Volume 661 Week 36 - Thursday 18 March 2010 
Volume 661 Week 36 - Thursday 18 March 2010 
[Volume:661;Page:9613] 
Thursday 18 March 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next week it is the Government’s intention to advance the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill and the Infrastructure Bill and to make progress on other bills on the Order Paper. The House will rise at 5 p.m. on Thursday 1 April for the Easter break. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I ask the Leader of the House whether he anticipates any urgency next week and also how many select committees he expects will be sitting during the Easter adjournment. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I do not anticipate that the House will go into urgency next week although the Government is of course behind the scenes going about its work urgently. As for select committee meetings that is a matter for the select committees themselves to determine. But where there is work to be done then I expect that the chairpersons of those committees will ensure that sufficient time is set aside for that work to be completed. 
Voting 
Correction—Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct the ACT Party vote last night on the first reading of the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: The vote from the ACT Party should have been four opposed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The vote is amended accordingly. 
Questions to Ministers 
Te Puni Kokiri—Role in Policy Development 
1. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: What role is Te Puni Kokiri playing in developing policy under this Government? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Te Puni Kokiri plays an instrumental role across the whole spectrum of policy. It does so by looking at the benefits for iwi hapu and Maori whanui. 
Hon Annette King 
: Given that the principal duties of Te Puni Kokiri are to promote increases in Maori achievement across key social and economic areas and to be leading and influencing Government policy as it pertains to Maori what inputs has Te Puni Kokiri had in the development of the Whanau Ora policy? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Obviously in Whanau Ora it has to have a large involvement. A Maori kaupapa philosophy is being developed here and Te Puni Kokiri is the best department perhaps to put major input into it. 
Hon Annette King 
: As the Minister of Maori Affairs was part of the Cabinet committee discussing Whanau Ora was it clear at the outset that Whanau Ora was to be a programme designed to develop a new approach to Maori well-being; if so when was it decided that such an approach was race-based not needs-based and would therefore have to be extended to all New Zealanders as the Prime Minister has announced? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Unfortunately we had to make that clear when Labour raised that issue. It is like all Maori policies. We are an inclusive people. Our policies are for Maori but everybody else as well so they are there. 
Hon Annette King 
: Which of the Prime Minister’s statements about Whanau Ora is Te Puni Kokiri using when providing him with advice: the Prime Minister’s 16 February statement that Whanau Ora will be for all New Zealanders and that it must be based on need not race or his 19 February statement that it is designed around a Maori kaupapa and is largely for Maori? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: The Whanau Ora programme is based on culture and on need. That is the way it is. Many programmes delivered by organisations such as Te Whanau o Waipareira Trust are actually for Maori but they have a 41 percent Pakeha usage— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: We know what that’s about. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: What was that Clayton? Speak up loudly bro. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Questions will be conducted formally. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he as the Minister of Maori Affairs agree with Tariana Turia who said the Whanau Ora Taskforce report contains “Maori solutions to Maori problems” and does he stand by his statement that a more “courageous” Government would allow Maori-only access to Whanau Ora funding; if not why not? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I always agree with Tariana Turia. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of reports that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has not ruled out Te Puni Kokiri being the agency for the implementation of Whanau Ora does he believe his ministry has the capability capacity and experience to undertake such a role given that his colleague Tariana Turia has said up to a billion dollars should be available to be spent? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I am not sure what you mean by your question. Are you saying that because it deals with Maori ideology it is inferior? Let me assure you that that is the connotation that comes across. The answer is that it is a fitting department to lead Whanau Ora. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question did not have that conclusion at all. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Yes. 
Hon Annette King 
: No it did not I say to Tariana Turia. This question was about the fact that it has not been ruled out as the lead agency and asked whether it has the capability and capacity. That is a straight question to which the Minister could have said yes. 
Hon Member 
: Point of order! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not think we need to take this matter any further. I first come back to the Minister. When answering questions the Minister must not say “You are implying this” or “You are implying that” because I can assure the honourable Minister that the Speaker is not implying anything. To come now to the point of order of the Hon Annette King I think in the final part of the Minister’s answer he said he believed that Te Puni Kokiri was capable of and the appropriate agency to be leading the development and therefore I think he answered the member’s question. 
Schools—Teacher Training in Treaty of Waitangi Curriculum 
2. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: He aha ta te minita mahi kia ata mohio pai ai a ia kei nga kaiako nga pukenga me te matauranga kia marama ai ratou ki te ako i te Tiriti ki te taumata teitei o te tirohanga whanui koronga matapono me nga uara hoki kua whakapuakina i roto i te marautanga o Aotearoa? 
[ 
What is the Minister doing to ensure teachers have the skills and knowledge to deliver an understanding of the Treaty to a high standard as expressed in the overview purpose principles and values of the New Zealand curriculum? 
] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 All materials and professional development programmes designed to support the New Zealand curriculum guide schools to use Treaty principles to develop and implement their curriculum. Specific professional development programmes such as Te Kotahitanga and He Kakano also encourage schools to develop an iwi focus. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: He aha nga korero a nga kaiako e pa ana ki te whakapumautanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi hei “pou ara mo nga whakataunga marautanga”? 
[ 
What has been the teacher feedback to the initiative that introduces the Treaty of Waitangi as one of the “foundations of curriculum decision making”? 
 ] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Schools’ feedback on the draft curriculum I understand was that the Treaty needed to be more clearly represented in the document. That advice was taken into account in the development of the final document and I understand that recent research indicates that all the principles are being used in school curriculum development. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: E hia ke nei te rahi o te putea tautoko kua tukuna ki te whakatinana i te ahuatanga hou i roto i te marautanga mo te akoranga o te reo Maori me ona tikanga? 
[ 
What provision has been allocated to support the commitment in the new curriculum that all students will have the opportunity to acquire knowledge of Maori language and customs? 
] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Ka Hikitia—Managing for Success the Maori education strategy contains six strategic goals to strengthen Maori language provision. Those goals provide a framework for further development of Maori language policy. The Government is committed to working with the Maori Party to improve opportunities for all students to learn te reo. 
Health Services—Minister’s Statements 
3. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by all his statements regarding health services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes including my statement that despite doubling the health budget the Labour Government actually got less in the health service. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: When he says that resources are going to the front line does he mean the community of Tangimoana where the nursing clinic hours have been cut from 20 to 8 and the days when patients can visit have been slashed from 6 to 2? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There is more good news from the National Government. I am advised that the nursing service that people from the rural township of Tangimoana have been receiving resumes on Monday. This service is being provided by the local primary health organisation. In the meantime people who need regular nursing attention are getting it from a nurse visiting from the Manawatu primary health organisation. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: When he says that resources are getting to the front line does he mean Nelson where nurses fear cut-backs are putting their patients’ lives at risk; where nursing vacancies are not being filled in order to save money; and where nurses are so pushed for time they are not even able to file serious incident reports? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Regarding nursing issues in Nelson-Marlborough I have been advised by the chair of the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board that 20 more nursing personnel are employed at Nelson Hospital than were when the Government changed. There are also 23 more medical personnel than when the Government changed. We have inherited a worsening financial situation at the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board and that creates uncertainty for staff and the community. Last year we increased the budget by $13.5 million. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Why are district health boards reviewing the way they deliver some of their services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As the members opposite know we inherited a very difficult situation with district health boards heading down the track to financial ruin. They did not have the resources the staffing or the approach needed to benefit services. Despite doubling the health budget over a 9-year period the previous Labour Government managed to deliver fewer key services. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How many consultants will the National Health Board and the Ministry of Health have to hire this year during the influenza season given that last year just days after the Ministry’s communications staff member was made redundant two consultants were hired to cover his communications for the swine flu epidemic? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I can tell the member that spending on consultants in the Ministry of Health is down from what it was under that party opposite when it was in Government. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does he agree with Eric Roy described by Grey Power as unaware of the hardship being caused in Invercargill who said in a Southland paper that if home support for older people was not cut then core hospital services would be cut; if so what cuts will be needed in Southland in the coming 12 months when the health sector’s budget increase is halved? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There is no doubt that the southern district health boards received about $28 million extra last year. I assure the member opposite that they will be receiving a record budget this financial year. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does he agree with a recent report on youth health commissioned by the Ministry of Health which found general providers “were not being accessed by youth” but in contrast “Youth One Stop Shops” successfully provide a range of specialised integrated health and social care services for the youth of New Zealand and many are at capacity; if so why is he allowing services in Christchurch and Invercargill to face closure on his watch? 
Hon Bill English 
: You’re much better than Ruth. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes quite right. In respect of the 198 Youth Health Centre contracted by the Canterbury District Health Board I have personally been in touch with the chairman Mr Alister James who is taking a personal interest in this cause. Mr James advises me that the district health board still has $410000 earmarked to assist this service and discussions are ongoing. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does he stand by his statement: “there do have to be some changes made to services because we have to make sure that the funding goes to the places where the public gets the best possible outcome of health spending.” and does he think that cutting nurse positions hours and clinic times will give the best possible outcome for patients? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The latest available information from the Ministry of Health suggests that we now have 1100 additional nursing personnel since I became the Minister of Health. Nurses around New Zealand have more time to meet with patients and there are more nursing personnel. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable member I must say that if the point of order relates to the answer the Minister was giving I will struggle to assist her. I could not hear because of the unnecessary interjections—which had nothing to do with what the Minister was saying—coming across the front of the House. I ask members on the front benches to desist. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I heard the Minister’s answer; my point of order relates to it. You did not miss much frankly Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must do not that. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: My point of order is to ask the Minister whether he was quoting from an official document when he referred to the 1100 extra nursing positions; if so I ask that he table that document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Was the Minister quoting from an official document? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is not an official document in the sense that it is prepared by the Ministry of Health. It is essentially a schedule that has been taken off the Ministry of Health website. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me—[ 
Interruption 
] A point of order is being considered and this is a slightly different situation. If it had been notes prepared for the Minister’s answer in the House it would not be considered an official document but if it is a schedule unaltered taken from the website I imagine it would be an official document. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It was prepared for my answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It has been prepared for the Minister’s answer. [ 
Interruption 
] I am considering a point of order and I expect the House to be in silence. I have to take the Minister’s word. If the Minister advises the House that the material he is quoting from is material prepared for his answer then the tradition of the House is that it is not considered to be an official document. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am somewhat confused because I thought that the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard. 
Hon David Parker 
: I thought the Minister said that it was a schedule printed off from the Ministry of Health website in which case it is an official document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: At the end of the day I have to take the Minister’s word. He has told the House—he has told me as Speaker—that the material was prepared for his answer. It is therefore not an official document. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Grab it out! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That squawk was Paula Bennett just to be clear. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is all right. I have called the member. He will make his point of order and not—[ 
Interruption 
]—and there will be silence. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: My request to you is that you review on the  
Hansard 
 tape what was said by the Minister on the two interventions that he made on that question to ensure that you were not misled by him as he changed his mind. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that if members reflect on what has happened they will see that this matter could be taken to a ridiculous extreme. Most material used in preparation for an answer has probably come electronically from some document or other. If a sentence or a small table is taken from a document to prepare information for a Minister’s answer it does not constitute a document. The Minister has advised the House that this material was taken from a website to prepare for him to answer a question and that is where the Speaker must accept his word. If the Speaker is to treat it in any other way then the Speaker is not accepting the word of a member. I accept the word of all members and that is the end of the matter. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And I point out that it is the end of the matter. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I am not challenging your ruling— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I should hope not. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I am not; I am simply asking. I think that Trevor Mallard has made a reasonable request in that the circumstances of this matter were that the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. I am not sure what the member thinks he is doing if not challenging my ruling. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Another fair and balanced ruling! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove will leave the House. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove withdrew from the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not treat these matters lightly. I find it totally unacceptable for my fairness in this House to be challenged in that way as I think anyone watching Parliament would consider that I treat both sides of the House fairly. That is why Mr Cosgrove has left for the rest of this sitting day. 
