and I look forward to discussing some of those. The State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) makes amendments to the State Sector Act and interestingly to the Education Act. The main focus of the bill is to address problems that apparently arise from the fact that the State Services Commissioner’s ability to negotiate collective agreements is currently compromised by boards of trustees retaining all those usual rights. Throughout the country we have seen boards of trustees wanting to act independently and with a large degree of autonomy when it comes to the employment of their staff. That is because schools like a particular flavour. They may wish to employ people who provide that flavour in the school. It might be a focus on Maori education and there is nothing wrong with that. It might be a focus on particular technical areas. When I went to school there were woodwork metalwork and technical drawing classes—those kinds of subjects. It might be a focus on learning the English language and so on. As well as providing a general education across the curriculum a school might specialise in particular areas. 
Boards of trustees have rights duties and powers relating to them as employers for all sorts of purposes. The difficulty of course is that the exercise of those rights duties and powers meant that the State Services Commissioner could not easily negotiate collective agreements. When those agreements were being negotiated of course the parties the commissioner was negotiating with would always come back to the issue that under the Education Act boards of trustees had those responsibilities. So in that negotiating process they were torn between not only two Acts but various parties—and rightly so. 
 So this bill is brought about to empower the commissioner to exercise the related powers of an employer when negotiating collective agreements. It requires the union bargaining for a collective agreement to give prior notice of industrial action and that seems fair enough to us. We do not want to see strikes in this country. We certainly do not want to see the strikes that we saw in 2002 when teachers in schools all over the country went out on strike one after another and kids were sent home. If that is going to happen—and it certainly happened under the Labour Government and is something that we did not see in the latter years of the National Government—we need to see the unions giving prior notice of that action. That seems fine with us. 
The bill also empowers the commissioner to suspend striking employees by notifying the relevant union rather than advising each employee separately. This type of issue is where we part with the Labour Party in supporting this bill and it is why we will not be voting for it. The National Party will be opposing it. We find it appalling that the commissioner in suspending striking employees has to notify the relevant union rather than the employee. Imagine if that happened in the private workforce—outside the public sector—whereby a business owner who was laying off or employing staff did not inform that staff member of the job he or she had just won or lost or inform the staff member about the job how it was going its continuation its progress and how the duties under that employment may develop. The owner would not talk to the individual involved—the person who woke up every morning and went to work at 8 o’clock and left at 5 o’clock after putting in a good day’s work—but instead he or she would notify the union. It raises all sorts of concerns with us. It tells us that the Minister in charge of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) has a greater appreciation for the union bureaucracy and a need to inform unions than he does for the individual worker who might be affected by any decision in the workplace. The example I used in this case was when boards of trustees had issues with regard to their rights duties and powers. That ran against what the commissioner was able to do. 
There are also amendments to clarify the commissioner’s powers during a negotiation. The commissioner is able to cover boards of trustees for the costs of damages and some amendments are brought about by that. The commissioner will cover the costs of boards of trustees for damages arising out of the exercise of powers conferred on the commissioner. In other words if the commissioner makes a decision rightly or wrongly costs are therefore put upon boards of trustees. They should not be penalised by having to pay those costs. The commissioner through these particular amendments will reimburse those costs to the board of trustees—and rightly so. There is no reason at all why decisions made by one party should penalise another. 
The employees must give sufficient notice of a strike and I spoke about that earlier. Under this bill the boards are also obligated to provide information on a strike and there will be amendments to clarify redundancy provisions. The National Party will oppose this bill. During the Committee stage we will certainly be discussing in more detail why that is the case. I bring the House’s attention to the minority view which I did not go over but which is in the commentary. It summarises a little bit about how the New Zealand National Party views the bill. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 The House is considering the second reading of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) and the report of the Education and Science Committee. It seems to me that this is quite a useful bill that clarifies the role of teachers as employees the role that boards of trustees have the role of the Secretary for Education and how the unions that represent teachers fit into the very unique employment arrangement that teachers have. I think this will be a useful bill for the sector and I support its passage through the House. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Firstly I will comment that in terms of the report back the process of this particular bill through the Education and Science Committee was probably the best that I have ever seen. The select committee as a whole took the bill and looked at how to make it work. It looked at the areas that were problematic within the bill and at what it could do to improve upon the bill. As a result of that process the bill was quite monstered at the select committee stage. Quite large sections were modified and in fact removed during that period of time. 
What the bill set out to do—and it went beyond its initial intention—was to overcome a really anomalous situation with regard to the teaching profession over the negotiation of the conditions of and payment for employment. Teachers are employed by boards of trustees but the boards of trustees do not negotiate teachers’ salaries and conditions of employment. There is a national collective and by law it comes under the State Services Commission which is the agent of the Government that negotiates those matters. The States Services Commission has delegated its responsibility to the Ministry of Education as it has the right to do. So we have the Ministry of Education negotiating the salaries and conditions of employment of teachers and going through all the industrial actions when it is the boards of trustees that employ teachers and have the rights of employers. That has led to a number of circumstances that I think most people would regard as pretty unsavoury. 
For example in order for teachers who go on strike—as is their right to go on strike through industrial negotiations—to have their pay deducted which one would conclude was logical in any industrial setting the boards of trustees have to write to the Ministry of Education and tell it who went on strike. At certain schools teachers have put pressure on their boards and said the boards should show them goodwill under those circumstances and should not write to the Ministry of Education. We had one situation during a wildcat strike where the teachers threatened to go on strike again if the school deducted their salaries from them. Pretty obviously that is a totally impossible situation to operate in. It certainly does not make it fair for either the Government or the teachers to bargain in good faith. If people can withdraw their labour at will but also get paid for it then we do not have a level playing field. 
Mark Peck 
: The old freezing works would have done well wouldn’t they! 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Would they ever! The purpose of this bill is to try to overcome that particular issue but it has a corollary benefit. One of the tactics used by secondary teachers both in 1996 and in the most recent round of strike action was to roster off certain classes. They would say that on a certain day they would not teach third-form classes across the whole country. So in many cases the boards of trustees were forced into a situation of telling parents to keep their children at home. Of course the problem was how to deduct the teachers’ pay. If that occurred on a Thursday on a certain timetable we would not know the classes that Mr Black or Mrs Brown was teaching. One teacher may have two or three third-form classes and another may have one. Schools may have 45-minute periods or hour-long periods. In the end it just became too administratively difficult for the boards of trustees even to send the information in to the ministry. Consequently there was a mechanism that teachers could keep going indefinitely. 
But there was a downside to that particular mechanism which was not recognised by very many: when parents kept their children at home they were breaking the law. The law states that when a school is open for instruction parents have to ensure their children are in attendance. How can we put parents into that situation? Pretty obviously the Government was not going to chase parents up and fine them $15 for every day their children were not in attendance. But many many parents do not like the idea that they are in breach of the law when they are forced into that situation. So the bill attempts to overcome those particular anomalies. 
There is another anomaly and it is that schools by law have to be open for a certain number of half days—380 half days for secondary schools and I think it is now 394 half days for primary schools. If the teachers go on strike pretty obviously schools cannot be open for instruction. Therefore boards of trustees would not be able to meet their legal requirement to keep schools open for instruction for a certain number of days without asking the teachers to come back for an extra day at the end of the year. Once again that really attacks some of the fundamental industrial rights of teachers as employees. What the bill does—and I think this is a very positive move—is to state that if the teachers are on strike then it is deemed that the school is open for instruction. 
But then the Minister tried to say that if we had too many strikes that would cut into education too badly so he wanted to have the reserve power to be able to extend the school year as long as he liked. That raised some questions as to the power the Government was trying to accrue to itself which no other employer would have been able to have. So if teachers went on strike for 3 or 4 days the Minister could have just said to count one of those days as a school day but the extra 2 days would have to be worked at the end of the school year. If teachers went on strike for even longer than that we could have the school year lasting until past Christmas time. The Minister was asking for a draconian power and the select committee did a very good job of arguing that there was no purpose in keeping that particular clause in the bill. It flew in the face of fairness around industrial relationships for teachers. 
A number of other issues came up as a result of this particular bill. Once again it is believed that these are improvements. When the Employment Relations Act went through one of the issues that came up was how much notice a union should have to give before its members went on strike. When it came to schoolchildren there was the real problem of getting the information back to the parents that the teachers were going on strike at a certain time. During the last round of strikes students in Auckland were stranded. Parents did not know that bus drivers were going on strike and there was no way of getting the students home. This legislation ensures that there has to be 3 days’ notice of any strike action. We believe that is fair. We believe it is fair that schools get that information in a timely fashion in order to be able to get the information to parents and ensure that appropriate arrangements can be made. 
The final issue that we need to talk about is the power that the bill planned to give to the Minister to punish boards of trustees if they did not do what they were supposed to do. Boards of trustees are now to be required to send information to the Ministry of Education about all the teachers who did not go on strike rather than the other way round. The ones who did not go on strike can be paid in a rightful fashion. But the Minister tried to give himself unlimited powers to be able to punish boards of trustees that did not comply with that requirement. The punishment would have been to make deductions from their grants. The people who were going to be hurt by that would have been the students themselves because there would have been less money available to them for their particular studies. It is fortunate that the select committee was able to argue cogently and as a group that that was an unnecessary power. The Minister already has powers to punish or penalise boards of trustees that are recalcitrant and he certainly did not need the sorts of draconian powers that would have flown in the face of a board’s responsibility to ensure that students are getting the best possible education. 
There was another little issue around technical redundancies that required the select committee to do some tidying-up. Although the committee did not change the basic principle or premise of the bill it certainly needed to do a lot of tidying-up of the wording. I think the wording that has come back to the House is far far clearer in stating what the Government is attempting to do to ensure that people do not double dip when there is loss of jobs as a result of the merger or closure of schools. 
Finally I say once again a very big thankyou and give my congratulations to the select committee for what I consider to be a very fine job on this bill. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will not be supporting the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). We were pleased to see the changes that were made to the bill in the Education and Science Committee because the bill as originally proposed was absolutely appalling. It was a very clear indication on the part of the Minister and the Government that they would bypass the collective agreement processes by the use of legislation. It is our view that the Government is using its position as a legislator to get out of its obligations as an employer. The Greens are entirely satisfied with the concept that those who are on strike are not paid for the time they are striking. In no way does our objection to this bill disrupt that fundamental tenet of the right to strike. But the whole of the bill in our view is stained with the intention of the Minster to avoid his obligations as an employer by the use of legislation to bypass the collective agreements that take so much time and effort for all the parties involved to work through. 
All credit must go to the select committee which took a great deal of care over the bill and took out some of its worst excesses. For example the Wages Protection Act now applies though the ministry had tried to avoid that legislation. There is now no ability for the commissioner to directly deduct money from schools’ operations grants—for being naughty schools—if they fail to inform the ministry of those teachers who are not on strike. Another example is that the bill originally proposed that the Minister would be able to extend the number of days in a school year to make up for those days where schools lost teaching time because of industrial action. The officials at the time tried very hard to argue that despite the fact that they wanted to extend the number of days so that teachers would be required to work longer if they did take industrial action the bill did not disturb the fundamental principle of the right to strike. That of course was ridiculous and the select committee did a very good job in taking out those provisions. 
But there remain some very serious concerns about the redundancy clauses in the bill and that for the Greens is one of the biggest issues. In our view those clauses are really about the Minister trying to remedy the worst effects of the network review school closure process that is currently under way. The network reviews are a huge community issue; there has been enormous outrage from all sectors. The community has worked very hard to prevent those unnecessary school closures and it has succeeded to some extent with the moratorium. But none the less there are still some closures set to proceed. This bill is an attempt to avoid the redundancy processes for those teachers in the schools likely to close. We do not believe that the Government is honouring its collective agreement with the teachers unions so we are opposed to that provision in particular. We consider it to be completely unfair that teachers will be forced to accept positions in new schools when they are directly affected by the closure of their school in situations where the Minister decides it is an equivalent employment position. 
In the current situation when schools merge jobs are guaranteed for teachers. Where there are school closures teachers are allowed to take redundancy if they choose not to take employment in other schools that are still operating. That is an important factor of the principle of choice for those who are employed. But this bill will change that process because it will mean that where there is a closure teachers will be forced to take equivalent positions rather than redundancy. 
This bill does not consider the process and the decisions around what is an equivalent position. Teachers choose to work in a particular school because of the culture of that school its philosophy its staff and its management structure. That is a crucial decision that teachers as employees make when they choose where they go to work. This bill eliminates that choice. It undermines the good-faith bargaining that underpins the whole process around collective employment agreements. 
The Greens will not support a bill that is as anti-teacher as this bill. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 United Future supports this bill because we do not think it is fair to put boards of trustees in the kinds of difficulties and circumstances they found themselves in during particularly the negotiating round for the secondary school teachers contract in 2002. That put a tremendous amount of pressure on the entire system. The purpose of this bill as we see it in summation is really to attempt to take the boards of trustees out of the equation and to transfer their employer functions back to the State Services Commission and also to tidy up some arrangements when it comes to the question of school closures programmes and mergers which are current around New Zealand at the present time. Those two things emerged as part of the rationale for this bill. As has been pointed out the bill as it was presented to us initially had a number of hooks and snares in it that would have been counterproductive to what the Government intended and/or the teachers would receive as a result and certainly what the students and pupils at schools would incur. The purpose of the bill is really to make things a lot easier and happen more quickly. 
We heard submissions from the main institutions and supports for teachers and students around the country. The New Zealand School Trustees Association presented its views on the bill as it stood and brought out a number of issues that needed clarity. The Education and Science Committee put them into effect on its behalf in a very clear way. I want to touch on one or two of those as we go through even during the Committee stage. The Post Primary Teachers Association also submitted quite strongly with regard to collective bargaining; it wanted to ensure that whatever goes into this bill does not affect the whole covenant it has with the State Services Commission. The same could be said about the submissions made by the New Zealand Educational Institute for primary teachers. It and the New Zealand Law Society acted as a group to ensure that any changes we make to this bill are at least in line with current law and there are not any conflicts in it. I appreciated the input by the submitters. As a result and as the chair of the select committee the Hon Brian Donnelly mentioned the bill has come out looking like given the nature of the Government’s own position it will make things work a lot easier. 
Sometime later on I would like to address the issue that—it is one of the contradictions of this bill—because of centralised bargaining and collective agreements with teachers the Government has got itself into trouble and this bill is an endeavour to untangle that. It is not a position that United Future members would have been in favour of. Many boards were very sympathetic towards the teachers’ claims in the last strike in 2002. We know that the State Services Commission is responsible for collective agreements with teachers. The boards of trustees did not know who to lock out and who not to lock out in that particular strike which went on as we know for a protracted period. This bill really focuses on untangling that and on the whole it does so. There was a lot of inconsistency among and across schools as to whether teachers were facing financial consequences for their actions and that created quite a lot of inequity among teachers as to who was getting paid and who was not. Of course in the sort of befuddle that took place in 2002 with secondary teachers there were a lot of consequences in terms of children missing out on education. Quite honestly that is why this bill has to come in—to guarantee that they do not suffer as a result of any further strikes in the future. It sorts out who gets locked out who gets their pay docked and who does not. 
The amendments to the bill—and I will have a look at one or two of those—are very very useful in that they ensure that the difficult and almost impossible original bill can now be functional and work properly. It is very very important to note that the majority of the select committee saw fit to throw out a whole provision that tied people down to irregularities that would obviously have come up when a strike was on. As has been referred to earlier one of the provisions that was taken out allowed the Minister to deduct from a board of trustees any amount of money the Minister thought fit. With the employer function being moved from the boards of trustees to the State Services Commission it no longer is an issue and the Minister cannot just do that at his will. 
United Future members were happy for the bill at the end of the first reading to go to the select committee in order to sort out these difficulties and in our minds they have been sorted out. We are most happy to see this bill progress. United Future supports this second reading. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). I do not have voting power on the Education and Science Committee because of ACT’s disadvantage under the situation at the moment but I did sit on the select committee and tracked this bill through. 
This legislation is another nail in the coffin for Tomorrow’s Schools it is another nail in the coffin for parental representation and it is another nail in the coffin for boards of trustees having some say in how their schools are run. When this bill first came to the select committee it was one of the most draconian pieces of legislation I had seen. Members in this House have praised the bill and said it is workable and will tidy up the situation. It will not tidy up the situation. Yes it has been toned down a bit but only in one respect—that is the removal of the powers of the State Services Commissioner to deduct funding from a school’s operations grant. That was what the Minister of Education originally wanted to do. He wanted to punish boards of trustees as he saw it—punish them by deducting money from the schools’ operations grants. Who would be the loser in that? The children would be the losers in that. The children and learning will be the losers from this legislation. 
 We heard from a United Future member that the measure makes the situation more equitable because now all boards of trustees will be forced to behave in the same way. What on earth is equitable about forcing sameness on every board of trustees? I was on a board of trustees when those strikes were going on. Our board of trustees discussed the issue of whether we would pay our teachers. We discussed it in a democratic way we voted in a democratic way and we decided not to pay them. But we remunerated them in other ways and we had the freedom to do that. Other boards of trustees decided they would pay their teachers. Fine we did not have a problem with that. It was up to the board of trustees of each school because that board had been elected by the parents of children at that school to talk for them. If parents do not like what a board does they can vote out those board members and get new ones to do what they want. They do not vote for their board members to be dictated to on how they behave by the State Services Commissioner. 
That is what this legislation does. It vests in the State Services Commissioner the powers of boards of trustees regarding teachers’ pay. It is a typical example of a collectivist Government digging itself into a hole and trying desperately to dig itself out. When it removed the ability for schools to have bulk funding it got itself into this disastrous situation. The most sensible thing that this Government could do which Governments in Western democracies all around the world are doing—it is not radical; it is not gasp material—is to let parents chose; to devolve the funding to the boards so that the communities in consultation with the teachers and the parents can decide. 
But this Government does not want to let even the teachers choose. It will now take choice away from the teachers as well. It was extraordinary on the Education and Science Committee. I actually remarked that it was rare for me to find myself on the same side as the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute. They opposed this bill. They saw it as draconian. They saw it as removing the last vestige of choice from teachers. They will no longer be able to choose which school they teach in under this legislation. If teachers are put by this Government in a situation where their school is closed down or merged they will not be able to choose which school they teach in or they will lose their compensation. It is not their fault that schools close or merge. They do not ask to be put in that situation. They should be compensated. They have a right taken away from them a property right if one likes—their property right to earn money. They have that right taken away from them by the State and the State should compensate them. But teachers will not be able to be compensated now unless they adhere to the draconian terms that have been put in this bill. We will look at those terms in more detail later but if teachers do not adhere to the directives in this bill if they refuse an offer of a job—a so-called equivalent position which is very loosely defined—in a replacement school or another school directly affected by the closure or merger they also lose their redundancy. So this Government not only does not want parents to choose; it will not let boards of trustees choose any more and it will not let teachers choose either. 
I am shocked to the core that United Future—the family-friendly party—is voting for this legislation—[ 
Interruption 
] We might not always agree with the Greens but at least they have principles. As I said the loser here is education. It is patronising for that member to say that members of boards of trustees were put in a difficult position of not being able to decide whether they should pay the teachers when they went on strike. That is why people decide to become members of boards of trustees; they have to make difficult decisions. Every time they have a meeting they make difficult decisions about whether they will raise $120000 for a swimming pool or an arts centre. Is United Future going to take those choices off boards too because parents ordinary people cannot decide? Does it think only politicians and bureaucrats can make choices for parents because parents do not know even if they are elected by other parents to be on a board of trustees? 
In Florida even the liberal lefty press is now coming out in favour of a voucher system whereby funding is not centrally controlled as it is here—and further so under this legislation. It is devolved to the students. Research has shown that that especially benefits children from very poor families on very low incomes because they are given the opportunity to choose a school. Even if we went back to bulk funding for just those schools that want it they would be able to make decisions themselves over whether they pay the teachers when they go on strike. Sure the principle of withdrawing one’s labour is that one’s remuneration is withdrawn too; that is the basic principle. But so what if another board of trustees wants to go against that principle and decides that because its members sympathise with their teachers who have gone out on strike it wants to continue paying them? It should keep that choice. This bill is a sad day for learning in New Zealand and the ACT party is vehemently opposed to it. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 Can I say to United Future that being mauled by Deborah Coddington is like being mauled by a toothless sheep. Until that particular member learns to pay her tax bills and there are certain other words that come to mind about her party such as “Pipi Foundation” and “Pipitea Street” her party has no credibility— 
Darren Hughes 
: It was an electorate office. 
MARK PECK 
: Well it was the electorate office. This particular bill is quite a simple bill and I do agree with my colleague Mr Brownlee that—[ 
Interruption 
] Not Brownlee! I tell Mr Donnelly that I take it back. I do apologise for that. I do not know whose reputation suffers the most with that particular comment but I do take it back. But can I say that despite what was said by the person whom we do not comment on because her speeches are like being mauled by a sheep this particular bill makes sure that some of the industrial relations issues around the operation of schools are dealt with. I interjected on Mr Donnelly’s speech that the freezing workers would have very much loved a provision whereby they got paid for going on strike. No worker worth his or her salt expects to be paid when on strike. Workers go on strike— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Some of them do! 
MARK PECK 
: Well I have a very strong view about that as a unionist—a very strong view. Those who do go on strike expect that for standing up for their principles they will lose wages in the process. That is part of the deal. The other side of that coin of course is the right of the employer to lock out which I think deals with the issue of the confusion that Mr Brownlee—I am sorry; Mr Donnelly—was talking about. I do really apologise to the member for that. Mr Donnelly was talking earlier about the employer having the right when these particular problems crop up to lock out. That is just the normal ebb and flow of industrial relations—end of story. 
Then I come to the crocodile tears shed about the school reviews and the redundancy provisions. They are exactly that—crocodile tears. If employees are offered a position in a merging school or in a new school in the area and thereby are not disadvantaged—if they can continue to be employed if their service within the industry is not affected if they can maintain all the other positions that they are entitled to within their particular contracts—what is wrong with that? If employees decide after having been offered a position not to move on to it they make their own decision not to take up an offer of employment. I do not care how good any particular tribunal or court in this land is: at that point that is a resignation—end of story. 
It seems to me that the bill tidies up quite nicely an area within the State sector legislation that is a little untidy at the moment. There is no shock or horror about this bill. It is a good bill that tidies up a situation that should have been tidied up a long time ago. In future when teachers do decide to go on strike over matters of great importance to the education industry they know that the price of principle is their salary for that period of time. I have absolutely no problem with that because it means that both sides of the industrial dispute compete on a level playing field. When dealing with industrial relations I would have thought that was something ACT would agree with. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 If it were not so sad to hear Mr Peck trying to climb into Deborah Coddington over her speech a few minutes ago it would be amusing. Deborah Coddington is known up and down this country as someone who stands for principle. I do not think that Mr Peck is known for anything. Mr Peck is so bitter and twisted because even Mr Benson-Pope was promoted into Cabinet over him. Mr Peck has been here for quite a few years and is so bitter that he has not made it into the Labour Cabinet. If he chooses to attack someone of principle like Deborah Coddington he is making a grave mistake. 
I now come to the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). This is a very important issue. No one can pretend that the arrangements for negotiating our teachers’ salaries and the authority of boards of trustees with respect to their employment have been satisfactory for a number of years. No one can claim that the way the system worked in the past has been totally satisfactory. 
When I was Minister the way the system worked caused me a lot of concern. However to hear Mr Ogilvy from United Future—is that who it was? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Dr Ogilvy. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Dr Ogilvy from United Future said that this bill sorted things out. The problem is that a party like United Future in this Parliament has no knowledge of the background to the payment of teachers’ salaries the role of the States Services Commissioner or the reforms of  
Tomorrow’s Schools 
. To pretend that this bill sorts things out satisfactorily is a travesty. If this bill is passed the losers will be our children and families—the people United Future claims it cares about. This bill causes children to be the losers. I invite Dr Ogilvy to think about the issue a bit more and about what goes on in the schooling system in this country. 
There is an issue around the role of boards of trustees as employers and the role of the State Services Commissioner as a negotiator of collective contracts. But to re-empower the centre—to empower the State Services Commissioner more—is not the way to solve our problems. The big problem in schooling today is that our best people do not go into teaching because our best teachers are not rewarded. The great collective contract means that our poorer teachers are paid far more than they are worth and our best teachers are not paid anything like what they are worth—and everyone knows it. 
That is the problem of the big collective contract when employing our teachers. When the State Services Commissioner is negotiating employment arrangements the big State-sector union will always be on the other side. The Government had the opportunity to do something for the schoolchildren of this country and make the amendments needed. 
I accept that the status quo was not satisfactory. School boards of trustees are officially the employers yet the State Services Commissioner negotiates the collective contract on their behalf. This Labour-led Government has progressively pulled power back from boards of trustees and recentralised it and this is just another step in that process. However boards of trustees should have been empowered to become full employers as they have now had the experience. 
When  
Tomorrow’s Schools 
 was established in 1989-90—in fact the previous Labour Government put it in place but as Minister I had to start making it work—maybe it could have been argued that the new boards of trustees new in those roles needed a period of time before they acquired the full role of employer including employment negotiations. It was always intended that ultimately boards of trustees would have the role of running their schools. 
If we go back to the origin of the whole  
Tomorrow’s Schools 
 reform the Picot task force recommended that all our schools be bulk funded. One of the reasons the task force recommended that was that ultimately it made sense for our schools to employ their staff so that they could reward outstanding teachers and manage their schools in the interests of the children of their schools. This legislation is just another step back from what the Picot task force recommended. It is a step back from the  
Tomorrow’s Schools 
 reforms. It is all part of the recentralisation of education under this Labour-led Government. 
United Future of all parties should not be endorsing that. Recentralisation and bureaucratic control of schooling is not in the interests of our children. United Future stands in this House and parrots on about the importance of families and children and has the chance to vote against regressive legislation that takes that away. Clause 6 states that our teachers come first and our children last. If the teachers go on strike the union comes first and children come last. If the union goes on strike the children miss out. 
At least we should give Trevor Mallard some credit. He wanted to make sure that children did not miss out. But Mr Donnelly from New Zealand First and his select committee said: “No we can’t have a situation where the children come first. The union must come first so they can take as many days on strike as they like”—and children will miss out on their education. This country has had enough of that. This country has to start standing up for children and not for the big teacher unions. That is what this is all about. Far from recentralising the whole negotiation of employment arrangements for teachers this legislation should be all about giving schools the opportunity to reward outstanding teachers because we have great teachers. 
Every bit of research done on schooling shows that an important element making for a successful school is an outstanding principal. Schools used to be able to sack bad principals when their contracts expired. They cannot do that any more. This Labour-led Government has stopped that with its Employment Relations Act. Schools cannot have fixed-term contracts any more and they cannot get rid of bad principals. The other bit of research shows us that outstanding teachers make a difference. 
This bill will make it even harder. It is another step away from enabling schools to employ their teachers in ways that enable them to reward outstanding teachers and deal with teachers who under-perform. When a school has an under-performing teacher—and we have plenty of them—again it is the children who suffer. Labour and United Future claim they care about children yet every time a legislative issue comes up they take the union side; they do not take the children’s side. This bill was a chance to demonstrate that the children actually matter to United Future. 
There is no need for this bureaucratic nonsense. It would have been very possible to give greater power to school boards of trustees. We could have had legislation by which boards ceded that power if they wished to the State Services Commissioner but at least put in place a mechanism that was originally envisaged by Picot and the whole schools reform process to really enable schools to do something for their children. The principal and the teachers are the most important bit. The skill of those teachers matters and this bill takes it all away from our boards of trustees the parents the community and the teachers involved who want to make our schools a better place. This bill just recentralises power in the State Services Commissioner. 
No one can say that I do not know what I am talking about because I was Minister for almost 6 years and Opposition spokesperson for 3 years. No one else in this House has been involved in the politics of education longer than I have. Those comments are made from hard experience. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: 
 It is very interesting to hear the comments made by a former Minister of Education—a Minister who was not very fondly remembered by those of us who were practitioners in the education service at the time. 
Having been a member of Parliament at the time of the Picot report and involved in those discussions I have to say the former Minister’s memory has been a little selective. He conveniently overlooked the very good provision in the bill that requires the union bargaining for a collective agreement to give prior notice of industrial action. I would have thought that a very fair provision because it takes account of the notice that parents and children need if there is to be any disruption. Surely that is much better than any other arrangement. To do what Dr Lockwood Smith suggested would be to take away the normal democratic rights that workers’ groups in this country have had over long periods under both National and Labour Governments. 
This bill is much fairer. It ensures that parents get adequate notice if there is to be any disruption. That is quite unlike the situation that occurred in the early 1990s when Dr Lockwood Smith was Minister of Education. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This bill is all about the philosophical approach that political parties have to education. That is precisely why the minority view in the commentary on the bill states: “We believe it reinforces the ethos of centralised bargaining of teachers’ employment contracts and reduces the reality that the true employers are the Boards of Trustees. It would be more appropriate to move toward more flexible employment agreements rather than increasing the powers of the State Services Commissioner.” 
We recognise the Government had choices; that there was a particular issue that had to be dealt with. That is an understood point and the Government had a clear choice. It could either centralise or it could devolve. That choice is made on the basis of one’s philosophical attitude towards education. Is it to be State-centred and State-controlled or is it to be parent-centred and child-controlled? That is the fundamental choice that this legislation implies. 
We know what the Government’s choice was and frankly we are not surprised. The Labour Government has always believed in centralisation—bringing power to the centre reducing the power of the communities. That was precisely the debate in the previous bill. It is interesting to have two bills back to back that are actually about a philosophical choice. In both cases the Government has taken the choice of centralisation. What surprises me however is that that choice would be shared by the United Future party and the New Zealand First party. These are parties that would traditionally describe themselves irrespective of their particular positioning as of the centre right—respecting community choice removing power from the State. Yet in both cases they have opted for centralisation. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: No the centre. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Mr Donnelly has said that I have got it wrong; that they describe themselves as of the centre; but surely nevertheless New Zealand First is a party that believes in the community rather than the Government. Or have I got it wrong? In fact is the basic underlying philosophy of those two parties actually for centralisation? Because that is what their votes imply. They did have a clear choice in this situation. 
So we are voting against the bill precisely because it reflects the choice the Government made. There was a mischief to be dealt with. We recognise that. It is clearly not desirable for boards of trustees to simply pay teachers who are on strike. But why do they do that? They do it because there are no consequences. Because in fact the power resides with the centre. Surely the proper approach is to sheet responsibility and consequences home to those who are the legal employers—the boards of trustees. So that is the fundamental choice that the public will ultimately be faced with. 
The Government is no doubt going to go out to the New Zealand public in 18 months’ time and say: “Trust us. We know best. We can make the decisions for you. Trust the bureaucrats to make the right choices for your children.” That will not be the choice that National offers to the community. We will be saying: “Devolve power to the community. Give real responsibility to the boards of trustees. Sheet home those responsibilities and the funding to the boards of trustees.” That is the fundamental choice that this bill implies and there could have been another way to deal with this issue. The Government has chosen not to take that way and frankly that is not surprising. It does believe in centralisation. That is why we are debating these two bills today because it is precisely what the Government believes in. We take a different view and we say give the community autonomy. 
I have heard sotto voce interjections by Mr Donnelly about bulk funding. Well we are proud of the results of bulk funding. Certainly within North Shore every school that had the choice made the choice. Why did they make the choice? They did that because it gave them autonomy. It gave them the ability to make choices that were right for their schools and their communities. When people have that opportunity to make those decisions they actually want to be able to make them. That will be the choice that will be being put to the community. It is not often in the House that we get the opportunity to have a worthwhile debate on these deep philosophical interests—how we actually deal with the real choices that face this community. But this is one of those choices and we will be voting against this bill because— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: We will certainly be providing choice in education. We will be opposed to the whole concept and argument of zoning. We will give autonomy to boards of trustees. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Prior to the luncheon break I was saying this bill essentially has within it a philosophical choice between centralisation which was also a feature of the bill debated previously or decentralisation. The Government has chosen centralisation. Somewhat to my surprise both United Future and New Zealand First have unwisely decided to support that educational philosophy. That is an unfortunate choice because there is another way. That way is to trust parents trust teachers and directly fund schools so that they make the choices. That is the essence of the choice and it is why National is opposed to this bill. 
There is also another provision in the bill about redundancies. It is all there because of the Minister’s ill-starred network review which he had great enthusiasm for. Up and down the country he was closing schools left right and centre bravely fronting up—I acknowledge he did go to the various meetings—and going to the communities and saying: “This is good for you.” I saw him on television in Invercargill defending his position. 
Remarkably there was then a complete about face and there are to be no network reviews for 5 long years. It was an extraordinary position to take which could only be assumed to be driven by the polls. The people of Invercargill are still waiting for their answer. Why they not included in that moratorium as well? 
Now there is a somewhat anomalous position. The new sections 77HA and 77HB proposed to be inserted in the State Sector Act by clause 4 of this bill are still in there but in what circumstances would they now be used other than perhaps in Invercargill? In reality the Government has taken a reverse step and done a U-turn. So during the Committee stage we will still ask the Minister why he felt it was necessary to include or retain those provisions given the U-turn. 
I just want to close on this point. This bill involves clear choice between centralisation and State control which is the Government’s way or decentralisation and trusting parents and communities which is National’s way. The public will decide that in 18 months’ time. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise to support the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) and I am glad that that member finished the way that he did because the minority view as expressed in the Education and Science Committee report made it clear the National Party wants to move to individual boards of trustees having to negotiate contracts or agreements with their employees school by school. Those members do want to break down the relationship that has been developed over many many years between those working in our schools and they want to smash the State sector unions the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute. That is the National Party’s position on this. It is not the Government’s position. When the State Services Commissioner has the power to bargain for collective agreements with employees of boards of trustees it makes good sense that the commissioner has all the powers under the legislation. It is sensible legislation from an excellent Minister of Education. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Education and Science Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 26; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be read a second time. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 26; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to focus in particular on clause 3 “Purposes” because as referred to in the previous debate this has the philosophy of both the major parties and indeed all of the parties. It is a real choice. For Labour members the choice is this. They want to centralise so therefore the clause has the words: “… to enable the State Services Commissioner in negotiating collective agreements …”. The Government will stand in the stead of the board of trustees. The power goes from schools to the centre. That is the Labour way. We heard the Hon Lianne Dalziel talk about their love of the unions and their cosy relationship with the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) which are well-known funders of the Labour Party. That is the sort of arrangement Labour likes and that is what it favours. 
The Government will give all possible powers to the State Services Commissioner to reinforce that arrangement because the more power one gives to the State Services Commissioner the more power one gives to the unions. That is the corollary which is not stated explicitly in the bill like that but it is the intent. The Government wants to empower unions and this is its mechanism to do so. That is not in the interests of the children and neither is it in the interests of the teachers because it treats all teachers the same. 
I worked in the tertiary sector and one of the most important changes was shifting from a national collective contract to having essentially university or tertiary-specific contracts. When that happened there was a tremendous blossoming of diversity and a real recognition of the abilities and talents of individual people within those institutions. That is how it should be. Teachers are not some form of cloth-capped unionists marching in rank and file although those who would belong to the PPTA and devote all their negotiating power to it would have one believe that that is the case. Teachers are responsible professionals. In the modern era of the 21st century modern professionals negotiate with their employers. Their employer is not the State Services Commissioner; their employers are the boards of trustees. That is the relationship that should occur and schools ought to be funded directly on that basis. 
 That gives real power to the boards of trustees to the community and to the teachers and principals in those workplaces. It strengthens those relationships. It makes ultimately for a more harmonious working relationship because people know where they stand. They have to have that direct relationship between themselves and their employer whereas the Government would have them hiding and buried within this collective of the Post Primary Teachers Association which would undertake all the negotiations. That may advantage the not-so-able teacher but it certainly does not advantage the range diversity and abilities of teachers throughout the school system. If we want a modern 21st century education system we will celebrate the diversity and ability of those teachers. That way we will attract the best people into the teaching profession. 
Dr Lockwood Smith former Minister of Education knows the importance of giving real power to boards of trustees. That is why he was such an advocate as Minister of Tomorrow’s Schools which now unfortunately are “yesterday’s schools” because this Government has crushed initiative. This Government would bring power back to the centre back to the State Services Commissioner so that the Minister could have his cosy little relationship with his mates—I guess they are former mates in the sense of colleagues in the PPTA—and have those kinds of negotiating powers. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I can understand why the Greens are voting against this legislation but I cannot understand why National and ACT are voting to enable teachers to continue the practice of going on strike and withdrawing their labour and still being paid for it. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s a philosophical point. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Dr Mapp said that it is a philosophical point. It is a philosophical point about schools having power devolution of decision-making site bargaining bulk funding and giving real power to boards and teachers. I mention to Dr Mapp that after 9 years of National being in power in the 1990s we ended up having the centralised negotiation of collective employment contracts with the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) and the New Zealand Educational Institute. That is what we ended up with after those 9 years and now National is telling us that it will lead us to a new nirvana. 
Dr Lockwood Smith criticised New Zealand First for not supporting children’s education because of one of the amendments the Education and Science Committee has made to this bill. I ask Dr Lockwood Smith how many days were lost through strikes and how many days and hours of teaching were lost through rostering off in the 1996 negotiations. In the 1998 negotiations that New Zealand First was involved in with the PPTA and the New Zealand Educational Institute not one day was lost. There was not one day of strike action as a result of those negotiations. I ask Dr Lockwood Smith who really does care about the educational well-being of students. 
