Volume 625 Week 88 - Thursday 12 May 2005 
Volume 625 Week 88 - Thursday 12 May 2005 
[Volume:625;Page:20521] 
Thursday 12 May 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill to the third reading of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill and to the first readings of the bills on the Order Paper. On Thursday of course the Minister of Finance will present Budget 2005 at 2 p.m. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Parliament functions well and Government functions well in this country when we all accept the premise that the Government has the right to advance its business and we accept that the Standing Orders are structured so that a Government can get its business done. But part of Government is accountability and the role of the Opposition is in a public way to hold Ministers to account. 
So I want to make it very clear that we are most unhappy that a Minister who is presiding over a portfolio—the police portfolio—and who is currently coming under considerable public scrutiny is not in the Chamber today to answer questions set down to him. We note that neither is the Prime Minister present when it might reasonably have been expected that a confidence question would be asked of her and nor is the Deputy Prime Minister present who normally fills in for her. For that matter nor are the third fourth and fifth-ranking Ministers in Cabinet present today. 
So we have a couple of options open to us. The first is to seek leave to defer the questions to be put to those Ministers perhaps until tomorrow or Saturday or maybe Sunday afternoon when they might have some time in which to be accountable to the public of this country or we could equally decide to use the Standing Orders just as the Government is using them—to its own ends—which would of course deny legislative time and therefore opportunity to the Government. Neither of those two options should be seen as desirable. 
Given that the Government it would seem has used the Standing Orders today to try to avoid Ministers—particularly the Minister of Police George Hawkins—coming under scrutiny and given that that Minister has fled the capital along with the Prime Minister and most of the Labour front bench at a time they are in a tight situation I seek leave for the questions set down to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Police to be held over until the next sitting day that those members are able to be present in the House to answer them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought—[ 
Interruption 
] The member would like clarification? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The clarification I would like is to make sure that the member is not asking for those to be additional questions on the next sitting day because he did not make that clear. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for those specific questions to be deferred to the next sitting day. Is that right? 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That is right. That of course would not alter the allocation of questions on the next sitting day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that matter. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make a point that follows on from what Mr Brownlee said but it is a new point and it is on your role of upholding the rights and privileges of this Parliament. 
For some time in this Parliament we have been questioning the Minister of Police over the emergency 111 system. The answer first of all was that there was no problem and that resources were adequate. The answer then became that everything was awaiting the delivery of a report. I do not need to explain to you how important the 111 system is to the operation of the New Zealand Police and the confidence that New Zealanders have in the police. Finally after being delayed and suffering obfuscation for months the report has been released. We turn up to Parliament and what do we discover? The Minister of Police has done a runner because he does not care about his portfolio or about the people of New Zealand. The Prime Minister has done a runner. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member just come to the point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I would expect you to be suggesting in a gentle way to the Government that when a report of some note comes out such as this one which is of some concern to the public of New Zealand Ministers actually front up to this Parliament and give this Parliament and the people of New Zealand the respect that they deserve by answering the questions that we have set down. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 My first point would be that that is not a point of order. On many occasions it has been ruled that the Government is treated as a whole and that any Minister can answer on behalf of any other Minister. On the specific question I am advised that Mr Hawkins has a long-standing engagement dealing with the matters to do with the Bay of Plenty floods. It was set down some time ago and people have been arranging it. He did not control the release of the documentation yesterday. I am not sure whether the member was here but there was a large debate held throughout yesterday afternoon on the matter. So the idea that the Government is not fronting up is clearly not correct. I would also point out that no major party in the House—and in fact no major party that will be here after the election—currently has a leader in the House. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have heard enough. Thank you very much. Let me rule on the first point of order please. If the member has another point I am sure there will be plenty of opportunity for other points to be put. I would just note on the point of order that as members are aware the Standing Orders in this Parliament mean that questions can be put to any Minister on any day. That is what the Standing Orders provide. I would also just note however that in other Parliaments the practice is different and Ministers are rostered to give answers to any questions that come up. Invariably under our system there will be occasions when Ministers are not available under our Standing Orders so the Standing Orders do provide that questions can be put to any Minister on any day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was an interesting piece of information from Trevor Mallard telling us that the reason George Hawkins is not in the House today is that he has for a long time planned to be at I believe the Bay of Plenty civil defence whatever that might in fact be. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please come to the point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have in front of me the ministerial diaries which are published each week so that the media can know where Ministers are. On the Thursday 12 May page there are no public appointments for Mr Hawkins anywhere around the country but on Friday 13 May—an appropriate day for Mr Hawkins to be anywhere—there is an appointment for Mr Hawkins to be in the Bay of Plenty launching the programme that he has put forward a day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am still not sure what the point of order is. What is the point of order? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Mr Mallard has misled the House. Further we now find that Mr Hawkins who has stood in the House on numerous occasions and said that he is not responsible for and that he does not get involved in operational matters is today supplanting himself in the midst of an operational matter at the Northern Communications Centre. There is no excuse for that Minister not being here and we would ask you to indicate to the Government that it is not good for the House to continue this practice. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I note that we are getting into a debate on the movements of the Minister of Police under the guise of a point of order. I think the member has made his point so perhaps he would now like to proceed to ask his question. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make it clear that I am not disputing your ruling. I am not disputing the point made by the Minister of Education in relation to the previous point either. But I invite you to consider going a step further in your advice to the House either formally in the Chamber or perhaps informally through the various channels available to you. I draw on Standing Order 80 which makes it clear that you are responsible for the order and decorum of the Chamber. Notwithstanding the point made by Mr Mallard that Governments are able to pass the parcel to any Minister to handle a particular issue I think that if you followed that to its literal conclusion you could for example have all Ministers bar say Judith Tizard absent from the House on a particular day leaving her to answer all the questions from Opposition members. I submit that that would be not only disorderly but also likely to detract from the decorum of the Chamber. 
It seems to me that somewhere there must be a line where you indicate that the decorum and the order of the House are suffering as a consequence of Ministers failing to be available when it is reasonable to expect them to be so. The Deputy Prime Minister has already let it be known—and has acted accordingly—that it is legitimate to withdraw Ministers from the House to obstruct the Opposition in pursuing the Government. I think that in those circumstances the House could only benefit if you were to give this matter some further reflection and either formally or informally to give us some guidance as to how you expect Standing Order 80 to be managed. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I thank my friend for his advice to the House and remind him that there are a number of precedents in this area. One dates from the late 1990s when the then Minister of Tourism after paying a friend of his nearly $500000 to leave her job absented himself from the House for days on end. The right of members to come to the House or not to come or to have other business—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Out! 
Hon Chris Carter withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
—is a matter that has been ruled on on many occasions. For that member to talk about a member’s absence from the House when he spent most of the first month of this sitting of the House outside because he had the pip with the person who sits on his left is just classic. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have just asked the Hon Chris Carter to leave for interrupting a point of order and I am sorry to say that that is what Mr Brownlee was doing also. The member wants me to apply the rules in this Parliament fairly. I have to do so. When points of order are being made there is to be no interruption. So I am sorry but Mr Brownlee will have to leave the Chamber. It is the only way I can conduct the business of this House fairly. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When a person is making a point of order that is clearly outside the Standing Orders—and the comments of the Minister of Education in respect of my colleague Murray McCully were way outside the Standing Orders and way outside what a point of order can be—what is a member meant to do? We are meant to rely on the Speaker to intervene. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Several points of order have already been raised that are not points of order. We listen to them and that is what I have been doing. I will allow Mr Brownlee to ask his questions of course. That is only fair. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I hope I can assist the Chair. Mr Mallard made some statements that frankly if he had made them about me I would not have remained quiet about regardless of whether I was supposed to. I will remind you of what he said. I hope Mr McCully does not mind me repeating the defamation. Mr Mallard said that Mr McCully had arranged for half a million dollars to go to a friend. That is gross corruption. The statement is completely out of order. Although the Speaker listens to points of order a Speaker would normally intervene at that point and tell a member that his or her statement is—it is right off the scale actually. That statement happens not to be true and it should not have been said. I am stunned that Mr McCully and his colleagues took it so meekly. Then one of them was told because he had sort of grunted that he would be thrown out. If Mr Brownlee is thrown out that is just an invitation for Mr Mallard who is Parliament’s worst offender to get up on points of order and accuse people of corruption. He said that half a million dollars was given to a friend. That is not true and we are supposed to take it. I say to you Madam Speaker that the House has not asked you to do that. The House has asked you to uphold the rules. If you are to throw Mr Brownlee out then I trust that you will name Mr Mallard and suspend him from the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The rules also provide as the member has said that Mr McCully could have raised a point of objection. He did not do that at that time. If he wishes to do so now—if he has taken offence—then of course he can ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The reason I did not take a point of order is that we were already in a point of order and I was intent on waiting for the point to be resolved. But since you have invited me to do so I say that of course I have taken gross offence at the quite defamatory and untrue statement that was made. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. I should have said that the member appointed someone paid him— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The withdrawal and apology are without any qualification at all. [ 
Interruption 
] I just make this comment Mr Hide. We are now getting into debatable matters through the raising of points of order. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask Mr Mallard to be seated. We are now getting into debatable matters under the guise of a point of order. The original point that was raised was about the absence of a Minister. I have addressed that point of order in accordance with the Standing Orders. I now invite Mr Brownlee to ask question No. 1. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point is a simple one. When a member is asked to withdraw and apologise he should do so immediately. You saw then from Trevor Mallard exactly what you had asked him to withdraw and apologise about. Immediately after withdrawing and apologising he then took another point of order simply for the purpose of having another attack on the Hon Murray McCully. It seems to me that you have to deal with that because that was a complete abuse of firstly the Standing Orders and secondly your authority in the Chair when you had asked him to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I reprimanded the member for that at the time. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In support of my colleague’s submission I say that it puts us in an interesting position when the acting Leader of the Opposition has been asked to leave the Chamber and to return only to ask the questions on the sheet when at the same time the very incident that the Minister was asked to withdraw and apologise for has been repeated—in a direct breach of the Standing Orders—by the adding of a qualification at the conclusion of that withdrawal and apology yet that member still remains in the Chamber when the acting Leader of the Opposition has been required to withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: They were two different points. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that to get the record clear I should withdraw and apologise without qualification. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You may have missed it but it was clearly discernable to members on the Opposition side of the House that while my colleague Mr Brownlee was engaged in a point of order the Minister of Education made an interjection which I will not repeat to the House that was designed to be insulting to Mr Brownlee. I was surprised that you did not reprimand him for that at the time and I invite you to do so. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I did not hear it. However I did hear the intervention from the Hon Chris Carter which is why I asked him to leave the Chamber. 
Personal Explanations 
Trevor Mallard—Statement Made About Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House under Standing Order 343 to make a personal explanation in respect of the statement made by Mr Trevor Mallard on nationwide TV—the  
Close Up 
 programme—that I was personally responsible for the $20 million bail-out in respect of Te Wananga o Aotearoa. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal statement. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have now got ourselves into a particularly difficult situation. One of the rights or conventions—and indeed accepted as a right—of this House is that when members believe they been wronged they can have the opportunity to put the record right. 
An honourable member—in this case Nick Smith—has now asked for that to be done. In my 18 years here I cannot recall a person who wanted to make a position clear when there has been a reflection on him or her publicly being prevented from doing so in this House. I do recall a couple of occasions when leave was refused but advice was taken and the member who refused the leave reflected and allowed it to happen. I suggest that it might be well advised for the House to allow Nick Smith if he were allowed to seek leave again to make his statement. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 If the suggestion made is indeed followed then in the interests of making progress and of allowing the member to make his comment—with the assurance that it will be made strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders—I do not think there will be a problem. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has sought leave to make a personal statement. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 On Monday evening on  
Close Up 
 the Minister of Education said in response to a question from Susan Wood as to who should be held responsible for the mess in the wananga and the $20 million bail-out that it was me Nick Smith. 
I wish to make it absolutely plain to the House that I have never held any responsibility for the portfolio of tertiary education or for the wananga. I have dealt with no ministerial correspondence and no Cabinet papers. I have never had responsibility for any of the vote. I find it extraordinary that the Minister went on to say that I was responsible for developing a funding system. I was not responsible for developing any funding system in any of the responsibilities I held during my 3 years as a Minister of the Crown. I seek the leave of the House to table the ministerial delegations and responsibilities held during the time that I was a Minister of the Crown. 
Document not tabled. 
Questions to Ministers 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before we make progress on this question I remind you again that under Standing Order 80 you have the ability to determine the order of the House in the best way possible. You have indicated to the acting Leader of the Opposition Mr Brownlee that he is able to ask his question but then I understand he is expected to leave the Chamber. You also indicated that you had missed a disorderly interjection from a member on the other side who had been in my view quite disorderly. I ask you in the spirit of getting the best order in the House for the afternoon whether you might like to allow Mr Brownlee not only to ask his questions but also to participate in the balance of question time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am happy for Mr Brownlee to ask question No. 1 then to leave the Chamber and come back to ask question No. 5 and to remain in the Chamber thereafter. 
Police Minister—Confidence 
1. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Police; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Who does the Prime Minister hold responsible for the state of the police emergency system—a system with inadequate levels of service where calls are not dealt with quickly enough where patrol cars are not responding and where public safety is at risk? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The report of the review committee sets out quite clearly the difficulties that exist there. They are predominantly operational difficulties but it was the Commissioner of Police himself who asked for the review and the Commissioner of Police who has committed himself to respond to each of those review recommendations to ensure that this country has a first-rate communications centre system. 
Jill Pettis 
: Does the Minister believe that the Minister of Police has responded appropriately to the findings of the independent review of police communications centres? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. The Minister committed himself in the House in November and again in February to deliver additional resources on top of the additional resources he has already delivered to the police over 5 years if the review concluded that they were necessary to address problems in the 111 system. That Minister of course has honoured that promise in full. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Prime Minister seriously expect the country to accept this Minister as being competent when he ignored the advice given to him on 29 September 2002 by a communications officer as to the problems with the emergency 111 system; when he ignored the advice given to him by his own Commissioner of Police dated 21 November 2002 highlighting the problems of the 111 system in Auckland in particular; when he failed to take on board the very serious article published in  
Investigate 
 in June 2003 that cautioned that there would be a death; when he failed to approve the recommendations in the police bid for May 2003; and when he told this House that traffic officers were not sitting on the side of the road with their radios turned off and we now know they were? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I will answer two of those questions. Firstly the member is not quoting accurately from the first communication he talked about. That communication—he can table it if he likes—does not deal with communications staff; it deals with general staff. Secondly it was not ignored. It was passed on to the Commissioner of Police because it was an operational matter. Thirdly this Minister unlike Winston Peters when he was Deputy Prime Minister has delivered an increase in the Budget for police each and every year that he has been Minister. I refer Ron Mark to 1997 when the appropriations for the police were cut on Budget night. Winston Peters cut the police Budget. George Hawkins has seen it increase each and every year for 5 years. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that the substance of this report into the emergency 111 system comprises matters that a strong and capable Minister should have been able to find out without needing the assistance of the Australians and Canadians; if so does she now not regret her decision to put the placating of the internal factions of the Labour Party ahead of the good of the country by keeping Mr Hawkins as Minister of Police when it is patently obvious that her decision has put the lives of New Zealanders at risk? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The second point is absolutely wrong. On the first point that member would have been the first member in the House to accuse the Government of an in-house whitewash if the review had been done internally. I congratulate the Commissioner of Police on getting top people from three different jurisdictions to produce a forthright and comprehensive report then committing himself to implementing it—not before time. 
Ron Mark 
: I know this is outside of the normal procedure but I ask the indulgence of the House to seek leave at this particular point of time specifically as it may impact on the supplementary questions that follow because the Minister’s own statement in  
Hansard 
 that the letter I quoted from was not communications related and indeed— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could you come to the point. What is your point of order? 
Ron Mark 
: I want to seek the leave of the House and your indulgence because this is not the time to do it— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What is your point of order? 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from the police Southern Communications Centre in Christchurch dated 29 September 2002 written by K D Morrison a communications police staff member. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Prime Minister be urging the Minister of Police to look at decentralising call centres and merging the call answering and despatch functions as the review recommended to avoid the problem of operators hundreds of kilometres away knowing little about the town the distressed person is calling from or about what police resources are actually available? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That matter is patently an operational matter that the Prime Minister properly should not intervene in. 