Productivity—Productivity Commission 
4. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What steps is the Government taking to help improve New Zealand’s productivity? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Along with the Minister for Regulatory Reform Rodney Hide we announced today that a new Productivity Commission will be set up early next year to help boost New Zealand’s economic performance across the public and private sectors. It is one more step in the Government’s programme to lift productivity and increase incomes for New Zealand families. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What roles and functions will the new Productivity Commission have? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The commission has been closely modelled on the successful Australian Productivity Commission which has been operating for more than 10 years. It will provide advice on ways to improve productivity in areas identified by the Government. The strong independence of the Australian commission has been important to its success and we envisage that the New Zealand commission will operate in the same way. We also envisage that the Australian commission and the New Zealand commission will cooperate in the way that the respective Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand indicated last year. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How will the new Productivity Commission be funded and staffed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The commission has been funded through reprioritising funding from the existing budgets of 29 Government agencies. No extra money will be called upon to fund the commission and it is expected that up to half of its staff will be seconded from other Government agencies. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree that one of the key drivers of productivity is investing in skills; if so why did his Government shelve the New Zealand Skills Strategy cut adult and community education funding cut research and development tax credits and cut $98 million from scholarships? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Despite the recession the Government is spending record amounts of money on skills and training. We ditched that strategy because it was like all the other strategies that the previous Labour Government produced in that it was long vacuous and did not help anyone make any decisions. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Why is it necessary to increase New Zealand’s productivity? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: On Tuesday Statistics New Zealand released the latest figures for productivity growth part of a series that goes back to 1978. They show that although productivity was modest during the 1980s at 0.7 percent per annum productivity grew by around 2 percent in the 1990s. Incredibly since then overall productivity in the last 9 years has been negative and that is because of a mismanaged economy. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table a guide to Australia’s Productivity Commission that reflects its broad mandate including investing in skills. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table a document from Australia’s Productivity Commission that sets out the full range of determinants of productivity none of which appear in the Minister’s press release— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Whaling Commercial—Reintroduction 
5. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Does the Government support the reintroduction of any commercial whaling? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: When the Prime Minister said on 13 January that he had an initiative to end Japanese whaling was the proposal to legalise commercial whaling the solution that he was talking about; if not what was the Prime Minister’s mysterious initiative? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The Prime Minister would have been referring to the New Zealand Government’s policy in relation to whaling. That policy and the brief that I have given to our representatives at the International Whaling Commission headed by former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer is to seek the elimination of whaling in the Southern Ocean as quickly as possible. Our participation in the diplomatic process is an attempt to find a significant step in that direction. Can I remind the member that the diplomatic process commenced in mid-2007 when that member was the Minister responsible. At the time he claimed that that process was a good means to achieve the elimination of whaling. In 2008 his successor as Minister of Conservation Steve Chadwick described the process as “a great step forward” for the International Whaling Commission. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked whether the current proposal was the Prime Minister’s initiative that was announced—but no details were given—on 13 January. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I heard it the Minister’s answer described what the Government’s initiative is and that seems to me to be a reasonable answer to the question. The member does have further supplementary questions to pursue the matter further. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Did the Prime Minister actually announce a new initiative on 13 January as quoted in the media or is it simply a continuation of existing policies? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I do not have the reference in front of me at the moment but my very clear recollection is that the Prime Minister was referring to the New Zealand Government’s policy which is to actively participate in the diplomatic process of the International Whaling Commission to seek the elimination of whaling in the Southern Ocean. That policy was pursued by the previous Government also when that member was the Minister. It was spearheaded by Sir Geoffrey Palmer a former Prime Minister under a Labour Government. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Was the proposal that the Prime Minister raised on 13 January as a bold new initiative—which he was going to share with Hillary Clinton the US Secretary of State who was due to arrive the following day—the same policy that the previous Government was pursuing or was it a return to limited commercial whaling? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: As that member would know better than most the International Whaling Commission process involves a so-called support group of the small working-group having informal discussions to try to find the best way forward. That involves discussions with a range of our partners including the United States whose approach to these matters is very similar to New Zealand’s. The policy that the Prime Minister and this Government are pursuing is one of using that diplomatic process to try to achieve an elimination of whaling in the Southern Ocean at the earliest possible time. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Does the Minister agree with John Key who was quoted in the  
Kaikoura Star 
 yesterday as saying that commercial whaling “might be acceptable if it was acceptable to others.” and can the Minister confirm that both Britain and Australia have expressed opposition to this proposal to offer a limited return to commercial whaling but Japan has welcomed it? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I can confirm that Sir Geoffrey Palmer is one of those exploring a range of solutions in the International Whaling Commission process at the present time. The Government of New Zealand has not given Sir Geoffrey any mandate to accept anything other than the previous policies adopted by the Government of which that member was a Minister. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I seek leave to table a list of the names of 3188 people who in the last 6 days have expressed their opposition to the restart of commercial whaling by New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I take it that this is a list the member has compiled himself—just so that members know the source of the document. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: It is an online petition. It has been signed by 3188 people in just 6 days. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is worth pointing out that there is a proper process for presenting petitions to Parliament and the member would be well advised to follow it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Speaking to the— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I will do that on Tuesday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I guess the member has made his point. 
Kupe Gas Project—Benefits 
6. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What are the benefits to New Zealand from the Kupe gas project? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The $1.3 billion Kupe gas project was opened by the Prime Minister this morning. It is now fully operational and is one of New Zealand’s most important new infrastructure developments. Over its lifetime it is expected to supply 254 petajoules of natural gas about 1.1 million tonnes of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and almost 15 million barrels of light crude oil. At its peak it is expected that Kupe will produce 10 to 15 percent of New Zealand’s current annual gas demand and 50 percent of our current annual LPG demand. 
Jonathan Young 
: What economic benefits have already accrued from the development of the Kupe project? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There has been a big benefit particularly in Taranaki where job creation has been significant. At the height of construction approximately 1000 people worked on the production station site and more than 6000 hours of labour were expended while maintaining a very strong safety record on that site. There has also been a big benefit from the use of New Zealand operators in the supply chain. The project awarded New Zealand companies nearly three-quarters of the overall project expenditure with about $600 million coming to New Zealand companies. Finally the Crown is expected to receive around $300 million in royalties over the life of the field. 
Charles Chauvel 
: In light of the Electricity Commission’s warnings about a looming energy supply crisis is he concerned that despite having a contractor take all the gas that Kupe field can produce Genesis Energy recently told the Commerce Committee that after 2016— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why does the member hate children? 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Point of order Brendon Burns. 
Grant Robertson 
: Grant Robertson. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Grant Robertson—I beg your pardon. 
Grant Robertson 
: I am considerably younger Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. 
Grant Robertson 
: I regret to interrupt my colleague Mr Speaker but while he was asking that question there was an intervention from across the House asking: “Why do you hate children?”. I object to that statement being made in this House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: He wasn’t talking to you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard and it is a fair point of order. An interjection was made that a member has taken objection to. I did not hear the interjection—I have to be honest about that—so all I can do is to ask whoever made it to please treat the House with a little more respect than that and not make that kind of interjection. It can cause offence. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. Perhaps I could begin the question again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes Charles Chauvel may recommence the question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Answer the question. 
Charles Chauvel 
: To the Minister— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may have missed Mr Hide asking the member sitting behind me to answer the question—the question no doubt referring to the previous comment that you ruled out of order. That means that that member is certainly out of order and I ask that you remind him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Again I did not hear that I am sorry because I was focused on the request from Charles Chauvel to recommence his question. Because I did not hear it there is not a lot I can do. But I ask members to please show the House more respect. I have called Charles Chauvel to start his supplementary— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that the House is getting all too precious because it certainly cannot be out of order for some member—and I did not hear the interjection—to call out “Why do you hate children?”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to resume his seat. I ask him how that is helping the good order of the House. Offence rightly or wrongly was taken and for understandable reasons. Members do not like the innuendo that they hate children and I do not blame members for that. I did not ask anyone to withdraw and apologise for it; I simply ask members to show a little more courtesy. That should be the end of the matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I will regret challenging you but I am now. We have had a member tossed from the House for challenging your authority. You had previously ruled on this matter. You had a member who then got up and repeated a comment that he had been told was offensive to members opposite and he appears to have got away without even a requirement to withdraw and apologise for doing that. In my opinion it was a much more open and blatant attack on your authority than the one earlier. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are testing my patience now. The reason why the Hon Clayton Cosgrove was asked to leave the Chamber was because he questioned my fairness; he actually said in an interjection: “Another fair decision”—very sarcastically—“by the Speaker.” That is intolerable; the Speaker cannot allow that kind of thing to go unchecked in the House. I did not hear that it was the Hon Rodney Hide who had made the original interjection. I did not know from the point of order raised that it was that member. But I ask members to just be more respectful of this House. It is this House that matters. I ask members to be slightly more respectful. Interjections at times can be very appropriate and very clever but some are very unhelpful. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry about pushing this but the point I was referring to was not the original interjection or the repeating of it by Dr Nick Smith it was the fact that by way of point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker has dealt with the matter and that is the end of the matter. 
Charles Chauvel 
: In light of the Electricity Commission’s warnings about a looming energy supply crisis is the Minister concerned at all despite having a contract to take all the gas that the Kupe field can produce that Genesis Energy recently told the Commerce Committee that after 2016 it does not have enough gas to run its existing gas-fired power stations? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No and I make two comments. First I think the Electricity Commission overstated its concerns about security of supply. We have made a huge effort to change the circumstances in which electricity is governed and produced and the way in which the companies operate in order to focus more clearly on security of supply. Secondly I would point out that the previous Government introduced a thermal ban on electricity which saw a long period of no significant new gas discovery and we are suffering from that as far as projections are concerned. I am quite confident now that we have a Government that actually has its head out of the sand and recognises that gas will be a significant contributor to the energy picture in the years ahead that more discoveries will be made. 
Education National Standards—Effect of Literacy Strategy 
7. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: By how much did students’ reading and writing improve according to the 2008 evaluation of the literacy strategy outlined at the top of page 18 in the November 2008 briefing to the incoming Minister of Education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am advised that the briefing to the incoming Minister was referring to an evaluation of the Literacy Professional Development Project which began in March 2004. The briefing states: “After taking into account expected growth and maturation students’ gains in reading and writing were twice those that could be expected without the intervention.” But right throughout the briefing the point is consistently made that the system continues to underperform for a significant minority of students. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What did the dot point under the one the Minister has directly quoted say? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It states: “Schools accelerated the rate of progress for the majority of the at-risk students by four times the expected rate.” Underneath that the briefing goes on to state: “Challenges remain. Success for all students requires that every student acquire strong learning foundations in the early years and remain engaged in learning as they progress through schooling. This is not yet occurring for all students.” This Government knows that one in five students in the system are failing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked a very very simple question. I allowed her to go on for some period of time after she had answered it but she has gone a little too far. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When a question is as specific as Mr Mallard’s was—it asked the Minister to tell us what is in the first dot point under some other lines and other such—and the Minister then chooses to read out the passage surely that is complying totally with it. For her to be required to read out only the bit that suits the member asking the question is inappropriate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members asking questions chose their questions. The Minister answering does not choose the question. The member asked a very simple question and the Minister’s answer went beyond what the member had asked. If the member who is an experienced member—he is the Leader of the House—checks the Standing Orders he will find that material beyond that necessary to answer the question should not be included. The Minister answered the question and then went on. I had no objection to her going on for a while but once she started talking about what her Government was doing she was well beyond what the question had asked. 
I call the Hon Nick Smith for a point of order and I urge him to read the Standing Orders before he challenges the Speaker. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point is that when a member has asked for a very specific item to be read out it is the duty of the Minister to ensure that the public is given the proper context. We can all take half-quotes out of reports and create a particular impression. I think it is perfectly proper for a Minister to ensure that the full context of such quotes is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient from the honourable member. Answers are meant to be succinct and relate to the question asked. I allowed the Minister to go on in order to provide context but once she started to talk about the wonderful things her Government was doing she was going beyond the question asked. I have to be fair when Ministers go on for too long in answering including material beyond that which was asked for. It is the members who are asking questions who have the right to determine what is asked. Ministers do not have the right to say: “Well I wish they’d asked that.” and give an answer in accordance with that. That is not the way it works. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry Mr Speaker but in fact I did not talk about the wonderful things that this Government is doing. If I had done that I would have referred to the national standards. What I talked about was the one in five— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I tell the Minister that it would be wise for her to sit down. I will not be trifled with in this way. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A few moments ago while Gerry Brownlee was speaking you called him to order and he continued to speak. That was— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker is the sole judge of these matters and I do not take that kindly. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When will most students who were in year 1 in 2004 when this programme was introduced sit National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: When they are ready. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I tell members of the Government benches that one of them will be leaving the House also if there is not a little more respect and discipline. The Hon Trevor Mallard on a point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I will come back to it. 
Colin King 
: Did the briefing to the incoming Minister of Education endorse the Government’s moves to ensure that parents receive information on their child’s progress in plain language? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The briefing stated: “Clear reporting of assessment information also promotes transparency within the education system and assists parents to monitor their children’s progress.” The Ministry of Education was recognising as this Government has recognised that parents need plain language reports on how their children are progressing and what parents can do to help. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In which year will most students who were in year 1 in 2004 sit NCEA level 2? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Most students are at NCEA level 2 in either year 11 or year 12. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Will those students who will be sitting level 2 in 2015 have the advantage of the professional development that was introduced in 2004 for their entire school career; and why did the Minister not accelerate that professional development to ensure that all kids could have it rather than take the standards approach? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am advised that the costs of the Literary Professional Development Project were extremely high and the required experience is not available on a national scale. In fact the costs of that project were so high that even in the best of times that the previous Government enjoyed it did not roll the project out right across the sector. It could not do it even with all the money it had. The ministry is currently looking at the evidence from that project and that will inform us as we roll out support for our national standards. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table a document that shows that by 2008 44 percent of primary and intermediate student teachers had had that training. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the source of this document? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is the briefing to the incoming Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: But that is publicly available. [ 
Interruption 
] A point of order is being considered. I have ruled out the tabling of documents that are currently available. I mean that document was prepared for the current Minister. 
Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Progress 
8. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What recent progress has the Government made towards its goal of settling all historic Treaty claims by 2014? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yesterday the Crown signed terms of negotiation with Te Atiawa at Owae Marae at Waitara and terms of negotiation with Taranaki tuturu at Puniho Marae. These milestones mark an important step in the process of settling the remaining historic claims in Taranaki. I acknowledge all those who were present yesterday including parliamentary colleagues from both sides of the House. I especially mention the local MPs Tariana Turia and Jonathan Young who have played an important role in helping to progress these negotiations. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What is the significance of settling the remaining historical claims in Taranaki? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yesterday also marked the 150th anniversary of the start of the Land Wars. Taranaki was the scene of some of the gravest Treaty breaches in New Zealand’s history including the destruction of Parihaka in 1881. If New Zealand is to move forward it is important that we address the wrongs of the past and that is why this Government is so keen to settle the remaining historical claims in Taranaki. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: With regard to claims is the Minister concerned about the actions of the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust trustees in blocking duck shooters from accessing the Pencarrow lakes during the eight weekends a year of the duck shooting season; if so what steps can be taken to resolve this without setting a precedent for similar exclusions of public access in future settlements? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes I was concerned by initial reports that the trust may have purported to act outside the terms of the Treaty settlement with Taranaki Whanui. The iwi as landowner has the right to exclude recreational activities only if there is “a risk of a significant adverse effect to the environment”. The iwi believes for a number of reasons that such a risk is posed by didymo and also by the irresponsible actions of some hunters. I can assure the member I am looking very closely at the situation. 