The point is that in this particular case National is claiming that it wants bulk funding and site bargaining and that that will resolve all the issues yet National had 9 years to put that in practice and it did not advance it. National did not advance that when it had the opportunities to do so. Lockwood Smith’s formula would never have worked because it was based upon the average teacher’s salary—hence there was such resistance by the teachers association and the educationalists who really thought about those issues. It was only when New Zealand First came into the coalition Government and said that if there had to be a formula we should make it a fair one—at the top of the scale—that we had something that might have made the bulk-funding situation work. But the fact is that we went way past that and by the end of the 1990s even National was not prepared to impose the fully funded option of bulk funding. National had the opportunity to do that and failed to do so. 
New Zealand First says that if teachers withdraw their labour—and they should have the right to withdraw their labour—they should lose their pay. That is what this legislation is about. There may also be a reorganisation of schooling in certain areas and people may be offered another job. For example up our way in Northland three schools are being merged on one site and the name of the school will change. Some of the teachers at one school called Punaruku—which will now be called Whangaruru—will have their jobs offered to them. New Zealand First believes that if that offer is made those teachers should be required to take up those jobs and should not be entitled to a full range of redundancy payments. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Stick to the right part. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: This is the right part. I ask Dr Mapp whether he would like me to read out that provision. Obviously he has not read it. New Zealand First says that it is only fair and proper and in line with all other industrial negotiations that if that sort of thing takes place people should not receive redundancy payments. New Zealand First fought in the select committee to make sure that the wording of that provision was tidied up—because there was a need to tidy it up—but it supports the principle at stake. 
The only question New Zealand First really wants to ask the Minister is why he came to the House for the first reading with such a dog of a bill. Why did he not get it right and why did he leave it to the select committee to make all the changes? Other than that I say New Zealand First is flabbergasted at the positions taken by National and ACT. We will support the bill because we believe that given the circumstances left by National in 1999 regarding centralised negotiations these mechanisms are necessary to ensure a level playing field between the taxpayer and teachers. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 In talking in the Committee stage and addressing Part 1 of this bill I say the ACT party will vote against this legislation all the way through. We have heard a lot of argument about why we should not be opposed to this bill removing the right of employers to pay employees who are on strike. If that is the situation Labour and New Zealand First believe in why do they not bring in legislation that would remove that power from private employers too? Private employers can still choose to pay or remunerate their employees in some way if they want to reward them—if they have some sympathy for the reason they are on strike. They can do that. A lot of boards of trustees did not pay striking teachers. The actual figure is not available because as usual this Minister does not bother about detail when he brings in legislation like this. I have tried to get details of the actual number of boards of trustees that continued to pay teachers when they went on strike but we do not know that so we do not even know whether this legislation is necessary. 
Of course that is not the real reason we are bringing in this legislation. The real reason is that this Minister wants to overturn Tomorrow’s Schools. He has commissioned research that shows the ideal situation is to have one board of trustees for every 200 schools. That is a de facto education board situation. Even now parents who are on boards of trustees tell us that they are having less and less say in the actual running of their school. They are required more and more to deal with form filling and they have to make sure that their school complies with over a dozen pieces of legislation. When Brian Picot came up with the idea of Tomorrow’s Schools based on very sound research from a Labour Government—which is now being overturned by another Labour Government—we had the situation whereby more power and control was to be devolved to communities and parents to run their schools. This legislation will rip more of that decision making away from parents and boards of trustees. 
In trying to overcome the issue of teachers double-dipping when a school is closed or merged the Minister has got himself into a pickle. In trying to get himself out of that pickle he is further reducing choice. To try to get away from the situation in which a teacher is made redundant because a school closes and then gets a job at another school down the road or at the newly merged school but still receives a redundancy payment as well as being paid for the new job he is reducing the right of schools within that locality—that is the exact wording in the bill—to be able to choose the best teacher for the job. They will be caught between a rock and a hard place. They may not take the teacher that the State Services Commissioner directs should go there who will otherwise not be compensated for losing his or her job because there may be a better applicant. If it is a small rural locality or provincial area the schools will probably know the people concerned personally. They will know their families. They will have to decide whether to put that person out on the street or to take the best teacher for the job. 
That is exactly why there should not be central control. People in Wellington do not know what is best for people at Blackball on the West Coast or at Russell in Northland. They do not know what is best for those people I say to the Minister in the chair Trevor Mallard. The Minister does not know that and nor do the bureaucrats. The only people who know what is best for those communities are the people who live there—the parents the principals the boards of trustees and the teachers. If we could just go back to bulk funding we would not need this bill. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is concerned about some of the comments with regard to Part 1 of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) which is before us today. We are concerned because of the misunderstanding that exists in some of the statements that National and ACT members have been trying to argue in the Committee. I note that both parties oppose the bill because it reinforces the ethos of “centralised bargaining” in their words. However that can never be the reality unless the boards also have the power to negotiate employee agreements and that is not the case. If it were the case then taking the position that National and ACT have taken may apply but it is not the case so we are looking at the reality here. Otherwise we would do as National proposes which is that teachers should be paid while they are on strike. I am sure that is not the case. Clause 3 “Purposes” states very firmly that teachers cannot be paid while they are on strike and provides for a mechanism to be set in place to ensure that that does not happen. Otherwise it will happen and there will be confusion between the employer—the State Services Commission—the boards of trustees the teachers and worse still the children who are being taught at school. 
United Future is concerned that there has been quite a misunderstanding of the purpose of the bill. To emphasise that a recent case came to my attention that highlights the confusion surrounding exactly whom the employer is when it comes to schools. One could be forgiven for thinking that the board is responsible for employment decisions made by a school but that is not so according to a recent decision by the Employment Relations Authority. This is what happened. A teacher complained that his salary was reduced after his qualifications were found to be incomplete and blamed the board for not following up on the issue of having the salary restored. But it was the ministry and its payment agent that made the decision to cut the salary so they were obviously held to be responsible for it. The judgment was consistent with the intent of this bill but I wonder whether it resolves some of the questions that will continue to exist surrounding the status of boards as employers. 
I pointed out earlier that due to the submissions made on the bill as introduced major corrections have been made to the bill in order to conform to the purposes of the Act so that it can work properly. We now have before the Committee something that is workable something that I would like to commend and something that United Future supports. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The once-proud Labour Party headed by the Rt Hon David Lange gave New Zealand Tomorrow’s Schools. Today very appropriately a few MPs mentioned that the current Labour Government is fast returning them to yesteryears. I am surprised that Bernie Ogilvy is concerned that National and ACT are voting against this legislation and is confused as to why that is the case. We were hoping to see a movement towards teachers and boards of trustees being able to bargain a fair outcome for both parties on their own terms. All that the Minister has done with the endorsement of New Zealand First United Future and the Greens is to transfer the power to conduct wage bargaining from the boards of trustees to the State Services Commissioner in Wellington. 
Clause 3(c) of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) actually provides that boards of trustees have to report to the State Services Commissioner on the conduct of strikes that affect their schools. Let us think of the unnecessary bureaucracy that is being introduced by this legislation. A board of trustees that is on site at a school will now have to monitor a strike situation and report to the State Services Commissioner in Wellington. That is the person who is supposed to be able to carry out good-faith bargaining with teachers. Why introduce another layer of complication into the situation? I was quite interested to find that members of the Labour Government—which is supposed to trust teachers—today during the debate seemed to be suggesting there has been all sorts of undesirable behaviour by teachers. According to those members teachers are not to be trusted so that is why the Government has to empower the State Services Commissioner to bargain with them. 
National and ACT have taken a very consistent and logical stand in saying that Tomorrow’s Schools was about self-governance by schools together with parents principals and teachers and with input from students in order for schools to conduct their business in an inclusive manner. Today this bill once again introduces a bureaucracy—a centrally controlled structure—into the bargaining process of schools. Does the Labour Government not trust boards of trustees? Does it not believe that if empowered they can carry out those functions? Why introduce a bureaucracy and then have the boards of trustees continue to monitor the situation and report to the commissioner who is based in Wellington? That simply does not make sense to the National Party. 
We will certainly oppose this bill. Tomorrow’s Schools when it was introduced was well intentioned and taking away self-governance from schools is a retrograde step. I hope United Future will take another look at the legislation and study it carefully because after all it claims to be a party of common sense that trusts teachers and principals and believes that people left to their own devices are able to come up with decisions that are acceptable to all parties. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 When Caldwell and Spinks went around the country in 1988-89 talking about self-managing schools we in the education sector knew that that was always going to be limited and limited for one reason—the allocation of funds. Contrary to what I have heard in this debate so far that was always the intention and in 1989 in 1990 throughout the total years of the National Party’s administration till 1996 and during the period of coalition from 1996 to 1999 that was so. So looking at clause 3 of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) I am finding some difficulty in understanding the arguments being pursued in the Chamber—ones of a supposed deep philosophical mind. What are they? My experience in the secondary school system and my knowledge of the primary school system do not tell me there were any changes with regard to salaries maintenance and the bulk of school funding throughout the whole of that time by any of the administrations nor are there so at the present time. 
But the reality was that in 2002 there was a problem. The problem which is reflected in this bill was that some boards—or principals in the secondary school sector—in trying to show particularity towards their staff did wrongfully I am suggesting not acknowledge that staff were not at school during some planned strike actions while some principals took extreme care with regard to docking teachers’ pay for every absent hour of every day. That must be the rationale behind the segments of clause 3 that bring to hand the actions of the State Services Commissioner. Who else would have the ability to say to boards that deductions in respect of strike days lost should have been made which in some cases because of the particular atmosphere of that strike action in 2002 was not done? So my experience conveys to me that this measure is reasonable. I certainly do not concur with the suggestion made by Deborah Coddington that somehow taxpayers’ funding is equated with private funding and that therefore there should be some gratis payments of taxpayers’ funds. It is an appalling idea and if she really thinks about what she said she would be sorry that she said so in the Chamber because it is taxpayers’ money. 
To come back to 1989 and the issue of the so-called reforms accountability was always going to be an issue with regard to the spending of the dollar. It still is. That is not easy in the school system when there is never enough money to go around as the Minister said yesterday; there is not enough money today and there will not be enough tomorrow and every dollar counts. Not least is the issue of salaries. Salaries were not under National Party administrations or under any other administrations paid—[ 
Interruption 
] If we go to a voucher system that may be an answer but it will never be the total answer to week-by-week fortnight-by-fortnight payments to teachers. It was an answer for those who are part of the support staff; it has never been so for those who are part of the teaching staff—and it was not entirely satisfactory when it was. 
The second issue I want to raise as the reason for this measure is that the schools did not in the main have salary service agents within their own school administrations. They were centralised from the very start. In 1989 they were centralised. In 1991 under a National Party administration they were centralised. So again where is the deep-seated philosophical change of heart? [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Power that what we have here is a cheap argument without real substance being advanced on what is a simple straightforward administrative bill which clarifies what was not known and should have been clarified in 2002. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I have sat in the Chamber and listened to the contributions that have been made from various parties. I think it is worth making a couple of points of clarification. I must say that like my colleague Pansy Wong I am extremely surprised by the United Future party’s decision to support this legislation through these stages. It seems to me that this bill is a sort of apology from the Minister of Education to the Post Primary Teachers Association and an attempt—[ 
Interruption 
] I have always noticed that about Mr Donnelly: sometimes he was part of the Government in the 1990s and sometimes he was not. It just depends on which piece of legislation we are debating. [ 
Interruption 
] Was that from Rick Barker—“That member will never be in Government.”? Well if the choice is doing that or signing off JP nominations it is a pretty tight call! 
Clause 3 begins: “The purposes of this Act are—(a) to enable the State Services Commissioner in negotiating collective agreements applicable to employees of Boards of Trustees to exercise … the powers available to an employer …”. Lianne Dalziel has contributed to the debate by saying that wages are centrally funded so the commissioner should be able to exercise the rights of an employer during that negotiation. In a strange way Lianne Dalziel has gone right to the heart of the matter because that is the problem. The whole problem is that we are saying to boards of trustees that they are the employers and will take responsibility for the running of schools and the employment of teaching staff but at the same time we are removing the very thing that binds the employer–employee relationship and that is the payment of remuneration. Various members have stated that the opportunity arose from time to time to remove that particular provision and the point has been well made and acknowledged. Let me assure those members who have an interest in this matter that when the Government changes so will some issues around this particular matter. 
What is really going on here is we are removing further individual rights of boards of trustees members and recentralising them 
around the funding arm the State Services Commissioner—effectively a de facto employer standing outside the contractual relationship that should exist directly between the employing board of trustees and the employee teacher. That fact is the difficulty we find ourselves in in every school around the country—that there is a third party butting its nose into the relationship between schools and boards of trustees and the teachers. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: It always has been. 
SIMON POWER 
: That does not make it right. The simple fact of the matter is that in order to give a bit of exercise to local parents and local schools these matters should be the subject of negotiation directly between the boards of trustees and the employee teachers themselves. There is no good reason why the Post Primary Teachers Association should be negotiating directly with the State Services Commissioner over issues that are particular to each individual school and the learning requirements of individual children in that school. My colleague Dr Wayne Mapp has made the point very clearly that all that this bill is designed to do is to firm up and protect the collective bargaining arrangement that has existed for far too long between the Post Primary Teachers Association and in this case the State Services Commissioner on behalf of the Government when or if this legislation is introduced. It is high time that schools were left to get on with this business on their own merits. 
This is very confused legislation. On the one hand the Minister is protecting the collective bargaining arrangement of the Post Primary Teachers Association but he is also quietly putting the slipper in in clause 3(d)— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Quietly? 
SIMON POWER 
: That is a fair point. The Minister does not usually do things quietly but in clause 3(d) he is quietly putting the slipper in. To sort of make up for the G3 stuff-up he has slipped into clause 3(d) the purpose “to preclude compensation for technical redundancies”. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 We are debating Part 1 of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) and from my left there has been a shrill cry of “School by school!” in astonished tones as the honourable Lianne Dalziel tries to interrupt Mr Simon Power with what she thinks is the killer punch—school by school negotiation. What a shocking idea that boards of trustees—all 2000 of them or however many primary schools there are and another 500 or so secondary schools; I cannot remember the figures—might be entrusted to sort out the terms of employment of their own teachers. That is horror for the left. That horror is what this bill is about and that is why the purpose provisions in clause 3 with their very anodyne words do not really say it as simply as they might. This is the coffee the Minister of Education has when he is drunk. It is a dreadful policy and a foolish reversal of the Picot reforms. To take away bulk funding— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member should not say that. He will withdraw that remark. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I withdraw. If I may I will explain to the Minister in case he felt grave offence. Sometimes when one makes a mistake and is drunk—and I think this is typical of teenagers—the way one that tries to cover it up is to drink coffee. One makes desperate efforts to look sober. What we have in this legislation is the inevitable consequence of the State Services Commissioner having to negotiate terms and conditions of employment because the commissioner is responsible when boards will not be responsible. If they are not able to deal with their funds and set their priorities themselves of course they are irresponsible. As a former trustee myself I know that I would do exactly what boards of trustees do in circumstances where they do not have the power to determine the terms and conditions of employment they do not have the power to determine wages and they do not have the power to pay their best teachers what they are worth and to get rid of their worst teachers in the way that an ordinary private sector employer can; of course they conspire with the teachers against the person who has to sign the cheques. 
So we get a bill that still leaves the appearance of an employment relationship between the board and the staff still leaves some selection power but recentralises negotiations and therefore plays directly into the hands of incompetent teachers and the State sector unions—the ones that contribute so much to Labour’s election prospects. The teaching unions are getting a reward. That reminds me of the reward being offered to the prison officers’ union. The only competition that really shows up the poor performance of the State prison sector is being killed off by the Government ending the private prison contract. This bill—and its purpose provisions make it reasonably plain—will make more concrete that the employment relationship between the board and the teacher is a farce. It contains the powers that the Minister needed when he ended genuine employment by school boards of teachers. 
I do not think the Minister has taken a call in this debate but I would be very interested to know just what input the State Services Commissioner intends giving to boards now. I know I cannot debate the next part of the bill but it is very interesting that the powers that the State Services Commissioner will now have include powers to require trustees in effect to jump to the State Services Commissioner’s order. That is disguised in the purpose clause. Paragraph (c) is the only purpose that covers it and it states: “to require Boards of Trustees to report to the State Services Commissioner on the conduct of strikes that affect the schools of those Boards;”. What that little purpose provision does not say is that it can also allow the State Services Commissioner to threaten boards if they do not do exactly as he says. The commissioner now has the power to decide whether they were negligent or not in their dealings. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The part we are discussing in this bill essentially talks about the purpose of the bill which is to give validity to an appalling industrial relations situation that exists between the teaching fraternity in this country and the payers of the salaries of those teachers. It ignores the relationship between teachers and boards of trustees that for all other purposes are considered to be the employers of teachers. It is the sort of legislation that occurs when a Government decides that it will regulate everything in any area it chooses. I want to know from the Minister: if the Employment Relations Act is so good—the Act that was touted by Margaret Wilson as landmark legislation for industrial relations—why do we now have a bill that gives the State Services Commissioner certain exemptions from the provisions of that Act? What is the need for this bill? Why are teachers being treated differently from other employees? 
Further why are teachers not able to negotiate directly with their own boards? Why cannot they say to their boards: “Not only do I do my time in the classroom but I also do a bit of drama I also take sport twice a week and then on a Saturday and I think I should be paid more than someone who just does their classroom teaching.”? But they cannot do that because the Government has said: “No. Every teacher is the same and they must be paid on a scale.” I know that the Minister will stand up and say: “Oh but we have put in place management units.” Right? 
I ask the Minister if he is going to stand up and give us a lecture on those management units whether he can tell us how many teachers in this country receive their management units exclusively for sport or exclusively for cultural activity outside the classroom. There will not be many. There will be very very few because the Minister knows that those management units are overwhelmingly tagged for curriculum matters as they pertain to the classroom. I want to know from the Minister whether it is necessary— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: As it should be. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister actually chipped in then and I do not want to give his interjection credibility except to say that he said that that was as it should be. That is an admission from the Labour Government that sport in schools does not matter cultural activities in schools do not matter and that all children in schools should simply be confined to the classroom and their education delivered along the narrow lines of chalk and talk. That is what the Labour Government’s vision of education is for this country and it reinforces that with a bill like this that ties the hands of both boards of trustees and for that matter the many teachers in this country who might want to be better off by being able to negotiate their own circumstances. 
I can look at the faces of those people sitting across the other side of the Chamber and see how worried they are. They know that as they go into their dying days as a Government some of their key legislation is likely to be undone by the very people it is supposed to affect—in other words the many thousands of teachers in this country who will not vote for that Government because their professional integrity is just being kicked in a heap. They are being told they are a single mass who will simply take a salary for doing a job regardless of how well they do that job. 
 The other fascinating point in this part is the requirement for boards of trustees to report to the State Services Commissioner on the conduct of strikes that affect the schools of those boards. What does that say? Is it saying that there are some strikes they do not have to report? Is it saying that they have to make some assessment of how well the strike went? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to bring in a new point that has not been raised yet. However I will start by responding to a question put by Gerry Brownlee who asked why teachers could not negotiate directly with their employers. The answer is quite simple: for the 9 years National was in Government it never gave teachers the opportunity to do so. The system was not in place for the Labour Government to take away because it was not there in the first place. 
Stephen Franks says that teachers are getting a reward. Some reward I have to say! This legislation actually reduces the powers through collective negotiations of the teachers associations or unions. Some reward! It is National and ACT that want to retain the powers that the unions now have. The point is this: why do we have to put this through under urgency? Why are we putting this through in this timely fashion? The public needs to know the Parliament should know and Annette King and Gerry Brownlee might like to know too that we have collective negotiations coming up very very soon. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What for? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: For secondary primary and area school contracts. I ask members to remember that we have a situation that is chaotic as a leftover from the last set of negotiations with the secondary school teachers. The Government has a mess of the Minister’s own making. This bill tries to make sure that the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute do not have those extraordinary powers to utilise when those negotiations come about. 
Do people want to see another round such as we saw prior to the last election? Do we want the sorts of decision-making processes where they had to go to an arbitration panel and the Minister gave them an open cheque? It created more problems for the future as well as costing the taxpayer a lot more money than the Post Primary Teachers Association would have settled for. If that is what we want members should vote against this legislation. This is what I am asking ACT and National to consider because what they are doing is saying that they would continue to allow the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute to have extraordinary powers to withdraw their labour and still get paid for it. 
In this respect New Zealand First is saying that those collective negotiations have to be done between now and the next election so why should the taxpayers’ representatives go in with their hands tied behind their backs? That is an issue that does not seem to strike home to the ideologues from National and ACT who in their 9 years did not do anything about this issue anyhow. 
The point is that we need to be worried that we have some untidy negotiations coming up. For the good of our children and education I hope that is not the case. I hope the Minister has learnt a whole lot of lessons from last time around but I do not think that is the case because he is starting off behind the eightball with a very untidy situation around the G3s. Unless that can be resolved it will not be only the Post Primary Teachers Association that is going on strike it will be the New Zealand Educational Institute as well. Therefore it seems to me that it is responsible to ensure that the negotiating teams—the State Services Commission or by delegation the Ministry of Education—have this legislation passed so that they can negotiate on behalf of taxpayers on a level playing field. I put that to both the ACT and the National parties to consider very seriously. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments concerning employees of Boards of Trustees. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The core of this part is section 74AA in clause 4 headed: “Commissioner’s powers when collective agreements are negotiated”. Subsection (1) states: “the commissioner has for the purpose of those negotiations all the rights duties and powers of an employer under the Employment Relations Act 2000 in respect of those employees.” In simple words that means that all negotiations are done at the behest of the Minister by the State Services Commission with the monopolistic unions the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute—the Labour Party’s very good friends and no doubt funders thereof as well. 
It is all very well for the member from New Zealand First to talk about the past. We ask that member to look forward because that is what this Parliament is here for—to look at the way things will be done in the future. One of the things I have always said to New Zealand First members is that they have a fond memory of New Zealand prior to 1984. It is as if the last 20-odd years had never happened. They may have a certain appeal to a group of New Zealanders who would live in the past. That is the basic appeal of New Zealand First. That is why its members are so opposed to international trade the ending of tariffs and the modernisation of New Zealand’s manufacturing and service industries. They are also opposed to looking forward in the area of education. So all they can do is talk about the period of the 9 long years. 
Actually it is worth recording that the Hon Brian Donnelly was an Associate Minister of Education for two of those years. It is all very well for him to talk about 9 years while he had responsibility for one-quarter of that period. [ 
Interruption 
] That is exactly the problem with New Zealand First. Two out of nine equals one-eighth in the eyes of Mr Mark. Does that not say so much about them? 
I want to return to the core point. How do we go forward? We go forward by empowering people. That means boards of trustees. That means teachers. It means basically negotiating at that particular level. That is how we empower people. That is how we deal with modern professional relationships. Why is it so difficult for the Government to get that fundamental point? Can it not see that every private sector employer is able to negotiate with employees? It does not cause trauma. It does not cause drama. People simply get on with the job and do it. 
I can tell the Minister that when that change was made in the 1990s—and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith would have been Minister of Education at that time and promoted that change: the shift from centralised bargaining towards site bargaining at tertiary level; he saw an enormous flowering of diversity and opportunity at the tertiary level. Would it not be wonderful if that could also be achieved at the compulsory education level. We on this side of the Chamber are saying to the Government that a clear choice will be put to New Zealanders. That choice will be: “Do you believe in centralised old-fashioned State-controlled answers of the left or do you believe in empowering people giving people autonomy freedom and the ability to develop real relationships where people work between their real employers the board of trustees and the community and the teachers themselves breaking the cycle of restrictive unionism that virtually compels people into a union?”. That is the Labour way but our way is superior. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens have proposed an amendment to the bill to delete clause 5. This clause sets out the redundancy changes. In our view this clause undermines the collective agreements and is an attempt to alter by legislation collective agreements with the teachers. Currently when a school closes a teacher is entitled to take redundancy. If the teacher subsequently gets a job in another school after he or she has accepted redundancy the teacher is required to refund an appropriate amount of his or her redundancy. That is perfectly reasonable and is a process that already exists. But clause 5 takes that option away from teachers. If their school closes and they are offered an equivalent position—a decision about equivalency made by the Minister—they are required to take it even if their original school has closed. 
This is not even an equivalent process to the one for mergers where there is at least a guarantee of employment for teachers. In the Greens’ view this is an attempt by the Minister to remedy the problems that he will face when he closes schools and builds new flash expensive ones but finds that teachers in those areas are so unhappy with the process around their employment so unhappy with the school closures that they choose not to teach at that new school or in some cases not to teach at all. 
How will the Minister staff these new schools? Will he listen to their calls not to close schools arbitrarily that are vital to the community and thereby repair the relationships he has damaged? Will he offer better conditions and pay for teachers as a whole to ensure that they are properly paid for the crucial job they do? No he will not. What he will do instead is change the conditions of their employment without their agreement using legislation not bargaining and strip away their choice of redundancy. The Greens’ amendment will eliminate this inequity in the bill and we urge all members to support it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I want to speak relatively briefly to draw the attention of members to the amendments. I have not yet heard anyone refer to the amendments that have been sitting on the Table for some time. There are now three amendments. There is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name. There is a minor amendment to that and there is also the Greens’ amendment. The only reason for speaking is to draw members’ attention to them so that they do not get a fright later on. I notice that National Party members especially had not quite picked up the fact that the amendments were there. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make just a few comments on this part of the bill. The first is to Dr Wayne Mapp who has been fairly critical of New Zealand First’s position. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Philosophically. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Philosophically. I say to Dr Wayne Mapp that during the 20 months that New Zealand First was part of the Government the one thing we did do at least was to get the bulk funding formula right. That was something the National Party could not get right in all those periods of time before that. 
There are a few other issues that need commenting upon. The first one is to make note of the— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why did you give up? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: We gave National the opportunity to be able to— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why did you give up? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Because New Zealand First had a coalition agreement with National and we withdrew from it. We gave National the opportunity to impose bulk funding with a good formula. National had the opportunity to make it compulsory for all schools and it did not do it during that time. That suggests that National was not committed to it in the first place. 
I want to comment on the penalties for not complying which was the Minister’s original intention. I am glad that provision has been taken out of the bill because it was draconian. It would have led to boards of trustees being penalised over and above any other non-compliance issues. In the long run it would have impacted upon the quality of education. New Zealand First is very pleased with the part it played in having that provision removed. 
I turn to the issue of technical redundancies. The bill as it came into the House was untidy and it was not really clear which schools it applied to. I will give an example. A number of schools in the Moerewa area are under the network review but just over the hill is Pakaraka School which is not within the review. However it is very possible that the decisions the Minister makes concerning the Moerewa schools could impact upon Pakaraka School. The question is whether that school falls within the compass of this particular legislation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not this time but maybe next time. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: OK but that was one of the issues that had to be tidied up. I think the wording has now been tidied up but the problem is that when the bill first came in it was not very clear whether those schools would have been captured or not captured so we did our job on behalf of the House of Representatives. 
But I also say to the Greens that teachers cannot have it both ways. One of the things teacher associations really push for is job protection and it has always been the case that they would prefer job protection over redundancy packages. There were priority rights schemes in the past where teachers had access to other jobs in other places and had first priority with regard to those jobs. It has always been the position of the teacher associations to protect jobs first. Whilst redundancy packages have been negotiated the preference is still to ensure that jobs are offered to teachers as a first priority when it comes to downsizing merging closures or anything else. 
So teachers cannot have it both ways where first of all there is job protection. In other words this bill says first and foremost that those jobs have to be offered to the teachers who are coming out of the schools then at the same time the Greens say that if teachers choose not to take the jobs they should have full access to redundancy packages. I think that is asking too much. It is wanting additions to both sides of the equation. 
I think that what we have here is fair. If teachers are offered jobs they should be required to take them. They should not be able for example to collect a redundancy and then pick up a job at Pakaraka just over the hill even when they have already been offered a job. It seems in this particular case that the Greens really want the teachers to have it both ways. 
However I want to make another point that no one has raised with regard to this particular matter and that is the issue of principals. The bill states that when schools are closed the principal’s job has to be advertised which is the reverse of what is offered the teachers. There are some very sound reasons for that. In the past for example if several small schools were merged the job had to go to one of the principals. But with the way the Minister was running his network reviews if several small schools merged with a larger school and the principal of the larger school did not want the job then one of the smaller ones had to get it and he or she might not have been experienced enough. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to turn to section 74AB (1) inserted by clause 4concerning boards of trustees. It has been changed slightly from what originally came to the select committee. When we first got this bill boards of trustees were totally liable for any financial claims for costs or damages that might arise from the exercise of powers conferred on the commissioner. That has been changed to state that in any claims or proceedings the board of trustees becomes liable for anything the commissioner does—so if the commissioner makes a decision and does something the board of trustees is liable for any claims. But the commissioner now must out of money appropriated for the purpose by Parliament indemnify the board for those costs or damages. 
So far so good but we then go on to section 74AB(2) which states the board of trustees may not be indemnified for any costs or damages if the costs or damages have arisen out of conduct that in the reasonable opinion of the commissioner is not in good faith or is engaged in without reasonable care. Here we have a commissioner doing something that places the boards of trustees in a vulnerable situation where they can be liable for costs or damages but the commissioner then decides whether what has happened has not been done in good faith or without reasonable care before taking responsibility for indemnifying them for those costs and damages. That is a totally worthless and meaningless indemnity clause. We might just as well have been honest and stuck to the draconian clause that was there in the first place. At least boards of trustees would have known how vulnerable they are and how vulnerable they will be when this legislation is passed. 
Why does the Minister not take a call to tell us what his definition of good faith is or engaging in something without reasonable care? But of course it will not be the Minister who decides under this legislation; it will be the State Services Commissioner. Here we have a Minister who is both Minister of Education and Minister of State Services; therefore he is in a perfect situation totell the Committee what is meant by this provision because most sensible people will read it as being totally meaningless. When this legislation is passed boards of trustees will be extremely vulnerable in terms of costs and damages. 
Who will suffer? Where will that budget come from? It will come from the school budget. It will not come from Parliament because the State Services Commissioner will do everything he or she can to make sure that it does not come from Parliament and that it comes back to the schools and out of the school budget. Again learning will be the loser. 
We have heard a lot of rhetoric today about the ACT party purportedly supporting the principle that if people go on strike they should also get paid. If members were listening they would know that that is not what we have been saying at all. I have consistently said that during strikes many boards of trustees decided not to pay their teachers at all. That is the right we are arguing for. We are arguing for those boards of trustees to retain the right not to pay their teachers or if they wish to pay them in order to keep good relationships going. 
This legislation will further damage the relationship between boards of trustees and their employees—the teachers. To all intents and purposes they are the employees; in reality it is the Minister who employs them because through the State Services Commissioner they will be told where to go and whether they should be paid. Under this legislation the decisions that allow those boards of trustees to keep good relationships with their teachers will be taken away from them. They will be put further into a bad situation and there is no guarantee that strikes will not happen. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Part 2 of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) is really the heart of this legislation. In this part clause 4 gives the State Services Commissioner all the rights duties and powers under the Employment Relations Act during the period of collective agreement negotiations. This is all about big Government big unions and forget the children. 
If I am wrong in that assertion why does the Government not provide the opportunity for it to be tested? For schools it owns for State schools in the State monopoly the Government will require that the boards of trustees totally abrogate their responsibilities during negotiation of teachers’ pay and conditions—teachers are meant to be the employees of the boards but we will forget that for the moment. Let us allow that the Government wants to do that. But if that is so right and if that will produce such good outcomes in terms of rewarding our best teachers as they should be rewarded and providing the opportunity for poor teachers—and there are plenty of them—to be dismissed under appropriate arrangements why not give the choice to schools? If the Government is right why not allow some schools to say that no they actually want to negotiate with their own teachers? Why not open things up to absolutely fair competition for ideas? If centralised control where one size fits all and Big Brother Government controls the lot and the big teacher union on the other side controls all the teachers is so good let it be tested. Let the Government provide real choice for parents by funding children who go to schools the Government does not own in the same manner as it funds children going to schools it does own. 
Let us see which way parents choose to go. I would bet with every last dollar I had that we would see parents rushing out the doors of the great State monopoly into schools where skilled teachers were rewarded into schools that could employ the best and into schools that could get rid of teachers who were not performing. That is my challenge to Minister Wilson who has taken over from the Minister of Education in the chair: if this idea of total centralised control is so good then the Government should allow choice. If the Government believes that it is such a good model it should allow real choice. It should fund all children the same. When I say the same if they are from poor backgrounds then OK fund them more; if their need is greater fund them more but let their parents choose which school they go to. That ought to be the test of what is right. If what the Government is doing here is so right let parents choose. We know of course that parents would leave the great State monopoly in their droves under this legislation if they had real choice. 
That is at the heart of this; this big nanny Labour Government thinks it knows best and treats the public with contempt. We saw it with the foreshore and seabed issue. There was no consultation with the wider public; the only consultation was with iwi. It is such arrogance! The public is saying that it has had a gutsful of it. I say to the Minister in the chair Margaret Wilson that if she believes she is so right—she was Minister of Labour—if she believes that this kind of employment arrangement is so right I accept that she may be right but she should give parents the chance to decide whether they want this big State control and big union control. If she really believes in education for children she should give parents the choice. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I had not intended to stand but I heard a most remarkable speech made by a former Minister of Education who was in that role for 6 years until 1996. We in education understand the time lag. I heard the worst apology I have heard so far in my short time in this House for a former Minister’s inaction and inability to galvanise the education industry into being what it should be. He is concerned about poor teachers—and he made a comment as to how many there were—but he is one of those in this House who is responsible for that very state in the schools. 
I recall and I say from experience that the actual issue throughout the 1990s with regard to the issue of the State Services Commissioner today was no different from the Secretary for Education role. At times the powers have been reversed but the education of children has always depended upon good teaching which that former Minister did not provide for adequately in his day. I have a word for the present Minister: it is not being provided for adequately at the present time either. If we had not had the benefit over the last decade of overseas teachers the secondary school system in this country would be in a very parlous state. 
So it ill behoves that former Minister of Education who had the direction and the planning of the whole of the education system in his hands to come here in 2004 and say: “Forget my mistakes forget the way in which I ran the education system down and instead give free choice’’—supposed free choice—“to those who can afford it.” That is what it is about. I find it appalling and I find it a shocking indictment on the former Minister that he should so soon after his administration be so quick to denigrate the efforts of his department his officers and most of all the teachers who for a while had faith in him. I do not want to say anything more. That member was the Minister until 1996 and was superseded by Wyatt Creech. 
I want now to turn to Part 2 because that part talks about the powers of the commissioner—the so-called draconian powers that the member talked about—which are no more as I said a moment ago than those at times exercised by the Secretary for Education. In the practical realm of paying teachers that role has sometimes been that of the State Services Commissioner and at other times it has been that of the Minister of Education who has delegated his powers to the secretary. So there should not be any great issue made here. 
The real issue is that as a past member of the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA)—until the end of 2002—I am quite confident that any member of the PPTA would feel that any teacher who was not on the job did not deserve to be paid. That is all that is envisaged in clause 4. Where a teacher is not on the job then that teacher has no right to be remunerated at all if he or she has been suspended appropriately or has been locked out. That is all that the clause says. As a principal and on behalf of the boards that I worked with I say that is fair and reasonable. I say again that in 2002 some schools felt they could not do that. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: How did you do the job? 
JIM PETERS 
: I was one of the founding principals of the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand and an intense believer in the association’s philosophies. But I come back to the point that the actual practical situation does not much change from what it was yesterday. The bill merely makes certain that those schools that did not take appropriate action in 2002—and I say again that unfortunately some boards and some principals did not—would under the directive envisaged in this clause have to have regard to the instructions given by the commissioner. In another day it could have been those of the Secretary for Education. The title does not matter but the principle is that there is no ability for a member of the PPTA or the New Zealand Educational Institute to be paid for a work day if he or she was absent. 
Again I just wanted to add that little bit of further practical experience to the debate on the bill before the Committee. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am driven to my feet on behalf of the ACT party to speak on this bill that gives the State Services Commission the power essentially to complete its control of negotiations with teachers and take boards of trustees out of the loop. Mr Jim Peters who has just finished speaking referred to the prospect that allowing funding to follow the child would end up benefiting only wealthy people. It is a shame that Mr Peters has not looked at the research. That same kind of reasoning would say that if people were allowed to pay for their bread only rich people would get bread. What we have in fact is evidence from wherever it has been tried that it benefits the poor the best. But my colleague Deborah Coddington will say more on that because it relates very closely to the alternative that should have been in this bill and is not. We were delighted to hear the Hon Lockwood Smith so vigorously championing the real solution to the problem that Part 2 is trying to address. 
I am sorry that the Minister in the chair now is the Hon Margaret Wilson because I really wanted to question the Hon Trevor Mallard who is in charge of this bill about clause 4 and the powers given to the commission in that clause. That is because the Minister I believe in his own patch of education is making very very sure that he is not afflicted with the kind of employment law that Minister Margaret Wilson has tried to push on to the rest of the employers of this country. 
The rest of the employers in this country have very serious problems with the so-called good-faith obligation. The employer must foster good faith directly with the employee or with the employee’s agents. Here of course the employer is taken right out of the loop. In new section 74AA inserted by clause 4 the commissioner has all the rights duties and powers of an employer under the Employment Relations Act. What possible basis for good faith can that give to boards? I would like to hear the Minister in the chair explain whether the Minister of Education had any consultation with her on this. There could not be a provision that is more directly antagonistic to the theories that the Minister in the chair has been putting into employment law for this country. Here we have a third party—someone who does not have to look the teachers in the eye someone who does not have the concerns of the classroom someone who does not have to worry about recruitment someone who does not have to deal with the problems as an employer—being put in to completely usurp “all the rights duties and powers of an employer under the Employment Relations Act 2000 in respect of those employees.” 