Marc Alexander 
: How does the Prime Minister expect the public to have any confidence in the Minister of Police and in the Government’s propaganda asserting that crime is falling when yesterday’s independent report has clearly undermined police statistics on the true length of the time 111 callers had to wait for a response? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is no question about the accuracy of the statistics the way in which they are compiled and the fact that that has been consistent over time. I find it remarkable that every member of the Opposition was absolutely ready to—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister sit down. Interjections are permitted but they must be at a level where the answer can be heard. Would the Minister please continue. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I find it absolutely incredible that when those figures were going up in some categories every member of the Opposition had absolute faith in them; now that they are going down in every category those members choose to disbelieve them. The population can take its own conclusion from that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that her repeated expressions of confidence in George Hawkins have put New Zealanders calling the 111 system at risk and why does she continue to allow that incompetent and failed Minister to preside over that service when it clearly needs a new approach? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No I do not accept that but I draw Mr Brownlee’s attention to the fact that the previous National Minister refused to have an inquiry into the 111 system when it was sought in 1998. Secondly I draw attention to this fact from the Police Association: the National Government planned to cut 285 non-sworn staff including those who answered 111 calls. If that is not a case of double standards I do not know what is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The examples the Minister has rather hopefully clung to are almost a decade old. I think it would be appropriate for you to indicate to the Government that it is totally responsible for the last 6 years and for the mess that has been uncovered in this inquiry. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not think we need to have any more comment on this. The member has made the point. It is not for the Chair to comment on the quality of the answer. As members know that will be done by others who hear it. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. While Mr Brownlee was taking his point of order the acting Prime Minister Phil Goff interjected on him very clearly and very loudly. The appropriate course of action is to be consistent with the action taken in relation to Mr Brownlee—that is when the acting Prime Minister has finished answering his questions he should go out and come back in when he is due to answer them again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I heard a general level of intervention; I did not hear a specific comment or interjection thrown across. I heard a general level only. I am trying to be consistent here. But I would say to members that the whole level of chat and talk in this House is too high in this question time. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Perhaps to move matters forward on the points raised by Mr Hide I could offer two options respectfully to the Chair. Firstly any member on this side of the House would be happy to advise you who made the interjection. Secondly perhaps you would consider asking the acting Prime Minister directly whether he interjected during the course of that point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Did the Minister of Justice interject? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I said and probably too loudly: “That’s not correct.” in response to something that was incorrect. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well that was a comment. We are getting ourselves into a ridiculous position where there will be nobody left by the time we get to question time. However appealing that may well be to some people it would seem to me that that is not the appropriate way to run the House. The Minister will have time out also. I am not sure what other questions he will be answering but we will do an equivalent to what I have decreed in terms of the tariff before. The Minister will remain until he has finished answering this question unless members would like him to go without answering the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. First of all I apologise for the interjection but your proposal creates some problems for me. I am answering question Nos 1 3 5 7 8 and 11. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It does create a problem because it appears that Mr Goff actually is the Government today. [ 
Interruption 
] Well some might take some comfort from that. There is another alternative Madam Speaker which I do not think would reflect on your authority and that would be to call it quits and allow Mr Goff and Mr Brownlee to stay. Part of the reason I think you could do that is that there is a complete difference I think between a person who makes a loud interjection that the whole House hears during a point of order and someone who makes—how can I put it—an almost involuntary statement. I think that Mr Goff’s statement and Mr Brownlee’s statement were both in that category and that might help. Also you could use Mr Hunt’s guidance—you can exercise a lighter rule on Thursdays. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member has made a sensible suggestion so both members can stay for this question time. But I do make this point. I know it is Thursday and members are all anxious to go but could we please make some progress by keeping the level of interventions to the appropriate times—not during the asking of a question and not during points of order. During the answers of course there can be interjections but not to the point where the answer cannot be heard. Can we please make some progress. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister acting on behalf of the Prime Minister acknowledge that members of the public and Opposition MPs—and none more so than my colleague Ron Mark—have expressed concerns about the 111 call centre on many many occasions; and if he does acknowledge that will he make a commitment this afternoon that in future the Minister of Police will listen more seriously and genuinely to concerns raised about police operations or will it be a case of the same old same old—not listen to anybody and call a report after a personal tragedy and see what the hell happens then? Which is it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What I will acknowledge is that following the Bentley case and the Iraena Asher case it was clear that the system was not working as it should. The commissioner first of all acknowledged that by setting up this review which I think was a very good review. The Minister acknowledged that by undertaking to fund whatever the review required to happen so that the public could have confidence in the system. I think that both of those actions were appropriate. We are now seeing the dividends from that. The system is being fixed and $45.5 million has been put aside to ensure that that happens. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was a full and comprehensive answer but it was dealing with the past. I asked the Minister about the future. I asked whether there would be a change in the attitude of the Minister of Police in listening to concerns that are raised on this side of the House. It is a simple question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Minister said before that he was prepared to work on the basis of the objective findings of a review and he has done that. He did the right thing in the past and I support him doing that in the future. 
Stephen Franks 
: Will the Prime Minister now instruct the Minister of Police to go on his knees to Maggie Bentley with an abject apology for calling the 111 system’s handling of her desperate calls “textbook” and “exemplary” and what more would it take for the Prime Minister to call for the Minister’s resignation when he fobbed off all questions in this House about Maggie Bentley’s case to the report when the report does not mention it at all and when she tells me today that she has never heard from the Minister’s office that she has never heard from the commissioner’s office and that she has never had any inquiry at all from any member of the New Zealand Police about that complaint? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Far from fobbing off the concern the Minister has taken steps that will see an unprecedented $45.5 million invested in the service. In relation to the question of textbook requirements for police responding to 111 calls the textbook requirement was that if there is a dangerous individual then another person should not be put in the position of putting his or her life at risk in the meantime while the police are responding to the call. 
Marc Alexander 
: Has the scathing review of the national management structures of the police 111 system which are credited in the report as being “essentially defunct” with low staffing levels and woeful and inadequate training and “self-defeating inefficient and risky” changed the Prime Minister’s mind about the level of confidence she has in the Minister and in the Commissioner of Police; if not what would? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In the interests of accuracy I think the whole of the report of the review and its summation should be brought to the House’s attention. The review stated that we had a world-class technology system it stated that we had dedicated and committed staff it stated that the commissioner had already undertaken steps to address the problems and—and this is most important—it stated that the system was “readily fixable”. It will be fixed and it will be world-class just as the report indicated that it can be. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that the report into the emergency 111 system identifies that the serious problems were not the result of inadequate resources or technology failures but of management and leadership; if so when does she intend to apologise for leaving a broken-down Minister in charge of the vital police portfolio? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The comment made by the member does not follow. If the issue was not about resourcing but was about management issues then that is operational and that is clearly outside the scope of the Minister to intervene. One aspect of the recommendations recommendation 17 was about resourcing. It made the point that resourcing was just one issue. On the issue that the Minister clearly does have responsibility for he has met his responsibility by acquiring the money needed to fix the system. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Prime Minister explain why the Government has chosen to advance all her intrusive busybody social engineering policies while core State responsibilities such as the safety and security concerns of the public—concerns long recognised by anyone who had even a marginal interest in law and order issues—have been all but marginalised as is clearly outlined by the damning review of the police 111 system? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Of course the whole emphasis has been on the safety and security of the public. That is why we have 1000 additional members of the police force and why we have $200 million a year extra being spent. That is an indication of the commitment of this Government to better policing and to the safety and security of the public. 
Stephen Franks 
: Will the Prime Minister now instruct the Minister of Police and the Attorney-General to apologise to those people who have been hounded to bankruptcy by pointless prosecutions for defending their families against criminal intruders and reimburse them their legal costs now that we have independent proof that they cannot rely on police commander control or the 111 system to protect them? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I find it bizarre for anybody but particularly for a lawyer to suggest the Prime Minister should interfere with a judicial process where a court has made a decision. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister think that Mr Hawkins’ refusal to take any responsibility for the 111 crisis is a shining example of the Government’s lack of commitment to the new standards of accountability she so loudly heralded upon becoming Prime Minister? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Minister of Police can be accountable. He can be accountable for the additional $200 million a year being spent on the police he can be accountable for the 1000 extra staff he can be accountable for the lowest level of crime in this country in 23 years and he can be accountable for the fact that the police now have a better rate of crime resolution than they have had at any time in 21 years. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a document that shows that if one does not make the calls one does not make the sales and similarly if one does not get the calls one cannot make the arrests. That is how the Government has got its crime rates down. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a document. What document states that? The document has not been clearly identified. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the House gives me leave I will go away and write it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is starting to trifle with the House. That is an example of being disruptive. Members will settle down. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Health but I note that she is not in the House so I seek leave to defer it until she is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to defer the question. Is there any objection? There is. 
Health Ministry—Physiotherapy Industry 
2.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does the Ministry of Health monitor the physiotherapy industry; if not why not? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Health) 
  
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: No. The responsibility lies with the Physiotherapy Board of New Zealand which is an independent statutory board under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that many physiotherapists are being treated like crooks and fraudsters in this country with no evidence whatsoever and if she is not aware of that could she make herself aware of it and investigate what the background is? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: No. But if the member is referring to a specific or personal case I would be more than happy to hear from him and respond to him formally. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that because of the roughshod treatment that has been dished out by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) with the full knowledge of the Minister for ACC many physiotherapists are contemplating leaving the industry as several already have; if she is not aware would she take positive action to address this? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: The positive action that I will take is to refer the matter to the Minister for ACC. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that the Blair Government is putting a high priority on physiotherapy and encouraging more and more people into the industry but that we here through ACC with the Minister’s knowledge are doing the exact reverse; if he is not aware of that will he personally with the Minister of Health sit down and discuss these issues with physiotherapist organisations? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I am not aware of that but I would be more than happy to sit down and discuss these matters with physiotherapists. 
Police Minister—Piha Incident 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does he stand by all the answers he has given in the House since the Iraena Asher case now that the report on the review into the 111 system has been released? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: Yes. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why does the Minister stand by his comment in the House that there are no ghost squads in the New Zealand Police in light of the communications centre report that states that the police are switching calls to dummy units? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Minister of Police made it clear at the time that there are Intel nodes. They take calls that do not require urgent— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What’s the difference between a dummy and a ghost? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member would pause and listen I will give him the answer. There are Intel—[ 
Interruption 
] It is not good enough for the member to keep interjecting. If he wants to hear the answer he will shut up and listen. The Intel node is there to take calls from the police that are not urgent calls and that do not need immediate follow-up but that are important to log in on an intelligence basis so that the police can determine where crimes are happening and can respond with their overall strategy to ensure that where there are hot spots they give attention to them. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister received any reports on cuts to 111 communications centre staff? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes I have received a report and it is quite disturbing. I have a report here dated 23 May 1999 in which the Police Association revealed plans to cut 285 non-sworn staff including those who answer 111 calls. That of course was under a National Government. When Tony Ryall—the man now complaining about the inadequacy of resources—was Minister of Justice he voted to support a cut in the staff who answered 111 calls. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When the Minister of Police said on television last night— 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but one of his fellow front-benchers interjected and said that I was making that up. [ 
Interruption 
] He has just repeated that and he is has just interrupted my point of order as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is true! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I seek leave then at the end of this question to table the document wherein the Police Association revealed plans to cut 285 non-sworn staff including those who answered 111 calls. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We have the seeking of leave to table a document. I will take that first and then the point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek clarification. Where in the document does it state as he said that Tony Ryall the Minister of Justice at the time voted for that? There is no evidence of that in the document the Minister has. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not relevant to the tabling of the document so we will deal with that matter first. Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When the Minister of Police said on television last night that the findings in the report were “the fault of the police in many ways” which police was he referring to? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The report of course makes it clear that most of the areas that need remedying are operational areas. Where the responsibility is that of the Government in terms of resourcing that money has already been granted—the $45.5 million plus $3.4 million for capital expenditure. I applaud the Minister of Police for securing that money. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has this Minister of Police not shown himself to be completely unworthy of the post and an embarrassment to his colleagues; and if he had one ounce of integrity would he not go? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer to that is no and at the end of the Minister of Police’s tenure he will not face a referendum by the public of New Zealand as happened embarrassingly at the end of Tony Ryall’s term as Minister of Justice in 1999 when the public voted 92 percent in favour of their having no confidence in the justice policies led at that time by Mr Ryall. 
Marc Alexander 
: What responsibility does the Minister of Police accept for his lack of leadership in tackling systemic resource and management deficits in the 111 system debacle and is not his praise of the commissioner’s performance simply a case of the rat clinging to flotsam while the police ship sinks? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think that it is wrong for any member to suggest that our police force is not one of the best police forces in the world. That does not mean to say it is perfect. It has its faults but it has an openness whereby it can itself ask for an independent review of a system that was not working and then commit itself to act on that review. The Minister of Police has been far more successful than any of his predecessors as he has been able to get nearly $50 million to give us the best system in the world. When the report’s recommendations are implemented we will have just that. 
Ron Mark 
: Following on from the Minister’s own answers if we have the best police force in the world and if we have the best systems in the world where does the fault really lie: is it with the Government as a whole for the failure to provide the resources the police have consistently said they need is it with the Minister or is it possibly the fault of the citizens of New Zealand for ever daring to have any confidence in this Government or in the 111 system? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The people of this country have every right to expect that there will be an effective an efficient and a swift response to genuine emergencies when a 111 call is made. The review report makes the point as the member will know from reading it that the problems that we faced in New Zealand were very similar to problems facing other police forces around the world in the area of emergency call centres. I noted with pleasure the statement made today by the chair of the review panel that he congratulated the commissioner on responding so effectively to the recommendations of the report. 
Early Childhood Education—Quality 
4.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to improve the quality of early childhood teaching? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 New teacher registration requirements mean that early childhood education centres must now have at least one registered teacher present at all times. By 2012 teachers will need to be qualified and registered although 30 percent may be in training. To help centres meet these new requirements an additional 200 TeachNZ scholarships for prospective early childhood education teachers will now be available for July 2005 enrolments. The reason for this is that the scheme has been so popular early in the year that we would run out of places if they were not made available. So they are on top of the 700 that the House has previously agreed to. The scholarships cover fees and could be worth up to $20000 over the full duration of study. 
Helen Duncan 
: What additional steps is the Minister taking to increase participation in quality early childhood education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: From July 2007 all 3 and 4-year-olds will be entitled to up to 20 hours per week free early childhood education in teacher-led community-based services. This is probably the most significant change in our early childhood system in the last 50 years. Our Government is committed to giving every child the best possible start in life and our early childhood policies are world-leading in reflecting that. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is it not true that following settlement of the kindergarten teachers’ collective agreement all the incentives are geared towards early childhood teachers studying for degrees an outcome that exacerbates the circumstances that we heard about yesterday at the select committee where new graduates do not know how to wipe a child’s nose but have in-depth knowledge and understanding of the works of Karl Marx? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: One would be tempted to say that it is a good thing to know that they could read. 
Police—Former Commissioner 
5.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did she agree to prepare a brief of evidence in relation to proceedings between Peter Doone and the publisher of the  
Sunday Star-Times 
? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister was advised that if she did not provide a brief of evidence she would be served with a witness subpoena. On that basis she agreed to provide a brief. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Was she threatened with a subpoena because the only reason the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 was being sued was that it printed an untrue statement on the basis of her having told the reporter and editor—not once not twice but five times—that the statement was true and that they should hang tough? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There were two questions. Firstly the Prime Minister was not threatened with a subpoena. She was advised that one would be served. [ 
Interruption 
] There is a difference. Secondly the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that the words used were contested. I invite the member to read the police report on this matter where he would see that the words actually used were contested by a number of different people with a number of different variations said. The critical point was not what was precisely said; it was what the then Commissioner of Police did. Both the report made by the police themselves and the report made by the Police Complaints Authority said that this was undesirable and inappropriate and that is why Commissioner Doone resigned. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Prime Minister seen an article in the  
Molesworth & Featherston 
 publication written by a well-known cheerleader for the Government that alleges that she wilfully misled the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 on five separate occasions when she confirmed the accuracy of a statement that was never spoken and does she agree that that is a true representation of her involvement in this case? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No and no. 