Education National Standards—Effect on Maori Student Achievement 
9. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Will the new national standards in respect of kura help raise Maori student achievement in those schools; if so how? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 The standards will help those Maori students in kura because they are designed to complement the marautanga the curriculum of the kura. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Why when he was asked “What is the Ministry of Education’s official vision for students?” by student magazine  
Salient 
 in 2009 did he answer “That’s a hard question to answer because I’m not really happy with their vision myself” and are national standards a part of the Ministry’s vision he is unhappy about? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: My delegation is for kura and I am very happy in accordance with the member’s questions that those standards will suit kura and produce better results amongst the tauira. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Does he stand by his statement “Having bought into a relationship with the government this limits our capabilities …”; if so is an example of these limitations when he told Maori that national standards were dangerous only to have John Key come out and shut him down? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I stand by what I said and I do all the time. The thing about Maori standards is that we have a consultation process going on and 47 kura are reporting back on the process. We have 18 regional networks and ultimately we will have them all feeding back to us so that we can if you like hone the final result. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Why are national standards being trialled in kura but not in immersion units within mainstream schools? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: National standards are being trialled in kura because of the special nature of the marautanga the curriculum and its relationship to the kura movement. There are several types of kura which is why we have to look at how the standards fit kura with Aho Matua kura without Aho Matua and kura that are total immersion schools. 
Waihopai Satellite Facility—Provision of Intelligence to US Government 
10. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for the GCSB 
: Does the GCSB’s satellite facility at Waihopai provide intelligence for use by the United States Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 on behalf of the  
Minister responsible for the GCSB 
: In accordance with the longstanding practice of successive Prime Ministers the Prime Minister is not prepared to discuss operational matters relating to the GCSB. 
Keith Locke 
: Is it his opinion that the acquittal of three peace workers yesterday at the Waihopai trial represented disquiet over anything that aids the US war effort in Iraq; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister feel comfortable answering that question? It was a pretty marginal question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I simply repeat the previous answer: the Prime Minister is not prepared to discuss any matters relating to the GCSB. 
Keith Locke 
: Does he take out of yesterday’s not guilty verdict an implication that it was the spy base not the defendants undertaking illegal activity by aiding the illegal American war— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the honourable member how that can possibly be a matter for ministerial responsibility. The Minister responsible for the GCSB has no responsibility for the decisions of the courts. There is no ministerial responsibility whatsoever for the decision of a court. I will allow the member to rephrase his question to bring it within the Minister’s responsibility. 
Keith Locke 
: Is it the Minister’s opinion— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No he won’t give it. 
Keith Locke 
: I am trying to read the question. Is it the Minister’s opinion that there was an implication in the verdict at the trial yesterday relating to the Waihopai station that it was perhaps involved in illegal activity in aiding the illegal war in Iraq? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I fail to see how the Minister has any responsibility for that supplementary question. I cannot allow it because it is not a valid question in the area of the Minister responsible for the GCSB. He should not be answering questions with respect to opinions about the outcome of court matters. That has nothing to do with his responsibilities. If the member has a further supplementary question— 
Keith Locke 
: I have a supplementary question. First I will just explain in relation to your point— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order? 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At the trial evidence was raised in relation to the GCSB’s operations at Waihopai. It is relevant to the Minister’s responsibility for that agency. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To save wasting further time of the House I hear what the member is saying. If there has been evidence presented about the base that the Minister is responsible for then that is another matter but the member must remember—and I am on my feet—that the Minister is not responsible for the outcome of any court case. That is not the Minister’s responsibility. 
Keith Locke 
: What is his response to evidence presented at the trial showing that the Waihopai spy base intercepted communications to aid the war in Iraq even as New Zealand was opposing that same war? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In accordance with a longstanding practice the Prime Minister is not prepared to discuss operational matters relating to the GCSB. 
Keith Locke 
: Will he give an assurance that the GCSB collected no intelligence in response to an American request in early 2003 for information about United Nations Security Council members leading up to the United Nations Security Council vote on the Iraq war? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I simply repeat the answer to the earlier question. 
Keith Locke 
: What was the Government’s total expenditure on the Waihopai spy base in the last financial year? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The dilemma we have now is that that supplementary question is strung a long way from the substantive question. To expect the Minister to have that information at his fingertips based on the substantive question—if the Minister has the information I do not want to deprive the House. I invite the Hon Bill English to answer if he has any information that he wishes to impart. He is indicating that he does not have that information. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would the Minister assure the House that he will provide that information to the House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I am trying to help the honourable member but that is not a point of order. The member has one further supplementary question should he wish to use it. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have heard it in this House before that if Ministers do not happen to have the information with them they can give an assurance to the House that they will provide it at a later point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but that is not a point of order. The member still has a couple of supplementary questions available and he can ask them if he wishes. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister provide to the House at a later date the total Government expenditure on the Waihopai spy base in the last financial year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I have reiterated a number of times the Prime Minister is not prepared to discuss operational matters relating to the GCSB. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a memorandum by United States national security agency officer Frank Kozar calling for a surge of interceptions against United Nations Security Council members opposed to the war. It is dated 31 January 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Public Sector Job Cuts—Front-line Services 
11. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Did any of the 1480 public sector positions cut last year provide front-line services; if so how many? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 The Government bases its cap on core Government administration on the predominant nature of the departments and not on whether individual staff members are predominantly administrative or front-line. Some departments in the cap have some front-line roles and some departments outside the cap include some administrative roles. Therefore some of those 1480 net positions cut will have come from departments inside the cap that may also have some front-line services. 
Grant Robertson 
: So is the Minister saying that some front-line staff positions have been cut? Does he therefore consider it a good thing that some of the positions cut include border security staff regional conservation staff child abuse prevention staff and the people who run the school library service? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: In respect of the issue of MAF Biosecurity officers—the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is within the cap—a number of those biosecurity officers no longer have work because of a significant downturn in the number of used Japanese motor vehicle imports into New Zealand. Therefore fewer biosecurity officers were needed and the headcount was reduced with no drop in service. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister accept that reducing so-called back-office staff in agencies like Child Youth and Family actually means that social workers will spend less time with families in need and that this will lead to poorer services for all New Zealanders? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am advised that the reduction in positions at Child Youth and Family was the result of restructuring last year to streamline the administrative functions and that the social workers there are working very well to provide good quality services for New Zealanders. The Minister for Social Development and Employment tells me that social workers are spending more time working with their clients. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What reports has the Minister seen of public reaction to the cap? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have seen a number of very interesting reports. I have seen a report from the Public Service Association national secretary Mrs Brenda Pilott that describes the cap on public service numbers as a farce. I also saw a report from Mr Goff saying last night on television that he thinks Labour would probably have capped public service numbers as well. This tell us that New Zealanders have a Government that recognises the tight economic circumstances of the country we are in and that we are moving resources to support improved front-line services. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the news reported on Radio New Zealand this morning that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) office in Blenheim is to be replaced by a drop-box an indication of the kind of front-line services we can expect from this Government; if so can we expect a tape-recorder to replace social workers or a cardboard cut-out to staff our borders? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am fortunate to be advised by the Minister for ACC that the premise of the member’s question is completely wrong. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave to table a transcript from  
Morning Report 
 this morning that states that the ACC office in Blenheim— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not use that mechanism. He knows that he cannot seek leave to table a transcript of a recent common radio report. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the Minister telling the House that Blenheim physiotherapist John Chamberlain was incorrect when he said that the eight-person ACC office in Blenheim will be replaced by a drop-box—a situation that he said was completely unsatisfactory? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have the fortune of being advised by the Minister for ACC himself that there is no plan of the sort described by that member opposite. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister think that his approach to cutting front-line services and the less than transparent process around State sector reform and the mining of the conservation estate might have contributed to some public servants blowing the whistle on his Government’s activities? Would he not be better off focusing on making Government more transparent rather than undertaking a witch-hunt in the public sector? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I must say that a question on transparency in Government coming from the party opposite is very rich. The fact is that the National Government has inherited a very difficult economic situation whereby that party opposite when in Government increased the size of the Public Service by 50 percent over a 9-year period. This Government has put a cap on the number of core Government administrators which has allowed us to move resources to improve front-line services. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question provoked a fair bit of noise in the House. I hope members have let off sufficient steam. 
Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Crown Facilitator Tukoroirangi Morgan 
12. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: How much has Tukoroirangi Morgan been paid by the Office of Treaty Settlements as a Crown Facilitator since 16 November 2008 and has he been paid on a hourly rate or as a fixed charge? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Between 16 November 2008 and 1 March 2010 the Office of Treaty Settlements has paid Mr Morgan $171093.61 GST inclusive for facilitation work with a number of claimant groups. Mr Morgan was paid at an hourly rate with a cap limit. 
David Garrett 
: Can he assure the House that Tukoroirangi Morgan has not been charging for the same hours twice once to the Office of Treaty Settlements and again to the Tainui Maori Trust Board; if not will he release all invoices submitted by Mr Morgan to ensure there has been no double-dipping? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: In answer to the honourable member I say that have no ministerial responsibility for whatever charging arrangements Mr Morgan may have with Waikato-Tainui. I guarantee the honourable member that any payments made by the Crown to Mr Morgan for facilitation work have been for services with the iwi groups I mentioned in my answer to the member’s primary question. That work is quite different from the Crown’s engagement with Waikato-Tainui. 
Questions to Members 
Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill—Submissions 
1. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee 
: How many submissions were heard on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee): 
 Three hundred and forty-one. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Were the media present during the hearings and can he confirm that two of the newspapers  
The Aucklander 
 and  
Gulf News 
 not only reported on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee but also made submissions to it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon John Carter in so far as the question is in order. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I am afraid I cannot recall whether those media made submissions. 
Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill—Submissions on Maori Representation 
2. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee 
: Did the committee hear submissions on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill relating to Maori representation? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Is the Maori Party represented on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee; if so were Maori Party members present when those and other submissions were made? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The composition of select committees is a matter commonly known to the House. If the member is referring to whether a member attended a committee that is not in order. I will allow the member to repeat his question to make sure that I heard it correctly. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Is the Maori Party represented on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee; if so did they attend any of the submissions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon George Hawkins 
: The answers are— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Speaker is on his feet. We cannot allow a question like that. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Public Service—Update on Cap and Job Cuts 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter which may be of interest to members from the Hon Ruth Dyson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release by the Minister of State Services the Hon Tony Ryall of the second 6-monthly update on the Government’s cap of core Government administration and the associated announcement of the cut of 135 jobs at the Ministry of Health. 
As has been ruled on many occasions a continuing issue cannot give rise to a debate under Standing Order 380. The Government’s cap on core Government administration has been in place since 2009 and the Minister’s announcement is his second 6-monthly update. To be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be either a new situation of importance or a new development in an existing situation of sufficient importance in itself to warrant a debate being held. That is Speaker’s ruling 174/4. As there is no new development that is of sufficient importance in itself to warrant immediately putting aside the business of the House this application for urgent debate is declined. 
Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill 
District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill 
Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill the District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill and the Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. These three bills emerge from the division of the Judicial Matters Bill and I will deal with them one by one. 
The first is the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill. It amends the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. The Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner provides a public and transparent judicial complaints process while upholding the principle of judicial independence. The bill makes three changes. Firstly it creates the position of Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner who will be appointed in the same manner as the Judicial Conduct Commissioner—that is by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House. The Attorney-General is required to consult the Chief Justice on the proposed nomination prior to the debate in the House. The deputy commissioner will be able to conduct a preliminary examination of a complaint when the commissioner has a conflict of interest regarding the complaint or is otherwise unavailable. 
Secondly the bill allows the commissioner to dispose of a complaint if in all the circumstances further consideration of the complaint is not justified. This is appropriate where the complainant is satisfied following an explanation or apology from the judge. However even though the complainant may be satisfied by the judge’s explanation or apology the commissioner may still decide that further consideration of the complaint is required. In making the changes on the disposal of complaints the opportunity has been taken to do a number of other things to clarify some reasons why the commissioner may take particular actions to set out the actions available to the commissioner in the sequence of the Act as amended by this legislation and to update schedule 1 which provides a diagrammatic overview of the complaints process. 
Finally the bill states that the amendments do not apply to complaints lodged prior to the commencement of this legislation. Consequential amendments are also made to the Coroners Act 2006 and the Official Information Act 1982. The amendments strengthen the Act’s primary objective of the prompt handling of judicial complaints. They are based on the previous commissioner’s recommendations in his annual report to Parliament and are endorsed by the present commissioner. 
The second bill is the District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill which amends the District Courts Act 1947 to increase the statutory limit on the number of judges who may be appointed from 140 to 156. This limit includes all judges holding a District Court judicial warrant. These are judges of the District Court in its specialist divisions—the Family Court and the Youth Court—as well as judges of the Environment Court and the chairperson of the proposed new Immigration and Protection Tribunal. Currently two judges of the Employment Court hold warrants as District Court judges as do the chief coroner and the outgoing Principal Disputes Referee. 
Since coming into office this Government has progressed and continues to progress significant legislative and policy initiatives that are aimed at making New Zealand a fairer and safer society. The effective implementation of these initiatives particularly those arising from the Government’s 100-day action plan will require increased judicial resources and this need is primarily in the District Courts. The legislation amends the District Courts Act to increase the statutory limit and it is the first increase since 2004. While meeting the judicial resource requirement flowing on from the Government’s initiatives the increase will also allow some scope for future appointments. 
The final bill is the Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill which makes three amendments to the Judicature Act 1908. First it confirms that High Court judges serving as acting judges of the Court of Appeal should receive the same remuneration for that period of service as the permanent judges of the Court of Appeal. The bill also validates past payments made in these circumstances. High Court judges provide a valuable supply of additional judicial resource to the Court of Appeal especially for hearings in both the criminal appeals division and the civil appeals division. In addition to ensuring the Court of Appeal can get through its heavy workload High Court judges are able to share their current experience in conducting trials while gaining insights into the appellate process. 