It may be that coming to this Chamber for the Committee stage of a bill is just a chore for the Minister and it is possible to sit there and pretend that it does not have anything to do with the Minister. But in fact the Committee stage is Parliament’s opportunity to have an explanation. How does this bill fit with the Employment Relations Act? What possible basis of good faith is this bringing to the schools of this country? What possible foundation for good faith can this Government claim in relation to education when the nominal employer is pushed out of the way when the State Services Commission has all the rights duties and powers of an employer in the most important negotiation for many teachers—negotiation on their wages and conditions in the collective employment agreement? Does this bill mean for example that the board can still communicate directly with its employees without the Minister’s thought police intervening? It does not say. All this bill states is that the board has to communicate with the commissioner. It does not state whether the board can go to teachers to explain the truth which is: “Don’t blame us. Please don’t hold this against us or our children. In the negotiation don’t hold the children to ransom. They have nothing to do with this. It’s all to do with the State Services Commission.” What sort of good faith does it show when the State Services Commission is given the power. This must have been a New Zealand First intervention— 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I want to carry on from Stephen Franks’ speech because he hit on a very important aspect of this bill. This bill will not correct what it is trying to correct. There is only one way to get this country’s education system out of the hole it has got into with centralised control. As the Hon Lockwood Smith said it is to let parents choose. It is so interesting that every time this debate is brought up there are people who think that ordinary people cannot choose. It is as if they are reading directly from the script of  
Yes Minister 
 where that very situation was demonstrated in such a comical way. 
But let me draw members’ attention to what is happening in America and this will happen soon in Britain with the Blair Government. The Prime Minister said of Tony Blair the Prime Minister of Britain: “We are so close you couldn’t even slip a piece of paper between us.” That is not the case because the Blair Government has decided to introduce a voucher system to inner city schools for children of poor families where the schools are failing them. An article in Florida in the United States stated that there is no doubt why Jesse Jackson was in Tallahassee this month calling Governor Jeb Bush’s policies racist. He and his allies understand all too well that when poor African-American and Latino children start getting the same shot at a decent education as the children of our politicians do the bankrupt public education empire starts looking like the Berlin Wall. 
When the ACT party started talking about parental choice in 1996 it was considered mad. It is so gratifying now to hear the National Party vigorously championing the case for parents being able to choose. If we devolved the funding out to families and they took it to the school of their choice then we would not have to have legislation like this State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) that takes what even little power parents have in the form of boards of trustees over teachers who are employed and how they are paid and removes it entirely back to the State Services Commissioner. 
This is draconian legislation. It should not be progressing through the House especially under urgency. It will make life a lot worse for those families whose children are struggling at school. I challenge the New Zealand First member who said that this legislation gives choice only to those who can afford it. Only those who can afford it right now have choice. They can either choose to send their children to a private school if they can afford it or they can choose to move into a particular school zone if they want to if they can afford it. It is choice by mortgage capacity. Property values are being driven up by this Labour Government in places like Epsom Remuera the Takapuna Grammar School zone the Mount Roskill zone and in places in Christchurch. If parents do not like the school that is next door to them but they cannot afford to buy or rent in those zones then they do not have any choice. 
Tell me how giving those parents the financial equivalent of their child’s education deprives them of choice. It is not logical to deny it. It is absolutely what we should be doing. It is how we should be fixing this situation whereby the Labour Government got rid of bulk funding stripped it away from those schools that wanted to have it and then took it back. The Government then realised it had created a bigger problem for itself so it has had to bring in this legislation that puts all the power for it in the hands of the State Services Commissioner. We will continue to vote against the bill. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a short call on Part 2 of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). In particular I refer to new section 77HB which relates to the appointment of employees following the closure or merger of schools. Although not much has been made of this aspect in the bill I understand that there is also a Supplementary Order Paper to go with this. The bill deals with the matter of redundancies resulting from school mergers or closures which is a very topical subject at this time given the Government’s desire to proceed with some network reviews and properly I would imagine they will continue. 
Although each board is still a separate employer in the case of a merger or a closure an employee may be offered a similar position by another board in the same locality but without the need to comply with provisions in the Employment Act that require employers to advertise vacancies and give preference to persons who are best suited to the situation. 
I am very sympathetic to teachers and indeed all the communities families and children who face the prospect of school closures or mergers at the present time. However I do believe that schools recruiting teachers should have the merit of their applicants uppermost in their minds. In the case of a merger a teacher who has experience with one of the former schools might well be viewed as the best qualified but on a merit basis may not be. 
If alternative employment is offered then there is no entitlement to redundancy compensation but the select committee recommended that that be clarified so that among other things employment offered in another school refers to the replacement school or another school affected by the merger or closure. As a select committee we felt that this addition correction and modification to this bill would add value to all occasions where mergers and closures would take place not only now but in the future. I just want to add this as part of our contribution from United Future. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 18 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 102 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to the amendment to clause 5 in his name set out on Supplementary Order Paper 200 be agreed to: 
to amend proposed new section 77HA as set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 200 by inserting in subsection (1)(a) and (b) after the word “offered” in both places where it occurs the words “in writing”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 200 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 5 as amended be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
that Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The whole intent of this bill is contained in the title State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) and the reason why the intent is contained there is that it represents the centralisation of power into the State. Although the Minister may be proud of that and he obviously is because that is the intent of the Government the National Opposition is deeply opposed because the bill represents a turning away from community power. It represents a turning away from trusting the boards of trustees who are the real employers or should be—at least in law—of teachers. Instead as indeed other clauses indicate all the power is to be vested in the State Services Commissioner under the direct control of the Minister acting at ministerial direction so that the Government at all times is the principal and sole negotiator of agreements with teachers in collective contracts. 
Of course it is the intent of the Government that every single teacher in New Zealand in the public sector—in secondary schools and in primary schools—will be governed by a collective contract. I was surprised to hear one of the speakers Mr Jim Peters for the New Zealand First Party say he had remained a member of the Post Primary Teachers Association until 2002. Apparently that was because at least he knew what it was doing but unfortunately it lends credence to the power of the union; the power of the collective. When well-talented able people realise that that is the pathway to mediocrity then our teaching profession will expand and grow in the way that so many teachers—and I include Mr Peters—would actually wish it to do. 
After all as he said he was a founding member of the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand and the whole purpose of that association was to break the chains with the Post Primary Teachers Association; to recognise that centralised State-controlled big unions big government were inimical to teacher quality teacher excellence and of course what that means is excellence in teaching for students be they in not-so-good schools or excellent schools. But the real focus should be back on that relationship. 
The way one does that is to empower the schools—that is boards of trustees the principal the community and the teachers who work in that school. I know that it is a fundamentally different philosophy to that espoused by Labour. I know that Labour’s pattern which it is proud of is State control at every level. That is its intent and this bill recognises that intent. That is why I am so surprised that United Future is lending its support to such an approach. 
The one thing that can be said about the Green Party is that at least it recognises the power of community. That is its raison d’être in fact. So it would say that State centralised control as represented by this bill is the wrong way to go. That is why the Greens vote against it. For National and ACT other parties that are making sensible votes today we say we want to empower communities also give freedom to parents and communities and actually give freedom to teachers. I would have thought that United Future—a party that believes in common sense—would take the same approach. Frankly I would have expected New Zealand First to take the same approach. I know that New Zealand First says it is taking a pragmatic approach to upcoming negotiations and so forth but this was its opportunity to make a philosophical statement about where it stood. That is the opportunity that it has lost. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to clause 1 “Title” I take the chance to respond to a contribution made by the New Zealand First member and former principal of—is it “Bay of Islands College”? 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Northland College. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Northland College. I did not mean to be in any way disrespectful to Mr Peters but I could not off the top of my head remember. 
John Carter 
: Jim Peters. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Yes this is not about Winston Peters but his brother Jim Peters. He was—he is no longer a principal—a respected school principal and a member of the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand which is also a respected organisation. I take this chance to respond to his comment that he was shocked to hear a former Minister speak as though the system should allow children from well-off backgrounds to have advantage over those who are not. He interpreted what I had said previously as allowing that. 
I want to make it absolutely clear what I said. The challenge I put to the Government was this: if the centralised system in this State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) Bill is so good why not allow a choice? I am prepared to accept that maybe the Labour-led Government is right in this respect. I do not happen to think it is but if this centralised control over the employment of teachers and the negotiation of their employment arrangements is so good if it is good to recentralise that and bring it under the control of the State Services Commissioner then why not allow a choice? When I say “choice” I am prepared to say there are certain children in this country whose education costs the taxpayers a lot more. Let us be prepared to fund that extra money for those children’s education. Let us accept that some children have greater learning needs and deserve much more taxpayer support. Let us accept that proposition for the moment. 
 But for goodness’ sake why lock them into this one model? If this one model that the Government is now making totally centralised is so good why not let other models compete with it recognising that some children have educational disadvantage and putting more resource into that but surely give them the chance if they wish to to escape from a one-size-fits-all model. I am sure that Mr Jim Peters would know from his years of experience in education—as should his other good colleague from Northland; the other New Zealand First member who was also a school principal—that children differ enormously. It is absolute nonsense to think that one size fits all. So why not allow the opportunity for those who do not believe in this centralised control model where inevitably the most skilled teachers will never be paid as much as they are worth? Members all know that. Where there is big government and big union the most skilled people are never paid as much as they are worth because big union always protects the less skilled or the less good if you like. 
That is what history shows us. Poorer teachers in education are paid more than they are worth and the best teachers are not paid anywhere near what they are worth. It is the big government big union that stopped that. It has stopped it for generations. There was a glimmer of opportunity in the 1990s to break out of that but we never succeeded in breaking out of it. I acknowledge that; we never succeeded in breaking out of that big government big union model. 
It is not just that good teachers deserve to be paid more and freeing up the system would enable that. It is not just that. It is the consequence of keeping good teachers in the classroom teaching children that is so important because children benefit and that is my concern as I speak to the title of this bill. The children seem to be the forgotten people in this legislation. It is all about schooling. It ought to be all about our children and advancing their learning needs regardless of disadvantage; helping the most disadvantaged more. It is known that the one-size-fits-all model does not work. International research shows that New Zealand’s good students do well by international comparison. Students in the bottom 20 to 30 percent are some of the worst performers relative to our best students in the whole of the developed world. What this should be is a chance to change that. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 The last two speeches have unfortunately rather than focus upon the title of the bill really just poured out a pile of simplistic slogans. The comment by Dr Wayne Mapp that this bill represents a turning away from trusting trustees has to be compared with the statement made by Dr Lockwood Smith that during the 1990s we failed to achieve the breaking out because the point is that this legislation is no turn back at all from anywhere. It only modifies the circumstances that were left behind when National went out of office in 1999 when there was collective wage bargaining by the State Services Commission with powers to delegate that to the Ministry of Education. Dr Lockwood Smith agrees with me there. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What I said was we’d never broken out—we did not succeed. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: There was a difference then in the sense that some schools were bulk-funded for teacher salaries and those schools most certainly would have made sure that their teachers’ salaries were docked if they withdrew their labour. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Topped up salaries. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: So that was a quite different sort of circumstance. But the point has to be made and I think we have to make it again that the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) amends the situation left behind by National. That situation was anomalous in the sense that boards of trustees were the employers of teachers but the State Services Commission had to negotiate their salaries. That situation created an incentive for some boards not to deduct payment from their teachers and that is simply what this bill is about. It is also about trying to prevent that invidious industrial mechanism of rostering off which New Zealand First claims should never have been allowed. It was immoral and unethical. We did something about it during our particular time—it was not employed during that period—because it really does not create a level playing field. 
Therefore far from being a pathway to mediocrity this bill is purely and simply a mechanism to ensure that the forthcoming negotiations are based around the same sorts of relationships that exist in all other industrial negotiations. It may not be perfect for the future. National and ACT can talk about what is perfect for the future by going to the next election telling people what they should have done for 9 years and saying that they are going to do it for the next 3 years anyhow. It is a bit like taking off the surtax is it not? That required New Zealand First to come along and give National a little moral fortitude. But the fact is that in between times there will be industrial negotiations and some pretty untidy legislation will have to operate if this bill does not go through. So New Zealand First says that the bill is OK. It is an amendment to the State Sector Act—as left by the previous National Government after it went out of power in 1999—but it is a necessary amendment to create the least amount of chaos in the forthcoming negotiations. 
We think it is sensible to take this action and so therefore we will be supporting the bill. 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 We are now on to the title of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). The title reminds us what this Government really thinks of teachers in terms of being professional. What other group of professionals has to march up and down the street to get a pay rise? Why do we continue to treat teachers like this when they have the most important job? This Government would not tolerate it if accountants or lawyers had to march up and down the street to get a pay rise. But who taught the accountants and lawyers to be accountants and lawyers? Teachers are the most important group of professionals in the country yet we insist on treating them with a collective herd mentality by bringing them under the control of the State Services Commissioner. 
Brian Donnelly said: “National left it in a bad situation so all we are doing is making it worse.” That is like saying: “Six sleeping pills are bad for you so go and take the whole bottle.” Why not throw this whole bill out start all over again and go back to removing State control of teachers? This legislation is like saying: “This is bad but let’s make it worse.” and it will not improve the situation at all. Members have heard speakers say that the bill will guarantee there will not be any more strikes. There will be more strikes—of course there will be more strikes. This bill will not prevent any strikes. As soon as there is unionised labour there are strikes. 
People who came to the Education and Science Committee said that when teachers were still being paid by boards of trustees who chose to pay them it was an incentive for them to go on strike. What an insult to those teachers. As I said earlier in this debate I was on a board of trustees that elected not to pay the teachers who went on strike. Those teachers still went on strike because they felt they were striking for a principle. We might have agreed with it or we might not have but the teachers still were honourable in their beliefs and their purposes. Not being paid did not mean that teachers decided not to go on strike the next time there was a strike or a rolling stoppage. 
This bill will be a nightmare. Just thinking about the rolling stoppages and the requirements under this bill for boards of trustees to inform the State Services Commission of the names of all those who choose not to go on strike is a total nightmare. It is a one-size-fits-all bill. It is the “Punish the Teachers Bill” which has been introduced to try to reduce the fiscal risk to boards of trustees and the State but it will not do that at all. If independent schools can take the risk why should State school boards of trustees not be able to take the risk too? That is why they are independent. They do not need to be brought under the control of the State Services Commissioner. 
I heard someone from United Future say that this is different because it is taxpayers’ money. Taxpayers’ money also goes into paying teachers at independent schools and integrated schools but we are not bringing them under the control of the State Services Commissioner. 
Stephen Franks 
: Not yet. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: As Stephen Franks said not yet. It is probably on its way and I probably should not speak too loud because they will be next—certainly integrated schools will be. They are already under the Minister’s beady eye to be brought into the State sector. 
We trust those boards to make decisions on whether to pay their teachers if they go on strike. Why should we not trust the boards of State schools to make the same decision? It is a non sequitur to argue that it is not taxpayers’ money because it is a certain amount of taxpayers’ money. 
This State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) that we are passing through under urgency is the Minister’s way of punishing teachers for embarrassing him before the last election. Mark my words: teachers will be out on the street again before the next election unless we have an early one when the Government gets wind of it. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a call on behalf of United Future on the title of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). We have heard various things today about this bill and I think it is very important that the title reflects what is happening. The State sector is looked after by the State Services Commissioner and he rather than school trustees is being put into place to handle the elements that this bill addresses—that is when a strike is announced he through appointment by the Minister can step in and do something. As it sits the existing legislation is very untidy and needs to be fixed and that is what this whole bill is about. As the last speaker said if it is not fixed then many teachers will be upset there will be strikes there will be difficulties with people being paid while they are striking and there will be all sorts of dilemmas that the boards of trustees have to put up with and try to sort out. This bill is set up purely and simply to provide a clear track to sort out these difficulties and therefore avoid the possibility of what has been alluded to. If it is left it will become just a philosophical noise as National has talked about. It will be a highway that goes nowhere. This bill goes somewhere and tidies up a whole lot of loose ends. It is really a pleasure to commend this stage of the bill to the Committee on behalf of United Future and we will be voting in favour of it. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First and to give support to the Hon Brian Donnelly who is our party’s education spokesperson on what is a fairly simple straightforward tidying-up bill. With regard to the title although the bill is still termed the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) it came back to the House in a much-revised form and much stronger than the bill that the Education and Science Committee first saw. A very quick review of the commentary tells us that the committee has clarified and made considerable changes to the bill. It is a much stronger and more work-worthy bill than the bill that members first saw. 
In the course of the debate on this bill a few issues have been traversed. The first is that there is an aspect of choice. I say to the ACT party that in the 1980s I was active in looking at the principle of vouchers and seeing whether they were a feasible way of funding. I say to Dr Mapp that I am very interested that the National Party has some brave new funding device—I will be very interested to hear what it is—that would give greater self-governing autonomy to the boards. I want to know whether it would be comprehensive; whether it would go beyond salaries and cover maintenance and all the other issues that schools have to contend with in the present day. I also say to the Hon Lockwood Smith that the issue of what makes a good school has always been the same—it has not changed. A good school is one in which the teachers students and parents are part of a community that deals with the issues of learning of building a learning community on a close intimate basis. That has not changed. 
Nothing will change in this regard because of the drive or purpose of this bill. This is a simple administrative bill that gives some clarity to a situation we faced in 2002 whereby boards of trustees did not always exercise prudence with regard to making deductions from teacher salaries. Some teachers could go on strike take rolling strike stoppages and not have their pay deducted for non-performance in the classroom. That is what the issue is. I commend the Minister of Education for picking up an anomaly. That administrative anomaly is being corrected and I see no great need for the intense debate that some parties in the Chamber have carried through. 
On behalf of New Zealand First and particularly the Hon Brian Donnelly I say to National ACT and other parties that we are more than happy—at any time in a proper forum—to tease out and conduct a debate upon what represents a sound educational base for our children. But this has been an unusual occasion in terms of the elements that have been propounded on what is really a small administrative matter. Again Post Primary Teachers Association members would not feel they should be recompensed a day’s wages that they had not earned and I believe that that aspect has been taken to mind. On behalf of New Zealand First and particularly our party’s education spokesperson I support the bill’s third reading. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 As we debate the title of this bill I make a genuine complaint about bills whose titles do not tell anyone what they mean. When I was told that I had to assist in debating the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) I could not remember that this is a bill in which I had been taking an interest because of what it does to employment relationships. It would have been a very small thing for this bill to have something descriptive in its title that would mean that when people looked at the bill as it went through its stages or saw it on the statute book in the future they would have some idea that it effectively reinstated the State Services Commission as the employer and shunted the boards of trustees aside in terms of the most tense or difficult part of the negotiation of wages terms and conditions—the annual collective agreement round. It would have been a very small thing to have the title reflect in just two or three words what this bill actually does. 
The title might have been something like “Bulk Funding Repeal Completion Bill” because the bill is a consequence of the repeal of bulk funding. On a more depressing tone it might have been something like “Teachers Indenture Bill” but the bill does not have the kinds of provisions it ought to have if we were really going to liberate teachers from their current semi-feudal relationship with the mass employer. The title should reflect what the bill does and that is try to cement New Zealand into a pattern whose days are numbered. The teaching “profession” should not be a profession in name only. It is a profession in name only because of the collective agreement that this bill is trying to buttress and reinforce. 
No occupation that involves the application of judgment in the way that teaching does will have its practitioners respected as professionals when they are all on industrial factory-type terms and conditions of employment. Real professions are marked by peer review and assessment. Real professions are marked by an enormous range of incomes reflecting subtle calculations of the contribution that real professionals make. If we followed the pattern around the world I say to Mr Mallard and if we were trying to bring in a bill that really treated teachers as they should be treated we would have schools with a wide range of ownership and employment. We would have schools where the teachers were all partners in ownership. We would have schools where the teachers were principals or directors of companies and the heads of departments all had titles like “director”. We would have schools that were charities and run by trusts as we do now. But most of all we would have schools where the Government had absolutely no role in setting their terms and conditions of employment. It would have a role of providing money to those schools which would then decide how best to achieve their objectives and satisfy the parents. 
That is the way that professionals work all around the world. What profession does not have peer review? What profession has its terms and conditions of employment set by a State Services Commission? Not architects not lawyers not doctors not engineers. Even doctors in our hospitals essentially are able to benchmark themselves against people who are in self-employment—people who are in partnerships or who are specialists and who can therefore set terms and conditions of employment and can experiment free of the great clobbering machine that a Minister unavoidably has to supervise. 
I have not put up an amendment to the title because it would have been futile but it should not blandly state “State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3)”. It could actually be something like “State Sector Reinforcement (Teacher Indenture) Bill”. It is no wonder at all that teachers find themselves disrespected when the worst teacher in a particular range is treated almost the same in real terms as the best teacher. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I move  
That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time 
. I want to thank members for their readiness to stand and support me on this legislation. It is interesting that an afternoon in the Chamber is quite an educational process for people. I want to say a special thankyou to members of the Education and Science Committee in the House at the moment: Lynne Pillay and especially Brian Donnelly who chaired the committee. [ 
Interruption 
] And Bernie Ogilvy; I apologise. There is no doubt that the bill is a better bill as a result of their work. 
I will express slight amazement at the Green Party’s voting. Their voting against the bill does not surprise me very much but their voting against the improvements made in the select committee—lining up with ACT and the National Party on that—really surprised me. This is a bill around which some unholy alliances have been built. That ACT and the National Party voted for teachers being paid while on strike is a really interesting and novel approach although not one that I would expect from them. 
One can work one’s way right back on this bill. There was a New Zealand Educational Institute official whose name I will not mention who when this bill was first mooted indicated to me that this measure is what the private sector had always done and the current position had to go some time. This bill makes it very clear that people do not get paid to be on strike. That is the proper approach and as a long-term trade unionist I know that that is part of the deal. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The Minister purports to say that this bill is all about some narrow purpose of avoiding paying teachers who are on strike. Certainly that is in the bill. But there is a much wider objective here and the Minister well knows—because he has been listening to the debate at least some of the time—that National’s objection is much more fundamental. It is about the philosophy of the bill—of centralising the control of negotiations back to the State sector reinforcing the power of monopolistic unions and the control of the Minister at each and every stage over negotiations. That is the intent of the bill—the real intent. It may be disguised as having something to do with strikes. Unfortunately New Zealand First has fallen for that but it has ignored the real motivation. The real motivation is that centralisation of power. 
I say to New Zealand First and United Future members that they should broaden their vision. They should look more broadly when they read a bill of this nature because the real intent here has to be—I imagine at least—contrary to the philosophy of both those parties. Surely it is the case that both United Future and New Zealand First would understand the importance of community control. The Greens are being consistent. The one thing I have always understood about the Green Party is that it does believe in decentralisation and community control. So from time to time it is not surprising that the Green Party ends up alongside National and ACT. It may be from a different philosophical base but the outcome is the same—giving autonomy to people in the community. 
We come from the perspective of freedom—the freedom of people to negotiate their own contracts freed from the strictures and powers of the State. I appreciate that the Green Party comes from a different philosophical perspective although perhaps if one digs deep enough it is not that different in reality. I presume that even the Green Party believes in freedom. On the other hand United Future and New Zealand First have hog-tied themselves to a hapless and failing Labour Government—a Government that can only ever find the answer in State control and the power of the big unions. That narrow and declining base in New Zealand is the Government’s support base. 
Members will be interested to know that the number of New Zealanders joining unions is going down all the time. The only bastion of unionism left now is in the powerful State sector unions like the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute. It is not surprising that so many members of the Labour Party caucus have that as their origin—like the Minister himself in fact. He comes from that union background. So they are always going to be looking for opportunities to centralise to increase the power of the State thereby increasing the power of unions. 
All that is against the interests of teachers children and the community. There is a different way to deal with this and it is reflected in the National Party minority report. We believe that the more appropriate approach is flexible employment agreements at board level. After all boards are at least in theory the employers of teachers. We say we should give the boards real power. We should let them be the negotiators and let them have the funding—which I know Mr Donnelly actually supports—so that the true negotiation the true employment contract is between the board and its employees the teachers. In that situation we will be treating people with respect. 
It is inappropriate that teachers march up and down the streets as a form of old-fashioned industrial protest. It is not my image of what modern professionals do. Modern professionals negotiate directly either by way of an individual contract or by way of site contracts for want of a better term and the negotiation occurs at that level. When it does there are no strikes. Frankly I believe the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute demean the professionalism of their members. It is not the way professional people conduct themselves. If teachers want to be regarded as professionals—and I am sure they do—they will move towards modern negotiating systems. They will free themselves from the strictures of centralised State control and negotiate directly. That is something I am looking for in contemporary modern approaches to industrial relations. 
This bill sends completely the wrong signals. It empowers the State it empowers unions and increases their power. Mr Ogilvy would do well to look more at the deeper meaning of a bill like this. If he did so his party would be voting against it because it surely cannot be part of the philosophy of either United Future or New Zealand First to give more power to the unions. 
I want to conclude on this point. This bill might be a small bill like the previous bill but within them they contain the deepest philosophical divide this House has to deal with. That is the nature of the relationship between the State and the people. For Labour it will always be a case of increase the power of the State and reduce the power of the people. For National—and I would like to think for other sensible parties of the centre and centre-right—the reverse would apply. We believe in empowering communities and individuals to make their own agreements and to reduce the power of the State. In 18 months’ time or maybe less New Zealanders will get to make that clear choice because we on this side of the House will be offering that choice. Labour I guess will be offering its centralised State control prescription. I am confident New Zealanders will make the right choice for freedom. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I am very proud to stand and speak in support of this bill. In doing so I want to pay tribute to all who were involved during the submission process. I include in that the unions—the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers Association—which the other side of the House is so intent on bad-mouthing and the boards of trustees that gave very common-sense practical and constructive advice. This bill has improved it has been made better and that is certainly because of the good submissions we received. 
This bill deals with technical redundancy and there is some real common sense in that. The bill recognises that the top priority in our education sector is job priority—that is the main focus—and that in a redundancy situation people do not actually double dip. That is they do not keep their job and get paid redundancy compensation. I also say as a proud trade unionist that unlike the Opposition I do support the idea that if people are in the position of withdrawing their labour in a strike situation they should not get paid for it. That is supported by all union members and everyone involved on this side of the House. It is quite strange that we hear contrary arguments from the Opposition. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to point out to Dr Wayne Mapp one issue that he seems to be overlooking—that is the New Zealand Law Society which I presume he was once a member of is in fact akin to a compulsory union. I am not too certain how the compulsion in that particular fact reduces the professionalism of lawyers. I would also like to make the same point made by my colleague Pita Paraone who asked how come New Zealand First is defending this bill and why Government members do not get up and try to defend their bill. So it was good to hear a little contribution from Lynne Pillay. 
New Zealand First has been criticised for cosying up to Labour on this bill. That is not true at all. If it had not been for the firm and determined opposition of New Zealand First to some of the draconian measures in the bill I doubt whether we would have been able to force through some of the changes. We are very pleased to see those changes although I have already mentioned that it was through the real effort of the select committee working together as a whole. 
Dr Wayne Mapp once again talks about National coming from a perspective of freedom. It must be that National has had a road to Damascus experience since 1999. As I have pointed out continuously this bill reduces some of the powers of the unions not adds to them and modifies the industrial framework that was left behind when National left office in 1999. 
But in this third reading I want to get on to some of the other points because I think we have made many of the points about the legislation. No party is more supportive than New Zealand First of  
Tomorrow’s Schools 
 and the concepts behind it and of school trustees and the School Trustees Association. There are some concerns and I say to Government members that the school trustees are feeling somewhat sidelined not necessarily over this particular legislation but on a number of other issues where they feel they have not been adequately consulted by this particular administration. Yet it is critical that we maintain the importance of school trustees within our schools. There are elections coming up and I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the many thousands of New Zealanders who have offered their services to represent their communities through the school trustee role to ensure their community values are reflected in school practices and that community priorities are reflected in the curriculum and the budgets of their schools. I believe that  
Tomorrow’s Schools 
 by introducing parents to the decision making and creating a real partnership between the professionals and the parents’ representatives of the communities was a very very favourable step; it strengthened education immensely. Members might remember that I was one who worked under the old education boards and under the new system. 
I also have to mention that I am the only member in this House who was a principal of a bulk-funded school. We have heard a lot about bulk funding from all these people who know the ins and outs of bulk funding but I can say I have had that particular experience. I can say now that I was very very proud of that school and the condition it was in when I left. I can also say that I am still very very proud of that school. It is amazingly successful and a very very good school—even though it no longer operates under a bulk-funding regime. 
So the question has to be asked: is it the bulk funding that created the very good practices within that school or were there other factors? I would have to argue that bulk funding was only a very minor factor within the really important factors that make a good school—and certainly that have made Whangarei Intermediate a very good school. Those factors are the quality of staff the leadership of principals and the quality of school trustees and the way they get involved with schools and make decisions for the benefit of the students and teachers within those schools and the parents. That is what makes a good school. 
We have heard a lot of simplistic slogans—and it really worries me a little bit—about whether this is where what are called the centre-right parties are planning to go. I think it is retrogressive. I believe that if we want to achieve a high-quality education system we have to go beyond some of the simplistic slogans of the 1990s that when put under the test of practicalities and pragmatism actually fall apart. We talk about vouchers. What good are vouchers to Te Hapua? We talk about zoning. In fact it was the National Government with the support of ACT that reintroduced zoning. So all these so-called simplistic slogans which are to be the magic bullets will not be the magic bullets. I say that if that is all those parties can come up with for their future plan when those things have been tested and found to be wanting we will have real difficulties. 
In terms of the legislation itself I believe that rather than focusing on those theoretical issues we need to focus on the issues that will drive our education system forward—and we certainly need to value our teachers. The unfortunate thing about our industrial relations is that it is in the interests of the unions to continue holding our teachers in a state of angst and unhappiness and to have them feeling dissatisfied with their roles so that they can utilise that hostility against the Government in the adversarial model we now use. I believe that we need to look at that adversarial model—at whether it is the sort of model we can utilise in order to have a modern education system. 
How does a nation create an education system that is productive constructive forward-looking and requires so much energy for the children in its care if the teachers—the very ones who drive it forward—are kept in a state of constant hostility? Therefore the adversarial model does need questioning. However between now and the next round of collective bargaining we certainly do not have the time to be able to go through that whole process. So there are practical issues involved. The practical issue simply is: do we maintain the structure that was left behind by the previous National Government which has been shown to be faulty or do we make the necessary modifications so that we can go into the next round with a more level playing field? 
New Zealand First says that common sense and pragmatism say to make those necessary adjustments now. We can go through this big debate—that suddenly National wants to go into again after all these years—between the bargaining time and the next election. At this particular point in time we have to look at what will occur over the next 6 months. As a result New Zealand First supports this legislation—most of all because it will get rid of the invidious tactic which Post Primary Teachers Association members in particular use of rostering students off. They say they will not teach third-formers for example on a particular day. That puts boards of trustees and parents into the position of having to break the law. That is not fair; it is not justified. We need a model and a mechanism that certainly allows for the withdrawal of labour but also allows for withdrawal in such a way that people lose their payment etc. for it. It is a fair arrangement and I think this bill takes us into a much fairer bargaining environment than we had before. Therefore New Zealand First will support the bill. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens have not been convinced to not oppose this bill. We remain disappointed that the Committee of the whole House did not support the amendment to delete clause 5 from the bill. 
The Greens also strenuously object to the inference from Government members that teachers are engaged in a form of double-dipping when they are entitled to redundancy and then find themselves employed in another school. No double-dipping is going on and this bill does nothing about that because it does not happen. At present teachers who take redundancy when their schools have closed and then later get a job in another school are required—and have agreed in the collective contract—to repay or refund their redundancy payments. Therefore they are not getting paid twice but are making the best possible choices for themselves and their employment in schools around them in the circumstances in which they find themselves. Teachers are not in any way asking for any alternative or different approach to that. No one is seeking that some form of double-dipping be allowed and implications by Government members that teachers are asking for that are mischievous and untrue. 
With the passing of this bill the situation for those teachers is in fact much worse because they will no longer have the choice of taking redundancy when their schools close. Where the Minister offers an equivalent position—and whether a position is considered to be equivalent to their current employment conditions is the Minister’s decision—those teachers will be required either to take that position or find themselves unemployed with no redundancy. In this bill the Minister does not consider the nature of the employment teachers are taking the culture of the schools in which they may be forced to work and the fact that teachers are entitled to choose whom they work with and whether they go to a school with one or another management structure or cultural approach. This bill in effect strips away that choice and that opportunity for teachers. 
It is true that this bill is much better now than it was when it first came to the Education and Science Committee and the committee deserves a great deal of credit for the work that was done. None the less the bill is still infected with the philosophy that the Minister is able to alter collective agreements by legislation rather than through bargaining. If the Minister were seeking to manage the consequential employment difficulties that would arise from school closures—that is that he would not be able to find teachers to teach in new schools because of the destruction of relationships through the process—he should instead have negotiated and by agreement with teachers sought to find ways to remedy or find a better process when schools close. 
Teachers are open to those opportunities and those discussions but the Minister has made no attempt to do so. Instead he has taken the same approach to this issue as he has to the network reviews—that is he has a desire for a particular outcome and refuses to engage properly with the affected parties: the teachers and communities in the case of network reviews and the teachers over these redundancy arrangements. Instead he chooses to use his legislative powers to push changes through regardless of the damage he is doing to communities and the Government’s relationship with those communities. 
The Minister is prepared to exchange the potential for good-faith bargaining for a legislative quick-fix that will without doubt cause more problems for teachers who are already under huge amounts of pressure as well as the Government which is wanting to have relationships with schools teachers and communities in the future. So the Greens will continue to oppose this bill. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I have heard no arguments today to persuade the ACT party to support this bill. All we have heard this afternoon are the same tired old patronising “we know best for everybody” arguments. 
The Hon Brian Donnelly attacked the National Party for not doing anything. He did not actually inform the House that he was Associate Minister of Education for 2 years during that time and I do not recall any flashes of brilliance coming from him in terms of changing things then. 
This legislation is the example of what happens when more and more power is devolved to the State and taken away from communities. This is the second bill in a row today that we will be passing that enables the Minister to exercise more control over the education sector. The Minister is punishing teachers for striking. This bill is not just about the principle that teachers will not get paid while striking and it is very simplistic for both the Minister and the bill’s supporters to allege that. Of course that is what happened when this Government got rid of bulk funding and landed boards of trustees in the situation where they were the meat in the sandwich. 
But this bill is not just about that. If it were just about that principle as the Minister claimed earlier what about integrated and independent schools as I mentioned earlier? When those teachers strike will this Government hurry through legislation in urgency insisting that the employers of those teachers cannot pay them if they strike? What if those employers—those boards or the boards of trustees in State schools—actually sympathise with their teachers? This is exactly what the union members said when they came to the select committee with their submissions. They said a lot of boards of trustees chose to pay their teachers in order to avoid stress—and I will get on to more of that in a moment. 
This bill is the Minister’s attempt to desperately try to right a wrong that he has already created and he is digging himself further into a hole. The boards of trustees are in essence the representatives of the parents of the children of that school. They are the customers the consumers. They try to have their say on how the school is run and what sort of education is delivered to their children. We have already seen an erosion of parents’ power on boards of trustees because the Minister has imposed more and more compliance costs on those boards. Their time is taken up more with complying with all the legislation rather than having any sort of meaningful say in the quality of education their children receive. They have absolutely no say in how to reward good teachers and get rid of bad teachers. That is entirely removed from them. 
The centre-right knows what the top priority of education is. We heard Lynne Pillay say in this House that the top priority of education was jobs. So we have this huge bureaucracy and taxpayers have all that money taken off them to keep people in jobs? Excuse me but I thought education was about teaching children to learn and become autonomous and independent so that they can go out and support themselves later in life. That is what the centre-right knows education is all about and that is why the centre-right says give parents the freedom to choose. Bring in student entitlements vouchers tax credits—whatever they are to be called—it does not matter. 
We heard Brian Donnelly say that simplistic options do not work. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Absolutely. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: That is typical of a politician who thinks he knows best and that ordinary parents cannot choose and do not know what is best for their children. I do not know what is best for Brian Donnelly’s children and he does not know what is best for my children. Politicians do not know what is best for children; parents know what is best. Families know and they do not have that choice. 
Peter Brown 
: Not always. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Yes sometimes they do get it wrong but they do not get it wrong as often as the Government does. I will guarantee that. 
Jim Peters said he was championing the cause of the Post Primary Teachers Association. I wish he had read the association’s submission before he came into the House and said that because I would like to tell members what the association said when it came before the select committee. It drew our attention to the fact that the Government’s explanatory note to the bill suggested that there was an ill to be remedied. To remedy that ill the Government proposed to confer on the commissioner—effectively the Secretary for Education by delegation of the Act—all the rights duties and powers of an employer under the Employment Relations Act. As the Post Primary Teachers Association very correctly pointed out the Secretary for Education—the Government—already has huge powers to intervene in collective bargaining pass regulations and dictate to teachers what they can and cannot do. No other employer—I am not saying this it comes from the Post Primary Teachers Association—has the full powers of the State at its disposal. 
The second important issue the association brought to the select committee’s attention was the fact that the Government had said that whether teachers might or might not lose pay be suspended or locked out was not an incentive for them to take industrial action. The Post Primary Teachers Association objected strongly to the use of the word “incentive” in terms of why its members decided to strike or not to strike. As it said when making decisions about strike action teachers are aware that their pay is at risk and that suspension or lockout could also result. Of course they are aware of that and take it into consideration but more often than not their decisions to take industrial action are driven by the belief that the position adopted by the Government in bargaining will be to the disadvantage of students. 
