Volume 631 Week 14 - Tuesday 9 May 2006 
Volume 631 Week 14 - Tuesday 9 May 2006 
[Volume:631;Page:2815] 
Tuesday 9 May 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Motions 
Beaconsfield Gold Mine—Rescue of Miners 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the House expresses its pleasure and relief at the successful rescue this morning of Brant Webb and Todd Russell from the Beaconsfield Gold Mine in Tasmania after 14 days trapped underground and extends its sympathies to the family of Larry Knight who died in the mine collapse. 
Motion agreed to. 
Points of Order 
PlunketLine—Funding 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move as written in members’ notice of motion No. 3 that this House calls on the Government to ensure funding to enable PlunketLine to continue its service to young New Zealand families. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand Ltd 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers in light of the leak last week of confidential Budget-related Cabinet papers that reportedly wiped $1.8 billion from the market value of Telecom New Zealand Ltd and what steps has she taken to quickly identify the source of the leak? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. An inquiry has been established. One hopes it will have more success than investigations into leaked emails from Dr Brash’s office. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has she asked each of her Ministers individually for an assurance that neither they nor any members of their staff were responsible for the leak of the Government papers; if not why on earth does she expect this Parliament to take her commitment to find the source of the leak seriously? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No. I have set up an inquiry with the Minister of State Services. It has the powers of a commission of inquiry which enables it to require evidence enter premises and seize documents if required. Unlike the party opposite me we trust each other over here. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why has the Government in the past used eminent counsel such as the retired High Court judge Sir Rodney Gallen Helen Cull QC Kit Toogood QC Ailsa Duffy QC and Douglas White QC to conduct inquiries into more minor matters yet has decided that a leak of confidential Budget information from the Cabinet room should be investigated by an employee of the State Services Commission; and just what sort of signal does that send about the seriousness with which this matter is being pursued? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not recall that any of those matters involved leaks of Government information. The State Services Commission inquiry is a far more powerful inquiry than any of those ones. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Prime Minister not take advice from the Leader of the Opposition who is something of an expert when it comes to leaks given that I am holding in my hands leaked email documents from his office including an itinerary from a trip to the United States prior to the 2005 election to recruit US strategists and funders for National’s election campaign; and does she not think that this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think that is a question for which the Prime Minister is responsible. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have asked the Prime Minister whether she seeks to take advice—and it is within her ambit of responsibility to do so—from an expert which the Opposition can dispute if it likes to do so on a matter to do with leaks which is the subject of the question. Which part of that is out of order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled that the Prime Minister as I understood the question does not have responsibility for what the Leader of the Opposition is doing in that instance. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why when previous inquiries have been conducted by independent Queen’s Counsel is this inquiry being conducted by an employee of the State Services Commission a person who reports indirectly to one of the Cabinet Ministers being investigated? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat the information I have just given the member: those other inquiries to the best of my recollection were not about leaks. This is a classic course for investigating a leak and was one used by my predecessor Mrs Shipley. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister whether in the past she has taken advice from members of Parliament from whatever side of the House; if so will she not take further advice from the Leader of the Opposition an expert on leaks given that the leaked information regarding the National Party’s efforts to recruit expensive US strategists explains why National needed so much extra funding in anonymous donations and secret trust accounts compared with any other political party at the 2005 election? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister is not responsible for the Opposition but she may address the general part of the question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In seeking advice on how to investigate leaks I obviously would not be seeking the advice of someone as manifestly unsuccessful in ever tracking one down as him. 
Dr Don Brash 
: If as has been reported Telecom has already provided the State Services Commissioner with information that includes the name of the leaker why has that person not been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation given that he or she is a significant security risk in the lead-up to the Budget? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am absolutely confident that if the State Services Commissioner had information that would identify someone who was indeed a risk to the security of the Government he would inform people very quickly. But he has informed me that right now he has nothing relevant to report to me. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister not understand that an inquiry into the conduct of her Cabinet Ministers that is being conducted by an employee of the State Services Commission and that could take up to a month to conclude looks like a whitewash and a cover-up; and what assurances can she give that the Government is serious about tracking down the source of this leak? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat that I have absolute confidence in my Ministers unlike the Leader of the Opposition who cannot have any confidence in his front bench. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is an email dated 20 July 2004 seeking to recruit US strategists and money by the National Party. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The second is the latest press release from the National Party showing that it has done a somersault on the deregulation of telecommunications in this country and will support legislation being referred to the select committee. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Financial Position—Crown 
2.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the Crown’s financial position? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The current financial statements for the end of March show that the Government including the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—probably for the first time in our history—is in a net positive financial asset position. 
Shane Jones 
: What have been the main factors contributing to the move to a net debt-free position? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The main factors have been prudent operating and capital spending strong economic growth and particularly over the last year the returns earned by the Crown financial institutions including the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. At 31 March its balance was $9.2 billion. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister confirm that when his Government came into office expenses were approximately $40 billion a year and that this year expenses for his Government will be approximately $64 billion a year; and rather than his being in some sort of self-congratulatory exercise of being a fiscal conservative why does he not accept and understand that he has been the recipient of over $350 billion of tax revenue in the last 6 years of which he has managed to waste a great amount? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The only expenditure I seriously regret is that on the National Party over the last 6½ years from which there has not been a single return to the New Zealand taxpayer. In fact expenditure and revenue—particularly expenditure—remain roughly constant as a proportion of GDP and have gone down slightly over the last few years. But of course every day of the week members opposite issue press statements calling for more spending in every area they are responsible for. 
Gordon Copeland 
: How does the Minister justify continuing to allow personal tax rates to increase in real terms whilst the Crown’s coffers overflow with previously undreamt of riches and can hard-working Kiwis happily expect a well-deserved tax break in the Budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the latter point no. On the former point those people who have been arguing that the Government will always run cash surpluses had better wait until Thursday afternoon next week. Starting at 2 p.m. the show is on here. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Minister take the opportunity represented by the 300 million - plus higher-than-expected operating surplus to invest in future-proofing the New Zealand economy against rising oil prices climate change and an ageing population by completing woefully lacking public transport systems in our cities upgrading the rail system and preventive health-care strategies? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member will have to wait until Thursday afternoon next week to see what the Government’s plans are on those and indeed on any other areas. 
John Key 
: Oh come on—we know nearly all of it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not long to wait even for the young and restless like Mr Key. It is only a matter of a week or so. [ 
Interruption 
] But I say further—when the young people opposite have decided to calm down just for a moment or two—that one cannot go around spending the increase in operating surplus that comes from the profits of investments in Crown financial institutions. Those are all in funds for dedicated purposes—all of which have liabilities that exceed their assets. 
Shane Jones 
: Has the Minister of Finance seen any reports suggesting an alternative fiscal strategy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have seen three. One report confirmed that a policy of $11 billion in tax cuts funded by significant borrowing is still being pursued. A second report said that that figure was quite wrong; and the third suggested that lasting tax cuts were not possible. The first was from John Key the second from Gerry Brownlee and the third from Don Brash. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister confirm that the deep dark secret of Budget 2005 was tax cuts and they have never arrived and that the deep dark secret of Budget 2006 is local loop unbundling and it has arrived before the Budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There are a number of local loops opposite that I would love to unbundle! 
Taito Phillip Field—Conflicts of Interest Report 
3.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How long has Taito Phillip Field got to respond to the draft inquiry report of Noel Ingram QC into alleged conflicts of interest? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 That is a matter for Mr Ingram QC to determine. He is not directed by me. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is the Prime Minister telling this House that as far as she is concerned Taito Phillip Field has as long as he likes to respond to the draft report into wrongdoings he is alleged to have committed? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I said no such thing. I said that it was a matter for Mr Ingram QC to determine. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Has the Prime Minister or anyone in her office or in the Government discussed with Noel Ingram QC or Gareth Kayes this year any aspect of the inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest involving Taito Phillip Field; if so what was she or they told? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I certainly have not spoken with Mr Ingram. To the best of my knowledge I have never met him. Of course in the course of setting up the inquiry and terms of reference he was in discussion with Mr Wevers and from time to time Mr Wevers would inquire about the progress of the inquiry—in order for questions in this House to be answered. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When the Prime Minister told Parliament last week that she had not read the draft report had she or any member of her staff or of the Government received any briefing or advice on the content of the draft report; if so when did that first take place? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No advice has been received from Mr Ingram. As the member will be well aware because it is in the paper this morning Mr Field has a copy of the report. He is entitled to keep colleagues apprised of that if he wishes. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What meetings or discussions has the Prime Minister or any member of her staff or of the Government had with Taito Phillip Field since his receipt of that draft report? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no responsibility for Mr Field as a member of Parliament. He is entitled as a member to have discussions with colleagues if he wishes. I am not responsible for that. 
Elective Surgery—Resources 
4.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is he concerned about the Government’s ability to meet New Zealanders’ need for elective surgery; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. Despite a 24 percent increase in hip replacements a 52 percent increase in knee replacements and a 75 percent increase in angioplasties since the change of Government there are always improvements to make and this Government will pursue those improvements with vigour. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board decided to cull 1800 of its patients why did he describe its doctors as “unethical”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The issue of ethics is addressed not by me but by the Medical Council of New Zealand and the Health and Disability Commissioner. Given that the member has raised the issue of Hawke’s Bay he might be pleased to learn that now that the process of prioritising patients has been concluded fewer than half of the 1800 patients will be returned to their general practitioner. 
Sue Moroney 
: What progress has been made in ensuring timely access to first specialist assessments for elective surgery? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The number of people waiting for a first specialist assessment for more than 6 months has fallen by 42 percent under this Government. Around half of the people in need of specialist assessment have a wait time of less than 2 months. The percentage of people with a wait time of less than 6 months has increased by nearly 10 percent since 2000. We now need to make sure that prioritisation is working in all of our district health boards so that we can do even better. We are not there yet. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Who put the patients on the waiting lists in Hawke’s Bay and why are these people unethical? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: People are entered into the booking system by referral to the general practitioner and acceptance by the district health board. The district health board has an obligation to ensure that it accepts as many people as it can manage and it gives them certainty that they will have their first specialist assessment wherever possible within 6 months. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What did they do that was unethical? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I refer the member to the Medical Council of New Zealand’s view on ethics under resource constraints—and we do have one it is called a health budget—in which the council requires or indeed states of its members that they must prioritise according to need under those circumstances. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How is it unethical for the Canterbury District Health Board to dump another 2000 patients including some top priority patients rated category A by the hospital’s own specialists? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The issue of category A patients to which the member refers is a very difficult one and is related to the rheumatology and immunology clinic within the Canterbury District Health Board—which was indeed understaffed partially through one of the consultants being away on sabbatical—to which an extra rheumatologist has just been added. As to the Canterbury District Health Board as a whole I refer the member to a recent press statement by the chief executive in which he states that no one will be returned to their general practitioner until appropriate criteria are developed and approved by the board’s clinical advisory committee. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: How ethical is it for the Minister to pretend there is no crisis in elective surgery when across the three Auckland district health boards there has been over the past 5 years a 23 percent decline in the number of elective hernia operations a 24 percent decline in the number of elective tonsillectomies and a 45 percent decline in the number of elective varicose vein operations performed—or are these conditions that he believes just get better if nothing is done? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Unlike the member I am not myself a clinician but I am advised by clinicians that tonsillectomies are less inclined to be carried out these days than they used to be; the use of antibiotics is apparently an increasing method of managing that particular condition. As far as varicose veins are concerned I am advised—again by clinicians—that compression treatment is now more widely used than it used to be. 
Police—Pepper Spray 
5.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has she received any reports that the police are inappropriately using pepper spray; if so what action does she plan to take? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I sought and received an oral briefing from the Commissioner of Police regarding an incident on Thursday 4 May outside the Fight for Life in Auckland. The commissioner informed me that the following actions have occurred: the incident is under investigation by the North Shore district commander as to the appropriateness of the officer’s action; secondly the independent Police Complaints Authority has been advised; and thirdly the commissioner will ask district commanders to ensure that the protocols for the use of pepper spray are clearly set out again in the annual refresher training which forms part of the national training programme. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister think there is a legitimate policing reason for pepper spraying a man who is handcuffed and helpless on the ground or later who is in the back of a police van; if so what is that legitimate policing reason? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In a case like that in line with the protocols for the use of pepper spray it would not be appropriate. I will await the outcome of the inquiry to see whether the actions that the officer took on that occasion were appropriate. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on the number of assaults on police over the past few years? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I have seen a report on the number of assaults on police. I am pleased to say that the number of assaults on police has declined since pepper spray was introduced. The commissioner explained to me that when he was a front-line officer the way one dealt with people who were causing a problem was to go in either with a baton or with fists. That is not appropriate in this day and age. In fact the use of pepper spray has been a very important tool in being able to apprehend people who are violent or causing injury either to the police or to the public. 
Keith Locke 
: Is the Minister confident that all of the 2000 uses of pepper spray last year met the requirements of the police general instructions to use it only when police “fear physical injury to themselves or others and they cannot reasonably protect themselves less forcefully” and will the latest shocking televised incident provoke her to announce a more general inquiry into the police use of pepper spray; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have no evidence to show that there is a systemic problem in terms of the use of pepper spray. However I would say that of the total number of apprehensions by the police last year 1 percent of those cases involved pepper spray. 
Keith Locke 
: Why then does the Minister think that a police force that on the evidence of the 2000 cases cannot be trusted to use pepper spray according to police general instructions can be trusted to go ahead with a trial of the 50000-volt Taser gun and will she be deferring that Taser gun trial until we are sure that the police do act according to instructions? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I repeat that I have no evidence to show that the New Zealand Police have a problem in terms of the use of pepper spray. That is not to say there are not individual officers who may inappropriately use pepper spray but I have no reason to believe that the police do not in the majority of cases act responsibly. 
Hone Harawira 
: What response has the Minister to reports from Amnesty International that within the last few years at least nine people in Canada and over 60 in the United States have died after being shocked with a Taser stun gun which causes the instant incapacitation of the target by delivering a 50000-volt electric shock; and will police be given the same freedom to use Taser guns as they have to use pepper spray as has been highlighted by the media over the past few days? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In response to the second part of the member’s question no. In response to the first part of the question yes I have seen those reports but I am also aware of the assessments of Tasers by other jurisdictions similar to New Zealand that show that the operational and public safety of Tasers outweighs the potential medical risks. That is for both the people being apprehended and the public. 
Hone Harawira 
: Following on from the question from Mr Gallagher has the Minister seen any reports of assaults on the police by people lying flat on their backs on the ground with their hands behind their backs in handcuffs? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I certainly have not. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the section of the police general instructions stating that pepper spray should be used only when police fear physical injury. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a judgment by Judge Weir dated 17 August 2005 where he expressed real concern over the misuse of pepper spray in a Rotorua case recently. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a press release by Global Peace and Justice Auckland reporting on the case of Simon Oosterman who was pepper sprayed in a Rotorua protest—the one that Judge Weir referred to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a press clipping from today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
headed “Broader probe urged into pepper spray case” which details the shocking incident last Thursday. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hone Harawira 
: I seek leave to table the Amnesty International report that examines Taser gun use by law enforcement agencies which finds a rising death toll and rising human rights abuses ill-treatment and torture and which was released on Tuesday 30 November 2004. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Variation 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What public statements or formal reports has he seen as evidence for his statement in relation to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) “that every assessment expert whom we have had available to us including people like John Hattie who has been part of the ministerial reference group has said that this year the variation is fine.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The New Zealand Qualifications Authority reported to me regularly over the exam season about variability assuring me that the level was acceptable. I have also seen reports from the Post Primary Teachers Association principals’ groups the Ministry of Education and various groups of that nature who indicate the same. I note recent comments made by Professor John Langley the principal of Auckland College of Education who has stated that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has worked hard to iron out the early inconsistencies. I would include in these reports the meeting I had on 15 February with the Scholarships Processes Advisory Group—which includes Professor Hattie—during which the discussion turned to NCEA exams. We agreed that NZEA had enjoyed a better examination season and that we could have more confidence in the results this year. It was also noted that some of the practical steps taken this year to improve scholarship had also been applied to NCEA. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister now confirm that actually there is no evidence from any assessment expert saying that NCEA variation is fine and that nothing he said in his answer backs up the statement he made to this House which was untrue? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other reports or statements has he seen about the 2005 NCEA results? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Arthur Graves chair of the New Zealand Secondary Principals Council has said: “I am one hundred percent supportive of NCEA.” and Post Primary Teachers Association president Debbie Te Whaiti has said: “The 2005 NCEA results showed a big improvement.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The PPTA? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: They teach the students I say to Nick Smith. The overall reduction in the variation between years shows the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s better processes. Just this morning I received an email from a principal who commented: “Will some of the good news about education ever get into the media or will we have to keep putting up with negative comments like the ones from Bill English?” and Pat Newman from the New Zealand Principals Federation has said: “Bill English should stop grandstanding.” 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is it correct that some achievement standards are two-tiered; for example for right-angle triangles at level 1 a standard includes both verbal problems and 3-D problems and that much of the year-to-year variation in the NCEA can be explained by the relative difficulty of the particular tier assessed? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member has described it exactly as it is. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Minister tell this House last week that there is a ministerial reference group on NCEA when there is not; that he has opinions from assessment experts that the variation is fine when he does not; he implied John Hattie had said the variation in NCEA was fine when he had not said it when he had not been asked to investigate it when he had done no analysis and never made such a statement; and why should this House believe anything this Minister says when he was willing to mislead it over a matter as important as the integrity of exams sat by hundreds of thousands of young New Zealanders? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I have said there are a large number of people including the New Zealand Qualifications Authority who have proved that we have this year had better assessment systems. I called John Hattie myself prior to coming down to the House and he confirmed the exact words I said in my answer to the member and I tell the member that if there is anybody in this House whose word I would not take given his track record over the last few months it is him. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that he said to the House last week that every assessment expert the Government had had available to it including people such as John Hattie who had been part of the ministerial reference group had said in reference to NCEA that this year the variation was fine—and none of that statement is correct and he cannot verify any of it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I said last week that everybody who was available to us agreed that we had a better season and I stand exactly by that. John Hattie came in as part of the scholarship process and talked about NCEA. I rang him before to confirm his remarks and I have just given them again. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Minister try to give the House the impression that assessment experts had been consulted over variation in NCEA and that they had said the variation was fine when assessment experts have not been consulted over NCEA when John Hattie has not been asked to do analysis and therefore has not come to the conclusion that the variability is fine and why should we believe anything he says when he came to the House and said that every assessment expert said it was fine when none did? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I said in answer to the primary question every assessment expert available to us through the New Zealand Qualifications Authority who had reported to me regularly during this process has said that the variability is fine. I said that John Hattie came to see me as part of the expert group that has been involved with scholarship. We talked about NCEA during that meeting and he said—[ 
Interruption 
] I never said he did. I said that he came to a meeting where we talked about this and John Hattie has told me again today that I can use those remarks. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen the analysis by one assessment expert Professor Warwick Elley that shows that—actually the New Zealand Qualifications Authority does not disagree with it; it just avoids the question—in 140 mainstream standards sat by tens of thousands of students over half of them fell outside the benchmarks set by the authority for fairness and consistency; that is 87 out of 140 standards failed to reach the authority’s benchmark for consistency? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: According to Warwick Elley 40 out of 140 standards in 10 large subjects have had variable failure rates. He wrote about that. The member should go to the  
New Zealand Education Review 
 this week—I am sorry that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority disagrees with Mr English but it does. It disagrees with Warwick Elley and it provided a very very good response to his criticism. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Question No. 7 Maryan Street. 
Maryan Street 
: My question is to the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask members to be quiet because I have called question No. 7 and Maryan Street was on her feet. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Bill English who routinely lies has just accused me of lying. I take exception to it and want an apology. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member said that would he please withdraw and apologise to the member. It is unparliamentary. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you heard what the member said and I am very disappointed that you did not take action yourself to enforce the Standing Orders of this House. When the Minister rose to make a point of order he accused me of routinely lying. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member has taken offence would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is the rule if the member takes offence. That is exactly what I did in this instance. I am being even-handed here. Would the Minister please rise withdraw and apologise. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I used unparliamentary language and withdrew and apologised. I sat here and watched you sit in the Chair while a member made a point of order in the hearing of the whole House in which he accused me of routinely lying and you left it to me to enforce that Standing Order. I think the House deserves an explanation because I would hope that other members will not be treated in the same way by the Chair. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I was listening to question No. 7. I did not hear the exchange of those comments. Could we please now proceed to question No. 7. 
Hon Bill English 
: So you did not hear the point of order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I heard the point of order when it was raised because the member rose. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You asked me to withdraw and apologise after the member had raised his point of order which means that you did hear his point of order. The point remains that in that point of order he accused me of routinely lying. You left it to me to enforce the Standing Order instead of calling him to order. Will it now be the practice of the Chair that members can raise a point of order and in the course of it accuse other members of lying and you will listen to that and do nothing? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. I thought the Minister had made his comment which I did not hear before the point of order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Given that the member insists on order being upheld that member interrupted the questioner after she had begun the question. He should not even be in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is actually true. If I am meant to be able to apply the Standing Orders evenly then I need the cooperation of members to do it. There was a particularly acrimonious exchange between the two members. We shall proceed now but everyone is on their last warning. 
Hospitals Public—Construction 
7.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress has been made on constructing new public hospitals around New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 A lot of progress has been made. On Thursday the Prime Minister opened the new Wairarapa Hospital in Masterton. This is just the latest opening in what has been the most ambitious hospital building programme in living memory with new hospitals being built from Kaitaia to Invercargill under this Labour-led Government. 
Maryan Street 
: How does the Government’s record of building public hospitals compare with that of previous Governments? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Labour-led Government’s historic investment in upgrading hospitals and opening new facilities stands in stark contrast to the previous National Government’s programme of closures and under-investment in New Zealand’s hospitals. Between 1991 and 1999 the National Government closed 38 public hospitals. The Labour-led Government has built or approved for construction or extension 22 hospitals. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What is the point of showing off about those new hospital buildings when the Government has district health boards culling patients who are in pain to stop them from getting inside those brand-new doors? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: One of the reasons for building or extending 22 hospitals in the course of the last 6½ years was to further increase surgery—for example a 24 percent increase in hip replacements a 52 percent increase in knee replacements and a 75 percent increase in angioplasties which is not the sort of thing one can do if one is closing hospitals right left and centre. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Minister be prepared to correct the answer he gave in respect of hospital closures under National when he said that 38 were closed between 1991 and 1999 when for 2 years there were no hospital closures in 1997 and 1998 and when in fact we opened two hospitals—a mental health unit and a heart unit in Canterbury—and would he be prepared to make those facts public so that no one is under a misapprehension as to which party was responsible in that coalition and which one was not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not know in which part of the 1990s most of the hospital closures occurred but I take the member at his word and I do so without any sense of surprise. 
Hone Harawira 
: Why is the Government boasting about spending millions and millions of dollars building new hospitals around New Zealand while at the same time it is engaged in a programme of shutting down perfectly good well-run and well-respected hospitals particularly in rural areas like Kaitaia and turning them into day clinics against the wishes of the local population and the local medical fraternity? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am sorry the member is so sadly mistaken about an area that he purports to represent. There is a new hospital in Kaitaia. It is worth $9.3 million and the maternity part of it was opened last week. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the very long list of public hospitals closed by Helen Clark as Minister of Health. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I point out to the Minister that a new hospital has not been opened in Kaitaia— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; it is a point of information. If you wish to ask another supplementary question you may. 
Hone Harawira 
: How do I correct the fact that he said something that was incorrect? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member was raising a debating point. There is a general debate tomorrow. The member will have an opportunity then or he could seek clarification with another supplementary question. 
PlunketLine—Funding 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What was the date and nature of the offer made to Plunket that she referred to in the House last week when she said “I have received advice that Plunket was offered funding for more calls and did not take up the offer.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am advised that on 5 July last year McKesson New Zealand Ltd which subcontracted the well child service to Plunket wrote to Plunket offering increased funding for an agreed number of calls above that specified in the service agreement. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has she yet asked the basic question of her staff as to how many calls PlunketLine was actually contracted to make and has she asked her ministry why Plunket was required to sign a contract that expressly prohibited PlunketLine from answering more calls and expressly prohibited Plunket from commenting on that contracted number of calls? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have ascertained that the subcontract with McKesson was for a figure of 140000 calls by the end of its 2-year contract on 30 June. I am further advised that Plunket neither has achieved nor is on track to achieve that target and I repeat as I said to the member last week that a rate of abandoned calls at 87.3 percent is not a good outcome. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why does she—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I ask the member to wait because it is really good. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please proceed. Thank you. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is she the same Helen Clark who stated: “I want to make a special plea for government funding of Plunket Line. It was Labour’s policy to fund it because we have been very impressed by the service. With more funding to operate more lines with more nurses it could have been even better.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes and I confirm as I told the member in the original answer that Plunket was offered more funding to do more calls. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is she the same Helen Clark who said: “We will back to the hilt our PlunketLine.” and why has she become so out of touch with New Zealanders on this issue? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have worked very closely with Plunket over many many years and I also have a responsibility to make sure that a well child service is a good one. The contracted organisation was unable to meet the number of calls it was contracted for refused more money and abandoned 87.3 percent of the calls—it is a very strange Opposition that tells the Government to keep paying the money. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports that the New Zealand Nurses Organisation which is the union representing both PlunketLine and Healthline nurses has backed PlunketLine; and has she also reviewed the postcard campaign she championed which said: “Don’t Let the Hotline Go Cold” while she has been freezing out that very same PlunketLine? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I never thought I would hear the day when a National member of Parliament would quote a union in this House—in its favour. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I seek leave to table the press release from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation “Nurses Organisation Backs PlunketLine Petition” which states: “You can’t take the Plunket out of PlunketLine.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister’s answer to that question could hardly be considered to have addressed the question. It was an interesting comment—perhaps an observation on her part—but it did not address the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I thought Jo Goodhew was going to raise the same point but she moved on to seek leave to table the document. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to add a little to her answer please. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This Government is absolutely committed to funding 24-hour phone services which is something that that member’s party never did and we never heard her voice in advocacy. 