While serving in the Court of Appeal High Court judges receive a higher duties allowance which is calculated on a per diem basis on the difference between the salaries of judges of the two courts as determined by the Remuneration Authority. Although the payment practice is consistent with the principles of judicial independence in 2008 the High Court in  
Wikio v Attorney-General 
 expressed the view that the payment of an allowance to a High Court judge sitting in the Court of Appeal should rest on a more secure constitutional foundation than was apparent from the available evidence. The amendment addresses this concern. I note that there was a very helpful discussion in the Committee where members of all sides raised a number of points and the concerns expressed by the Labour Opposition about the placing of judicial salaries on a more sound constitutional footing were certainly noted. 
Secondly the bill increases the current statutory limit on the number of Associate Judges of the High Court who may be appointed; this limit increases from six to nine. It is the first increase for many years. The office was created in 1989 and associate judges have made a valuable contribution to civil proceedings in the High Court. As I noted in my speech on the second reading of the Judicial Matters Bill the increase in the cap together with the recently announced court-assisted mediation pilot and the recent improvements to the High Court Rules will ensure adequate judicial resources are available to meet the increasing demands of the High Court’s workload. 
Lastly the bill amends the statutory limit on the number of Court of Appeal judges so that the maximum number including the President is increased from nine to 10. This amendment is intended to meet the increasing workload of the Court of Appeal. The statutory limit was last increased in 2006. 
In conclusion the amendments set out in these bills are important improvements to enhance public confidence in the judicial complaints process and they will ensure that our courts are adequately resourced. I thank members once again for their collaborative spirit in discussing some of the important constitutional issues addressed by this legislation. I commend these bills to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The parts of this legislation that reform the judicial complaints procedure and allow for an increase in the number of Associate Judges of the High Court were introduced originally by Clayton Cosgrove on 25 June 2008 and were read by the House a first time on 26 August of that year. In his capacity as Associate Minister of Justice at the time Mr Cosgrove said they would increase public confidence in the judicial complaints process and ensure that an adequate resourcing level was available to meet the growing workload of the judiciary. 
In respect of the amendments to the judicial complaints procedure Mr Cosgrove explained that the amendments were based on the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s recommendations in his reports annually to Parliament. Despite some minor changes recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee and some further changes introduced by Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson in the Committee stage in essence the legislation that we are now reading a third time and that will become the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Act will do just that. David Gascoigne a friend and former colleague of mine now holds office as the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. As I have said on previous occasions the House can be very confident that he will do an excellent job in that role and the amendments that we are about to make to the law will assist him to do so. 
As to the raising of the cap on the number of associate judges from six to nine at the time of the first reading of this legislation Clayton Cosgrove pointed out that this is the first increase in the ceiling since 1991. He set out very helpfully in his speech the history of this class of judicial officer. He started with the amendment back in 1989 to provide for the appointment of Masters of the High Court. He noted that since their inception the jurisdiction of the masters increased from hearing summary judgment and bankruptcy applications to much more complex commercial issues such as insolvency proceedings. He canvassed the renaming of the masters in 2004 to become associate judges and he recited the fact that at that time they were given permanent tenure of the court. He noted that associate judges have a specialist civil jurisdiction and that they are invaluable in alleviating the workload pressures of judges by undertaking a range of work in the company law and insolvency areas. 
It is clear I think that the increase in the statutory cap will enable future associate judge appointments to be made if and when they are required without an unnecessary legislative delay. This in turn will ensure that adequate resources are available for the growing workload of associate judges especially given the commencement of the Insolvency Act 2006. 
Christopher Finlayson conceded during the second reading of this legislation that he and his colleagues had opposed it when it first came before the House. He had used quite strong language to express that opposition. On the judicial complaints issue he originally said in the first reading that the approach adopted by Labour was “illustrated by this foolish legislation: set up an office create procedures appoint a commissioner and then bring on the inevitable amendment bill that seeks to appoint a deputy commissioner. The next thing we will have is … a culture of complaint being encouraged and nurtured. There are plenty of litigants out there who having lost their cases will personalise them against judges. They are encouraged by this ridiculous regime to make complaints. … We do not see any need for a deputy commissioner. In fact we do not see any need for a commissioner. … This person does not need a deputy because the prospect of conflict of interest is minimal. … There is no need to legislate the obvious such as clauses dealing with the disposal of complaints and we are therefore opposed to this stupid legislation.” 
In respect of the proposal to raise the maximum number of associate judges Mr Finlayson wondered “whether simply increasing their number at this time masks the real problem with civil litigation an area of the law that this Government [the previous Labour Government] has neglected throughout its term.” He referred to a crisis in civil litigation and a system that he said was “undermined by costs increasingly prescriptive processes and delay. A real problem in civil litigation is the vast amount of money being spent on needless discovery of documents. Another problem in my opinion is the prescriptive case management procedures”. Mr Finlayson went on to suggest that “Fundamental reform of the civil justice system is required. I do not think we need more associate judges; we need fundamental reform. We also need to free judges from the burdens of administration so that they can concentrate on their core job which is to judge.” 
As I said Mr Finlayson acknowledged the change in his position during subsequent readings of this legislation. I suppose he could hardly do less than that since by then he had become the sponsor of it. He did not apologise for the intemperate language that he had used in his original speech in the first reading; perhaps that would be too much to hope for. But Mr Finlayson went further than reversing his original position and his party’s original opposition. He tabled further amendments during the course of the Committee stage that provide for another permanent member of the Court of Appeal 16 new District Court judges and the regularisation of a higher duties allowance payable to members of the High Court who are sitting temporarily on the Court of Appeal. None of those amendments went to a select committee despite the significant financial and constitutional issues that they raise. Mr Finlayson even sought at one stage to have the House deal with them under urgency. Labour did decide in the end to support the changes sought by the Government when it was asked to do so although not to have them dealt with under urgency. 
In closing I want to tell the Government and the Attorney-General that in fact many members on this side of the House actually have sympathy with the original sentiments that he expressed. There are real issues with regard to the administration of our justice system and ordinary New Zealanders have real problems in accessing justice meaningfully in our country. Many of those matters were ameliorated by Labour when it was in office but I do agree that more thorough reform is needed. It should not simply be a matter of always increasing the maximum number of judges that can sit in a particular court. As was noted during the Committee stage debate if we reach the new ceiling for the number of District Court judges the largest court in Australasia will be represented by the District Court. It cannot be the case that we will simply continue to add more and more judicial officers to the system without looking at the fundamental questions that arise about the operation of that system. 
I hope that Mr Finlayson will be equal to the challenge of reforming the system the challenge that he laid out in Opposition and that he does not lose his passion for reform now simply because he is sitting on the Treasury benches and is being advised by officials. If he is to have a place in our history as a significant reformer of the civil justice system he needs to rise to the challenge of the need for thorough reform of that system along the lines perhaps of the excellent report of the Law Commission on the structure of the courts which sadly has sat on the shelves since it was published. That is an excellent report. It recommends thorough reform of the system the creation of a community court at the first level the rationalisation of the High Court and the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court sitting at the apex of the system. That sort of reform is needed in the system at the moment not simply the continued addition of more and more judicial officers to the creaky system that currently exists. If Mr Finlayson is up to that challenge he will certainly have support from this side of the House. If he is not then certainly the next Labour Government will look to enact those sort of reforms. Thank you. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I said in an earlier reading of the Judicial Matters Bill that the matters we are dealing with in it may in many ways seem dry or not even technical really in that we are just increasing some numbers and creating a new role and that is about it. But behind it all are important constitutional principles that go to the heart of the rule of law in this country and ultimately our democracy. It is important that we get legislation like this right and that we do a good and thorough job. It is good to see as we come to the third reading stage of what was one bill but is now three bills that we have done that. 
This legislation does a number of things. It takes the original law that created a Judicial Conduct Commissioner and a Judicial Conduct Panel—which was important for giving confidence in the complaints process in relation to the judiciary—and it creates the new position of Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. Again as I said in an earlier speech there are many reasons why it is important to have a deputy. It is surprising in many ways that we did not get this right the first time we did the job and created the position of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner given that in a small nation like New Zealand where the legal community is obviously even smaller—people know each other well and everyone who has worked in a law firm knows many other lawyers well professionally and personally—conflicts of interest and appearances of conflicts of interest will arise. Also the Judicial Conduct Commissioner will from time to time get sick be overseas or not be able to perform his or her job for any variety of reasons so it is important that we create the position of a Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. We have also given this office the power to take no further action which is something that I think the Judicial Conduct Panel recommended. 
Through a series of bills we have increased the number of Associate Judges of the High Court. I remember talking fondly about associate judges in an earlier reading. I said what an important role they play in terms of getting through the lion’s share of corporate commercial company securities work in our country. They do a very good job for us. 
The legislation also increases the number of District Court judges High Court judges and Court of Appeal judges. Let me just ponder very briefly the increase in the number of District Court judges from 140 to 156. I think it is worth noting that our District Court judges do a superb job for us in this country. As a lawyer I appeared before a wide variety of judges of all shapes and sizes and of all intellects—I will not dwell on that point—and they do a very good job in our courts. In the Tauranga District Court we are exceptionally well served by Judges Thomas Harding Rollo Ingram Bidois Somerville and Geoghegan. All of them do an excellent job day in day out under what is—sadly given that most of it is criminal and family work—a growing demand for their expertise and wisdom. 
With those remarks I finish by saying that this series of bills does a number of things that some might think of as boring. Nevertheless behind all that is important principles and issues that go to the heart of the rule of law and democracy in our country. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to address the three bills that now take the place of the Judicial Matters Bill that we have been debating over the last wee while. I think it is worth reflecting on some of the comments that were made by the National Party in Opposition when this bill was introduced originally by a Labour-led Government. 
I know that people change their minds. One can understand that after considering all of the facts and taking into account a consideration of advice both from officials and perhaps from submissions that have been made a party may change its position and that is something to be encouraged. Listening to people hearing the evidence considering expert advice—all of those things ought to lead a Minister of a Government of any colour to be willing to take into account those matters and to adjust the position so that it is reflective of a sensible policy position rather than one that is not substantiated by evidence. National standards would be a really good example of where that has not happened. On this occasion it has happened but the Government has gone completely to the opposite extreme and at no stage has it given us a clear exposition as to why it shifted from one position to the other. 
There was a point which I will just follow on from Simon Bridges who was addressing this issue just before when he talked about judges and having to increase their numbers. I will simply quote back the statement made by Chris Finlayson before he became the Attorney-General. He said in respect of associate judges: “Although National has great respect for associate judges and the work they do simply increasing their number is not the answer. Reforming the civil justice system is the answer.” I would support that; I agree that we need a substantive reform of our civil justice system and it is something that I am working on from the Labour Party perspective. 
It is a shame that we have not really had the in-depth debate on this legislation that we should have. We have not really engaged with the Minister about the change in approach that has been adopted. For example when National started with this particular legislation from the position of being in Opposition it completely opposed it. Its members spoke against the bill and voted against it but more so they were actually quite derisory of the type of legislation that it represents. Let me read this quote from again the Hon Chris Finlayson at the time that he was the Opposition spokesperson: “The Labour Party approach is illustrated by this foolish legislation: set up an office create procedures appoint a commissioner and then bring on the inevitable amendment bill that seeks to appoint a deputy commissioner.” which is what this bill does. “The next thing we will have is a registrar a council of worthies hundreds of bureaucrats and lo and behold a culture of complaint being encouraged and nurtured. There are plenty of litigants out there who having lost their cases will personalise them against judges. They are encouraged by this ridiculous regime to make complaints. Of course judges can be rude grumpy or discourteous. In many cases one can hardly blame them given the quality of submissions they have to hear from lawyers. But are we such a weak-kneed sissy society that if a judge barks at us we have to run off to some judicial complaints body? I do not think so.” 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Who said that? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That was said by Chris Finlayson when he was the Opposition spokesperson; he is now the Minister in charge of the legislation that is appointing a deputy to the position he was completely opposed to setting up in the first place. 
If one listens to the evidence and is prepared to seriously take those matters into account then that is fine. But I never once during the Committee stage of this legislation heard the Attorney-General respond to the issues that that position raises. I raised this issue in the Committee stage and I want to put it on the record again because I would like a National MP to respond to this. I made the comment that Chris Finlayson’s comments were the comments of a true list MP because as a constituency MP nobody could possibly say that having no complaints procedure for judges would be completely inappropriate and would lead to more problems as it used to than previously was the case. Let me give the example of men’s groups picketing outside judges’ houses. Is that really what National would have liked to see continue? People who are treated by a judge in a manner that is inappropriate ought to have a place where their complaint can be heard. The fact that the complaints largely have not been upheld is a robust measure of the system rather than anything other than that. 
I made the point in the Committee stage that the judicial complaints process could really be seen as a steam valve on what would otherwise be a purely pressure cooker environment. The risk of not having a judicial complaints process is that that lack of a steam valve means that things can literally blow up. I mean that seriously. If members look internationally at some of the threats that are made to judges outside their court environment it is a very very serious matter indeed and we have seen things happen in this country that I would not want to see recur. 
The fundamental problem that I will come back to is the concept of civil justice system reform that is required. One can think of all of the constituents who have come into our offices over the last few years who have used the example of what they have lost in court. They have argued over the result or how they were treated or any manner of things arising out of the case. I do not think there would be anyone in this House who would not have asked at some stage why their constituent’s case ended up in court. Why on earth does a neighbourhood dispute end up in court? Why does a family dispute end up in court? Why do any of these issues that involve human relationships end up in our civil jurisdiction in court? This says to me that we need to be doing something a little bit more reflective around the idea of community mediation and maybe even around the idea of a community judge or community courts—ideas that were mooted I think in the 2004 Law Commission report on access to justice for all. 