There may well be some teachers who are cynically opportunist but many boards of trustees—as I have said and as the Post Primary Teachers Association pointed out—chose to support the position of teachers rather than that of the ministry because the implementation of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement was increasing the workload on teachers. That is why teachers decided to take industrial action and the boards of trustees as good employers were concerned about the stress on their employees and they had the right to support them then. Under this bill the rights of boards of trustees to support their own teachers is being taken away. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I rise to speak on the third reading of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). Firstly I wish to thank all the submitters to this bill who came to the Education and Science Committee: the New Zealand School Trustees Association the New Zealand Educational Institute the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Law Society. I also thank my fellow select committee members and the chair who did an outstanding job under quite a bit of time pressure and also under the pressure of the exacting word-use needed to ensure we had this thing crafted correctly so that we we could stand up and hand on to the nation a bill that was very effective from the schools’ point of view—school trustees parents and children—and certainly from the point of view of teachers. So for that I am very grateful. 
On the third reading of this bill it is good to remember the reasons it is here. There are a very simple couple of reasons why we are making this law. One is a very common-sense concept: to ensure we do not support the concept of “no pay for no work”. In other words those who are against this bill are saying they want pay for everybody who does not work. I find that an absolute shocker. I really found it difficult to hear some of the people not supporting this bill upholding this incredibly different view. If people do not work they should not get paid—and that is as simple as anyone should be able to place it. It is for that prime reason this bill has come into the House to become law. 
Moreover it also assists boards of trustees in times of strikes so that they do not have to get caught up in heated arguments and conflicts with staff whom of course they have employed. They do not wish to get entangled in the options of whether they should pay them or not pay them or of how to support them. This bill clearly sets out the fact that the State Services Commissioner takes on that role in an impersonal manner and therefore frees boards of trustees from that conflict of interest. I think that that is a very very sound process when we consider what happens with the mums dads and children to whom they are responsible. 
Overall United Future is supportive of this bill. At this stage we believe that all the bugs in it when it came to the select committee have been taken out. I thank members for the occasion to speak on the bill. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to rise to support the third reading of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). I also want to congratulate the select committee on the work it did on this bill. I think the amendments that have been made at the select committee are extremely useful and will contribute to the usefulness of the bill as a whole. 
The bill corrects an anomaly that exists in respect of collective negotiations for teachers. I think it is extraordinarily unfair to expect boards of trustees to have to make a call or have the power to decide whether teachers are paid when they are on strike. It is often a very emotional issue. Not surprisingly they are very reluctant to exercise that power. This bill means that striking teachers will be treated the same as any other employees who go on strike. In fact we could say that it is “one law for all workers” and that is why I find it very strange that National and ACT are not willing to support the bill. This bill will go a long way towards making the roles of boards of trustees a lot easier. 
I support the bill and look forward to the rest of its passage through the House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Listening to the honourable member who has just resumed her seat one could get the impression that this State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) is purely a technical bill. I think she said that it just fixes up an anomaly to enable the better negotiation of teachers’ salaries. She made the point it was good that teachers will all come under one law. 
We also heard another view during the Committee stage and that is that the bill covers one of the more important issues in our country. This bill is about the negotiation of the employment arrangements of our teachers. It empowers the State Services Commissioner to have all the powers of an employer under the Employment Relations Act to negotiate employment arrangements for our teachers despite the fact that the Education Act makes the employers of our teachers the boards of trustees. Far from being just a technical issue this issue goes to the heart of our country’s education system. 
Anyone who knows anything about education or schooling knows that it is great teachers who make a difference. All research shows that. Great teachers make a difference in our schooling. Therefore if the system this legislation puts in place does not allow for the employment arrangements that enable great teachers to be employed and great teachers to be retained—because their employment arrangements reward their efforts and reward their skills—then the legislation cuts at the heart of the schooling of our children in this country. That is why I say that this legislation is far from technical; it is actually very very important for the future of our country’s children. 
I know there are some who would argue—and I think the Labour member Miss Mackey who just resumed her seat seemed to say—that one employment arrangement is better for all our teachers. I think that that is what she was implying but I do not happen personally to agree with that. I think that different employment arrangements enable differently skilled people to be employed. The skills required in teaching are not the same for every child. Some children require different skills from their teachers. Different ways of teaching can work better with different children. So I am not saying that one skill is the best; I am saying we need to have a system that can employ teachers in a way where the skills that work with the children they are teaching can be recognised and rewarded. 
This view is different from the one held by Labour members of Parliament. I am prepared to concede that my view though quite deeply held may not be right. I am prepared to concede that Miss Mackey and her Labour colleagues United Future members and New Zealand First members who support this legislation which recentralises employment arrangements for teachers and gives more power to the State Services Commissioner may be more right than I am. Maybe their view is more correct than mine but I argue that the education of our children is too important for us to take the chance on having one system imposed across the entire school system. 
I argued during the Committee stage that if the Government is so right about recentralising the employment arrangements for teachers—which is a move backwards from what was in the mind of the Picot task force that preceded the Tomorrow’s Schools reforms—and steps back from that and recentralises employment arrangements for teachers surely it makes sense to allow some options some choices. If the Government believes that what it is imposing on this country is so right why not allow some options? If this legislation is so good then allowing options will not change anything. People would automatically choose to go with this system. 
I put to the Labour Minister of Education the Hon Trevor Mallard and his colleagues: why not allow State schools that do not like this to have choice? Some State schools like Avondale College and Rangitoto College did so well under the Tomorrow’s Schools regime of the 1990s and just blossomed. Avondale College was not in a high-decile area but that school blossomed as it was able to employ and reward great teachers. The bulk funding arrangements of the 1990s while far from perfect at least gave that school some freedom and flexibility to employ teachers who could really make a difference with their children in that community. 
If Labour believes this legislation is so right why not amend it to enable schools with boards of trustees that do not want the State Services Commissioner to impose one employment arrangement over all their teachers to opt out of the system? Why not allow those schools to negotiate different employment arrangements with their teachers? That question goes to the heart of the success of our education system. Why not allow more freedom more choice? All of history shows us that more freedom allows greater progress. We can look at the Soviet regimes where they imposed control over everything—and got no progress. If we kill the spirit of freedom we kill enterprise and progress. 
I say to the Labour Government that we should not argue too much about what is right or wrong with this legislation but the legislation should allow a choice. The Government should allow the State schools that do not want imposed on them what the State Services Commissioner might negotiate the right to negotiate with their own teachers—within a budgetary constraint so they cannot spend endless amounts of taxpayers’ money or any more taxpayers’ money than any other school gets to spend. Surely it makes sense to allow teachers to be employed under slightly different arrangements. 
I go one step further. I say that if this Labour-led Government is so confident that what this legislation is doing is so right why does it not allow real choice for parents. Why not allow State schools to choose to negotiate separately with their own teachers—so they can reward skilled teachers; so they can reward teachers who put greater effort into the well-being of the children—and why not also allow parents to take their children to whatever school they choose? If this monopolistic one-size-fits-all State system is so right why does the Government not allow parents to take the funding that we taxpayers provide to them to whatever school they choose? 
I say too that where a child has greater educational need let that funding be greater. There is no problem. Let us recognise that some children have more need. We should fund that need more but when it comes to the schooling of our children why lock them in to a system of one-size-fits-all? 
 It is interesting to see who is snuggling up to the Government today. On different days different parties around this House seem to snuggle up to the Government and today it is United Future and New Zealand First. Those parties in this Parliament—United Future and New Zealand First—say: “Oh no we’re not about children having the chance for a better education at all.” They say: “No no. We want a State monopolistic system of one-size-fits-all and to hell with the children who don’t prosper and learn well under that system. Let them just suffer.” That is what United Future and New Zealand First are saying in supporting Labour. 
However National says we should allow our schools to do things differently and allow them to employ teachers who work for their children. Then those schools will be different from the schools in a national monopolistic system. The employment arrangements would be different if we allowed that but I can assure this House that we would get better educational outcomes for our disadvantaged children if the system allowed schools to employ teachers under different arrangements. If parents had real choice we would see the State system start to respond to parental needs and the needs of our children’s education. At the moment there is no pressure on it to do so but it is time that happened. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a third time. 
Maritime Security Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Maritime Security Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call to alert the Committee that I have put up a Supplementary Order Paper which contains mostly technical amendments plus a further amendment as a result of a small glitch we found in the bill today with regard to clause 42. A small change to a term in that clause was needed but not picked up at the time the Supplementary Order Paper was drafted. I hope that clarifies the situation for members. Those amendments are on the Table. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 After having been away for a little while and spending a few days in the UK it is a pleasure on my return to the House to stand for the first time in support of something instead of in opposition—the usual role of the Queen’s Opposition. Having just returned from visiting the Westminster system I understand the role of the Queen’s Opposition even better than I did before. So it is good to stand in support. 
The National Party will support the Maritime Security Bill particularly Part 1 for a number of reasons. The bill as outlined by the Minister in the second reading is necessary. I ask the Government why it has taken so long particularly with regard to the commencement purpose application and interpretation which are all in Part 1. The Minister may like to take a call during the Committee stage to say why it has taken so long. This bill had it not been put through the House—it is now at the Committee stage—would have ended up costing this country millions of dollars through lost trade opportunity. It has come about as a lot of these security bills have as a result of the 9/11 events in the United States which were a wake-up call for the rest of the Western World as to the kind of world we live in today with regard to terrorism. 
A number of people made submissions to the Government Administration Committee during the select committee process. I think 13 submissions were received and they raised a number of issues. By and large the committee resolved them. The Government Administration Committee is a very very good select committee. I have not been a member of it for long but I can already see it is an excellent committee. The main concern of the submitters was whether this bill would create too much difficulty for the normal passage of goods people and services at our ports. Of course there will be restrictions with regard to some of those activities. The inter-island ferry is a good example to use today. It would have been forced into a range of security measures that potentially would be nonsensical not adding at all to the general purpose of the bill and adding only costs and restrictions to people going about their normal business. Through the select committee process we were able to eliminate some of those concerns and make amendments. 
The Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven is nodding his head. I know he played a key role in that. It is good to note that my fellow “Taranaki-ite” had the common sense to accept that those submitters were right and to bring those amendments about. 
The main changes to the bill were to application. The select committee recommended that mobile offshore drilling units like rigs—which are a major concern for the member for New Plymouth and for myself as the member for Taranaki - King Country where we have the energy capital of New Zealand—be included in clause 4. In a way they are vessels or ships that come in and out of ports at the times they are in their mobile form so they needed to be included. 
The definition of “suspicious act” was another area that created quite a bit of debate in the select committee. I was not there for the whole time but the committee was able to come up with what that might mean which is most helpful to those who have to carry out the business of identifying what a suspicious act is. We see one or two of those kinds of acts in the Parliament from time to time—particularly from members on the other side—but this was something that was of concern to the 13 submitters to the committee and it is a pleasure to be able to stand here today and say that that was clarified. Now those who have to carry out the work of security can do so with some clarity. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make it clear from the start that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. But having said that I say that the Government Administration Committee has not got it right. In fact it has made some significant errors. Let me give members four words to show why this should be corrected. The four words are “Australia” “USA” “United Kingdom” “Spain”. New Zealand imports and exports— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: That is five words. 
PETER BROWN 
: I tell Mr Cosgrove that they are four words and this is a serious matter and he should listen. Forty percent of New Zealand’s imports and exports by value comes and goes from those countries and I suggest that 99-plus percent comes and goes by ship. Why do I mention those four words? Because they are the countries that went to war with Iraq. Do not underestimate maritime security folks; I was going to say “gentlemen” but I know that the ladies are interested in this as well. I have to say after listening to my colleague from Taranaki - King Country Shane Ardern that I accept that the select committee did its best. But there is not one of the committee members who would know the front end of a ship or the back end of a ship from a motorbike. The best I can say is that David Cunliffe would know something or I would expect him to know something because he has a reputation for being “all at sea” most of the time. 
There is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name that addresses five issues basically that are the shortcomings of this bill. One of them—and it is an important one and is in Part 1—is the definition of a company security officer. This bill is based on the code I have here the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. I note that the Minister is shaking his head. This book which is the backbone of the bill refers to three types of security officer: the port facility security officer the ship security officer and the company security officer. The legislation that is about to be passed today in this Parliament has no reference whatsoever to a company security officer. That is a major shortcoming. I can tell members that nowadays many of the foreign ships that come to this country—[ 
Interruption 
] the owners are not easily identifiable. One cannot necessarily say that that is owned by such and such. One can on many occasions but not every ship. Quite often the crew are put on board the ship by a management contract. They have little or no commitment to the owner of the ship. They are there only to do a job—to take a ship from A to B and to carry cargo from A to B. But they are not necessarily concerned in depth with the security arrangements in this country and how they are implemented. Whilst if there were a company security officer that would be a different matter. He or she would be obliged to consider the security of that ship in that port in a total scene. 
I know that he or she might well be based in Hong Kong and might be out of easy contact by whomever. But I can tell members that a ship security officer will no doubt have to contact the Hong Kong office anyway. If an alert or a concern were raised of any significance it is likely that either the master of the ship or the ship security officer would have to contact Hong Kong. This bill is downgrading the company security officer. It is telling the world at large and the shipping fraternity at large that these three people who are key people in this type of legislation are not equal. I know that the company security officer will be referred to in the regulations. I am not privy to the regulations. I have not seen a copy of them. They stand in this code on an equal footing of importance and they should be reflecting that importance in this bill. Imagine how a shipping company in this country would feel when a company security officer is not referred to in this legislation. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I am interested in this Maritime Security Bill and members might be interested to know that as fisheries spokesperson I have had the industry contact me—its concern being that the 1 July 2004 deadline imposed by the United States and European Union would not be met in time in this country with the passing of the Maritime Security Bill. Their concern of course was that having had port plans put in place the Maritime Safety Authority was in a position to take those port plans and give them to the authority to be approved and implemented. They are concerned of course that their export products in reaching other nations would end up being parked in some corner of Rotterdam New York or other ports of the world and would have to go through long lengthy detailed and unnecessary importing procedures before they could be put on the markets of those countries. 
I thought that that concern was fair enough and that is why I put to the Minister a number of questions on the matter which the Minister replied to. My first concern was whether it was true that New Zealand ports have to file security plans to the Maritime Safety Authority by 31 March 2004. Of course that date is pretty soon and no one is going to argue with that. Also if they were to be lodged with the Maritime Safety Authority by 31 March 2004 what then—given that the authority was not in a position to acknowledge those plans approve them and have them implemented? 
The Minister will recall that he got back to me to say that the deadline for implementation agreed by the International Maritime Organization was 1 July 2004 and yes there was a deadline to get the port security to the authority by 31 March 2004. But the Minister did acknowledge that this legislation really had to be passed to give them the authority to acknowledge those plans. You and I had a formal meeting in the corridor last week to discuss what was happening in the interim between those plans being received by the authority and its getting the delegated authority. You acknowledged that there was— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has now brought me into the debate twice. If the member is referring to the Minister he must refer to him as “the Minister”. He cannot bring the Chair into the debate. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I met with the Minister informally in the corridor and put this to him and I thank him for this. I think the Minister Harry Duynhoven said that there was an interim authority for the Maritime Safety Authority to in fact accept those plans and give some sort of interim or informal nod to ports that the security plans that they had put in place were adequate complied and would in due course have the desired impact overseas when other ports—other countries—received goods exported from New Zealand and imported into their country. 
 I was able to contact the fishing industry to say: “Look don’t be too concerned we’ve got urgency next week. This bill is set down to be dealt with during urgency. Even if that were not the case the Minister does assure me that the Maritime Safety Authority has interim delegated authority to approve and implement those plans.” I am not sure how formal that interim authority was and exactly what happens next after some sort of interim approval. However I do appreciate that and would like to thank the Minister publicly for his response to those questions. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is of course supporting this bill. We are for appropriate maritime security although it is important as we consider the bill and some of its consequences which are not necessarily in the bill but supplied through regulation or by the agencies that previous speakers have referred to that we do not go overboard in adopting a higher level of security measures than is warranted in particular situations at particular ports and on particular boats. There is a bit of danger of that in the current climate where people are super-sensitive to the dangers of terrorism and sometimes adopt measures that are excessive for the particular circumstance. 
Part 1 refers to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and our relationship through the International Maritime Organization etc. in applying those measures and putting them in this bill. It is true that a lot of the practical detail and implementation that will follow is being dictated by the United States. It is the one country that plays hard ball and says that if we want our ships to go into its ports we have to abide by those particular provisions in terms of our wharf and boat security. So we can be stampeded into doing things a bit too much. 
In terms of going overboard on the definitions in clause 5 I have an amendment on behalf of the Green Party to the definition of “suspicious act”. The term “suspicious act” was referred to by a previous speaker and the present definition states “suspicious act does not include the lawful exercise of any right to demonstrate protest or strike.” My amendment is to omit the word “lawful” from the definition of “suspicious act”. 
The reason for that and it is something that is promoted by the two main unions concerned on this issue—the Maritime Union and the Rail and Maritime Transport Union—is that they are concerned that if they go on strike and for one reason or another somebody considers it illegal then they will be put in the category of “suspicious act” for going on strike and treated as terrorists or whatever it might be in the particular situation. I do not think the motivation behind the bill is to put the average group of wharfies or seafarers in that definition just for engaging in industrial action over a safety issue or whatever it might be. 
We know that often there has been a tumultuous series of relations between employer and worker on the waterfront. Sometimes one side is wrong and sometimes the other side is but it is true that often there is a lot of dispute about what is a legal strike and what is not. I do not think the bill should get into that determination by just removing the word “lawful” so in my view the particular clause would read “suspicious act does not include the exercise of any right to demonstrate protest or strike.” That would be more appropriate and I hope that members will support that amendment. 
Employers and unionists are concerned how that will be applied in particular situations on ships and waterfronts. Part 1 has security levels 1 2 and 3. Security level 3 is the highest one and means the level for which further specific protective security measures must be maintained for a limited period of time when a security incident is probable or imminent. If we get too carried away and apply that security level 3 just because there is a bomb scare or someone phones up or whatever then one of the problems could be that it becomes a hoaxer’s paradise. As it would seem to be applied—and some ship owners are worried about this—if a whole port is closed down for a prolonged period then it could stop different ships sailing and slow up unloading etc. If we go overboard with security measures that would encourage hoaxers. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 First I understand that the Minister has taken note of my amendments. He is looking at them very seriously and I am genuinely encouraged by that. I have worked closely with the Hon Harry Duynhoven on the select committee and I know that he notes points made by members that are genuine. I know that he would be aware that if Parliament ignores the relevant points in the Supplementary Order Paper put up by myself and something goes wrong with a foreign crew and its ship’s security officer it will reflect very very badly on the people who ignored that. I know that the Minister does not want to be in that category. I would suggest that this method if nothing else is playing extra safe. 
I shall talk about the company representatives in this country. Obviously New Zealanders will be on our ships and there will be a ship security officer who can speak the language will cooperate and what have you. But by not putting the company security officer in the legislation we are telling the industry at large that he is not as important as the security officer on the ship. In many ways right at the coalface that might well be true but we have to aim at consistency of standard over the whole fleet and the company guy is the one who will do that. Although he will be in the regulations he has to be in the legislation. 
My Supplementary Order Paper states that “contracting Government” means a Government that is a party to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974. The reason that that is in there as a definition is that we are talking about Part 1. However it refers to new clause 19A that I suggest should go in Part 2 that outlines the duties of companies in a fairly comprehensive way. “Contracting Government” is an accepted term in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code and in the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea. Therefore I felt that a definition should go in this bill to be able to use the term later on. 
This is a very important bill for this country; it is exceedingly important. New Zealand First is determined to support it. Equally we are determined that it should be as near perfect as we can help make it. As I said earlier on I am encouraged by the Minister’s response at least to Part 1 of my Supplementary Order Paper. He is asking officials to look seriously at incorporating it maybe with some modifications into the legislation. I hope that other members of the House will take it on board. This is not an attempt to play politics. This is a genuine attempt on behalf of New Zealand First to get this legislation correct. 
Phil Heatley 
: This is your first genuine attempt ever. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is not my first genuine attempt but I have to admit that from time to time we do have attempts to have a little bit of fun in this House but this is not one of those times. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Winston does and outside the House too. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Hon Winston Peters has been known to have a little bit of fun at someone’s expense. This is New Zealand First being absolutely straight. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: For the first time. 
PETER BROWN 
: Not for the first time. Some say I have lived my whole life being straight. I will now come back to the bill. 
 I cannot emphasise enough the importance of this bill to this country. The ports are very important for our exports and imports and for the economic well-being of all of us. I point out that 99.5 percent of exports and imports come in and go out by ships. We must have a secure infrastructure in place I would suggest reasonably—ifnot urgently— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Soon. 
PETER BROWN 
: Soon; that is the term the Labour Government uses. I am a bit reluctant to use it because when one asks the Minister of Transport about shipping he says “soon” and it never happens. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Finish the speech so we can get this passed quickly. 
PETER BROWN 
: If I thought that by finishing now we would get this passed I would cut my speech right to the core. I am encouraged by the Minister’s response on Part 1. I look to the same sort of response when we get to Part 2. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party indicated in the second reading that we certainly support this bill because we recognise it is appropriate. New Zealand is a trading nation and is more dependent on trade than most nations as a proportion of gross domestic product. This bill is all about the harmonisation of global security practices and anti-terrorism measures. To that extent this country has no option other than to ensure that our practices are in line or consistent with world best practice. Obviously if we were at variance with it our trade would suffer because we would have problems at the wharf with our exports and imported goods. So this bill is an important measure. But in saying that I make the point that we are at war. It is not a war of nation State against nation State but the war on terrorism does come with costs. Part of those costs unfortunately impinges on what would normally be ideal in terms of civil liberties and individual rights. That always happens at times of war and we cannot deny that we need to take what hopefully are extraordinary measures that can be wound back at some point in the future in a more peaceful time. 
I draw the attention of the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven to the amendment proposed by Keith Locke from the Greens in respect of the interpretation of the term “suspicious act”. The Government Administration Committee inserted a new definition in clause 5 “Interpretation”: “suspicious act does not include the lawful exercise of any right to demonstrate protest or strike.” I can accept that recommendation by the select committee but Mr Locke’s proposed amendment actually troubles me deeply because he wants to delete the word “lawful”. Therefore the definition would read: “suspicious act does not include the exercise of any right to demonstrate protest or strike.” In other words one could have a whole range of illegal strikes illegal protests and illegal demonstrations. We can imagine what could go on under the guise of an illegal demonstration and would not be regarded in terms of the legislation as a suspicious act. If that is the Greens’ thinking then the whole country should be disturbed. 
I want an absolute assurance from the Minister in the chair that he will not be leveraged shall I say by the Greens in a trade-off situation to adopt that definition in the amendment they propose. I want to gain the attention of the Minister who seems to be distracted for the moment. I would like him to take a call and assure all of us about that because it is a matter of public safety and of the security of the realm. Our trade is dependent on that and I certainly find that suggestion from the Greens to be a very foolish and a very dangerous suggestion. I do seek an assurance from the Minister that he is not entertaining doing a trade-off with the Greens as he has done on other occasions to accommodate them by insering that proposal into this legislation. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 In response to Mr Shirley’s comments the advice I have from the Ministry of Transport’s legal advisers is that the proposed amendment to take out the word “lawful” as proposed by Mr Locke neither adds nor detracts from the interpretation of the term “suspicious act”. It is neutral so therefore I do not see any reason to support the amendment. 
I turn now to Mr Brown’s amendment which makes some useful suggestions. I received his amendment earlier this afternoon and it went off to the officials with my view that we should look at the suggestions as Mr Brown obviously has a huge experience in the maritime world. There is some merit particularly in the first amendment to clause 5 “Interpretation” by adding “company security officer”. Unfortunately the wording of the amendment is not the same as that in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code so I have asked the officials to redraft Mr Brown’s amendment. Mr Brown has agreed to withdraw his amendment at this stage. A new amendment will be here in moments I suspect if it is not here already and it will have the correct wording. I propose that in the meantime we support Mr Brown’s first version of the definition of “company security officer”—not that it will add greatly to the bill because those matters are dealt with in the regulations but it will add a little clarity. I can add that Mr Brown has agreed to that course of action. 
I also add that the draft regulations have been out in the public domain. The shipping companies and port authorities have all received them and have worked through them with the Maritime Safety Authority. That was something that I asked for earlier on even though the draft regulations did not have the authority of legislation. I was very mindful of the fact that the people who are involved in this industry had a very limited time so we put out a draft regulation on the basis of our draft legislation in order to bring through the industry’s very good support for this legislation which was begun back in about May of last year. Mr Heatley and Mr Ardern both talked about how quick the process has been on this legislation. I say to them that we used every bit of time we could on it. I commend the Maritime Safety Authority and the Ministry of Transport officials for the way they have handled the whole issue in a very tight time line. As Mr Brown said the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code developed under the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea by the International Maritime Organisation gave us specific requirements to meet by 1 July this year. There has been some controversy in the media with regard to that but it is very interesting to see that one of the key people who has been in the media and concerned about it actually sent me a congratulatory message the other day on the fact that I had moved this legislation along as speedily as could be done. 
I say to Mr Heatley that he took me a slight step further than I had intended to go in that we did not have an interim authority but we had an understanding with the maritime industry the shipping companies and the ports authorities. They all knew of course that it was my intention as Minister responsible for this bill and the Government’s intention that the Maritime Safety Authority would become the designated authority and that therefore the whole issue of how this matter would be managed would be in the Maritime Safety Authority’s court. There was an understanding within the industry that everyone would work together cooperatively to ensure we could get the best possible outcome. I think that has certainly occurred. We are very encouraged by the way that right from the beginning the entire industry has worked together to see that we had as robust a debate as possible over how the practicalities of this legislation may work. I think it was Mr Shirley who said earlier in this debate that without this legislation we cannot export products to the countries that we need to be exporting them to which would be a huge huge hit for exporters in this country. 
This bill is about ensuring that we actually do have the possibility without security implications of exporting and that we do have the possibility of getting in place all the security measures demanded by the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code for the purpose of ensuring that our exporters get maximum access to their markets. I think this bill has very rapidly come to a point where we can progress it. I am very pleased that all parties in the Committee are supportive of it and that we have a very good understanding of the issues involved. The Government Administration Committee members themselves have really progressed and debated the issues and the unions and everybody else involved have done a terrific job. 
I do think that the Committee needs to take careful note of the various changes to the bill. There are a couple of amendments that do need to be highlighted as we get to them and I think that when Mr Brown’s amendment is here we can move along. It could be that we can approach the matter in another way and maybe seek leave for Mr Brown’s amendment to clause 5 which there seems to be genuine agreement about in the Committee to be put. If this is an acceptable process and is OK with the Chair I will cease this speech and perhaps I or Mr Brown could seek leave—or maybe I could seek leave now—that when Mr Brown’s amendment is here his paper is withdrawn with his approval. He has given that approval now so if his amendment is withdrawn now may I seek leave that his replacement amendment can be tabled and dealt with at that stage? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will just respond to the Minister by saying that Mr Brown himself is able to seek leave for that and I understand he will do so. The question now is that Part 1 stand part but before I put that question there are a number of amendments to be voted on. The first one is to clause 5 and it is to do with the definition of “security officer”. I think that is Mr Brown’s amendment that we have to leave at the moment but we can move on to the next one to clause 5. It is the honourable Peter Brown’s amendment to insert a definition of “contracting Government”. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert in its appropriate place the following definition: 
Contracting Government  
means a Government that is a party to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next amendment to clause 5 also in the name of the honourable member Peter Brown is an amendment to insert the words “and company security officer” in the definition of “port facility security officer”. All those in favour will say “Aye”—[ 
Interruption 
] I have just been advised that before we do this we need to do something. I ask members to bear with me for just a minute please. The honourable member Peter Brown’s amendment has arrived. He needs to seek leave that we can do this now. Will the member please seek leave? 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to do exactly as you have suggested. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not quite sure of the process here so can you assist us?. Are you advising the Committee that the amendment was filed late and the member needs leave for it to be considered? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I advise the member that the honourable Minister advised the Committee that he was waiting for an amendment that had been agreed to between himself and the member Peter Brown regarding the definition of “company security officer”. Because the first vote has already been taken the honourable member now has to seek leave for it to be voted on and he has just done that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert after the definition of  
company 
 the following definition: 
Company security officer  
means the person designated by the company to— 
(a)ensure that— 
(i)a ship security assessment is carried out; and 
(ii)a ship security plan is developed submitted for approval implemented and maintained; and 
(b)liaise with port facility security officers and the ship security officer. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next vote to be taken also relates to clause 5. It is Peter Brown’s amendment to insert the words “and company security officer” in the definition of “port facility security officer”. Is that one withdrawn? 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The earlier amendment has a definition that is withdrawn. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: 
 I just clarify for the benefit of the Committee that Mr Brown’s amendments to clause 5 included the one we have just passed which was originally not in line with the wording of the International Ship and Port Security Facility Code. We have dealt with that one now. We lined the wording of that amendment up with the code and passed that particular part of the amendment and Mr Brown has withdrawn the others. The other part was about contracting out the port facility security officer by inserting in clause 5 “Interpretation” the definition of “company security officer”. We have already dealt with the amendment concerning “contracting Government” and it was lost. I hope that clarifies the situation for the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 194 in the name of Hon Harry Duynhoven to clause 5 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to amend the definition of  
suspicious act 
 by omitting the word “lawful”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 111 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Ship and port facility security 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There is at least one clause left on my Supplementary Order Paper that I would like to re-promote. It is new clause 17A “Communicating with ship operators” which deals with ships’ agents. I should confess from the word go that I have had more arguments with ships’ agents than I have had hot dinners but nevertheless they play a very important role in the successful operation of ships coming and going from port and throughout port operations. They are a very competent group of people who communicate with ships and that is not as easy as it might sound particularly with foreign ships. The crew of many ships cannot understand our language either genuinely or deliberately. Agents take it upon themselves to assist port operators stevedores and everybody involved in the successful operation of ships coming to sailing from or berthed at New Zealand ports. To exclude ships’ agents from this bill when I think that most of us in the shipping industry know full well that they will have some involvement is to undervalue their involvement. 
I would like to promote new clause 17A “Communicating with ship operators” which states: “For the purposes of this Act a person may give a notice or direction to or otherwise communicate with a ship operator for a ship by giving the notice or direction to or communicating with the shipping agent for the ship.” This clause is directly extracted from the Australian legislation that deals with maritime security there. It recognises the importance that agents play in the whole scheme of things. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they will play an important role in maritime security here. 
This clause does not impose security people to go through an agent; it states that they “may” give notice. I think it is quite a reasonable clause to put in if for no other reason than to let agents know that they are valued in the industry and to let people know that agents’ importance will not be overlooked. The principal reason I put in the clause is to bind agents in a manner of speaking to maritime ship and port security. I cannot emphasise enough that if something goes wrong on a ship at one of our ports we will all pay for it. A little while ago we learnt—from the access gained by the people who graffitied the Royal Australian Navy tanker—that damage can be done to a ship relatively easily and that our maritime security people will have to be on their mettle; sometimes more so than others. I believe that security people will rely heavily on ships’ agents. 
I ask the Minister to look seriously at inserting a clause that recognises the importance that agents may have to play. I think that to ignore them would be wrong and would send the wrong signals to the whole industry. The Minister looked positively on the clause that I asked him to insert regarding the company security officer and I thank him for that. I ask him now to talk to his officials and ask that they consider a clause that recognises the importance of ships’ agents. I understand from talking to the officials that there is no definition of a shipping agent—everybody in the world knows what a shipping agent is— 
Shane Ardern 
: The member from Taranaki. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member from Taranaki? I am encouraged. I understand that there is no definition of a ship operator but I would think that everybody knows what a ship operator is. 
I urge the Minister to look seriously upon this. Ships’ agents play a very responsible role in ship operations now and if we were to have a maritime incident they would be in the midst of it. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I thank Mr Brown for his helpful suggestions. In his handwritten amendment he has proposed a new clause 18A which we need to complement the change that we made earlier so I recommend we support that. I do not support his proposal to insert new clause 17A providing for communicating with shipping agents because they are not defined in the code. There is nothing to stop the designated authority from communicating anyway with the shipping agent locally—that is not a problem. For a variety of reasons I am sorry that the Government does not go with the rest of Mr Brown’s amendments. 
However I want to talk specifically to the proposal to delete subclause (2) of clause 36. I am afraid that the Government cannot agree to that because it is specifically required in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. It would be most unwise to take that out in line with the consistency of the remarks that Mr Brown made previously. I draw members’ attention to the minor technical change to clause 42 which is outlined in my amendment on the Table. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to insert new clause 17A be agreed to: 
17ACommunicating with ship operators 
For the purposes of this Act a person may give a notice or direction to or otherwise communicate with a ship operator for a ship by giving the notice or direction to or communicating with the shipping agent for the ship. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to insert new clause 18A be agreed to: 
to insert after the heading  
Ship security 
 the following new clause: 
18AAppointment of company security officer 
A company must appoint company security officers in accordance with regulations made under this Act. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 19 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “The master of a ship and the company must” and substitute the words “The master of a ship must act on the security level specified by the chief executive and”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to insert new clause 19A be agreed to: 
19ADuties of companies 
(1)The company shall ensure that the ship security plan contains a clear statement emphasising the master’s authority. 
(2)The company shall establish in the ship security plan that the master has the ultimate authority and responsibility to make decisions with respect to the security of the ship and to request the assistance of the company or of any contracting government as may be necessary. 
(3)A company must appoint a company security officer in accordance with regulations made under this Act and who is responsible for— 
(a)the shore-based security management of the ship including the formulation implementation and maintenance of the ship security plan; and 
(b)liaison with the ship security officer the port facility security officer and the designated authority. 
(4)The company must appoint a ship security officer for each ship in accordance with the regulations under this Act. 
(5)The company shall ensure that the company security officer the master and the ship security officer are given the necessary support to fulfil their duties and responsibilities under this Act. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 36 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2). 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 37 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (2) by inserting after the words “ThePort facility security officer” the words “ company security officer”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 194 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to clause 42 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (1) by omitting the word “company” and substituting the words “port facility operator”; and 
to amend subclause (2) by omitting the word “company” and substituting the words “port facility operator”; and 
to amend subclause (3) by omitting the word “company” and substituting the words “port facility operator”. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Preventive security measures 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 194 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Miscellaneous provisions 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 194 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maritime Security Bill be now read a third time 
. Given the pivotal role shipping plays in the conduct of worldwide trade there is a common understanding both internationally and domestically of the crucial significance of maritime security. 
I have been impressed by the high degree of cooperation between Governments and between Government and industry on this matter. It has enabled rapid progress to be made on enhancing maritime security. That was clearly illustrated in December 2002 when the international maritime community adopted a new comprehensive security regime for international shipping. The measures were the result of just over a year’s intense work by the International Maritime Organization and the regime comes into force on 1 July this year. The Maritime Security Bill which is in front of us today also represents a lot of hard work by many individuals and groups and I particularly want to thank my colleagues in the House this evening for their very speedy processing of the bill. The members who contributed to the debate and the amendments submitted by Mr Peter Brown made a real difference to the bill. 
The bill develops a legislative framework so that we may implement the new maritime security regime in New Zealand and to ensure that we meet our international obligations under the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea. Given the comprehensive nature of the regime and the tight time frame for compliance imposed by the International Maritime Organization implementation was always going to be a challenge. Passing the Maritime Security Bill is a key milestone towards meeting the 1 July deadline. In spite of the criticism we can all be very proud of the very rapid progress we have made in processing this bill through the House. 
The Maritime Security Bill takes the approach that the security of ships and port facilities is basically a risk management activity and that to determine what security measures are appropriate an assessment of the risks must be made in each particular case. Therefore the bill requires ships and port facilities to prepare have approved and implement security plans. For port facilities that means that those plans will detail security standards and procedures for normal operations—that is security level 1—as well as contingencies for operating at a “heightened” risk—security level 2. Plans must also include procedures to facilitate the response of authorities to an “extreme” risk—security level 3. 
The Government must then set the security level at which the port facility will normally operate and approve the security plans. We recognise the potential cost to industry and the New Zealand public of imposing very stringent security measures when the threat level is low. To that end the flexible framework established in the bill means ports will only be required to put in place security measures appropriate to the level of security threat applying. If the threat level increases then obviously port facilities will increase security across the port commensurate with an increase in the risk of a security incident. Plans must periodically be audited and the Government must undertake ongoing risk assessment and if necessary adjust a ship or port facility’s security level. 
In keeping with the international approach primary responsibility for operational security rests with the port facilities and ships themselves. However should they require assistance the Maritime Security Bill provides that the Governor-General may appoint a Government department or Crown entity as a maritime security organisation. They will undertake screening and searching to prevent the unauthorised introduction of weapons and other dangerous items. Overseeing the implementation of the maritime security requirements and ensuring effective security is being maintained will be the job of the designated authority. 
The Government intends to appoint the Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand as the designated authority. Its regulatory functions in respect of security at port facilities will include managing the risk assessment process setting the operational security level and approving and auditing the port facility security plan developed by a port operator. Additional functions include the provision and coordination of security information to ships and ports and the exercise of port State control measures in respect of compliance by foreign vessels arriving here. As mentioned earlier I have been impressed by the high degree of cooperation between Government and industry. Both the Government and the maritime sector realised very early on that much could be done in advance of the enactment of this legislation. In fact that work has been crucial in providing as much lead time for implementation as possible. It actually began around May last year. 