Benefits—Transition to Work 
9.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on the Government’s progress on moving New Zealanders off benefits and into work? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The latest quarterly benefit statistics show that in the year ended March 2006 the number of working-age New Zealanders on benefits dropped by a further 8374 or 2.9 percent. That is a drop of around 118000 or nearly 30 percent fewer New Zealanders receiving a benefit since this Government came into office. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has the Minister seen about the level of understanding of these changes in respect of the headline or net benefit numbers? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have seen a report of a person giving a thoroughly inaccurate account to a conference in Auckland when despite the headline benefit numbers showing that there are almost 118000 or one-third fewer beneficiaries under Labour than previously that person claimed nothing had changed. That person was of course National’s welfare spokesperson Judith Collins. She clearly also had not wanted to remember that in the 1990s the number of people receiving the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit grew at a rate of 69 and 84 percent respectively. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has he seen specifically about the numbers of people receiving the unemployment benefit? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The rate of unemployment has dropped by more than 72 percent under Labour. In 1999 there were 161000 New Zealanders in receipt of the unemployment benefit. The latest quarterly figures show that that figure is now just over 44500. The last time unemployment was as low as that was in the mid-1980s. Consequently over 56500 fewer children are living in benefit-dependent households since Labour came to office which is a reduction of 20 percent. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Kua wanangahia e te Kawana te wariu o ana kaupapa whakaiti matua i runga i nga mahi uruhina kia haere nga matua kei runga penihana ki te mahi mo te moni; mena kahore he aha ai? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Has the Government assessed the long-term impact of its policy to devalue the vital role of parenting by forcing beneficiary parents into paid work; if not why not? 
] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: There is no forcing of anyone into work under this Government. But I would comment in terms of Maori unemployment that the number receiving a benefit dropped from around 44500 in 1999 to 15800 in the year ended March 2006. That is a drop of 28546 or 64 percent and it is rather a good indication of and testimony to the focus of this Government on work for all New Zealanders. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: What is the Government’s view of the establishment of a 24-hour hotel for children of working parents; does that type of facility form part of the Government’s vision for our society and is that the logical outcome of its policy of forcing beneficiary parents into paid work? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have no ministerial responsibility for that private initiative. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave of the House to table my truly excellent speech to the conference of the northern region of the National Party a week ago so that all members of the House can have the benefit of a speech on welfare which is something we are still waiting for that Minister to give. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Tsunami Warning—Information Management 
10.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the tsunami warning last Thursday that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management was “accurately on top of their job” and that “the BBC is at fault”; if so why? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 Yes. The Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management had correctly assessed that there was no risk to New Zealand of a tsunami. The BBC is at fault because it ignored the caution on the first advisory at 3.42 a.m. from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center which said: “It is not known that a tsunami was generated.” It also ignored the 4.30 a.m. advice from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center taking New Zealand off the watch list yet broadcast at 5.14 a.m. turning a possibility into a reality and saying that a wave was to hit Gisborne within an hour when clearly it was not. The BBC was clearly wrong. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How was it fair to blame the BBC for the shambles last Thursday when its New Zealand correspondent Greg Ward was told by the Auckland Police Communication Centre at 4.55 a.m. that a tsunami was on its way to Gisborne due at 6.20 a.m. and when he was told by Gisborne Hospital that an emergency was under way that off-duty medical staff were being called in and that its repeated calls to Civil Defence went unanswered; and just what would he expect a responsible media organisation to do with that information from the New Zealand Government? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I cannot confirm that those were the words uttered by the police to Mr Greg Ward. It is not the advice I have. Secondly the advice to the BBC initially alerting it to the possibility of a tsunami at 3.42 in the morning stated: “This center will monitor sea level data from gauges near the earthquake to determine if a tsunami was generated and estimate the severity of the threat.” These are the experts. They have all the equipment. They know what they are doing. I would have thought the BBC would go back to its original sources of information and check with them. They did not. On the last point yes communications from the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management could have been better and they will improve in the future. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Will there be any changes to communication standard operating procedures in light of last week’s events? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes. The updated standard operating procedure will ensure that a formal advisory is forwarded to Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management partners such as the police the fire service and all civil defence agencies around the country at key decision-making points during the assessment of a warning. Similarly media advisories will be provided during the assessment and a stand-down process. I expect the ministry within a week to conduct an exercise with both our civil defence partners and the media based on the new updated procedure. This will enable people to compare like with like. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister seriously say to this House that he stands by his statement that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management was accurately on top of its job last Thursday when it concluded at 4 a.m. that there was no emergency but did not put out any statement to any media organisation until 6.50 a.m.—2½ hours - plus later? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member misses out some critical information. Firstly the ministry did give media press statements and it issued media press statements verbally to the media prior to 6 o’clock. Secondly it rang all the civil defence agencies on the East Coast between 5 a.m. and 5.30 a.m. What it did not do that I think it should have done—and that it will do in the future—was to issue formal notes to everybody the moment it made a decision and then get on with it. That is what it should have done and what it will do in the future. 
Craig Foss 
: Is the Minister aware that the people of Waimarama about 200 kilometres south of Gisborne were so frightened that many deserted their homes in the early hours of last Thursday and were so unnerved by the incompetence of civil defence communications that 90 of them—about a quarter of Waimarama—attended a public meeting last Sunday at which civil defence volunteers were unfairly criticised; and will he now apologise to those volunteers for having to bear the brunt of his ministry’s incompetence? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: If I thought the ministry was wrong in telling people there was a tsunami when there was not—if I thought it was wrong in saying that a tsunami was going to hit the East Coast within an hour when it was not—then I would certainly make it apologise to everybody personally. The fact is that the BBC told them that. The ministry’s media communications were not prepared for the international media comments on it and that is a deficiency. It will be corrected—of that people can be assured. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What does it say about the competence of his ministry that after 220000 died in a tsunami last year his ministry is not prepared? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Members should judge the preparedness of the ministry in a positive light. If at 3.30 a.m. it received a warning that a tsunami was on the way and it pressed every button it had available to it—the police the fire service and civil defence organisations throughout New Zealand—then I believe there would have been not tens of thousands not hundreds of thousands but many many more people shifting in those intervening hours. There would have been a mass movement. The fact is we had one wrong report and thousands of people moved. We should imagine what would have happened if we had decided to press the panic button and told people they had to shift. It would have been incredibly effective.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the statement by Greg Ward the BBC correspondent in New Zealand that he was told by the Auckland Police Communication Centre at 4.55 a.m. that a tsunami was on its way to Gisborne due at 6.20 a.m. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I seek leave to table the bulletin issued by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center at 3.42 a.m. advising that it was not known that a tsunami was generated and that it would be monitoring events. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I wish to table a second document issued at 4.31 by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center taking New Zealand off the list. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to add two words to question 11 for clarity. It appears that the two words “pay for” were left out of the question which does not make it very clear when one first reads it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to alter that question so it makes sense. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Special Air Service—Hourly Rate 
11.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What is the hourly base rate of pay for New Zealand’s Special Air Service soldiers given that they are contracted with the Army to be on duty 24 hours a day and 7 days a week? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Special Air Service personnel like other Defence Force personnel are not paid hourly rates; they are paid salaries and those salaries vary according to rank. The base rate of salary for Special Air Services personnel is between $39000 and $93000 a year but when the operational deployment allowance and the other benefits they get are taken into account those figures translate to between $80000 and $140000 a year as their total remuneration package—based on last year’s figures. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister think it is acceptable that our elite Special Air Service soldiers whom the Minister himself described as being “regarded as being among the best in the field by other coalition forces” are being paid less than the average police officer nurse teacher and mid-level bureaucrat none of whom are charged with the responsibility of conducting highly sensitive and hazardous covert operations in some of the most inhospitable climates in the world? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Of course I stand by my comments about our Special Air Service being among the most professional and competent special forces in the world. They are and the member and I have seen recent examples of that. But I cannot go along with what the member has said about Special Air Service personnel being paid less than nurses and police officers. On the figures I have given the total remuneration package of between $80000 and $140000 a year is a good pay rate and is richly deserved. 
Dianne Yates 
: What change has there been in defence pay rates in recent years? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: After the lean years of the 1990s and the National administration Defence Force personnel generally have received pay increases in each of the last 5 years consecutively. That never happened in the 1990s when the pay rates were miserable and increases were generally not given at all. I give as an example the fact that Special Air Service personnel in the last 4 years I think have had pay increases of 19 percent and general Defence Force personnel increases of about 11.6 percent. That is why they are much happier under this administration than they would have been under the past miserable National administration. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister not accept that the figures he has quoted are operational which means they are less than the Special Tactics Group of the police force is being paid; and further why do we have taxation law that makes it possible for the ministerial committee comprising the Prime Minister the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Finance to determine Afghanistan formally to be an operational area—thereby exempting Special Air Service soldiers from income tax whilst deployed on active service in that country—if we are not going to use that law? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The making of base salary non-taxable I think has not been the case since the 1950s but it is true to say that the operational deployment allowance is non-taxable. To give the member an example I tell him that a lance corporal in the Special Air Service last year for his or her operational deployment allowance would have received $22509 tax-free. Of course if we looked at the total income of Defence Force personnel and of Special Air Service personnel we would see that probably about 40 percent of their remuneration package is made up of non-taxable allowances. 
Ron Mark 
: Is it not a fact that New Zealand right now faces the problem that the offers of service from international companies to our troopers and corporals are very attractive and that that undermines our ability to sustain our capability; and given that pay is an issue for young soldiers with families what would this Government’s response be to the New Zealand First proposal that an armed forces pay review board be established within the State Services Commission and that it be tasked with reporting annually to the Minister on pay and conditions—thereby enabling the Chief of Defence Force to advocate more forcefully for his personnel? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: To answer the first part of the member’s question yes. Over the period of 2002-04 particularly there was a very tight labour market for international private sector security operations. Anyone with the sort of training the Special Air Service personnel have could go to Iraq if he or she wanted to go to Iraq and be paid a gold-plated salary. That of course does not preserve such people’s lives if they are caught up in a situation—and that could easily happen—so there is a trade-off. Over that 2-year period of time we paid special retention allowances to Special Air Service personnel of $33000 which did make a difference in terms of holding people in. In terms of the second part of the member’s question I say that it is really a question for the Minister of State Services. But apart from the Remuneration Authority which pays higher salaries the Government mostly does not get into having special boards to work out salaries. Those are determined by market conditions. 
Border Control—Meat Imports 
12.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: Is he satisfied with current border control checks on meat imports and was there a risk that foot-and-mouth disease could have been imported with the recent raw pork discovery? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 Yes I am satisfied although not complacent of course. New Zealand is internationally recognised as having some of the toughest border controls in the world. However there is always a risk that mislabelled or smuggled product will pass through our borders so the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as a second line of defence also checks retail outlets for prohibited meat products. One of those inspections uncovered the raw Korean pork. I understand that Korea is considered foot-and-mouth disease - free following successful eradication of an outbreak a few years ago so the risks associated with the raw pork are considered negligible. Nevertheless as a precaution the raw pork found has been destroyed outlets are being reminded of their obligations not to feed raw pork to animals and investigations are under way to see whether those responsible can be prosecuted and whether changes are needed in Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry systems. 
Shane Ardern 
: Is the Minister satisfied that it took nearly a month to alert the public to the raw minced pork from Korea a country that has had repeated outbreaks of foot-and-mouth; that the pork had slipped through the border controls between the months of August and December 2005; and what is he going to do about it? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Any mistake made in biosecurity and any delay in discovering any mistake is of course significant and serious. As I said an investigation is now under way and a recommendation will be made on whether to pursue a prosecution once evidence-gathering is completed. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry security systems will also be part of that investigation. 
Dave Hereora 
: Is the Government investing sufficiently in border control and related measures? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Government has substantially increased funding for prevention and border-related services over the 5 to 6 years that we have been responsible for that service. Funding has increased by 89 percent since this coalition became the Government in 1999-2000. It is also continuing to invest in further second lines of defence for example in vaccines. Last week New Zealand joined a small group of developed countries to have arrangements in place to provide in commercial quantities a vaccine for foot-and-mouth disease should it be required following Government funding of this initiative. 
Shane Ardern 
: Is this the same Hon Jim Anderton who said in his biosecurity speech on 9 December 2005: “We need to see the public as the front line in our defence.” when the public were kept in the dark on this issue of a biosecurity breach for up to a month? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No attempt was made as far as I am aware to hide any of this information. If the member knew of any of this information which had not been released to the public he would of course have reported that immediately because not to do so would be irresponsible in the extreme. 
Shane Ardern 
: Does this Minister agree with Treasury reports that state that a foot-and-mouth outbreak would slash $12 billion from our economy and turn New Zealand into a Third World economy? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Of course an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease would be serious for this country but the member should not talk up that matter unless he has in mind doing the very act of sabotage that foot-and-mouth disease would do itself. 
Shane Ardern 
: What changes will take place in our container surveillance and other border control systems to ensure that pallet loads of raw illegal pork will not slip through our borders and be sold in grocery stores in the future? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Pallet loads of raw pork—or raw anything else—are not allowed in New Zealand; it is illegal. We have significant border controls to prevent it. But as I know from all kinds of statements the member makes he believes that there is a possibility of excluding every possibility of an incursion into this country no matter where it comes from—on the air in the sea in containers through tourism—and to believe that is the most foolish kind of presumption that I or anyone else I know in the biosecurity industry have ever heard. 
Shane Ardern 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the speech that the honourable Minister for Biosecurity made to the Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Biosecurity Institute on 9 December where he stated that front-line defence depended on good public support. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Points of Order 
Urgent Debates—Criteria 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would consider giving the House a written consideration of what you think constitutes the aspect of “importance” when it comes to snap debates. Given the way in which the issue around the Telecom leak has progressed over the last number of days I think it would be helpful for us to know what you would consider the matter of importance to be and what criteria you would use. We note that you indicated last week that the request for a debate met a number of conditions but fell short on that point. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I suggest strongly to you that that would not be an appropriate course of action for you to follow for a very simple reason. On this matter the decision by the Speaker is final and there is no possibility of debate around that decision. While there is a set of criteria that must be met in the first instance—whether it involves the responsibility of a Minister etc.—at the end of the day the question of whether time should be set aside by the House is a matter for decision solely by you. If you start laying out supposedly objective criteria as to the means by which that decision has been arrived at it could be for only one purpose—for people to question the application of those criteria. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Please accept that we are not relitigating your decision. We are aware that at some point the State Services Commission will bring out a report that may or may not be presented to Parliament. It will most certainly be in the public arena. At that point we would need to know whether that constituted a matter of significant importance such that it would merit a debate in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contributions. As I indicated at the time the decision was made after consideration of both the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. For the assistance of members however I suggest that they refer to Speakers’ rulings 165/2 through to 165/6 and also 166/1 and 166/5. Of course I will give serious consideration to any application that is made for an urgent debate. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Police—Pepper Spray 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Keith Locke seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 television footage showing a police officer pepper spraying a handcuffed man in the face. The incident is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government but I do not agree that it requires the urgent attention of the House by way of urgent debate today. [ 
Interruption 
] Would members please be quiet. I am reading out a ruling which members would like to hear I believe. Inquiries into this matter are known to be in train and it would be premature to accept an application for debate in those circumstances. The application is therefore declined. 
Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 4 May. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 I am speaking today in favour of the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill which the National Party will be supporting although I have to say we are doing so with some reservation. As was outlined earlier in the debate last week the bill will address some of the gaps in the Crown’s statutory powers under the Health Act 1956. It will ensure that the Government has adequate powers to respond in a quick and effective manner to an epidemic and it will update quarantine processes. 
It is high time that we had this bill because I can tell members that bird flu is not just a threat; it is imminent. It is almost upon us and this bill is sorely needed. We cannot ignore the threat of bird flu any longer. The H5N1 strain of the virus is endemic in many countries in Asia notably Viet Nam and we know that with international air travel it is just a matter of a short flight away. What is more the strain has already caused numerous illnesses and deaths amongst humans in Asia and the World Health Organization notes “that never before in the history of avian influenza have so many countries been simultaneously affected than in the past 5 or 6 years.” 
But the real question is that with years and years to prepare for this eventuality—going right back to the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) epidemic in 2001—why has it got to this point before the Government has actually done anything. The fact is that the Government has been on the back foot right throughout every stage of pandemic planning—right from that first day in November in question time when Tony Ryall asked the “4 out of 10” Minister of the “5½ out of 10” health portfolio if there was a list of people who would be receiving a special supply of the drug Tamiflu. The problem was that the Minister did not have a clue he did not know and that was pretty much indicative of where the Government’s planning was on this issue. 
One has to ask how much it has progressed since then. We have this bill but what we really need is a plan and it has to be an actionable plan. We have seen draft after draft of plans—version 14 is the last one and it was released back in November—but we still have not seen the final plan for how the Government will deal with an outbreak of bird flu in New Zealand. Then we had the debacle from the Government over the supply of emergency drugs during a pandemic. It was not until the National Party brought it to the Government’s attention during the select committee process that the Minister finally woke up and realised that if we have a pandemic we will be quarantined in this country and asthmatics diabetics and many people with chronic and serious illnesses will need a whole lot of drugs and they will not be able to get them. What did we find? We found that the Government had not even thought about that. So it is pretty clear that the Government from go to whoa has not had a clue on how to prepare for this epidemic and it has had 5 long years—going right back to Sars in 2001. 
I have to ask members how the people of New Zealand can have confidence that the Government will get it right with this bill. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: No confidence at all. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: There is no confidence. I have no confidence. I am frankly very very worried about the prospect of an outbreak of bird flu and I know that that fear is shared by the vast majority of the general public. When one looks at the way the “4 out of 10” Minister of the “5½ out of 10” health portfolio has been managing the elective surgery system one asks why anyone could have any faith in his ability to prepare our citizens and protect them from the threat of this pandemic. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: You wouldn’t have. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: One absolutely would not. We have seen a lot of statistics around elective surgery which the Government has been trying to bury recently. But the fact is—and it is the National Party that revealed this—10000 people in this country have been removed from the waiting list for first specialist appointments in the past year and 24000 people are waiting more than 6 months just to see a specialist. And more than 8000 people—whom we know about—who had been told they would get an operation have now been kicked off the waiting list. What is more we are seeing less elective surgery being carried out than when this Government came to power. 
So in the light of elective surgery being the touchstone for how well a Minister is managing the health portfolio we have to ask ourselves how on earth if he cannot get elective surgery right and if so many secrets are being swept under the carpet we can expect this Minister to be able to lead our preparation for an epidemic and be able to supervise our overall planning. The answer is that we absolutely cannot. Because of this National Party members believe there has to be a multiparty whole-of-Government approach to this issue. I can say that we are very disappointed that we have not been consulted on the preparation of this bill. I am sure there are members from other parties here who will also be very disappointed because I think in a matter of this seriousness for the nation we have to have wide consultation to make sure that we have the best possible approach. If we leave it in the hands of one party and a party that has shown that its ability to manage health is clearly inadequate we are headed for disaster. That is the actual fact of the matter. 
Although as I have said the bill gives wide-sweeping powers to the Government and the police there are some very real gaps in this legislation. The biggest issue if we are faced with a pandemic will be a total breakdown in law and order. Suddenly we will be thrown into a scenario that none of us has ever experienced before. The medical facilities will be overwhelmed and people will be rushing to get into them. We in the National Party say that we have to look at some of the basics that have been missed in this bill. Treasury has stated that if we have a bird flu epidemic in this country in the first year we will have an economic experience that will be exactly like the Great Depression of 1929. This country will have a drop in its GDP of between 5 and 10 percent in the first year of an epidemic. People will not have money in their bank accounts to pay their mortgages. Money will not be available to pay volunteers. When we consider this bill we need to highlight the fact that there are some simple gaps in it. What will happen to all the people who cannot go to work to earn the money to pay their mortgages? Will the banks foreclose on them? We need to have legislation to address some of those financial basics. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Some certainty. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Yep—we need certainty. People’s economic well-being will be detrimentally affected. People’s assets will be wiped out unless we have legislation addressing some of these real basic concerns. 
So those are some of the shortfalls but there is another real shortfall in this bill. In 1918 we did not get on top of the flu epidemic until we appointed one person in charge overall and the problem at the moment is that the response is totally fragmented. We have 21 district health boards doing what they like on bird flu. We do not know what they will do. There has not been a whole-of-Government rehearsal yet which is absolutely crucial. We heard of some plan for a rehearsal of a whole-of-Government approach in November 2007 but I suggest to members that if we leave it as long as that there may well not be anyone left—assuming we have had bird flu by that stage—to participate in the rehearsal. It will be too late. I call upon this Government to appoint someone in overall charge of the operation now. We have to have someone who is answerable for putting a plan in place and for guiding the operation. It will have to be someone with some organisational experience—perhaps a military person or someone with some serious business experience who can work across a number of Government agencies and really get things right. 
In summary we in the National Party support this bill but we certainly have some reservations. We think there are a number of quite basic gaps in it. There is no question that the legislation is long overdue. I think the Government has been very tardy about this issue. I do not have any confidence that the Minister of Health is the right person to be guiding the response. We have to have a whole-of-Parliament response. We have a lot of talent across all the Opposition parties in this Parliament and a lot of people with knowledge to contribute. It is absolutely crucial for the well-being of this country that we have the best possible response. So my final plea is that we consult more widely on matters of this importance and that we absolutely get it right. It is crucial for the well-being of the nation. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koutou te Whare. The most serious influenza pandemic on record is the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. The virus hit Aotearoa in October 1919 probably arriving here with troops returning after World War I. It lasted a brief but violent 3 months taking the lives of some 8600 people. Throughout Aotearoa estimates put the number of Maori deaths at 2160 which was about 42.3 per 1000 deaths but that figure could have been much higher because at that time not all Maori deaths were recorded. Maori died at seven times the Pakeha rate and were one in four of the dead. In his book  
Te Puea 
 Michael King stated that some Maori settlements were virtually annihilated. In respect of my electorate he stated: “… a Pakeha visitor to the Atiawa settlement at the headwaters of the Waitara River in Taranaki counted 140 people there before the epidemic and less than fifty afterwards.” Indeed it was following the enormous toll of that epidemic that in 1920 the Department of Health established the division of Maori hygiene with Te Rangi Hiroa—Sir Peter Buck—as its first director. This history must be known and never forgotten. 
I make mention of it firstly in recognition of the fact that the Spanish flu of 1918-19 which killed 20 million to 50 million people shares genetic characteristics with the avian flu virus H5N1. Both are true avian viruses not ones adapted to people as more typical flu viruses are. But I draw on our past in order for us to learn for our present. This context must ensure that we have special provision to protect ourselves from ever again having to bear the cost of such a massive loss of life for Maori people. 
Yet how can it be that the pandemic plans publicly available make no special provision for Maori? Public health physician Dr Nick Wilson who has written about the projected toll from a pandemic guides us in knowing that one thing we can operate on in confidence is that Maori will again be at risk of dying in greater numbers than non-Maori. Faced with the release today from the Wellington school of medicine which reminds us of the ongoing systemic ethnic disparities in mortality rates I say that the news is all bad. I alert this House to the urgent need to be familiar with this report which delivers another powerful statement about the “historical and social processes that systematically disadvantage Maori (ie colonisation discrimination and racism).” 
Is this House prepared to tolerate another decade of disparity? Well the Maori Party certainly is not prepared to. Given that no major political party has a solution we and our constituency who are affected by these disparities have a solution. We will be developing legislative measures to address the impact of racism as a matter of priority and we would hope that the Maori members across the House will support us. 
This latest report and the report from Dr Nick Wilson provides sobering data about the context of more chronic illnesses more respiratory problems high cigarette smoking statistics and lower socio-economic status. All these factors create an environment ripe for the bird flu. Dr Wilson concluded: “If we have learned anything in the last hundred years we would be doing more in these plans to protect Maori.” Members should note that quotation. So how can it be that the word “Maori” does not even rate one mention in this grand new Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill? It reminds me of last year’s Budget. How can this be when Maori health professionals have been advising the Government of the vital need for Maori participation at all levels of the emergency planning? And how can this be when for months now Maori have challenged the Government that there must be an appropriate authority to speak on behalf of Maori and the resources must be made available for them to have input? 
The issue of avian flu has provoked huge reaction from tangata whenua. Members will recall the outrage of kaumatua who responded with utter dismay to the plan to ban tangi and to refrigerate bodies for up to 6 months. Other strategies raised were the direction to ban hongi as they say that any close contact between people could spread the virus. I recall the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board chairman Anaru Rangiheuea speaking out at the time and advising the nation that any delays in farewelling the dead were a breach of our cultural practices and would aggravate the grieving process. He stated: “Being isolated from a loved one would have serious implications for many families and there would be issues for Maori on how their dead were being treated.” Pihopa Kingi also spoke out challenging the speculation that a hongi should be feared. So did Te Runanga o Ngati Pikiao chief exective Dennis Curtis reminding us that hongi and tangi are as natural to Maori as breathing air and any ban on such practices would enrage and outrage Maori like some of the behaviour that has been experienced in the last week. 