I am raising this issue because although the Attorney-General has not responded as to what has brought about National’s change of heart I agree with one element of what he said at the time when he opposed the legislation. We need to revisit our civil justice system and we need to look at whether we can do better for New Zealanders as a whole by extending the principles of community mediation and community justice in a holistic way. On that note I am pleased to see the legislation pass through its final stages today and I am pleased that Labour is in a position to support its passage. I am also very pleased that the Government of the day has changed its position from the one originally expressed. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I rise to take a very short call on the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill the District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill and the Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill because the Green Party will be supporting all of them. I want to speak in support of comments made by my colleague Dr Kennedy Graham in the first reading the second reading and the Committee stage. He wanted me to assure the House that we had some concerns particularly around Supplementary Order Paper 108 but we were provided with background information by the Attorney-General that satisfied all of our concerns so we are comfortable now to vote with others in support of all stages of the legislation. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 These three bills—the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill the District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill and the Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill—emerged from two simple issues. The first is the opportunity to look afresh at the role of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the Judicial Conduct Panel and to understand how to best improve upon their performance. Specifically the bills introduce the means by which a deputy commissioner can be appointed when the commissioner has a conflict of interest is absent from the office or is incapacitated. The second initiative amends the Judicature Act 1908 to increase the maximum number of associate judges of the High Court from six to nine. 
Of course this is about more than bumping up the numbers on the bench or finding substitutes to fill in for the commissioner. The wider purpose behind these initiatives is to enhance public confidence in the judicial system and protect impartiality and integrity in the system. It would seem a most opportune time to be doing so. Just 3 months ago a report was released based on research published during the last 40 years to bring together findings on bias against ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples at key stages of the criminal justice system. That report entitled  
Identifying and Responding to Bias in the Criminal Justice System 
 represents the most comprehensive review on the literature around ethnicity and the criminal justice system undertaken in New Zealand to date. It is clearly of key interest in terms of this bill. 
Probably the most significant finding from the review is the conclusion that further research is required to remedy the gaps in current knowledge about ethnic disparities in the New Zealand criminal justice system. Importantly it also notes that although further research is always useful it is unlikely to provide definitive conclusions about the location nature and extent of bias in the system. The report cautions against placing any policy development on hold pending the outcome of the review. The report does identify however that research undertaken by the Law Commission in New Zealand found substantial variations in practice between different court districts in sentences imposed which were unlikely to be accounted for by offence or offender variables. We need to understand how such significant differences can occur between different court regions and different judges. But as the review itself states we do not have the luxury of time to wait and wonder; we must do what we can to maintain and enhance public confidence in the judiciary now. 
A common response to situations of criminal justice bias has been the introduction of cultural awareness training programmes. Initiatives to raise cultural awareness are found in the United States the United Kingdom Australia Canada and New Zealand. Specific examples here include the cultural awareness training undertaken by police recruits and probation officers as well as cultural awareness programmes for judges. The Maori Party is a strong advocate of cultural competency—that is competence in our beliefs practices expectations and behaviours—to be able to operate in different cultural contexts. Although cultural awareness—by which we mean sensitivity and understanding towards other cultures—is critical the more proactive step is to be able to act in ways that acknowledge respect and build upon ethnic sociocultural and linguistic diversity. 
One would hope that as a result of this review the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and those involved in assisting the Judicial Conduct Panel will be supported by specific professional development in both cultural awareness and cultural competency. For all those who have to ask why I simply point to the outcomes which reveal that when our identities are valued and our cultural integrity is intact the difference in productivity in positivity and in perception is measurable. 
This legislation does a number of things. It sets in place the expectation of a fair investigation process to enable informed decisions to be made about the removal of judges from office. It establishes the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner for the receipt and assessment of complaints about the conduct of judges. It includes provisions that will result in a more transparent process to deal with complaints about the conduct of judges. It introduces greater flexibility in the manner of determining the maximum number of judges. All these initiatives enhance the transparency and accountability of the judiciary through public scrutiny and that in itself is helpful. 
I think that while these developments are in progress it is absolutely appropriate to be looking at the issues associated with bias in the criminal justice system. This is the right time for a comprehensive look at the big picture. We all know that sometimes individual conduct which may not seem overtly serious in a particular case assumes the appearance of bias when it is so consistent as to demonstrate a pattern. Perhaps then there should be room for complaints about conduct based upon a judge’s overall record. I go back to something that Ngati Kahungunu lawyer Moana Jackson once said in his report  
The 
Maori and the Criminal Justice System: a new perspective—he whaipainga hou 
: “The ethnocentric and unquestioning acceptance of the ideas of judicial impartiality essentially means that the possibility of such views affecting sentencing is rarely raised or even less frequently researched.” Thus studies indicating that Maori are more likely than Pakeha to receive custodial sentences are explained purely in terms of more frequent and more serious offending. 
The report produced for the Ministry of Justice last November and this bill’s proceeding through the House today provide us with all the opportunity we need to respond to Jackson’s concerns about judicial impartiality. It would inevitably be useful if we were able to develop a robust process by which complaints against judges’ conduct based on their overall sentencing record could be investigated. We support greater flexibility in the manner of determining the maximum number of judges but most of all we welcome these bills to initiate a more transparent process to deal with any nature of complaints about the conduct of judges. Such initiatives do much to maintain and enhance public confidence in the judiciary and for these reasons the Maori Party will be supporting the bills at their third reading. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill the District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill and the Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the Judicial Conduct (Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill is to introduce measures aimed at maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the judicial system. The bill allows for the proper investigation of matters that will lead to the removal of a judge. 
The office of the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner provides the public with a transparent and accessible judicial complaints process. The bill establishes that new office and the deputy commissioner is to be appointed by the Governor-General after consultation with the Chief Justice of New Zealand on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. The deputy commissioner must deal with the complaint in respect of which the Judicial Conduct Commissioner has decided that he or she has a conflict of interest. The bill covers complaints about judges of the Supreme Court the Court of Appeal or the High Court and also associate judges of the High Court and coroners. The bill gives the commissioner the power to take no further action in respect of the complaint if further consideration of the complaint is deemed unjustified. The reason could be as follows: the complaint has been resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction; the complaint although genuine and made in good faith was based on a misunderstanding; or the amount of information about the conduct of the person is not enough to form an opinion. The complaint if substantiated must warrant consideration of the removal of the judge from office or referral to the head of the bench. 
The Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s office receives approximately 100 complaints a year and of those complaints approximately 80 percent are dismissed. The commissioner’s annual report to Parliament noted that the most common reason for dismissing a complaint was that the complaint stemmed from the complainant’s disagreement with the judge’s decision rather than the judge’s conduct. 
The District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill increases the number of District Court judges from 140 to 156 which will help in providing justice to victims at a faster rate. The Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill increases the number of associate judges from six to nine. The bill will also increase the limit on Court of Appeal judges which will in turn improve the judicial system. Those increases deal with the impasse that currently exists in the system and that creates an unacceptable delay for victims. I commend the bills to the House. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand and speak on the third readings of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill the District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill and the Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill. I have been lucky enough to have had the opportunity to contribute several times through the passage of this legislation. It has changed a little since it was first introduced to this House; however Labour still supports the bills in their totality. 
It is important to point out that the Government has not always supported the legislation it is now ushering through the House. I note that my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel raised some concerns about the comments made in the first reading debate by the Attorney-General who is in charge of this legislation. I do not believe that this House’s queries as to his initial feelings about the legislation have been satisfied through its passage. I want to reflect on some of those comments to point out how I believe that we may have a case where legislation has been taken through the House by a Minister who does not entirely believe in it. However it may not be the first time; I think that Simon Power is another example of a Minister who has taken through bills that he does not entirely believe in. 
During the first reading of this legislation Christopher Finlayson stated: “That is the National Party approach—do it subtly but do it effectively. The Labour Party approach is illustrated by this foolish legislation: set up an office create procedures appoint a commissioner and then bring on the inevitable amendment bill that seeks to appoint a deputy commissioner.” 
Moana Mackey 
: Who said that? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: That is a good question. That was a statement made by Christopher Finlayson the Minister who is now taking this very legislation through the House. I found it somewhat ironic that in the process of taking the Judicial Matters Bill through he split it into these three bills and added in a couple of layers along the way—just for good measure and just to add an extra layer of contradiction to his words. 
He also stated: “In 2004 National opposed the substantive legislation”—so he not only opposed the amendment but also opposed the primary legislation. “We said that it was an unwarranted attack on judicial independence and that it would encourage ineffective and stupid complaints—in fact that it would encourage a culture of complaints.” I find those words not only interesting but also concerning. They are concerning firstly because essentially the Minister is claiming that to have a complaints procedure sit around our judiciary may impact upon their independence when I feel that it adds weight to the trust that the public can have in the judiciary having a complaints procedure attached to them; secondly the idea that having a mechanism for complaints attached to the judiciary may encourage complaints is one that I find quite puzzling and worrying. If that logic held why would we have for instance the Ombudsman attached to the House of Parliament or the Police Complaints Authority? 
Moana Mackey 
: It is part of the title. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: It is in the title. I am not sure that its existence in of itself encourages complaints. I think there are legitimate complaints that go to that authority and it is important that it exists and likewise with this body too. 
My colleague noted that she thought they were the comments of a true list MP. Personally I think they are just the comments of a cynical MP. Being a list MP myself I would like to think that I can see the need for that particular body. 
Moana Mackey 
: Don’t tar us with that brush. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Indeed. Mr Finlayson said: “Of course judges can be rude grumpy or discourteous. In many cases one can hardly blame them given the quality of submissions”. He goes on to say: “if a judge barks at us [do] we have to run off to some judicial complaints body?”. I think we have seen enough complaints coming through this body to justify its existence. Granted there are some frivolous claims in there but I would not want to see those frivolous claims become the reason for not having the body altogether. As I have already pointed out the body gives the New Zealand public an extra layer of comfort that they have an independent and a very professional judicial system in New Zealand. Having again highlighted some of those issues I tell any National members who wish to air on behalf of the Minister the reasons why he no longer holds those views that I would appreciate hearing from them. 
I will touch on some key elements of the legislation and a couple of the key changes that have been made during the Committee stage and final stages in this legislation’s passage. Two provisions in particular come under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill. This part of the legislation establishes the new office of the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. The function of the deputy commissioner is to carry out the functions of the commission itself in relation to complaints during the absence from the office of the incapacity of or a vacancy in the office of the commissioner. Again we have had a situation which has already been raised during the debate in this House where it has been necessary for a deputy commissioner to be used in a case of a perceived conflict of interest. I think we have already had an illustration of the work this role could play. 
Secondly—and I think this is more to do with the expediency of complaints going through the system—the bill gives to the commissioner a power to take no further action in respect of a complaint if the commissioner is satisfied that further consideration of the complaint would in all circumstances be unjustified. I think that the numbers the House has been presented with demonstrate that there probably are ways we can move through some of those complaints that are based on a judge’s ruling as opposed to a judge’s conduct. We have found the balance here in giving that enabling power to a commissioner to speed through those complaints that may be deemed inappropriate. 
We also have a new element to the bill. It gives the commissioner an added option after the preliminary examination to refer the complaint if substantiated to the head of bench. That provision comes under section 17 and a number of consequential amendments have arisen from that provision. It is my belief that that was inserted by Christopher Finlayson during the Committee stage and I want to highlight that it would have been our preference for that element of the legislation to have been able to be discussed in the select committee. That would have been ideal; it would have been helpful. We recognise that it is in keeping with the expediency element of the legislation; therefore we will support that provision. 
As I have already stated we believe that this bill one of three after the split is necessary to enhance public confidence and we also believe that it strengthens the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s primary objective of ensuring the prompt handling of complaints. It is probably also worthwhile to point out that these provisions are based on the recommendations of the commissioner himself in his 2005 and 2006 annual reports to Parliament so it is good to see that we are acting on those recommendations. 
I will touch on the second bill which is the District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. It was the subject of some discussion during the Committee stage because it increases the maximum number of District Court judges from 140 to 156 which is an amendment to section 5(2) of the District Courts Act 1947. I can see why Mr Finlayson put this amendment forward. In his first reading speech he talked about the need to bring greater efficiencies and improve the general judicial system in New Zealand. I can only assume that this bill is part of his plan in that regard. Although we do not have a problem with increasing the number of District Court judges it would have been our preference if this constitutional matter had gone to the select committee. I do say that an increase in judges will not necessarily lead to an increase in productivity if that is the ultimate aim. 
I have a wider point that I think should be made here: a District Court judge gets paid about $280000 per year and I find it ironic that at a time when the Government finds it necessary to make significant cuts to the State sector in a recession we are standing here and almost unannounced are shuffling through additional numbers of District Court judges at such a weighty cost. If the Government is so sure that these cuts to the State sector will enable the front line to improve so why are nurses so concerned about the Government’s cuts? Why are teachers so concerned about the Government’s cuts? They are not the ones being cut. They have no special interest; they are worried because nurses cannot do their jobs if they do not have support to do their jobs. Teachers cannot do their jobs without the support to do their jobs. To date the Government has not demonstrated to me what the front line is. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I took the liberty of checking  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and I can perhaps remind the House that third reading debates by their nature are ones of summarising the discussion and conversation that have gone on during the course of the debate on the particular bill. I do not know why Trevor Mallard contributed to the debate at the time but perhaps it was because the Hon David Parker was yet again late to get to his speaking spot as I think he might have been this afternoon. But it so happened that young Trevor Mallard somehow contributed to the debate. 
Of course most of this debate has been centred on the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and only in the latter part of the Committee stage was the original bill split. But during the substantive discussions on the Judicial Conduct Commissioner part the Hon Trevor Mallard focused at the time on the role of the commissioner and the fact that his or her job was to hear complaints. For some reason he seemed to think that I might be an appropriate subject for a complaint because he alleged that I did not know my way to the Hutt Valley. I assured him during the debate that I did so perhaps the laying of a complaint would not be possible. 