Risk assessments for all the affected port facilities are now complete and most of those ports are well on the way to developing their security plans. All the parties involved have been acutely aware of the importance of getting this legislation right and the consequences to New Zealand’s trade and tourism industry of not progressing it promptly. There are still some challenges to face as we move closer to the 1 July deadline and I am sure that there will be some operational details that will need to be worked through. How to deal with access to sensitive areas of the port facility will no doubt be one of those challenges. Port workers may well be required to carry special identification and sailors visiting New Zealand ports may well find it more difficult to preserve the tradition of entertaining on board. I am confident that such issues will be worked on and resolved before July. 
The excellent work that has been done on the bill along with the very constructive approach shown by all concerned means that New Zealand is now very well placed to meet the new international requirements. The enactment of the Maritime Security Bill will mean that New Zealand’s approach to enhancing maritime security is in step with accepted international practice. Through the implementation of a consistent framework for ship and port security it will ensure continued confidence of trading partners and tourist markets in the security of the New Zealand ports. 
 I would especially like to thank the chairperson Dianne Yates and members of the committee who have processed this bill. I would like to thank Mr Brown and no doubt he would like to thank Frank Wall for his constructive work in preparing Supplementary Order Papers etc. I would especially like to thank members of Parliament who took part in the debate and particularly the officials on my left David Corlett Tamara Mutu Roger Brown and Hilary Talbot and others from the Maritime Safety Authority and the Ministry of Transport for their role in processing this bill very quickly and providing all the advice and information the House has needed in order to do a thorough job on this in a short time. 
Debate interrupted. 
Voting 
Correction 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I put the question that the motion be agreed to I wish to announce to the House that the result of the vote on the third reading of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 75 Noes 44. It has made no difference to the overall result. 
Maritime Security Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to speak in the third reading of this bill. It is not usually my habit to acknowledge Labour Party Ministers of this Parliament but I would like to acknowledge the Associate Minister of Transport the Hon Harry Duynhoven for the way he has progressed this bill through the House. He has answered our questions both formally and informally. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: He should be in Cabinet. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The ACT member is quite right—he should be the Minister of Transport. He should be in Cabinet. He has done a brilliant job and I acknowledge him for that and in this case his ministry as well. 
This bill as we heard is to ensure that New Zealand meets its international obligations under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea which members will recall was amended in December 2002. Members would have listened to their wirelesses and heard that so they know it did happen. That convention is to enhance ship and port security. New Zealand’s obligations in case members are unaware of them involve assessing security risks for individual ships and port facilities and developing security plans based on those assessments. We also have to specify security levels at which ships and port facilities must operate; maintain communications; provide protocols for ships and port facilities; prevent unauthorised access to ships port facilities and restricted areas; and prevent the introduction of unauthorised weapons incendiary devices or explosives to ships and port facilities. 
Such requirements—and we in the National Party certainly acknowledge this—would place New Zealand in line with accepted maritime security regulations and contribute to our role in combating terrorism. That is something most of the House is pretty keen on doing. I cannot speak for the Greens but certainly other parties in the House do want to work towards combating terrorism. 
The United States and the European Union gave a deadline of 1 July 2004 for New Zealand’s port security plans to be approved. The Maritime Safety Authority advises that it acknowledges that. It is an international deadline and applies to all signatories to the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. I was barely out of nappies on that date but elderly members of the House such as Jill Pettis and others will recall it. I do not but I acknowledge that it was that 1974 convention when I was at kindergarten that brought this about. 
This is an international treaty obligation. The United States and the European Union along with many other countries including New Zealand have clearly signalled that they will expect full compliance with the international ship and port security code. That is understandable. New Zealanders acknowledge that and we are happy to support it. The Maritime Safety Authority advises that until this bill is passed it is not the authority designated to stamp plans that port authorities put forward but it expects to be and we expect to see it do that. In the interim the authority has asked ports to put forward their security plans. It will take an informal look at those and indicate whether they are appropriate and likely to be approved once it becomes the designated authority. 
I am appreciative of the Minister and ministry for allowing that interim arrangement to develop and go forward. It simply means that timeliness has been met and ports have had access to officials the Government and the Minister in terms of getting some sort of guidance as to what is expected. It means that from now on—after this bill is passed in the House tonight—they can move forward formally. So I acknowledge the Minister for putting that arrangement in place. 
Clause 7 of the Maritime Security Bill provides that “The Governor-General may by Order in Council appoint a Crown entity the Designated Authority.” We all knew that that was going to be the Maritime Safety Authority. We all acknowledge that that is the right authority to have this responsibility. Port authorities knew that and that is why in the interim they have been given the informal nod and direction. No such designation though can be made until this bill is enacted so the Maritime Safety Authority and the rest of us are certainly looking forward to that. The Minister always anticipated that that would happen and he always gave that indication. I would like to again acknowledge the fact that that information has not been kept under a bushel. It has been fairly public. Port authorities have worked with the Minister on that and that is useful. 
I have had contact from all sorts of trading sectors in our economy and most of all the fishing industry. It is concerned that its export products which provide huge value to our country might find themselves parked up in little alleys aboard ships in ports all over the world and not able to reach their export markets simply because countries signed up to this international treaty have seen that we have not met our obligations and therefore will not import our products or certainly not with timeliness in mind. Those have been the industry’s concerns. With the passage of this bill all those concerns fall away and we know we can access markets overseas. 
I was concerned that ships might be parked up in Rotterdam or other ports of the world with perishables in particular aboard. One can appreciate that the fishing industry would be subject to that but not only that industry. If perishable meat sheep and dairy products were sitting in ships for long periods of time that could hurt our economy. So it is useful to know that with this legislation passed—everything going well—we will move forward and see that our obligations are met and that that situation does not happen. It is pretty critical that we do these things and that we meet our international obligations. We must not just meet them but do them in a timely way. 
I am confident as the Minister is confident that all ports in New Zealand will get the nod to implement their security plans. It is my hope that where they have not met the appropriate approval process where they have not provided plans that are acceptable or to the high standards the ministry will demand they will receiveguidance from the Maritime Safety Authority. I seek assurance from the Minister that the Maritime Safety Authority will not just act as an approval authority but will give guidance and help port authorities make and put forward their plans. I know that has been the case to date but I would like to know as well that the authority would not just flick comments off to the effect that port authorities did not get approval or have plans implemented but rather that it would also give formal guidance as to how plans could be improved. 
I am unaware as I have not heard of whether port authorities are sharing information. The Minister nods so that is good to know. It would be good if they sat around the table and were able to develop those plans together so that there is some consistency across the country for security measures in our ports. We would like to see that. Lots of industries and sectors export from a number of ports throughout the country and consistency is quite important. 
I commend this bill in its third reading to the House. National is most certainly supporting it—not just because we think it is a smart move and good for international treaty obligations but because we believe it is good for exporters and we certainly want to combat terrorism where we can. I thank the Minister again for his lead on this legislation and acknowledge his work and that of the ministry. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support this bill although it has serious concerns that the legislation might be applied in an exaggerated way in practice compared with the needs of the actual security situation we face in New Zealand. We just need to look at the background of a little bit of hysteria and over-reaction at the time Tiger Woods came here for the golf open when there was a huge security alert that did not seem to be based on much at all. 
Just a week or two ago we had headlines in our newspapers about how Mr al-Zawahiri the deputy of bin Laden had been visiting New Zealand in the 1990s. They were just based on some report from a dodgy journalist with probably no foundation whatsoever. The next day the journalist said he knew that al-Qaeda was running around the world with nuclear-suitcase bombs. That is just an indication of how people can take a little allegation of a security problem a phone call or a bit of powder in the mail—some hoaxers operating—and take security measures that actually cost us millions of dollars and inconvenience thousands of people. It becomes a hoaxer’s paradise so that somebody can phone up and cause huge damage because there is over-security in terms of our procedures. 
That is not to say that we should not have security plans in place and that is why the Green Party is supporting this bill. I tried to introduce an amendment—unfortunately it failed—to take the word “legal” out of one of the provisions that would affect workers on strike because we do not want this law to apply to any workers who might be on strike on the waterfront. That is not a security problem; it is something that has happened traditionally in New Zealand. 
There has been a lot of industrial action—some of it legal and some illegal—but that is surely not what this bill is about. It is good that there have been changes in the bill as it has proceeded so that workers on the waterfront will not be searched by their employers—the search has to be by authorised people such as police officers independent of the employer—and so that workers do not need to stand around when there is a real high-security situation. They can leave their workplaces and do not need to put themselves in the firing line. 
It has been indicated that an international security system is being put in place and around the world at the moment—particularly in European countries like France Italy and Spain—workers are taking industrial action and getting upset at the more intrusive searching that is going on under such measures. On the other hand a fleet of about 20 ships owned by the bin Laden family is apparently floating around the world with “flags of convenience” and not suffering too much at all. Of course it is those flags-of-convenience boats from the bin Laden family and many other big business people who are trying to make maximum profit by having the worst conditions and cutting corners on everything including biosecurity and security measures. So if there is to be any serious security problem or intrusion into New Zealand be it through biosecurity crime drugs terrorism or whatever then it is likely to come through those flags-of-convenience boats. It will be good if these measures actually restrict the number of such boats coming into New Zealand. 
But we have to be careful that we do not go overboard on security plans. I have been talking to a shipowner today who is worried that it can get too expensive in terms of the relatively low risk. For one of the boats he owns overseas he had to spend $20000 on a video system and $128000 for other security measures. Training cost several thousand dollars. For a New Zealand owner to send people to Australia to do a course with Lloyds can cost $6000 a time. If as a result of some of those measures extra staffing has to be provided then that is difficult for them too. 
Just last Friday I think it was we experienced a security situation with the  
Santa Regina 
 one of the ferries going across the strait. A hoaxer phoned up and there was some inconvenience associated with that incident. There were complaints from workers that the police came on and wanted to fingerprint them and all the rest of it. It was not too bad and they did not really go overboard but it just showed that we do not want to set things up as a hoaxer’s paradise. 
Another question has concerned some people. For instance down in Timaru there has been a discussion about closing off sections of the wharf that have traditionally been open to the public and used for fishing and there could be a problem for Picton ferries like the  
Santa Regina 
. Picton is a very nice tourist spot but under wharf security plans there is a danger that too much of that waterfront—from the ferry area right across—could be excluded from public access. That would reduce its tourist appeal if it happened. 
Even across the street on the Wellington wharf most of which we can walk around at the present time there was concern the other day about somebody putting a sign on a visiting Australian warship—something about John Howard being a “US bootlicker”. I cannot remember the wording of the slogan exactly but certainly no one was trying to put a bomb anywhere. There is not much danger of people running around like that putting bombs on visiting warships. The boat was actually moored I think at what is a public space. We would not want that public space closed off and officials going overboard on such minor things. 
In Timaru it was reported that the Prime Port chief executive had said that current levels of access for the public would be maintained. But as this bill is applied and mainly through regulation we will have to monitor how it goes along and how those regulations come out. If the pressure is put on people like that chief executive to overly restrict access to some of those regional wharfs it would be of great disadvantage to the public and again to tourism. In a lot of places wandering around the wharf and having a cup of coffee a beer or whatever one has down at the wharf is part of the tourist and local experience. We do not want those wharf plans to cut into that too much. 
The Green Party supports this bill but we do have those concerns. There are problems particularly on the west coast of the United States where some workers are getting a bit upset at the way things are being applied in the wharf security area such as having unnecessary ID. Even in New Zealand there is concern that there are too many restraints on trucks coming into the wharf areas. At the present time shipowners and wharf people pretty much know who is coming in and out. If we applied very rigid systems we could slow down shipments into and out of the wharves and unnecessarily restrain people. So we just have to bear all of that in mind. 
But we see a very positive side to this legislation if it restricts the number of flags-of-convenience boats coming in here; if it leads to a much higher standard generally on the boats including hopefully the condition of sailors on them; and if it helps reduce the main security threat to New Zealand which is biosecurity—some of those bugs creepy-crawlies and insects that are going to affect our forests or agriculture. We see the positive side to this legislation if we can stop those pests coming in through the range of security measures that are being brought in with the Border Security Bill affecting containers and this set of procedures relating to wharf and ship security plans. 
With those comments I would like to indicate the Green Party’s support for this bill. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to say two things. I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I want to acknowledge the contribution of the officials and advisers. I was always fully informed of the information that was made available and I congratulate them on a very informative presentation of the facts and information that was asked for. National is happy to support this bill as previous National speakers have said during this debate. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I am glad I follow Lindsay Tisch because he sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and although I recognise that the select committee did a reasonable job it did not get it quite right. I am pleased to thank the honourable Associate Minister of Transport for taking seriously the New Zealand First amendment this evening. Although we did not get exactly what we wanted we got quite a lot and we are very pleased. We thank the Minister for his cooperation. 
Whilst I am thanking people the Minister has asked me to thank on his behalf Glen-Marie Burns and Helen Hanify of the Ministry of Transport for their sterling efforts in the work behind this bill. In fact the Hon Harry Duynhoven’s praise was so fulsome that when I see Glen-Marie Burns and Helen Hanify I will suggest that they ask for a pay rise immediately. I sincerely thank those two folk on behalf of the Minister. 
This is a very important bill. It will go through this House relatively quickly largely because the House is almost unanimous in its support of it. It is a very very important bill and I cannot emphasise that enough. Shipping is exceedingly important to this country. I do not have to tell members that we are an island nation tucked down at the bottom of the world miles from anywhere and that 99.5 percent of our exports and imports come and go by ship. That is by tonnage; by value it is something in the vicinity of 82 or 83 percent as I recall. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of shipping to this country or the importance of ships that operate in this country operating in a secure environment. 
So New Zealand First welcomes this bill. We support the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code which this bill is based on and we think this bill is a move in the right direction. Having said that I suspect that in the not too distant future there will need to be some amendments. It is the sort of legislation that we have to keep under regular review. I am sure the Minister will agree with that. There will be instances or episodes or something will turn up that we have not thought of and there will undoubtedly be some modification. 
One part of the bill that I am interested in and I say this somewhat tongue in cheek is clause 45. It is headed: “Restrictions with respect to port security areas”. Subclause (1) states: “No person other than a person on official duties acting in accordance with subsection (7) may enter or remain in a port security area unless authorised by the chief executive or the port facility operator.” As a ship’s officer I used to work long hours but now people work 24/7. I was always grateful to see the guy who came to collect the drycleaning. That might be a small point to members here but when I saw the drycleaner come on board he was very welcome because I could give him my suits and my uniform. I assume that this will not place any restriction on the drycleaner coming to get— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Or on any other service people required. 
PETER BROWN 
: I think the Minister is anticipating where I am leading. There might be a small-business man legally going about his duties to collect and deliver drycleaning and I assume he will be authorised by the chief executive or the port facility operator. Some of my colleagues on that ship—and I emphasise that it was some of my colleagues and not me—were interested in a little bit of service from other service workers. 
Judith Collins 
: Well it’s legal now. 
PETER BROWN 
: It was illegal at the time but it is legal now. I want to know—and maybe the Minister could take a second call if he is allowed to; I would certainly support leave for him to do so—whether prostitutes or ship girls will be authorised by the chief executive or the port facility operator to go on board the ships and offer their services to those who need to partake of them. The little bit that makes me laugh is that I think in the fullness of time there will be a database— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Security level one I think. It shouldn’t be a problem. 
PETER BROWN 
: But will they have passes and be allowed free access? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Depending on the security level. 
PETER BROWN 
: So could we end up with a database of ship girls that is under the control of the Maritime Safety Authority? I assume the Maritime Safety Authority is the designating authority if that is the term in the bill. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Is the member suggesting a modification? 
PETER BROWN 
: I think it is somewhat ironic that prostitution has been quite a talking point over the last few years in this House. We used to have ladies of the night—and men I guess—listed on a database controlled by the police. I assume they have been removed from the police database but they are now likely to be controlled by the Maritime Safety Authority. I find that somewhat amusing. 
To get back to the seriousness of this bill it is an important bill. I compliment the Minister on his attitude and the way in which he has approached it. He has involved everybody—not just MPs. Because of my shipping background I know a lot of people in the maritime industry and all without exception have told me that they are pleased with the way they have been consulted and allowed to have their say on this bill. Unfortunately the select committee did not listen as keenly as it should have to some shipping people. Some of those shipping people made their views known to me and that was the reason I produced my amendment. 
In conclusion I think that tonight we have done a good job in Parliament in terms of this bill. I am pleased that New Zealand First has played a positive role. I thank the Minister and his officials for giving us a fair hearing. I thought the officials listened to me privately very very well. I thought they did a very professional job. I will not name them because I have forgotten their names already—I am sorry about that. 
This country will be all the more safe once this bill is passed. I think it will need to be amended in time to include shipping agents—and in other areas too. I will not let that matter go because I have many friends who are shipping agents and I feel that after tonight they will all vote for New Zealand First. We will see whether that occurs. New Zealand First will support this bill and I think New Zealand will be a safer place once it becomes part of our law. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is always a delight to listen to our parliamentary colleague merchant seaman Brown reminiscing about his life at sea often with fond memories of the antics that he and his former colleagues used to get up to— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was not just a merchant seaman; I am a qualified ship’s captain and I think I am entitled to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that is not a point of order. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I think this is one of those rare occasions where there is unanimity across the House. All parties have indicated their support for this legislation because we all appreciate the imperative need for it. It is a matter of security and of harmonisation with our international trading partners to ensure that our ships and ports meet required standards of security in this dangerous world that we live in. I listened with interest to the Green spokesperson Mr Locke in the debate. Indeed I concurred with many of the sentiments he made; I also cherish individual rights and civil liberties and freedoms. But the price of freedom is eternal vigilance; we do know that. There is a need for this legislation as part of the vigilance required in the modern world and for the maintenance of security. It is an incredible irony that without freedom there can be no security but without security there is no freedom. I think this bill epitomises that situation as other speakers have commented during its passage. We would prefer that we did not have to have these measures—these constraints and restrictions—but I think we all accept that they are an imperative in the situation we face. With those few comments I again indicate that ACT New Zealand will certainly be supporting this bill. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future also supports the third reading of the Maritime Security Bill. In my second reading speech I talked about the importance of New Zealand remaining in step with other nations and the importance of paying due regard to our international obligations when we are dealing with other nations to provide the consistency that is altogether necessary and that has developed over the last few years in respect of security in particular. I also talked in the second reading about the need for us to be a responsible participant in the international community. That certainly is part of the motivation for the bill although obviously there is a degree of self-interest. Without the bill no doubt we would find difficulties as a nation in terms of international trade which could be economically detrimental to us if we were out of step with other nations that felt that our security measures were not up to the standard that international requirements dictated. 
United Future is very pleased to see the balance that has developed in the bill—particularly the balance that was brought to the bill by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. There is a balance between freedom of expression and commercial cost on the one hand and security of the nation on the other and also a balance between executive power and parliamentary oversight. The amendments made by the select committee are welcome in that they effectively tip the balance a little further towards the parliamentary oversight aspect rather than simply pure executive power. 
I do not want to dwell on the specifics of the bill as they have been repeated by the other parties in the House but if there is one concern that I have with regard to the bill it is the fact that it has had to be pushed through under urgency. I know that the regulations which I assume are still to follow will provide that security plans have to be lodged by 31 March 2004—today in fact—and that the bill has to be in force by July. It seems to me that this rush is not desirable in terms of promoting legislation. Rushed legislation is poor legislation. 
When I talked in the second reading debate I suggested that the select committee could have worked more speedily but I see that it worked very well and I apologise to the select committee for suggesting that it could have worked faster. I note the bill was referred to the select committee on 10 September last year having been introduced into the House 8 days previously. Submissions closed on 17 October 5 weeks later and that gave a reasonable amount of time for people who were affected to get their submissions together and put them in—and I would have been reluctant to see that curtailed. The bill was reported back from the select committee on 8 December some 7 weeks later. Given the numerous amendments made by the select committee it seems to me that 7 weeks was not an inordinate time and that the select committee did very well as far as that was concerned. 
We waited from 8 December through until last week for the second reading debate and that is something that could have been speeded up. I suggest to the Government that the bill could have been brought back to the House a month ago to give a bit more time for it to be considered and hopefully put into its final form. That would have given time for those affected to arrange their affairs exactly and precisely as the bill provides. I understand that they have been working on this matter since April or May of last year in expectation of the bill and it is only because of that that we have been able to get anywhere near meeting the time lines. I understand that although the date of 31 March is provided for as there are no penalties if people do not adhere to it people will be able effectively to lodge plans late and still have them accepted and processed. That is a very undesirable way of operating. 
It seems to me too that the rushed processing of this bill is evidenced in the fact that we now have a first Supplementary Order Paper that makes 49 amendments—albeit small—to the bill. That gives rise to the feeling that the officials were rushed did not get the bill right even in the select committee and subsequent to the select committee process have come up with another 49 changes that they want in order to correct deficiencies in the bill. Tonight yet another amendment has been tabled which has had to be dealt with at the last minute. I do not think that is desirable. I think the Government ought to look at and review the time factors involved. I do not know how much time the Government had before September to bring the bill into Parliament but clearly the time between September when the bill was introduced and tonight has proved to be inadequate in order to have the legislation passed in a timely fashion and in such a way that everybody knows exactly what the legislation does that regulations can be promulgated based on the legislation in its final form and that everything can be put in place in order to meet the July deadline. 
That was the only concern I had about it. Certainly the contents of the bill are something that United Future thinks is important. We are very happy to support the bill and therefore we will be voting for the third reading. 
Bill read a third time. 
Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions  
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 National supports the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill a short bill of only two parts. Its primary purpose as the commentary from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee makes clear is to enable the exercise of jurisdiction over New Zealand police personnel and civilians serving overseas as part of non - United Nations deployments. A number of features of the bill however are directly worthy of comment. 
I would like first of all to refer to the definition of “overseas operations force” in clause 4 which makes it very clear that it does not include any member of the police who is part of a United Nations force and to whom the United Nations (Police) Act applies. The curious point perhaps about this legislation is that it was designed with a specific operation in mind—an operation in the Solomon Islands where we have now been for quite a significant period. In that context I just reflect on the legislative history of this bill relating to Part 1. The bill was introduced on 29 July 2003. There was no delay at that early stage because on 5 August 2003 it had its first reading and was referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. So the delays have set in since then. I suppose we can legitimately wonder what has happened in the interim in respect of the military operations that have occurred in the Solomon Islands—military operations police operations peacekeeping operations and peace-making operations. The answer it seems is that there has not been a problem. 
I ask the Minister: what is the mischief here? We have had an opportunity to assess the need for this legislation in an environment of danger where the rule of law is certainly very much at risk. One of the phrases Minister Goff used was that “the Solomons is a failed state”. He said that it was in danger of becoming a haven for terrorists and drug traffickers that it was close to anarchy and that any police deployment would need military support. Our presence there comprised police officers apparently some 40 senior officers and up to 200 troops who were added to the Australian contingent. They were armed with Steyr 5.56 millimetre rifles light machine guns grenade launchers and 9 millimetre pistols. 
I think we would do well as members of Parliament to reflect that when the Government determines it will not with speed advance legislation then legitimate questions can be asked as to the need for that legislation. It is right to say of course that it is intended that the legislation have an effect in futurity and that was made clear in the commentary; it was not only to apply to the Solomon Islands but also to future peacekeeping and peace-making deployments. Although National supports this legislation we assert that legitimate questions can be asked on this question of need. It was also very much in the minds of members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee when they looked at this legislation and heard the only submission that came to them—a joint submission from Alberto Costi Fran Wright and Naresh Perinpanayagam of Victoria University law school—that the police would not be armed. But that of course has not proved to be the case. In inviting the House to commend this bill I note those aspects. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Just following on from my colleague Mr Richard Worth there are a couple of points I would like to make on this part. First I note again that this is retrospective legislation. Retrospective legislation is of necessity something we should indulge in only when we really really have to. I wonder why when this bill was introduced back on 29 July 2003—5 days after it was deemed to have come into force—we are dealing with it here under urgency. Is this a situation where basically the bill has been put into urgency because the Government has nothing much else it wants to put into urgency? I have to question whether that is what is happening. There have certainly been other instances of urgency and plenty of other sitting days since the bill was introduced. I believe that the bill has the support of the entire House—it has had it all the way through so far anyway—and I cannot see why we have waited this long for it if there were any need for it to be looked at. 
One of the issues Mr Worth raised related to the Solomon Islands. Quite often our troops and peacekeepers—this only really deals with police and other peacekeeping people not our soldiers as I understand it—will be sent to and are being sent to places that are extremely unsafe for them and where there is no adequate criminal law jurisdiction policing or any other court system. Consequently the Government has decided—and I think with the authority of the House—that it is important that these people are subject to New Zealand criminal law if they are not already subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the place in which they are operating and criminal proceedings are not brought against them. However this bill does not protect our service personnel and police from the jurisdiction in which they are operating. That is an interesting point because if our New Zealand citizens are operating at our request in countries where for instance a criminal offence might bring with it the punishment of a hand being chopped off or execution then this bill will do nothing to help them. So this bill will not necessarily help our personnel at all—in fact quite the opposite. It is a bill to make sure that whatever they do will be subject to New Zealand law if they are not first prosecuted in that particular country. 
As Mr Worth said if there were any great and pressing need for the bill it would have been passed right back in August last year. It was not and I just wonder why it is taking so long to move through the House particularly when every party in the House to my knowledge supports it. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I am happy to contribute briefly to this bill which as indicated by previous speakers is supported by all parties in the House. It is a very good bill introduced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Hon Phil Goff. It acknowledges an agreement between New Zealand and the Solomon Islands on what is necessary for the deployment of personnel to the Solomon Islands. I am very proud of the fact that New Zealand and other Pacific nations are involved in the restoration of law and order in the Solomons. 
I want to point out that in the agreement for that deployment the Solomon Islands Government agreed to cede jurisdiction only if New Zealand had statute that allowed that jurisdiction for non-military personnel. This bill is necessary in order to ensure that other classes of personnel who are involved in the deployment in the Solomons are covered in terms of New Zealand jurisdiction and law if they commit an offence. As part of that agreement for deployment it is necessary that we honour what is required under that deployment. That is why this legislation is necessary. I believe that it is well-drafted law. The select committee has done a good job. I support the bill. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a very short call on behalf of New Zealand First to put on record that New Zealand First will support this bill as we have supported its passage thus far. I also put on record that it concerns us that we have had service personnel deployed in the Solomons since 24 July 2003 and here we are under urgency today moving the legislation forward another step. That is not adequate. Despite the complimentary words that have been made to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade that is too slow. 
Is it any wonder that service personnel whom we send overseas sometimes believe that Parliament has forgotten them? 
Probably the irony about this legislation is that given the situation in the Solomons it is not the New Zealand police whom we are worried about. It is actually the police force of the Solomons which the New Zealand police have gone over to teach train and guide and whose culture is quite clearly in need of adjustment. They are the people who have been perpetuating crimes upon their own citizens and against New Zealand citizens and New Zealand businessmen which have gone for so long untended. That in itself is a further indictment on this Government and on past Governments for their inaction. Probably and quite clearly the saving grace is that we have moved on from that. 
I would give only one word of caution for those who think that this is a short-term operation—that our people are serving over there and that they will be home soon. I would simply say: “Forget it.” The situation in the Solomons is one that will be extremely fluid for many years to come and it is my prediction that we will be required to have servicemen over there working with the authorities in the Government for quite some time to come. Either that or we will do what we are becoming renowned for doing: turn our backs and let the Aussies carry the workload which is something I would not like to see happen. 
The bill is essential. It is necessary that any service personnel that we send over to such places as the Solomons in the circumstances of being outside the auspices of the United Nations do need to have a clear understanding as to their obligations in terms of their compliance with the law. We support the bill. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand also supports this bill but again we would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson to tell us why it has taken as long as it has. That is a valid question which has been raised now by two people in this debate. Why indeed is it necessary the bill having languished for so long on the parliamentary Order Paper for it to be rammed through under urgency? I suspect given the support that all parties have expressed for this bill there is absolutely no need to take it through parliament under urgency. In fact it will probably take longer to put the bill through under urgency than it would have taken if we had done it in the normal process of the parliamentary week. Perhaps the Minister will have the grace to tell us why that is the situation because the reason is certainly not clear. 
In essence this bill is all about the principle of responsibility under the law being based on nationality as well as territoriality. New Zealand it seems has not shared the expansion that other countries have had and the bill is of course confined to civilians abroad: to police officers acting on Government directives and to those people who are not covered by United Nations legal requirements. So it does seem that the bill fills a gap. Certainly the Solomons experience triggered the need for this bill but of course it is not specific to the Solomons—as indeed it should not be. I think it is quite conceivable that in the years ahead we will have similar situations arise to that in the Solomons particularly given we live in what is becoming a quite unstable Pacific region. ACT supports this bill as it seems does every other party in the Committee. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call on behalf of United Future to signal our support also for the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. It is a well-thought-out bill. I believe that it means that police and civilians serving overseas as in the Solomons will in respect of crimes committed in the course of their official duties be subject solely to New Zealand’s jurisdiction. We will have the exclusive jurisdiction over those people in that situation. That I think is a very common-sense safeguard so that we do not risk having our police and civilians in the Solomons and other places arrested by the locals whilst trying to exercise their official duties. In one sense it is just simply a question of saying that there has to be one line of authority for such people and that that line of authority has to be definitely connected through the operational framework back to this nation since they are our citizens and we have after all sent them into places like the Solomons to assist the locals and to bring peace to such nations. 
At the same time the bill makes it clear that if those people commit crimes when they are not on their official duties but are just in their time off—or rest and recreation—they will be subject to the jurisdiction of the local authorities. That to me also makes sense. 
We signal our support for this bill. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Jurisdiction over police and civilian members of overseas operations force 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I thank the Committee for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Part 2 and I am certainly looking forward— 
Darren Hughes 
: Thank you! 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I thank the junior whip on the Government side of the Chamber. I am certainly looking forward to the contribution of the Minister on this part because this is where the substantive regime in respect of crimes and misconduct prosecutions is founded. A number of issues arise in connection with this part. First of all a distinction is drawn between police officers and civilian members of an overseas operations force. I doubt whether that is in fact an appropriate distinction to draw. All people are equal under the law. Why should one class of person be subjected to a different regime from another class of person? I am speaking of police officers on the one hand and civilian members on the other. It is all very well to say that military personnel may be in a different class because of the range of responsibilities their task entails. But I would not have thought that it is necessarily a logical argument to create the division that occurs in this part. 
Of course there is an aspect of protection in this part in that no information—no charge in other words—is to be brought against any person without the consent of the Attorney-General. It is difficult to see how the present Attorney-General would be a fit and proper person to make such a judgment but presumably it would be founded on the view of her advisers. One would certainly hope that in the context of the decision-making roles that the Attorney-General is asked to perform there would be well-supported advice before she made such a decision. That is certainly important as I reflect on some recent issues that have occurred. 
There is a constitutional issue however that is perhaps worthy of brief comment and an earlier speaker touched on it. The issue is that in general terms New Zealand has taken the line consistent I think with high constitutional principle that the basis upon which jurisdiction should be exercised is not nationality but territoriality. We just need to reflect on that by testing the proposition that a New Zealander on a Belgian ship in a French river should not have New Zealand law apply to him or her. Where however it has been decided that the territorial principle is the correct approach to take New Zealand has been hugely reluctant to extend that to a principle of extraterritoriality. We have made some exceptions—for sex crimes for example—where we have seen New Zealand law reach out into the country where a particular offence has occurred. We have also seen that in the area of terrorism. But it is truly rare. 
I would argue in respect of civilians in another location that the primary inquiry should always be about the nature of the criminal justice system in that particular country. If there is a stable legal system should it not be the case that an offender a New Zealander or otherwise should be dealt with in accordance with the laws of that particular jurisdiction? I do not wanted to be churlish about these issues of course and as I have said National supports this bill. But when one reflects on the constitutional implications of some of the things that are planned then I guess a degree of reservation must be entertained. 
Another point relates to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which briefly considered this legislation contemplated that there should be incorporated a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act standard. It seems to me that the commentary which discusses the necessity of having a reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is at the least weak. It states that the people who are dealt with by New Zealand law in foreign countries would have exactly the same protections as New Zealanders who are dealt with in this country and it seems inappropriate to include reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So there is an aspect of disadvantage for those people who are in foreign countries. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to take a short call on Part 2 of the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. As my colleague Mr Richard Worth said there are constitutional issues in relation to the bill that need to be considered. There is also the issue I have raised before over the actual jurisdiction. 
When I looked at how the bill would operate in the unlikely event that the Attorney-General would need to make use of it I asked myself how clauses 5 and 6 would operate. One of the issues would be the provisions in clause 5(2) which state that the jurisdiction applies when the offence has been done or omitted within New Zealand where it would constitute an offence. I had a concern at the second reading about how that would operate if a person who is accused of an offence said that he or she was not subject to the jurisdiction because the offence did not occur or because he or she did not commit it. The bill does not state that if someone is accused of the offence then it is deemed that the place where the person is accused of having committed the offence is in New Zealand. I am just wondering whether that is a chicken and egg situation happening. I would query very much if there were a prosecution whether a defence would be that the jurisdiction did not apply until after the offence had been proven. 
Clause 6 “Powers of arrest and detention” relates only to when someone is alleged to have committed an offence. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson or the officials who are available could confirm that clause 5(2) would still operate on the basis of an allegation rather than a proven situation. I am sure that the Minister is taking note of that. It is a situation where we would not want this bill— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: 5(2)? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. We should make sure that the bill goes through in a way that it does not come back at a later stage to hit us. I see that it is certainly covered in clause 6 but that clause is about the arrest. It is just the actual jurisdiction thing. That is the main point that I wanted to make on this part. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It was interesting listening to the comments raised by Mr Worth in his discussion—[ 
Interruption 
] I was not listening to the comments made by Judith Collins. I am not a legal beagle and I have never really wanted to be but to help the Committee—and I thought the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson might want to comment on this—I can advise that the lack of distinction between civilians and the police members of an operation was considered and discussed. It was suggested that consideration be given to deeming civilian persons on a non - United Nations deployed mission to be members of the police. The concern appeared to be that there was insufficient distinction between the situations of the police and civilian members of an operation. 
The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee did not consider that greater distinction than at present was warranted between the two because in reality both would be subject to prosecution for the same sorts of offences regardless of whether they were police or civilian members of the operation. It was put that if police members have defences available to them because of their policing role those defences would be available by virtue of their policing role and status. The committee accepted the view that it would not be wise to take an approach that sought to treat civilian members artificially as police personnel not least because of the different consequences that may flow in terms of the defences available to them. 
I come now to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues. Those issues were discussed and considered. I draw members’ attention to the commentary on the bill. There was subsequent discussion and legal advice suggested it was arguable that the current arrest provisions may give police powers to arrest only in New Zealand. Accordingly the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act would apply by virtue of section 3 of that Act. Section 3 provides that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act will apply only to acts done by “any person or body in the performance of a public function power or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law.” The committee did not believe however that there would be value in clarifying the bill. So it is clear that police would also have the power to arrest overseas. 
A number of changes and amendments were made. One of them was to clause 6(2) to read: “(a) the person may be arrested without warrant within or outside New Zealand—or (b) a warrant for the person’s arrest may be issued in New Zealand and executed within or outside New Zealand” A new subclause (4) was added stating that “Any person arrested outside New Zealand may be detained in custody outside New Zealand for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the person to be taken to New Zealand.” Quite a bit of discussion goes on in the interdepartmental report on the submission that deals quite extensively with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and any relevance. The bottom-line recommendation made was that clause 6 “Powers of arrest and detention” be amended to make it clear that the police would have powers of arrest overseas. The committee did not recommend any changes to include a reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. If we read the interdepartmental advice we see that the matter is dealt with quite clearly there. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: I move  
That the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill ensures that members of the police and other persons serving in overseas operations such as in the Solomon Islands are subject to the jurisdiction of New Zealand courts for offences they commit overseas against New Zealand law. The catalyst for the bill was the Status of Forces Agreement with the Solomon Islands. It provides that in the case of offences that occur outside the course of official duties the Solomons will seek jurisdiction only if the sending country can assert its jurisdiction overseas. 
 We had some discussion during the Committee stage in relation to clause 5(2) when an honourable member opposite queried the intention of the legislation with the interpretation possible and I have confirmed advice from officials that her concerns are probably without foundation. But I appreciate the manner in which she drew them to the attention of the Committee. 
New Zealand is currently able to assert jurisdiction over New Zealand defence personnel serving overseas and members of the police serving in a UN overseas operation. However New Zealand cannot do so in respect of people serving in a non-UN overseas operation. Accordingly if members of the police and other persons are not subject to the jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts and they are involved in offences falling outside of official duties the only option might be prosecution in the Solomon Islands. So the bill will minimise the possible exposure to Solomon Islands law of members of the New Zealand Police and other members in the overseas operation. It will also ensure that New Zealand can assert its jurisdiction over members of the police and other persons serving in future overseas operations. 
The bill will be retrospective. Once passed it will be deemed to have come into effect on 24 July 2003 allowing New Zealand courts to assert jurisdiction from the beginning of the deployment. The issue of retrospectivity was carefully considered when the bill was vetted for compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as section 26 of that Act limits the creation of retroactive offences. The Attorney-General concluded that the bill is not inconsistent with the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The retrospective application of the bill is seen as a justified limitation because of the importance of protecting New Zealand personnel from possible exposure to a legal system that may be incongruent with the standards applicable in New Zealand. 
Although the bill does not contain a clause expressly allowing for waiver of New Zealand jurisdiction no one can be prosecuted unless the Attorney-General gives consent. This requirement in effect gives the ability to waive jurisdiction in situations where in the interests of fairness and justice it would be preferable for the host country to retain jurisdiction. The bill also makes it clear that New Zealand police will have the power to arrest personnel covered under the bill overseas and to detain them for as long as is reasonably necessary to take them to New Zealand. This complements New Zealand’s power to assert its jurisdiction in respect of such offences. 