I mihi today to the leadership of people such as Ngaire Whata of Te Korowai Aroha and of Te Arawa who I know has spent a great deal of time preparing for such a pandemic. Tangata whenua as the Treaty partner must be actively involved at all stages of the process. 
Our history reinforces the excessive mortality Maori have suffered from communicable diseases and without the appropriate Maori leadership use of Maori infrastructures and the ability of health personnel to engage with iwi and Maori communities they are likely to be severely affected by way of mortality morbidity and economic social and cultural development. The Maori Party has been advising the Government for some time now of the urgent need to establish a Maori body to develop a Maori emergency plan—a body with Maori who have wide expertise and who are able to mobilise resources and develop a strategy that the Government can use to ensure that Maori and Crown interests are enhanced. The Maori Party has been writing to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Maori Affairs again and again. We must ensure that Maori well-being can be protected and enhanced so that the future of our nation is assured. 
Many many more questions have to be asked about the efficacy of Tamiflu. We have been advised that the efficacy of Tamiflu against the common flu is questioned by the greater part of the scientific community. Last week in the House I sought a response from the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Jim Anderton as to the level of confidence the nation can draw from the efficacy of Tamiflu and the answer left a great deal to be desired. I quote the Minister’s declaration to the nation: “Until there is a pandemic of that kind there will not be any definitive answer to that question.” 
Why is it then that there is so much to-do about nothing—or is it about nothing? There are then many wider questions that people have been raising such as asking whether there really is a pandemic or even an epidemic. Evidence is that the bird flu although fatal to birds is rarely transferred between human beings. The  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 classifies an epidemic as meaning a sudden widespread occurrence of an infectious disease. As of 27 April exactly a week ago the cumulative number of confirmed human cases of avian flu reported to the World Health Organization was 205—I understand that that is over 10 years—with 113 deaths. 
We will not vote against this bill because even one death is one death too many. For tangata whenua the advent of avian flu given our history and our present situation would be very severe if it did occur. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of this bill. The World Health Organization tells us that historically we can expect about three pandemics every century. The last one to dramatically hit the New Zealand shores was the 1918 Spanish flu that saw a 98 percent exposure rate of the population to the virus and a 40 percent infection rate and of that 40 percent 2 percent died. That was over 8000 people. It was experienced in three waves each lasting about 6 weeks. 
Every year in New Zealand we are hit by some strain of flu and most years the death rate for such bouts and related infections is actually a lot more sizable than many New Zealanders realise. We have all had the flu experienced its unpleasantness and have recovered. But every year hundreds of New Zealanders do not recover and die from the virus or related infections. 
On the global stage New Zealand is less likely than most to have to implement a pandemic plan due to our geographical isolation. However with the large number of New Zealanders holidaying and working overseas our isolation should never be taken as some sort of automatic protection. The Government’s pandemic plan is rightly based around a worst-case scenario and it is interesting to note that as we strip away the fat from our public health system to make it cost-effective we are unwittingly going to end up with a health system that simply will not cope with up to 40 percent of its staff off work seriously ill with the flu. 
Although no one wants us to have to ever exercise the powers set out in this bill we have to understand that this is written with an absolute catastrophe in mind on a national scale. If a worst-case scenario played itself out in this country it would not just be the death rate that would be tragic. Treasury has predicted that the blow to our economy would be of such magnitude that our lives—those of us who live through it—would never be the same. It would take us a long time to recover. 
United Future has as a party a natural aversion to excessive rules and regulations and there are some provisions in this bill that under normal circumstances we would have huge concerns about. I think it will be important for the select committee to check very carefully what the time frames are and what the definitions are around when these pandemic rules apply. When do they begin? Obviously it would be with a declaration that we are in a pandemic but when do we determine that it is over and normal law can be reinstated? 
This will need to be thought through very carefully and I think we need to listen very carefully to submitters particularly those who have some expertise in this area. I would also like to think that the select committee considering this bill will lay it alongside these provisions those that are already contained in civil defence legislation and that it will also look at some of the local government legislation that currently exists allowing local government officials to isolate their regions should they so chose to do. A national pandemic plan may be thwarted by a local council that determines to put some oil cans across the roads—the exit and entrance into its area—and forbid anybody to come in. 
United Future would like to encourage the Government as it continues to plan and refine its plans and to listen to what is happening overseas to be a little bit more proactive than merely planning. We believe there is a range of no-regret policies that could be implemented and funded now so that even if a pandemic does not occur we will never regret their implementation. Let me give an example. One of the reasons it is hard to get children in schools to wash their hands—and let us be clear one of the main ways that we can avoid getting this bug if it does arrive in New Zealand is to have very high standards of hygiene around hand-washing and the way we handle coughing and sneezing and things like that—is that very few schools have hot running water in their toilet blocks. In the middle of winter which is a likely time for this type of pandemic to hit children are very averse to coming out of the toilet and putting their hands under a tap of freezing cold water to wash their hands. Apparently someone has cited a figure that it would cost $30 million to have every public school in New Zealand with hot running water. But maybe it is an amount of money that could well be spent with very good results for our ongoing health outcomes in this country. 
We need to look at our safer community initiatives around building better connectedness in neighbourhoods because certainly we are not going to be able to rely on the normal hospitals and health professionals in a worst-case scenario. We are going to have to help look after each other and people are going to have to stay at home and look after themselves. At present lots of people do not even know the names of people who live on either side of them. Some really great initiatives have been put in place in areas such as New Plymouth where the safer community council has a project called “three doors down” that encourages people to get to meet and know the names of people who live three doors down on either side of their property. What a great idea. It would certainly be good for social connectedness and if we did have a pandemic on our hands that is the kind of initiative that would be very very useful. 
I agree with the Maori Party that it would be a very sensible thing to have a Maori emergency response team funded now so that it can start to plan and work with its people around marae in this country and discuss the types of issues that would need to be considered particularly some of the ones that were raised by Tariana Turia. I think she raised some very interesting points. 
 We also need to stay abreast of international thinking. For instance current thinking with pandemic planning is that one of the first things we would do is close all schools. Apparently over in Australia people are for very good reasons rethinking that. It will be interesting to see the conclusions they come to and their reasons behind that. They are reviewing that because of some of the other problems it might create—workforce problems children needing to be cared for at home and children not being properly cared for at home and the kinds of social problems that would create. Some of the current solutions that are part of our New Zealand pandemic plan need constantly to be reviewed against international best practice as it is being considered by others. 
I do feel a sense of confidence. It sounds like the National Party members feel despairing about the current level of preparedness. I do not feel so concerned. I have kept in contact with Ministry of Health officials on this. One of the things I would like to encourage as part of a no-regrets policy is that every caucus in this House right now makes a time to be briefed as a caucus by the Ministry of Health on this important area. As local MPs it is really important that we start to make sure that the information we get to hear is disseminated out into our communities our local government our non-governmental organisation sector our schools and our Government departments as they exist at a local level. 
I managed to host an official from the Ministry of Health in Whakatane just yesterday. It was a meeting of invited people who reflect key organisations in our communities and it was called so that those people could hear the briefings I have been privileged to hear so that they could respond and go back to their organisations and make any adjustments that might be necessary. I am sure that if every caucus in this Parliament took the time to get a full caucus briefing on this matter they would leave very sobered by the facts as they are presented. It is a very important issue and I think that members would all go back to their electorates with some really important initiatives that they want to see done. 
United Future is supporting this bill. We think it is important and we welcome its introduction. We are mindful that some of its provisions are serious and need to be carefully monitored through the select committee process. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I move  
That the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill be considered by the Government Administration Committee 
referred to Government Administration Committee 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 July 2006. 
Motion agreed to. 
Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Title 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 As National has made clear in the first reading debate through the select committee process and at the second reading we support this legislation. Our major concern previously when the legislation of 2002 was introduced was that it cut out self-employed people. It is pleasing to see that the Government has finally seen sense albeit belatedly and is now including them. 
I did signal last week that I intended to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that would essentially provide an option to self-employed people to either take the welfare payment as it is provided for in the legislation—clearly a form most preferred by the Government in its passionate desire to turn as many people in the nation into welfare beneficiaries as it possibly can—or have the choice of taking a tax deduction. There is a reason why that Supplementary Order Paper is not on the Table today to be debated. I took advice from the Clerk’s Office on whether it would be within the Standing Orders to take such an approach. The difficulty is that to effect such an option does not so much mean changing this legislation which is about welfare payments as actually changing the Income Tax Act itself. I am advised by the Clerk’s Office that that is outside the scope of the bill. That is why a statement I made last week cannot be fulfilled today. 
However I am signalling more generally that that is National’s preferred approach. The reason is that it fits the way that self-employed people see themselves. They do not actually want to go through all the rigmarole compliance costs and bureaucratise of applying for welfare payments; they would much sooner as part and parcel of their business accounts simply make an additional claim for a tax deduction or tax rebate. That would be much simpler much more straightforward and involve far fewer procedural issues than this provision applies. But the Government has simply rejected that option and will not follow it. It is much more likely that that is one of the approaches that National would provide for the future. 
The fiscal effect of course would in essence be the same as this. We would obviously intend the claims to be in essence of the same size but we would provide choices in the means of delivery—one that suits the Government’s mania to turn all New Zealanders into welfare beneficiaries and the other that respects the way in which self-employed people actually live their lives which is that they would sooner deal with the issue through the normal accounting process. 
However turning specifically to the purpose in general here members will note that two things are being sought in this bill. One is obviously the extending of the parental leave period for self-employed persons which is covered in clause 3(1). Clause 3(2) reduces the minimum period—and it is important to get this right—before an employee is entitled to a subsequent period of parental leave from 12 months to 6 months. It would be useful for the Minister Ruth Dyson to give a more complete explanation of this. 
This is not the situation that came up some time ago when the paid parental leave period was increased from 12 weeks to 14 weeks and when the time of application from when first employed was reduced from 12 months to 6 months. That is an issue in the past. I am not contesting that particular point. This is more specifically about subsequent claims. On the face of it one would ask how this could actually be. A question that could legitimately be asked is how a person can make a claim in just 6 months. Logically one would normally expect there would be not less than 9 months between periods—the self-evident period between births cannot be less than 9 months. 
 I presume the provision is in there for adoptions primarily. One could imagine adoptions arising in a period of less than 9 months post the previous claim for parental leave. I presume that actually is the intention of that provision but certainly the Business New Zealand submission was also rather surprised at the change of the 12 months down to 6 months it could not quite see the point of it and it suggested that the 12 months should apply. As I say I appreciate it is quite a different issue from the one that arose a couple of years ago but it is at best curious and as I say one would assume essentially deals with the issue of adoptions. 
The other point that one notes in clause 3(2)(c)—“allowing a right of review by the Employment Relations Authority in respect of entitlement to a parental leave payment.”—is that if a Government has a welfare system then I guess this is the way to go but it is actually quite a complicated compliance cost. It shows the whole approach of the current Government to add layers of bureaucratise to the system—like the prospects of substantial legal fees for both parties and so forth. I presume it would be the intent of the Government to have those matters dealt with fundamentally by mediation but I see in the bill that it has also added the right of review and all the cost that that implies. Again it might be useful if the Minister explained the purpose really of adding in an additional right than is necessary. 
I make it clear that National is supporting the intent. It was my intent as I indicated last week to provide the option but the Clerk’s Office has said that such a Supplementary Order Paper would have been out of order; so I did not do that. I have had to signal that point for the future. But we do have some concerns about the change from 12 months to 6 months or at the very least we would like an explanation as to why it is there. I noted the Minister indicated the reason that I gave is not the reason. As I say Business New Zealand was rather puzzled so it would be useful to put on the record of the House why it is there and the other matter I guess the Minister may choose or not as the case may be to respond to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
:  
Members will know that in the past National has opposed paid parental leave and the reason we opposed it is that it was unfair; there was no equity. It was very much designed around those in employment. We are a nation of small businesses and the people who invest in their businesses the business owners were the ones who missed out. Many business owners are women. In our view it was quite discriminatory that a self-employed person who owned a business was not eligible to participate in the paid parental leave scheme. We have taken that point over a number of years. We see a change now and we welcome this opportunity whereby self-employed people can be part of the paid parental leave provisions. 
The purpose clause states that the main purpose of the Act is to entitle certain self-employed persons to parental leave payments. So that is a welcome change and I tell the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson that we think it is a good move and we support it. 
But I want to pick up on the point that my colleague Dr Mapp talked about in terms of subsequent periods of parental leave which comes under subclause (2)(a) of the purpose clause. I note that the New Zealand Retailers Association’s submission gave an example of eligibility for subsequent periods of parental leave. It gave the case of a mother-to-be who starts work on 1 January. She is 2 months pregnant at the time and the baby is due on 1 August. On 1 July she starts her 14 weeks’ maternity leave having been employed for 6 months—that is 7 months to the due date. She returns to work on 8 October and by 8 April the following year is eligible again. So that is a very important point to take into account. The association says that even allowing 1 month spare she could deliver her next child as early as June starting her leave in May. The employer has the same struggle for temporary replacement in July of one year and May of the next year and so it goes on. The employer is faced with the repeated and very real costs of recruitment training and lost productivity. 
I do not know whether the Minister has seen that submission but it demonstrates what can happen in practice. In the workplace those who are employing staff want some certainty and continuity. Under this provision now they are quite happy to extend it to self-employed persons but at the same time there was an argument that the period of 6 months was too short and it should remain at the original 12-month period. For businesses whose employers are offering that service and now have to provide it by legislation that is not an unfair argument. They are happy to comply with the law to provide paid parental leave but say there should be the 12-month provision. Not only the Retailers Association but also Business New Zealand which represents a huge number of businesses throughout the country recommended that 12 months continue to be the minimum period that must elapse before an employee again becomes entitled to a period of parental leave. 
The industry makes a strong point and I do not think it is unfair that that should happen. National looked back at the reasons why we did not support paid parental leave at earlier times. We think the new provision overcomes that but we argue that 6 months is too short and that the 12-month provision is fair and equitable for all those concerned. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I would like to take the opportunity for a brief call to clarify the questions that both Mr Tisch and Dr Mapp have raised which demonstrate two things to me. The first is their continued opposition to paid parental leave in principle which I find totally gobsmacking. I cannot believe that a party can continue in this day and age to oppose financial support to a new mother primarily or a new father when a new baby is either born or adopted into their family. This provision is a fundamental point of social security for families and for the National Party to continue to oppose it and at the same time demand the extension of the provision really beggars belief. 
I will clarify the point raised by Dr Mapp and I do trust that he was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because for a member to have gone through the entire select committee process and still remain so ignorant of such a basic point in the legislation would be of major concern. So perhaps he was not on the committee; I certainly hope so. The point is that it is not 6 months after the birth of a previous child; it is 6 months after the person has returned from parental leave and parental leave is still unfortunately a lot longer than the current provisions for paid parental leave. It is not in Europe; in Europe they have 14 months paid parental leave. In New Zealand we have 14 weeks. So obviously if we were saying someone could have a child 6 months after the birth of a previous child we would be challenging more than just the legislative framework in New Zealand! 
Darren Hughes 
: That’s politically correct! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes that would be PC gone mad I hasten to add. So it is 6 months after the return from parental leave which is obviously a lot longer than the paid parental leave provisions. 
I conclude by saying that this bill is a very good extension of our existing paid parental leave scheme. We will continue to review and extend it. I would like to know by the end of the Committee stage of the debate—or if it is not possible for the National Party to get its head together and agree by that time maybe by the third reading stage which will hopefully be later this week—whether the National Party still opposes this scheme and whether it will repeal it if it is ever in the unfortunate position of being the Government of New Zealand. In the end National members cannot have it both ways. They cannot continue to oppose a scheme in principle call for its extension and then say they will vote for one part of it. National is either for it or against it and New Zealanders deserve to know what the National Party if it were ever leading the Government would do with this paid parental leave extension. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There have been three outstanding speeches from National—my colleague Dr Mapp took a second call—and in that time it became very evident that National was supporting this bill. Yet— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member be seated please. I am on my feet. The member is starting to lead into a debatable issue and that can be taken care of when I call the next speaker. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is an absolute pleasure to be here today to support the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill. While we were in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I found it very reassuring and a blessing for this environment to find out how National Labour and New Zealand First members could work together constructively on legislation that benefits this country. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Are we talking about the grand coalition here? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: No. It was first time I could see commonality between all parties and it was a long time in coming. That select committee has gone through a lot of legislation that we could not agree on but we found that things changed overnight as parties looked to their political whims—especially in respect of certain pieces of legislation. But today we are demonstrating how politics in New Zealand can work and how people can come together for the right reasons. It is a real pleasure to be part of that environment. 
Contrary to the comments of Minister Dyson who throughout her speeches has been trying to label the National Party as being against this process and to portray it in a way that is totally incorrect the National Party is moving forward and developing policy that is for everyone. When we look at the purpose clause we see that it covers basically one page of the bill. But it is a good synopsis of the whole legislation. When we look at the word “purpose” we have to consider what that means. 
The Labour Government has no purpose; it has no idea what it wants to do in this country and it never will. It is just a Government that taxes and spends. When I look at the purpose of this legislation the key word for me is “self-employed”. Why is that the key word? Why do we have legislation that has provisions for the self-employed as its purpose? It is because Labour did not deliver for self-employed people when it put forward this legislation in the first place. It tried to deliver only for those who were employed—the people whom they thought would vote for them. What happened then? Three to 4 years later new legislation—an amendment bill—has come forward that has organisations like the Nurses Organisation and Business New Zealand all standing up in front of the select committee and saying the same thing: “Deliver for self-employed people just like you delivered for people who are in employment relationships.” 
So the purpose of the legislation concerns self-employed people. We should not need to have legislation that dictates to self-employed people. It creates a distinction in this country between those who are employed and those who are self-employed. A true Government would not have created that distinction in the first place. A true Government would have kept the purpose of that original legislation in 2002 for all New Zealanders. Not all dogs are treated in the same way but all New Zealanders need to be treated in the same way. 
Clause 3 “Purpose” states: “(1) The main purpose of this Act is to entitle certain self-employed persons …”. Even the word “certain” dictates what Labour thinks about self-employed people. It does not give to those people the same credibility that it gives to employed people. They have to wait 3 or 4 years for their justice. Then when they receive that justice they are called “certain” self-employed people. Labour is saying it does not want all self-employed people; it wants only “certain” ones—the ones whom it can control and the ones whom it thinks will benefit from it. That shows a Government that has no purpose. Just as the legislation does not need a purpose this Government has no purpose. It has no idea what is going on. It just looks around for whatever the latest poll indicates might be a purpose. What does the latest poll say? Let us talk about the polling in respect of Telecom for example and how great the purpose of the Government has been in respect of people and their shares. That shows a lack of purpose. Labour will change its mind if it thinks that it is more than just employees who are at stake—if the Nurses Organisation and Business New Zealand come together. 
I have to give credit to the Department of Labour. It was brilliant during the select committee process. As a new member of the House I would like to give credit to all the Government departments that my constituency has worked with. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has always strongly supported the principle of paid parental leave. I mention the word “principle” because we did not always agree with the details of the legislation that went through the House earlier. David Bennett raised the question of why the self-employed were not included in that legislation. I say to David who is a new member that when we sat through hearings on the legislation it was very obvious that the philosophy of many of the instigators behind the paid parental leave movement was that it was all about employment rights. That is what drove them. 
From New Zealand First’s point of view that is not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is how we can create policy settings that will ensure the best quality of the next generation and how we build a nation that will maintain its strength and competitiveness. One of the things we well know is that the strength of the bond that is established between parents and child in the first few months endures over a whole lifetime. Yet what had occurred in our society was that employment conditions had become such that many parents—particularly mothers—had to go back into paid employment within weeks of their child being born. We saw that that was not creating the healthiest society and that we needed policy settings that would allow for a different approach. 
So New Zealand First from the outset has always argued that the self-employed should be involved in and included in this type of legislation because of the philosophy we are attacking it from. It is about how we continue to rebuild and get the best nation into the future. So we are very very pleased that the sorts of statements we were making back in the time when the initial legislation came through have been finally heard. 
I make one comment before I finish. Over this weekend I will be fortunate enough to have my first grandchild born. I am very very pleased that the parents of my first grandchild Catherine will receive the benefits of the provisions that are in the paid parental leave legislation that has been put through in the last few years. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I sat through the submissions on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill and I was absolutely thrilled to hear the ones that came from a variety of places and a variety of people. I stand quite proudly in support of this bill. I would like to address a few concerns to the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson. What I am interested in discussing and hearing about from the Minister is the bigger-picture stuff. 
I do agree with this bill. I think it is very important that we are identifying predominantly those mothers who are having babies and need our support to take time off and then go back into their businesses. I certainly support the purpose of this bill which is to give those parents the opportunity to provide one-on-one care and still be able to have an overall administrative insight into their businesses. What I do ask though is that we look at the bigger picture of where we are heading with women and children in society and how we could have identified some of those things as we looked through the bill because it really is about women having children later in life and it is equally about their employment opportunities. 
The call from the Prime Minister earlier this year was to see women having more input into the workforce and being “more productive” I think were her actual words. Although I am sure we could all take umbrage at the words about women being more productive I do ask how we can look at helping women to get back into the workforce. I would like to talk a bit about adaptive parents—those parents who adjust their employment and their businesses to be able to raise their children. They are the women who do need that flexibility and need a Government that supports them with what is happening. They also come up with the bigger picture of what is happening to our children as they are raised more and more in day-care facilities—and I do not think that any of us know the effects of that. It is a question that I think we really need to be asking. 
One of the things that came up in the submissions—it was quite interesting and I would like the Minister to comment on this as well—was that paid parental leave be paid in a lump sum. At the moment it is paid over 14 weeks at from memory $357 a week. The purpose of this bill is to support those parents financially while they take time off. What came up from a couple of the submitters is that it would have been helpful for them to have the money in a lump sum. The select committee looked at that and it is something that I felt quite strongly in favour of but I could not convince my colleagues at that stage. 
If the money were given as a lump sum it would mean that parents would have the choice on how they spend the money—whether they supplement their income whether they pay for their mother to fly from Dunedin to Auckland to help them in the first 3 or 4 weeks or whether they use it to buy the new pushchair or whatever. A lump sum would give them a bit more freedom and more opportunity to think about how to spend it. So I challenge the Minister to talk to us about the bigger picture and the changes that are happening in society. I feel that the amendments to the bill could have gone a lot further. How do we feel about broadening it out and giving a payment to all parents whether or not they are in employment—self-employed or in paid employment? How about the baby bonus scheme? How about making the amount $5000 which is about the equivalent of 14 weeks divided by $357? How about rewarding those people who are doing something for the future of our generations? This could be helping anyone from any ethnic and employment status. I say it is time we started supporting those who are taking that huge momentous step of becoming parents and it is time we acknowledged that role. I do not think we do acknowledge parenting as an important role and that was certainly evident when the original paid parental leave legislation came before the House and we did not include paid parental leave for the self-employed. 
I think we are thinking too small. I do not stand before members right now saying that I have all the answers but I would like to hear from the Minister about some of the bigger-picture stuff that we as a society currently have to look at. Those questions are not even being asked let alone answered by the current Government. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I thank our whip for the opportunity to partake in the Committee stage debate. I am one of the few who has been and will be speaking who was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and has not been part of the process to date. 
It is nice to be part of the National Party in supporting this bill. This is the second time I have had the pleasure of actually supporting a bill that the Labour-led Government has brought forward. I put it on record that I will not often personally be doing this. In fact there is a bill coming up soon about microchipping dogs and I can assure members now that I will not be standing and supporting that bill during its Committee stage. I did note when I did my reading on this bill that 19 submissions were made on it. I can assure members that there will be a helluva lot more than 19 submissions on the dog microchipping bill that is coming before this House very shortly. 
The member beside me Paula Bennett raised something I have some real sympathy with. I remind members that I did not sit on the select committee but I have been privileged to have worked very closely with a business partner who was self-employed is still self-employed and had the joy of having a fantastic boy not that long ago. If I look at her case I know for a fact because of the conversations we had in the process that the $357.50 that we are supporting as the leave payment would make a real difference to her situation. But I have to say—and it is specific to her situation—that she wanted her mother-in-law to move in while she was— 
Paula Bennett 
: Mother-in-law? 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: Yes. She has a really nice mother-in-law—not like the mothers-in-law they may have on the other side of the Chamber. The biggest problem for her was that they had just spent money on doing up the baby’s room. Her husband had spent considerable capital on making sure that in their new house they had a baby’s room. They did not have any money to do the third room in the house which they could well have put a lump sum towards to make that room habitable for the mother-in-law to live in. That mother-in-law living in their house giving support to the new mother would have made a real difference as she could then go to work and take the pressure off in her self-employment role. 
In regard to the purpose of the bill after reading the documents I just add that there is a provision that I do like being included and that is the new provision that explicitly provides that an employee or self-employed person can apply to the Employment Relations Authority for a review of the decision made by the Department of Labour about his or her eligibility for the parental leave payment. I think it is handy to have the opportunity for that debate if there is a question mark over eligibility. 
The thing most close to my heart when I read the purpose of this bill was the magic words “self-employed persons”. I congratulate the Labour-led Government on the fact that it is finally acknowledging the role and the importance of those who are self-employed. 