Ron Mark 
: How can the House have any confidence in the explanations the Prime Minister has given thus far in respect of this incident when we in the Opposition now know that in the high-speed run from Waimate to Christchurch—an incident of which she has said in this House that she did not know what was happening and she had her head down and was busy working—her car was travelling so close behind the escort vehicle that the front of it has had to be repainted and its front windscreen had to be replaced because of the excessive stone damage caused during the high-speed run by the vehicle in front throwing stones on hers; how can we accept her words when we now know that she could not possibly not have known that she was speeding at that time something she has denied all the time? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Knowing the Prime Minister as I do I know that she would have been hard at work in the back seat using every minute of her time for the good of this country. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If we are to believe the answer the Prime Minister gave to the first supplementary question I asked why did she not clarify the situation with the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 during the two telephone conversations she had with its representatives after it had published what the Prime Minister now agrees were words that were never spoken? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As the Prime Minister has said many times the words that were alleged were contested. She made that absolutely clear to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she still see a clear line as she explained to Lianne Dalziel between making a misleading statement and making an untrue statement or is this a clear line that she as Prime Minister by definition can never cross? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Prime Minister has never made a deliberately misleading statement in this regard. 
Health and Disability Assistance—Policy Announcements 
6.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What announcements are being made today about assistance to people with disabilities or ill health? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 I am delighted that we are investing $27.7 million over the next 4 years for a major expansion of the new service for sickness and invalids benefit recipients that has already helped thousands of people move into work. This brings the total investment in the new service to $127.8 million over 4 years. We have already seen through this service a 13 percent increase in the number of people leaving sickness and invalids benefits since the service pilot began. It is clear that many people on these two benefits want to work and now they are getting the support they need to do so. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How will this additional funding improve the new service for sickness and invalids benefit recipients? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The funding will allow for work assessments to prepare 2500 people a year for a long-term return to work increased support for disabled job seekers and their employers increased payments to designated doctors and a nationwide roll-out of the programme enabling doctors to seek a second opinion to better assess sickness benefit eligibility. This is on top of existing features such as slashing case manager workloads and introducing Providing Access to Health Solutions in five regions. 
Judith Collins 
: If the Minister is spending almost $30 million on more administration and more programmes to get 2500 people off the sickness and invalids benefits just how much more is she planning to spend on the staggering 120000 working-age adults who reckon they are too sick to work when under her watch their numbers have already grown by 39 percent? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Despite my outlining more detail of the expenditure in my answer to the previous supplementary question the member was extremely selective in highlighting just one of many points. We have seen a 13 percent increase in the number of people moving from sickness and invalids benefits into work since the pilots began. I note also that under the last National Government the number of people on sickness and invalids benefits actually grew by 69 percent and 84 percent respectively. 
Sue Kedgley 
: When will all New Zealanders experiencing depression or similar mental health conditions be able to benefit from the Providing Access to Health Solutions programme and why is this key part of the new service available in only four regions rather than across the country? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I appreciate the member’s support for the continued expansion of this programme and I can assure her that that is definitely on our programme. 
Police Commissioner—Prime Minister’s Statement 
7. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 on behalf of  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that “Mr Robinson is a strong and principled Commissioner”; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because that is what I believe and that is his reputation. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in the Commissioner of Police and his performance? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Generally yes. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Prime Minister continue with the “Helengrad” defence of holding no one accountable for gross failures within her administration? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Government does find people accountable and where action needs to be taken against them it is. 
Jill Pettis 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that the Commissioner of Police acted appropriately when confronted with evidence of problems with the 111 system? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. The commissioner took the appropriate action in commissioning an independent review of the communications centre when serious problems became apparent. He took appropriate action in raising with the Minister of Police the need for additional resources specifically to address the problems highlighted by the review and he has taken appropriate action now in committing himself to fix those problems. The Government is supporting him in that task. That is why it has granted nearly $50 million to ensure that we have a world-best 111 communications centre system. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Which part of the commissioner’s performance is the Prime Minister unhappy with? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Nobody is perfect. Every chief executive officer does some things very well and other things less well. One makes a judgment on a person on the basis of the totality of his or her performance. The Government has been pleased with the totality of this commissioner’s performance. 
111 System—Police Commissioner 
8.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Will he be asking his police commissioner to resign in light of the scathing report into the 111 emergency call system; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: No because the New Zealand Police under the current commissioner has overall been very effective in delivering record reductions in crime rates in New Zealand. 
Ron Mark 
: How does the Minister expect the public’s confidence in the 111 emergency system to be restored when neither he nor the police commissioner who has had a $70000 per year pay rise and a 2-year extension to his contract and who has known about these failings and the potential for disaster for 3 years did anything and when neither the Minister nor the commissioner has accepted responsibility? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I expect the public to have confidence in the system because an independent and comprehensive review was ordered. The money was provided to implement the recommendations of that review and the police commissioner not only has committed himself to implementing the recommendations but has already begun that process. 
Tim Barnett 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the Commissioner of Police has delivered results? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am satisfied that the commissioner has delivered results. He has taken the $200 million in extra funding that the Government has given him he has taken the 1000 extra staff members that the Government has given him and he has applied those resources effectively to deliver crime reductions that mean that we now have a crime rate that is the lowest in 23 years. 
Ron Mark 
: Then how does the Minister explain his comments on the radio this morning when he said that the Government makes available the appropriate resources that it is up to the police to provide the services and that 99.9 percent accuracy in the emergency 111 system is not good enough; how does the Minister explain his criticising and chastising of the police this morning on the radio when he is now saying that they are doing a wonderful job and that the commissioner should not be fired? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Easily because overall our police force is doing a very good job. I along with most New Zealanders have had a gutsful of Opposition members who continually belittle and demean the police instead of getting behind them and supporting them. They are doing a great job overall but that does not mean that everything they do is absolutely right. Where they are not doing things right we expect an improvement. This review will deliver the improvement that we expect. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is not one of the reasons the Government is so happy to hang with the Commissioner of Police his compliance with the Government’s public relations demands such that he would release this report dated 12 May a day early to try to help the Government under the cover of the foot-and-mouth issue? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member has just given an example of the sorts of attacks on the integrity of our top civil servants that I was referring to before. The member should know that that report was brought forward because the police senior team was gathered in Wellington on that day. It was released on that occasion. Whatever day it was to be released on it was going to get the headlines it has received. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a quantity of press releases and reports from Mr Goff and Mr Mallard that criticise and attack top public servants like Christine Rankin Peter Doone and Mr Martin. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table an assorted array of press statements. Is there any objection? There is. 
Schools—Bullying 
9.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his reported comments that: “Cyber bullying was nasty and had to stop” and is his policy one of zero tolerance to bullying in schools? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes I stand by those comments and I am sure that all members of the House would agree that bullying in schools is a problem that has no place in our educational institutions. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it correct that the Minister used to cane students particularly hard while teaching at Bayfield High School and throw tennis balls at them in the classroom if they misbehaved; if so how can he have any credibility in speaking out against bullying? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I did use corporal punishment in line with the school policy of the time but like many of my colleagues I have come to believe that corporal punishment is a totally inappropriate form of discipline. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What programmes has the Government introduced to increase cyber-safety for students? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I was delighted on Monday this week to attend the first of a series of around 200 NetSafe workshops taking place in 19 centres around New Zealand. That meeting was in Palmerston North. That workshop was an extension of a successful pilot series of 30 workshops held last year. The Government has provided $300000 to enable these workshops to be delivered across the country. In addition to boards of trustees workshops will be delivered to other key school personnel school principals cyber-safety managers information and communications technology managers and library personnel. Members will be pleased to know that the NetSafe programme is world leading and that educational officials from the US state of Georgia will soon be visiting New Zealand with a view to establishing the programme there. The programme is also most significantly supported by Vodafone. I am further advised that it is the first mobile phone provider in the world to have joined in such a comprehensive programme to eliminate text bullying. 
Judith Collins 
: Did he ever tie boys’ hands together and jam a tennis ball into their mouths as punishment for talking when he was a teacher at Bayfield High School and if these allegations prove to be correct does he believe they compromise his ability to promote an anti-bullying campaign in schools or is that just corporal punishment? 
Jill Pettis 
: You sat on that for months. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I find such allegations ridiculous and I refute them. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did he ever smack a pupil with the back of his hand sufficiently hard to make his nose bleed at a school camp in the Catlins; if so is that the reason along with throwing tennis balls at pupils in the classroom that he has the reputation of being a terrible bully and that in fact his students to this day still suffer from his treatment? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: That is a disgraceful allegation and I refute it completely. 
Judith Collins 
: When the chief Government whip called out “You sat on that for months.” does that mean that the Prime Minister is aware of the allegations swirling around this Minister? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Judith Collins 
: It is a supplementary question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Sorry. So the supplementary question is to— 
Judith Collins 
: Does that mean that he told the Prime Minister of these allegations? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. Would everyone sit down please. So we had a point of order that then turned into a supplementary question. Is that correct? 
Judith Collins 
: I did not call out “point of order”. It was a supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I apologise.  
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The chief Government whip was heard to call out on several occasions: “You sat on that for a long time.” obviously referring to you as Speaker. You did not bring her to heel. We know that her colleagues refer to her as “Paint Stripper”; her voice is particularly penetrating and I do ask that she be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for drawing that to my attention. Could we please now have the supplementary question. 
Judith Collins 
: When the chief Government whip called out before words to the effect that “You’ve sat on that for a long time.” does he believe that he has advised the Prime Minister of the allegations surrounding his conduct as a teacher at Bayfield High School? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have no responsibility for what the senior Government whip says. As I said earlier I find the allegations made by the member opposite ridiculous and I refute them. 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to clarify to the person who has now taken my title away from me that she has completely misrepresented my interjection and I want to make that abundantly clear. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure that was a point of order either. I do not want to get into tit for tat points of order on this. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister was asked effectively whether the Prime Minister was aware of these allegations. Certainly the less-than-spontaneous response from the senior Government whip has indicated that. Although the Minister may want to refute those allegations and that is his prerogative it is of interest to the House to know whether the Prime Minister is aware of the allegations as far as he is aware. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not answerable for whether the Prime Minister is aware. In answering the question however he did address the point that was the substance of the question or was part of the question also as to refuting the allegations that were made. I think the answer did address the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will he resign as Minister if it transpires that indeed he did throw tennis balls at his students in the classroom and tie their hands up and stuff tennis balls in their mouths as punishment for talking? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: As I said I refute the allegations made about what is quite clearly illegal behaviour as such. If the member has any such information he should take that to the police. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note the Minister did not address my question. I specifically asked him given that he has denied the allegations several times whether he would resign if they turn out to be true. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister in answering the question did address it by refuting the fundamental premise of your question. So it was addressed. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When you interrupted— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member contesting my ruling? 
Rodney Hide 
: Not at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: Yes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What is it then? 
Rodney Hide 
: When you ruled on my point of order I think the Minister was getting up to answer the question properly and he sat back down. I wonder whether you could allow him to stand up and answer the question. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am quite happy to confirm and repeat my statement earlier that I have not been guilty of or involved in any inappropriate behaviour in my 24 years as a secondary school teacher. As well I am not aware of any complaint of any kind. 
Judith Collins 
: When he said: “Stuff like that can come back to haunt you.” was he speaking of himself or of his students at Bayfield High School? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I was referring to the article that was the subject of the  
Otago Daily Times 
 report about cyber-bullying 2 days ago. 
Court Buildings—Funding 
10.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What recent announcements has he made regarding funding for the improvement of court buildings? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Today I announced additional funding of $39 million targeted at five key buildings and property projects. The new Budget money is part of a long-term capital works programme to bring our courts back up to a modern standard and to make them a safe place to visit. The funding will provide new courthouses to replace the Levin and Invercargill courts while the courts at Hastings and Manukau will be overhauled and expanded. The package will also include provision for the funding of land purchases at New Plymouth. It continues the Government’s commitment to improving court buildings. 
Darren Hughes 
: Will those five upgrades including the $6 million for a new courthouse at Levin include improvements to courtroom security? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes. The upgrade at Levin was welcomed by the local member and the local people. I can also say that the improvements will be a continuation of developments to provide the public with one point of entry to provide court security staff with a greater degree of control. One point of entry will mean that security will be much like it is at airports. Courts will have a screening point at which point they will have a greater level of assurance about staff safety and the safety of the judiciary. That is a significant improvement and is an advancement in providing a modern safe court environment. 
Zimbabwe—Cricket Tour 
11.  
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What advice if any has he given New Zealand Cricket on the actions that it could take to ensure the proposed Black Caps tour of Zimbabwe could not be exploited for political purposes by the Mugabe regime? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I have advised New Zealand Cricket of the Government’s concern that if it decides to go ahead with the tour it may be drawn into situations where it is wrongly portrayed as endorsing the Mugabe regime. I have referred New Zealand Cricket to the actions that the English cricket team took when touring Zimbabwe last year to avoid that possibility. 
Rod Donald 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister’s personal view is now the official view of the Government—that is to quote from the Minister’s letter to me: “It would be preferable that the cricket team not travel to Zimbabwe.”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. 
Keith Locke 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that New Zealand Cricket should not be going to Zimbabwe either on political or security grounds; and has he drawn New Zealand Cricket’s attention to the official advice on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website that because of political unrest independent travel to Zimbabwe is strongly advised against and that visitors should avoid public gatherings which presumably include cricket games? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am sure New Zealand Cricket is aware of the travel advisory which is as the member has outlined—although it does talk about independent travel which has a different connotation of course from travel by a cricket side. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Has the Government sought to direct New Zealand Cricket not to go to Zimbabwe; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No because no New Zealand Government has ever sought to direct New Zealand sportspeople or teams as to where they should travel or whom they should play sports with outside New Zealand. We are also conscious of the obligations that New Zealand Cricket has in respect of the rules set by the International Cricket Council and the consequences it would face if it were to breach those rules. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is probably not strictly a point of order but I would like to help the Minister. What about Robert Muldoon and the Moscow Olympics? Is he sure he wants to say that no Government will ever direct them? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The member is right; he has analysed that correctly. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister who told the University of Cape Town in 2002 that “dubious ethics” were involved every time any New Zealand representative team played in South Africa while apatheid prevailed; and does he agree that it would similarly be a case of dubious ethics if the Black Caps tour of Zimbabee proceeds; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer to the first question is “Yes” and to the second question “No”. The reason for the difference is that there is a difference between playing sport against a team that was inherently part of the apatheid system and chosen on apatheid grounds and the Zimbabwe cricket team many members of which I suspect strongly oppose what their own Government is doing. 
Rod Donald 
: What advice does he have for Black Caps captain Stephen Fleming on why the tour should not go ahead in the light of Fleming’s statement that if the information he reads about Zimbabwe suggests that it is not wise to go and that a boycott will make a difference he will consider pulling out? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Of course any individual player can make his own choice in that regard. That is different from the team as a whole deciding not to tour in terms of the consequences from the International Cricket Board point of view. 
Rod Donald 
: Has the Minister sought legal advice on what steps the New Zealand Government could take to enable New Zealand Cricket to invoke the force majeure clause of its contract with other national cricket boards so that its withdrawal from the tour would be acceptable non-compliance and therefore not subject to financial penalty; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No because that is a matter for New Zealand Cricket itself. 