What I found fascinating was that subsequently there was an article in the local community newspaper around WelTec parking in Petone. I had a meeting—this is a matter that I have been working on for many months— 
Moana Mackey 
: 5 minutes. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Many months actually I say to Moana Mackey. I ended up having a meeting on 15 February with a subcommittee of the Petone Community Board. In fact prior to the— 
Moana Mackey 
: What do you want? A gold star? That’s your job. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Because we are talking about complaints—we are talking about complaints. So I met with the community board and poor old Trevor Mallard in the following day’s  
Hutt News 
 did not even know that in fact the board had actually met. So I thought that it might be a useful— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is straying well outside the bounds. I am standing; the member will sit down. The member started off by quoting the Standing Orders about what third reading debates were and I ask the member to concentrate on a third reading speech. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Well with those concluding remarks I commend the third reading of this legislation to the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I want to start my remarks by referencing the changes in relation to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. The introduction of a deputy commissioner is supported by the Labour Party. Labour of course proposed the measure prior to the election. The move was opposed by National but in a change of heart since then National has realised the wisdom of the moves that were initiated by Labour. National now supports the change and is also making an additional change in respect of the circumstances in which a commissioner can take no further action on a complaint. If I have time I might come back to that a little but that is the essence of that bill and the Labour Party supports it. 
I think the more substantive change that is being made in this legislation is the change in respect of the number of District Court judges because it raises a number of issues. I think that the most powerful reason for increasing the number of District Court judges is that otherwise we are reliant upon too many retired or semi-retired judges acting under temporary warrants. That is problematic for two reasons. The first is that I think there are many people in New Zealand who do not think it is good practice to have some judges retired on superannuation and collecting remuneration as acting judges. That just does not seem right given that judges are pretty well paid in the first place. If that is too prevalent then we could expect to see newspaper criticisms of people in judicial offices. That is something we ought to try to protect the judicial system from through having enough judges so that we are not reliant on retired judges acting under temporary warrants. 
The other constitutional principle that lies under the objection to having too many acting judges who are retired judges is the separation of powers. Retired judges under temporary warrants effectively have their warrants renewed quite regularly through executive action—through the Attorney-General renewing the warrant of a temporary judge. In a theoretical sense that means the accusation can be made that a temporary judge acting under a temporary warrant is reliant on a good relationship with the executive. 
So rather than being seen as independent—as judges normally are and ought to be—from the executive the assertion or aspersion can be made that they are reliant upon that relationship in order to get a renewal of their temporary warrant in a way that undermines their independence and undermines the confidence of participants in the judicial system that the judgement the temporary judge is exercising is separate from the influence of the executive via the Attorney-General. So that is the principle that underlies not having too much of a reliance on temporary District Court judges or judges acting under temporary warrants following their retirement. 
The other issue that is raised every time we look at increases in judge numbers—and here we have an increase not in just District Court judge numbers; in related legislation or companion legislation there is an increase in the number of associate judges as well—is whether this is brought about by inefficiencies in the judicial system. Judicial processes are expensive to the litigant and to the Crown and through the Crown to taxpayers who pay the judges’ salaries pay for their support staff pay for the maintenance of offices and pay for the security arrangements etc. 
I think that some good points were made by Dr Richard Worth during the debate on the original bill. He noted that over the years the number of cases that High Court judges deal with has decreased very dramatically. I know that in the period when I was practising law and since I have been practising regularly the length of judgments has become I think wrong. They are just so long and inordinately complex that we are letting the pursuit of perfection get in the way of the sensible. 
That is most true in the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. But it is also something that we need to keep an eye on in the District Court where in the last 20 years civil processes especially but also criminal processes have become more complex. Life has become more complex—that is true. Expectations as to the quality of decisions have probably increased. Some of those changed expectations were probably good. But I question whether we have now gone a bit far in New Zealand and whether we have the right balance between perfection and practicality. 
The danger is that if we move too far towards perfection we have a system that is perfect for those who access it but is inaccessible to most people because they cannot afford to access it. I think the reality now is that most people cannot afford to go to court to have their disputes resolved and that is the underlying purpose of courts—to resolve disputes in a civil manner so that we do not resolve them through recourse to fisticuffs the Mongrel Mob or whatever our method of settlement of disputes may be. I thought Richard Worth made a good point in that there needs to be a focus on judicial productivity on the rules. Some good changes are being made. During the short period that I was the Attorney-General I was quite supportive of the changes being made to the District Court Rules particularly around civil processes. 
These things take a long time it seems to come through the system but those changes have recently been promulgated. I congratulate those leading the charge on that including Judge Colin Doherty from Christchurch who was instrumental in those changes. I encourage the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson to follow his instincts because I think he is similarly concerned about the decrease in the number of cases that are heard by a judge every year and the increasing complexity of those cases for the judicial officers presiding as well as for the people who are bringing their disputes to the courts for resolution. I for one think that most people would be happy to sacrifice a little bit of the perfection in order to have a process that is still fair but more accessible to them because they can afford to go there. I think that is probably the main point I would make in respect of the increase in judicial numbers. 
I do not want to be seen to be always criticising retired judges who are acting under temporary warrants. Again this is a question where there is a need for balance. Retired judges by dint of their experience before retirement are generally the most experienced judges we have in the system. I think it is good that we have a system in New Zealand that allows that experience to be brought to bear because it can be passed on to new judges. Also when we have a bolus of work or when we have a bit more work on a temporary basis in a particular region then that can be dealt with efficiently without the need to take on a permanent judge because we can take on a temporary judge who is a retired judge. That is a good thing particularly in a country of low population density like New Zealand. A relatively small change in workloads in a lowly populated area can change the workload of a court unexpectedly albeit temporarily. 
Temporary judges have their place but we ought not to become too reliant upon them for two reasons. Firstly some people see it as double-dipping—superannuation income plus being paid as a judge. Secondly there is accountability argument. The judge seeking a temporary warrant might become dependent and therefore influenced by the member of the executive in this case the Attorney-General who appoints him or her and therefore the judge’s independence is undermined. The Labour Party supports the legislation. Thank you. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a short call on the three bills that have come from the Judicial Matters Bill. I will start by commenting on the speech of the member who has just resumed his seat the Hon David Parker. I agree with a great deal of what he said and I want to touch on one of the points that he made on the desirability of extending the number of Associate Judges of the High Court. Until Mr Parker’s contribution I had not heard that proposal discussed a lot in this debate. The flipside of that I guess is the desirability of moving away from having a large number of temporary warrant holders. Mr Parker quite rightly spoke about the number of those judges who have retired and been given temporary warrants. I would also highlight that in that category there are a number of judges who are at the other end of their career. As there has not been the legislative capacity to appoint more associate judges there has been a need to bring in judges as temporary judges to fill the void. We have not had the legislative mandate to appoint them as associate judges and I am sure there has been a desire to do so. I know that the temporary associate judges who are in that category are left in somewhat of a void. 
I take on board Mr Parker’s comments although I would hate to think there is any suggestion—and I am sure he did not mean to imply it—that those judges would operate their warrants in anything other than a very objective fair and impartial manner regardless of their temporary warrants. I think we owe it to those judges where there is an intention for them to be associate judges for the long term to give them that certainty. Certainly by moving the threshold from six to nine judges we now have the capacity to be far more clear when we appoint associate judges as to their real expected tenure rather than having to use an inappropriate mechanism to allow that void to be filled. 
The only other point I wanted to touch on in my contribution to this debate is in respect of the additional power given to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to take no further action on complaints. Obviously it is very good—and I know it has been spoken of extensively in this debate—that there will now be a deputy commissioner. The element of the extra power for that officer in terms of dealing with complaints is an important step. 
I want to reflect that we have an excellent judiciary in this country and I think one that we can all be rightly very proud of but it is not a given in every country. I have just been reading in the latest  
LawTalk 
 about Kenya’s judiciary which is in a very perilous state. We have an excellent judiciary in New Zealand but none the less we need to have an effective process whereby people feel that if they have a complaint it will be heard. But equally the history of this office has shown that although there has been a significant number of complaints—certainly enough to justify the office of deputy commissioner—the vast bulk of those can be disposed of reasonably simply without significant steps having to be taken. I think that adding “no further action” to the statutory remedies provides a good mechanism for dealing with those complaints. People can still feel they have been heard there has been a good independent review but it ensures that we do not have to take up too much of that office’s time with complaints that can be dealt with reasonably simply. 
I just wanted to make those two small contributions to the debate. It is very good to see this legislation progressing it is good to see the support it has around the House and I add my voice to commending the legislation to the House. Thank you. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party will be supporting this legislation. 
Bills read a third time. 
Education Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill will improve the quality and effectiveness of education legislation. It proposes two broad areas of policy change. The first area of change is in current police vetting arrangements which will improve students’ safety and reduce compliance costs for schools and early childhood education services. The second change introduces information matching to provide a better system for ensuring that only registered teachers are employed by schools. The bill also makes a range of other amendments to improve efficiency in the schooling system and improve education law. Since the first reading of the bill the Education and Science Committee has recommended a number of amendments to strengthen the bill by clarifying some of the policy decisions. I thank members of the Education and Science Committee for their careful consideration of this bill. I also acknowledge the contributions of those who provided submissions. 
I will now go through the key elements of the changes to the bill recommended by the committee. They relate to police vetting and school governance. I am particularly pleased that the committee adopted the changes I proposed to make police vetting of household members mandatory when children enrolled in a home-based service are being cared for in a home other than their own. This change will apply to household members who are 17 years of age or older. I proposed this further amendment following feedback during the recent consultation as part of the review of early childhood regulations. Nearly 60 percent of the home-based services consulted and over 90 percent of other individuals and groups consulted said that any household member in a home-based care environment should be subject to a police vet. Parents also said that police vets should be mandatory for all members of the household where the care is being provided. Educators working for home-based education and care services are currently required to be police vetted. Vetting household members will maintain consistency and minimum standards across licensed home-based services. I clarify that household members in licensed home-based services are not the same as parent and community volunteers in schools and early childhood education centres including playcentres and kindergartens. Volunteers are not covered by the law and are not required to be police vetted. 
The bill has been amended to make it clear that the requirement to renew police vets every 3 years applies only if the person concerned is still employed or engaged at the school or early childhood education service. A further exception has been included to cover situations where a person’s employment circumstances have changed. For example a cleaner who now works during the evening and not during school opening hours will not require a repeat vet. Schools and early childhood education services will now have a 4-week period to implement the changes to police vetting instead of 8 weeks as originally proposed. The committee has recommended changing the requirement to obtain a police vet in that time to one of applying for the vet. That change avoids placing an obligation on the school board or the early childhood service provider which would rely on police to meet it. The shorter time frame balances out allowing enough time for the application to be made and giving effect to the policy that the police vet must be sought promptly. Overall the policy changes to police vetting in the bill will maintain students’ safety reduce compliance costs and streamline administration for schools. 
The bill removes the New Zealand Teachers Council as the conduit for police vetting of all non-teaching staff and contractors. This saves schools early childhood education services and the Teachers Council both time and money. The changes in this bill will minimise the risk that some non-teaching staff and contractors may have unsupervised access to children before being police vetted. Needless police vetting will be minimised by requiring only those contractors to be police vetted who have or are likely to have unsupervised access to children. 
The committee has recommended an amendment that takes the notion of a combined establishment board that was in the bill as it was introduced to its natural conclusion. That will give the Minister of Education the ability to stagger the opening of new schools governed by the combined board. The establishment phase for a new school ends at the time of the first school trustee elections after the school has opened for instruction. There are likely to be situations where one of a group of new schools will be ready to open before the others. This change reflects the policy intent of combined establishment boards and the flexibility it provides will be a useful tool for managing potential future growth. 
I remind the House of the other changes proposed in the bill. I understand that the submissions that commented on these areas supported the changes. After police vetting the second area of broad policy change to improve efficiency is information matching. The bill provides for information matching between the Ministry of Education’s payroll database and the New Zealand Teachers Council’s register of teachers to identify those who are teaching in schools without registration. It is most likely that those identified will simply have failed to renew their practising certificate and they will be given the opportunity to rectify the situation. For others however the information-matching programme will pick up whether they meet current teaching or safety standards thus ensuring that our students are safe and receiving a quality education. The bill also makes a number of other minor amendments to improve the efficiency of the school system or to enhance the effective governance of schools. Once again I thank the members of the Education and Science Committee for their work. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Labour is supporting the Education Amendment Bill and that is a change in our position from the first reading of the bill. We think that it has been improved in the Education and Science Committee and it has gone from being a 55:45 decision one way to a 60:40 decision the other way. So we will debate this bill through the House. Unless there are any further amendments from the Minister of Education with which we disagree we will support the bill as we progress. 
We agree with the changes especially the improvements to the vetting procedure that came to the committee on the question of home-based care and on the very real danger of people who are not responsible for children but are living in homes where home-based care is occurring. It is a gap in the legislation and a gap that I am happy to acknowledge as a former Minister of Education who was involved in a lot of the development of this legislation back in the early 2000s. 