David Bennett 
: It took them long enough. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: Yes. It has been a 4-year process—2002 to the year 2006—and I suggest that many self-employed people have been hugely disadvantaged by the fact that the Government has taken far too long to get this bill before Parliament. But I do think it is fantastic. In the time I have been here I have very rarely heard members on the other side of the Chamber talk so positively about those who are other than employees. Too often in this Chamber one would think that the only people who cared and mattered and had a heart and a life were those who were employees not those who were employers or as in this case self-employed. We have to take our hats off to those who have the courage to be self-employed. We have to take our hats off to those who pick up the challenge and give it a go. 
 Today was a glorious typical Wellington day. I sat out in the beautiful sunshine having a quiet lunch with a friend and I told her I was to have this wonderful opportunity to speak on this bill. I talked about being self-employed and she raised a very good point with me. She said it was sad that too many of her friends were saying to her that benefit day was pay day. Benefit day is not pay day; benefit day is a privilege. The benefit is not one’s pay. I stress again that I congratulate the Labour-led Government and its partners on the fact that they are finally recognising the value of those people in the workforce who are not just employees. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I sought an additional call on this part because I want to reflect on the point made by Paula Bennett that picked up on an issue in the Business New Zealand submission—although amongst our group we had substantially discussed this issue well prior to the Business New Zealand submission—and Part 2 picks up on it again. It is what this legislation is all about and indeed what it is intended to be about: employees and self-employed persons. That is the Government’s schema. So it is quite fascinating to read the submission from Business New Zealand which after all would be pretty concerned one would think about the level of Government expenditure and so forth. But on this issue it decided to look much more broadly stating in clause 2.1 of its submission: “The current paid parental leave scheme linked as it is to taking parental leave with payments available only to women in paid employment has the inevitable effect of rewarding women in the paid workforce as against others who have may have opted to care for children at home or whose periods of paid employment are relatively infrequent and therefore fall below the threshold.” 
I believe that if we stepped back and looked at the scope and range of what one might say are family friendly policies—not just of the current Government but of parties generally and I am sure the United Future Party members if they were here in the Chamber would be interested in this kind of thing—we would see that they would be particularly concerned to ensure that our system of community incentives delivered effectively via the Government does not exclude people. In fact that is precisely what this legislation does notwithstanding its improvements and we will certainly be voting for that. But I think that Business New Zealand actually has raised an important and wider question. Paula Bennett referred to it as the baby bonus approach to things—and I well remember when I was a student the infamous suggestion in 1974 by Roger Douglas for a baby bonus. I guess one would have to say he was a bit before his time at that point because it actually proved to be one of the reasons why Labour lost the election in 1975. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sure Mr Gosche might remember that particular point in his history in South Auckland. 
But the view has changed. Ideas develop and the way our society develops has also changed. I do note a practice of women increasingly making the choice where they can not to be in the workforce when they are raising children. That is a difficult choice. Families often have to put themselves through significant financial hardship to do that but they are willing to do so because it is seen as being advantageous for the raising of children. I think that most people would acknowledge that. The advantage of taking the Business New Zealand approach and the one suggested by Paula Bennett is that it does not discriminate but actually celebrates parenthood. The community at large through the agency of Government says that it can help parents that it can give them tangible and meaningful financial assistance and it was noted that the equivalent of $5000—a reasonable sum in fact—would make a real difference to their living standards particularly for families on low incomes. One would think that the Government would be thinking of this and that with the Families Commission and so forth this would be the sort of thing it would be examining. 
Ironically it comes from Business New Zealand because under its current leadership Business New Zealand is I think taking a much broader view of how societies develop and I applaud it for doing that. That has been an important change. It is a point of leadership that it has taken. So I say to the Government that this is the sort of thing that with all its hundreds of bureaucrats it could seriously examine for the future. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to principal Act 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The debate on Part 2 includes the schedule. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill and to say as we have said on a number of occasions that National supports this legislation. I particularly want to speak to section 1A inserted by clause 6 and to clause 7(2). Section 1A(c) in clause 6 focuses on where this legislation is actually going to. It states that certain employees and in particular self-employed persons are entitled to up to 14 weeks of paid parental leave. That is the important part of this legislation. 
My first question though is whether this bill will actually help to lift economic growth. One of the key reasons for National supporting this legislation is that it is one of the few bills that have come through the House in the last 6 or 7 years that actually do something to assist those people. Why is that? In a small way it will assist self-employed parents the small-business owners who are responsible for the majority of innovation entrepreneurialism and risk-taking which are things that are necessary to take this country forward and indeed to deliver on Dr Cullen’s goal of getting us into the top half of the OECD. It is those families who are very important. 
One has to ask oneself why that particular provision was left out of the legislation in the first instance. I was not part of the Government at that particular time but from what I hear it was just that self-employed people were not considered important enough.  
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s right. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I ask Dr Mapp whether there were some other reasons at the time and what they were. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Prejudice. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Anything else? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Bias. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: There were a number of things. The fact is that self-employed parents are critical for two really important reasons that I want to focus on. The first is that parents assist their children to do things that they themselves are good at. I take as an example sportspeople and families who are interested in sports. Their children tend to be successful at sport. Families who have a musical background and are part of the arts tend to encourage their children to learn to play musical instruments and to be successful in the arts. Is that a fair comment? It is the same with children from violent homes. They tend to find it difficult to break the cycle of family violence. 
 The point I am making here is that children from families with self-employed parents who are business owners tend to end up in business. They are led down that track because their parents have been involved in business. They are predisposed to being entrepreneurs themselves. They are predisposed to being risk-takers. These are the children we need to be encouraging into business because they are the next generation. They are the kids who will get into business and help take this country up the OECD rankings. We need to make sure that mothers who are self-employed are supported. So there is a very key reason for this legislation to be supported. 
The second point is that self-employed mothers and fathers—parents—face much larger difficulties when taking time out of the workforce than do employees. Obviously employers are very aware of when somebody is having a child and know they will have to plan for it but they are not in the same position as an employee who can just take time off. Employees can apply for 6 weeks’ leave and take time out. An employer or a self-employed person has significant difficulty in taking time out of the workforce. That is just a fact. Business does not stop particularly if the self-employed person is a one-man band and there are plenty of examples of those in the workforce. It is extremely difficult for such people to take time out. So in that respect we definitely support this legislation. 
I move on to clause 7(2) where there is the definition: “self-employed means working in 1 or more of the following other than as an employee:”. It further defines in paragraph (a): “ providing goods or services for hire or reward under a contract for services:” and in paragraph (b) “carrying on a business …”. So this is defining the very fact that this legislation will deliver for the self-employed. With that small-business hat on I want to focus on the importance of the self-employed in this legislation. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 In the previous part we were discussing the importance under the words of Business New Zealand and Paula Bennett of extending the whole concept of paid parental leave basically to all parents recognising that this is a position on which the nation should really arrive at—probably on a consensual basis. It would be of huge importance to supporting families particularly those on lower incomes. That of course is the general point and I will return to it perhaps in the closing debate. 
I want to focus in this debate upon Part 2 which is essentially a rewriting of the existing statute and especially on clause 18 which inserts new section 70G: “Labour Inspectors may make determinations in respect of self-employed persons”. I am drawing that to the attention of the House because it picks up on the points made by Mr Chris Tremain the member of Parliament for Napier. The importance of that clause is that self-employed people do not actually want bureaucracy. They do not envisage a whole bunch of self-important bureaucrats coming around to their businesses and asking them questions such as “Are you self-employed?” saying “Show us the books show us your work site.”; using that sort of approach. It is something that could be dreamt up only in the bowels of Wellington or in the Department of Labour. 
I guarantee that no advice was taken from the Small Business Advisory Group on that particular issue. If that organisation had been asked it would have queried whether the Government was going to add yet another compliance cost on small business. After all who has to pay for all this stuff? It is hard-working New Zealanders and principally businesses through their business tax. So the Small Business Advisory Group would have said that compliance costs of that nature could go in the bin. 
That is why National had mentioned that the better approach was in essence to have a tax deduction. There does not have to be a whole bunch of labour inspectors making determinations under new section 70G in those kinds of situations. The Department of Labour will have all sorts of tests for determining a self-employed person’s average weekly earnings. What does that actually mean? Does that mean department officials will go through all the books and accounts of the self-employed like some kind of inland revenue inspectors? The truth is that the Inland Revenue Department would not go to that kind of extraordinary extent. We already have a very good system in place to assess business accounts. Why do we not just stick with that and go for a much more straightforward and simpler system that respects the self-employed? 
The other point—and perhaps I will complete my contribution on this point—made earlier by Paula Bennett was that a far simpler approach is just to give a lump sum. I mean who truly believes that at say week 5 week 7 or week 10 the payments will suddenly stop? The answer is that they will not. People will expect to get the full amount for the full 14 weeks. Well why not cut out all the administration and all the rubbish of paying money by weekly amounts into bank accounts? Again that is something that could be dreamt up only in the bowels of Wellington—an efficient and effective system is to pay someone 14 equal payments of $378 or whatever the figure happens to be. Why not just cut through the—I will not use the word because it would be unparliamentary—rubbish and pay people a single sum? That is of benefit of course to parents but it is also of benefit to the Government because it would save administration and compliance costs. 
I guess there is only one flaw in all of that—the flaw is that Labour is always seeking ways to enable its mates to get jobs in order to boost the bureaucracy and to entrench all those Labour voters in Wellington. How does it do that? It grows and bloats the bureaucracy down here. It is always dreaming up madcap schemes to expand the bureaucracy and I guess that one of its madcap schemes is to have 14 payments monitored by Department of Labour inspectors checked into bank accounts through automatic payments opened and closed and so forth when it could go for a simple but effective system. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I think that Wayne Mapp is talking about something that is probably a budgetary leak. He is well ahead of Parliament and the Government in the concept of providing a new formula based on fairness and equity. Paula Bennett has also taken initiative in this area as well. It is good to see that National is providing the leadership that we have not seen from the Government. 
We are looking at Part 2 and we are glad the Minister is here today. An issue came up at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and we have not had resolution of that issue to a satisfactory level from the Minister. The issue was in regard to a constituent who had a very sad story. He was a solo father at the time he came to the office and about 9 months previously while his wife was pregnant she had injured herself. She had a highly paid job in the local hospital and she was on accident compensation for a few of the last months of her pregnancy. Tragically she was killed in a motor vehicle accident soon after giving birth to their third child. The father as a solo parent sought to transfer to himself the paid parental leave entitlement but that payment was going to be based only on the lower income of the accident compensation payments not the higher possible total income on a pro rata basis. He felt very much aggrieved that he had gone through a terrible tragedy in his family life but that the Government was not willing to recognise that and would recognise only a lower payment entitlement. We have asked the Minister for some resolution of that issue but we have not received a satisfactory response at this stage. 
However I note that when we raised that issue at the select committee the Department of Labour came up with an amendment to the legislation. Members will see that Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson has an amendment to clause 20(1)(b) to clarify the circumstances of parental leave taken by a self-employed person. The time before a baby’s due date is not included when calculating a self-employed person’s earnings. So essentially the time that a person is not in work before the due date has not been included in the calculation—the calculation is based on the person’s actual income in the time before then. That is a sensible solution and it needs to be applied in employment situations as well. However it does not cover the case of payments for such things as accident compensation. As a Parliament we need to be prepared to widen the extent of our legislation so that we do cover specific cases where someone could get into that circumstance. 
Business New Zealand which made some very good submissions during the process raised the case where a permanent employee on parental leave may be replaced by an employee who is also pregnant on a fixed-term agreement. The new employee will be eligible for parental leave during the term of the agreement. Business New Zealand submitted that in those circumstances the agreement cannot be terminated on grounds other than those in the agreement. So when the temporary employee has finished parental leave she will be able to return to her job to complete the remainder of the term of the agreement. 
Essentially it is a case where a second employee would come in and get the same entitlements as the original employee and employers felt that they could be aggrieved in having to cover two lots of entitlements. That was another issue raised at the select committee and we did not get a satisfactory resolution to it. The select committee was doing a rush job. It had to get its legislation on self-employment through within a certain time frame and members were not prepared to take the time to look at individual circumstances or specific cases or indeed at innovative concepts such as those Paula Bennett and Wayne Mapp have been talking about this afternoon. Their concept is innovative because it is different from the concepts we are considering in just trying to extend to self-employed people what has been given to employment relationships. 
This legislation was dreamt up only after an election campaign. It is here only because the Government saw the opposition from a number of other parties when the original legislation went through. I ask members not to think for a minute that it has been done out of regard for the best interests of self-employed people. This legislation is a cover-up that the Government felt it needed at a certain point in time. Self-employed people were never on the Labour Party’s original list of people it wanted to look after. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I know that the member David Bennett is a relatively new member and that his time in Parliament may be brief—we have to put up with that sort of ignorant presentation to the Committee only for another 2½ years—but I draw his attention to two things. First of all Supplementary Order Paper 31 responds to the question that the member raised which was a genuine question and a genuine concern in terms of the constituent whose case he has just related to the Committee. The explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper states: “It has the effect of excluding from the calculation of a self-employed person’s average weekly earnings time spent not working while the person is on ACC or parental leave or not working in other approved circumstances.” I would appreciate the member reading the Supplementary Order Paper and perhaps relating to me during the remaining Committee stage whether that actually resolves the case. That was my intention; that is why it is in the Supplementary Order Paper. It would be preferable for the member to do a little bit of homework—including reading the Supplementary Order Paper—before he stands up to take a call. The Supplementary Order Paper was tabled and is before us for debate right at this time. [ 
Interruption 
] That is exactly right I say to Mr Bennett that is where it is to be found. 
The other point I recommend to the member is that before he accuses me or any of my colleagues of not supporting self-employed people he should learn a bit of history and read some of our speeches. I have consistently said that paid parental leave of 12 weeks as it was introduced in March 2002—and that by the way was opposed by National at the time of the introduction of paid parental leave—was the first step. I said that the review process that we had under way would look at people who were missing out because the legislation did not cover them and at the length of time of paid parental leave because it was so minuscule—12 weeks at its introduction—compared with comparable countries that we like to be ahead of rather than behind. I also said we would ensure that the process was easy. That has been done. It has been reported to Parliament and it certainly has been mentioned in my speeches. So I say to Mr Bennett that on every point in his—fortunately—brief contribution to this debate he was wrong. It does not do him or his electorate credit for that sort of ill-informed presentation to be made. 
National opposed this bill. It opposed paid parental leave from the start. National members have consistently opposed paid parental leave and have said that people who receive a payment on the birth or adoption of a child are being made into beneficiaries. For that member to attack my party for extending the payment to self-employed people and to say that it has not happened fast enough is just an outrage. I recommend that Mr Bennett reads the Supplementary Order Paper and I would appreciate it if he contributed to me directly or to the Committee as to whether it addresses the problem. If it does not may I recommend that he uses the opportunity to amend the legislation himself. He has that opportunity as a member of Parliament. It is one of the privileges we have in this Parliament. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and join my colleagues on the National side of the House in supporting this bill. I preface my remarks by noting that mothers are very important to the well-being and moral tone of our communities and I take this opportunity to remind members of the House—and those New Zealanders who are listening to this debate—that Sunday is Mother’s Day. It is an opportunity for us to appreciate and show our respect for mothers and on some occasions to take a moment for quiet reflection on what our mothers have meant to us. 
I compliment the Minister. I believe this bill in extending paid parental leave to the self-employed marks a welcome departure from the Labour - New Zealand First - United Future coalition Government’s usual attitude to business and to small business in particular. I remind the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson in the light of her comments when she took the call that actions always speak louder than words. 
I will focus my remarks on those clauses of the bill that address the position of the self-employed. I support anything that will be of assistance to such people. I ask members never to forget that the self-employed are the people with the initiative the innovation the creativity the ability to organise and the willingness to take risks and to give another New Zealander an opportunity to work. They are the people who create work in our communities. They are also the people whom this Government consistently penalises with its confiscatory tax rates. The Government penalises those people—the self-employed—for the very things that make them successful. 
I also welcome the inclusion of farming families in the bill. Farmers are a very special part of the New Zealand economy. They still provide the backbone of many of our rural communities. It is important that their role is acknowledged along with that of all the other self-employed people in New Zealand. 
It is also proper—and the bill acknowledges this—that a self-employed person on parental leave should be able to maintain a level of oversight of his or her business during the period of leave. Such businesses which are the backbone of business in New Zealand communities are very very dependent on the organisation the leadership and the interest that the people who own them take in them. Those businesses cannot afford to suffer from the neglect that may otherwise occur. I ask members not to forget that many other members of our communities depend on the work of the self-employed—as I have said—and on their leadership their initiative and their creativity. And most important of all many other New Zealanders depend on such people for their own employment. 
According to the bill a self-employed person can apply for paid parental leave for more than one business. It is good to see—and I support—two businesses being treated as one for the purposes of paid employment leave entitlements. Again that is a reflection of the nature of small business in New Zealand. It is not unusual for a self-employed person to be running more than one business and to be employing people in both those businesses. It is important that they are able to keep both businesses—or more if they have others—operating for the benefit of everybody. 
Obviously one of the positive effects that will come from this bill will be the retention of the entrepreneurs owners and people who provide the leadership in their businesses even while they are on paid leave. Again I repeat the point—because it is important and worth repeating—that other people benefit from that opportunity. Any measure that keeps self-employed people in their businesses—and this is one such measure—contributes to the overall growth of the national economy contributes to the good of our communities and above all else contributes to the stability of our families. And it acknowledges the special role that mothers play in our communities. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I would have liked to see the Labour Government take the opportunity to address the situation where people who are going on paid parental leave are not able to tell their employers whether they wish to stay in their job. Since we are amending the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act it makes sense to me that perhaps we could have addressed the anomaly that is out there at the moment. What is happening is that when people go to take paid parental leave to be eligible for the payment they have to say they will go back into their job. They have to have the full intention of going back to work. 
We have not covered this with the self-employed persons either. It may be that someone intends to run down the business in order to start a family or have more children. However people cannot tell us that because they will then not be eligible for the payment because it is for the duration of the 14 weeks. People who said they were closing down the business and would no longer be running it would not get the 14-week payment. What people will do instead is say they intend to take the 14 weeks off and then go back into the business and it is at that point that they may run it down and close it or sell it. That is not such a big issue for people who are self-employed but it is a huge issue at the moment with unemployment being at its lowest in a long time—as the Government likes to tell us—so it means we have not got as many people out there looking for work. 
In my mind when people have a baby they fit into three categories: those who intend to leave their work and not return and instead raise their children at home themselves; those who intend to take leave and are not quite sure what they will do and whether they will return; and those who have the complete intention of returning after a short period of time. 
Those people who fit into the first category—who have no intention of returning to their jobs—cannot resign because then they will not be eligible for the 14 weeks’ pay. It is important that we address those issues because what is happening is that those employers who are covering the maternity leave are having to take on temporary employees. They have to keep the job open—and that makes sense to me; we need to keep the jobs open for those women and I certainly support that—but what I am saying is that being able to take on only temporary employees cuts down the current labour-market force that is available to them at that time. It is a much smaller proportion of people who want to do temporary work. 
What we could have done while looking at this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill was address some of those other issues. This is where we come back to the issue of the lump sum for everyone. If we were paying out the lump sum it would not matter whether someone was intending to take the 14 weeks off. It would be a lot more straightforward. At the moment people are in a situation where they almost have to lie. I have certainly employed staff myself—I come from the recruitment field and it is mainly women whom I employed in that business—who would say they did not think they would come back to work but goodness knows they could not resign. They had no intention of coming back but did not want to resign because then they would not be eligible for the 14 weeks’ paid parental leave. Who can blame them? It is an expensive job and I do not blame them for getting the 14 weeks’ pay. In fact I say they deserve the 14 weeks’ pay and I certainly am all for self-employed persons getting it as well. 
However if we were to give a lump sum and not have all these restrictions around it as my learned colleague pointed out it would cut down so much of the administration cost and would actually cost the country less—that has to be a good thing. It would give people freedom of choice and they would not have to mislead their employers. In the case of the self-employed it may affect their employees. Assuming that it is not a big business and that self-employed people have perhaps only one or two working for them such people may have the complete intention of closing down the business or selling it in order to start a family but in order to be eligible for the 14 weeks’ pay they have to say they are going back. That is where we are almost making liars out of people. 
I think it is a shame we are not addressing a bigger and wider issue which is how we support women into— 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I apologise for interrupting Paula Bennett; she was on a lovely roll there. By definition 2170 self-employed persons will be able to apply for the benefit that will be made available—2170 persons will be able to apply. I suppose then if one quietly looks at the facts one could wonder whether maybe this could have been done in the first instance when paid parental leave was brought in in 2002. That was 4 years ago. I suppose if one quietly does the figures on the Minister Ruth Dyson’s numbers—2170—one can work out that in 4 years 8680 people have not been able to receive what she is now suggesting and we are supporting they should receive. 
So I suppose I would love the Minister—if she could take the call—to explain to those 8680 people why she has taken so damn long to get this bill into the House. Those 8680 people have missed out on this opportunity to pick up the paid benefit we are discussing today. I would like to ask the Minister whether in fact she will apologise to those 8680 persons—not just for amongst other things the leaking of the Budget for the stupid microchipping law that may wander its way through the House and for turning many Kiwis into welfare beneficiaries; I believe that the Minister should take this opportunity to apologise to those 8680 persons. In fact if I was going to round up the figure it was 2173 persons which would then work out at 8692. There is an apology coming and I would love to hear the Minister give it. It is a word that I think is foreign to the Labour-led Government. 
I would like to talk about—and I alluded to this before—the fact that I have had the privilege of working personally with some self-employed people. As members may know I currently own a business. I refer here to the example of a woman who is very much of the self-employed ilk. She is one of those wonderful entrepreneurs who is building a future for herself and for this country. She operates a business and I can remember the period during which she was under huge stress and concern when she was trying to run her business while going through her pregnancy and afterwards raising her young child. She had no other income apart from the income she was able to earn herself in her own business so she needed to work. She could not afford the baby care that was available so her husband had to take some time off work and put his own career at risk which was very disappointing. 
I suppose where I am going with this is that I think it is wonderful that this bill also applies to the husband or the other partner. We do not talk enough about the fact that paid parental leave does not apply only to the mother but can also be transferred to the dad. That becomes hugely advantageous because the parents now have the opportunity to plan ahead together for the birth of their children in the knowledge that either one of them will receive up to 14 weeks’ pay to help compensate them for the loss of family income they would have incurred during that period. I think being able to plan for the family in this way gives parents a peace of mind they have not had. 
Again I take the opportunity to congratulate the Labour-led United Future New Zealand First Government on the fact that it has recognised the importance of the self-employed person to New Zealand society. For sure 8680-odd people missed out on this opportunity but at least now the self-employed person is being recognised and we need to applaud the fact that that recognition is now occurring— 
Hon Member 
: Under pressure from National. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: —under pressure from National. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I take a brief call to respond once again to the single point the previous speaker raised which was his call for an apology. The member estimated that there are over 8500 self-employed people who have not received paid parental leave in the last little while since the Labour-led Government introduced paid parental leave. What about the 26010 self-employed people—by his calculations—plus the thousands more employees who did not receive one day of paid parental leave during the 9 long years that that member’s party was in Government let alone the 14 weeks that our Government has given employees and now self-employed people? For that member to come in here and ask for an apology from me needs a little rewriting of history. The member’s memory may be foggy around that time—for whatever reason I am not sure—but 26010 self-employed people missed out on paid parental leave completely in the 9 years that Mr Blumsky’s party was in Government—as did every single employee. 
That was because National members oppose paying paid parental leave for everyone. They opposed it on the introduction of the bill in March 2002 they opposed it when we amended it in 2004. The point for which I am very sorry is that I wish we had been the Government during those 9 years because we would have had paid parental leave for the employees and self-employed of New Zealand a lot earlier. 
This is a moment of progress on the bill. We still have some people who will not be able to access it and we still have it for only 14 weeks. That is not as good as what other countries have and we will continue to look at the gaps where those people miss out—as I promised to do when I made a commitment to the House in 2004 and subsequently introduced this legislation in 2005. 
I think the National members should stop trying to rewrite history and just admit they got it wrong. Otherwise they should say to the thousands of New Zealanders who are puzzling over their position that even though they are now demanding an apology from us for not extending paid parental leave earlier they still opposed the original legislation which we are now extending. Mr Blumsky cannot have it both ways; he either supports paid parental leave or he does not. He cannot have it both ways. The public of New Zealand know that National opposes paid parental leave and we will continue to remind them—despite those members’ performances in the House today. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to set the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson straight on a few things. The Minister seems not to have noticed that National members actually support this legislation and we should be very clear as to why we are supporting it. Right from the word go yes we opposed paid parental leave because we knew that a better way to deal with giving hard-working young families who are raising children a break was to give them a tax cut—not to give them a welfare benefit. The Minister raises her eyes. That very point is behind all of this. Our philosophy is not to put hard-working parents on to welfare benefits but the reason we support this—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague. The Minister is interjecting at the same time as my colleague is speaking and the Minister has an unfair advantage because of where she is sitting. We would welcome the opportunity for the Minister to take a call and speak after my colleague has spoken. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Minister will not interrupt. 
JO GOODHEW 
: Thank you Madam Chair. As I was saying the issue is really about philosophy and about the fact that we believe there are better ways than this legislation to give hard-working families a fair go. 