Rod Donald 
: I seek leave to table the force majeure clause of the contract which talks about any action taken by a Government or public authority of any kind including without limitation not granting a consent exemption approval or clearance or imposing any restriction or prohibition. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a document that shows Vote Police between 1970 and 2004 including the time from 1997 to 1998 when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was Treasurer and when Vote Police was increased both times. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that shows in at least 3 years under a National Government—and one of those was a National - New Zealand First Government—the Budget-night appropriation for the police was down on the previous year’s expenditure. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hospitals—Outpatient Services 
12.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is she satisfied that hospitals have sufficient resources to ensure that New Zealanders requiring outpatient services get the treatment they need; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: Yes. This year this Government will provide over $7.5 billion to district health boards. This money is fairly distributed between district health boards according to the relative needs of their populations and the cost of providing health and disability support services to meet those needs. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister consider that when patients at Wellington Hospital renal unit have been having their dialysis hours cut virtually in half and have been suffering debilitating symptoms it is acceptable that staffing levels are used as an excuse when it takes as little as 6 weeks to train patients with no medical background in home dialysis and surely skilled and trained nurses could be brought up to speed in no more than a couple of weeks? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Capital and Coast District Health Board advises that it has experienced a significant increase in the need for dialysis; that more staff are therefore needed; that a number of those staff have already begun; that it will be back to its new bigger than before complement on or about 3 June; and that it is unaware of any acute readmissions as a result of unmet demand for dialysis. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister aware of very successful trials of nurse-run outpatient clinics for conditions such as diabetes and respiratory illnesses at the Lower Hutt district health board and does she agree that using these sorts of nurse-run clinics more extensively right throughout New Zealand would be one way of ensuring that more New Zealanders needing outpatient services get the treatment that they need? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I regret that I am not aware. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister concede that the level of further training for an already skilled nurse so that he or she can work in the area of dialysis is little more than a couple of weeks; if so why is she prepared to tolerate 12 months of perpetual excuse of not enough staff in the Wellington Hospital renal unit? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not aware of a 12-month staff shortage but I am aware that the Capital and Coast District Health Board will have a very large complement of dialysis staff on or before 3 June. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister consider dialysis a vital life support procedure and that reducing it by a third and having patients turn yellow puff up and pass out by the time they are on dialysis is acceptable; and when will the patients there receive reassurance that they will not have to live week by week never knowing what level of treatment they will get so that they can supply their employers for instance with clear messages regarding their wellness to work? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As I said earlier Capital and Coast District Health Board advises that it is unaware of any acute readmissions as a result of unmet demand for dialysis. I am aware of a woman—maybe there is more than one—who was able to make it to work on the Saturday before last and has medical advice to that effect. I am sure that it does affect lives to some extent. The answer to the last part of the member’s question is that it will be on or before 3 June. 
Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I move  
That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was introduced to the House on 5 April 2005 and referred to the Health Committee with a report due by 28 May 2005. The shortened period for select committee consideration was due to the need for the bill to be enacted before the current controls on xenotransplantation end with the expiry of Part 7A of the Medicines Act on 30 June 2005. The Health Committee presented its report on the bill on Wednesday 4 May 2005 and I thank that committee for its prompt consideration of the bill. 
Xenotransplantation is the transplantation of living biological material from one species to another. Recent advances in technology have increased the possibility of successful xenotransplantation and stimulated research in that area. Current controls were introduced in response to potential safety concerns around xenotransplantation. The Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill extends the period of controls on xenotransplantation until 31 December 2006 with the ability for that date to be extended by Order in Council if necessary. I commend the bill to the House. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 The National Party is not supporting the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill for a number of very important reasons. The first reason is that we do not believe that the Government has truly evaluated the scientific impact of increasing the moratorium on that kind of work. Time and time again scientists have complained that they are not able to do the work they want to do in order to stay at the top of their game. We are seeing too many scientists leave the country because of the regulations and rules here that do not allow them to be at the forefront of their scientific research or to ensure they are able to maintain their reputations. 
The second reason which I suppose is indicative of the Luddite approach this Government has taken is that if there are unknowns the Government has a King Canute “hold back the tides” style of approach and it puts a moratorium on things so that work cannot be done. In fact that is not a way of trying to deal with the situation at all. 
The people involved in that kind of research take their work very seriously; they are not mad scientists. They want to provide new solutions for New Zealanders many of whom are waiting for life-saving treatments and operations. We need to remember the human face of this particular problem. 
In this country we have a low donation rate for organs. We have low donation rates for kidneys and livers. Many many people are on dialysis or are facing all sorts of health issues because they cannot get transplants. There simply are not enough live human donors to be able to give them other options. 
Today we heard Judy Turner bring up an issue that I think indicates the problems faced by many of those people waiting for organs—the problems we currently have with our renal dialysis units. A growing number of people are waiting for transplants and they are trying to fit into dialysis units that are already bursting at the seams particularly in the North Island. Given the rising number of diabetics and people requiring dialysis as a result of obesity or ethnic predisposition to kidney problems we will be facing a huge problem in this country when it comes to providing renal dialysis for a huge number of New Zealanders. There will simply not be enough donors for those people and we have to look at other options. 
Xenotransplantation if approached in a very careful way can provide solutions for many New Zealanders but as far as this bill is concerned it is as if the people do not matter. The Government seems to think that the people waiting for those life-saving operations have time on their hands. The Government wants to look as if it is doing something greenish in that area but it just wants to put science on hold as opposed to letting reasonable people go about their work so that hopefully they can provide some life-saving solutions for those Kiwis in the long term. 
There has been a consultation process which I have to describe as a bit of a sham. Up and down the country there was some so-called public consultation but it was not well-publicised and none of the consultations were well-attended. People who took part in some of those consultations came back with absolutely bizarre stories of people turning up and being concerned that if a person had a kidney replaced with a pig’s kidney that person would start acting like a pig. That just shows that the level of knowledge out there is absolutely ridiculous. 
I am concerned that a number of new reasons are being dreamt up every day to work against what could be a life-saving solution for many many New Zealanders. The issue of cultural sensitivity has been raised time and time again as an example of why we should tread carefully. Well I have to say that if people are going to use cultural sensitivity as a way of slowing this work down they must think twice. People do not have to have kidney transplants or liver transplants if they are totally against those procedures. They do not have to take part in scientific trials if they think it would be to the detriment of their health but for heaven’s sake they should not disallow such a procedure for other Kiwis who are quite happy to take the risk because it might make a difference to their lives. The opponents of that work should not stand in the way of Kiwis who have no other options—who are facing death or such deterioration that their quality of life is hugely affected. 
So this bill is nothing more than a delaying tactic. There is no logic behind it and there is no scientific merit in it either. There is a lot of hysteria which has been beaten up by the Government. A lot of populist reasons are given for supporting this bill but those reasons do not stack up either scientifically or logically and it seems to me that the Government has forgotten the people in New Zealand who are waiting desperately to get those sorts of operations. 
For example people might take the opportunity to get a pig kidney transplant because they have been on dialysis for many many years. Anybody who has seen someone go through dialysis knows that it is an incredibly difficult procedure to go through. It is a very oppressive procedure to go through and it has a huge impact on people’s lives. 
So I say to the Government members who are putting this bill forward that they should explain their logic because I cannot see any. While they are wanting to look as if they are being green and reacting to concerns I do not see those concerns being raised. Government members are trying to whip up concern by going through this sham of a consultation process and by dreaming up all sort of reasons why xenotransplantation is a bad idea but there has been no groundswell of support. 
One of the things that a person who attended a consultation pointed out to me was the fact that the consultations were very poorly attended. The public were not well informed that there was a consultation process in place and in fact a lot of the different groups that actually speak on behalf of Kiwis waiting for life-saving operations were not even in a position to let their members know to go along and take part. 
What we are talking about here is delaying science. What we are talking about here is delaying the opportunity for New Zealand scientists to take part and contribute at the forefront of scientific endeavour. We are seeing nothing more than a Luddite approach to dealing with some serious issues. By all means let us ensure that good science is being undertaken in this country and that research funded by Kiwi taxpayers is good evidence-based scientific research. But let us stop pretending that those scientists who work within our Crown research institutes and universities are mad weirdoes who need heavy regulation to stop them going off and undertaking Frankenstein-like scientific projects. It simply will not happen. 
While hysteria is beaten up and those sorts of examples are given we have people waiting for dialysis at a cost of $1500 a week. We are not able to get good numbers of donors because the number of live human donors required is simply not available. By all means let us look at other solutions then so that we can get those people waiting back into a fully active life and let us stop pretending that there is some logical reason for holding back the scientific tide. 
There is no reason for delay. It seems just a small delay and not a huge amount of time yet in the scientific world it is a huge amount of time. Time waits for no scientific men or women who are trying to maintain their scientific reputations at the forefront of that kind of work. It is no wonder New Zealand is seen as being a bit of a scientific backwater these days because so many of our best and brightest have gone offshore so that they can continue working at a level that befits their reputations. 
This sort of piecemeal approach to extending moratoriums is not based in logic and it is certainly not based in science. I do not think it is a compassionate approach to dealing with the growing problem we have in this country—that is the problem of the number of people facing kidney disease a problem that is endemic within our society. If we do not start looking at other solutions some of the systems we have in place will not be sustainable. 
Trying to get on dialysis treatment in Auckland right now means facing a real difficulty. It was one issue that came up time and time again when we spoke to district health boards. The rate of increased use of dialysis units is growing at an unsustainable level. 
Why are we closing our minds to different alternatives? Why are we pretending that scientific endeavour can be put on hold so that the Government can make political capital out of a very serious issue? 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I was extremely disappointed in the Opposition member’s speech on this bill. It showed that she has not read Part 7A of the Medicines Act and that she has not read the screeds of submission papers made when this moratorium was implemented or any of the papers that came out of a conference of international experts held in Boston on the subject of xenotransplantation. It also showed that she is not listening to the people of New Zealand. 
This legislation extends the moratorium on the controls—I point out to the member Katherine Rich that this legislation does not ban them—on xenotransplantation of animal to human organs. She is obviously not aware of the fact that since the moratorium has been in place there have not been applications by people asking to do this. So we are not holding back science because there have not been any applications. Had the member listened during the select committee deliberations when this information was presented she would have noted that the committee was told that. 
This bill is about a moratorium. There is extensive public dialogue about bioethics. There has been a good deal of publicity. I have attended public meetings in my city that were attended by a large number of scientists involved both in medicine and in agricultural research. They know a great deal about the subject. I look forward to the report of the Bioethics Council on this matter and to more public discussion on the chance of retrovirus infection. We are still not sure from the research that has been done whether the pigs that are being used are absolutely clear and cannot transmit a retrovirus. On a day when we are anxious about foot-and-mouth disease in New Zealand I think that when talking about animal to human organ transplantation we must apply the precautionary principle as is being done in Australia and Britain. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this legislation which will extend the current controls on xenotransplantation until 31 December 2006 due to the ongoing concerns about the safety of this experimental technique. We recognise that biotechnology is advancing very rapidly but we are also aware that bioethics is a very complex field. New Zealand First believes that more research is required before these procedures become an accepted part of transplantation and that we should proceed with caution until we are sure of our ground. It is an important issue and it needs to be right. 
We are also very aware that the Bioethics Council has recently completed the first round of public dialogue meetings in many centres. That produced active participation and debate. I quote from the Bioethics Council’s press release from 15 April 2005 when Chris Nichol who has facilitated quite a number of these public meetings said that “people have really got their heads around this one”. He then went on to say: “No single issue dominated the dialogue events different issues were emphasised in different regions. The Wellington dialogue focused amongst other topics on the regulatory framework of xenotransplantation while Christchurch concentrated on animal welfare humanness and alternative remedies to xenotransplantation. In Auckland participants didn’t agree on the status of animals. Some believed there wasn’t enough dialogue discussion in regards to animal welfare and want to raise it again at the reconvened event in a fortnight. Xeno-tourism has come in for discussion. This relates to people entering New Zealand having undertaken xenotransplantation procedures offshore which are not approved here. The concern is the potential risk to public health.” 
It appears from this that public interest in xenotransplantation and the work of the Bioethics Council is very high. I understand too that the council will produce a report on xenotransplantation that is to be presented to the Government in August. We will be most interested in that. I believe we should have some trust and faith in the Bioethics Council and in the people who are responsible for making decisions about those matters. 
A number of safety and technical concerns have been identified and of course there are only a very limited number of animal or human studies of possible efficacy. During the select committee process Ministry of Health officials advised us that the human immune system rapidly attacks and rejects tissue from animals which means that most xenotransplants fail rather rapidly. I know that scientists are exploring options to try to solve those particular problems. As we can see it is still a very experimental technique. The evidence indicates that xenotransplantation has the potential to be associated with an increased risk of transmission of a wide range of viral bacterial and other infections that are known to occur in the source animals. That means there may be the risk of a new infection jumping the species barrier. We already have one of those uncontrollable infections in the form of bird flu because as we all know there are currently no known antidotes to control avian flu. 
I looked on the Internet to find other examples of new infectious diseases that emerged in other species and were transmitted to humans. They include HIV and the 1918 human influenza virus which was actually a mutation of the swine flu virus. Although we acknowledge that infections may be minimised in the same way as for human infections we also acknowledge that science does not know of all the infectious organisms that may infect humans. Like any other new disease those new viruses will be very difficult to identify—they usually take some time—and there may not be effective medications to help the people who actually have those viruses. What about the transmission of those viruses? That will also be very difficult to identify. 
I know that Dr Hutchison will agree that it is now recognised that pigs carry an inactive retrovirus within their genetic structure. At this stage whether that retrovirus can cause infection in humans is totally unknown. Also those retroviruses may remain dormant in the host for a long time before they actually emerge to cause disease in humans. Although we recognise that there is a chronic organ shortage in New Zealand—as we heard at the select committee and of course from previous speakers—we do not want to see the transmission of retroviruses to humans via xenotransplantation. 
At this stage there is a considerable potential risk to human health and this is one of the areas that the debate is all about along with the ethical spiritual and cultural issues. We believe that the moratorium needs to remain in place until all the issues associated with xenotransplantation are resolved to a far greater degree than they are at present. When we look at some of the countries we often like to compare ourselves with we see for example that in Australia in December 2004 the National Health and Medical Research Council announced a 5-year moratorium on clinical trials of xenotransplantation. In Canada clinical trials cannot proceed without the approval of Health Canada. Ministry of Health officials who briefed the Health Committee were unaware of any clinical trials on humans that had been given approval by Health Canada. Again in the UK there are no trials under way. So the approach that New Zealand is following is in line with that of those countries. We cannot afford to rush in when we have neither the knowledge nor structures in place in our hospitals to assist patients with the problems and challenges they may experience after xenotransplantation. 
We have all told the Minister of Health and we all know ourselves that our hospitals are stretched to the limit so why add another dimension that they cannot cope with at this point in time? We really believe that we should not go out on a limb on this matter. Why rush in where angels fear to tread? We need the widest possible views on this issue—more than just the views of those who stand to benefit if the research leads to future benefits for a particular group. It needs to be right. There is no groundswell of support out in the public arena at this point in time. 
We are also aware that in 2002 a New Zealand company conducted human trials in Mexico and it was proposed that some trials be carried out in the Cook Islands. One of the reasons more than likely that those countries were chosen is the fact that they do not have the appropriate regulatory authorities to develop guidelines to safeguard the patients and the people with whom they come into contact. So it is really much easier for those companies to go overseas and carry out their testing. Of course we have never heard of any results from that testing. 
New Zealand First believes that at this stage the risk has to be weighed against the possible benefit to the recipients. We believe that the studies are inadequate and do not counterbalance the potential risks involved. Human trials are not justified at this point in time. While the research is at an experimental stage we believe the moratorium should remain in place. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 The Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill is not about xenotransplantation; it is actually about the extension of a moratorium. It has been very interesting to sit here and listen to the speeches so far. We would think that the bill is about suddenly allowing research to happen in this country as I—and I think the National Party—feel that it should. Without this bill the existing additional controls on xenotransplantation will end on 30 June 2005 with the expiry of Part 7A of the Medicines Act. After that date the scientific and ethical oversight will return to the controls utilised for clinical trials of medicines contained within section 30 of the Medicines Act and I think that that is what this debate should be about. It should not be about the merit or otherwise of xenotransplantation. 
The reason we have this bill before us now—it has gone through the select committee process but barely touched the table in the process I might add—is that the Government is kicking for touch. It does not want a proper discussion about xenotransplantation in the lead-up to a general election. It does not want those matters to be discussed properly by the public. It just wants to delay this issue until after the election when opposition to it will not be as strong. I think that we should provide—[ 
Interruption 
] No it will be here. The reason of course is that the Government and also the Greens do not want to have this discussion. Some reasoned debate might be heard instead of the one-sided debate we are hearing at the moment. Parties in this Parliament that should know better—of course I do not include the Greens in that—are promoting fear and unreasonable argument around the subject. The Government is kicking for touch; it wants to extend the moratorium so that the discussion does not have to happen before 30 June because as we know an election is before us. This is about political expediency rather than anything else. 