The arrest power provides similar arrest powers as are contained in the United Nations (Police) Act and the Armed Forces Discipline Act. However it is not a generalised power to arrest overseas. The arrest power relates solely to the arrest of persons involved in those overseas operations and who commit offences while serving in an operation. An arrest under this power is not conditional on the prior determination of fact or an assessment of evidence by a New Zealand court. The bill provides that the provisions of the Crimes Act relating to arrest will apply to the arrest of a person under the bill. So that means that a person can be arrested only in the circumstances that are permitted under the Crimes Act. However the Attorney-General’s consent must be obtained before the prosecution itself proceeds. 
The enactment of this bill will therefore ensure that our police and civilian personnel serving in the Solomon Islands in similar operations in the future enjoy the same protections as defence and police personnel serving in similar United Nations operations already enjoy under our law which is consistent with international practice for these sorts of operations. It is for that reason I am sure that this bill has deservedly received such widespread support from the variety of parties in our Parliament. I commend the bill to the House. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I am grateful for the comments the previous speaker has made in the context of the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. National supports this legislation. There are some aspects of the legislation however in respect of which we entertain a degree of reservation. A principal concern would have to be the legislative process that has been followed in this case. The Minister has sought to justify as best she could with all the available arguments that could possibly be mounted the reason that this Act will be deemed to have come into force on 24 July 2003. Generally legislation is prospective. It takes effect after it has received the royal assent. There are specific provisions that provide that legislation comes into force at a future date but not so in this case. Instead this legislation has been backdated to 24 July 2003. 
The Minister has explained to us—or tried to—the reason for that backdating. It is to mark the commencement of the deployment to the Solomon Islands so it is a little unclear as to whether there is a swathe of charges to be laid against police officers and other civilian personnel in respect of activities they may have been involved in in the Solomons from the period 24 July 2003 to the present time. Let us hope that that is not the case. Let us hope that the office of the Attorney-General is not cluttered with decisions to be made in respect of multiple charges and multiple accused. 
This legislation is to some extent a complement to the United Nations (Police) Act of 1964. That legislation which came into force on 14 May 1964 has served New Zealand well and provided a measure of control and discipline for police officers engaged in United Nations service. A gap was discovered and led to the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. This bill allows New Zealand to exercise criminal jurisdiction over New Zealand police personnel and civilians serving overseas as part of non - United Nations deployments. So the bill will allow New Zealand to exercise jurisdiction over non - armed service personnel participating in the Solomon Islands deployment. 
It was a very historic step on the part of New Zealand to send troops and police to the Solomon Islands and it might very well be the case that Taito Phillip Field will offer some comment on that. But my recollection as a matter of history was that the last time we saw an entry into this part of the Pacific was probably to suppress the Mau rebellion against New Zealand rule over Samoa. That culminated of course in what some commentators have described as the infamous 1929 “Black Saturday” on which New Zealand troops opened fire with machine guns on unarmed Samoan protestors killing nine and wounding over 50 other personnel. 
I have two primary concerns about this legislation and the first I had an opportunity of briefly touching on in the Committee stage of the bill. That is it seems to me that for no good reason the select committee set its heart against the inclusion in this bill of appropriate reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They certainly turned their minds to that issue but I urge members of the House to reflect on the possibility that those who are charged with offences on foreign soil under New Zealand law should have the full rights that are available to people who are charged under New Zealand law on New Zealand soil. By not making specific reference to that legislation a gap is created and potentially an injustice is done. 
Of course it is beyond the scope of what I seek to say during this third reading debate to offer any detailed view on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But I would note that under Part 2 of that legislation a number of critical rights are given in the area of search arrest and detention. For example there are provisions like section 21 “Unreasonable search and seizure”; section 22 “Liberty of the person”; and minimum standards of criminal procedure are set by section 25. I would have thought that a robust Committee imbued with a proper sense of jurisprudence might well have seen it as appropriate to include reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The sophistry apparent in the commentary of the select committee I would assert is unfortunate. 
The second issue that I believe is worthy of comment relates to this whole issue of territoriality and nationality. New Zealand has generally followed a practice that our laws are intended to have effect within New Zealand only. That has not been the invariable practice in respect of other countries but from a constitutional perspective it seems sound and reflects the well-understood sovereign doctrines in international law. When there have been exceptions they have been made with significant care and I can see members opposite nodding in acquiescence with that comment. There are so few exceptions but I will instance just two. Those two relate to aspects of the criminal law. [ 
Interruption 
] Is it not an excellent outcome that Government members have suddenly become awake and that on the opposite side of the House there is a fertile interest in constitutional law doctrine? 
The two examples relate to the readiness of the New Zealand Government to prosecute for sexual offences committed outside this country and the very deliberate legislative entry we have made in connection with terrorist activities outside this country. 
So I conclude that there was clearly justification for bringing this legislation before the House at the start of the Solomon Islands deployment. However the Government has disgraced itself by the slow passage of this legislation. When one asks: “What is the intended mischief?” the answer is that the passage of time has seen no real mischief created—and why might that be? I suggest that it is because in the international arena New Zealand punches above its weight and that in our peacekeeping and peacemaking operations we show a commitment a care a diligence and a compassion that may well not need legislation of this type. That was apparently not the view of the Government. It seems that on this occasion as on many occasions in recent times the Government was again wrong. So it may very well be that we can move to the early repeal of this legislation which is a further indictment of this Government’s failure to focus on the really important aspects of legislative policy. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 It is a true pleasure and delight to follow the sacked Opposition defence spokesperson—the member for Epsom Richard Worth. I just wish that when he had been the spokesperson on defence he had used the words that we have just heard from him because he just told the House that New Zealand punches above its weight on international commitments and I totally agree with the member on that point. I think it is absolutely right that New Zealand has a proud record in these areas. Yet when he had responsibility for defence he never said those things. So I am glad we have given him the opportunity under urgency on the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill for him to come down and fess up as to his true belief in New Zealand’s great reputation in these areas. To that end I support the third reading of this bill. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill which fundamentally has been passed so that in the event of New Zealand personnel serving in the Solomons committing a crime—and although the operation is not United Nations peacekeeping it is still peacekeeping—it would be deemed to be a crime in New Zealand under this bill. Such persons can be arrested in the Solomons by New Zealand Police and tried in this country under New Zealand law for the crime committed in the Solomons which otherwise could not be done under our territorial laws. 
As it happens I was in the Solomons when the Solomons Parliament introduced its parallel bill. It was not made abundantly clear by the Minister but the Solomon Islands Parliament has passed a law that exempts New Zealanders serving in the military in the police and as civilians and we have given an undertaking that should a New Zealander commit a crime he or she will be prosecuted in this country. The first thing I want the House to know is that the Solomon Islands judiciary never collapsed during the peacekeeping. There are still expatriate judges and Solomon Islands judges and if the House gets the impression that the Solomon Islands judiciary is not capable of giving a fair trial to a New Zealander that is not so. It most certainly was the fact that at the time we intervened the Solomon Islands police force probably was not capable of doing such prosecutions and it certainly did not exercise proper policing functions over large parts of the Solomons which is the reason for the intervention. 
I am a little concerned that the bill is open-ended. There must come a point where we ought to say that law and order has been restored in the Solomons and there is really no case for a New Zealander who commits a crime in the Solomons to be able to say that he or she should be tried in this country just because he or she is serving say as a civilian adviser. 
With the Solomon Islands having passed its part of the bill it is now necessary for this Parliament to pass our part but I do make a few comments about this legislation. I support the bill in the sense that I myself have made representations—not just to this Government but also to the previous Government—that the situation in the Solomons did require intervention and it would not be able to be healed within that country. There are complicated reasons for that which go to the nature of the ethnic tension. I have also said to successive Governments that an intervention would be very successful and it would not actually require a very large number of New Zealand personnel. While it has been very successful I think the numbers we have sent are way over the top but that is partly because we were with the Australians and they tend to be a bit way over the top. We never needed anything like that number and I still think that the number of police serving in the Solomons from New Zealand is excessive. 
I make the point to the Minister of Finance that we ought to be thinking about pulling some of those numbers back and part of the reason I say that is that our aid vote to the Solomons is being reduced in other areas in order to pay for policing. So we ought to be conscious of the fact that we do not want to send across more of something they do not need when that means we are not able to help them more with things that they do need. 
But coming back to the bill itself I think I should defend the Solomon Islands judiciary. I think that they held to their task when there was a civil war going on and when the Solomon Islands police force was a large part of the problem. It was not all of the police I have to say but when some of the police were out of control the judiciary themselves continued to uphold the rule of law. I think that a New Zealander who committed a crime in the Solomons would always have had a fair trial in the courts and would have a fair trial today. 
 Having said that this is the best part of the package that we agreed to with the Australians and the Solomon Islands Government. I suppose that we also agreed with the volunteers—because they are volunteers although I do not know whether the Army are volunteers; the police certainly are volunteers as are civilians. They were given an undertaking that this law would be passed. I think—and I am putting it slightly differently from Mr Worth—that New Zealand is somewhat overextended in the number of peacekeeping operations it is conducting. I think that we are in 22 different countries or something like that. It is said that we are punching above our weight and I also think we ought to look at whether that is sensible. The Solomon Islands are in the Pacific and is clearly an area of interest to us so I acknowledge that I call for this intervention. I believe that the Government has done the right thing. Having done that I acknowledge that Parliament is obliged to pass this bill so the ACT party will support its third reading. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I do not intend to rotary hoe the same paddock over and over again nor to go over much of the commentary by Richard Worth and the Hon Richard Prebble—who has far more experience in terms of the Solomon Islands than many other people if not any other person in this House. However I want to touch on just a couple of points. 
Firstly as I understand it this bill is not targeted specifically at the Solomons. It is true that it came to pass because in deploying troops civilian personnel and police into the Solomons it was recognised that we had a gap in our legislation in terms of criminal jurisdiction over those people we sent there. The question that comes to my mind is why had we not found this out some time ago. We have had peacekeeping personnel in many theatres all over the world for a great period of time. If I cast my mind back to the initial deployment of forces into the multinational force of observers in the Sinai in 1982 although the initial deployment had only military personnel New Zealand civilians were there. It seems rather strange that it took until 2003 for people to recognise that we had a gap in our legislation and in our criminal jurisdiction and to do something. It is even stranger that having identified that gap on 24 July 2003 we are sitting here under urgency on 31 March 2004 progressing this bill to the third reading. I suggest that it tends to indicate an element of tardiness on someone’s part. 
I feel the need to comment on a couple of comments that have been made. The historic nature of the deployment of our troops and police into the Solomons is acknowledged. I do find an irony in the fact that the main reason we sent police there was that people could not trust the Solomons police force to do its job—and here we are today. There were reports of police being involved in criminal activities and of widespread corruption. A friend of mine who worked in the Solomons for many years was flabbergasted to find that after the murder of a New Zealand businessman over there when everybody was discussing and openly talking about who had carried out that murder nothing had been done by the police to arrest that man. Also stories came back to New Zealand of police driving around in vehicles that had been reported as stolen and there were no charges. The irony is not lost on me. Here we are passing legislation to make it possible for us to prosecute our policemen should they err and the very reason for their being there is that the Solomons police were criminally in err. 
There were comments about New Zealand punching above its own weight and being overextended in deployments such as this. That was the very first comment I made for New Zealand First when it was announced that New Zealand was sending troops to the Solomons. My comments—and they were latterly picked up by the National Party—were that we were overextending ourselves and that this Government in particular in pursuit of international kudos had no consideration at all for the plight of the service personnel that it was tasking; it had no consideration at all for the plight of the families with service personnel just returning from one deployment and being sent off on another one; and it had no consideration or understanding of the level of commitment of our Defence Force personnel and of how thinly stretched they are on the ground. But that did not concern the Government because its overriding desire was to look good in front of the United Nations and the international community to paper over the cracks and to pretend that our deficiencies and shortfalls in personnel and the heavy workloads simply did not exist. 
That is precisely what Minister Burton said in response to my comments. I note that those comments were not shared by senior officers in the Defence Force and that they were later reflected in a paper that became public through the  
Sunday Star-Times 
. 
Barbara Stewart 
: How did that happen? 
RON MARK 
: Yes I wonder how that happened. Only then did the public of New Zealand get the true picture. To say that we are punching above our own weight is I think a wee bit boastful particularly in the light of recent medical surveys that show that the biggest threat to New Zealand’s health and wellbeing is obesity. [ 
Interruption 
] Do members get that? I think they will. The point is that we can sit here and applaud ourselves all we like pat ourselves on the back and bestow medals wreaths and kudos upon ourselves but the truth of the matter is that we are overextended. 
We know that operations like this are necessary. We know that intervention was necessary. But we in New Zealand have to either come to terms with the deficiencies in our Defence Force increase the overall staffing and increase the authorised level of manning or accept that we can no longer play the role in the Pacific that other nations would ask of us. That may mean a loss of face but I suggest that in the interests of the men and women who serve in our Defence Force and police force it would be the honourable and honest position to take. Failing that we will continue to do what we are currently doing. We will ask captains to step up to major jobs we will ask corporals to step up to sergeant and sergeant-major jobs we will pay them a little bit extra for the time when they do that and when they get back to New Zealand we will bust them back down to the rank we can afford. We will then task them with level 2 or 3 positions and demand that they perform to levels of training for which they have not yet been prepared. I say these things as a warning. I say these things because I have said them before. All of these things are relevant in the third reading because they are points that were made at the time the troops were deployed to the Solomons and at the time that this legislation was deemed necessary. 
For some reason I see that Mr—what is his name that lawyer who defended that murderer up north? Mr Fairbrother and the two Government whips have no interest in this discussion. They sit there talking about what they will do in the weekend when urgency is lifted and ignore constructive criticism and comment. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No they’re swapping CVs for possible job opportunities. 
RON MARK 
: They are swapping CVs for possible job opportunities. Mr Fairbrother may have a job to go to but I am not too sure about that other young man. The point is that they ignore these comments at their peril and regretfully they ignore them at the expense of the good men and women in our defence forces and police force. 
I also want to say that it is rare that all the parties are unanimous in support of legislation. I went back through the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee report and without meaning to be churlish I did not see a minority report from the National Party expressing all the concerns that Mr Worth expressed. I am not being churlish but it is noted that if he had serious concerns they would have been written in the bill as a minority report and they are not at all. 
Judith Collins 
: He wasn’t on the select committee. 
RON MARK 
: The fact that Mr Worth was not on the select committee does not mean a thing. He could have been had he chosen to be. He could have asked to be subbed on and I am sure that one of his other members would have gladly let him have a seat. 
New Zealand First supports the passage of this bill. We pass on a flick in the ear to the Government for taking so long and we ask people to note that this legislation pertains to any future operations where police and civilian personnel may be deployed. I suggest that that will be an ongoing and regrettably a more frequent thing in the future. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this bill and its purpose. It was motivated by the commitment of personnel to the Solomon Islands. Because of the situation of lawlessness there we had to cover the police and the civilian personnel who went there so that if they committed crimes they did not commit them with impunity. There is a very good purpose behind the bill—to make sure that anyone on an overseas operation whether Defence Force personnel police or a civilian is subject to proper justice. 
Often in overseas operations there are situations of concurrent jurisdiction as the commentary on the bill mentions when offences are committed against citizens of the host country or when the offending personnel are in an off-duty situation. There are three categories of situation. Members of the visiting force can commit offences between themselves—in the Solomon Islands case between members of the New Zealand visiting force. There is a whole system within the Defence Force of course; if offences are committed between members of the Defence Force in an operation such as that in the Solomons there are procedures within that force to deal with that. At the other end of the scale if members of the force—or in this case New Zealand civilians as well—are off duty and commit crimes there is a general application of local legal jurisdiction. Then in the middle there is a bit of a grey area. If members of the visiting force in the performance of their duties are in some way reckless or criminal—driving erratically or whatever—and offend against a person or property of the local society there is often an overlap or concurrent jurisdiction and it is necessary to work out whether they should be tried locally or back in their home country or within the institution of the visiting force. Of course what happens in that grey area is often the subject of a status of forces agreement or negotiation between the parties. 
Although there is talk in the commentary on the bill about concurrent jurisdiction the emphasis has been towards the trial being held by the visiting country—in this case New Zealand—because of the state of the judicial system the police system etc. in the Solomon Islands. The situation there was very difficult when New Zealanders were committed over there and since that time many members of the Solomon Islands police force have been dismissed or are up on charges and Government officials and Ministers have been subject to some form of dismissal or prosecution. That shows the very difficult situation that our contingent went into and the need for a fall-back situation so that no New Zealander could get off scot-free if he or she committed what we all know to be offences and what would be offences under New Zealand law. 
That being said in a case like the particular situation in the Solomon Islands and there may be one or two similar ones that develop internationally we do not want to treat as the norm that the jurisdiction falls back on the visiting country—in this case New Zealand—because we want to develop the capacity of the host country to support its own justice system and apply its own laws. That is particularly so when its property or its citizens are affected by members of a visiting force be they defence personnel police or civilians assisting in governmental capacities etc. as is the case in the Solomon Islands. We support that capacity building. 
We do not really want to go down the track of the Australians in relation to Papua New Guinea recently and get into the problems that they have got into. They are trying to commit 230 members of the Australian police over there. New Zealand is sending some police too although I do not think that has taken place yet partly because of the big dispute that has occurred between the Australian Government and the Papua New Guinea Government over criminal jurisdiction. The Australians initially claimed full immunity for their police but people such as the Foreign Minister of Papua New Guinea Mr Rabbie Namaliu said that that was unconstitutional and undesirable and they would not accept it. The Australians have had to move to more limited immunity as the result of a two-way dialogue. They have moved back to a more normal situation where there is give and take and where jurisdiction is not totally given away by the host country. 
I listened closely to the points that Richard Worth made in relation to the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the difficulties in relation to people who are not members of the armed forces. There are well-established systems in the armed forces not only the New Zealand armed forces but also other armed forces in terms of prosecuting people who commit crimes. In relation to civilians such as those we have sent over to help the Solomon Islands civil service it is a more difficult situation. This is a generic bill; it does not apply only to the Solomon Islands and one can envisage a situation under the bill in which our civilians are not necessarily accompanied by New Zealand police officers. If a crime is committed by a New Zealand civilian official working in a Solomon Islands Government ministry one imagines that a New Zealand police officer who happens to be there could do the arrest do a bit of the evidential work and do the beginnings of a prosecution before the person is brought back to New Zealand for trial. 
But one can see the problems that arise when one gets into extraterritoriality. As Richard Worth indicated there are only a couple of areas—sex offences and terrorism—where that extraterritoriality does apply. There are good reasons for being a little bit careful about it because clearly there are evidential problems in a situation like that of the Solomon Islands—particularly if the New Zealand Police were not there which could be the case in some other commitments. How does one know exactly what is going on or who has said what about a particular crime? When the person is brought back to New Zealand it is very hard to fully apply justice. There are difficulties in that situation which is why it is better to have jurisdiction lie with the local force even if the local justice system is imperfect in many circumstances. And I am not arguing that there was a proper judicial system in the Solomon Islands particularly when we first sent the force over there. 
I think we have to have some assumption that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act applies. Whether it needs to be written into the bill we can argue about. The argument in the advice given to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which Ron Mark mentioned was that because the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is not referred to in relation to the United Nations (Police) Act and the Armed Forces Discipline Act and because those procedures operate quite well legally we do not need to have it in this bill although one could say that the armed forces—and the United Nations acting internationally which we are tied into by that Act—do have quite substantial systems in place that mean there is not quite so much requirement that a reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act be put in. But when we are talking about difficult situations applying to civilians overseas where perhaps there is no New Zealand police officer on the scene having a reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act could be of some use. 
I have not heard a full report on the work we have done through our civilian commitment in the Solomons or the work the Australians have done in terms of building some of those institutions. I am sure a lot of the work has been very good work in terms of developing some of the ministries back to competence and helping to train local personnel but we have to be very careful when we intervene in a substantial way as we have done in the Solomon Islands in the civil society particularly in Government ministries etc. in that we might have a disposition to apply our own models. I would like to see an assessment of that. For instance the New Zealand Government approach—which is unfortunately a bit different from the Green approach—is towards deregulation privatisation and things like that which might not necessarily apply most effectively in the Solomon Islands. In the sort of chaos that ensued in the Solomon Islands the pressures to adopt an Australian or a New Zealand model might have been a little bit great. I will be interested to get an assessment of that and an assessment of whether the traditions of the Solomon Islands and the possibility of utilising them the tribal structures etc. were fully taken account of in our helping to rebuild Solomon Islands society. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise just to signal once again United Future’s support for the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. It seems to me that in the end this bill has struck a very good balance. On the one hand it ensures that New Zealand police and civilians deployed overseas by our Government in peacekeeping roles in serious situations such as they face in the Solomons have the protection of New Zealand law so that they are not subject to undue prosecution or arrest by people in the local situation and therefore exposed to its volatility when they are on active duty under orders from New Zealand. On the other hand it ensures that those people should they commit crimes in those situations do not escape punishment for those crimes but are answerable to New Zealand courts and the New Zealand nation under New Zealand law. 
I feel it is important that our nation pass this bill into law as we are doing this evening because I strongly suspect—as does Ron Mark of New Zealand First—that this will not be the last time we have to deploy police and civilians in peacekeeping roles within our region of the Pacific. Unfortunately we live in an area of the world that is subject to a fair degree of political instability in a lot of the developing and emerging nations that surround us in the islands of the Pacific. It always seems very tragic to me that people who live in paradise in terms of climate and surroundings nevertheless very often do not seem to be able to bring peace and stability to their own nations and their own political systems. So it seems to me that we will probably be doing this again and with that in mind I think it is very important that this law is in place so that we have a clear basis on which to go forward. 
With those few remarks I have pleasure in signalling our support for this third reading. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 There have been some very good speeches tonight on this bill and it has been a pleasure to listen to some of the contributions particularly those of Richard Worth and Richard Prebble. Even Ron Mark was interesting and certainly I enjoyed Keith Locke’s speech. I found it very interesting and although Mr Locke and I do not always agree on everything it is always nice to hear his view. Often he makes some very good comments. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What about Mr Copeland? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am however stunned that Mr Copeland has told the House tonight that this bill will provide protection for our New Zealand police and non - service personnel overseas. It does not. It does not provide one scrap of protection for our personnel overseas. This bill is all about making sure that those personnel can be prosecuted either in the country in which they are serving or in New Zealand. It does not say at all that they will not be subject to the laws of the country in which they are serving. In fact it says quite the opposite. It says that unless they are being prosecuted in that country they can be prosecuted in New Zealand for the alleged offence. So Mr Copeland has unfortunately made a very grave error. I am sure he did not intend to do so. When I see that the chairmanship of the committee was held by his own party leader the Hon Peter Dunne I would have thought Mr Dunne could have briefed Mr Copeland better on this bill. 
This is unfortunately one of those instances where the bill is only four pages long but has a seven-page commentary from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. That is an indication that an awful lot of talking was going on and maybe not enough listening—and certainly not enough reading if that is the idea that Mr Copeland has about the bill. 
I have to take up the point that this bill does not apply just to our efforts in the Solomons. It applies anywhere that our non-troops—police and other personnel—are serving in overseas operations involving peacekeeping unless they are operating under a United Nations force. Quite clearly the Government is signalling that there may be other instances possibly in the Pacific where New Zealand is called upon to make a contribution even if the United Nations—that great bastion of peacekeeping but not a lot else—is not involved. 
That does raise certain issues. Mr Richard Worth has made the comment that New Zealand traditionally likes to punch above its weight and that drew some derisory comments from a member on the other side of the House Mr Hughes. New Zealand does traditionally punch above its weight in matters international and sometimes that means it actually goes outside its own abilities and stretches itself way more than it can really afford to do. That point was well made by Mr Mark. This bill is not something we should be rushing through tonight in urgency. It could very well have been put through by the Government in the normal course of business as it certainly has the consent and approval of all members of the House. It is a bill that deserved to be treated in that way. 
It is a travesty that tonight on 31 March—although I note that Parliament thinks it is 30 March—we are putting to bed a bill that first saw the light of day last year after our people were moved into the Solomon Islands. I note the comments from Taito Phillip Field who I thought was very helpful in advising the House as to why this bill was necessary—that it was part of a joint agreement between Australia the Solomon Islands Government and New Zealand. I appreciated that comment and I thank him for it because I found it very helpful to know why the bill was needed when clearly it has not been thought necessary before. 
I was also very pleased with the Minister’s comments when she graciously noted my concerns over clause 5(2). I thought she handled that well. I am a bit concerned by the answer that parliamentary counsel gave me which was that that matter should be covered under clause 6. I am a little bit worried about that. The lawyer in me feels there is at least a credible argument for anyone acting for a person so charged under this legislation. I think that maybe that could be looked at further but I guess the Minister is probably thinking that all things going well the Act will not be needed for a long time and hopefully will not ever be needed. 
I take on board the concerns that Mr Worth had in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the fact that people covered by this bill will not have the same rights that they would have if they were arrested and charged with an offence in New Zealand. That is a concern because the people we are talking about are putting themselves in positions of danger at the Government’s request. They are doing so at the request of New Zealand so that we can all take pride in the fact that our little country is able to contribute in hopefully a helpful way towards other countries’ stability. I believe they deserve to have at least the same protection as someone who is accused of a crime in this country. 
Even though National members have those concerns about the bill we will support it and we will do so because it should have been put through months ago. Hopefully we can come back at a later stage and amend the legislation if any of the concerns we have raised do turn out to have been proven. 
Bill read a third time. 
Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave that the Committee stage of this bill be taken as one wide-ranging debate and that clauses 1 2 and 3 be put as separate votes at the end of the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to make some introductory comments about the reason for this bill and the nonsense of its introduction into the House which the Minister of Broadcasting did some time ago now. It has been on the Order Paper for some time and clearly has not been urgent. 
The Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill largely deals with additions to the charter and places further responsibilities on Radio New Zealand when in fact the charter itself has not been around for very long and the public broadcaster has had trouble delivering on it in any event. The title is fair enough but the National Party opposes the bill. We see no good reason for the Minister to have introduced it particularly at a time when the broadcaster was in a state of dysfunction of declining audiences and of budget blowouts. At one stage the organisation was being described as so dysfunctional that internecine warfare was going on. Yet the Minister had the temerity I would say to bring in this bill to create an impression that all was well—when in fact all was not well—and that this broadcaster could take on more responsibilities. We will come to that as this Committee stage proceeds. 
The bill is only a two-page bill. On the face of it one might think that as it is only two pages maybe it is not very important or controversial yet in its own way it is very controversial. That is another reason why in my view the Minister ought not to have brought this bill to Parliament. Late last year there was a conference that brought together public broadcasters including visiting broadcasters from overseas to look at the place of public broadcasting. The place and role of public broadcasting are under scrutiny worldwide. Surely it would have been better and more appropriate and would have made more sense for the Minister to take the findings of those discussions and to put more effort and time into clarifying the role of a public broadcaster particularly in a multilayered multicultural society such as ours and in an environment where New Zealand listeners are spoilt for choice through commercial radio. The bulk of the population now is in the 18 to 35-40 demographic so how do we get a public broadcaster to cater for the listening aspirations of that age group? How indeed do we get a public broadcaster to cater for a wide range of listenership? This bill adds more obligations to Radio New Zealand’s current responsibilities. How does it manage to do that when the role and place of the public broadcaster internationally are now being scrutinised? 
We are here in urgency to debate and no doubt see the passage into law of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill—not with National’s approval however. The Hon Steve Maharey in his thinking I guess decided it was necessary to add in more obligations. The legislation is controversial in that the charter is now amended by the insertion of the words “spiritual and ethical” which add to the obligations already on the broadcaster to deliver a very wide range of dimensions in a multilayered multicultural environment. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I would like to state that New Zealand First is against the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. It is a nonsense; it is unnecessary. It adds some unnecessary pieces to the charter and I really cannot understand why the Government has even bothered to bring this bill here under urgency in order to push it through Parliament. It is ludicrous legislation. We have a situation here where as Georgina te Heuheu has suggested the bill adds further responsibilities to Radio New Zealand via its charter. Well Radio New Zealand has a big enough charter and it is having enough difficulty in meeting its current charter obligations without adding additional pieces like the spiritual and ethical piece. If we consider the wide range of multicultural ethical and spiritual facets of New Zealand society today we can see that the charter would require effort virtually 24/7 just to cover that portion of it. This legislation adds an unnecessary burden to the charter which is now so overloaded with the spiritual and ethical side of things that unfortunately there will be no room for anything else. It is nonsense legislation and along with the other New Zealand First members I believe that it is totally unnecessary. 
There is one good point I will note. Clause 3(2) which is to amend section 7(1)(c) of the principal Act contains the words “and a full range of age groups”. That means I am now probably catered for in this bill whereas before perhaps I was not. It is also interesting to note that in clause 3(5) which amends section 7 of the principal Act the broadcaster is required to do a survey annually not only of its own listening audience but also of the members of the audiences of other stations—people who are not currently listening to the broadcaster. I observed at the time that that was an interesting option because there are some merits in finding out what everybody else is listening to and trying to incorporate that into the programming of the public radio station. 
But let us face it: there will not be a chance to add any other parts or interests into Radio New Zealand’s programming because it is so overloaded and so overburdened by the spiritual and ethical side of things. This is just a nonsense bill. This Government is scraping the bottom of the barrel to even bring this bill to this House let alone to bring it in under urgency. It is a waste of our time to have to debate it. I ask the Minister to pull this bill and do away with it now to stop this waste of our time. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 As I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill the first question I have for the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope is this: why are we here under urgency to debate this bill? Why are we here to debate a bill that is only two pages long and that actually achieves very little except to insert a few words into Radio New Zealand’s charter? I may add that they are two little words that mean very much: “spiritual” and “ethical”. I would like to hear the Minister explain to the Committee how a radio station can deliver to New Zealanders their spiritual needs or reflect their ethical needs. I do not think that is the role of a State broadcaster and I am not even sure that a broadcaster is capable of doing that. It is very difficult to know from the bill what the Government means by “ethical needs”. Is it further social engineering and giving an indication to New Zealanders of what they should be listening to thinking and eating? The sort of bill that we see here really goes along the lines of telling New Zealanders what they should do with their lives. I think the charter itself set out some very basic principles for Radio New Zealand but now with the further development of the charter and addition of these new words Radio New Zealand is getting into areas that I do not think the New Zealand public wants the State broadcaster to get involved in. 
As I said we are here to debate this bill under urgency. One would imagine that the reason for doing that was that there was a dire need for this bill to be put in place. In fact I think most of us in this Chamber know that there has been no groundswell of protest calling for this particular bill. Radio New Zealand itself has made no mention of this bill nor has it required that it be driven through Parliament. I think Radio New Zealand is struggling to reflect the responsibilities of the charter already without broadening some of those requirements. In fact when I look for the reason for pushing this bill through under urgency I do not find one reason why we are here to debate this two-page bill. 
I think we always need to be mindful that when we put legislation through the House an immense cost is borne by the New Zealand public. Time and time again we see this Government putting through legislation that does not actually make a difference to New Zealand life and legislation that does not make a difference to the business or organisation for which it is intended. We are seeing a greater amount of what I would term “feel-good legislation”—that is legislation like this which the Government can point to and say it is a nice idea that we can now reflect New Zealanders’ spiritual needs within the Radio New Zealand charter when there is really no core reason why the legislation needs to be put in place. Once again I mention the huge cost to Radio New Zealand and to the New Zealand public in putting this legislation through Parliament. 
This bill is of course now well out of date and that is why we are looking at making a change to the commencement date. This Government is way behind in its legislative programme so quite often as we have seen with the reprinted bill here the date when an Act comes into force is being changed. This bill is not about restructuring Radio New Zealand giving it a bigger budget or changing its role. In this two-page bill we see just a lot of mealy-mouthed words and tinkering that really have very little to do with the provision of State broadcasting services to the New Zealand public. I do not think people will notice any change to the quality of what they hear. I do not think this Government has in mind what the ethical needs of the New Zealand public are. It certainly does not have in mind what the spiritual needs of the public are. In fact there was quite a debate about the word “spiritual” because United Future I think wanted to put in the words “religious beliefs” so that those beliefs would be reflected within the Radio New Zealand charter. But that amendment was ruled out. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I was waiting to hear from the previous speaker the enthusiasm that should naturally follow from this particular bill in terms of the wonderful service Radio New Zealand provides to our country. With due respect to my good friends in New Zealand First I was a little disappointed with their contribution. I think if they check with their own party president Mr Doug Woolerton they will find that he is a very avid listener to National Radio and that he knows all the programmes. They should double-check with their party president regarding National Radio. 
This bill is necessary and I will give as an example of that the recent launch of the National Radio FM service in the Waikato which I attended. It was an absolute privilege to be part of that because it accentuated the wonderful vitality that is Radio New Zealand today. It accentuated for me that Radio New Zealand is very very serious about catering to a range of varied interests and age groups in our country. It is really good to see that Radio New Zealand and particularly National Radio is not just catering for people of my chronological age. It is very serious about reaching out to a wider audience embracing younger New Zealanders and looking for and fostering young talent—particularly some of the bands that can now be heard on National Radio and that National Radio is providing an audience for and focusing on. That frankly is very exciting. 
Lest we forget this I remind members the shareholders of Radio New Zealand are all of us and that is why we have a charter. The shareholders do not live in Toronto London or Washington. The stakeholders in Radio New Zealand are every man woman and child in this country. Radio New Zealand is about maintaining and preserving our culture our nation and our society. I think that by and large—albeit still with relatively limited resources although under this Government the resources have been increased—in terms of what Radio New Zealand has it does an excellent job. I am particularly enthusiastic that we acknowledge the different spiritual dimensions of our society and that National Radio acknowledges that. It is very enthusiastic about catering for a full range of age groups so that there is not a crusty old National Radio that caters just for people like me with my very conservative tastes—and that is where Doug Woolerton and I would have a bit in common—but one that reaches out to a younger audience and builds a younger audience over a lifetime. 
I also think it is excellent that we focus on—I think this is very very important and I notice the Acting Minister is here in the Chamber with us and I know that he will agree with me—the international radio service to the South Pacific Radio New Zealand International which may include a range of programmes in English and Pacific languages. That is a benchmarking and an underscoring of the very important role that New Zealand and our national radio service have in terms of our immediate neighbourhood. Radio New Zealand is actually doing that albeit it came about through Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade funding etc. in a different funding stream from the usual broadcasting funding. Radio New Zealand has historically had a very proud and constructive record in the South Pacific and of course because it has a very significant listenership it is one of the important links between the South Pacific nations and New Zealand. 
Unlike the speakers from the Opposition I am enthusiastic about this bill. I know that it is a short bill but I think it puts some very important good positive things into the Radio New Zealand charter. To those who do not listen to National Radio and Concert FM—and I am sure the Opposition members should listen to them—I say they should tune in some time because they are exciting and diverse. I think National Radio and Concert FM are doing a very good job. I think it is important that the charter helps them. It is really wonderful to have radio that deals with the issues looks at all sides of the issues and does not just repeat some people’s prejudices. 
Finally I say I am enthusiastic about this bill. I will also place on record that I think the Minister of Broadcasting Steve Maharey has done a fantastic job in this portfolio. He has vision and he has a passion for our national broadcaster. I wish Radio New Zealand well. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 First of all I say to those who were sneering at why we are considering this bill that it is my understanding the Government sought to put the provisions of this bill in a Statutes Amendment Bill. Members refused to do so and required the debate we are now having. So we should not hear too much nonsense about why we are wasting our time here. It is because of the members of this House that we are debating this bill tonight. Also there is a requirement in the Act that every 5 years Parliament consider the Radio New Zealand charter—and what an excellent provision that is. 
So we considered the charter. Submitters to the Commerce Committee—ordinary New Zealanders—requested that we added the words “spiritual and ethical” to the objectives. I find it absolutely fascinating that those words seem to create such anxiety and concern in this Chamber. What is wrong with considering ethical issues? Would that we did it more often given there are so many issues to consider today. We have been looking at human-assisted reproductive technology genetic engineering and cloning. What are those issues? They are ethical issues that require ethical debate. Thank God that we are going to call on Radio New Zealand to provide us with some ethical debate. Thank God also that Radio New Zealand already does an excellent job of having discussions on religion and so forth. I think that is absolutely excellent. It may have escaped some of the members’ attention in this Chamber that religion is a major issue of controversy and dissent in our world and it would be great for all of us I am certain if we had some understanding of other religions. And if we had some debate about spiritual and ethical issues I am sure that New Zealand would be all the better for it. 
Like the previous speaker the Green Party is extremely enthusiastic about supporting this bill. I think we have to remind ourselves that Radio New Zealand is absolutely unique in our media environment in being a genuinely publicly owned medium. It is the only medium in New Zealand that is completely owned by the public. Television New Zealand is a strange hybrid of commercial and public service but Radio New Zealand is genuinely a public service organisation. We should be very very grateful for that. Thanks to the Maurice Williamson amendment in 1990 New Zealand is the only country in the Western World that allows total foreign ownership of media companies. As a result of that amendment a handful of foreign companies own virtually all New Zealand’s media. We have Tony O’Reilly’s APN News and Media controlling most of the radio stations and the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and CanWest owning radio stations and TV3 and C4. Rupert Murdoch owns Sky and we have Kerry Packer and so forth. Basically all of our media are in foreign ownership. If all of our media are in foreign ownership we have to ask why foreign owners would give a damn about New Zealand’s identity and culture. In the final analysis they do not. Their bottom line is returning profits for their foreign shareholders. 