But—and let us not forget that National members support this bill—we are supporting this legislation because it was grossly unfair to leave self-employed parents out initially. Members on the Government benches may be interested to know that many of the young parents in my electorate were left out and maybe that is why provincial New Zealand hit back at the Labour Government. We are talking about 66412 women—we have had a lot of numbers here this afternoon—of fertile age who are self-employed. That is how many people this legislation potentially affects. We know they will not all become pregnant and have babies in the one year but we also know that those people knew they were being let down badly by a Government that portrays itself as a Government with a concern for families. What a load of codswallop that is! What a load of old rubbish! Only some families were being left out. Small businesses which are 95 percent of our businesses are the sorts of businesses where young families—mums and dads—are trying to get ahead and they too need the recognition that extending this paid parental leave to the self-employed will give them. 
We have heard about the number of submissions that came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when this bill was being discussed and I wish to touch on Rural Women New Zealand’s submission. Rural Women had consulted rural self-employed women both those working in partnership and those working in their own right in rural businesses or enterprises and it was of the opinion that a lump-sum payment as per the Australian system would work well. Rural Women knows that inherent in any legislation such as this bill is an awful lot of bureaucracy. We have heard other members of the National caucus talk here today about the level of bureaucracy that is involved in this legislation when a simple tax cut would have done. 
We have also heard that Business New Zealand made an interesting submission. That group certainly could see there were anomalies that needed to be addressed and for that reason it encouraged the inclusion of self-employed persons within the bill. The College of Midwives wanted to have its say as well. That group was very much in favour of “righting the inequity” as it put it that currently exists between the employed and the self-employed in the midwifery workforce. We heard from those groups which represent women. Women currently in larger numbers look to the Labour Government for a lead and for guidance. 
So it is good that I have had the opportunity to rise today and suggest to the Minister that she is looking in the wrong direction. We in the National Party support this legislation because of that inequity. We want to see self-employed persons get a fair deal. But the Minister should just remember that perhaps the bias of the Labour Government against business actually causes Government members to be as reluctant as they are to give National members credit for supporting this legislation. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I want to respond to the comments made by the Minister. The Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson made comments in relation to an example that I gave and it was a very touching example from a real-life situation. The Department of Labour made an amendment to the legislation in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to take into account part of that matter. However the committee did not take into account the full amount—that is the accident compensation component. 
I see that that is now provided for on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson and that is fine. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Apologise. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: No I have nothing to apologise for because I have just relayed that that issue had not been addressed and in fact now it has been. The point is that the Labour members actually listened to me because in the second reading I raised that issue again. In the second reading the Minister set out what she was going to address on her Supplementary Order Paper and that matter was not to be on it but suddenly it has come along. The Labour members have listened to what we relayed to the public and I congratulate them on doing so. 
But that is not enough. I want to know whether there is provision for the same ability as that in the employer-employee legislation. Do employers and employees have the same ability in their legislation? Do the employers and employees have an amendment like this as well? If they do not then there is a gaping hole in that legislation. The reason there are gaping holes is that the Labour members do not understand what the public actually goes through. They do not understand what “self-employed” means because they do not want to know what “self-employed” means. Those members have never been self-employed. If they were self-employed they would have delivered a company that has gone like this country to zero percent growth over the last 6 months. They have strangled and destroyed this country’s growth. 
How will the country provide the health and education systems we want when it will not provide any growth like that set up by National and the previous Labour Government? If we had had a Labour Government during the 1990s there would have been no growth in this country. There would have been no ability to pay for any of these kinds of welfare payments which have been made possible by the strong economic conditions that we set up in the 1990s. Labour would be apologising not to 25000 people but to 4 million people for having a country that did not deliver. I think Mr Mark Blumsky was quite right in saying that we need an apology for those 8000 people because Labour has had the economic conditions in the last 4 years whereby it could have delivered for those 8000 people but it has not. 
You have known for the last 4 years that there was a gaping hole in the legislation and did you deliver for them? No. Will you deliver for people in the future? No you will not unless you are part of— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind the member that he cannot bring the Chair into the debate. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The fact remains that there has been a situation where this Government sat for 4 years—sat and watched. It went through an election campaign and it sat and watched those people miss out. The situation here is that we went to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and found there were gaping holes in the legislation that the Government had not addressed. It was only at the select committee when members of the National Party brought forward the reality of the situation that we got the amendments that deliver paid parental leave for all New Zealanders. So I tell all New Zealanders that although Labour does not say it is sorry they should thank the National Party for bringing these amendments forward because the pressure we put on in the select committee has mean we have the results here today. Labour members had no idea. They would never have given the amendments to us because they do not know what is going on. It was National members who brought this issue to the country’s attention and National should be thanked for doing so. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Clauses 1 2 and 2A 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 One of the points I wish to make is about the way the Minister has been conducting herself in the chair. Members will notice that on this side of the Committee there has been considered and thoughtful debate analysing not just the bill itself but also the wider issues—the issues of for instance whether one should do this by a tax deduction whether one should do it by a welfare payment whether one should do it by a lump sum or whether one should spread it over 14 weeks. Should for instance people listen to the Business New Zealand submission and pay a parental benefit for all parents? Those are legitimate and reasonable questions to ask. In fact I have even heard my colleagues congratulate the Government—it is not something I am personally prone to do but some of my colleagues have done it. 
Do members know what the Minister’s response to all of that has been? There has been a bitterness about it has there not? The Minister has wanted to play shallow politics all the way along in this particular debate. I think I know the reason for this. The Government just squeaked into office in the last election. All those members look across—all of them those tired old faces over there—at an energised active and proactive National Party. I look at my colleagues and there are 23 new members of Parliament and they add energy to the debate. One of the things they have done—and I would like to note this specifically for this debate—is to be willing to say that actually the Government in certain things might be doing something right. 
Hon Member 
: Might! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Might—indeed my colleagues have noted that. That is why we have been supporting this legislation. Is that not such a contrast? Is that not surely one of the things Mr Hughes on the occasional times he is seen in his electorate hears people on the street say: “Would it not be a good thing if Parliament acted in the interests of New Zealanders that they were not always indulging in name calling petty politics and so forth?”. But that is what this Government is doing at the present moment. I have to say that that is the sort of activity Governments that are on the way out that are tired that are worn out and that are lacking in ideas tend to indulge in. 
I am frankly disappointed that the Minister has not noted the fact that National supports this bill and understands that all Governments—and I acknowledge this—get to make changes to the fabric of society. One cannot just run elections as if nothing has changed. So the truth is that National clearly will not be repealing the paid parental legislation as amended in 2002. It is simply absurd for the Government to make that kind of suggestion. The truth is that each Government gets to make changes. 
Another disappointing aspect of this current Government is that it seemingly fails to understand why it lost the 1990 election. It is still railing about the bad old days of the 1990s. Actually the public could not care less—they simply could not care less when Ministers in this Government get up on a daily basis and say: “Oh let’s just trot out what National did between 1990 and 1996 and indeed National and New Zealand First between 1996 and 1999.” The public could not care less. They are interested however in what will happen in the future—what the future agenda for parties is. 
 That is why the issue of the Business New Zealand submission which I thought was imaginative and interesting is the sort of thing this Parliament this place of elected representatives should be discussing. Business New Zealand has actually put a challenge to all parliamentarians to consider what it has laid down in its submission—its kaupapa if you will. It has said we should move beyond distinguishing people on the basis of whether they are employed or self-employed and actually step back and ask whether we can get a more creative family-friendly policy that would reward all parents with an appropriate level of benefit and submission. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I generally support the bill. It will right a wrong. Self-employed people should be treated in the same way as employed people. I find it difficult to understand why the changes in this bill were not part of the previous bill. It is obvious to me that all workers should be treated in the same way whether they are employed or unemployed. It could be argued that self-employed people need more assistance than employed people because somebody has to run their businesses while they are on leave—having babies obviously. Self-employed people are the dreamers of New Zealand. We need them to grow their small businesses into larger businesses so that they can employ more people. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell the members opposite to shut up; they asked me to speak before. We should not disadvantage self-employed people. Their customers need to be looked after. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: You can’t read your speech out. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: I do not know why we bother to teach Government members anything; they do not listen to us. 
I still think that people who have babies should get 14 weeks’ paid assistance regardless of their situation. That would be a lot simpler than the provisions of this bill and the bureaucrats would not have to run around and check on people. It would save thousands of dollars. 
Generally we must encourage women to have more children. We have an ageing population which will need support in the future. I strongly suggest that all couples have one child for him one child for her and one child for New Zealand—where have I heard that before? [ 
Interruption 
] Members should keep quiet for a minute. David Bennett should get started. We need people like Dave to reproduce in order to help pay benefits for people in the ageing population like myself. I thank Dave. 
This bill is far too complicated. It has far too many hoops for people to leap through. The problem is in defining who is self-employed who is employed and who is unemployed. That is confusing. I think this bill will have to be revisited in the future. Every person will need to consult a lawyer in order to see whether he or she is eligible for payment. This legislation is far too complicated. It will be a huge burden that applicants businesses and the Department of Labour will have to sort out. We are building another bureaucratic empire. The cost of administrating each benefit will be greater than the benefit itself. The maximum a person can get is $3800. Can the Government assure us that the cost to businesses and the Government in administrating the payment will not exceed $3800? We do not want to have a similar situation to the leaky homes fiasco where the cost of administration exceeds the payment towards the repair of a house. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: How did that come about? 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Boy the member rattles on does he not? Members cannot hear properly when they have their mouth open; that is why we are given two ears. 
National supports the bill but says a much better bill could have been found. If I had entered into contracts that were as complicated as this bill is I would have gone broke due to lawyers’ charges. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I will just take a brief call as the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to thank the other members of the committee for the good work they did. Listening to the debate I am a little confused. It sort of sounds like this is National legislation and we should ask permission as to whether we can support it. It is somewhat amusing. I congratulate Bob Clarkson on making that very fine speech and giving us the benefit— 
Darren Hughes 
: His maiden speech. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: I think it was his second maiden speech. I say well done to Bob. As a member of the select committee Bob quite often said he was confused about this bill. He was not alone on that side of the table as we have experienced today. Some committee members might not have been aware that the officials told them that the Supplementary Order Paper would be put forward. I can recall the officials telling them that. I say to those new members that it is quite useful to get up out of one’s seat come to the Table before these debates happen and read the Supplementary Order Papers which take care of the concerns of submitters and the select committees. It is a good exercise in learning so that one does not make a fool of oneself by getting up and making a speech that is clearly designed to filibuster on a bill that everybody supports. Why are National Party members holding up this legislation when those self-employed people whom they pretend to want to represent can get it quicker? Why are they wasting the time of the Committee by holding up the debate with endless stupid speeches? Those members are in favour of this bill. What are they going on about? Why do they not just use the wisdom of Bob Clarkson and say nothing? They should not waste the time of the Committee by making speeches that claim that this is National Party legislation as Mr Bennett did. 
For goodness’ sake the National Party has opposed paid parental leave in every form it has taken before this Parliament except for this one. Why is that? It is because as with so many other things those members have finally woken up to the fact that this Government has some progressive policies that help every New Zealander out there who is in either employment or self-employment. Finally those members have seen the light and have decided to support this very good bill. 
I thank the Minister Ruth Dyson for the good work she has done. It is ongoing work—if we read the commentary on the bill we see that there is more yet to be done. I am looking forward to National members supporting the next round of amendments to this bill. It will be interesting to see whether they support the bill then. Future amendments will see more benefits go to working people and I will be very interested to see whether the select committee that I chair supports those. Those select committee members from the National Party have said they want further amendments and we want them to make sure that they remember when we get to the next iteration of this legislation—when we extend it to some more people—that they said those things in the commentary and in this Chamber. 
It is no good for them to say that they support this bill in principle because it is for self-employed people; I want to see them to support it for all workers in this country. We will be watching the next lot with great interest to see whether they support those extensions to the bill and to the law. 
Anyway I thank the select committee members who have been forced by their whips to come here to make silly speeches. In the select committee they were quite sensible and they learnt some things as they went along. I hope to be able to guide them further in that select committee when we look at many more good pieces of progressive legislation along the lines of this one. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 This bill is entitled the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill and the only reason that it provides for self-employed persons is that the Government was made to realise it had left those people out of the original parental leave legislation. So it is pretty rich for members of the Government to say that provision is something Labour always wanted to do and was part of its grand plan for the future. 
This bill is not part of a grand plan. It has taken 3 years for the Government to realise that it left out the self-employed group of people and it did something about that only when those people came knocking on the door and asked about themselves and their entitlement. The Government still has not finished the work; the previous speaker from the Government said there is still more to come. Indeed we were told in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that four more elements were to come and by way of Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson we sorted two of them out. One of those elements was never discussed in the Minister’s speech in the second reading but suddenly it appeared on the Supplementary Order Paper after National had raised the issue. That Supplementary Order Paper was discussed after the second part of the bill was discussed so there was nothing wrong with bringing forward an example like that today. 
There are other examples. Business New Zealand put forward a perfectly good example of a situation that could arise if an employee who took paid parental leave was replaced with someone else who then also went on to take it. The Government has not covered that sort of thing in the bill. That is not part of its grand plan. It does not intend to look after employers in that situation. It seems only to look after the people whom it thinks will vote for Labour. It does not want to look after Business New Zealand. We have seen that the Government did not want to look after those self-employed people who would have had accident compensation issues with regard to their claims for parental leave until that issue was brought before the Government. 
I challenge Government members to walk the talk and to actually deliver all the amendments now. But they cannot afford to do that. They need National’s leadership; they need us to show them what to do. The next stage of whatever they are talking about was demonstrated by the leadership shown by Paula Bennett in the Chamber today. She is providing the leadership on this issue for the next election and Labour has no one who will deliver that. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Tired old nags. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Labour is a tired old party. The Labour members are on their last legs. Government members and Ministers stand up and make bitter comments trying to tell us that National has some kind of liability for the problem of self-employed people not being eligible for paid parental leave. The fact is that Labour has known about the problem for 4 years and it did not deliver paid parental leave for the 8000 self-employed people. That is a real shame given that the Government had that issue pointed out to it by most parties in the House at the time when the legislation regarding employees was being debated. One need only to read the speeches made in 2002 during the first reading of the original legislation to realise that Opposition members pointed out that it did not deal with self-employed people The Labour Government just waltzed on and did its thing. Four years later the Government cannot even say it is sorry to those 8000 people. It cannot look them in the eye and say it is sorry it got things wrong. No the Government blames National and says it is our fault. It looks back to last century and says it is National’s fault. What else from 20 years ago was National’s fault? It seems as though anything can be National’s fault in Labour’s view. 
According to the Government anything that goes wrong is somebody else’s fault. When will the Government take responsibility? It has been in office for 6 years but it always blames someone else. Then we will hear the minor parties say it was not their fault. They will blame somebody else. When will they stand up and take their chance to deliver while they are in Government? They will look backwards and say retrospectively it was this or that party’s fault. The reality is that the Government has failed to deliver for 4 years on this issue and only after National’s hard work and determination to push legislation through do we have legislation that will work for the benefit of all New Zealanders. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I would like to address a couple of things perhaps with the other parties in the Chamber because I think the issues are incredibly relevant and something we need to look at. I ask the Minister to answer me because she has not answered any other point I have raised today. I want to talk about whangai because adoption is covered in the bill. The bill recognises legal adoption under the law of the land but I point out it does not recognise Maori or Pacific Island adoption under their laws if you like. Other legislation does—for example immigration legislation and some social welfare policy. In the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we did look at whangai briefly and thought it was an issue we would like to look at it in the future. 
I stand as a Maori woman and say that whangai is part of our culture and something I fundamentally agree with. It is an ingrained part of New Zealand culture. We can give that lip-service or we can do something about it. So I lay down the challenge that we should be recognising the significance of whangai and making that part of paid parental leave not only for self-employed people but also for other employees. I note that neither the original legislation nor this bill identifies that issue and I would be very interested in hearing the Minister’s views and where she sees that going in the future. 
At the end of the day I think it is fantastic that self-employed people will be included in the legislation through this amendment A friend of mine owns a hair salon. She had three babies in 18 months—a multiple birth and another baby 11 months later. 
Bob Clarkson 
: What! 
PAULA BENNETT 
: The member will be pleased to know she has stopped. She has her three. 
Bob Clarkson 
: One for New Zealand. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes she did that third one and very quickly. She rang me late last week when she saw the bill was coming up and said: “Wow! What a difference that would have made to my life.” She is self-employed and said that things would have been so much easier if she had had that leave. It would have been two lots of 14 weeks’ leave for three babies. She would have used the money to put someone in part-time to manage the business while she was away. She pointed out that the payments would not have replaced her full wage on a weekly basis but it would have given her that little bit of freedom even to have put an accountant into the business for a few hours a week so it could be overseen while she took that time off. 
In fact with the multiple birth the babies came early at 27 weeks so she went on leave very unexpectedly and before time. I am very pleased to tell members as I am sure they are interested that both boys are absolutely fine and healthy. The point is she went off work so quickly that she did not have a chance to leave things at the stage she wanted and needed to keep that business going. But like any good Kiwi woman she was fortunate to have networks of people out wide and far and they stepped in for her and ran that business. But this sort of payment would have firstly acknowledged her role as a mother and secondly have stepped in to give her that support and bit of financial assistance so that she could step up and keep that business going. 
It is with great pride that the National Party stands up for this. The select committee process was interesting. I take my hat off and give credit to the chair Mark Gosche. He ran a very good meeting. I must say I had a couple of questions at different times because the process was quite new to me. He was extremely open in making sure those questions were answered and that at the end of the day we all felt fully informed and had put in our 2 cents’ worth. On behalf of the National Party I thank the people who made submissions. They were worthwhile. The rural women came in. They talked about how the bill would help them in their farming community. I was a little surprised at New Zealand First. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 The Hon Mark Gosche asked why the National Party was taking the opportunity to delay the bill—which actually does not come into force until 1 July anyway as he would know if he read his papers. I tell him that we want to take this opportunity to speak tonight because it is a chance to remind that member in particular of some comments made by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen in his first reading speech on the bill. To quote directly from  
Hansard 
: “let me simply say that of course it has been the intention since paid parental leave was first introduced to extend it to self-employed people. It was recognised from the beginning that actually the most difficult part of paid parental leave is not so much how to define who is self-employed but how to define relevant earnings … But clearly in terms of the original provision within the legislation there was a recognised inequity—that not to include self-employed people was a hole. An undertaking was given right from the beginning that that hole would be filled at a reasonably early opportunity.” I suggest to Dr Cullen— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but a dialogue is going on between two gentlemen who are yelling across the Chamber which is completely unacceptable. My colleague is articulating a very important part of the debate which National is supporting and the interruptions and noise in the background are not helpful. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The members will desist from calling across the Chamber. It is very distracting. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: I find it quite ironic that the members were having that debate while I was quoting the Hon Dr Michael Cullen’s words back to them. I thought they would have given his words more respect. 
Darren Hughes 
: We heard it the first time. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: Well I wanted to take the opportunity to quote the Hon Dr Michael Cullen because it was missed in the process that an undertaking was given right from the beginning that the hole would be filled at a “reasonably early opportunity”. That early opportunity has taken 4 years to come. It is a tragedy that Dr Michael Cullen believes that a reasonably early opportunity has a time frame of 4 years. I say to Business New Zealand that if Dr Cullen believes an early opportunity takes 4 years to come it might imagine how long it will be before it gets any tax relief which Ministers Dunne and Cullen are working on. I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as my honourable colleagues were. But I have found it fascinating while sitting here and listening to the debate that the Minister has taken the opportunity on numerous occasions to suggest that National did not support the intent of the bill. I have to suggest to the Minister that that is incredibly mischievous. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That’s not what I said. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: Madam Chairperson the Minister has already had a warning. I ask you— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Minister must not talk into the microphone. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: That was the second time. I was taking the line that the Minister has been incredibly mischievous and such behaviour is not becoming of a Minister in the New Zealand Government. We support the idea of supporting those who are new parents. We had a difference with the Government that related to how parents will be supported. Labour’s choice was to apply the benefit; ours was to use the taxation system. We lost that one so we have moved on; we understand the game and we very much support the intent of the bill. The only issue that I feel is sad in respect of this process is that there are very entrepreneurial self-employed people who have pride—who have set up a business and developed it and have won a lot of kudos for doing that—whom to some extent we are putting on a benefit. That is sad because if Labour had used the taxation system there might have been a process that it could have bought into a lot easier. 
To finish I again take the opportunity to say that it is fantastic that the Labour-led Government—with New Zealand First and United Future—is supporting those who are self-employed. It is not a position I have seen those parties take very often during my time and it is wonderful that they have understood the importance of those people. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 2(1) be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 2A agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Coroners Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 2 May. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Coroners Bill which is an interesting and important bill. It replaces the Coroners Act of 1988 and updates that Act which is long overdue. The Justice and Electoral Committee heard a very large number of submissions. Most were very supportive of the tenor of this bill although we believe a couple of its areas still need further debate. 
The two most complex and difficult areas were the handling of the media interest in cases of self-inflicted death or suicide and the constitutional questions that arise from the disestablishment of the role of existing coroners. For the record I point out that a coroner is an independent judicial officer who is charged with inquiring into sudden or unexplained deaths and who establishes as far as possible the cause and circumstances of those deaths. The main purpose of this bill is to professionalise the coronial system so that it is more consistent more effective and more sensitive to family and cultural needs. 
It is important that the public have confidence in the coronial system. Past coroners have generally done a great job in the community. Most have been part-time coroners and have worked long and hard often in emergency situations and often under difficult circumstances. Many JPs have done a sterling community service when necessary by replacing coroners and working as temporary coroners. But as workloads have increased and as cases have become more complex there has been an increasing demand for professional full-time legally qualified coroners. 
There is also a need for a chief coroner who could provide leadership and coordination in the coronial system. There is strong support from existing coroners for full-time coroners and for a chief coroner which is seen as a good way to ensure there is an effective and efficient service. 
The select committee would like to thank the very many submitters who came to the select committee because of what they considered to be unsatisfactory experiences with the coronial system. There were some very distressing and sad stories and we really appreciate those who took the time and were prepared to talk about their experiences. So it is important that this bill as it seeks to create a framework will guarantee professionalism consistency and a user-friendly system that will work throughout the country for all families and for all people. 
A chief coroner will be appointed to head a nationwide team of approximately 20 full-time legally trained coroners. He or she will be responsible for providing support advice and practice notes to the team and for ensuring that all investigations are orderly and particularly timely. A chief coroner will be specially charged with maintaining that consistency of service throughout the country. He or she will also be required to streamline the system by encouraging cooperation and by avoiding unnecessary duplication between coroners and other investigating authorities and official bodies. 
Right now most coroners deal with only a small number of cases every year so moving to a system where coroners are full-time will allow them to develop greater expertise. It will also improve the timeliness of inquests and the release of coronial findings. Full-time coroners should also have more time to undertake public education and to develop closer relationships with other investigating authorities. 
I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the Hon Tariana Turia about her experience of coronial work and her feeling that police often have too much influence in coroners’ decisions. It is hoped and expected that full-time legally qualified coroners supported by practice notes from the chief coroner will have better established processes and protocol and increased independence in their decision making. Any death in a family makes for a frightening unhappy and stressful time but an unexpected death especially one under special circumstances is even worse. Coroners therefore have the added responsibility to sensitively balance the family’s cultural and spiritual needs with the public need to understand the causes and the circumstances of unexplained deaths. There are several reforms in this bill that are designed to recognise the rights of families and to make the coronial process more user-friendly to all cultures. 
Timing is of special importance. Many submitters reported increased family distress and frustration due to long waits for inquests and the finalising of coroners’ reports so the select committee has recommended the insertion of clause 4A which states: “Every coroner must … perform or exercise his or her functions powers and duties without delay.” Coroners must also take into account the place where the family resides when fixing the location of an inquest. 
There was strong feeling that we as a community need to learn as much as possible from those unexplained deaths and to use that knowledge to help avoid future deaths. Families often mention that they want something good to come out of such wasteful deaths. To that end the chief coroner is charged with setting up and maintaining a register of coroners’ specified recommendations and comments in order to have a permanent record of information from coroners’ findings that can be used to prevent further fatalities. 
Some submitters were concerned about the return of body parts and bodily samples. That is a particularly sensitive area following the discovery of the holding of babies’ body parts at Green Lane Hospital. The bill requires coroners to maintain a proper balance between the rights of family members to request the return of body parts and samples and the retaining of those parts or samples for research or analysis. The retaining of microscopic samples for later analysis can benefit families through the identification of genetic disorders and samples can also be used to help solve crimes. The bill carefully defines bodily parts and samples and provides a mechanism for the immediate family to request the return of those parts and samples once they are no longer required. 
There are also changes in the definition of the term “immediate family”. The definition has been kept deliberately broad because the term “immediate family” is understood differently in different cultures and social groups. The bill’s definition is deliberately permissive enough to accommodate all relationships including civil unions. 
Viewing and touching the body or remaining with or near the body in the coroner’s custody were also issues raised particularly by the Maori community. The bill allows for the coroner to authorise members of the immediate family to view touch or remain in the vicinity of the deceased’s body or tupapaku. That right is also extended to the representatives of the immediate family or people chosen by that immediate family who are performing functions of religious or spiritual advice benefit and comfort. 
This bill is a timely update of the 1988 Act. I believe that it increases the professionalism of the coronial system and will under the guidance of the chief coroner ensure a more efficient effective culturally sensitive and user-friendly service. National supports this bill. We do however still have some concerns about both the recommendations around the media reporting on suicide and the disestablishment of the positions of existing coroners. We would also like to record our appreciation of the work of existing coroners. Some have been coroners for many years and all have contributed valuable work often in very many difficult circumstances. 
Amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority agreed to. 
Bill read a second time. 