The National Party member made some very interesting and pertinent comments. She said that this bill is about delaying science and that is exactly what it is. We should be having proper discussion. We should be discussing the issues properly and in an informed environment. But this legislation is about delaying science and about delaying New Zealand scientists’ ability to participate in good-quality research that we know has some very beneficial effects—research that will help and will save people’s lives. 
The research as we know used to occur in New Zealand and I have met one of the five people I think it was who has benefited hugely from xenotransplantation research. She was a participant and she is now leading a very productive happy and a healthier life as a result. Without this research she would have been looking at a very different picture. Those critics who are not prepared to enter into the debate properly—those critics who want to keep this moratorium going on and on forever as the Green Party does so that no research can ever take place—should take note of the terrible circumstances in which some people have to live their lives when they could be benefiting significantly from research. 
We have rigorous regulatory regimes in this country. There has been much surrounding research. There has been much talk about the Bioethics Council from several previous speakers and consultation around the country. So if we can talk about those things in a consultative manner why do we not just call for the debate to happen properly? I wonder why the Greens are supporting this legislation to extend the moratorium. Well it is obvious why. But if they say they want to have the debate why do they not oppose this legislation and have the debate properly before the election as Ms Kedgley says she wants to? Why are the Greens supporting the legislation? Why do they not call for the debate? If they are so confident about their cause the debate will be held. Perhaps xenotransplantation will be banned once and for all—which is exactly what she wants I believe. 
One thing we do not do in this country is trust our scientists. We do not trust our research and we do not trust our Bioethics Council to come to the proper resolution when scientific topics are discussed. I certainly trust scientists; I have a great deal of faith in them. But we are now seeing a promotion of fear and unreasonable expectation of what the scientific community can produce in this country. One of the issues that is always put forward when we talk about xenotransplantation is the difficulties with retroviruses. There is much concern about this—quite rightly so—and that is why we must have rigorous regulatory regimes surrounding any research that takes place. 
The New Zealand First speaker spoke at length about retroviruses. I wonder why she as a member of a party that worries so much about immigration omitted to say in her speech that we should be screening all our tourists and immigrants to this country at the border for retroviruses. Do we do anything about tourists coming into this country? Do we test them or screen them for retroviruses? Are we concerned about any pandemics that might result from a retrovirus being carried in by a tourist or an immigrant? No there is not a whimper about that. Maybe the Green member will talk about that; I do not know. But certainly the New Zealand First members who worry inordinately about immigrants and we have heard in the last 2 weeks—[ 
Interruption 
] No no. I am not. I am asking why New Zealand First members did not mention it if they are so worried about it. It seems that they have an unreasonable fear of research but are not worried at all about retroviruses being carried into the country by immigrants and tourists. The reason of course is that the risk is very low but if that is to be promoted as a reason to stop research it should also be promoted as a reason to stop immigrants from coming in. Anyway those members missed their opportunity there. It is a shame I had to point that out for them. 
The Government of course has encouraged our scientists some of the best and brightest in the world to go offshore. I think in particular of the research that was done in this country and I mentioned one of the participants in that research. That research has now had to go offshore where I suspect it will produce some very good results. Unfortunately those results will not be in the name of New Zealanders or in this country. It is a shame that that fear is there. Science in this country is very important it is important for us for the future and the discouragement must be truly frustrating for our scientists. I think that those in the science and research fields must be frequently frustrated but particularly so in this field when knowledge stems from this country. We have very good science departments in our universities but they have barriers put in their way all the time. 
So ACT New Zealand as members will have noted by now opposes the progress of this bill and we will continue to do so in the Committee stage and third reading. We think we should be having a proper debate not a quasi-debate or Clayton’s debate about whether the moratorium should be extended. As I pointed out before this is not a debate about xenotransplantation; it is a debate about political expediency. Other members are not willing to have the debate so close to an election; they want to wait till after the election when they think things will not be noticed in the same way and further legislation can be drawn up. I suspect that the legislation has already been drawn up. It is just being delayed for the benefit of the Government with the election campaign coming up. Last time we had “corngate” of course. The Prime Minister does not want to have to go around the country to debate xenotransplantation. 
ACT will be opposing this bill. We believe firmly in science in progress and in research. We oppose vehemently the delaying of science and the delaying of the ability of our scientists to do good-quality research in this country. This bill denies them the opportunities that they should have in New Zealand. It is about our skilled our best and our brightest being sent offshore yet again. ACT New Zealand opposes the passage of this bill. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. Despite all the rhetoric that we have heard this bill is essentially just a date change. It is an extension of the moratorium so that legislation can be more thoughtfully developed in order hopefully that xenotransplantation can be covered by the new human tissue legislation that is being worked on. 
Arguably the legislation surrounding xenotransplantation will be one of the more important pieces of legislation to come before this House so it is crucial that we get it right and do not rush into it. We are extremely pleased that the Government is spending more time on it and that we are extending the moratorium so that we can be absolutely certain that the legislation will not be rushed legislation that needs to be changed. Hopefully we will get it right. 
We have heard some extraordinary comments in this debate today which shows that some members have taken the issue of xenotransplantation extraordinarily lightly. But the truth is that despite all the attempts made by the bill’s opponents to dismiss the concerns about xenotransplantation it is an issue with profound ethical and safety considerations. It involves crossing the species barrier between humans and animals—a species barrier that has existed for millennia. Therefore whatever the opponents say that raises the possibility of the transfer of disease between species. As Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First has already pointed out it raises the possibility of the development of crossover diseases from for example pigs to humans and of the development of new infectious and possibly deadly viruses. 
There is no point in trying to dismiss those possibilities. There is experimental evidence that shows despite what opponents say that pig viruses have survived for long periods of time inside humans. Furthermore as the paper from the Ministry of Health points out there is the possibility that new infectious organisms that are not currently known will emerge and infect humans. The Ministry of Health points out that those emerging viruses would pose a particular problem because they would be difficult to identify. So there may not be effective therapies against them if they were to develop and had various routes of transmission. 
The ministry points out that the porcine endogenous retrovirus is present in the DNA contained in the nucleus of all pig cells. Its transmission from pig cells has been recorded in the laboratory and that poses a very credible risk to public health. There was no mention made by the speakers from ACT and National about the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis. Barbara Stewart mentioned various others like HIV etc. but how about the BSE crisis when an animal disease crossed over to humans? At the time most scientists dismissed the idea when it was pointed out that there was a possibility of transferring that infection from animals to humans. It was utterly dismissed by scientists who as Katherine Rich said did not want to hold back the great scientific tide. They dismissed the possibility airily. They said that there was a purely theoretical risk that the disease could cross the species barrier and transfer to humans and that it was certainly not something that should be seriously contemplated. In that case the scientists certainly got it wrong. They denied the risks and we ended up with BSE—mad cow disease—which had a huge huge cost to the British Government and to human health. 
The reality is that there is huge scientific uncertainty surrounding xenotransplantation. For example if we did put pig organs into humans to try to solve the problem of diabetes which Katherine Rich has talked about and if we got it wrong and it resulted in the emergence of a new retrovirus it would be—not to put too fine a word on it—a disaster for humanity. It certainly could open a Pandora’s box. We are in the middle of a bird flu epidemic and we have heard the dire warnings of what could happen if the disease continues to transfer to humans—it already has—and to mutate. We could be in the midst of a huge epidemic. We have been told that by experts yet speakers in this debate airily want to dismiss those possibilities. They suggest that this bill is simply trying to hold back the scientific tide by providing for proper consideration and regulatory controls surrounding xenotransplantation. 
I was also rather alarmed by some of the remarks made by Katherine Rich. She pointed out quite correctly that we are in the midst of a diabetes epidemic. We in the Health Committee have been hearing that there is such an increase in people needing dialysis machines that there are shortages around the country. There is no doubt about that and at a cost of about $50000-odd per year to treat someone on dialysis New Zealand faces a huge problem. But her answer to that huge crisis seemed to be that we must all now get pig organs—set aside our concerns and set up I presume huge pig factories around New Zealand to grow pig organs so that we can all use them for problems such as failing organs as in the case of advanced diabetes. 
But hang on a minute! Why would we not look first at human donor organs? New Zealand has one of the lowest rates of organ donation in the world and we are doing virtually nothing serious to increase it. There is a huge amount that we could and should be doing. Indeed the Health Committee has recommended strongly that the Government take far more action in developing a register and doing everything it can to increase the rate of human organ donation. 
But there is another issue. Yes we have an epidemic of diabetes—an estimated 120000-odd people with diabetes and the same number it is said with undiagnosed diabetes. But instead of looking at xenotransplantation and pig organs why do we not look at the causes of diabetes and take some simple steps—we could take them right now; they are under our noses—to prevent the epidemic of diabetes in the first instance? We are told that 90 percent or more of cases of diabetes are type 2 diabetes caused by—guess what—diet and inactivity. So why do we not take simple steps? Why is the National Party not suggesting simple steps like getting rid of the high-sugar fizzy drinks sold in vending machines in almost every secondary school in our land? A high-fat diet is another cause. Why are we allowing virtually all the schools in New Zealand to sell high-fat diets? 
We have just done a survey of 50 schools in which we found that in virtually all of them the staple diet sold in tuck-shops is pies doughnuts chips hot dogs and sausage rolls. A simple thing we could do tomorrow to deal with the causes of diabetes is to improve our children’s diet—to reduce the amount of fat and sugar they are being exposed to which we know is the cause of diabetes. Why do we seem incapable of taking simple little steps such as getting rid of the vending machines in our schools and asking the food industry to reduce the amount of high-fat high-sugar rubbish it is selling as food to our children whom it is targeting with manipulative techniques? Why are we not prepared to do something simple like that? Instead according to the National Party the solution to diabetes is in putting pig organs into humans—embracing xenotransplantation despite all of its huge known risks. Let us not according to the National Party do something simple like improve the food our children are eating and deal with the causes of diabetes; let us just get into high-tech solutions and set up pig factories all around New Zealand so that we can start putting pig organs into humans! How tragic how short-sighted and how lacking in vision! 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 It has been rather interesting to hear the debate today because we are talking about a bill that has three clauses. In fact it has only one clause of significance—the third clause—because the first is the title clause and the second is the commencement clause. The third clause covers the extension until 31 December next year of the expiry date of the moratorium relating to the controls on xenotransplantation procedures—which is what this bill is all about. 
United Future believes that scientific development is great. However it needs to occur within an ethical framework. Ethics do not apply just to medical procedures; they also have to apply to the research processes that enable us to get there. This is not a controversial piece of legislation despite what ACT and National tell the House. In fact we are asking for something that we as members of Parliament ask for all the time: an extension on a date. In select committee work we regularly ask to extend the period in which we can consider important issues. We may want to get in additional experts. We may want to retalk to submitters or call for further submissions. There are all sorts of reasons why we may feel that the time frame we have been given is not quite sufficient to do the job properly and we then apply for and get an extension from the House. That is exactly what this bill is about. It is an application to this House for an extension because those working at the coalface of this issue want more time. 
The Bioethics Council is well on task with the work it is doing. I am registered with the Bioethics Council. It sends me data on issues as they come up so that I have the opportunity to submit on an issue if I am interested. I have in my possession a letter from the Bioethics Council that I received on 3 March inviting me should I be interested to make a submission on this all-important area. The letter outlines 16 rounds of meetings—eight rounds of two meetings each—available to people who want to be part of the discussion at a community level on xenotransplantation. The last date on which one could participate in the second round of the last meeting was Wednesday 4 May in Auckland. 
Katherine Rich claimed that groups that wanted to have input did not have time to get their acts together and to participate in those discussions. I cannot see how that was the case as I received the letter on 3 March which must have been about the same time everybody else who was interested in this issue received it. The time frame they had was right through to 4 May which seems to me like plenty of time. 
I was also interested to hear ACT member Heather Roy kind of accusing those of us who support this extension of being party to fearmongering on this issue. Since when did caution turn into fearmongering? I think that caution on these matters is extremely important. 
I want to support two members who have taken a call today. One is Dianne Yates who—I suspect like no other member of this House—has devoted a huge amount of her time as a member of Parliament to issues of a bioethics nature. She has even travelled to Britain in respect of issues that she has been deeply concerned about. She has sponsored a member’s bill on this matter. Possibly Dr Paul Hutchison may come a close second. It was very interesting to hear Dianne Yates’ speech. 
I also commend Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First who gave a very well-researched speech who has really thought carefully about the issue and who sees that it is just a common-sense thing to extend this moratorium a bit longer. In fact the explanatory note states that the date that has been given 31 December 2006 can be extended by Order in Council if necessary. There is huge expectation that it may not have to go as far as 31 December 2006 because work is well on track in that regard. 
The other issue that comes up is about whether we trust scientists and whether by voting for this bill we are demonstrating some lack of trust in our scientific community. The truth is that ethical scientists do not want to work in some sort of unbridled environment. They also know that it is quite possible for their work to run ahead of ethical considerations. They understand and appreciate that the work done by organisations like the Bioethics Council—and even by members of Parliament on this matter—is work that is well done and that at the end of the day actually supports the progress of science. We must remember that it is not just what we achieve in medical science that is important but that it is also important to consider the means by which we get there. The means must be as ethical as the ends. 
I have a particular interest in this issue because I am at high risk of getting diabetes. There has been a lot of mention this afternoon that one of the wonder breakthroughs we are expecting should xenotransplantation be allowed to go ahead is in the area of diabetes. My grandfather was an insulin-dependent diabetic my mother is now an insulin-dependent diabetic and there are certainly signs in my life that if I do not manage my diet and do all sorts of other things then I am headed in that direction too. So I ask myself considering the fact that diabetes is a high risk for me whether I want unbridled scientific endeavour to rush ahead supposedly on my behalf and come up with some fairly interesting solutions to my problem—including the implantation of pig matter into my body—without testing them out. Let me tell members that although it is appalling to have to see my mother inject herself on a twice-daily basis I would rather if that were the outcome for my life end up doing that than be subject to some untried poorly-thought-through medical procedure that may do me a lot more harm than good. 
So United Future is very supportive of this extension. That is all it is. We congratulate members of the medical and scientific communities who work on this issue. We congratulate members of the bioethics community who are continuing to tease out all the issues around this. We are very happy to support this second reading. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in opposition to the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. I do so on a range of grounds. The first one which I think is the most important is that this legislation is not entirely related to xenotransplantation. This bill provides for a moratorium on a range of other scientific experiments. The second point which has been put forward by a number of submitters to this debate so far is that xenotransplantation is relatively new and that it therefore needs to go through more rigorous science before it can be deemed safe. 
I have in front of me a bit of information that suggests that the first xenotransplantation took place in 1682 when part of a dog’s skull was transplanted into a Russian nobleman who had a fractured skull. It seems to me that this technology is not as new as some would have us believe. The reason it has not become a popular and regular event is as some have submitted because the human body generally rejects the transplantation and the person suffers because of the rejection. The body’s own immune system rejects the foreign matter that has been transplanted and that causes either death or some other kind of repercussion. 
There is a huge amount of scientific evidence going back over a long period of time that suggests that these procedures could be safe in some instances—that experimentation has already taken place. I know as will a number of other people in this House many people who have kidney problems and are on dialysis. They have to go for dialysis sometimes daily and it has a horrendous effect on their standard of living and general well-being. 
One person in particular said to me that he would love to be able to allow himself to go forward potentially as—I will not use the words “guinea pig” because we are talking about pig transplantation—somebody who could demonstrate to the wider world that this process has been tested on many occasions. In his view based on all the medical advice he has been given it would be a safe procedure that would give him an extended life and make his standard of living so much better. 
So why should we stand in Parliament today and debate legislation that extends a moratorium on his individual right to make that choice? Why should we do that? On what grounds? We do not have the science to back up the argument to extend the moratorium. It is just not there. There is no conclusive science that states that the procedure is unsafe and that we should not allow it to happen. Why should we do that? We do not have science that suggests that if it were to happen there would be some kind of horrendous repercussion such as the interspecies transplant of some disease. There is no science to back that up. 