There is always a very fine balance when it comes to working out what limits we are prepared to go to in order to protect children. We want to make sure that as far as is possible everything reasonable is done but no one wants to get tied up so much in a bureaucracy that schools cannot get on with doing what they want to do and that people cannot be involved with their children in schools as parent helpers and in similar types of arrangements. We always want people to be involved if they can. I think that the test we have got to in this legislation relating to people having charge of children and to people not being alone with children without being vetted is about right. I think that the world has changed a lot certainly in the 30-odd years or a bit longer than that now since I was in a classroom— 
Louise Upston 
: Bit longer than that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —bit longer than that—with primary school - aged children. Our practices were very different at that stage. I can remember teaching form 2 kids at South Wellington Intermediate. We had a store cupboard at the back of the room as many classrooms did and still do and that is where I did remedial reading with both boys and girls on their own with the door shut to stop them from being embarrassed by their inability to read. No one ever challenged the practice at that stage. I would tend to say that these days it is something that is unlikely to be done and it would be seen to be inappropriate. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Not in a store cupboard anyway. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well “store cupboard” is probably the wrong term for it but it had a wee table and it had books around the outside. It was a room that was probably— 
Moana Mackey 
: A schoolroom. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —a schoolroom; I thank my colleague—2 metres by 3 metres in size or something like that. It was not a broom cupboard. But the point I am trying to make is that it was somewhere where there was no line of sight from outside that room into the room. What I am saying is that my judgment at that time and the judgment I think of most teachers at the time was that it was better to protect kids of 11 12 and 13 from embarrassment about their lack of reading skills—effectively from being laughed at by some of the other kids—and I did not contemplate the questions that might arise. Times have changed and I suppose that it is the best thing but I am not quite sure whether society has changed in the right way because of the assumptions that occur. 
Most of the amendments in this legislation were in the bill that the Minister’s predecessor introduced in September 2008. I think it was called the Education Amendment Bill (No 3). The Minister has made some changes and some areas have been added and some other areas have been left out. I think that the question of getting the data matching between the Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education is very important. I think there was probably an assumption again at the time that the legislation was introduced that it could be done automatically. I think we thought that there would not be a restriction on it. No doubt someone from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner or—God bless her—maybe Marie Shroff can sometimes be slightly overzealous in that area. But there is no doubt that getting that information matching will help both ways. It will help the Ministry of Education in making sure that it is getting the right people and it will also help identify the people in the schools who are not currently registered. That in most cases will not matter very much but some individuals are likely to be there who should not be in schools and this is a good way without incurring much cost at all other than setting up the system to make sure that the data matching occurs. 
I think there was general acceptance of the idea that it might take more than 3 months after the suspension of a teacher’s practising certificate to sort a case through and I think there is quite a lot of support for the ability of the Teachers Council to extend the suspension for another 3 months as the case is worked through. One area provided an interesting period at the select committee and I think it was an education for some of the newer members of Parliament as they watched MMP at work. An unusual coalition developed for the Green Party. I must say that I think it was an interesting exercise for Catherine Delahunty who was a new member at the time to learn a little bit of the art of compromise in working through the system because she found it pretty hard to vote with the ACT Party—which she did in the end—in order to make an amendment to the bill. The amendment was supported by Labour the Greens and ACT but it was not supported by National which was promoting the bill. 
That amendment effectively put us in a position to have commissioners and other statutory managers of schools similar to receivers in companies that are under statutory management whereby there is an individual or sometimes two individuals responsible for that. These are the people on whom fingers can be put and to whom direct contacts can be made people who are responsible rather than having as was proposed by the Minister a fairly bland and broad corporate in charge. I think unreasonably the Greens and maybe even some of my colleagues saw some dangers of privatisation out of that route. I say to those people that I think a relatively long bow was being drawn and I did not mind getting a Green vote because of that concern; I think it was probably something I was not that anxious about. But what I would be anxious about—and will be anxious about again—is the ability of the Minister of Education to pick up the phone to ring an individual and say to that individual: “You are the person whom I have appointed commissioner of this school. I want a report from you. I want your view on this.” I would not want to ring the switchboard at PricewaterhouseCoopers and try to work my way through the system after that. That is the reason why I have promoted what I think is a bit of a compromise in order for that to happen. 
One area of concern that I have and we will get to it at a later stage of the bill is that a section concerning the responsibility of boards that was in the original legislation is not in this bill. I think it would have been good for that to occur and we will get back to that. But as I indicated we do not think this bill will make an enormous difference to the quality of education but it will make the administration a bit tidier. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call during the second reading of the Education Amendment Bill. Education is hugely important for the Government to the extent that we realise that it is the vehicle by which people realise their potential. Therefore it is very very important that we have a robust and reliable system. So I congratulate the Minister of Education on bringing this bill before the House and ensuring that the education system is enhanced. That is what this bill does. 
Members of the Education and Science Committee were surprised at how many parts of the bill needed to be tidied up. As time permits I would like to deal with one or two of those parts because I am sure that my fellow members on the Government benches will also deal with other parts of it. 
Of significance are the changes to the police-vetting requirements. It is quite important to get that balance right so that education is conducted in a healthy and safe environment. The process needed to be robust enough so that vetting all non-teaching staff is completed before an individual has unsupervised access to children. Formerly that practice was conducted via the Teachers Council and it was quite a bureaucratic process. It was deemed within the compulsory school section and in early childhood education that that responsibility should sit with the board of trustees or those with responsibility. I think that will certainly be enthusiastically embraced by schools. There will be an amount of time required so that it can be done in a robust and professional manner. It will save somewhere between $375000 and $400000. Those moves are being tested and are tried and true; they are practised in the United States Canada England and Australia. The measures will provide an effective safeguard for children to learn in a safe environment. 
I want to talk for just a few moments on some of the smaller but very relevant aspects of this bill that improve the Education Act. I will talk about the gap that exists presently within the student loan system that needs to be plugged. Under the current Act it is not illegal to knowingly provide false information. That loophole is closed off by this bill. To make a false declaration will be an offence. On that basis the bill tidies those matters up. 
Without labouring the point too much I say that this Government sees the importance of a world-class education. This matter of matching information between the Teachers Council schools and the Ministry of Education has been languishing as long as I have been on the Education and Science Committee. It is good that Minister Tolley has brought this bill to the House so that we can start to tidy up those matters and start to get some real professionalism in managing education in this country. 
This bill will help to ensure that we have better systems of police vetting better systems of information matching less bureaucracy more teaching and more flexibility given to boards of trustees. One situation that came up which is quite ludicrous when one thinks about it was of a school that was being closed or had chosen to close but had to have an election at a given period of time. It was a very interesting situation. 
I believe that this bill will make a significant difference as every other bill does that goes into the Education and Science Committee. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the fine leadership of the chairman Allan Peachey and also the wisdom of a former Minister of Education Trevor Mallard who articulated some of the sentiments and some of the realism. However this Government sees that this bill will set us up to better implement national standards in literacy and numeracy. This bill will help us focus on teaching. It will help the boards of trustees and principals to implement the assessments in conjunction with national standards. It is sad that we had 9 years of failure by Labour and that it continues in a state of denial in terms of becoming obstructive and encouraging poor teaching practice. It is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I will start off where my colleague Trevor Mallard finished by saying that I do not think the Education Amendment Bill will do anything to raise achievement. What we are looking at here are things that are outside the classroom such as police vetting of contractors and the registration of teachers. When we talk about education we need to talk about what raises achievement and we need to focus on the end of the spectrum that concerns the interaction between the teacher and the student. If we are to make a difference in terms of raising achievement if we are to make a difference to education in New Zealand we need to be talking about the interaction between teachers and children because that is the point where learning occurs. 
I support the amendment relating to the police-vetting system. When I was a principal if I needed a staff member vetted I would send off an application form to the Teachers Council which would send it to the police. This amendment takes out the middle person so that the vetting form goes straight to the police and back to the school. That is a sensible idea. It does not in any way change the workload of the people in the school because the vetting form still needs to be filled out folded put in a stamped envelope and posted off. I was lucky enough to have an administration officer who did that work for me. Not all schools have that; it often comes down to the principal having to do that sort of menial work for want of a better description. This amendment will not actually decrease the workload of people in schools but it does streamline the system and I have no problems with that. 
I do have problems though with people working inside schools not being police vetted even if they are working outside normal school hours. Most people say those hours are 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. and teachers do not disagree with that entirely. In respect of contractors such as cleaners not being police vetted I have told the House about the experience I had up north where 100 upstanding members of the community were identified as mentors by a social worker. That social worker was going to get those 100 people to mentor 100 kids. As an afterthought she thought she had better get those people police-vetted to see whether they had a criminal record. She was expecting maybe three four or half a dozen people to have criminal records but she found that 78 of those 100 possible mentors actually had criminal records for violence. Those 78 people out of 100 could be cleaners in schools or could apply for cleaning jobs in schools. We do not know whether people have criminal records just by looking at them. I think we really need to be careful that we ensure the safety of kids by making sure that anybody who works at a school is vetted by the police. 
I agree with Trevor Mallard about the removal of the part of the bill that states that bodies corporate can take over the role of commissioners or limited statutory managers. I think that if a commissioner or a limited statutory manager comes in we need to have someone with whom the buck stops. It would be very difficult to say that the buck stops with a group of people who may change over time; they may be voted off move on go into retirement or whatever. There is a lack of stability in terms of the people who are commissioners or limited statutory managers. So I think it is a good move that that part of the bill was taken out. 
I was a bit concerned though that the parts of Labour’s Education Amendment Bill (No 3) that made really good sense have not been included in this bill. In particular I refer to the part that required principals to ensure that their schools provided advice and guidance on career choices and pathways. I think that is a really important aspect of schooling and it needs to be offered to students from an early age. Kids should at least be made to think about what they are going to do in life. That will influence their subject choice as they go through the schooling system. It is really easy for that to occur in schools in that it is easy for teachers to include in any subject or study they are doing—for example a beach study—a bit of discussion or talk about career options that relate to the study. In respect of the beach they could talk about being a commercial fisherman a Department of Conservation worker a tourism operator—because there are many opportunities for careers in tourism to do with the beach—or a fisheries officer. There is a lot that could be done and I think it was silly not to expressly state that in the bill because kids need to have all the options from a very early age. It is very simple for teachers to include that sort of information in any study that they are doing. 
It was also explicit in Labour’s Education Amendment Bill (No 3) that the performance of principals be managed and monitored by their board of trustees. That measure should also be part of this bill. I think it is really important that principals are held to account by their boards of trustees. After all the boards of trustees represent their community. It should also be made explicit that teachers’ performance should be monitored and goals should be set. Not including those provisions undermines the Government’s aim of having the highest possible standards in education. 
Another part that has not been included in this amendment bill is the provision ensuring the enrolment at school of all persons entitled to be enrolled. It makes a mockery of the issue of truancy if 30000 students are truant every day but it is not explicit in legislation that the principal is to ensure that they are enrolled. Supposedly an army of kids do not turn up to school each day but if it is not explicit that the school has to enrol all persons entitled to be enrolled that makes a nonsense of the issue of truancy. We have to make sure that all kids are at school if they are meant to be at school. 
Actively managing and reporting on a school’s performance and the aims and objectives set out in the school charter is something else that has not been included. Labour’s Education Amendment Bill (No 3) included that provision but it is not explicit in this bill. The school charter is an agreement between the school the community and the Government as to the school’s aims and objectives. It is really important that those aims and objectives are reported to the community in an open manner so that the community can hold the school to account. It is quite interesting that a number of people live under the misconception that schools are not actually held to account but they are held to account every day by their community. Teachers are held to account by principals and by boards of trustees. It should be kept that way and that should be explicit in this bill. 
Clause 15 of the Education Amendment Bill amends section 35A. It provides that private schools are treated the same as other schools. I go back to what I was saying last night: it would be really cool if State schools were treated the same as private schools in that State schools could choose whether to implement national standards. With that thank you. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. The Green Party has taken an interest in the Education Amendment Bill and will be voting against it. We have no major problems with the parts of the bill that many people have discussed here in the House today. In particular we have no problem with the issues around the police vetting of home educators and home-care workers or with the issues around information matching for the Teachers Council. We do not take issue with those issues and we feel that they were well improved by the work of the Education and Science Committee. We are consistent supporters of legislation that rationalises things in a common-sense manner particularly around the issue of vetting tradespeople in relation to their work inside school communities. I would agree with those speakers who said this was a delicate matter and it is difficult to strike the right balance. But it is important these issues are addressed and this bill goes some way towards addressing them. The same applies to the issues of the registration and fair management of teachers. 
But we have some concerns about what have been called minor changes in the bill and what other people feel were non-issues. Perhaps our role in this Parliament like that of the Maori Party may sometimes be to raise issues that other people consider to be non-issues because we have a broader vision that requires us to look at the underlying ideological issues at what is missed out on in the so-called minor changes and at what is not being addressed in the so-called technical bills that are sometimes put through this House with a great deal of rhetoric about their ordinariness. We do not feel at all comfortable about the increasing trend that is signalled in this bill around the change of governance of schools by their boards of trustees. And we do not feel comfortable about an increasing trend towards public-private partnerships and corporate control over the governance and management of the public school system. We do not celebrate the future possibility of having a wonderfully flexible “Pepsi-Cola High School” or any other future manifestation of the privatisation of the public system or of school funding and management. 
We are well aware that some of the clauses relating to the combining of boards or to the appointment of a corporate body with an accountable individual manager which is what we were debating in the select committee would seem to be inoffensive. The parties apart from the Greens were debating the issue of requiring there to be an accountable person; that is what they were debating. But our challenge was around the concept of corporate management. We had a very lively debate on the meaning of those clauses in the select committee and the Green Party remains unconvinced by the claims of other parties that schools already have this kind of management and everything is fine. We are concerned about any further privatisation in that environment and we may have to stand firm and alone in our rejection of this bill. 
The regulatory impact statement claims that this bill is just a technical tidy-up. However it is interesting to see who attended the select committee. We had submissions from the former member of this House Liz Gordon from the Quality Public Education Coalition. She made submissions opposing the combining of boards of trustees and also on the issue of appointing a body corporate whether or not there is an individual who is made accountable for it. That organisation had concerns about that. Although we may stand alone in this House we are not alone in the community; educators are also stating their concerns about these underlying issues. 