Criminal Procedure Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Criminal Procedure Bill be now read a second time 
. The Criminal Procedure Bill has been reported back from the Law and Order Committee which recommended that it be passed with amendment. I thank the committee for its careful consideration of the bill. The bill reforms criminal procedures relating to juries double jeopardy pre-trial disclosure and preliminary hearings. It makes minor amendments to other areas of criminal law. These reforms will improve public confidence in the criminal justice system by making it more efficient and fair. 
I now turn to the important changes to our jury system. After enactment a judge may order a trial to take place without a jury where the trial is likely to be long and complex or where there is evidence of jury intimidation. The Law Commission’s report on juries concluded that juries had difficulties in coping with long and complex trials that it is difficult for some jurors to be away from their families and businesses and that sometimes jurors become confused with lengthy evidence and complex legal issues. The Law Commission did not conclude that jurors have short attention spans or are not smart enough; nor did the Government or the committee. However to emphasise its conclusion the committee reworded the provision referring to jurors’ ability to understand complex issues as one of the factors to be considered when a judge exercises such an order. Instead it now refers to “the nature of the issues likely to be involved”. This is an excellent clarification. 
This new limit to the general right to a jury trial applies only to offences punishable by less than 14 years’ imprisonment. Offenders who face higher penalties will remain entitled to be tried by a jury unless there is evidence of jury intimidation. It would not make sense if jury intimidation in serious cases could not lead to a judge-alone trial but in less serious cases it could. In future a judge could order that a trial take place without a jury if there were reasonable grounds to believe that intimidation of a juror could occur and that the intimidation could be avoided by a trial without a jury. The committee recommended giving the accused the right to apply for a judge-alone trial so any juror intimidation whether it is for the purposes of convicting or acquitting the accused is covered. 
The second issue is the significant move to majority verdicts as proposed by the Law Commission in its report on juries. The committee concluded that majority verdicts uphold public confidence by making bribery or intimidation of jurors more difficult and did not recommend amendments to this initiative. The longstanding double jeopardy rule provides that no one who has been tried for an offence may be tried or punished for it again. Submitters objected to changing the rule as a matter of principle. The proposed tainted acquittal exception to the rule applies to persons who escaped probable conviction by committing administration of justice offences like perjury. Some submitters saw the tainted acquittal exception as an overreaction. Others thought that a better response to such abuses is to increase the penalties for administration of justice offences. The committee concluded that the law must respond to the changing social values and that increasing administration of justice penalties was a flawed approach. The committee did not recommend amendments. 
The new and compelling evidence exception will secure factual accuracy in the prosecution process and enhance public confidence in the justice system. New technologies have made the possibility of discovering new and compelling evidence after a trial more likely. Despite the Attorney-General’s view that this exception was not justified under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the committee concluded as did the Government that the proposal is a principled balancing of the competing interests of finality and of justice. When new evidence emerges after an acquittal that undermines its legitimacy it is in the interests of justice to retry the acquitted person particularly in respect of the most serious offences. 
The bill establishes a criminal disclosure regime requiring initial then full disclosure by the prosecution disclosure of certain information by the defence and disclosure in certain circumstances by third party. The bill proposes that initial prosecution disclosure be triggered at the start of criminal proceedings and involves a mandatory disclosure of initial information and further information on request by the accused. The committee believing that the proposal could prejudice an accused by excluding information extended the list of additional information that the defendant may request. The committee also recommended that a defendant should receive a summary of his or her right to apply for further information before a plea is entered. The bill limits defence disclosure to alibi and expert witness evidence. The committee considered the time frame for producing the notice of an alibi as unrealistic. People facing indictable charges may not have received legal advice in the time allowed. The bill now provides for more time for producing the alibi notice. 
This bill reforms the preliminary hearings. These pre-trial hearings enable the Crown’s evidence to be examined before committing a defendant for trial by jury. The bill limits oral preliminary hearings and moves indictable criminal cases to trial on the basis of written statements unless the District Court orders an oral hearing. Preliminary hearings will be used in cases where the defence applies to examine the witness orally. The proposal retains the ability for the defence to apply to test the prosecution’s evidence particularly the oral examination of witnesses who have not provided signed written statements. This ensures that the prosecution can present evidence to deal with applications for discharge. The court may hear oral evidence on its own motion. 
The committee did not consider that the media should have automatic access to written statements and records of oral evidence noting that such uses of such statements are at this stage untested. The committee recommended staying with the status quo. This enables the court to suppress details of certain proceedings excluding the public in certain circumstances from the courtroom and provide access by the media to written statements where allowed by court rules. 
The committee made useful minor recommendations to improve the efficiency of our courts. These include repealing the requirement of the Court of Appeal to deliver single judgments giving the District Court jurisdiction to try all indictable offences except those listed in the schedule and providing the changes to the lists of indictable offences trialable in either the District Court or the High Court may be made by an Order in Council. 
The Criminal Procedure Bill amends many Acts. However it has a single policy goal—to maximise efficiency and fairness of our criminal justice system. I commend the bill to the House. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for his introduction on the Criminal Procedure Bill. National will be supporting this bill through its second reading although during the Committee of the whole House we will table amendments to some matters in the bill that we consider to be of grave concern. Chester Borrows and Kate Wilkinson will cover those in more detail during the course of the second reading debate and I will allude to them in my introductory remarks. 
What this bill does is worth supporting through the second reading but we should not underestimate how significant the changes proposed by this bill are to the criminal justice system. It is easy for a Minister to rise to his feet and simply read off the briefing notes that have been prepared by his officials. I am sure that the Hon Rick Barker who I know takes these things pretty seriously will be aware of just how significant some of the changes are. Many of the matters contained in this bill will alter principles of criminal law that are older than this Parliament by some quite considerable time frame. There are major changes in this legislation to the way courts will do business. 
To paraphrase part of the Minister’s opening remarks he referred to “speedier less cluttered justice”. Well speedier justice is not necessarily better justice and although jurors may find matters complicated and lengthy—and I note that the Minister said with some care that he did not believe that jurors were not capable of digesting material in complex trials and I would certainly agree with him on that—the point is that the jury system is the best system in the world for determining the outcome of a trial. The fairest way to be judged by one’s peers is to have evidence under cross-examination under the traditional adversarial approach put before a jury. Actually most New Zealanders are tolerant fair-minded smart people who when serving on juries generally get it right. 
I want to draw two matters to the Minister’s attention. I personally and others in the National caucus have real concerns around changes and exceptions to the rule of double jeopardy. This legislation is a major departure from the historic way in which trials have been conducted. Although the National caucus has some sympathy for the view that new DNA evidence—which is as close to perfect evidence as could be tabled or presented in a trial—is worth some consideration post-trial this party will need to be convinced that that will not open the door to a whole series of other types of evidence that may miraculously appear once a jury acquits an individual alleged to have committed a particular crime. For example will we see handfuls of shell cases miraculously appearing at crime scenes after trials have concluded and defendants have been acquitted? Would that of itself be enough evidence to create an exception to the double jeopardy rule? 
All I am saying at this stage I tell the Minister is that National will support this bill going through its second reading but during the Committee stage we will be tabling amendments to try to clarify that rule and we will be asking for a genuine debate from the Minister during the course of that process. We will be considering our position on the third reading based on whether we can have a constructive discussion during the Committee stage around that rule. Kate Wilkinson will talk about National’s concerns around exceptions to the rule of double jeopardy when she makes her contribution later in this second reading debate. 
Chester Borrows in his contribution will talk about the abolition of oral preliminary hearings. Although members on this side of the House understand that it is useful and speedy to move along those preliminary hearings in a way that creates a more speedy and accessible justice system the fact remains—and Mr Borrows is far more of an expert on this matter than I am—that those preliminary oral hearings often throw things up that could make the difference to the way a trial is undertaken. Those initial oral hearings can make a difference to the way a defendant pleads and can change a plea. We need to be careful because on the one hand we are saying there should be an exception to the double jeopardy rule if new evidence comes about and on the other hand the bill is saying those preliminary hearings will be narrowed so that we would not have all the evidence we would formerly have had put before us in the early stages of a trial. That is a conundrum the National Party quite genuinely wants to see resolved or at least tidied up during the Committee stage before it commits to a third reading. 
Although National is generally supportive of making the justice system more efficient as a party we would be concerned if that meant the scales were tipped too far in one or the other direction in the dispensation of justice. This bill will require some time at the Committee stage. National notes that there are six parts to the bill together with clause 1 “Title” and clause 2 “Commencement”. We will be looking for a genuine debate at the Committee stage and I believe Rick Barker to be the sort of person who will engage in a genuine debate during the course of that Committee stage. 
Having said all that I say that National has grave concerns. National does support trial by judge alone in exceptional circumstances particularly for cases such as complex fraud and we do support—as we did as part of our election policy—11:1 majority verdicts. We noted in the minority report our concern that that might lead to even more hung juries. Frankly if that is what justice throws up then that will be the price for the Crown not having prepared cases in a way that convinces juries that a definite outcome has been reached. 
So in conclusion I signal again that National will be supporting the second reading. I signal to the Minister that there will be amendments from National members in the area of preliminary hearings and double jeopardy exceptions. We will come to that Committee stage with an open mind leading into the third reading and we welcome that Committee stage debate where the lawyers in our caucus will certainly be participating in a way that they can be convinced. As I understand it—and I stand to be corrected—contrary to the advice the Law Society gave to the select committee on those issues the committee pressed ahead regardless. 
So that is where we stand. Chester Borrows and Kate Wilkinson will make more detailed submissions on those two issues I have raised when they make their contribution in the debate and we look forward to a constructive Committee stage. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak in respect of the Criminal Procedure Bill. I will carry on from where my colleague left off and speak specifically on the issues around preliminary hearings. The reason preliminary hearings become important is that they were initially introduced for one reason but have moved on to be used for a number of other things. I guess that is the case with a lot of legislation that enters the House. 
They were initially introduced for the prosecution to prove a prima facie case—that on the face of it there is enough evidence in the hands of the prosecution to cause someone to be charged and to have the case heard before a judge and by a jury. Those preliminary hearings or depositions—or “deps” as they are known—are usually presided over by community magistrates or justices of the peace. They are prosecuted by a policeman and obviously defended by a defence counsel or lawyer. In actual fact deposition cases are relatively cheap to run because the people hearing them are not getting paid and they do not involve a whole lot of jury time. Relative amounts of evidence are accepted in written format and cases tend to move through quite quickly. But having been introduced to show that the prosecution on the face of it has a case to bring they are now being used—or they are growing to be used—for a number of different purposes. 
One of those purposes is to test the weight of evidence against the elements of an offence. By way of explanation if we consider for instance a case of burglary there is a need to prove the breaking in and entry of a building or something legally considered to be a building the identity of a supposed offender and obvious intent to commit a crime inside that building. So the elements required to be proved are those five issues and at a depositions hearing evidence would have to be brought to show that each one of those elements can be proved. It is a chance for the police to show that what they are asserting—the case against the defendant—actually stacks up. It tends to focus the police on those elements and on their case to ensure that they are ready at a given time to be able to prove the case. 
It also tests on two levels the witnesses who will prove those elements. One of them is the question of whether they will show up. That is a big question when it comes to for instance family violence or sex crime matters or issues around relationships between witnesses and defendants. It really sets in the minds of the witnesses the question of where they are going to stand on the matter; whether they will actually come through with the goods and whether they will back up the statement that they gave to the police possibly when half-drunk or possibly in the heat of the moment. Usually depositions come along several months after the incident so there has been a time for settling down. So they test whether the witness is going to turn up. 
The next point is whether a witness will give the evidence that the police say the witness will give. What frequently happens is that a witness does not because of the passage of time or because of the repatriation of relationship or just because of the fact that the witness has sobered up. The depositions hearing also confronts the defendant with the evidence that lies against him or her. I have seen depositions hearings from the point of view of a detective bringing the charges in the first place with every interest in seeing that all the prosecution witnesses stack up; and then as a prosecutor running somebody else’s case and looking at the same things but from a legal point of view; and latterly as defence counsel looking for the flaws and with renewed interest at whether those witnesses are going to stack up. 
It becomes incredibly important as to how conscientious the defendant is or how committed he is—it is generally a he—to the plea that he has given to start with. In Taranaki 50 percent of the indictable matters that go to depositions are resolved at depositions. That is a huge proportion. Quite honestly it is usually because the defendant thinks to himself: “Hell there is no way out of this. I am going to nod the block.” and he pleads guilty. The evidence may not quite stack up so the police make an accommodation and a charge is preferred—probably less than the one the defendant was initially charged on—the defendant decides that the best course of action is to plead guilty to the lesser charge and the trial is dispensed with. As a defence counsel one may have spent some weeks or months trying to convince a defendant that the case against him is heavy and that he will get done like a dinner but for one reason or another the defendant thinks that he is smarter than the rest of the world and he will get away with it. When the defendant is standing in the court listening to the evidence come out and the witnesses who are testifying against the defendant come through and come up to brief the defendant is firmly focused on how much time he will get should he go down. As there is a discount in time for an early guilty plea frequently the defendant takes the bag and bites the bullet. 
The main reason why this bill is being promoted appears to be one of expediency as my colleague referred to. It is true that trials—both High Court and District Court trials—cost a heck of a lot of money. This is not only directly because those involved are paid—quite honestly jury fees are not that much—but the loss of productivity in having those people away from work for extended periods of time can be huge. Then there are all the players within the jury court system—the judge the court staff the police witnesses and the other witnesses who are called to give evidence. The cost is huge. The fact that so many cases can be settled at a depositions hearing means that the money saved by keeping depositions in my view and the view of many others would vastly outweigh running through the trials or the money that could be saved by taking depositions away. 
Other concerns around the proposal of pre-trial hearings are around the interest of justice. It is interesting that when the Greens the Maori Party or even Labour start talking about the interests of justice then they are doing that because they are interested in justice but whenever a National member starts talking about the interests of justice he or she is protecting rich mates who happen to be lawyers. The fact is that the interests of justice need to be protected. The elements of the rule of law in this country that date back hundreds of years to their birth in the UK are important things. If they are eroded then the whole of society loses. One of those elements is being able to test the evidence. One of the fundamental erosions in this part of the proposed legislation is that any applications for oral testimony at a depositions hearing will be done on the papers. This fact and the fact that having been filed in court it is considered without any contest apart from submissions on the opposing side and is decided by a judge behind closed doors is a significant erosion of the interests of justice. This legislation will result in longer trials more trials and costlier trials. That is not in the interests of justice in this country. 
I will speak momentarily on judge-alone trials. One thing that has occurred time and time again in complex fraud trials or other complex trials is that on many occasions solicitors have asked to be able to explain or outline their cases to the jury by way of audiovisual aids. They are denied that on the grounds that it becomes too simplistic and a jury may be swayed in that regard. I cannot carry on with that because I have run out of time but it is a real fear. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 As the chair of the Law and Order Committee that considered the Criminal Procedure Bill I arrive in this House with great enthusiasm to speak to its second reading. I am certainly very delighted of course that this bill is now back before the House. As previous speakers have already alluded to this bill has not necessarily been straightforward at all. For those listening I guess the bill is very important in that it will improve the efficiency of preliminary hearings in criminal courts make changes to the jury system and introduce two exceptions in terms of the law of double jeopardy. The context of the bill is basically the implementation of the recommendations made by the Law Commission and it is certainly hoped that those reforms will improve public confidence in the criminal justice system by making it more efficient and fair. 
One of the key areas of the bill in terms of changes to the jury system—which of course is very significant and not introduced lightly or even recommended back to the House lightly—is the introduction of majority verdicts 11:1 to replace unanimous verdicts. That is in order to reduce the prospect of hung juries where a decision cannot be reached and indeed to allow for judge-only trials to be permitted for a very small number of long and technically complex trials. Obviously the issue of majority verdicts versus unanimous verdicts has been one of discussion and debate over a number of years and certainly the select committee listened very closely and keenly to a wide variety of submitters. 
Before I deal briefly with the issue of double jeopardy I want to take the opportunity to compliment the committee on its work. I realise that in a range of areas as befits democracy this House enables a contest of ideas in our democratic system; so too do select committees. There are things that are keenly felt and keenly fought. But I want to take an opportunity in terms of this bill to acknowledge the work and the contribution of the Law and Order Committee members at the time of deliberation—albeit of course there were differences amongst us. I acknowledge very clearly the work of the former deputy chair Marc Alexander. He is no longer with us but I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work he did and his interest in this bill. And of course I acknowledge the members of the committee at the time including my very good colleague Ron Mark who is now deputy chair. I acknowledge the work he did and I also acknowledge the work of Tony Ryall and all members of the committee at the time. 
I would like to turn now to the issue of double jeopardy. The longstanding double jeopardy rule provides that no one who has been tried for an offence may be tried or punished for it again. That has been a longstanding and fundamental tenet of our justice system. However the argument goes that not to be able to hold somebody accountable for a crime in the face of compelling evidence of guilt represents a major injustice to any victims and potentially undermines public confidence in the justice system. Two exceptions to that rule of double jeopardy are being introduced—the first to allow for a retrial where people have been convicted of perjury or of intimidating a witness during an earlier trial. So one very important exception concerns people who are convicted of perjury—that is lying—or of intimidating a witness during an earlier trial. In that case the principle is that they will not be protected by the double jeopardy rule. As well an exception will be made for the retrial of cases where new and compelling evidence of guilt is established after a person has been acquitted of a serious offence. One can think of a number of cases where very terrible crimes have been committed and someone has been declared innocent and then DNA and new evidence has come to light and the reaction of the community is the sense that the person responsible can never be brought to justice. The qualification is that very stringent safeguards will be introduced to protect against any misuse of that double jeopardy exception in terms of advancing new evidence. 
I have to say that the committee did not deal with that section lightly and it listened extremely closely to the submissions. It is fair to say that even in this Parliament there will be some caution in that area. But fundamentally I am of the view—as I believe are the majority of members of this House—that the legal system is about justice and about justice being seen to be done. 
Just briefly in the time I have left I would like to spend a wee bit more time on the changes to the jury system. Again I want to say that that was another area that was not taken lightly. There have been many cases of a hung jury where 11 jurors have been very strong and resolute. The changes to the jury system will reduce the risk of tampering with the jury. We have certainly seen cases where an individual juror has held out because of other factors. 
In terms of committal proceedings I want to talk about the fact that they will involve the prosecution presenting evidence in written form only unless the defence applies for an oral hearing and the court believes that that hearing is necessary in order to judge whether there is sufficient evidence to commit to trial. Automatic committals will therefore appropriately streamline proceedings better utilise court resources reduce undue delays and save witnesses and victims the stress of making multiple appearances in a majority of cases. 
I do not want to spend any more time in talking because other speakers obviously want to follow me and I am indeed very keen that this bill progresses. I know that the Minister of Justice Mark Burton is very keen and that we in this House are all very keen to make progress in what I believe is a very important bill. 
Finally I take the opportunity to thank the members of the committee for their work during the previous Parliament. I want to thank the staff as well and parliamentary counsel. I say if I can take just 10 seconds—I know the Speaker is indicating that I should wind up—I think it is appropriate that we should reflect on and thank parliamentary counsel and those many advisers who come and lend us their expertise. I also want to thank particularly the New Zealand Law Society and the many other submitters for their very considered submissions on this bill. Although we might not have done everything they would necessarily agree with I acknowledge their input and the well-thought-out and very important submissions they made. I commend this bill. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Here we are again with another omnibus bill before us. In fact it is a massive omnibus bill which brings together the complex and diverse legislation incorporated in the Crimes Act the Summary Proceedings Act the District Courts Act the Juries Act and the Victims’ Rights Act and provides for a new Criminal Disclosure Act. It is another omnibus bill that tweaks the detail seeking to become a smooth operator in processing people through the justice system but continuing to sidestep the big-picture problems of increased offending and prosecution. 
The purported policy goal of this bill is to maximise both the efficiency and the fairness of the criminal justice system. But how can it be fair that although Maori represent 13 percent of the population over 14 years of age they account for 40 percent of all arrests 41 percent of all prosecuted cases 44 percent of all people convicted and 50 percent of the prison population? The Maori Party wants to initiate real and meaningful dialogue about what justice really means and we do this against a background of statistics that reveal an uneven participation at the hands of our justice system. For example Maori are three times more likely to be apprehended for an offence than non-Maori and four times more likely to be apprehended for violent crime. Prosecution rates are considerably higher for Maori than for non-Maori—88 per 1000 against 18 per 1000. Conviction rates are 50 per 1000 for Maori compared with 12 per 1000 for non-Maori. These are the cold hard facts before us as we look to consider this Criminal Procedure Bill. 
Against this background of overrepresentation in arrests convictions and jail sentences it must be noted that now more than ever Maori groups such as iwi hapu whanau community committees wardens and special purpose groups are increasingly involved in strategies that are designed to reduce these inequalities as well as working to promote economic development and Maori success in business. Despite this effort however disparities continue to exist between Maori and non-Maori with regard to employment income health housing and education as well as in the justice system. 
 To this end the Maori Party holds that despite the current popular political climate of racial funding cleansing there is a need for specific measures based on ethnicity to strengthen the social economic and cultural rights of Maori. We remain firmly of the view that justice for Maori includes socio-economic considerations as well as underlying institutional and structural marginalisation. 
We have then serious questions to ask around the new provisions introduced in this bill. With regard to trial by judge instead of jury our concern is how we can enhance community involvement in the justice process. Reverting to one judge to rule rather than a jury of 12 peers—although it is specified that that would occur only in two particular cases—has worried us. Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done. New Zealanders have grown up with the idea that we have a right to be heard by a jury of our peers—to be participants in democracy. 
Learned colleagues within this House will know that “democracy” is derived from the Greek word “demokratis” meaning “demos” or the people and “kratia” or power. Democracy has a history that started in the days of the Spartans and the Athenians of Greece prior to 500 BC. It ignores hereditary class distinctions it tolerates minority views and it embraces diversity. Democracy is also a very familiar concept with Te Ao Maori. Within our communities matters will be debated at length consensus is preferred and as anyone who has stayed within the shelter of the wharenui will attest it is open to everyone to have a say and to be heard. 
Our concern with the proposed changes to the Crimes Act 1961 is whether the decision to reduce a democratic structure to the ruling of one judge—no matter how wise and learned that judge is—may set a precedent across the justice sector. The Maori Party is aware that obviously the bill is trying to address problems with the selection of juries. The main one is that many people do not want to or cannot serve on juries and given this although a jury should be democratic and representative of the community in the way it is set up its membership may not always achieve this. But trying to address this issue with a stick—the punitive measure of fining people $1000 up from the current fine of $300—will never work. The problem could be better addressed by making jury duty more attractive through making changes to the court processes tailoring hours to fit with schools or creating opportunities to make jury service more family friendly with regard to childcare and transport. Most important of all the so-called problem with juries could have been an incentive to introduce citizenship education to teach the value and importance of being involved as a community in justice processes. 
The bill introduces the possibility of 11:1 majority verdicts. It puts in place changes to section 17 of the Juries Act 1981 which states: “Every jury shall comprise 12 jurors.” Maori have had extensive experience in the jury process. One of the most interesting features of the justice system that Moana Jackson has spoken about is that although defendants are frequently Maori juries are invariably Pakeha often because potential Maori jurors are challenged. One wonders how a Pakeha accused would feel appearing before an all Maori jury—it would never happen. 
In fact the history of Maori experience on juries bears mentioning in this House. Despite a brief period between 1844 and 1868—only 24 years—when Maori were able to serve on a mixed jury for the trial of any case in which the property or person of a Maori might be affected Maori have been prevented from taking up their democratic right to serve on ordinary juries. From 1868 no Maori could serve on a jury if either the accused or the victim was a non-Maori. The law remained in this form for nearly a century. That is right—100 years. It was only in 1965 that legislation placed Maori on an equal footing as far as jury service was concerned. So having only fairly recently gained the right to be eligible to serve on a jury the last thing we would look to do now is to look to reduce it again or to settle for a more limited number of jurors in supporting a verdict. 
The notion of a unanimous verdict is an important one. The Law Commission reminds us that the value of a unanimous verdict is that it increases community confidence in the verdict and in the criminal justice system which is—again—desperately needed. Being required to reach a unanimous verdict encourages careful discussion and increases the likelihood of each juror participating and being listened to. It is a worthy aspiration; indeed it is one that this House could well learn from. 
The third point I want to refer to is the concept of double jeopardy. The bill introduces exceptions to the double jeopardy rule. The Maori Party is opposed to any such changes coming into law. People should not be placed at the risk of being prosecuted twice or being persecuted by the police. 
Finally the Maori Party is in support of the need for criminal disclosure and we support the recommendations from the Law and Order Committee to reaffirm an accused person’s right to fair process. The criminal disclosure parts of the bill will ensure that adequate and timely disclosure to and by defendants will occur so that they can prepare their cases and determine how to plead. This will include the imperative for the police to also present their case to the defence in order to ensure that defences can be properly constructed. Disclosure requirements are codified in this bill and we support the intention behind doing this. 
The House must be aware that the spotlight of the world is on us in the aftermath of the very poor report card we received from the United Nations special rapporteur. We remind this House of the rights of indigenous peoples recognised in article 33 of the draft declaration: “Indigenous peoples have the right to promote develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive traditions procedures and practices and juridical customs in accordance with internationally recognised human rights standards.” 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I begin by picking up on a point that Dr Sharples made at the beginning of his speech about this bill being an omnibus bill in relation to criminal procedure. He pointed out that the bill tweaks a number of things in various ways. That is a criticism I also brought up during the first reading of this bill because the Government seems to have an ongoing and growing habit of introducing bills such as these that cover a whole range of different subject matter. Some of them are fairly minor tweaks to details of procedure and some of them as in this bill are actually significant assaults on some principles of justice. It makes it very difficult to have a proper consideration of the legislation in the House because parties are required to take a yes/no position on the bill if we recognise that some parts are positive and to be encouraged and some parts are deeply disturbing. I think it is improper for the Government to do some of the things that are being done in that manner in this omnibus bill because they cut across the House’s ability to debate consider and vote on those issues of principle properly. I have started with that comment because I think it is important. 