Until we allow some of this procedure to take place—and I am not talking just about xenotransplantation there are others types of science that I think are being held back by the sort of Luddite approach that we have in this country—scientists will look at something that is a little bit off the wall and say: “No the regulatory framework that we have in New Zealand at the moment around this kind of stuff is so tough that we won’t bother going down the road of applying for funds or carrying out the science experimentation whether it be with animals or humans with the intent of advancing medical science.” 
I need to remind the House that this is a biological nation. In this country we depend by and large on our agricultural exports. It is on the back of science that we have been able to develop one of the most efficient industries in the world in our agricultural exports. So why do we seem to have now got to the stage where we are very cautious and introduce a legislative framework that goes beyond what most credible scientists would suggest is necessary particularly in this instance? 
I put this forward to the House and I ask Government members: “Why do you need to have another extension?”. They had a piece of legislation passed some time ago that introduced the moratorium. The suggestion at that stage by most who were involved in that debate was that at the end of that period there would be enough evidence to suggest that we would then be able to move on. Yet we are now here again today passing or about to pass I suspect based on those who have spoken legislation that will extend that moratorium out again and it is based on no science that I can find. So unless someone can take a call and prove that what I have said is wrong that is where I stand. 
The first successful organ xenotransplants were carried out in 1963. So I stress the point that this is not new. The reason it has not become more widespread as I said before is because of the difficulty that the medical fraternity has had in trying to find a way to stop the human body from rejecting the transplanted material whether it be a kidney a heart a liver or whatever it might be—and on this paper there are a number of other suggestions of potential organs but the kidney transplant is of course the one that is most spoken of at the moment in regard to xenotransplantation. 
Can I also refer to some of the debate that has gone on about the contrast between New Zealand’s criteria or regulation around this and what happens in Australia. Some have suggested that Australians have taken a very cautious approach to this and that at this stage they are not allowing the kind of development that may take place here if it is allowed to to go ahead. Well there is an interesting counter-argument to that and it is this. Most of the scientists who have exited New Zealand in recent times including those who were involved in the development of xenotransplantation have gone to Australia. Now one has to ask the question: if Australia’s regulatory framework is as tough as has been suggested here today why would one go there? What possible gain could there be? If New Zealand’s approach to science is as open as Australia’s why would one go from New Zealand to Australia if one were a scientist? Yet the evidence is overwhelming that that is what scientists have done. So that is a question that is unanswered for me. 
I can see some Ministers over there now. It is great to see the Minister of Police and I am sure he will be knowledgable on this. I look forward to him taking a call to explain to me why we have had a mass exodus of our best scientists in recent times to Australia when it has been asserted in the House here today that the Australian regulations are the same as ours and that that is the reason why we should not allow this experimentation to take place at this point in time. I am sure a Minister will answer that question. 
The other area I want to touch on is the fact that a large number of people in this country for whatever reason whether it be cultural religious or whatever will not be involved in xenotransplantation and that is their choice. But why should those who wish to not be involved in this transplantation? I refer back to my farming leader colleague from Taranaki—and I will not use his name because I have not asked him whether I can—who is desperately needing a kidney transplant at this point in time. He cannot find a suitable donor and is in a serious potentially life-threatening state of health. Why is he not allowed to be involved—because he wants to be—in what could be ground-breaking science that could solve his problem? 
I ask members of the House particularly Ministers who are involved in the various regulatory areas to find out the percentage of New Zealanders who put on their driving licence that they would be willing to become a donor in the case of a serious accident. They will find that the source of potential donors over the last 10 years for a range of reasons has declined. So what will we do? We know that we can extend people’s lives and certainly improve their quality of life by transplantation but we also know that the potential source of donors is drying up. What will we do about that? Extending a moratorium on something that may be potentially the answer to that problem in my view makes no sense at all. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a second time. 
Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is motivated by the Government’s belief that offenders should not enjoy financial compensation for wrongful treatment without first having to address the harm caused to their victims. This bill aims to ensure that prisoners can be awarded monetary compensation only in exceptional cases where it is the only effective remedy and where the person has first made use of other avenues of complaint. Secondly it seeks to ensure that if an offender does receive compensation victims will be able to claim their own redress from that sum. 
The bill introduces guidelines to restrict the circumstances in which compensation can be awarded. After the bill is enacted if a person in the corrections system claims compensation for a breach of his or her rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the Human Rights Act and the Privacy Act compensation will not be available unless the person can show to the satisfaction of the court that he or she has made reasonable use of available complaints mechanisms and has failed to obtain effective redress and that no other remedy or combination of remedies would provide effective redress. In considering whether to award compensation the court or tribunal will also be required to consider a range of factors including steps taken by the prisoner to mitigate the harm steps taken by the State to remedy the breach whether the breach was deliberate or in bad faith the consequences of the breach and the importance of the right that has been breached. 
In the exceptional situation where compensation is paid the bill introduces a new mechanism that will assist victims of the offender to have first claim against it. The bill does that by establishing a trust account and a special victims’ claims procedure. Where compensation is required to be paid by the Crown to a prisoner either in the form of public law damages or as the result of a claim in tort that compensation will be paid to the Secretary for Justice. After deducting relevant legal aid charges and any unpaid reparation the Secretary for Justice will place the money in a bank account to be held in trust so that the victims can claim against it. The Secretary for Justice will take reasonable steps to identify and notify victims. Victims will be sent an application form and will have 6 months to file a claim in writing. To assist them financially victims and offenders will be exempt from the usual financial eligibility rules for legal aid up to a capped amount. The parties will also be relieved from normal filing and hearing fees. 
Claims will be determined by a District Court judge sitting as a special claims tribunal and will usually be determined on the papers unless there are exceptional reasons to justify a hearing. Victims will not have to re-prove the details of the offender’s crime. The tribunal will be able to rely on findings of fact in the criminal case that led to the offender’s conviction. The tribunal will determine claims and make any orders based on the general law of damages. The Secretary for Justice will then pay money out of the trust to victims according to the tribunal’s order. Where there are multiple victims and insufficient funds to meet all the victims’ awards the available money will be paid on a proportional basis. 
Victims have always had the right to take civil claims against offenders for the harm or loss they have suffered. However they rarely do. In part that is because they are at a particular disadvantage: by the time the offender is released from prison the 6-year limitation period has often expired. The bill will address that by providing that for civil claims by victims against offenders the 6-year limitation period will be suspended whenever the offender is in prison. The new limitation provisions will benefit all victims of offences whether the offence occurred before or after the legislation takes effect irrespective of whether the offender had sought compensation and even if the victim’s actions would previously have been statute barred under the Limitation Act. 
Some submitters argued that offenders should never be entitled to compensation for breaches of human rights. I understand their sentiments. However a blanket removal of compensation would breach fundamental international obligations that successive Governments have committed themselves to. No country with which we would like to compare ourselves including Canada Australia the United Kingdom or the United States of America denies the right of compensation in all circumstances. 
Some submitters on the bill expressed concern about the adequacy of prisoner complaints mechanisms. The bill will restrict the availability of a monetary remedy. However it does not restrict the ability of offenders to make complaints about their treatment. The existence of a monetary remedy is not the only reason that prisoners complain. Prisoners complain because they want their complaint to be investigated and addressed. That is clear from the number of complaints to the Office of the Ombudsmen in spite of the fact that the ombudsmen have no power to award damages. Every effort should be made to ensure that rules regarding minimum standards in prison are not breached in the first place so that no grounds exist to bring claims for damages. 
In October last year the Government directed Ministry of Justice officials to lead a review into the effectiveness of existing inmate complaints mechanisms. The findings confirm that although the system does identify most breaches deficiencies remain that need to be addressed. The internal complaints process is still being underutilised and the Department of Corrections could be more responsive to the Office of the Ombudsmen. Several steps are being taken to address that. The new corrections legislation and regulations that come into force on 1 June will strengthen the complaints procedures. The new chief executive of the department is committed to making a change in culture and ensuring greater responsiveness by his department to the ombudsmen. The Office of the Ombudsmen is also undertaking an investigation into prisoner complaints processes. Its report which is due in December could also lead to improvements in how the department and the Office of the Ombudsmen work together. However should those changes not achieve an outcome whereby the system can be relied on to prevent or to quickly address any serious breaches consideration will be given to a new independent prison complaints body. I have directed justice officials to do preliminary work on how such a body could operate. 
Some submitters also spoke of the need for the Government to do more to assist the victims of crime. The accident compensation scheme provides support to victims of crime and to those who lose a family member as a result of a crime. In 2004 for example the Accident Compensation Corporation provided a total of $45.117 million to victims of crime including sensitive claims. The Government is committed to ensuring that the victims of crime receive the assistance they need to rebuild their lives. I welcome the Justice and Electoral Committee’s recommendation that there should be an inquiry into whether support and assistance for the families of homicide victims could be further improved. 
In concluding I thank those people who presented submissions to the select committee some of whom told very personal stories about the terrible effect that crime has had on their family. This bill and the steps being taken to strengthen the complaints processes will reduce the likelihood of compensation being paid to offenders and ensure that where compensation is paid victims will have a better opportunity to seek compensation for the unrecompensed harm done to them. I commend this bill to the House. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not take this point of order at the start of the delivery of the Minister’s speech as I did not want to interrupt his speech. An issue has arisen with respect to the report back that I have raised with one other bill in this House and I will ask you for a considered ruling on this. 
Standing Order 244 refers to minority views and states: “A select committee may in its report indicate the differing views of its members.” This is further borne out in Speaker’s rulings 81/3 and 81/4 which refer to minority or differing views of members. Speaker’s ruling 81/3 states: “… These differing views” referring to those in the minority report. A further context is provided for my point of order in Speaker’s ruling 81(4) which relates further to minority views as being “diverging views” both in the first line and the last line. 
The point of that contextual background is that the commentary on the bill on page 2 just prior to the heading “International obligations” quite clearly states: “In this commentary ‘most of us’ refers to Labour and United Future members.” That being the case we can assume that United Future has indicated that it is part of the majority in the report back indicating that “most of us” refers naturally enough to the Government—to Labour—but also to United Future. Then extraordinarily we have a minority report from United Future contained in the same commentary. 
The Standing Orders and Speaker’s rulings make quite clear in the context I have outlined that minority views relate to differing or diverging views from those of the majority whereas the commentary indicates that United Future considers itself by definition in fact—not by implication but by express definition—to be part of the majority by including itself in the commentary under the quote “most of us”. 
Unfortunately when it comes to reporting back political parties do not get to have a buck each way. The Standing Orders and Speaker’s rulings make very clear that minority reports refer to diverging or different views. In this case the Justice and Electoral Committee has through its commentary indicated that United Future sits with most of us in this report. It sits with the majority. At the same time it is trying to have a dollar the other way by indicating a minority report. 
I have raised this issue before. In that case there was no specific reference in the report back to who was included in the majority. I was rightly told to sit down and get over it. In this case there is a specific reference to the fact that United Future considers itself to be in the majority. The context I have provided from the Standing Orders and Speaker’s rulings indicate that this is inappropriate and I would seek a considered ruling from you on this issue. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The whip for the National Party Mr Power raises a point that might show the evolution of practice. We are inclined toward giving the public a much clearer idea of the reasoning for the way in which members of a committee have approached issues without recognising that the Standing Orders in this respect started pre-MMP when possibly the discipline between the two parties was a lot more robust. But the commentary we have here is probably a proper reflection of what happened in the Justice and Electoral Committee and I speak as a member of it. I was not sure whether the whip asking for the ruling was asking that the report be removed or the terminology be changed or was saying that the report itself is invalid. I would be reluctant to see any ruling that prevented this kind of report. 
In a sense the situation is self-evident. United Future members were wanting to have a bob each way. They were unhappy about the bill but were still voting for it and they wanted to record their unhappiness even though they were voting for it. My view is that it is appropriate for members of the House to see that and it is appropriate for the public researchers and others in the future to understand it. I think they will be baffled because the committee has adopted some constraints. There is a voluntary constraint in the sense that a minority view should be confined to a reasonable length which we have said is a page. 
But I hope that if the Speaker does agree to give a ruling on this the ruling tries to accommodate this situation. I think the remedy is here. I think it is absolutely farcical for a party to trash a bill completely then vote for it but I think that the House can read what United Future is doing and that members can make up their own minds without our bringing down a rule that says it cannot do it. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Interesting points have been raised. This is not the first example of parties doing this in minority reports. Madam Deputy Speaker the senior Opposition whip has asked for your considered ruling and that is appropriate but I do not think we need to get into a round robin submission process on that. You can undertake whether you want to give us a ruling on that and we can be guided by your view. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I do not intend to waste the House’s time but as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I do feel I have something to add and it is a slightly different point. It is clear that minority reports are an extremely important part of select committee commentaries. They provide an alternative view to the majority view and it seems to me to be quite justified that a party supporting a bill may well have a valid reason for putting forward a minority view on specific issues in the bill that they disagree with or would seek to have amended. 
However I agree with Mr Power that it is not appropriate for a party that supports a bill to put in a minority report stating it does not really agree with it but will vote for it anyway. If that party were to mention specific points it was seeking to amend I would think that that was quite a different matter and that we should allow for that but I think Mr Power has a very good point. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I genuinely thank members for their contributions. In no way in an MMP environment would I like to see parties curtailed from expressing views that are different from those of the majority on any committee. But there is a slightly different issue at stake here from the one raised by my colleague Mr Tanczos. I agree with his analysis but the problem is that in this case the United Future party specifically identified itself in the commentary on the bill as being part of the majority but then went on to give a minority report. 
I think that at a philosophical level Mr Franks is dead right. It may well be that there is a hold-over from a first-past-the-post environment when it comes to minority reports and I for one would hate to see that right curtailed which is why Madam Deputy Speaker I have asked you for a considered ruling. But specifically I think that in light of my comments about the contextual argument contained in the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 that minority views are diverging or different views United Future is not allowed to have a bob each way by saying it will vote with the majority but will also have a minority report. Therein lies the dilemma for yourself Madam Deputy Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I have just a couple of points. The member keeps using the term “minority report” when actually the expression is a “minority view” right through the report and that is an important point. I also make the point that Standing Order 244 certainly provides for committees to include differing views in their reports. 
Simon Power 
: Diverging. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well differing or diverging—it is the same thing. Certainly Speaker Hunt in his ruling did say “diverging views” but it can be “differing views” too. While it may seem unusual in this instance for a party that is assumedly part of the majority to have a differing view it is not impossible. I think Stephen Franks was probably making some of that point too. It is a matter for the committee to decide whether the view is a differing view and whether it should be included in the report. In the end the matter is for the committee. I am very happy to discuss it with the Speaker but I just make those points. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I appreciate your ruling and I would appreciate your raising the matter directly with the Speaker. Although it was a matter for the committee at the time the report was done it is now a matter for the House to decide whether the course of action followed by the Justice and Electoral Committee was appropriate and that is the issue I raise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it is a matter for debate but I thank the member. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party in Opposition is opposed to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. We believe that payments to prisoners should be blocked stopped and wiped out. We do not believe that New Zealand should be constrained by the figment of what the United Nations may or may not state in various conventions. We believe that the people of New Zealand have a right to express their view and the view of the people of New Zealand is that there should be no payments whatsoever. The Justice and Electoral Committee reports at some length about the victims who appeared before it and expressed their views on the priorities that there should be. The select committee clearly stated that the overwhelming majority of victims who appeared before it wanted to deprive the criminals of the money rather than to enrich themselves as victims. The victims did not want the money and did not want the crooks to get it either. We think that the Government has failed completely to address any of the concerns of victims and of the wider community. 
Let me make it absolutely clear what this bill does. Even though Mr Goff may stand up and say he is stopping prisoners keeping the cash this bill allows inmates to keep some or all of the cash. It does nothing to stop them getting the loot. It does nothing to stop them receiving taxpayers’ money for all the range of imagined harms that they may have experienced while they were behind bars serving their punishment for offending against the community. 