So thank heavens that as an antidote to all the foreign-owned media in New Zealand and to counterbalance the foreign ownership of our media we have one strong publicly owned medium in the form of Radio New Zealand with a charter that spells out that it must provide independent impartial current affairs and news. We have in Radio New Zealand an organisation that is free from vested interests and that does not always put commercial objectives ahead of its public service objectives. I think that we are incredibly lucky to have Radio New Zealand. It provides the only radio stations in New Zealand that one can listen to without being constantly interrupted by commercials. I think that is something that many many listeners value enormously. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Acting Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a brief call. I would like to begin by acknowledging this House’s debt to my colleague Steve Maharey for his tireless and quite visionary work in this area. In that regard I would like to thank one of the preceding speakers my colleague Martin Gallagher for the comments he made and also the previous speaker Sue Kedgley for her enlightened comments. 
I do not wish to take a great deal of the Committee’s time but I would like to make some observations about the comments we have heard this evening. In terms of New Zealand First’s objections to this bill in the form of Mr Catchpole I guess the New Zealand community can only marvel at any objection to the words “a full range of age groups” being added to a charter of this kind. Like members of the Committee I guess listeners will also ask themselves why anyone let alone a political party would have such an objection. 
But of greater interest were the extraordinary objections from the National Party spokesperson on broadcasting. Ms te Heuheu earlier objected to the inclusion of the words “spiritual and ethical” in the charter. As a demonstration of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of that party I guess that is not entirely surprising. But what the Committee may be interested to share is the fact that during the discussion and correspondence around this bill the National Party confirmed in writing that it had no objection at that time to the inclusion of the word “spiritual” in the charter. It did object to the word “ethical” and that brings me back to my earlier comments about Mr Catchpole. Why one would object to ethical considerations in a document of this kind or ethical considerations for a full range of age groups one would have to wonder. 
But I would like to thank the National Party for being so unaccommodating and not allowing this matter to proceed in the simple procedural way suggested by a Statutes Amendment Bill. In doing so the National Party has allowed us another insight into its policy. It is not often that we see National Party policy but in the same documents I am referring to I can inform the Committee that National lodged a further objection to recommendation 9 which relates to Radio New Zealand International indicating that it would not support such a recommendation at all. For the information of those who do not have these documents recommendation 9 recommends to the Government that the Act acknowledge Radio New Zealand International as an international radio service to the Pacific region. 
I would like to thank the National Party for being so clear about its continued privatisation agenda for this service. I think New Zealanders across the country not just listeners to Radio New Zealand will be very grateful for yet another insight into how vast the policy gulf is between the parties in this Chamber. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 Is it not interesting that we heard from Sue Kedgley of the Greens about all these foreign-owned media outlets in New Zealand and the foreign owners who do not care at all about New Zealand? That must be why when picking up the  
Dominion Post 
 and the  
New Zealand Herald 
 every day we see nothing of New Zealand news! It must be why when we pick up  
North and South 
 and  
Metro  
every month we read nothing about New Zealand because Kerry Packer does not care! If that is the case why was Sue Kedgley on the cover of  
North and South 
? I think we need an explanation. Obviously she is the favourite of Kerry Packer or maybe it is because she is foreign-owned too. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Some of the covers are shocking. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I agree with my colleague over there—some of the covers are shocking. 
I would like to say why the ACT party did not agree with the word “spiritual”—not so much the word “ethical”—being included in the charter. It goes back to Marian Hobbs. In May 2002—believe it or not—Marian Hobbs wrote asking for permission to use it in the statutory amendments legislation. We all know that Parliament is meant to function and that it is not good to hold it up unnecessarily but that legislation is meant to be used for uncontroversial matters. It is definitely controversial whether or not we agree with it to insert the word “spiritual” into a charter that is required to be adhered to by a State-owned broadcaster. The ACT party firmly adheres to the convention in this country that the State is secular and is not required to promote spiritual values. We already have radio stations and broadcasters that promote spiritual values. It is not the role of the State broadcaster to do that. 
I would like the Minister to take another call to tell us why it is necessary to put these two words into the charter. Why is it necessary to have the words “ethical and spiritual”? We all know more or less what “spiritual” means but what are we meant to take from the word “ethical”. In these days of relative morality ethical can mean anything. It can mean anything goes. It can mean that anti-westernisation—taking out the Twin Towers—is just as relative and ethical as our condemnation of that sort of terrorism and behaviour. We start to get into trouble when we bring into a charter words that are nebulous and not clearly defined. 
I always argue that if we want to save public broadcasting in this country and if we believe in public broadcasting then we have a duty as Parliament to scrutinise that public broadcaster and make sure it is delivering the conditions of its charter. Radio New Zealand’s charter has an obligation to objectivity and impartiality in its news and current affairs. A report was finished in December last year that two former directors of Radio New Zealand put their names to—John Iles and Dr Denis Dutton. It was a very thorough report and it systematically showed that current affairs—the so-called features programmes of Radio New Zealand—were not adhering to the charter at all. They were overwhelmingly pro-interventionist as opposed to non-interventionist. 
If one just takes a specific area like education—and it happens in all areas—a new policy would come out from say the Post Primary Teachers Association and Radio New Zealand would run the statement without any dissenting opinion. A statement from National ACT the Education Forum the Early Childhood Council or the Business Roundtable would either be ignored or run with a dissenting voice. 
That is fine. I am not saying that the centre-right view should be run unopposed but the broadcaster should be consistent and have more voices of dissent across all ranges because that is what we are talking about. We are talking about a publicly owned broadcasting company that has a duty to all of the public—not just the public who agree with the Government of the day. 
The incumbent Minister of Broadcasting has been praised but he did a very very foolish thing in May 2003 when he actually used the premises of Radio New Zealand to make political announcements. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill though not quite so effusively as some of the Government members. We support the charter in its present form because it appears to date to have served both Radio New Zealand and the public quite well. We do not believe it is the role of the charter to include a high level of prescription—largely because such provisions risk becoming obsolete rather quickly—and we do not think it actually does. 
Some members have brought up the issue of attaching the words “spiritual and ethical”. I really do not understand why people have a problem with that. The word “spiritual” for example is not quite the same thing as “religious”. It is not putting forth a particular denominational line; it is simply reflecting some of the attitudes people have over and above those of the material world. Spiritual values do not necessarily encompass religious values although the two may on occasion go together. The simple fact is that as a public broadcasting medium Radio New Zealand is there to reflect public attitudes. Some of those attitudes whether we like them or not happen to be spiritual and happen to be—funnily enough—ethical although that is something that the National Party and the ACT party for some reason have a degree of difficulty with. 
Now this is a point that also has not been considered: while the charter’s existing wording arguably encompasses spiritual and ethical development the additional words are consonant with this clause of the charter and Radio New Zealand’s current practice and can be supported. This proposed amendment also reflects a recent change to the statutory functions of the Broadcasting Commission New Zealand On Air in an amendment to section 36 of the Broadcasting Act and are consistent with the equivalent provision in the Television New Zealand legislation. It brings consistency to the two arms of broadcasting and that is important. It is something that members over there seem to have forgotten or have not included in their discussions. 
Another aspect is children’s programme recommendations. Who can disagree with that? As a public service Radio New Zealand ought to include some of our younger listeners. 
Brent Catchpole 
: They do it now. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: What is wrong with having it included in the bill? What is the problem if that is part of what Radio New Zealand is supposed to do? It is one of the functions it is supposed to perform. In response to a submission from the New Zealand Writers Guild the committee debated at some length the extent to which Radio New Zealand should be explicitly required to provide for children. In response to that it now does. 
One aspect I guess I am not quite so comfortable with is that there seems to be a problem with surveying just how well Radio New Zealand is doing in terms of delivering what it is supposed to deliver. It might sound like a small thing to the Government but I do not think that this issue has been quite as well addressed as it perhaps could be. Section 7(2)(D) of the Act prescribes that Radio New Zealand shall take account of surveys commissioned from time to time to establish whether the audiences for the services provided by the public radio company consider that the quality and quantity of those services is being maintained. 
Why does Radio New Zealand not go into the same surveys as every other radio station in this country? That is a regulatory aspect that I think this Government ought to take a look at. It ought to be part of the mix. If we expect the public of this country to put their hands in their pockets and pay for this service—and I have no problem with that—the least we should have is a transparent means of accountability to those very people. They do with every other radio station in this country and there is no reason why Radio New Zealand should be exempt. The Government should take a cold hard look at that because how on earth do we know how many people are listening and whether the people who are not listening are turning off because the quality of programme delivery is not as consistent as it should be? 
The accountability aspect of Radio New Zealand is very important and I want to spend a little bit of time on it. We believe we are entitled to greater information—not just about the quality and type of programming but also about the greatest indicator of how well Radio New Zealand is doing its job which is audience share. It is severely disappointing that the Government has remained too timid to deal with the real issue surrounding Radio New Zealand surveys—its refusal to participate in the neutral sector surveys that determine actual audience share for all radio stations. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak in opposition to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill on behalf of the National Party. If anybody is listening tonight they will understand why the National Party is working so vigorously to get back on the Treasury benches. Listening to the contribution from the newly appointed Minister the Hon David Benson-Pope one would understand why a change of Government is necessary in this country. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: It is vital! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is vital for a change of Government in this country. 
There are a number of questions we need to put to Mr Benson-Pope tonight and I hope he will take a call and respond to them. What does he mean by “ethical”? Does he mean making a decision and then doing a U-turn on it? Does he mean signing paintings that they did not paint then destroying the evidence before the matter gets to court? What does it mean? 
When one looks at the legislation the Government is putting in here tonight with the words “spiritual and ethical” one has to ask where this Government is going. I went back to the second reading to see what the Minister Hon Steve Maharey had to say. He said: “I pause for a moment on the matter of the spiritual and ethical elements put into this bill which do not mean a religious denomination. It means that New Zealanders in terms of programming do have concerns about value issues which may well be religious issues and about issues of spirituality in the broad sense that represents the wide range of cultures that make up our society.” 
Now that has made it absolutely clear has it not? That has cleared it up for all of us. Now I understand what it means. Now we know—it is here in the  
Hansard 
. No wonder everybody is clear on this issue! Has anyone ever seen or heard so much gobbledegook about something? It is like talking about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is as vague as that. Nobody knows what it means. 
If one goes to the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 which my good colleague did to try to find out what some of these terms mean one will find that they are very accurately described. They do mean religious and they do mean denomination. Well maybe in the agnostic spiritual manner that is being applied here by the Prime Minister there is a new meaning. I am sure the Minister will take a call and explain this to us but from my perspective it looks like social engineering. The socialists are at it again. In the only national-owned radio station as the member from the Green Party pointed out they are interfering in the most agnostic way. It is social engineering of the highest order. 
One size fits all does not always work. What we have in this legislation now is a clause that says that it will cover the full range of age groups. What does that mean? Does it mean that in the morning we will be hearing  
Mickey Mouse 
 in the evening we will be hearing opera and sometime in the middle we will have Heavy Metal? Is that what it means? I do not know. I know that my kids have a different taste in music to mine and I know when they were younger they had a different taste to what they have now. I know that my parents had a different taste in music to mine so does that mean that they will run the full spectrum of radio entertainment in terms of programmes? I do not know what it means. Maybe the Minister can take a call. 
It looks like typical socialism to me—one size fits all; Parliament knows best; the Labour Government will dictate in the charter what the radio programme will do. It will not allow those who are in charge to come up with something that is sensible or ethical. It will not have anything like that—certainly not ethical. Does it mean—and I think this is a question for the Minister as well—that Radio New Zealand will no longer run any of the Labour Party spin because clearly that is not ethical? Or does it mean that it will never ever report any comments from the Prime Minister of New Zealand because there is a very high possibility that they will not be ethical? They will certainly be agnostic—there is a question about that. 
There is one part of this legislation—I cannot go through my whole speech being totally negative it is against my better judgment to do so. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a shame that Shane Ardern did not get his opportunity to put his positive spin on this bit! But I must thank the Acting Minister for taking a call and showing us just what this Government really does think. It is extraordinary. In fact how ironic how inconsistent how bizarre and how “Steve Maharey” this bill is. This Government and this Prime Minister refused to acknowledge grace before a State dinner. This Government and this Prime Minister refuse to acknowledge the Queen as the head of the Anglican Church. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Who cares? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: There we go—we have a member of the Government calling out “Who cares?”. This Government has put a motion to this Parliament to have the prayer removed from Parliament. I really must ask members how ironic one can get when one has a Government that asks for the prayer to be removed from the proceedings of Parliament. There they are putting into this legislation the words “spiritual” and “ethical”. If Mr Benson-Pope thinks that that will overcome the irony of what this Government represents then I really wonder what he has in mind for those two words. In reality this is a Government that does not recognise grace before a State dinner it does not recognise the Queen as the head of the Anglican Church and it does not want the prayer said before this Parliament. Yet the Government puts two words into a clause in this bill that expects us all to have an input into the spiritual and ethical side of Radio New Zealand. 
It is unnecessary to put those words into the legislation. The Minister should seriously consider having those words taken out considering the irony of this Government’s approach to the way it runs Parliament the way it runs the State and the way it considers the spiritual and ethical state of this country. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 In coming late to this debate I am impressed frankly with the quality of the speeches coming from this side of the Chamber and I say that in all sincerity. Because as my colleague Deborah Coddington pointed out we are meant to be and I emphasis those words “meant to be” secular in this Parliament. Quite clearly we are not. We say a prayer at the start of proceedings when the House sits and some would start to perhaps question whether that is appropriate. We have many people in this Chamber of hugely differing values and spiritual beliefs. Is it offensive therefore for a Christian prayer to be said at the start of a sitting of this House? That is a question that I think we need to reflect on. 
But I would like to ask the Minister in the chair to define for me and the Committee what a “value” is as it is in this bill. We often hear the words “inherent values”—the inherent value of having a charter for Radio New Zealand. What is the inherent value there? I think that is a perfectly legitimate question because I can tell the Minister what the inherent value of a square or a triangle is. It is very very definable. A triangle for example has three sides. That is inherent and we know that—we understand that. But to describe a value and try to implant it into legislation is a nonsense. 
 The Resource Management Act requires—I do not know the particular section—that we pay homage to some spiritual value of Maori. What spiritual value? That spiritual value of Maori in the Resource Management Act was bought for $1.5 million. How can one buy a spiritual value—yet it happens constantly under that Act? With my colleagues I am demanding to know what that spiritual value is. 
I do know what a cultural value is in terms of radio. I am well aware of that. I would describe Hokonui Gold in Gore as having wonderful cultural values for those of us in the south and those who would tune in. Many of us are rural people and that is a hugely cultural radio station. Jamie McKay and the team down there do a wonderful job expounding the values of the culture of the people of Gore and that region. Why is that radio station not State-owned? Why does the Minister not rush down put a cheque on the table and say: “Because you have these cultural values at Hokonui Gold we have to buy you.”? It is arrant nonsense to even suggest that such things should happen. However it is quite clear in the charter of Radio New Zealand that this socialist Government wants its tentacles to reach right into the boardroom and have a large measure of control over State-funded radio. 
We all know that the Governmentis very left wing in its attitude. Those of us who happen to have a different point of view do not get anywhere near the same airtime as those who hold the same socialistic and indeed even communist values that members of this left-wing Labour Government have. It is quite wrong to introduce concepts of spiritual values. The animist beliefs of so many of this Labour Government who talk about the mauri within a mountain or a river are arrant nonsense. The spiritual value comes from within oneself. It does not come from a rock a mountain or a river. It is the ability of human beings to understand and appreciate the beauty of nature. That is the spiritual value that is deep within one’s being. It is not something that can be put into a charter and it is not for the Government to force the people of this country to adhere to such matters. It is quite wrong and a considerable amount of nonsense to try to do so. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I would like to remind the Minister at the beginning that this is a wide-ranging debate that this side of the House has been very enthusiastic in opposing the bill and that we have plenty more contributions. In fact I was just about to caution my parliamentary colleague ACT member Gerard Eckhoff that ACT may be allocated more airtime on Radio New Zealand in future. Tonight the Labour Government is trying to introduce the word “ethical” into the charter. That means that a lot of the Prime Minister Helen Clark’s U-turns spins etc. may not be allowed to be broadcast on Radio New Zealand. Maybe that is good news in disguise and ACT and National may be allocated more airtime. 
I come back to the meaning of the new word “spiritual” that has been introduced into the charter. I remind the public that in the second reading debate on the bill the Hon Steve Maharey paused for a moment on the matter of the spiritual and ethical element and went on to say that “spiritual” does not mean a religious denomination. I am just hoping that the Minister will take a call to tell us when the Labour Government has taken over the task of redefining the meaning of “spiritual” as set out in the Concise Oxford Dictionary which states that “spiritual” means “as acted on by God divine inspire” so it does not quite have the same meaning told to us by the Hon Steve Maharey. I would like the Minister to take a call to clarify whether the Labour Government will commission a new edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary. 
I really want the Minister to take a call to reassure the public. The Minister Steve Maharey was really proud in saying that Radio New Zealand was forced to conduct a survey about the views of non-listeners and listeners as to what they wanted to hear on Radio New Zealand. I want the Minister to tell the public who the pollsters were who did the bad polling for the Labour Party. That company cannot be employed to do a survey by Radio New Zealand because the pollster has been totally wrong in not telling the Labour Government that the issue that really concerns New Zealand is about separatism and race division in New Zealand. The Prime Minister Helen Clark was totally caught because the pollsters failed to detect that from the survey it did. So I would really like the Minister to take a call to name the pollsters for the Labour Government and to make sure that Radio New Zealand does not go down that track and engage those pollsters. We would never find out what non-listeners or listeners to Radio New Zealand might want to hear. 
The Minister also owes us an explanation as to why the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill has been included in the urgency motion. The bill was first introduced on 23 December 2002. I guess that is pretty spiritual; it was close to Christmas 2002. It had its first reading on 1 April 2003 and we are debating it almost on its 1-year anniversary—1 April 2004—but the commencement date is not until July 2004. 
What happened in the last year when Radio New Zealand did not include the words “spiritual” and “ethical” in its charter? I wonder what the listeners have missed out by Radio New Zealand not having those two words in its charter. The Minister had better take a call to explain to us firstly whether the Labour Government will commission a rewrite of the definition of “spiritual” that is contrary to the Concise Oxford Dictionary; and secondly can the Minister reassure the public that he will not use the pollsters that the Labour Government used to conduct that survey? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I bring to your attention that this House has agreed that the debate be taken as one question on three clauses. The debate started at 10 past 9 so it has not been going an hour yet. A number of speakers wish to contribute to this debate and I note that the Government has been moving closure motions. I ask that those speakers who have been seeking the call for the last hour be given that opportunity. I make the point very clearly. You were not in the Chair at the time but it was by agreement of the House that this debate on clauses 1 2 and 3 be taken as one question. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need any assistance on this one. I thank Mr Tisch. I was not in the Chair but I am up with the play. I have noticed a number of closure motions from my right here. I am not to know before I call them whether it is a closure motion. If those speakers want the call they will get the call and I give no assurances. I will judge how the debate is going. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I certainly appreciated the Minister getting to his feet and trying to give us an explanation of the reason for these additional dimensions in the charter. But I have to say that I am none the wiser as to why some time after the original charter was prescribed by this Government the Minister saw fit to make additions. But of course the additions that have caused the most reason for debate tonight have been the insertion of the words “spiritual” and “ethical”. So on top of an already overladen charter brought in by the Minister in the early days of his responsibility he has now seen fit to add a dimension that in the Opposition’s view is totally unnecessary and entirely inappropriate. 
There are three grounds on which I object to it. The first is that some obligations are being put into the charter on to a public broadcaster that over the last 2 years has had extreme difficulty delivering on the charter requirements and also with delivering within budget. It has had budget blowouts. It has had an emergency request for funding and into that scenario this Minister has put some added obligations. 
Secondly these are add-ons. If the requirement for the broadcaster to deliver programmes that cater to both the spiritual and ethical dimensions of our community are so important why was it not seen to be important at the time the original charter was developed? Why if they are so important are they now being treated as add-ons? The reality is they are not important. They are not appropriate. As I said earlier we live in a multicultural society. How is it that this broadcaster can meet the needs of the Paimarire movement? How will it do that? What about the people from Islamic countries? How is it to deliver to those people? They are living in our country. They are part of the listening audience. How is the public broadcaster meant to cater to their needs? So what it will amount to is no doubt a bland coverage of what someone’s view is of the spiritual beliefs of New Zealanders. No broadcaster can cater to the spiritual beliefs of the multicultural society we now have in New Zealand. That is why we say that it is totally inappropriate. 
Thirdly these are requirements that should not be in the public arena at all. If someone were to suggest to the compulsory school sector that it has an obligation to cater to the spiritual and ethical needs of our children—and why would one not say that; if one thinks a public broadcaster has that obligation why not a public educator—we know that that would be a nonsense in any event. That is why we say that it is a nonsense to have these dimensions in this legislation. They are not proper or appropriate. 
I have listened to colleagues reminding us about the fact that we no longer say grace at State banquets. When Queen Elizabeth II visited New Zealand 2 years ago and no grace was said at the State dinner in the Banquet Hall I and a small handful of Maori who were there found it very offensive. Why is it that this Government imposes on the public broadcaster an obligation to somehow reflect the ethical and spiritual beliefs of the New Zealand community when at a very important function those beliefs are seen to be of no value whatsoever? The Queen as head of the Anglican Church was at that State dinner and for some reason the Prime Minister saw fit to have the prayer removed and it has been removed since. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 176 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 3 Charter 
The question was put that clause 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Acting Minister of Broadcasting): 
 I move  
That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill represents the final step in the first 5-yearly review of Radio New Zealand’s charter. The Radio New Zealand Act which incorporates the Radio New Zealand charter is a major part of the public broadcasting landscape. This bill and the process of its development are part of the ongoing maintenance that is so essential as we keep our sights on the objectives of that charter. 
In December 2000 the Commerce Committee was asked to undertake the review of Radio New Zealand’s charter and it tabled its report on 21 December 2001. That report was supportive of the charter and suggested only a few minor legislative changes to assist Radio New Zealand to engage fully with the spirit of its charter. The Government considered the report and agreed with its recommendations. As not all parties supported the inclusion of the proposed amendments in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) of 2003 the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill incorporates those amendments. The Commerce Committee called for submissions on the bill and all submissions received were generally supportive of the proposed changes. The select committee did not recommend any change to the bill except to amend the commencement date of the bill to January 2004. This date was changed again during the Committee stage we have just sat through to 1 July 2004. 
The bill proposes three areas of change. Firstly the bill proposes changes of wording to incorporate certain concerns raised by submitters during the initial review of the charter. Those changes were supported by the committee. It adds the words “spiritual and ethical” to existing requirements that Radio New Zealand provide programmes that contribute to intellectual scientific and cultural development. Those additional dimensions recognise the wider role of public broadcasting in contributing to the information needs of New Zealand’s increasingly diverse society and culture. There is also a new requirement to include programmes for a full range of age groups designed to ensure that the needs of children are included. 
Secondly the bill proposes requiring Radio New Zealand to provide an international radio service to the South Pacific—Radio New Zealand International. That gives recognition to the importance of this service which has been part of Radio New Zealand’s operation for 13 years. 
Thirdly the bill proposes requiring Radio New Zealand to survey the views of non-listeners of Radio New Zealand and to inform the shareholding Ministers of the result of those surveys as part of its annual report. That will assist in assessing Radio New Zealand’s performance against its charter obligations and inform future programming decisions that may increase the size of its audience. 
During the Committee stage many members of this Parliament and others would have been rather surprised to hear the objection of members of the Opposition to the inclusion of the words “spiritual and ethical” in that charter. Even more surprising is the announcement in the documents that background those select committee discussions that the National Party confirms its view that it would privatise or sell in some way Radio New Zealand in the future. 
Radio New Zealand’s charter embodies its public broadcasting remit to provide innovative comprehensive independent high-quality services for all New Zealanders—public services for all New Zealanders. That remit is of even greater importance to a diverse and democratic society in a fast-changing and globalised world. Reviewing the charter periodically is important to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of New Zealanders. Recognising that the charter has served the public well this bill incorporates minor amendments intended to enhance the charter by encompassing Radio New Zealand’s role more fully. The proposed amendments in the bill extend and embed the responsive and interactive relationship with audiences that is so essential to the role of Radio New Zealand as a public broadcaster. 
Finally I would like to acknowledge submitters on the bill the valued work of the members of the original Commerce Committee in their thorough and considered review and also the members of the current select committee and the Committee of the whole House for hearing and progressing this bill so efficiently. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 National opposes this bill and it does so on a number of bases and I want to refer to some of them. As I said earlier the addition of spiritual and ethical dimensions into the charter is in our view unnecessary and inappropriate. They are seen to be add-ons; if they were at all important the Minister of Broadcasting in his wisdom would have ensured that they were included right at the start. They were not there at the beginning when the charter was originally legislated for and that they have been added in now suggests this is a Government that is trying to be all things to all people. Obviously it is not succeeding—and it certainly is not succeeding now—and in imposing that obligation on the public broadcaster it loses sight of the make-up of our society in my view. 
Hon Member 
: We are a multicultural society. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes we are a multicultural society with many dimensions to it now and for this Government to expect the public broadcaster to cater to the needs both spiritual and ethical of our multidimensional multilayered multicultural society is beyond belief as far as I am concerned. How does a public broadcaster cater for spiritual beliefs that at one end of the spectrum include Ringatu or Paimarire and at the other end of the spectrum include the beliefs of people now living in New Zealand who are of the Buddhist faith or of the faith of Islam? How is the public broadcaster expected to cater for that wide range of beliefs and what examples is it to take in trying to do that particularly from a Government that at every opportunity seems to want to take out some of the spiritual things many of us think are very important in the protocols and officialdom of our society—particularly in this Parliament? I am referring to the removal of the saying of grace at State dinners and attempts by the Government to take out the daily prayer in this House. 
But at the end of the day I do not expect any public broadcaster to cater for my spiritual or ethical beliefs. Those are mine and mine alone. Every person in this House will have a view about ethics and those views do not necessarily coincide. If a public broadcaster is to cater for the so-called broad ethics of New Zealand society what are they? How is the public broadcaster meant to discern them from particularly the goings-on in this House? So those additions are a nonsense and inappropriate and should not be included in this bill. 
Secondly the bill as the Acting Minister of Broadcasting has said imposes an obligation on Radio New Zealand to extend its audience to include “varied interests” and to encompass “a full range of age groups”. In contrast to the first obligation that is being imposed I guess that is a laudable responsibility. But if we think about our society how is Radio New Zealand to cater to the Polynesian population in south Auckland or in John Tamihere’s area for instance? How is it meant to do that? How is it meant to compete with Mai FM in particular in reference to those audiences? It is a laudable responsibility to impose but realistically how is a public broadcaster meant to deliver on a charter that is so wide in its objectives is vague in some of them and at the end of the day seeks to impose one size on all? It will not work. We have to wonder whether it is more of the same from a Government that is intent on telling New Zealanders how to live their lives. The Government will use the public broadcaster to somehow impose its view of the world in all its varied and many facets on the population of New Zealand. 
On the other hand clause 3(4) is probably necessary. It is one area of the bill that I think may be of value—but only limited value. Clause 3(4) asks Radio New Zealand to commission annually surveys of its current audience and those who are not part of its audience as a way of getting feedback as to how it is doing in terms of both quality and quantity. As I said that in itself probably has some benefit but it loses impact when we have the situation whereby Radio New Zealand does not participate in industry-wide surveys. To get a real feel for how this broadcaster sits in the scheme of things we really need some comparative surveys. Radio New Zealand is happy enough to survey its own audience but seems reluctant to participate in industry-wide surveys that would give the public of New Zealand—especially the taxpaying public—an idea of just where Radio New Zealand sits alongside the many other radio broadcasters in this country. 
All in all I think it is an abuse of this Parliament that this bill has sat here for nearly 18 months. As I said it adds on things that if they were really important the Minister of Broadcasting—who has received a lot of praise from his colleagues this evening—ought to have made part of the original charter. He did not. Those additional obligations have been imposed at a time when Radio New Zealand has been struggling and losing audience. Although at the time of the end-of-year financial review some assurances were given that things were improving we have yet to see that. We have also yet to see how Radio New Zealand will balance the tension between appealing to a wide audience being interesting and innovative and all of those things while still delivering on a charter imposed by this Government which seems absolutely besotted with charters. Charters cost taxpayers’ money. That is our money. 
That is why the National Party will keep this organisation under close scrutiny. We must do that on behalf of the public of New Zealand. At the moment Radio New Zealand serves a very limited part of that listening audience and we will be watching to see whether it improves over the coming time. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. I note that the previous speaker was at the opening of the Maori Television Service. I commend her for being there but the Maori Television Service will not be the only broadcasting entity under threat should there be a change of Government. I call on members opposite to deny categorically right now that they will do to Radio New Zealand what I think they want to do to the Maori Television Service. I want you also to deny that you will do to Television New Zealand what you intend— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I challenge the Opposition National Party to categorically deny that it will hock off Radio New Zealand just as it will hock off Kiwibank hock off Television New Zealand and hock off a number of other State-owned enterprises in this country. I admire Georgina te Heuheu for at least being at the opening of the Maori Television Service. I know she believes in that service and I know that in her heart of hearts she believes in Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand but the rest of her colleagues do not. Although we are hearing a lot of mealy-mouthed words about the Radio New Zealand charter it is all just pinpricking. I believe there is a real threat that right now National in its policy rooms and back rooms is hatching a plot to hock off Radio New Zealand. This Government will save Radio New Zealand and keep it being the cultural icon of this country. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a great honour to follow a contribution like that of Mr Gallagher. It is not often that we see a contribution like that to the debate from the Government. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill and to tell Mr Gallagher that New Zealand First will not support this bill despite his rendition. We believe that this bill is a backward step for broadcasting and we can see no good reason for it at all. New Zealand First does not believe that the charter for Radio New Zealand needs to be modified in this way at all. We believe that the charter has been reviewed principally in order to ensure that it is a model of political correctness in every way. The bill is totally ludicrous. There is not even a definition of “spiritual and ethical” development. The bill is a mere 1½ pages in length and was not even changed by the Commerce Committee—including those words “spiritual and “ethical”. I wonder how many definitions of “spiritual and “ethical” development we will hear from Radio New Zealand. We all have our own definitions so there will have to be many definitions. Even if the broadcaster goes 24/7 it will not meet everybody’s needs in that way. 
New Zealand First believes that this bill is an absolute nonsense and a waste of parliamentary time particularly under urgency. We have spent far longer on debating this bill tonight than it took the select committee to consider the bill. I see that the select committee took only 14 minutes. That really makes one wonder how important this bill is particularly as it has languished on the Order Paper for months—since April 2003. It really does make one wonder. Will this bill change the lot of New Zealanders? No not at all. How many variations of spiritual and ethical belief will we hear from Radio New Zealand? We do not know that. There is an infinite number of such beliefs. How will this bill advance the lot of New Zealanders? It will not do so at all. This bill basically raises far more questions than it will ever answer. Also what are the delivery outcomes for ensuring that the charter is met? It will be difficult for Radio New Zealand to even work out whether it has met the requirements of this legislation. To be fair to the people of New Zealand all people’s views have to be met but the reality is that those views are all so diverse that that is an impossible challenge for Radio New Zealand to meet. It is interesting to note too that we see those dimensions creeping in to all parts of our legislation. 
This is a very sad day for Radio New Zealand. It is sad to set up an organisation to fail despite its very best attempts. This charter is so wide and vague that it will not work. It is a balancing act at the very best of times. It reminds me of this statement by Winston Churchill: “Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.” That is what Radio New Zealand has been lumped with tonight. We know for a fact that the number of Radio New Zealand listeners is decreasing and we would be really interested to hear—and we have not heard this tonight—how the words “spiritual and ethical” in the charter will reverse Radio New Zealand’s disastrous ratings. The charter appears to be of no value in that regard. What have we seen since its introduction? We have seen a revolt. People do not want to be told what their spiritual and ethical values are. They do not want to follow through on the charter and they have voted with their fingers by getting up out of their chairs and changing from listening to that oh so totally politically correct radio station. It does not matter what is put in the charter. It will not help Radio New Zealand at all because it cannot meet the requirements of the charter. 
Clause 3(4) provides in new paragraph (d) to be inserted in section 7(2) of the principal Act that surveys will be commissioned annually of “persons who are members of its current audience to establish whether those members consider that the quality and quantity of its services are being maintained in accordance with subsection (1)” and new paragraph (e) goes on to add “surveys commissioned from time to time of persons who are not members of its current audiences.” Just from what I have heard tonight I believe it will be far easier to carry out surveys in terms of paragraph (e)—“... commissioned from time to time of persons who are not members of its current audiences.”—than it will be to survey people who are actually listening to Radio New Zealand. We agree with the implementation of surveys; that is one of the few parts of the bill that we agree with. But then we must ask why the surveys are not carried out like those carried out on other broadcasting stations. The State broadcaster definitely has a totally different set of rules for its operation from anybody else. 
This bill is appalling for Radio New Zealand. The bottom line is that Radio New Zealand cannot be all things to all people. We can see that from the number of listeners who are dropping off—who are not listening to Radio New Zealand. That is absolutely appalling. If it were a private radio station we would see many changes. Heads would roll. The indicators of such a loss of audience would inspire some sort of action on the part of the directors of a private station. But do we see any action being taken by Radio New Zealand? No. It appears to be accepted that Radio New Zealand is required by the charter to provide programmes that other radio stations do not provide and that many of those types of programmes will never generate a large number of listeners. 
Does anybody really care about the loss of the listeners? It does not appear so. When we read the performance targets of Radio New Zealand we find that they do not inspire the confidence of any New Zealander with a goal of losing no more than 10 percent of the previous year’s listeners. How long will it take before nobody listens to Radio New Zealand? If it sticks with that target its audience will be halved within 6 years for a start. The loss of listeners is a big indication that there is something very wrong with the public broadcaster and the charter will not correct that. There are impossible compliance challenges for Radio New Zealand in the charter. In fact any organisation would be extremely brave to take this type of charter on. 
The bill is not really about changing the role of Radio New Zealand. All we are seeing as the previous speakers have mentioned is a tinkering with the charter by adding the words “spiritual and ethical”. A large amount of money has been spent on implementing the charter. It would have been far better spent on modernising the equipment so that people could get a better level and quality of broadcast rather than tinkering around with “spiritual and ethical” considerations. 
New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. We do not like to see organisations being set up to fail. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 As I said earlier Radio New Zealand is unique in our media landscape. It is the only medium aside from Maori Television that is in genuine public ownership. As I also pointed out we have a highly unusual situation in New Zealand with regard to our media. We have no rules to limit the size of any media company or cross ownership between the different media—between television newspapers and so forth so we have a lot of cross ownership—and we are the only country in the Western World that allows total foreign ownership of all our media companies. That is thanks of course to Maurice Williamson and the previous National Government in 1990 when they wanted to allow the complete foreign ownership of TV3. As a result of National’s contribution of allowing 100 percent foreign ownership of all our media we basically have four foreign multinational companies controlling all our media—virtually all our radio and television stations except for Radio New Zealand TVNZ and Maori Television. 
I think we need to reflect for a moment on how fortunate we are to have one radio station in New Zealand—one broadcaster—that is totally driven by public objectives rather than by commercial objectives and that sees listeners as citizens rather than as consumers to whom it is trying to peddle things to buy. The truth of the matter is that the purposes of a not-for-profit organisation are vastly different from those of one whose objective is the pursuit of profit. That is why we have public service broadcasting. We have seen the helpless confusion in the TVNZ hybrid. We have been discussing animal-human hybrids in the Health Committee and TVNZ is one of those bizarre hybrids—part commercial and part public service. It cannot seem to work out which parts are which and whether it should be pursing public-interest or commercial objectives. 
To have Radio New Zealand is something to be deeply deeply grateful for—that we have one radio broadcaster not owned by any commercial entity and that does not constantly interrupt its news and programmes with advertisements for this or that commercial product and that we have a radio broadcaster that does not have commercial sponsorship. We do not have  
“Charlie’s Morning Report” 
 or  
“Mitsubishi’s Linda Clark” 
. In fact we have a radio station that has no vested interest—no commercial pressures—and that is a counterbalance to the incredible private ownership of all the rest of our media. We need to keep that in perspective and to be deeply grateful for Radio New Zealand—and indeed for its visionary charter. 
Gerry Eckhoff complained that those of us with different views do not get a look-in on Radio New Zealand. He was implying somehow that there was a bias against the ACT party. I think that would be extremely hard to try to prove in any way because I truly believe that Radio New Zealand is fair and independent. But that reminded me that the other day it was revealed that the editor of the  
National Business Review  
was providing media training for Don Brash the leader of the National Party. In any other country that would have created an absolute scandal. A so-called independent journal in New Zealand—a supposedly credible newspaper—was providing media training to the head of the National Party in New Zealand. If this were any other country that would have been seen as a total scandal—as an indication of the complete and total bias of the  
National Business Review 
. But there was barely any concern about that presumably because so much of our media is in private ownership. Our media are owned by four or five multinational corporations and we think that is normal. We do not expect to have truly impartial balanced media in New Zealand because the truth of the matter is that almost none of our media have a specific obligation and mandate in their charter to be balanced independent and comprehensive in their news and current affairs. 