In this second reading speech I do not intend to go into great detail about which things the Greens support. I have already covered those matters to a degree in my first reading speech and as we go through the Committee stage we will be looking at the bill clause by clause or perhaps part by part and we will be discussing its specifics. So I want to confine this second reading speech to three main points. They concern the issues that the Greens oppose in this bill which are the reasons why we will oppose the bill at its second reading. In the first reading I indicated that it may be possible for the Greens to support the bill if we saw that some reasonably significant amendments had been made to it. I think it is unfortunate that those issues were not addressed—or at least not to the Greens’ satisfaction—during the select committee process nevertheless we hold out some hope that in the Committee stage we may be able to address some of them. 
The first thing I will touch on is the provisions around having trials by judge alone where clause 5 inserts new provisions into the Crimes Act to empower judges to order a trial without a jury in certain cases. The first circumstance is where the case is likely to be long and complex. I took heed of Simon Power’s speech in which he made I think a very strong argument for the case that jurors are highly competent and able to digest and deal with very complex information. They do that all the time in our courts and produce good results in the vast majority of cases. That is not to say that sometimes there are not problems but I think that that would be true whatever procedure was used in a case and that we have to recognise that jurors can and do deal with very difficult long complex cases very competently. Nevertheless it is also true to say that some issues are of enormous specialist and technical difficulty so it would be difficult to expect an ordinary member of the public to deal with some of those matters. I think there is an argument to be made that very long and complex specialist trials might be better decided by a judge alone so there are arguments in both directions on that particular provision. 
The provision that probably disturbs me a little bit is that concerning evidence of intimidation of jurors. If we actually look at the provisions in the bill such as new section 361E in clause 5(1): “Judge may order trial without jury in cases involving intimidation of juror or jurors” we see that new subsection (2) states: “However the Judge may make an order … only if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe—(a) that intimidation of any person or persons who may be selected as a juror or jurors has occurred is occurring or may occur;”. I think that that is a very broad provision. It is not saying that the intimidation must have occurred or must be occurring but simply that it may occur—intimidation may occur. Well what on earth does that mean? I think that that is open to enormous scope for misuse. Although I do not expect that most judges are going to be tempted to do that I think the legislation we pass in this House must be free of that potential. So those provisions are enormously problematic and they are something the House should go back and have another look at. 
The whole question of there being reasonable grounds to believe that intimidation is even occurring is a difficult one. I think that that provision has a fairly low burden of proof. If we look at some of the provisions the police have for reasonable grounds to search for example and if we look at the courts’ test of what that hurdle actually is we can see there is a fairly low burden of proof. So as I say I think that is an issue we need to address. 
As we start to move away from the idea of trial by jury in some of those exceptional cases it makes me wonder what effect that move will have on appeal rights. I am not a trial lawyer; I am not even a lawyer actually. In fact Darren Hughes once suggested in a select committee that he thought I might have been a lawyer and I was not sure whether he was trying to insult me or flatter me. I think it was the former actually. 
Darren Hughes 
: I did promptly apologise to be fair. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: That is right and I accepted the member’s apology. I am not a lawyer so perhaps I am speaking out of ignorance. But I am just brought to mind of the consideration that the Justice and Electoral Committee gave to the petition in relation to the Christchurch civic crèche case. Although I have no view on Mr Ellis’ guilt or innocence—and he has been found guilty—one of the issues that arose in the committee when we were looking at the procedures for appeal was that a decision by a jury is in a sense sacrosanct. There is a kind of view that a finding of fact by a jury cannot be the subject of an appeal. We can look at procedures and various legal rules and check for formal fairness of procedure but we cannot actually appeal the decision of a jury except in very exceptional circumstances. It makes me wonder whether some of those aspects of security in the justice system will be undermined by a move away from trial by jury in some of those circumstances. 
The other issue I would like to address is the matter of the exceptions to double jeopardy. I guess the Greens’ view follows along to some degree with the Attorney-General’s view. Again there are two exceptions. The first is where the accused has committed an administration of justice offence resulting in a tainted acquittal. The Attorney-General is reported in the commentary on the bill as saying that although that is a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act it is “justified under section 5 and is consistent with New Zealand’s international and domestic legal obligations.” The view the Attorney-General took was that “a tainted acquittal is not legally a legitimate verdict but a nullity” therefore the case can go to retrial. That is an interesting point. The Greens certainly think there has to be some way of addressing a tainted acquittal but they think that increasing administration of justice penalties is not really an appropriate way to come at it. The select committee addressed that matter and we agree with its comment. 
The Greens have a problem with the matter of new and compelling evidence because the select committee report talked about the fact that discovering new and compelling evidence after a trial has become more likely with the development of technology. That is true but the bill does not confine that discovery to new technology. It talks about an exception in relation to new and compelling evidence and we think that without further safeguard there is a real potential for abuse of that procedure. We certainly know there have been some rare but nevertheless existent cases of fabrication of evidence and it seems to us that such a provision provides real temptation in cases where police are convinced someone has done something. They may be correct or incorrect but if they are unable to secure a conviction they might then have another go perhaps by fabricating evidence. We think that those kinds of temptations should not be put into law and that that is a very dangerous move. The Attorney-General’s advice made an interesting point—that “lifting current maximum penalties above the threshold will offer an expedient way to extend the reach of the exception without having to give proper consideration to the consequences of undermining the double jeopardy rule.” The Greens think that that is advice this House should take great note of. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Well at this point in the evening I think that pretty much most of the points that need to be covered in this bill have been covered. I can see from the line-up of National speakers yet to address the bill that there are some people who are well qualified to speak further on it. 
I have to start by saying that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill in going through its second reading. I also want to acknowledge my colleague Dail Jones QC who replaced me on the Law and Order Committee for the hearing of submissions on this bill and who saw most of its progress through the committee. The bill actually went to the committee on 29 June 2004 so it has been there a little while and quite clearly has been a contentious bill for many reasons. 
I also want to acknowledge right now the work done by our deputy leader Peter Brown. New Zealand First tends to be ahead of this Parliament on law and order issues as on a lot of things and in fact it was in 2003 that Peter Brown visited the United Kingdom—almost a year before this bill was introduced into Parliament—and took the opportunity to discuss with a number of British members of Parliament the question of double jeopardy and the law changes they were considering at the time. 
It was interesting that Peter Brown came back and reported to our caucus that some problems had finally been acknowledged by the British Parliament—problems that were based around the activities of organised crime. It was quite alarming to hear from him his description of how police were having to deal with situations where new evidence had been produced that would secure a conviction of criminals from the world of organised crime. They had been acquitted or found innocent of crimes in the first instance yet the police were powerless to take those people back to court and retry them. Particularly nasty was the fact that many of those people had gained their acquittals or innocent verdicts by using intimidatory tactics on jurors and on witnesses. I guess the real salt in the wound was that some of those people having been acquitted then went on to write books and boast about how they had cheated the justice system. That was the hot topic of discussion within the British Parliament at the time. Quite clearly Britain decided that it had had enough and I guess it was not too surprising that eventually the New Zealand Parliament would catch up with the play. So it has done and here we have this bill. 
I acknowledge that among the points strongly discussed by New Zealand First was firstly the provision to allow juries to convict by majority. That was not an easy issue and there was quite some discussion about it but at this present point in time we are happy to continue the process as laid out in this bill. 
Another point was trial by judge instead of by jury—something that has been brought about and noted because of the chances for juror intimidation. There are those people who say that that situation is not very likely and that we should not be passing such legislation and denying some people the right for a trial by jury. But I need to remind the House of what happened in Christchurch in 1997 which was not so long ago—9 years ago—when the Road Knights white power gang members openly intimidated witnesses outside the Christchurch District Court to such an extent that this Parliament during the time of the National - New Zealand First coalition took steps then to pass anti-harassment and criminal association legislation. The idea that organised criminals gangsters and thugs should be permitted to pervert the course of justice and advantage themselves in the courts by intimidating witnesses flies totally in the face not only of the justice system but of democracy and of what law-abiding New Zealanders demand. So we are not averse to those changes. 
New Zealand First understands the dilemma raised by double jeopardy and on looking through the select committee’s report I note that Dail Jones whilst acknowledging the concerns held by New Zealand First and the work done to research what had happened in the UK was at pains to point out the deep consequences of the proposed changes. I go to the report itself which deals with the rationale for the change. It deals with the tainted acquittal exception and with the intention that it should apply to persons who escape probable conviction for a serious crime by committing an administration of justice offence that leads to an acquittal. An example is the  
R 
 v  
Moore 
 case. Obviously I am not that familiar with that case but clearly Dail Jones was. 
I notice that the National Party and New Zealand First stated in the commentary on the bill: “National and New Zealand First consider that the proposed exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy have not been justified and should not proceed. Such a hard-won right which has withstood the test of time and forms a cornerstone of our legal system should not be undermined on the basis of scant evidence and research.” My colleague Dail Jones further inserted the statement: “New Zealand First believes there should be a minimum 10-year sentence without any remission for cases such as those illustrated by  
R 
 v  
Moore 
.” 
I guess that highlights to me that there has been some very serious discussion particularly among members of the legal fraternity over the issue of double jeopardy. I know that some very strong representations were made to my colleague Dail Jones and most certainly those representations have been made to me. I hear and take on board the comments of some speakers here in the House today but we will address this issue in the Committee stage with a very open mind because at the end of the day I do not want to wake up and find that incidences are occurring in New Zealand such as have happened in the United Kingdom. To people who say that those things are not possible I simply say that we have an unfortunate habit in this little country of ours of catching up on things 5 years after the fact and regretting that we did not take opportunities to make changes earlier. I would hate to think that that should be the case 5 years from now with Parliament having not actually passed this legislation. Having said that I say that the implications of allowing a person who has been found innocent to be subsequently brought back to court and retried are serious and we acknowledge that. I do not have anything further to add other than to say that we will be listening intently to the debate. As long as that debate is serious and is not filibustering for the sake of filibustering—we all hear far too much of that in this House—then we will take on board any relevant points made. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In rising to support this bill passing to the Committee stage I have to say that National has some serious reservations in relation to some parts of it. It is interesting when reading the submissions on the bill that the New Zealand Law Society itself opposes the major aspects of the bill stating: “The Bill in its current form significantly undermines certain fundamental principles of the criminal law. There is no sufficient basis in the Society’s view for these radical changes. There is little or no empirical evidence that the perceived problems the Bill purports to address actually exist.” It seems so often that there may be a mischief out there so a bill is created to address that mischief but often that does not happen. Now we have a bill in which some of the mischief is unclear. 
I too want to concentrate on the rule relating to double jeopardy as many previous speakers have done. I share concerns that have already been expressed in this House. This rule which is so deeply ingrained and indeed enshrined in our judicial system is simply that a person should not be tried for the same crime more than once. That is on the basis that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offence thereby subjecting him or her to embarrassment expense and ordeal and compelling the person to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he or she may be found guilty. This rule against double jeopardy is also contained as has been mentioned in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which provides that no one who has been finally acquitted of convicted of or pardoned for an offence shall be tried or punished for it again. 
So what was the mischief? Why did we even need to consider a change to this well-established principle of double jeopardy? It seems that the reason for this was as Mr Mark has suggested a Mr Moore who was a gang member charged with murder. He was acquitted of murder but was later tried for persuading a witness to give false evidence for him at the initial murder trial that led to that acquittal. Because of the rule against double jeopardy Mr Moore could not be retried for murder although he was sentenced for attempting to pervert the course of justice. The question to be asked therefore is whether this solitary single case is sufficient to justify interference with the law against double jeopardy or whether the matter could have been simply remedied by increasing the penalties for perverting the course of justice. A law change made on the basis of one case makes for bad law. 
So under the tainted acquittal provisions of this bill which have been mentioned a person can be retried for a specified offence if the High Court is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the commission of the administration of justice offence was a significant contributing factor in the person’s acquittal and no appeal or application in relation to the administration of justice offence is pending and the retrial is in the interests of justice. But what does “more likely than not” actually mean? Is it the balance of probabilities or is it so dangerously wide as suggested by one submitter and elusive that it could offer no clear standard to follow? 
It could be argued—and indeed has been argued—that these proposed changes to the double jeopardy rule amount to an overreaction to the Moore case and that the appropriate way of dealing with the injustice in that sort of case is perhaps by increasing the penalty for perverting the course of justice to one whereby the punishment is equivalent to that of the avoided criminal conviction. It is also interesting to note that the United Kingdom has legislated for a tainted acquittal exception with the first double jeopardy case being considered only in November last year. So that is one case in one year. 
If there are to be exceptions to the double jeopardy rule—and the tainted acquittal rule is one—we remove the rule for that case and we have the new evidence rule then where will the other exceptions creep in? Where do we stop and will we end up with a situation where all verdicts are open to relitigation? This new evidence rule provides that a person may be retried if there is new and compelling evidence to implicate the acquitted person in the commission of the specified serious offence and a further trial is in the interests of justice. It is colloquially known as the DNA rule. 
I admit there are some safeguards provided in the bill but they are maybe not as stringent as the member Martin Gallagher suggests. There are some safeguards such as the exception being available for only serious offences where the maximum penalty is over 14 years' imprisonment. But as one submitter wrote these safeguards do not alleviate the inherent risks in such an exception being introduced—namely the potential minefield involved in deciding exactly what evidence could be regarded as new and compelling and the difficulties in coming to a consistent approach. 
It is interesting to note that the New Zealand Law Society opposed allowing retrial on the basis of new and compelling evidence noting there was no principled basis for allowing such retrials. The Attorney-General also opposed it. The Law Commission also opposed it. National supports as stated in its minority view the proposal of the Law Society and others that the penalties for perverting the course of justice be expanded. We think that is a more appropriate measure that would preserve the vital principle of double jeopardy but also recognise the magnitude and consequence of the primary offence. 
Judith Ablett-Kerr QC in her submission—and I think this is worth repeating—stated: “The New Zealand criminal justice system has been built upon certain fundamental principles several of which are challenged by this bill amongst them the tenet that it is preferable for a guilty person to be wrongly acquitted than an innocent person to be wrongly convicted. It is an inevitable corollary of maintaining the fundamental rights of accused persons that occasionally the guilty will escape but the risks involved in eroding such rights clearly outweigh any of the benefits proposed by the bill.” In other words it is better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer. These double jeopardy exceptions are controversial they are potentially dangerous and time will certainly tell whether we are correct in being cautious suspicious and against them. I certainly hope that in the Committee stage we can have some sensible and rational debate in relation to double jeopardy. 
Having said that the other provisions of the bill are not nearly as controversial in my view. Adopting majority verdicts is probably a practical solution to an 11:1 stalemate or impasse. Other countries do not require unanimous jury decisions. In the UK it is 10:2 and in many Australian states it is also 10:2 with it being 11:1 in Victoria as is proposed by this bill. As one juror confessed and as was reported in the  
New Zealand Herald: “ 
fellow jurors in a rape trial were ready to agree to a guilty verdict because some were desperate for a cigarette and others wanted to get home to watch  
Coronation Street 
.” That is not good justice. 
At the end of the day speedy proper justice is required. Unnecessary delays are costly and cause extra anguish. Miscarriages of justice whilst not being able to be eliminated entirely must be eliminated as far as possible. There must be adequate checks and balances and the legislation must also be workable. National supports the bill with serious reservations going to the Committee stage only on the proviso that there are significant amendments some of which are in relation to the double jeopardy provisions. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Law and Order Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Question agreed to. 
Bill read a second time. 
Education Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill does two important things. It implements— 
Debate interrupted. 
Personal Explanations 
Criminal Procedure Bill—Incorrect Reference 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I apologise to the Minister for interrupting him but I need to put the record straight in relation to my speech on the Criminal Procedure Bill. I referred to my colleague Dail Jones as QC and I meant to say QSO. I apologise for the mistake. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that. 
Education Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes I am sure as my colleague says that Dail does not mind at all being elevated in that way given his profession. 
The bill implements a number of policy changes to improve the efficient administration of education. It also starts a process of tidying up some of the cluttered education legislation. I want the Government’s strategic direction for education to be underpinned by clear and consistent legislation. Certainly that was the aim of my predecessor as well. 
The Government has undertaken major reforms in early childhood education. Our 10-year strategic plan  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huaraki Arataki  
sets out to increase participation in quality early childhood education improve quality overall and promote collaboration. As part of that plan we want to implement a new regulatory regime for early childhood education. The bill replaces Part 26 of the existing Education Act 1989 with a new Part 26. That change will legally underpin the Government’s key policy to provide all New Zealand children with quality early childhood education—a policy that enjoys support right across the early childhood sector. Existing provisions contain ambiguities. The new amendments will give the early childhood sector more certainty about the standards they need to meet to provide this quality; as I have signalled to the sector we intend to ensure that these standards work and to preserve the high level of diversity right across early childhood education. The second significant amendment to the Education Act 1989 provides for the existing National Student Number to be extended throughout the whole education sector. The National Student Number is already used in the senior secondary school and tertiary sectors to keep students’ academic records correct and to ensure the efficient and accurate funding of our education institutions. Extending the National Student Number will help us to get reliable and speedy information in order to identify non-enrolments when students move from one school to the other—an issue that concerns members right across this House. The National Student Number will also solve problems of national data collection as currently a number of stand-alone systems are used by schools and early childhood services to record this information. Researchers will be able to obtain statistics information for their longitudinal research so we will be able to see how well our students are doing nationally and internationally and how we can do more to help them. The National Student Number will also solve problems of national data collection by enabling the stand-alone systems that are used by schools early childhood services and education agencies to “talk” and interact with each other which will also advance our cause. 
The bill contains amendments that will make things easier for boards of trustees to carry out the important work they do in managing our schools. It clarifies some procedural issues for the Teachers Council especially in relation to the registration and discipline of teachers. The bill updates the provisions relating to scholarships for teacher training and it provides that these bonded scholarships are repaid through the student loan scheme if the recipients default on their obligations. 
As I stated before I want the Government’s strategic direction in education to be underpinned by clear and consistent legislation. Our current legislation is much amended and some of it is out of date. This bill makes a start on some of the work needed to clear away old legislation such as the transitional School Trustees Act. It has updated some old provisions of the Education Act 1964 and transferred them to the 1989 Act—an example of that is the offence of insulting intimidating or abusing staff in our schools and early childhood centres. 
Education is one of the key aspects of the Labour Government’s plan for this country. Indeed we see education as being essential to the transformation that we are seeking to bring about in the economy because we know that we need a more qualified group of people who are staying in school then moving on to get further qualifications when they leave. We know that that is crucial to the development of our social policy because we believe that if we have highly educated people those people will have more capacity and skills to be part of raising a family to be part of the community and to do all the things that go with being an active participant in the kind of modern country we are seeking to develop. 
We know that education has a great deal to do with the development of that very important area of national identity. This has been an extraordinary area of policy over the last few years with New Zealanders now being excited by the notion that films and music are being made about them developing a real sense of identity in relation to the landscape and the environment and getting a real sense of being an independent group of people in the world. To do those kinds of things we know that people need to be well educated and have a clear sense of the capacity and skill they will need to be able to play the role of Kiwis in the 21st century—in whatever shape or form that might take. 
This legislation is just another part of the reforms that have been undertaken by the Government since its election victory in 1999. Every aspect of the bill which has been gone over by members throughout the House has had various endorsements from different people around Parliament. I listened to the Committee stage debate last week and I thank people like Brian Donnelly for helping to lead the legislation through and for adding to it by clarifying areas particularly around the guidelines for early childhood education. That was much appreciated and I acknowledged it at the early childhood sector conference that I recently talked at. 
I thank the members on the other side of the House including people like Mr Peachey who has brought into the House hands-on recent experience of a large secondary school. I appreciate that kind of debate. I know that we will differ; I know that Mr English who is revving up in his usual way with a glass of water has strongly advocated such things as national testing. This is a dividing issue between people on the opposite side of the House and people on this side of the House who prefer to move down the road of a personalised learning-centred approach to education. We know that Mr English is positioning himself as usual as I said to be revved up around issues like national testing but I think those are good debates to have. There is a very clear difference between the National Party and the parties on the Government side of the House. We on this side of the House believe that we have a progressive agenda. It is good to have someone like Mr English representing the last century so that people can understand that. I am looking forward to hearing the rest of the debate. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 The most revealing comment that Minister Maharey has made in public since he became the Minister of Education came when he told the  
New Zealand Herald  
that 
people like myself and others were trying to “wreck our social democratic school system”. I can tell the Minister he will live to regret that comment because the school system is not a social democratic one. It does not belong to the kind of washed-out socialism that he represents; it belongs to the parents the children and the citizens of New Zealand first. Then there are the teachers the teachers unions and of course Labour which is the one group that acts as though it owns the system. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Some things in the Education Amendment Bill are useful and the member for Otaki—who almost was not re-elected—would do well to take note of this: this bill brings in the world’s most advanced education voucher. I am impressed by that and I want to give my compliments to the previous Minister of Education Trevor Mallard for whom I must say I had some respect. Nowhere in the world has anyone tried what New Zealand is trying out in early childhood education as permitted by this legislation which is an entitlement for a child that is adjusted by the hour according to the qualification of the adults present. That is the world’s most sophisticated voucher. So when Labour members get up and rant against things like choice diversity and voucher systems they need to know—as I am sure the member for Rotorua did not know—that they are introducing a voucher now. We support the bill for that reason. 
I do not believe what the Minister said about diversity. He said this legislation would foster diversity. I hope the amendments that were moved successfully by Mr Donnelly will work—I doubt it but I hope they do work. No one is less in favour and more against diversity than this Labour Government. The Maori Party has figured that out. Its members know that when the highly prescriptive regulations of this legislation are put in place they will have the effect of making kindergarten look like kohanga reo Montessori day care and creches. The regulations will be very prescriptive and everyone will have to do exactly what the Secretary for Education says right down to the level of detail and that will be a force against diversity. 
I understand it is the Minister’s intention that every early childhood centre in New Zealand will have to re-register over the next 3 or 4 years. That policy is absolutely crazy and it is typical of what Steve Maharey calls progressive because that word is laced right through his education policy. There is an enormous waste of resources in the name of a vague concept that no one quite understands and it completely misses the point. That is what will happen in the early childhood sector. 
The Minister failed to mention the most interesting debate that occurred during the Committee stage around national standards. I would like the Minister to answer this simple question: how many New Zealand children at the end of year 8—that is the end of standard 6 or form 2—are literate and numerate enough to succeed in secondary school? I have asked that question through parliamentary questions. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What’s the answer? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The answer is that no one knows. People do not know how many and worse they do not know which ones succeed. What is even worse than that is that they do not care. The Labour Party voted against national standards which are a pretty straightforward idea. Almost every developed country in the world has national standards; in fact some of them have much more complex systems in behind those standards. I do not support that. But I do support having some clear standards because then teachers in schools can measure the progress of children against them. 
Education standards exist. They are out there and are being used every day. But the Government decided to oppose them and so did New Zealand First. They decided to vote against standards. Do members know why? It is for the same reason that Steve Maharey always gives: because the New Zealand Educational Institute the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) and the Labour Party think education standards are not a good idea. That is the reason and it shows a couple of aspects of this Government’s attitude to education. One is simply a lack of rigour. We can have all the feel-good professional development we like and we can have everyone co-constructing with each other but the problem is that there are still 20 or 30 percent—I believe 40 percent—of children who are not getting the benefits of a clear understanding of what they know and an educational process to teach them what they need to know next in order to progress. That is because there is a lack of rigour. 
Some of our children will remain because Steve Maharey wants them to victims of the badly led the ill-informed and the disorganised. Because those people cannot be bothered to show up for professional development training they are not required to make sure there are standards in a school. They are not required to see whether children are progressing against standards and they are not required to report on that. The Minister gets particularly finicky about the idea that there be some transparency some official transparency about learning in New Zealand. So there are no national standards and he blocks information like that available from SchoolSmart in order to make sure parents cannot see it. That is simply because his political supporters do not want that to happen. 
So it is no surprise when the same lack of rigor and transparency is transferred into the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). That Minister came into the House the other day and gave everyone the impression by saying so that independent assessment experts had looked at whether the NCEA was fair to students to see whether students had as much chance of succeeding this year as last year. And that did not actually happen ever. It did not ever happen. We have now found out from what the Minister said today that his statements that the NCEA is fair to students are based on one conversation that happened in a meeting about something completely different in which one person who is an acknowledged expert might have said that the NCEA was better this year than last year. That is what that Minister and that Government are serving up to our teenagers—that the NCEA is fair because—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister said that John Hattie said it is fine and John Hattie did not say it is fine. John Hattie has repeated to me tonight that he has never done an analysis of the NCEA and has never taken that opinion. The Minister has consistently misled the House and misrepresented Professor John Hattie in trying to prove a political point. 
We have now found out that the assessment experts in New Zealand are the PPTA the New Zealand Educational Institute and the School Trustees Association. Those are the people who apparently are making the definitive professional statements about the fairness of the exams that my children are sitting. What a lot of rubbish and what a lot of nonsense that is! 