How can it be that this bill allows inmates to keep some if not all of the cash that may be awarded to them in a compensation claim? National’s view in its minority report on the bill written by Dr Richard Worth makes quite clear the number of areas where prisoners can keep the money. The first area is when the victims are deceased—if the victims are deceased the prisoner can keep the money. What happens if the victims are not readily identifiable? The National Party has used the example of many of the most vile inmates in our country’s prisons: the drug dealers. Those people have sold drugs whether it be through a middleman or directly themselves. But how can we identify their victims and who are eligible to make a claim? We cannot. So if a drug dealer gets a $300000 or $400000 payout from the Labour Government there are no readily identifiable victims to make a claim and the criminal gets to keep the cash. We think that is a failure of this bill and a failure of the Government’s policy. 
The National Party makes the following point in its commentary on the bill and I agree with it completely: what sort of bill pits one victim against another? What sort of Government pits one victim against another? This bill if for some horrible reason it is passed into law will require victims to plead their cases of relative harm in order to receive any compensation payment. We will expect some authority to measure the different levels of harm anguish and continuing suffering that various victims feel. That is all too heartless. This bill will allow prisoners to keep some if not all of the cash and that is not what New Zealanders want. 
One of the arguments that the Government has used—and the issue seems to have tied the United Future and Labour members of the select committee in knots—is the undertakings that New Zealand has apparently given with regard to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Members will recall that when this bill was introduced the Minister of Justice appeared on television and said that the United Nations convention requires that we pay the money and that we do this and that. But as the National Party has pointed out it is quite clear that New Zealand has a specific reservation in respect of the right to award compensation to such criminals under article 14 of the convention and it is that compensation is payable only at the discretion of the Attorney-General. New Zealand has made it quite clear to all the international agencies that we will not follow their rules as we have our own rules and that any payment will be made only at the discretion of the Attorney-General. So it would be very easy for the Government to pass a law or indeed to adopt a policy that it will not pay money to criminals for any alleged harm or otherwise that they may have suffered while in prison. 
New Zealanders were outraged that the Labour Government wrote a cheque for the hurt feelings of a vile individual who raped and killed a young woman as he stuffed pebbles down her throat. He received a cheque from the Government because of his hurt feelings. A man who raped and murdered a woman while shoving pebbles down her throat had a payout from the Government for hurt feelings. The Department of Corrections decided that it would just pay the money out and not even appeal the decision on a matter of principle. I say that no New Zealander would have criticised any authority that said it was so repugnant that such an individual should get a payout that it had to be stopped. It would have been and it is very easy to change the law to stop inmates receiving payouts. Let us be absolutely clear that this bill does not stop the payouts. It does not stop the worst criminals in New Zealand receiving a cheque from the taxpayers. It allows inmates to keep some if not all of any payment the Labour Government may choose to make. That is not what people want to occur. 
I say to the House that it is not against the United Nations convention or against any other law for New Zealand to say “no payouts”. 
Ron Mark 
: Yes it is. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is not. We have expressly stated that we have our right to make a decision. It is expressly the view of the National Party that we should not allow any payments to prisoners whatsoever. If prison staff violate beat mistreat or offend against prisoners and the law we should charge them. 
Ron Mark 
: Charge them; convict them. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Absolutely—just as for example if the Prime Minister committed art fraud we should charge her. 
Ron Mark 
: If she is speeding going to a rugby match. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: If she is speeding we should charge her. Sorry who is the police commissioner? If prison officers commit a crime we should charge them. But we should not expect victims to pay taxes so that Phil Goff can write out a cheque in compensation for offenders’ hurt feelings. 
This bill will not work. The Government will be humiliated if when it pays out money to a criminal there are no victims and no claims so the criminal keeps the cash. It should take our advice and change this bill—withdraw it. It is much simpler to block stop and wipe out the ability for the worst people in our community to receive payouts for what are claims based on figments of their imagination. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise to commend the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill to the House. I chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee which dealt with the legislation. We went through a very interesting exercise as a committee in hearing submitters from both sides of the spectrum who had concerns about the legislation and who proposed a number of other ways to deal with them. As a committee we went into a very detailed process of going through all the other ways in which the commonly desired outcome could be achieved. We came back to broadly what was in the bill but at the same time we came up with two separate and quite crucial recommendations. 
I was interested to hear Mr Ryall deny the reality of 9 years of a National Government that was very careful to keep in line with the international obligations it had signed up to and abided by and actually advocate that we breach international law. For the majority of the committee that was not an acceptable way forward and I am very pleased that that position was taken by the committee. Given that constraint and given that we needed to come up with a scheme that actually worked we went through all the options and alternatives and we came back to the model proposed in the legislation. In our view it is the only one that is workable applies to cases that are currently before the courts and is within our international obligations. We also noted that the scheme contained in the bill may never be needed. 
There were two issues that would not go away. The first was that we have prison inmates in this nation who have been abused that we run the risk of that continuing and that we need a better prison complaints system. Our committee unanimously recommended the establishment of an independent prison complaints system and that is detailed in our report. The second issue is that there is clearly a need to move further along the agenda of victims’ rights. We heard about that very powerfully from victims who were brave enough to come before our committee and we recommended an inquiry which we intend to initiate ourselves as a committee into the next stage of the development of victims’ rights. 
Lastly I note the conversation about the fact that a number of parties have put forward minority views. That quite accurately reflects the debate we had in the committee. United Future and Labour members who made up the majority of the committee ended up supporting the legislation to this stage. The United Future member had doubts but recognised that overall this seemed to be an appropriate way forward. I commend the bill to the House. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 I am very happy to speak on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill on behalf of my colleague Mr Dail Jones. The result of the Labour Government’s legislation will be that scumbags murderers and vicious criminals on long-term sentences will harass and taunt prison officers purposely to such an extent that if there is even minor retaliation they will be entitled to compensation. This bill will create a new industry which will be called the “taunt prison officers industry”—screw the screws; power is in prison. It sounds like one of those principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and here it is again. It is another gravy train for the lawyers. New Zealand First will be voting against this bill. 
No funds should be made available to criminals. They do the crime and they pay the time. I would say that most New Zealanders affiliate with that very very easily. There should be no compensation. I quote from the section of the March 2005  
Leader’s Letter 
 headed “Should Prisoners be Entitled to Personally Receive Compensation?”. It reads: “Do you think criminals should be able to claim compensation for the way they have been treated in prison and after making some payment to victims be allowed to keep the balance for themselves?”. I am sure my United Future colleague over there who is one of the very staunch law-and-order men in Parliament will vote against this bill but I do not think the other members of that party will. 
I move on quietly. Mr Phil Goff during the times I have spent with him overseas walks the talk but in this bill I cannot see that happening. That is the Labour Government’s intention with the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill which went before the Justice and Electoral Committee. The problem we face at the moment is that on 24 August 2004 the High Court awarded $130000 in damages to five scumbags in Auckland prison after finding that aspects of the Department of Corrections’ behaviour management regime were unlawful. The decision is currently under appeal. Why the hell did they go to prison? Did they go in there for a soft ride? No they did not. If the prison officer has to lay the law down so be it. 
I quote further from the  
Leader’s Letter 
: “Now Sam Te Hei who murdered Colleen Burrows in a brutal cold blooded calculated killing in 1987 is seeking compensation for breach of human rights and would get to keep this money.” What do the family and the whanau who are the victims of that crime think of that one? I think Sam Te Hei is a disgusting disgrace to Maoridom quite frankly. The  
Leader’s Letter 
 stated: “Colleen Burrow’s mother Mrs Ida Hawkins had this to say to the Parliamentary Select Committee: ‘He was sentenced to life imprisonment he should never get parole. He should never get any compensation. Te Hei is a criminal prison is for punishment and life should mean  
Life in Prison 
.’ ” There should not be any compensation. I wholeheartedly support Mrs Hawkins and I want to make sure that people like Sam Te Hei do not profit as a result of murdering a New Zealand citizen and ending up in prison. 
Another example is the murder of young Simon Reaney. I ask folks to think about how they would feel if it were their 7-year-old; how would they feel if that happened to one of their children? His murderer Anthony Roma—we all know of him because he was front-page news at the time—was charged with the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. There is also the case of William Bell who was involved in the brutal murder at the Mount Wellington - Panmure RSA. He murdered one of our RSA members who fought for the rights of the people of this country but who had to suffer being brutally murdered by yet another scumbag. 
What did William Bell do? He was already on parole for aggravated robbery having had 102 previous convictions mainly for violence. Should criminals like that be allowed to seek and to keep compensation? No I go along with my colleague Mr Ryall. In no way should such people receive any compensation and if any money is left over it should be put into a trust for victims not for prisoners or the people who committed the crimes. 
Those people have been abusive and have failed to recognise all the human rights that exist in our society today. Surely there must be a limit to the way in which they can profit from being sent to prison. Mrs Ida Hawkins mother of Colleen Burrows said: “Now he wants human rights!! Human rights are for human beings.” Te Hei was a disgrace to Maoridom. She said: “Tei Hei is not a human being.” He was an absolute disgrace folks. Members of Parliament members of the public and Kiwis of this country know he was a disgrace to Maoridom. 
In some cases there are no specified victims such as in drug-dealing cases or in cases where criminals might murder all members of the family. So in those cases prisoners would keep all the money. In other cases a person might be imprisoned for theft from an employer and that person should be certain only of a civilised form of treatment in prison. 
A view seems to be forming that although we do not want criminals to get anything if we can possibly be assured of that nevertheless in a civilised society even criminals should be entitled to some form of civilised treatment. But if they do receive any compensation then their victims should be the first to benefit. At the end of the day it is a life sentence for the whanau as well and any balance should be paid to a trust for victims. The Sensible Sentencing Trust’s submission was a long way along those lines. 
I want to finish after having spent time at the Justice and Electoral Committee by thanking Tim Barnett for his fair approach to all members of the select committee. Ms Dalziel is not here; I do not know why. But I say that her expertise and her longevity in this House certainly showed out in the select committee. I apologise to Nandor Tanczos for not being there all the time but that member sat beside me and I must say that his comments and input into the bill were worth listening to. I listened to Stephen Franks with his legal background and also to Richard Worth with his English humour. I must say that he our colleague from the National Party with his English humour— 
Simon Power 
: The member is not getting an award. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: No no. That is all right; it is not a problem. I want to finish by saying that the compensation that will be paid to those prisoners is quite frankly disgusting disgraceful and despicable. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party on this second reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. This is the reported-back version from the Justice and Electoral Committee of a bill that came into the House about 6 months too late after a grave embarrassment for the Government as people came to realise just what was happening. The bill came in after Christopher Taunoa got the equivalent of $500 tax-free a week for what a judge had decided was abuse of his human rights when in prison. Others received payment also. The $55000 that Taunoa received was awarded because he had been kept on something called the behaviour management regime which had been introduced into Paremoremo prison—after the authorities had just about lost control of that prison—for the worst criminals New Zealand had. It had been introduced to say essentially that there are sticks and carrots that apply even in prison—that the prisoners have not taken control of that prison. 
The judge heard claims from Taunoa that he had been treated cruelly had had his human rights abused and had suffered torture—because for example he had not been given a clean rag to wipe out his cell and the windows had been left open too long in winter when it was chilly and not long enough in summer when it was hot. He complained that lights had been left on and it had been hard for him to sleep. Some of those complaints the judge decided did not amount to torture but the judge decided that overall Mr Taunoa deserved compensation of $55000 or more than $500 a week because his human rights had been breached. 
One of the things about sitting on the Justice and Electoral Committee was that it was actually very hard not to be caught unmanned—not to be caught wiping away tears—when some of the victims came before us and asked in their own very eloquent way: “Why are we having the insult of even hearing this when these beasts have murdered and taken away forever any human rights of our relatives?”. It is hard even to remember some of those presentations because those people came to the committee absolutely incredulous that Parliament could even be troubling to think about doing this. They asked: “How can it be that the accident compensation scheme says we have no recourse while these beasts are complaining about things like having only a dirty rag to wipe out their cells?”. They could not believe that the committee members were solemnly listening to the Minister’s officials addressing the committee on this issue. 
I have to say the committee was doing a diligent job on all sides. I understand why Edwin Perry handed out plaudits to the committee members because I think the committee tried as hard as it could to overcome the ideological bent of a Government determined to push through a completely fraudulent bill. The committee tried to find ways around the advice and the advice was really simple in the end: it does not matter what the people of New Zealand want what the members of this House might want to do or what most of the members of the committee feel would be just—we cannot do it because there is no sovereignty left in this country. The august bodies in the United Nations which Minister Goff wants to pontificate in front of and be applauded by have said that it is not possible for New Zealand to abolish compensation to prisoners. We cannot do it they have said. 
Well I think that most of us probably wanted to say “Get stuffed!”. We certainly wanted to have a reasonable answer for Mr Tai Hobson who came before us and said: “Bell didn’t give my wife any conditions. Bell”—with 102 previous convictions mainly for violence—“didn’t give my wife any mercy. Why am I told that he is to be paid when the courts just tossed my case out before I could even start it?”. The court stated that he has no remedy and we could not give him an answer. But the answer that is coming from Prime Minister Helen Clark—who probably wants a career like the one Mary Robinson has at the United Nations when she has finished stuffing this country up—and from this Government is that it does not matter what New Zealanders want or feel. The international bureaucrats and the torturers the robbers and the tyrants who put people on to the United Nations Human Rights Committee have said that New Zealand cannot do it. 
I believe that United Future deserves all the embarrassment and squirming that it is experiencing because there is only one reason that the Government is getting this fraudulent bill through. It is that United Future has said it will vote for it. Yet the very true eloquent minority report of United Future in the commentary states: “Whilst the bill has not achieved its overall intention to prevent one more cent of taxpayer money from reaching the pocket of prison inmates United Future accepts that in the absence of a willingness to put aside spurious UN resolutions or a willingness to restrict all remedies to those of a non-cash basis this bill does the next best thing.” Then it does not tell us what the next best thing is. 
The bill does next to nothing. The bill is a piece of political flannel. The bill is being debated and rushed through now because the Minister thinks that New Zealanders are mug enough to forget during the 3 months within which the Government will have to call an election what this bill is doing. The Government wants this over now and next week because it cannot actually face there being any interest in it. We have no media present. There is not a single journalist covering this debate yet it was a major issue when the bill was introduced. In other words I think the Government is correctly calculating that its tactic will work. This bill is spent news. 
I think of Tai Hobson. I think of a woman who called me from Hawke’s Bay and said that she could not give evidence as her son was living overseas because he had had the cheek to give evidence against the people who had turned his head into a football. She named one of the defendants—who was one of the Te Hei family that Edwin Perry mentioned—who had turned her son’s head into a football put him out of work and left him in hospital for a very long time. Those people rule in that area of Hawke’s Bay. Her son could not afford to have his mother come here and do what she wanted to do which was to tell Parliament what she thought of Te Hei qualifying for compensation. 
It is not just Taunoa; there has been a string of them. We never received the details. The Hon Margaret Wilson did deals with those prisoners secretly and the Government has never revealed to Parliament exactly what those sums were. But the Government did confirm the totals that had been spent. In September 2000 we heard that $538000 had been paid out in secret payouts for so-called human rights abuses including payments to Raheke Te Hei Michael Ratima and John Gillies. The payouts were of between $40000 and $90000 each. 
They were made because this Government is not willing to take on the judges of this country either. The judges invented this financial compensation right for so-called human rights abuse. They made it up. They made it up after Parliament had decided not to include a right to compensation in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They made it up because they think there needs to be an effective remedy. If prison officers have abused their powers—and I do not accept that it was torture or that it was serious—what sort of remedy is it and what respect or regard does it create for justice to impose a payment against the Crown that is to go to completely undeserving recipients of a windfall when the real fault lies if it lies with anyone at all with a few prison officers who should be subject to disciplinary procedures? This Government has utterly lost control of its workforce. Its employment law means that it probably cannot sack those officers until they have tortured three times—if they ever tortured at all. 