 We have heard a lot of whimpering from the Opposition about Radio New Zealand. I guarantee that almost every single speaker tonight—and indeed every member in this House—listens to Radio New Zealand. Members will be glued to  
Morning Report 
 morning after morning. Tomorrow morning there they will be listening to  
Morning Report 
 and everything else yet here they are whimpering on about Radio New Zealand. They know that it is outstanding and is one of the only organisations that provides truly comprehensive independent current affairs and news in New Zealand. I think we have had a lot of weasel words from people who I guarantee spend a great deal of their time listening to Radio New Zealand. 
We tend to focus a lot on television. A lot of debate goes on about television but radio is very immediate and has a very wide reach. A dollar spent on radio goes far further than a dollar spent on television. In America at the recent public service television conference that the member for the National Party referred to earlier in this debate people were talking about how there has been a renaissance in public service radio in America and other countries. I predict confidently that we will see a renaissance in Radio New Zealand which was rather savaged in the 1990s. I think it lost 20 percent of its staff. Radio New Zealand was starved of funding in the 1990s. Fortunately it has now had some proper funding and can do what it was set up to do which is set out in its charter: to inform and engage New Zealanders through providing challenging and innovative radio. I would go so far as to say that Radio New Zealand is innovative and does provide a wide range of programmes. 
It is good that we are adding this little dimension that has got so on the nerves of members of Parliament here to my absolute astonishment. As a result of the submissions that were made in the Commerce Committee we are now adding to the charter that Radio New Zealand should provide programmes that also look at spiritual and ethical issues. We have heard a lot of cant about that—that we are undermining the secular State and all the utter drivel said in the House tonight. This bill does not undermine the secular State. All it states is that amongst the programmes that Radio New Zealand broadcasts it will consider including ethical issues. One would think it was a radical crazy idea to have a radio station that would consider ethical issues. We have seen the Opposition’s horror that a radio station should have to examine ethical issues. Others have made this point: is it that some members have lost the ability to understand the importance of ethics in our society? 
And what is wrong with looking at spiritual issues? In a world that is riven with conflict over religious and spiritual issues I would have thought it was a great asset that we have a radio station that as well as doing all the other things it does such as providing a comprehensive balanced and authoritative current affairs and an independent voice also looks at the spiritual and ethical dimensions of life. Is there something wrong with that? Is it only acceptable to be rational and logical? Are we no longer able to think of other ideas? No one has any objection to having commercial objectives but somehow we all feel uncomfortable about and sneer at the thought of having ethical or spiritual objectives. That is very very sad. 
The Green Party does not share those concerns. We are absolutely delighted to support this bill to support Radio New Zealand and to support the addition of the words “spiritual and “ethical” to the charter. We believe the Opposition members do not actually believe some of what they have been saying and that they would agree with the Green Party that Radio New Zealand is one of the only independent voices in New Zealand. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 There is only one radio programme worth listening to in the mornings and that is Newstalk ZB especially on Tuesday mornings at 8.15. It is the most informed political comment in the country. 
Katherine Rich 
: Who is the host? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: My colleague has asked who the people on it are. They are the Hon John Tamihere and myself. So I plead guilty. I might be the only person in this House who does not listen to State radio in the mornings. I listen to Newstalk ZB. 
Do members know why private radio stations do not need a charter? They do not need a charter because they actually adhere to the objective of this charter which Radio New Zealand does not adhere to. They are objective and they are independent and that is because they participate in industry surveys and they get the message very quickly very sharply and very painfully—because it affects them in the pocket—if they are not delivering what the customers want to hear. I would argue that the news services of Global News or Newstalk ZB were more objective and fairer and had more voices of dissent than State-owned radio. 
I did not get to have another call in the Committee stage but I wanted to continue talking about this report that two former directors of Radio New Zealand Dr Denis Dutton and John Isles put their names to. It was a survey of feature programmes on Radio New Zealand. It was a very fair survey. It did not seek to establish whether there was bias in Radio New Zealand; it just sought to establish whether there were enough diverse voices and whether as a public radio it was reflecting the voices of the public. As Sue Kedgley has so rightly pointed out it is owned by every taxpayer in New Zealand and through Parliament its adherence to the charter is scrutinised. This report roundly recommended and concluded that Radio New Zealand at the moment is not adhering to its charter. 
The Minister of Broadcasting has done a number of things that compromise Radio New Zealand severely so I do not blame the people at Radio New Zealand for this; I blame the Minister. In May 2003 the Minister held a function on the premises of Radio New Zealand and he said to the staff that they “had every reason to feel nervous bullied and uncertain under the previous administration”. State-owned broadcasting should be robust enough and independent enough to survive a change in Government—and there will be a change in Government to the centre-right. Radio New Zealand must be robust enough to sustain that. If people like Martin Gallagher who gave one of his rare but welcome vein-popping speeches— 
Simon Power 
: It was his maiden speech. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: It was a wonderful speech. He was passionately declaring his loyalty to save public radio. If that is the case that broadcaster must be able to sustain a change of Government. The Minister has been compromising it. He said: “Under the National Government Radio New Zealand struggled against political reluctance to maintain its funding and through public pressure and its own lobbying managed to secure the continuing existence of two networks. Many of you here will have taken part in those battles because you know that public radio is worth fighting for.” I question the wisdom of the Minister of Broadcasting allowing Radio New Zealand to be used for the delivery of such an overt political message. It is questionable especially when concerns of political bias are levelled at that organisation. 
The Minister’s theme that public radio is under threat from its political opponents does appear to have currency with the broadcaster. The broadcaster has clearly been influenced by the Minister to take his views on board. The website asserts that this is “a time when the whole concept of public radio is under attack”. The Radio New Zealand statement of intent for 2003-04 declares under the heading of “Strategic Issues” that the institution of Radio New Zealand was “eroded” during the 1990s and needed “rebuilding”. There is not a lot of wisdom in the State broadcaster putting issues like that—a criticism of the previous Government—on its website when it is required to be independent fair and unbiased. It is expressing a clear political and philosophical view. That is why I believe that it is not adhering to the charter at the moment that is why I do not think we should be adding anything more to the charter and that is why the ACT party did not support this amendment to the charter going in the Statutes Amendment Bill. 
Ms Kedgley seems to miss the point there. She said that we are whinging on about the State being secular. Well those issues of spirituality should be required to compete in the marketplace of ideas with their own funding and support and not be supported by taxpayer funding. That is the point we make. Statutes Amendment bills are meant to be used for non-controversial issues and we have seen from the debate tonight that this issue is far from non-controversial. 
The survey that Dutton and Isles authored and commissioned showed that the voices of some sectors of the public are not aired on public radio. There are no voices of market liberals for instance. There are very few voices of the centre-right. There are a few voices of the conservative-right but certainly if one considers market liberals—the voices of freedom the voices that are pro-capitalist—one finds they are never heard on public radio. Public radio is not representing a large number of the community out there and probably that is the sector of the community contributing most to the taxes that fund public radio. 
I say that if this Government is serious about protecting public broadcasting and if the Greens are serious about protecting public broadcasting then they have to face up to the fact that it is not as glorious wonderful and perfect as they think it is and that it needs to be a robust and independent organisation that is already sticking to its charter rather than more things being put in the charter and it being put under even further pressure and set up to fail. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. I will try to keep my voice down a little because I know that some of us are actually trying to do some work. 
Simon Power 
: Some of your colleagues are trying to sleep. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Not some of my colleagues; in fact some Labour members were trying to go to sleep and now they are off to bed I think. The bill covers three aspects of Radio New Zealand operations. Briefly the first is amendments to the charter to encourage Radio New Zealand to contribute towards New Zealand’s spiritual and ethical development. A lot of people have a bit of a problem with that and I do not understand why. Commercial radio stations have a charter and their charter is money. They go after it. They provide what they need to get the ratings they need so that they can get advertising dollars. That is their charter; that is their mandate. I think Radio New Zealand has a slightly different focus and that is fair enough. 
Secondly there are amendments that require Radio New Zealand to feature programmes that provide for varied interests including now a full range of age groups. Who can complain about that? This broadcaster is a public broadcaster. We should be looking for a public broadcaster to look at a variety of interests—ethical and spiritual different age groups and the like. That is something commercial radio stations frequently do not do because that is not where their dollars are. That is not what their charter if one can call it that—the financial incentive—covers. I am not knocking the financial incentive. I am absolutely in favour of advertising being the driving force of commercial interests but I am suggesting that there is a place for a State-sponsored radio station to provide those things that other outlets simply cannot do. 
The last amendment of substance requires Radio New Zealand annually to survey not just its existing audience but also attitudes amongst those who do not currently listen to Radio New Zealand. 
Some of the charter prescriptions do seem a little bit woolly but that is actually their strength in some ways. They should not be seen as prescriptive. They are really just an acknowledgment of aspects of our lives other than just the material. The broadcasting mandate of Radio New Zealand is the public and whether we like it or not the public do have spiritual and ethical values. Those against these provisions have the difficulty of providing a rationale against the use of the words “spiritual” and “ethical”. It is not driving a particular dogma down anybody’s throat; it is simply recognising that aspect of society which sometimes goes unacknowledged by the market-driven providers of radio. I am surprised that those who want to place for example Treaty of Waitangi obligations in legislation can possibly be against the lesser consideration of that which is spiritual or ethical. Is that not the basis of Maori Television—something we are actually against? But I do not think we can complain too much about the provision of both spiritual and ethical development; too much time has been spent debating that particular issue. 
The amendment to the Radio New Zealand charter brings some consistency in terms of the programming requirements for two publicly owned broadcasting media—Television New Zealand’s charter and now the charter of Radio New Zealand. It brings consistency to both. Clause 3(2) requires Radio New Zealand to provide programming that caters to “a full range of age groups” and it is particularly pleasing that that provision is included as it will ensure that Radio New Zealand provides programming that is specific to child listeners and not just to the elderly. 
One of the ongoing issues on which we have sought resolution is the issue of accountability by Radio New Zealand to its public. That is something that for private providers is accomplished through the market mechanism. This bill requires Radio New Zealand to survey not just its audience but also its non-audience so that it might delineate the wishes of the rest of the radio-listening public provide for their interests and attract new listeners accordingly. This amendment is a commendable attempt; however we are severely disappointed that the Commerce Committee has remained too timid to deal with the real issues surrounding Radio New Zealand’s surveys. It is however an operational matter; nevertheless it should compete on a level playing field. An ACNielsen survey recently found that one in five radio listeners listened to either National Radio or Concert FM. It would be very interesting indeed to see if a comparison with the monthly commercial radio surveys showed there is consistent listenership of Radio New Zealand yet we do not know that because Radio New Zealand has decided not to take part in the industry’s standard surveys. Why not? It should. The select committee has gone so far as specifying that Radio New Zealand must undertake annual surveys of its audience of a quantitative and qualitative nature; it would have been easier to specify that Radio New Zealand take part in regular industry-wide radio audience surveys. It is disappointing that the committee has not addressed that and accordingly I think Radio New Zealand will continue to kid itself about its true level of public support until it faces reality and subjects itself to the scrutiny of the regular industry-wide surveys. It is that point that I am surprised has not been picked up to a much greater extent by the Opposition. 
United Future will be supporting this bill. However that support is with some reservation. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 As I rise to speak to the third reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill I must say that it was very interesting to hear the Acting Minister of Broadcasting’s speech. Never has a Minister read so much and said so little. Basically when we listen to what the Minister has said we are left with the impression that everything has gone along swimmingly at Radio New Zealand and that this Government has an unblemished record. Well I think that members on this side of the Chamber know that is not the case because despite a lot of rhetoric about Radio New Zealand this Government did at one stage cut its news budget and the company has had a long stream of employment disputes. We need mention only the names of Lynne Snowdon and Sean Plunket to remind listeners that Radio New Zealand has not been a happy place over the last 4 years or so. 
 We have been looking at the Radio New Zealand charter for the last 4 years and it is interesting that we are debating what is a two-page bill in urgency. I must say that there has not been a groundswell of support for this bill. There have not been protests in the streets and there have not even been calls or emails or letters from listeners demanding that we get this bill through the House. I imagine that most Radio New Zealand listeners would not even know that this bill existed but here we are in urgency putting it through. 
I think it is worthwhile looking at what this bill tries to achieve. Although the member from the Greens says it is good to have a radio station that will evaluate ethical or spiritual issues that is not what this bill is about at all. This bill is about putting into the charter a requirement to reflect the ethical and spiritual needs of New Zealanders. The Acting Minister was challenged during the Committee stage to tell the Committee what that meant—what did the Government think were the ethical and spiritual needs of New Zealanders? I think one thing that we have established is that New Zealanders are not all the same. Certainly not every New Zealander chooses to listen to Radio New Zealand. Some of the listenership measurements are actually quite small and in some major metropolitan areas Radio New Zealand is lucky to get 5 percent of listeners. So a lot of New Zealanders are not choosing to listen to Radio New Zealand. We need to have explained to us how this new addition to the charter would make any difference. One of the things that we understand is that although those two words will be inserted into the charter very little will change in terms of what programming is offered by Radio New Zealand. 
It is also worth looking at the new requirements to carry out surveys. It was not rocket science but during the select committee process we asked Sharon Crosbie and officials why Radio New Zealand had pulled out of the national survey by ACNielsen. We were told that it was too costly—it cost $100000—and that Radio New Zealand was not competing with other commercial broadcasters. We asked how in that case Radio New Zealand would know what listeners want to hear and how listeners were judging it. It told us that it would do its own survey. Interestingly and coincidently the survey cost $100000. Rather than talk to a wide range of people Radio New Zealand spoke to just those who listen to Radio New Zealand. We asked whether it was obligated also to interview and survey those people who do not listen to Radio New Zealand because one of the things we are seeing with the listenership figures is that the number of people tuning into Radio New Zealand is actually decreasing each and every year. A startling thing about Radio New Zealand is that one of its objectives is not to lose more than a certain number of listeners every year. In our view that is a bit like a turkey looking forward to Christmas. 
It is not the role of State broadcasting to tell us what to think or to reflect what our ethical values are. Mind you if we are going to discuss ethics it might be of use for Radio New Zealand to start giving a few messages to Labour members such as not lying and not signing paintings that they do not paint themselves. Those may be some of the ethical issues that are addressed by this new requirement to reflect ethical needs. What we are seeing here is social engineering. It is the sort of patronising approach to radio listeners that says somehow the Government knows best and that it can insert a requirement for the broadcaster to reflect what it thinks should be our ethics and our spiritual needs. 
In terms of Radio New Zealand I do not think there is any doubt that there is a huge amount of support for the station and for public broadcasting in this country. Government members would have us believe that they have a monopoly on interest in public broadcasting but that is not the case. When we look at the cost of bringing this legislation through the House I think we have to be very careful not just to bring through what is feel-good legislation. This bill is not about governance or structure and it is not about changing the nature of the service; it is about changing a couple of words in the charter. I think it is quite clear that this Government is totally obsessed with charters. If something moves the Government thinks it needs a charter. We have seen the way that it has constrained Television New Zealand and involved that broadcaster in what is a political debate. I think we are also seeing the same kind of thing with Radio New Zealand. It is the role of a State broadcaster to reflect a certain part of the community but it is a sad day when we look to radio to try to direct us about what we should believe and what our spiritual and ethical needs should be. It is the sort of “We know best.” approach that we are very used to seeing from this Government. 
Looking at the way that the Acting Minister Mr Benson-Pope has handled this particular bill through the House I think it is not a credit to the work that Minister Maharey has done to date. Mr Benson-Pope is not even in the Chamber listening to the debate. After reading his speech he decided that that was all he was required to do. I think he drew the short straw in the Labour Cabinet. He probably felt he had the credentials to be the Minister of Broadcasting. I imagine he piped up and said that he listened to the radio and that was probably all that was required. 
We all have expectations of State radio. I do not agree with the Green member that it is always independent but I think it is up to all members of this House to challenge what is broadcast when required and to hold all broadcasters to account to make sure that they do cover a wide range of views. But what we are seeing here with the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill is just a lot of expense. A two-page bill is being dealt with under urgency when it does little more than add a couple of weasel words to an overly bureaucratic charter. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill because I support the changes to the charter. I listened very carefully to what the previous speaker had to say and I am sorry she missed what is the intent of the changes to the charter. I believe they are about informing people. We in the Government like people to be informed. We like to encourage people to think and debate the current issues that are topical today both nationally and internationally. We are lucky in New Zealand that we have a good choice of radio to listen to. Talkback does not appeal to me but I am an avid listener to Radio New Zealand and I support the programmes it is putting out to New Zealanders. 
I bridled a little bit at the member’s comment about social engineering and her accusation that that only ever happens when this Government is in power. I have to ask that member what she considered the policies of the former National Government were. If that was not social engineering I do not know what is. 
The international radio service that is provided to the South Pacific is incredibly important to a lot of people who are geographically isolated. That in itself is very valuable. I am pleased to support this bill and I look forward to it going through the House quickly. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 Finally I get to make a contribution in the third reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. I rise to speak in opposition to the bill and I do so for a number of reasons. I was interested to hear the contribution from the previous speaker and also the contributions from both the Greens and United Future. Those members talked about the importance of having an independent State-owned subsidised radio station. I am not sure whether I am philosophically in agreement with that but that is not what the debate is about. The reason why we are opposed to this bill tonight is the very reason that they put forward—that this radio station is valuable and we want it to survive. 
There is an old cliché that goes with socialist Governments: if it moves tax it; if it keeps moving tax it a bit more; and if it stops moving subsidise it so we can get it moving again. This is a subsidised radio station to start with. The Government cannot apply that cliche so what does it have here? The Government has a charter that is so convoluted and so difficult for anybody to ever achieve its objectives that it will strangle the radio station that way. The Government cannot tax it until it is dead so it will strangle it with its charter. 
Words fail me but members should look at some of the social engineering and rhetoric in this charter. It could be introduced only by a socialist Government such as the one on the other side of the House. The words “spiritual and ethical” are in the bill but the Minister said in the first reading that those words do not mean religious denomination. I was confused and not quite up to speed with what they mean so I went to the  
Concise 
Oxford Dictionary 
 to find out. They do mean religious denomination so obviously in the new Radio New Zealand charter the Labour Party will recreate a new  
Concise 
Oxford Dictionary 
 according to the principles of Helen Clark. That is what it will do. 
We have had a bit of discussion recently in public and in the media about the whole issue of religion according to the Prime Minister. She says she is agnostic. Maybe one of the members on the other side—the Minister over there—will take a call and clear some of this up for us. Maybe he will maybe he will not—there has been no evidence of it so far. Maybe “spiritual” means agnostic but that is not what the  
Concise 
Oxford Dictionary 
 says. That is the whole basis of our opposition. The fact is that this will create endless ambiguity around what Radio New Zealand is supposed to deliver. “Spiritual” means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. 
So then we turn to Radio New Zealand. This legislation says that Radio New Zealand has to meet the needs of all age groups. So it is going to meet all spiritual needs and the needs of all age groups? I am really starting to despair. It is a bit too late at 11.30 p.m. for those at home in Taranaki - King Country to be listening to this debate on their valve radios but those listening to their cowshed radios in the morning will not understand for one moment what they mean by the Radio New Zealand charter. They will not have a clue what it means. 
United Future surprised me when its members said in very passionate speeches that they supported the passage of this bill and the introduction of the words “spiritual and ethical” into the charter. I always understood that for United Future the words meant religious denomination. Obviously the public of New Zealand are confused about what United Future stands for. I thought that is what the words meant. Clearly they do not so that is a revelation to those who might be listening out there. 
One part of this legislation might be useful and it is that the Government will conduct surveys to find out what both the listening public of Radio New Zealand and non-listeners think about the service. But the problem with that is that this Government has conducted many surveys in its term. It listens to the ones it wants to hear and ignores the ones that come up with a result that is not what it wants to hear. So will the Government take any notice of the responses from the survey? If the Government does take notice of surveys can it explain to me which survey was conducted and how that survey came up with the notion that it should introduce into the charter of Radio New Zealand the term “spiritual and ethical”? 
I do not know of any survey or any public opinion poll that suggests that that should be so. Certainly those who made submissions on the bill had concerns about it and raised those concerns in their submissions. Certainly members on this side of the House who have contributed to the debate have overwhelming raised that as an issue of concern. The Government was not even going to allow this issue to be properly aired. It was going to slip it through in an omnibus-type way so that it could not be debated tonight. The fact is that those kinds of bills are supposed to be non-controversial. We cannot introduce into the charter of Radio New Zealand terms like “spiritual and ethical” and not expect at some stage that it will be controversial. I hope that a Minister or somebody on the other side of the House who might have a view on this issue will take a call and explain to us what they mean by that. 
The charter as it stands at the moment—as it is prescribed in this legislation—will do nothing but strangle Radio New Zealand and that will be a great pity. There are a number of us who listen to it. There are a number of us who believe that at times it is fairly balanced. There are a number of us who participate in debates on Radio New Zealand. We do not understand so we wish the Government would explain to us how under this charter Radio New Zealand will be able to live up to all these objectives. 
Further on in the legislation we see that the Government will also include in new section 7(1)(ga) of the principal Act the term “Radio New Zealand International” which means that Radio New Zealand will have to cater for the Pacific Islands and other nations with different languages. So now we have Radio New Zealand catering to all age groups meeting all the spiritual and ethical needs of the nation and also having to cater for multiple languages. This station will have to work a miracle. The subsidy the Government will provide will have to increase tenfold or it will have to double triple or quadruple the amount of air time the station has. I do not know what it will have to do but it will certainly have to perform a miracle to achieve the objectives set out in the charter as prescribed here tonight. 
It is interesting to note that several Ministers are here tonight and not one of them has taken a call to explain to us in this third reading what this all means how it will be achieved and when they think they will be able to achieve this objective for the public of New Zealand. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a third time. 
Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill be now read a second time 
. This has been reported back from the Law and Order Committee which recommends that it be passed with amendments as shown. I would like to thank the select committee for the work it has done on this bill. The amendments recommended by the committee will improve the operation of the legislation. 
This bill is necessary to ensure that law enforcement and national security capability are not seriously eroded by changes in technology. The bill places a legislative obligation on telecommunication network operators to be technically able to intercept telecommunications going over that network when authorised by a warrant or other lawful authority. The bill also creates a legislative “duty to assist” on all telecommunication network operators and service providers. This means they must provide reasonable assistance to the police the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Security Intelligence Service when intercepting telecommunications within their technical capability and on a cost-recovery basis. The bill does not change or extend in any way the existing powers of the police the Government Communications Security Bureau or the Security Intelligence Service to intercept communications. If the relevant agency has lawful authority to intercept a telecommunication technological barriers should not prevent it from doing so. 
I shall now focus on some of the amendments to the bill proposed as a result of the select committee process. Concern was raised in some submissions that the bill required each network and service to have interception capability installed within it. This would impact on costs making them unnecessarily high when the same interception capability could be achieved by an external technology used on an “as needed” basis. The intention of the bill was not to require interception capability to be installed within all networks and services. The bill was intended to set out broadly what is required to have interception capability and to leave it to the network operator to decide how best to achieve this within the network. The committee has therefore recommended an amendment to the bill to clarify that the interception capability does not need to be installed within each element of the network or service to comply with the requirements of the bill. 
This freedom to choose is enforced in the purpose clause which states that one of the purposes of the Act is to ensure network operators and service providers have the freedom to choose design features and specifications appropriate for their own purposes. 
The committee also recommended some amendments around clause 8 which sets out when the duty to have an interception capability is complied with. These include recognising that in some cases the network operator not the surveillance agency will carry out the interception. In this situation interception is complete when the information is passed on to the surveillance agency. 
The committee also recommended further limitations to be placed on the requirement to decrypt. This limitation is that a network operator will not be required to decrypt communications for products that it simply on-sells on behalf of the manufacturer and that the customer would be able to purchase from a retail outlet. To require decryption in this situation would place the network operator at a commercial disadvantage as he or she would not be able to sell a particular product if he or she did not have the key but the customer could go and buy exactly the same product from a shop and then use it over the network operator’s network. 
The committee also recommended two changes in respect of the “duty to assist” provision. The first was as with clause 8 to recognise that in some cases the network operator not the surveillance agency will carry out the interception. The second was to lower the standard required to comply with the duty to assist. This means that network operators and service providers would have to take all reasonable steps that are necessary in respect of interception. In response to a submission from a network operator the committee recommended changing the time required for a surveillance agency to pay an invoice from 2 months to 1 month. This has been agreed. In light of the comments made by the Regulations Review Committee the committee has recommended that the regulation-making power in the bill be amended. These amendments include removing two regulation-making powers that were very general and adding a regulation-making power to allow regulations for matters that are necessary for the bill’s administration or necessary to give its full effect. 
The committee also recommended removing part of the clause that stated that the failure to comply with certain requirements did not affect the validity of any regulations made. There is ability for the Minister not to comply with those requirements if urgency in the public interest requires it. In those circumstances the committee agreed that this clause should be deleted. 
The committee has also recommended amendments to some of the definitions contained in the bill to enable the bill to be given full effect. The committee also examined the issue of costs. A phased implementation process is included in the bill to provide the industry with the opportunity to implement the necessary changes in a way that is cost efficient. The Government will pay for the provision of interception capability for fixed and mobile voice networks that were in operation on 12 November 2002. Interception capability needs to be implemented within 18 months from when the bill comes into force. The cost is estimated to be $3 million. 
Network operators will meet the cost of providing interception capability for Internet and email services with a 5-year implementation period from the date of enactment. It is estimated that this will cost the industry $12 million. The committee received submissions from network operators stating that the costs were estimated to be much higher than this. Because of this variance further consultation work took place with these network operators. The increased costs were based on operators perceiving that they would be required to have interception capability installed with all networks and services to comply with the requirements in the bill. As I said earlier this is not the intention of the bill which is to give each network operator the freedom to decide how interception capability is best achieved within its system. 
Once this was clarified the revised cost estimate was put within the range of $10 million to $13 million making the original estimate of $12 million still accurate. Amendments have been made to the bill to ensure that the intention of the legislation in this respect is clear. 
I have also tabled a Supplementary Order Paper that makes three minor amendments. The first is a change to the definition of “interception warrant” to take into account the passage of the Crimes Amendment Act which was passed in October last year. The second amendment is to ensure that all legislative authorities to intercept are covered in the definition of “other lawful interception authority”. The final amendment is a drafting change to correct a wrong cross-reference. I commend this bill to the House. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Although I was not a member of what at first glance appears to be a reasonably high-powered group on the Law and Order Committee this evening I have found myself taking an urgent interest in this bill. I wish to raise two or three matters with the House and with the Minister in his interpretation of the bill. The Minister moved quickly through his recital of officials’ notes and perhaps did not spend sufficient time explaining to the House the fact that this bill does not change or extend existing powers. That is quite an important issue. The bill does ensure that certain technicalities by the telecommunications industry are able to be met in order to carry out the interception as opposed to creating a whole new raft of legislative measures so that that interception may occur. 
It is an important point to make because on the one hand issues like this always balance finely issues of privacy for individuals using telecommunications devices with on the other hand the greater public good in respect of security issues. I have to say concerning the explanatory note to this bill referring to national security—and the Minister himself raised the issue of national security—that it is worth reading from the background commentary this point: “This legislation is necessary to prevent law enforcement and national security capability being seriously eroded because of technical issues related to telecommunications networks.” 
I am sure when various officials appeared before this high-powered Law and Order Committee the first question on the minds of those members of the select committee would have been to ask those officials: “Whatever happened to the incredibly benign strategic environment?”. No doubt given the calibre of those members who make up this committee there was sufficient cross-examination of those officials to simply get to the bottom of the issue. If indeed this country still exists in what the Prime Minister has termed an incredibly benign strategic environment then why is legislation like this necessary? I would be interested in hearing from those members of the Law and Order Committee as to what response they received from officials when they raised that issue. 
The Government cannot have it both ways. The Government either believes that we live in an incredibly benign strategic environment as the Prime Minister has stated on many occasions or the Government believes that legislation is necessary to be brought into this House to literally twist the arm of telecommunications providers to ensure national security objectives are met. Now we in the National Party will be supporting the passage of this bill because we do believe that these measures are essential for national security objectives to be met and in particular for telecommunications providers of both landlines as they are so-called and cellphones to have the technical equipment in order that the necessary surveillance is carried out. 
But the question must be asked that if the Government’s stated foreign policy position in respect of the post - September 11 environment is still that this country is in an incredibly benign strategic environment then how does this legislation fit into that paradigm? I do not think it is an unreasonable question for members of this House to ask particularly when this party and to be fair the ACT party have consistently supported the view that changes to our foreign policy and defence arrangements must reflect the fact that our strategic environment has altered substantially since September 11 since Bali since Jakarta since Madrid and since Baghdad. 
It is simply not good enough for the Government to say on the one hand“Well no that is just not the case we live in an incredibly benign strategic environment but at the same time we’re going to pass new legislation for national security measures.” I would be interested in hearing from Marc Alexander and others who sat on the select committee as to how those two objectives were met by the select committee when considering the policy statements of the Government about the strategic environment that we exist in and how that was measured against the legislation that now appears before this House for its second reading. 
Interestingly and I have to say that this is a point that leapt out of the commentary at me as I was sitting here earlier this evening reading this bill the fact that Australia and the United Kingdom passed this type of legislation into law—in the case of the United Kingdom 4 years ago and in the case of Australia 7 years ago—that goes to the heart of the issue being raised by members on this side of the House which is this. Australia and the United Kingdom took these issues seriously long before this Government did. And it is simply not good enough to have a last-minute run at this issue when we have seen world terrorism on the global stage operating at a level that simply denies the Government its fundamental foreign policy position that we live in a benign strategic environment—because the evidence simply does not point in that direction at all. 
Keith Locke 
: It does. 
SIMON POWER 
: Well I am looking forward to hearing what the Green Party and I presume Keith Locke has to say about this. I know that the Green Party will be concerned about privacy issues and I will be interested to hear from them as to how those issues fit in with their view of how benign or otherwise the current strategic environment is. 
I do want to raise one further point and that is that the Government rightly will pay the costs relating to the provision of the particular interception capability and so it should and National supports that measure in particular as well as supporting the wider implications of this bill. If indeed this bill is as the Minister says an issue of national security then it is incumbent on the Government to meet those technical capabilities by way of cost to those telecommunication providers in a way that makes us a responsible international player in an environment that we believe on this side of the House has never been incredibly benign let alone since September 11 Bali Jakarta Madrid and Baghdad. 
It is worth noting though—and I did raise this while the Minister was making his contribution—that although the Minister estimates costs to be borne by the telecommunications companies were estimated to be $12 million in fact the submissions made to the select committee according to the commentary put those figures well out of line with the $23.5 million or if one likes $43.5 million based on all network elements that that interception capability would cost. I think the Government needs to assure the public of New Zealand that the moneys committed by the Government to ensure these interception capabilities are going to work are sufficient to ensure national security will be preserved. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Yes. 
SIMON POWER 
: While the Minister says “Yes” I hope he is right. As I said earlier in my contribution the National Party will be supporting the passage of this bill through the House primarily because our view that we do not live in a benign strategic environment has not altered at all in the time that I have been in this House. I look forward to making further statements in respect of this bill when we enter into the Committee stage later this evening. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I think I sound like a stuck record. Given the summary that the Associate Minister of Justice so robotically read out at a thousand miles an hour I do not think there is any sense in rotary hoeing the same paddock again. I think we pretty much know what the bill intends. But I will touch on a couple of headings. 
Although my name does not appear amongst the members of the Law and Order Committee listed in its report I did sit in on many of the submissions and on the consideration of this bill as a result of my interest in matters of defence and security. The reasons for the bill have been quite clearly put and reinforced by Simon Power. I think one of the things the bill does make very clear is who a network operator is who a service provider is what is “duty to assist” and what does having interception capability mean. The bill highlights recent overseas legislation passed by the Australian Commonwealth in 1997 and by the United Kingdom—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. 
The report from the select committee is worth looking at because it states that the committee received four outside submissions three of which were opposed. The opposition to this bill came from people who believe that it is “an overreaction to the terrorist events of 11 September 2001 and an intrusion into personal privacy.” I will come back to that. 
A number of things were dealt with by the select committee and most interesting was the controversy that arose out of the original estimated cost to telecommunications companies—the cost that the companies themselves are to bear as a result of this legislation being enacted. It was interesting that the telecommunications companies questioned the $12 million cost—a figure arrived at by the Government—and quoted a much larger figure of $43576000 as being the base cost for compliance. After some discussions and the amendments to the bill which have seen some limitations it is interesting to note that the costs are back down to around the $10 million to $13 million range. 
It is interesting to note also that this bill was looked at by not just the Law and Order Committee; I understand that it was looked at by the Commerce Committee and also by the Regulations Review Committee. So the scrutiny of this bill was most definitely wide reaching. 
What struck me as very interesting were some of the comments made about the bill by people who quite clearly are opposed to it and I have absolutely no doubt that the Green Party will want to reinforce those views. I would like to raise the comments that have been made that do give me cause for concern. 
Comments made by the Anti-Bases Campaign state in part: “And for what good reason are our privacy protections being progressively eroded and our private communications being open to intelligence agencies with no effective oversight or accountability?”. I would ask every member of this House to read this legislation carefully and see where the oversight and accountability lie because those words are lies. “No convincing case has yet been made by Government as to why so much new intrusive power must be vested in the police and intelligence agencies. The Anti-Bases Campaign believes that the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill and the several recent pieces of legislation related to it are overreactions to the terrorist events of September 11 in the United States and are not driven by genuine and supportable law enforcement needs in New Zealand.” 
Well I find absolutely astounding that people who have the freedom and liberty to write those views and to express them publicly internationally are the very last people on this whole planet who will ever put on a uniform ever pick up a firearm ever swear allegiance to the Crown in this country and ever fight to defend the right to express such nonsensical views. The absolutely astounding irony is that this wall around us is bedecked with memorials to men who have given their lives to allow people to say such things and we all know that the very people who say those things would never ever do likewise. In fact what is even more ironic is that I have never heard the Anti-Bases Campaign people or the people who are members of such an organisation go on about the KGB. The huge irony is that many of those people were members of the Communist Party the party renowned for giving us Stalin Lenin and the KGB. So where were their cries of intrusion into privacy in those years? Where was Mr Locke? Was he out there campaigning against the KGB for its intrusion into the privacy of the life of the average Soviet person? Not on your nelly was he! He was a member of the party advocating and supporting such things. [ 
Interruption 
] It had better be legitimate. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member was talking about the Communist Party and said I was a member of the Communist Party. I have never been a member of the Communist Party. 
RON MARK 
: Oh a Russian Pol Pot—I am sorry. But the member’s father was. Maybe I got it wrong; maybe I have the wrong Locke. But the point is—[ 
Interruption 
] Was that Labour member over there a member of the Communist Party as well? 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In that interchange that just went on reference was made by Mr Mark to connections with Pol Pot. That has been ruled out repeatedly in this House and I would say that a mercenary attitude towards things is not applicable. Does the member know what I mean by “mercenary”? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No we will not get into that. I thank the member for pointing that out. No references to Pol Pot please Mr Mark. 
RON MARK 
: I will not refer to any newspaper article I have ever read. 
Jill Pettis 
: A very mercenary attitude. 
RON MARK 
: Absolutely there is nothing wrong with a good mercenary. I do not know what that has to do with anything on this planet. I do not know what the member means. I do not know whether it is meant to be an insult but if she pulls out the Collins dictionary she will find that it is not. I do not know why the chief Government whip is defending the view of a party that is voting against this very legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] All the reds are out from under their beds! 
Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like it clarified for the record that I have never been a member of the Communist Party. I have been a proud member of this great Labour Party all my life. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
RON MARK 
: That is not a point of order at all and the member jolly well knows it If the member wants to break up my speech to make a personal statement then she should stand up to make a personal statement. I hope that none of that has come off my time. The member is being paid $100000 a year to do better than that. That is pathetic. She should hand back a day’s pay. 
The point is that I take great offence. Many of my fathers uncles and relatives from one end of this country to the other— 
Jill Pettis 
: How many fathers have you got? 
RON MARK 
: I have five fathers. In fact I have six. I have a natural father and five foster-fathers for the information of that ignorant member over there who has not read my bio. 
Jill Pettis 
: Why would I? 
RON MARK 
: At least my father is not a parrot. I really have got the reds out from under their beds! I make the point that there was a time when Mr Muldoon ran some advertisements about dancing Cossacks and was lambasted from one end of the country to the other. Much comment was made about the fear of reds under the beds. I put this to members: today we have a group of people who see Feds under the beds! Wherever they go they think the Feds or the police or spies are watching them. I actually think they have other things on their minds like terrorism. Yesterday 700 police in the UK busted up a terrorist ring found half a tonne of high explosives and arrested a whole bunch of Pakistani Brits. That is like what is happening in Manila in Bali in Baghdad and all over the world. They are dealing with the real security threats to the very lives of the people here who object against their doing that. I just hope that one day some time very soon we do not face a terrorism act in this country and that no member of the Greens has a family member who is caught up in that carnage. That will be the day that those people finally appreciate and understand the work that the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and all of its agents including Defence Force personnel of this country have to perform thankless though some people may be for the duties they carry out. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I draw the House’s attention to the time which is close to midnight. I seek leave that the House rises because it would be unfair on the next speaker to have his speech interrupted by the midnight adjournment. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 At nearly midnight we are discussing one of the most important pieces of legislation on our national security. This legislation was first introduced in 2002. In fact the bill was introduced to the House on 12 November 2002 and referred to the Law and Order Committee on 18 February 2003. Over a year later and at this hour at night we are discussing very very important legislation about our national security. Other countries have taken national security seriously. For example Australia has the Commonwealth Telecommunications Act 1997. The United Kingdom has the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. What is happening in New Zealand? Here were are in 2004 and this legislation is being debated under urgency at midnight. That is an insult. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m (Thursday).