That is why this hopeless Minister who will make the same mess of schools that he has made of tertiary education turned down the opportunity to make this legislation a lot better than it is. There has been no bigger policy disaster in the last 20 years than tertiary education was under this Minister. Billions and billions of dollars of extra money has been spent in return for no value to the nation at all and everyone agrees that is the case including Steve Maharey—including him. That is why Helen Clark sacked him from the tertiary education portfolio and that is why there will be no more education legislation during this term of Parliament. At least Trevor Mallard as Minister of Education had some competence and respect. The new Minister has none and the way he has behaved and the opportunities he has missed in passing this bill through the House have shown exactly that lack. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am sure that the Hon Trevor Mallard who has just come down to the House will be very interested to know in hindsight that that member was showing him respect over all those years. I am very happy to stand up in this debate and support the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. 
I was not on the Education and Science Committee at the time this bill went through it but of course the issues around early childhood education were such a pivotal part of the election campaign that just about every member who stood for Parliament in the last campaign knows a fair bit about it. I think one of the things that came out in the campaign was that New Zealand seriously lags behind other countries and has been very slow to recognise the importance of early childhood education when it comes to putting our preschool children into early childhood education. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Who was the education Minister then? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well the education Minister then interestingly was the member who has just resumed his seat. Bill English gets very very angry about education and I sometimes wonder whether he thinks there is anything good about our education system at all. I found it very interesting that he very derisively insinuated that teachers are not an important part of the education sector. Parents are important; yes they are. Students are important; yes they are. But I say to the National Party that so too are teachers. 
The Labour-led Government listens to all parts of the education sector. We like to listen to every stakeholder and to get all opinions. It is very true that when one is looking at an education issue one should not go just to teachers or just to principals or just to parents because one will not get a well-rounded view. I know that National Party members do not like teachers because they think teachers support only the Labour Party. I would suggest that that is perhaps not as true as Mr English believes it to be. To keep running down our education system and to keep running down our system of assessment does more damage than the good that National members think it potentially does them when it comes to winning over voters to their party. One area of policy where I think it would be nice to get a bit more cross-party agreement if on nothing else is that we should not be telling teenagers when this is patently untrue that their qualification is absolutely worthless. 
One of the issues that does not get talked about much which I am very pleased to see in the bill is of course the ability of the student loan scheme to recover money from the recipients of bonded scholarships should they default on their obligations. I think that means that the bonded scholarship scheme will be held in much higher regard. It will have a lot more credibility and that will mean there is no temptation to default on such an agreement in the future. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in opposition to the bill and before I do so I take the opportunity to thank the Minister for his acknowledgment. I did not have the opportunity during the Committee stage but I did appreciate the Minister’s kind comments about Rangitoto College. I know the college was very grateful that he took the time to visit the place unlike his predecessor and I express the hope that the Minister’s experience there gave him an insight into what makes up a successful school. There are major differences between the Minister and me on philosophical grounds and I doubt that they are reconcilable. 
I want to refer to a couple of things that came up in the Minister’s speech. I am sure it was a slip of the tongue when he referred to boards of trustees managing our schools. Maybe that sums up the difficulty that this Government finds itself in. The whole purpose of boards of trustees was to provide governance for schools not to manage them. That was to be the responsibility of principals and professional staff. One of the things I observed over the later years of my principalship was an increasing desire by the Government to suck boards into management and that is not what they were elected to do. 
There is a fundamental flaw behind this legislation and all legislation that has preceded it over the last 6 years and it is this. The Minister talks about the strategic direction the Government has for education. We all know we have to improve the learning of all our children. We all know that it is not satisfactory that according to the Education Review Office in its report to the Government up to 20 percent of our children are not experiencing success at school. They are not learning to read to write to do maths to understand new technology to develop the attitudes and attributes they need to be successful in a 21st century economy and to contribute positively to their communities. 
Frankly we could argue whether the figure is 18 percent 20 percent or 8 percent; it actually does not matter: if one child is not being equipped to function as an adult then we have to do something about it. The Government’s answer is to centralise centralise centralise and when that is not working centralise some more. Sooner rather than later the Government must come to the realisation that the answers to the learning issues that face our children are not in bureaucrats’ offices in Wellington. I have said it in this House before and I repeat it: no child learns in the office of a bureaucrat. Children learn in schools with their teachers. 
I want to take a moment to acknowledge schoolteachers and I am pleased that reference is made in the bill to giving them protection from insult abuse and intimidation. In the book I published last year  
What’s Up with Our Schools? 
 I wrote at great length about the importance of schoolteachers and the role that school principals have in making sure that teachers are looked after. I had a rule in both the schools I led that children who swore in the hearing of a teacher or at their teacher could go and empty their lockers because that was the last we were going to see of them. If our teachers are to do their job in the classroom then it is vital that they are able walk into the classroom every morning of every day of the school week knowing they are going in there to teach and knowing that their self-esteem their sense of self-worth is not going to be challenged by things like bad language. 
Too many of our school principals are willing to turn a blind eye to that sort of behaviour and make an excuse for it. All they are doing is detracting from the way teachers feel about themselves and their job. And we know that what happens is that the best teachers leave first. We need every good teacher. 
Do members know what good teachers do? They make children learn. Teachers do not just entertain children and keep them happy; they make them learn. They cannot do that if the environment in which they are placed by their principals and their communities detracts from that ability. They will just leave and go to a school where they are looked after and where they can teach. Worst of all they will leave teaching. That is one of the problems with the Government’s policy. The centralised micro-management approach is driving teachers nuts. They have to spend far too much time ticking boxes saying they got the process right not establishing whether children are learning and what we will do about it if they are not. No legislation should ever be introduced into this House that does not address the issue of what we will do about children who are not learning and about schools that are not making them learn. 
The Minister was right when he answered a question I put to him in the House some weeks ago. For the first time the minimum literacy and numeracy standards in level 1 National Certificate of Educational Achievement give us a measure. That is fine but what will we do with that measure? How will we change what is happening in schools as a result of the information we are getting? The information we are getting—clearly published in the  
Herald on Sunday  
for Auckland schools last Sunday—is that too many of our children are not succeeding. 
So even if we take that Education Review Office figure of 20 percent then look at level 1 students in year 11—I think of it as fifth form—we find that in some schools as few as 40 percent of students are achieving level 1. The Government is going to have to confront a very important issue. How will it explain that in Auckland there is for example a decile 4 secondary school whose students are achieving at 15 to 20 points better than the students at a decile 5 school? How can that be? What is the explanation for that? When will we hold schools responsible for their students’ learning? There is no point at all in having an assessment system that is standards based if we do not do that. 
There is one thing we must believe above all else and it is that every child can learn. A child who can learn to talk can be taught to read. There are far too many excuses. I trust that this Government in the unlikely event that it brings further Education Amendment bills to this House will begin to address that issue—that it will begin to think about the type of school environment that needs to be created if all children are to learn. That environment is not one that concentrates on the micro-management of process rather than on the analysis of data and on improving teaching and learning for children. The greatest gift any community can give its children is a teacher who makes them learn. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to comment on the three earlier contributions and I will comment firstly on the one from Allan Peachey. As a little bit of a history lesson on education I point out that the term “governance” did not enter the educational lexicon in any meaningful form until a paper put out by Russ Ballard the first chief executive officer of the Ministry of Education called  
Governance and Management 
. But that paper did not arrive on the scene until well after the Picot report well after the policy on Tomorrow’s Schools was put forward well after the legislation and in fact well after boards of trustees were put in place. We then have to ask what the purpose of boards of trustees was in the first place. I happen to believe that he has got it right but we need to look at the actual chronological sequence of events. 
The second thing—and I am loath to do this—is that Moana Mackey stated that our early childhood sector has lagged behind internationally. I have to question that. In fact New Zealand has been at the cutting edge in many of the developments in early childhood education. The Reggio Emilia approach in Italy certainly led for part of the way but in some areas—for example putting in place an early childhood curriculum—New Zealand was first. The most critical point in the Before Five policy was that we cannot separate out care from education. This philosophy has actually been bought into by all parties in this House with one exception that I know of—ACT. We were world leaders. 
I say to Bill English who has talked about standards that when we came on board in the first coalition Government in 1996 National’s view on educational standards was to give two half-hour pencil and paper tests in literacy and numeracy to years 4 and 8. Those tests were going to be devised by the New South Wales testing agency and that agency was then going to rank schools in terms of performance. If that is what Mr English believes are educational standards then I am sorry but I do not believe in educational standards in that particular manner. 
This is an omnibus bill—it goes across a whole pile of territories. But I guess the part that has been most misunderstood is the development of the regulatory framework for early childhood education. The bill actually replaces section 26 of the principal Act with a new regulatory regime for the early childhood sector. Members particularly from National have said that this will mean a whole lot more regulation. In fact it will mean the opposite. Through the 1990s we had an ad hoc development of licensing procedures chartering procedures Te Whariki and the statement of Desirable Objectives and Practices. The latter were very stringent in terms of the regulations. 
I will give members one example of the regulations that went through the Desirable Objectives and Practices. They required early childhood centres to keep a record of everything fed to children at lunchtime on every day they were there. That is the sort of regulation I think that is probably going overboard but the philosophy of the time was to be quite tight and then to loosen up. That is what this process is to be about—a process to bring it into one more rational framework and to ask whether we really need that stringency that level of prescribed criteria. I have to say that the National spokesperson on early childhood education actually sat around the Cabinet table when the last version of the Desirable Objectives and Practices went through and that version was very stringent. 
Now the people in the sector are talking about this whole process as a process to collapse the Desirable Objectives and Practices. In fact it is to remove the level of prescription in the regulations as they exist at the moment and we certainly hope that that will be the outcome. I think in one of my earliest speeches I talked about the process—which they have been going through for 2 years—and the terms “described” and “prescribed”. However it would also be fair to say that the way the legislation was worded opened up opportunities for bureaucracy to go mad. That was pointed out by myself in the second reading debate. New Zealand First said we would try to do something about it and we believe we have done something about it. 
We have in fact put in the amendments that will overcome the potentially—and only potentially—Draconian aspects of the legislation where the prescribed criteria would be set by the Secretary for Education or in other words the bureaucrats and as I pointed out in one of my earlier speeches someone could come along and say all early childhood centres had to be painted blue and if a provider did not do that it would be fined up to $5000 etc. I do not believe there was any intention of that happening but the legislation provided for it so it was bad legislation. We believe that we have put in place provisions that will overcome that by ensuring first that the Minister will actually prescribe the criteria and second that the criteria will go before the Regulations Review Committee. So Parliament will in fact scrutinise those prescribed criteria and we believe that that provides a level of protection against over-zealous bureaucrats. 
The House became tied down in one or two other issues and I want to talk about those. One is the issue of teachers being insulted and intimidated in front of students. I must admit that we looked at that issue in quite a bit of detail because of some of the matters around our teachers and principals in some of our more isolated rural communities where they are living in anxiety about the outcomes of the P epidemic and asking what we can do about it. However once we explored the legislation we found that the relevant provision was already in the Education Act of 1964. All this legislation was trying to do was to extend that provision down to the early childhood sector. We recognise that it was about protecting children from being exposed to observing that intimidation or insulting behaviour towards their teachers while in their presence. It was not actually aimed at protecting adults because they are protected under the Crimes Act. Therefore we looked at it and asked about whether the law that has been there since 1964 would apply to the students in a school. Of course our advisers came back and said that yes it would. The provision has never been used. In fact schools have greater powers and authority to use within their own means. By the way what those schools use within their own powers are not open to judicial review anyhow as a result of the Maddever case. We said we have to make sure that what we are applying that to is clear but that we will ensure greater penalties. So the penalties go I think from something like $40 to $1000. In that respect there is additional protection for teachers. 
The other issue that came up which I think was a very genuine issue on the part of National and Bill English had to do with the reporting issue. This bill was intended to get rid of the provision for the requirement for boards of trustees to have an annual general meeting. There is no need for an annual general meeting as boards already have to report annually through other means. All we have to do is make sure that communities have available to them the knowledge that the reports are there and that they can go along and read them. So there is no rationale for having an annual general meeting. It is basically just a pain in the butt. It is an unnecessary procedure and no office bearers are elected at those particular meetings. 
However Mr English used the opportunity—and I do not believe that he was talking about national testing—to ask whether we could actually get boards during this process to report on how well students were going in literacy and numeracy. There is a problem because the requirements of boards to report at the moment in terms of their financial reporting do not require that level of reporting. So that is a problem in itself. Secondly the means of how that is to be done really does require a fair bit of discussion. But the idea the concept is not to be dismissed out of hand. Therefore although we rejected the notion we still think there is some merit in some of the ideas or the concept of it. 
Finally I want to make a quick mention of the extension of the use of the national student number. I am really quite surprised that the Greens have not raised this issue more strongly. We really do have a problem in this country since Tomorrow’s Schools and boards of trustees took over with students falling through the cracks. We just do not have that system of keeping a good track of our students for a whole range of necessary information to ensure that they are in fact getting their rights—particularly transient students or students between one level of schooling and another. The unique national student numbers will give a greater opportunity for us to be able to provide what we in New Zealand First believe is the required level of supervision for all young New Zealanders for the benefit of meeting their rights to an education. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Here I am speaking on the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. Just a few days ago I came to the House with much enthusiasm to speak to our Maori Party’s Supplementary Order Paper on this bill at its second reading. I came with enthusiasm and with high expectations that the House in the interests of advancing education would adopt our entire Supplementary Order Paper. I must tell members that my enthusiasm was not just a case of “cross my fingers and hope like hell” stuff but it was based on earlier discussions the Maori Party had had with members of other parties. 
How wrong I was—what a learning curve! Clause by clause I heard our Supplementary Order Paper being defeated—60 votes for 61 votes against. It was definitely a bloc vote dealing to all our proposals. It was a vote against the Maori Party and not against the proposed amendments. We might as well have taken all our clauses in one vote because it was obvious that in voting those who voted no to each clause did so without knowing which of our amendments they were declining. 
 If our amendments were all about the same issue or if they were trivial like the odd word change one might expect a full Chamber of Noes. Instead we proposed for instance that Maori owners who gave their land for education purposes last century and which land is no longer required by the Minister should be offered back to the Maori owners. If the land was gifted it should be returned at no cost. If it was not gifted then the chief executive of Land Information New Zealand must take into account the circumstances under which the land was acquired from the Maori owner. The circumstances are critical because many hapu or whanau gave the land because of the importance of education. It was not about getting paid for it thus it was not a sale contract in the normal sense. I ask members in this House today what is not fair about gifted land being returned to the donor or bought land being offered at a fair rate to the owners who made it available for education. Why did 61 people vote against that? 
Then we had a very important amendment to protect the special character of kura kaupapa Maori. Te Ururoa Flavell and I visited the office of the Minister of Education and discussed our proposed changes with him and with his staff. At that meeting we suggested an amendment to the Minister’s clause new section 154A(5). At the Minister’s office I actually wrote out the amendment proposed by the parent body for all kura kaupapa Maori to retain control of their special character. The Minister appeared to understand the reasons for the amendment and actually led me to believe that he was quite happy with the change. I was wrong. The vote was 60:61. 
When I report this to my two electorates which cover almost the whole of Auckland City and the whole of the East Coast from Cape Runaway south to Palliser Bay they will be upset. My people will be upset because they have established kura kaupapa Maori at enormous effort to their whanau and to their hapu. To build a kura one has first to convince ones’s kohanga reo to be courageous and virtually go to war with one’s local school and of course with the ministry both of whom will tell one not to build a kura but to set up a Maori language classroom within the local school. It is a war. Kotuku kura in Auckland has been waiting for its facilities for 12 years. It has gone from marae to marae to a used warehouse to an abandoned factory such is its dedication as it waits upon the ministry. 
The very first of all kura—built at Hoani Waititi Marae—had to operate outside of mainstream funding for 5 years. It began with a visit to the Department of Education in 1984. It went like this: “Knock knock kia ora we want to build a school.” “Well you can’t. We build schools not you.” “But we want to build a school which teaches in Maori language and that has Maori kaupapa upon which the curriculum is based.” “Well we don’t have that kind of school I’m sorry.” “No we know that. That is why we want to create one. So tell us what do we need to do to qualify to be a school?” “But there is no such school type you had better go to Maori Affairs.” So then it was: “Knock knock kia ora Maori Affairs we want to build a school—a school that will teach our Maori language and carry all our customs.” The reply: “That sounds good. How can we help?”. “Well we have no money for the building equipment or a teacher so we’ve come to you.” “No we don’t fund schools. You need to go to the education department.” and so it went on. We had to convince Maori educationist Dr Katerina Te Heikoko Mataira to move to Auckland for 2 years and start our school type and it meant getting a deputy principal Aroha Paenga to resign from her post and join the team. Both these people were working for a third of their normal salary. To thank them we let them design their own curriculum write their own books build their own cupboards clean their own building—an old company showroom that we purchased and moved on to the marae—and so on. 
No our people will not be happy. When they ask me whether the other Maori in Parliament supported me I will tell them that those in the Greens and the National Party did so—that Tau Henare and Metiria Turei made strong speeches in support of the amendment to save the special character of kura kaupapa Maori. But what am I to say to them when they ask me whether our Minister of Maori Affairs supported us or whether those Maori in Government—in Labour and New Zealand First—supported their kura’s special character? I will tell them the truth. No the Minister did not vote to save the special character of our kura. No the Maori members of Government did not support the kura kaupapa Maori amendment. In fact they were not even in the Chamber when I put forward the Supplementary Order Paper. 
To those Maori members I ask what I should tell the people when they ask me why that was. What do I say? Do I say that those members all have mokopuna and other relations attending kura kaupapa Maori? Do I say that the nature of party politics is to put the party before Maori that the members’ primary reason for being in Parliament is to support their party’s wishes and not to advance the aspirations of their people thousands of whom voted for them? I am brand new in Parliament. This is my first experience with a Supplementary Order Paper and I am gutted. I believed I had the Minister’s support and I expected to have Maori members’ support. I was wrong—60:61. I am gutted and members might say that I am new and that I will get used to it. I hope not; I do not want to get used to it. But I remain hopeful that cooperation for the good of our country can become a reality in this Parliament that things can happen across parties that the cross-party group that we have set up to look into prisons can yield some fruit and that Maori in Parliament may be able to work together to propose bills and to jointly support amendments that will advance Maori aspirations. 
I repeat here today the Maori Party mandate that we are here to serve our electorates to promote the aspirations of Maori and to promote the well-being of all New Zealanders—uniting to build a strong nation. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak for United Future on the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill and I want to focus briefly in this reading on two significant parts of the bill. Although the bill covers a lot of issues in the commentary two are identified as being of the greatest significance. 
The first is the new regulatory regime for the early childhood sector. As United Future does not have anybody on the Education and Science Committee we were very much guided by the summaries provided of the submissions and by our talking to members of the committee. At this stage I want to thank that committee because I do not think I have ever experienced a situation with a bill where we did not have ready information. But we were really given a huge amount of help from a variety of members including early advice on Supplementary Order Papers that gave us plenty of time to consider those papers to ring and consult with key stakeholders in the education sector and to get their advice and opinions on those matters. It was really helpful and I thank them for that. 
There were certainly some early concerns with the regulatory regime for the early childhood sector from stakeholders within that sector. They were concerned that regulations would be made in a way that seemed to be very unaccountable. Concern was also expressed that that lack of accountability would mean that bureaucrats would go wild and become very zealous and that the outcome would be threatening to the financial survival of some centres. So we had a talk with members of the committee we had a look at some of the issues that had been raised by submitters and we looked at the Supplementary Order Papers that had been tabled by the Maori Party the National Party and the Hon Brian Donnelly. 
It became clear it was very important that one of our intentions should be to differentiate between regulations that are prescriptive and those that are descriptive. The example that was given to me when I talked to members of the committee was that a regulation for instance that requires the gate to an early childhood centre to be self-locking needs to be clearly prescriptive. However the provision of a sickbay or sickroom for children who are off colour during the day may be able to be made and meet the requirements in a variety of ways that prescriptive regulations could make unnecessarily expensive and that could also restrict a centre from finding the innovative solutions that would meet with parental approval. Whether or not it was intentional many efforts to correct the concerns failed to take into account the fact that some regulations can and should be prescriptive regardless of the cost and that others should allow for the variety of interpretations that can be applied. So for that reason United Future chose to support an amendment put forward by the Hon Brian Donnelly to see the Regulations Review Committee properly engaged with the monitoring of developments in that regard. 
The second issue that we think is of importance is the extension of the National Student Number system to the compulsory and the early childhood education sectors. First of all we think that that is a very good idea for all the reasons that people who have spoken so far have outlined. But I personally wrestled with the opportunity to table a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage because I had some concerns when I read about the proposal. I have a tendency if I am honest to be a little bit twitchy about Order in Council provisions when they appear in legislation. I understand their usefulness but in this particular case the Governor-General can make regulations that identify any agency or body as an authorised user of the National Student Number system and all that the legislation requires is that the Governor-General must consult the Privacy Commissioner. Having consulted and met that obligation the Governor-General is under no obligation under this legislation to actually do anything with the Privacy Commissioner’s recommendations before making an Order in Council. The Governor-General just has to say that he or she has consulted—and I think that is dangerous. 
I want to thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for putting up with me because we went backwards and forwards on that matter a number of times as I tried to design a Supplementary Order Paper that would take into account situations where the Privacy Commissioner might say not to do something yet the Governor-General would be able by Order in Council to go ahead anyway. We wanted to know whether there was any way we could tie the actions of the Governor-General to I guess permission from the Privacy Commissioner. The advice I received no matter which way we worded it was that we could not actually do that and to try to do so would have created some legal problems. So after wrestling with the problem I came to the conclusion that rather than put up with something flawed and unworkable it was better if I dropped the issue and let it proceed as it was written in the legislation. 
I am mentioning that because I have some ongoing concerns that we need to keep a close watch on this legislation as it is rolled out and put into practice. I think that situations could arise where interests groups might apply to be allowed to have access to the information contained on that database where those groups should not have that information and the reasons why they want it might not be in the best interests of the students whose numbers are represented. I have concerns that under this current legislation that issue has not been properly scrutinised. I would like to ensure that we keep a close eye on that issue and do not let it get away on us like a horse that has bolted out of the starting gate. So I signal our concern about that matter. It does not affect our support of the bill overall but I am concerned about that issue. I could not find a way of appropriately addressing it through a Supplementary Order Paper so we will have to watch that situation; certainly we may need to revisit it at some time. 
I will leave it at that and just say that we are happy to support this amendment bill. We look forward to seeing its implementation. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Crikey dick! Boy it never ceases to amaze me what sort of twaddle is spoken in this House. United Future is the party that sucked up to the Government like nobody’s business. United Future members promised to support the amendment that was put forward by the Maori Party on behalf of the Early Childhood Council and what happened? They bailed out because they were under pressure. That is what happened. So it is rich for those members to get up in the House and pontificate about what a lovely job they are doing in the early childhood education sector. Well they have not done anything yet but they could have—they could have been revolutionary. They could have helped the sector but oh no they fell in behind Helen Clark and her mob. 
Does it surprise “Uncle Pita”—and I will call him “Uncle Pita”; I have such reverence for that member—that United Future did not support his amendments? In a way it must. But it does not surprise me that none of the Maori members of the Labour Government or New Zealand First for that matter supported what were essentially reasoned amendments. To top it all off they were led down the garden path by the Hon Steve Maharey who said he would support the amendment from the Maori Party. Then at the last minute he got the willies got the heebie-jeebies bolted for the doors and said: “No we can’t support it.” 
Hon Bill English 
: He never meant it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Exactly! I was going to say: “I wonder why?” but the Hon Bill English has said that he never ever meant to support it in the first place. 
But back to the bill. The early childhood sector is full of wonderful wonderful innovative people. Whether they be in kohanga reo kindergartens early childhood centres playcentres Montessori centres you name it the industry as I call it is full of industrious and innovative people. This bill does nothing for them. This bill constrains them. It says to them: “On the Monday morning after the passing of this legislation please get your clipboard and spend the next 3 or 4 hours going around your centre every day filling out regulations.” They will be micro-managed by that lot over there on that side of the Chamber. What does that remind members of? It reminds us of the old socialist concrete State where the Minister of Education ran everything. The teachers were in the back pocket of the Labour Party of the socialist Government of the Marxist Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: That’s not the old days that’s now! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Actually that is what happens today. Here is a question. How can an organisation as big and as strong as the Early Childhood Council and how can an organisation such as the Te Kohanga Reo National Trust that wanted a couple of amendments to protect their industry be told “No” by that side? Why? Because a couple of red early childhood teachers say: “No no you can’t have it.” 
What is going on? Who does the Government listen to? Certainly not to the workers and certainly not to the people in the industry. Ask all the people in kohanga reo and they will say that they were all in favour of the amendment put up by the Maori Party. Ask the majority of people in the early childhood industry. They were supportive of an amendment to section 317 put up by the Maori Party and supported by the Green Party and the National Party. We had an opportunity and the Labour Party took it away from some really innovative people. Now they are going to be forced to be micro-managed like little babies who do not know any better. 
Here is the trick. Over the next 6 years every early childhood centre will be relicensed—a big job for what? For absolutely no reason whatsoever other than to make the Ministry of Education more important to itself. That is the only reason. 
I want to say before you ring the bell on me Mr Speaker that the industry now is overregulated it is bureaucratised and it is sanitised. None of our young people will be offered the chances the innovation or the revolutionary thinking of early childhood workers. They have gone. Those days have gone. It is important that we make sure our kids get the best start in life instead of getting a handbook of regulations. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to finish my 10-minute speech before the House adjourns. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.