So we have to face these victims and to apologise for a bill that is fraudulent in its intent—because the Government knows that it is unlikely to take a cent from any of the people who receive these windfall compensation payments—in favour of the Government being able to pretend that United Nations so-called human rights obligations are being met. ACT will vote against this bill and we will do it with a sense of disgust. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to address the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill and to correct some of the misrepresentations that have been made of our position on the bill. Most obviously for me is the fact that if this bill goes through without amendment it will be incompatible with the United Future policy on law and order which is based on three principles: being tough on crime being tough on the causes of crime and—to my mind the most important principle—placing victims first. This bill does not put victims first so from my point of view it is utterly incompatible with that policy. However—and this is the part I think has been misrepresented—we will be supporting this bill through to the Committee stage at which point we will be putting forward a number of Supplementary Order Papers. One of them in particular will be a bottom line for us. If it is not accepted our support ends right there. That Supplementary Order Paper will I believe enshrine the victims-first approach. If for whatever reason that does not happen—if for whatever reason United Future nevertheless decides to support the bill—it will not be I who will deliver that vote. The House can count on that. 
I turn to the substance of the bill. I do not want to lambaste the Minister of Justice for this bill because I think that in many ways he has been put between a rock and a hard place. On one hand he has what I consider to be—and many would agree with me—spurious United Nations obligations. I understand that from the point of view of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade he has to uphold those principles. In a sense it is a pity that Phil Goff wears both hats and that they are in conflict with each other. In this particular instance his role as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade conflicts with his role as Minister of Justice. The idea that we must sign up to international obligations and that that somehow supersedes our Parliament is fundamentally flawed. At the end of the day Parliament must be the arbiter. Parliament must be the point at which laws for New Zealand are decided upon not the whim of the Government of the day in signing up to international accords without the proviso of giving Parliament the ability to debate and support whatever those obligations may be. 
I have also been accused I believe by the National member who spoke earlier of having allowed myself a bob either way by taking a supportive view of the main body of the commentary on the bill and also stating a minority view. Let me just say clearly for the record that although I was the United Future member on the Justice and Electoral Committee for the purposes of this bill I was not always at the meetings of that committee simply because of my responsibilities in the other select committee of which I am a member. Had I been there I would possibly not have included United Future support for the main body of the commentary. 
Members will see that the United Future minority view outlines our major concerns. I have talked a little about the international obligations. On the issue of the compensation that needs to be provided for inmates there is no necessity in my opinion—and I think in others’—that the compensation be financial. It is quite clear that there is a purpose for compensation: to be a punishment or a penalty imposed on the Department of Corrections for doing the wrong thing. I have no problem with that. But that the money should somehow be a windfall for the inmate concerned is I think the part of the equation that nobody can accede to. When an inmate is brutalised the Department of Corrections and the people responsible for that brutalisation must be brought to justice and they must pay the full penalty. But there is no reason to reward the inmate over and above reasonable compensation which is not necessarily financial compensation. If there is a broken leg let us mend it. If there are hurt feelings let us give the inmate counselling. But we should not give the inmate one cent of taxpayers’ money some of which comes from the victims of the crime he or she committed in order to find himself or herself there in the first place. I think that that is utterly wrong. 
That applies to people like Taunoa who received $55000 for being subject to prison discipline. That man had slashed the throat of a person so badly that it exposed the victim’s spine. He is a threat to other inmates and to the guards. Not to put him away would infringe the human rights of the guards and other inmates. The idea that taxpayers must now front up and pay $55000 in compensation as a result of a decision arising from that inmate’s own actions is an absolute affront to victims everywhere in this country. The point is that compensation need not be financial. That will be the sum of the Supplementary Order Paper that I will put forward in the Committee stage of this bill. 
The simple fact is that we have heard from a number of victims many times over that they did not necessarily want the offender to be put at risk in prison but they did not want to have an ongoing legal relationship with the offender either. Victims want to get on with their lives. The idea simple though it sounds that if an inmate does get compensation the victim can then go along a legislative path to take some or all of that money is actually repugnant to victims. They simply want to get on with their lives and heal from the crime that has been committed against them. I understand why the Minister of Justice is to allow the opportunity for victims to take legal action and claim the money. He like everybody else finds it repugnant that inmates should be rewarded for choosing to commit crimes getting caught for them and being put in prison. But this bill is clearly not the way to address that. 
At some point we have to say that the rights of victims and the obligations of the Government to victims and to law-abiding people in this country must supersede any international interest. That has to be absolutely rock-bottom. Compensation should not be seen as this bill suggests as a payment to the inmate but as a penalty against the correctional institution and the people who perpetrate the offences. As I said before we will vote in favour of this legislation going forward to the Committee stage. Our obligation to support it goes only to that point. I will put forward a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage and our support thereafter will be conditional on it being agreed to. Otherwise I will not be in this Chamber to give the vote for United Future. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I start by saying that I think all people—certainly all members of the Justice and Electoral Committee—agree that the circumstances that gave rise to those compensation claims should not happen. I think all members of the select committee were moved by the position taken by the victims who appeared before it to speak on the bill. None of them took the view that inmates deserve whatever they get and that there should be no sanction for the abuse of prisoners when they are in the custody of the Department of Corrections. That is right because of course that view would lead to the atrocities we see occurring in many prisons around the world. For that reason the Greens very strongly support one recommendation of the select committee—outlined in our commentary—that the Government should begin some scoping work to investigate the setting up of an independent prison complaints authority. 
Of course that is not a new idea—it has been advocated for a very long time by organisations like the Howard League for Penal Reform. During the passage of the Corrections Bill there were some very strong submissions to the Law and Order Committee calling for an independent prison complaints authority. It is something that the Green Party has been outspoken on for quite a long time. I know that there has been some examination of it by the Government and I commend that. 
It is important that some of that work begins although there have been changes in the way the Department of Corrections works. Amendments have been made to the Corrections Act and the Greens were instrumental in adding some safeguards into that Act. The Department of Corrections has a new chief executive and I think we all await with interest the effect that man will have on the culture within the prison service. 
But it is clear that the best protection against compensation claims is to stop these abuses happening in prisons. That is one of the few things that the Greens support in terms of the report back from the select committee. We do not support this bill. We believe that the only real way to get the Department of Corrections to clean up its act is to ensure that there is an effective remedy for inmates who are abused when they are in the custody of the State. 
Really that is all that the international conventions are saying—that there must be an effective remedy. When we are talking about the power of the State being brought to bear on people within its custody there are very few real levers that can be used. There are very few ways of cleaning up a department that is as monolithic closed-shop and secretive as the Department of Corrections has shown itself to be. The Greens very strongly believe that we must maintain provision for an effective remedy. I know that some parties in this House are not interested in international conventions. They pay no regard to them—at least when they are in Opposition and at least verbally. Tim Barnett has pointed out the position of the National Party which denounces international conventions when in Opposition but of course when it is in Government it upholds them because it knows that it is not just a question of rhetoric in the House; it is about the standing of this country Aotearoa in the eyes of the world and that is important. 
Yet some parties have no interest in international obligations and assert that they should not be a constraining influence on the Government. That is not something the Green Party supports. In fact I would call that the George W Bush view of international relations—the idea that those international conventions and protections apply only to the people we like and not to the people we do not like. That is the path to Guantanamo Bay; that is the path to Abu Ghraib. International conventions are an important measuring stick against which we as parliamentarians can evaluate the legislation we pass. In contradiction to what Marc Alexander said it is our commitment to human rights conventions that is enduring not the variable whims of the Government of the day. 
I will read some words from the submission made by Victim Support because I think they sum up the Green Party position extremely well. I ask members to excuse me for reading from something that is available to them but I know that they are too busy to read the submissions made to every select committee we have. I think that members listening to the debate will find these words particularly instructive. As I said this is from the submission made by Victim Support: 
“That a prisoner should receive compensation for a breach of rights when the victim of that individual’s original offending has had no such acknowledgment or received no redress for the harm they have suffered is repugnant to Victim Support and to what seems to be most of the New Zealand population. Such a blatant imbalance of rights would offend the sensibilities of even the most demure of persons as reflected by the way in which it appears to have already raised the ire of most of the community at large—a situation in which the mass media has undoubtedly added further fuel. Victim Support does not however accept that the remedy for the situation lies within the provisions contained in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill.” 
The submission further states: “The solution to the situation lies not in lessening the rights of victims of abuse of power to seek redress for harm done but in strengthening the rights and abilities of victims of crime to access restitution or compensation for the harm done to them. Putting it simply two wrongs don’t make a right. As a society we should be more intent on preventing abuses of power from occurring than on mitigating against the obligation to provide compensation when it does. Any softening of our intolerance to abuse of power and corruption not only increases the vulnerability of individuals but diminishes the moral and social fabric of our society which will ultimately result in more victims.” I think that that is a very powerful message to the members of this House who say that we should just strip prisoners of all rights of redress. 
The submission goes on to state: “Victim Support strongly recommends that a fund be established whereby offenders can access a loan from the State similar to that provided to students to enable them to pay immediately any reparation awarded to the victim. In this way any windfall received by the offender be it through compensation for harm done while incarcerated or through winning the lottery could be legitimately claimed by Government as repayment of the debt owed. Such a scheme is inherently fairer to all victims and does not diminish the rights of any individual.” 
Although I am not sure that that is exactly the answer the select committee did actually spend a lot of time looking at how one could provide a scheme that genuinely addressed the harm suffered by victims that did not provide restitution on the basis of whether the offender who harmed them had been abused while in custody and therefore got a payout but that treated victims of crime equally according to the harm that was done to them. We spent quite a bit of time and I was quite hopeful that we might come up with a solution that would allow the Greens to support a measure that would genuinely put the interests of victims first without taking away the obligation and the necessity for a right of remedy for people who are abused while in the power of the State. I think it is unfortunate that we were not able to do that; it is outside the scope of this bill and it would take an enormous amount of policy work. So we accept that it cannot be done as part of this bill. 
We think it is a shame that that was not the approach taken by the Government. We think that would have been a lot better. I think the select committee is very concerned to do some further work on how we can genuinely advance the role of victims within the criminal justice system. Of course it is the view of the Green Party that as long as we retain an adversarial system of justice the rights of victims will always be in second place. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 In rising to take a brief call in support of the second reading of this bill I think it is pretty clear that most people believe it is wrong that offenders should be compensated for wrongful treatment and then in turn not be required to pay restitution to the victims whom they harmed—the harm to those victims of course having made them prisoners in the first place. 
The bill sets out to do two things: first to ensure that prisoners can be compensated only in acceptable cases after they have gone through all possible avenues of complaint; and then second it sets out opportunities in terms of assistance of victims to pursue compensation from those who have offended against them so that the victims have access to any compensation paid in that regard. So I support this bill. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I was not a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee which heard submissions on this bill but have listened with some interest to the contributions made by Tim Barnett Stephen Franks Edwin Perry and Nandor Tanczos who were I guess fortunate enough to hear the contributions made particularly by victims of horrific crime and victims’ families. Tony Ryall has done a substantive job of outlining the reasons why the National Party will not be supporting the second reading of this bill—and I will come to those shortly. 
After Minister Goff spoke at the start of the second reading I raised a point of order over a concern I had about the use of minority reports and about the way the United Future party had tried to have a bob each way. Well who would have thought that the can of worms that has opened up in this House in the last 20 minutes would have been as a result of my requesting a considered Speaker’s ruling on that matter? In my 5½ years here—I came in with Stephen Franks and Nandor Tanczos in the intake of 1999— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh! 
SIMON POWER 
: Oh and Clayton Cosgrove. The intake of 1999 was a fine vintage. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Hey! 
SIMON POWER 
: Oh and Mahara Okeroa. My apologies. I have never heard—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh and the Deputy Speaker Ann Hartley. I have never heard a speech from a member of a political party that indicated such open defiance for the position that a party took with respect to a report back on a bill. 
I say to Marc Alexander that I congratulate him on finally after 2½ years on having the courage to stand up and say things like: “This report back is incompatible with United Future’s law and order policy.” That is what he said in his contribution. He said that of the three main pillars of United Future’s law and order policy the last—and in his view the most important—was “victims first”. He went on to say that this bill does not put victims first. He said that in this House. Then he went on to say that it was incompatible with United Future’s law and order policy. But in an open display of what I can only describe as being raw political courage he stood in this House and said that if his proposed Supplementary Order Paper is defeated in the Committee stage it will not be him who comes down to the Chamber and delivers the vote. 
This is a member who I am told wrote the United Future minority report for the commentary on the bill. It is the most extraordinary set of circumstances when United Future’s law and order spokesperson—somebody who I have to say is pretty highly regarded by this House in general terms—comes down to the House and with his colleagues sitting near him says that it will not be him who delivers the vote on behalf of United Future if this bill stays as it is. He has come down to the House and said that this bill is incompatible with United Future’s law and order policy. 
But in the report back on page 2 the majority report refers to “most of us” as being “Labour and United Future members”. So the situation that United Future finds itself in with this bill is extraordinary. I urge the other members of United Future to display the same political courage that Mr Alexander has displayed and to refuse to come down to the Chamber and vote in favour of the bill if its Supplementary Order Paper is denied. 
Although Mr Alexander honestly conceded that he had not always been at the select committee when it met on this bill—because a smaller party cannot make those select committee commitments nobody holds that against him and I would not do that for one moment—he says he believes that the result of the report back was incompatible with United Future’s law and order policy. What an extraordinary position United Future is now in. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Extraordinary! 
SIMON POWER 
: Mr Cosgrove is using the same adjective that I am using. We now have a public display in the House as a result of United Future’s spokesperson on law and order coming to this House and saying that he will not be the person who delivers the vote on this bill. I cannot understand how on the one hand United Future says that it is with the majority on this report but on the other hand its minority report indicates Mr Alexander’s views not the views of the rest of United Future’s members. 
We are now in an extraordinary situation where the public will be completely confused about what United Future’s position is. I know that members of this House who follow Mr Alexander’s views on law and order will applaud his courage in standing by his convictions but at what cost will that be to his prospects in United Future? When bills are drafted as a result of embarrassment to the Government sloppy law emerges. 
The National minority view contained in the commentary is concerned with two of those drafting difficulties and uncertainties. The question is this. When funds are made available to victims how will those damages be apportioned? How will those decisions be made? As the minority report points out in the case of a serial offender will those damages be awarded equally or will they be awarded to those victims who have supposedly suffered more than other victims? What if the victims concerned comprise a very large class of people? For example in the case of an offender who is a drug dealer and drugs have been sold to many people how will those people be tracked down? What damages will they be entitled to? 
National believes that there is a clear case for an independent prison inspector and has stated that in the minority view. I just say this: Government members and Opposition members will be watching with interest in the Committee stage of this bill and we will be waiting with interest to see the Supplementary Order Paper to be presented by Marc Alexander. We will be waiting with interest to see who delivers the vote for United Future. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Just dealing with some of the points raised by the last speaker I note that Marc Alexander thinks this legislation should go further. I disagree with that. I think the position that has been espoused by the Minister of Justice is quite right—that it should not go further; that there are human rights implications of going further; that there are international law obligations— 
Stephen Franks 
: Why aren’t members who know something about it speaking on it? 
DAVID PARKER 
: Actually I am happy to take a call to test my knowledge against Mr Franks’. It is always fun. 
Those who say that this does not go far enough to take away the rights of prisoners who have been abused in prison are wrong. We must always acknowledge that in the worst circumstance it is possible for a State to torture people. Were a State to do that then the compensation that the tortured person might eventually get from the State should not be able to be taken back by the State for itself or indeed for the benefit of some other person necessarily. So I do not think the bill should go any further than it does and I disagree with Mr Alexander on that point. 
I also note that although Mr Powers’ prior contribution said a lot about Mr Alexander’s contribution he did not go so far as to suggest that the bill should take all rights away from inmates. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I am looking at the clock and I see there are only 2 minutes to go so I will start by reiterating New Zealand First’s minority view. It is really interesting when one picks up a report from a committee that one knows includes members from the Labour Party National New Zealand First the Greens ACT and United Future and one finds that every party except Labour has expressed a minority view in that report against the bill. It will make interesting commentary on the hustings when the people of New Zealand see that because it really is confusing. 
Stephen Franks 
: It’s the minority view of the majority. 
RON MARK 
: I think I shall wait until we come back to the House so that I can use my other 8 minutes to have an uninterrupted speech. I simply say that New Zealand First will oppose this bill. New Zealand First was inclined and said so at the outset to support this bill. But with the Government’s refusal to establish a victims’ claims rehabilitation account into which all moneys would have been paid—leaving the inmates with nothing—we can no longer give this Government our support on this bill at all. We will oppose it in the Committee and we will oppose it going through the House. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.