We agree with some of the points made by the previous speakers for Labour about Labour’s original amendment and how it added clarity regarding the responsibilities of members of boards of trustees around issues such as enrolment. It is regrettable that those things are not in this bill—although that is not the primary reason why we are opposing it. Like the Quality Public Education Coalition we believe that it is important to look at boards of trustees in relation to their communities and we are also concerned that these corporate bodies whether they are accountable to an individual or not are not required to have a strong and proven educational background. Although I am sure some of them do have that they are not required to but presumably they are required to be efficient business managers. That is not actually what they should be; a school is not a business. 
There are two issues that we would pursue around the combining of boards and the management of schools. We think that the Tomorrow’s Schools policy needs to go through a review process but not in terms of the underlying issues that are in this bill. Tomorrow’s Schools was introduced supposedly to give communities more control. Tomorrow’s Schools in retrospect can also be seen to have been a clever way to impose costs and burdens on boards of trustees parents and teachers under the guise of greater community direction. Of course that works well for wealthy school boards with accountants lawyers and financial managers volunteering from the parent pool. But it imposes huge burdens and stresses on impoverished communities some communities in rural areas and communities where the English language—let alone English bureaucracy and fund-raising skills—are not dominant paradigms. I am speaking from experience here as a member of a school board of trustees. If we are to talk about combining school boards although it sounds very logical to pool skills we also as Liz Gordon pointed out at the select committee need to think about the integrity of the community and the access of local people to relationships—even though as I am saying Tomorrow’s Schools is not perfect. But just because Tomorrow’s Schools does need to be reviewed that does not mean we should bring in combined school boards and corporate managers. We do not believe in that and we would like to see Tomorrow’s Schools become much more about the participation of parents and communities without the unfair imposition of ideas like bulk funding and an increase in the social inequities that the current system has already started to open up. 
Although there were not a large number of submissions on this bill there was an underlying concern from some of the submitters about communities being able to exercise real control if boards of trustees were combined and there was concern about the resources that less wealthy communities have at their disposal. So like us some of the submitters were concerned about the body corporate model. I do not feel that the issue was resolved by the negotiations at the select committee about having an individual who is to be made accountable because individuals can bring with them the ideology of their communities or of their corporate bodies and that is where we are expressing strong concern. The public funding of schools and a commitment to schools being more than businesses are fundamental and that needs to be expressed in all the legislation relating to education that comes before this House. The commitment to schools being more than businesses and standing for education for its own sake remains an absolutely central part of the Green Party’s policy towards the education system. 
So despite the technical matters that we do support we stand to oppose this bill on that basis. We stand to support the people who have made submissions to the select committee asking us alone in this House to stand up for public education at all times and to recognise at all times that the corporatisation of education will not benefit our nation or our children. Kia ora. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The issues affecting the educational horizons of our young people are of the utmost priority to the Maori Party so when the Education Amendment Bill appeared on the Order Paper today I was pleased that I would have an avenue to talk about the pressing educational issues impacting on the good people of Te Tai Tonga. If ever there was a need for educational amendments they would be around the availability of Maori medium immersion education and bilingual educational options and their accessibility to the whanau of Te Wai Pounamu. In Marlborough recently we saw the closure of bilingual units at Whitney Street School and at Bohally Intermediate. In reflecting on their loss former bilingual unit teacher Nan Kahu Chadwick noted that the unit had been able to teach the students “who they are where they come from and give them a sense of belonging”. It seems to me that this could have come directly from Ka Hikitia—Managing for Success the Maori education strategy which is meant to be about transforming the way the education system performs for and with Maori. 
Of course it is not just the closure of bilingual units that concerns us; it is the transition for those who have been forced to leave such units and start again. The catastrophic way in which former students of Aorangi School in Christchurch have been treated stands out in my mind. In today’s  
Press 
 the principal of Burnside Primary School Matt Bateman describes the “stress on us all” from not having classroom space for a bilingual unit nor enough time for the transition. Former Aorangi pupils have been receiving bilingual lessons in the school hall for nearly a term. I listened carefully to the Minister of Education during question time today when responding to the questions of my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell. The Minister was asked directly about the level of commitment from the Government to fulfil the requirements of the new curriculum that all students will have the opportunity to acquire knowledge of te reo Maori me ona tikanga. Is being shunted into the school hall the evidence of that commitment? This Education Amendment Bill has avoided the ideal opportunity to address the issues impacting on bilingual provision in the South Island. 
While on the topic of Christchurch I will mention the crisis situation occurring in Aranui where the school has been providing breakfast for 110 children every day but has been forced to end that because it has run out of donations of food. The trouble is that the essential problem that created the need for the breakfast club in the first place remains. Food poverty—the fact that children turn up without breakfast hungry and unable to concentrate—is a key determinant impacting on educational opportunities for our young students. 
These are just some of the key issues occurring in my electorate and no doubt in many electorates around Aotearoa. If the truth be known they are the persistent problems that make it hard for kids to be at school hard for teachers to teach and hard for schools to succeed. The issues around information matching and whether the fee for police vetting should be $10 or $15 simply do not measure up here. Notwithstanding these concerns the Maori Party will support this bill today because we see it as effectively a tidy-up bill that addresses a host of issues raised in the last few years. The provisions around information matching are relatively straightforward. We are told that the Ministry of Education is aware that there are unregistered teachers by the simple process of deduction: there are more teachers on the payroll than there are registered and authorised. So clearly it is simple for an information-matching programme be set up between the Teachers Council register and the Ministry of Education payroll database. We support the intention of the bill to have only registered teachers teaching and of course we also support that provision to ensure that our children are at all times safe and protected from harm. This is where the police vetting issues come in. We always believe that it is of paramount importance that we do what we can to invest in the well-being and quality education of all students whether by the provision of bilingual units or by helping out at breakfast time. This bill will improve the requirement around police vetting of non-teaching staff. 
One of the things that this bill does is change the threshold for police vetting of contractors and their employees to just those who may be likely to have unsupervised access to children during opening hours. The goal in mind is to put in place procedures by which the police vet only those non-teaching staff for whom it is necessary to do so. I know that this change is one that the New Zealand School Trustees Association particularly welcomed in that it now means that parents and whanau acting as parent helpers on school premises will not be affected by the police vetting clause. 
While we are talking about school trustees I want to raise the concerns that we share with the Green Party around the new powers to appoint corporates as statutory managers or commissioners of schools. Many of our kura tell us that one of the awesome things about the Tomorrow’s Schools policy is the chance to have a shot at running their own school themselves. It is about supporting schools to determine their own solutions. It is about empowering whanau. It is about Whanau Ora. The fear that we have with putting the decision in the hand of the Minister is that the chances are that the schools that are picked will be the ones where the board comprises members who may be from communities that lack the specialist capacities inherent in the accountancy or legal fraternity. Chances are that these communities will be low-income and high-deprivation and probably many of the people in these communities will be Maori and Pasifika. The introduction of a body corporate or corporate management model for schools may result in our communities losing their unique ownership of their kura. We are concerned that in the process of the school going into the transition of coming under management by a commissioner or a limited statutory manager communities will feel alienated and dislocated from schools—and we could never support that. I would hate to see “McDonald’s Aranui School” anywhere in the country. 
This is only the second reading of this bill so there is we hope every chance of changes being made to encourage and enhance community confidence in boards of trustees. While we are at it perhaps the Minister could also look at addressing the issues around the implementation of Te Kotahitanga throughout Te Wai Pounamu. We will support this bill at the second reading and we look forward to some of the unresolved issues being addressed. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 It is clear that education is a major priority for this Government. We want to lift achievement in our schools as well as build opportunities for all of our young people. I am pleased to support the Education Amendment Bill in its second reading. 
I will focus on the bill unlike some of the previous speakers who talked about what Labour would like to have had if it were still in Government. I say to those members: “Sorry guys; you’re not.” I will talk about what is actually in this bill and the work that has been undertaken so let us take the focus back to that. 
It is great to have a bill that Labour is supporting as well as the Maori Party. There was a good process in the Education and Science Committee and changes have been made to the bill since the first reading to bring it to where it is now. My thanks go to my fellow members of the Education and Science Committee. A smaller number of submitters and officials were working on the bill on our behalf. 
I think it is worth taking people back to what this bill is about. It amends the Education Act 1989. The bill has two focuses. The first is the information matching between the New Zealand Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education to identify those teachers in schools without registration. The second is to reduce the compliance costs of police vetting. 
I will talk for a moment about the police-vetting side of the bill. Obviously anything that we can do to reduce unnecessary compliance costs in schools is vital. We want to make sure that every dollar that goes into education is focused on lifting student achievement and where we can make improvements and efficiencies in other areas we will. Schools and early childhood centres will have to request a police-vetting check at least 2 weeks before non-teaching staff start work instead of before the staff start at the school. That is to make sure that the school avoids any delays that could occur with the police. The police-vetting checks will not have to be renewed for staff who are no longer employed by the school or early childhood education centre or if the person’s circumstances have changed. 
Another important part of the bill is that household members of home-based early childhood centres or services aged 17 or older will need to have a police-vetting check. This will bring consistency to the vetting process and ensure that minimum standards are in place across the sector. Home-based early childhood services are growing; I for one had my own children in home-based care. So it is really important that police vetting is undertaken for those who are older than 17 who are in the household to make sure that the children in those services are safe. Schools and early childhood services will need to apply for a police vetting within 4 weeks of the bill coming into force to ensure that they avoid being held up by any delays with the police. 
In terms of school governance unfortunately some rather misleading statements have been made in the second reading debate about the intention of some of the improvements to school governance. A single person can be appointed as a limited statutory manager or commissioner on behalf of a body corporate. An example of a body corporate is a board of trustees. So no we are not talking about McDonald’s; we are talking about a group such as a board of trustees. That change was made in relation to concerns that a body corporate could impair accountability. There was quite a robust discussion about this in the select committee process. I guess that is exactly what select committees are for—to debate the issues that the submitters raise and to come to some agreement across the committee. 
Those changes mean that the Minister of Education will be able to split one or more schools from a combined establishment board. That provision could be used in a situation where an establishment board is used for example to set up two schools and one is ready to open before the other. The new school board could be set up from the establishment board while the latter still exists. 
The second focus of the bill was of course the information-matching programme which we have heard quite a bit on already. I will not focus on that too much other than to say that it is vital that the information from the Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education is matched as closely as possible so that we do not have a situation where teachers who do not have registration are still in front of our students. 
This is important legislation. This is a National bill not the one that Labour would like to have had. But it is good to see that we agree on what we are putting forward so I am appreciative of the Labour Opposition for its support for this bill. 
This Government wants to ensure that our education is world class that our system of education is the best that it can be and that in our New Zealand schools we have the best teachers the best students and the best schools. The changes in this bill relating to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and Education Review Office reviews for private schools and some of those other smaller changes recognise that. Those changes also have an emphasis on helping those who are struggling. 
A struggle that we are all aware of is making sure that we have a better outcome than the one in five of our children who are failing in school. The National Government is committed to ensuring that our children are taught by registered teachers and that schools do not have to deal with unnecessary bureaucracy but can focus on lifting students’ achievement. I am delighted to support this bill. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to support the Education Amendment Bill in its second reading. It is always curious to me when other parties in the House say that they support excellence in education; it is almost as if it is a novel thing to do. All of us here in Parliament support excellence in education. 
I am not so sure that this particular bill will enhance educational standards dramatically. In some ways what is not in the bill is perhaps more important than what is in the bill. This bill really tightens up the scrutiny around who can be close to our children and who can be around our children. I think it will give parents—like me for example—added confidence that our kids will be in school and will be safe and that the people who will be around them even though they will not necessarily come into contact with our children in the course of their formal teaching duties will at least have been vetted. For that reason this bill is important and it is worthwhile supporting. It will also as many other speakers have said tighten up the registration of teachers. When there are more teachers on the salary roll than there are registered teachers one realises that a number of teachers out there are in fact not registered and I think it is important to take that into account. 
Much has been made of the fact that this bill is really a modification of Labour’s bill the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) of September 2008 and that is the reason for the degree of cooperation across the House to make sure that this bill is in a form that both sides can be happy with. 
I mentioned when I began that I think one of the issues about this bill is not so much what is in it as what has been dropped out of it. I will raise two particular issues. The first which Kelvin Davis mentioned as well is the issue of career guidance and obligating schools to have that service in place for students. There is probably no more important time certainly in the last generation for that sort of service to be offered to students. It is not in the bill; it was dropped from Labour’s 2008 bill. I want to speak on it because we have a 7.3 percent unemployment rate and one in five young people are out of work so right now one of the most important things is that we have an education system that caters for children and that caters for students to ensure that they are able to match their qualifications with the market place. 
A number of other elements were not put in the bill. One which I thought would have been supported as it went some way to promote and encourage a better education system—a system as I said before that all parties seem to want to support—was to promote a school environment that supported the highest standards of educational achievement for all students by actively managing and monitoring the performance of the principal. That provision did not make it into this bill nor did a provision to ensure that the performance of the school’s other staff was actively managed and monitored. I thought the Government would have liked to include in the bill those issues about quality and standards particularly as it believes that its national standards as we have heard time and time again every day in the House are supposed to deliver the excellence that everybody wants. 
I have a question; I will just touch on this topic. My children went to British schools that had national standards and my children were tested in maths English and science. It is interesting that they were tested in science because it seems to have dropped off the table here. In an era when growing science research and development and innovation is probably the most important thing we can do in order to lift our prosperity we have dropped science as one of the critical issues this Government believes that we should be testing. But the broader point is that all my kids did under the British school curriculum was get tested on English maths and science. At the end of that year they knew how to pass tests but they did not really have a much better understanding of what they were doing more broadly in the education system. The following year that was borne out because the standards in many other areas—like history geography and many other areas that reinforced the very skills they needed to learn—were dropped. 
What is interesting for me about national standards—and I taught for a short period of time—is that as a teacher— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member across the House but we have had a lot of discussion in this second reading on bits that are not in this bill at all. There is nothing about national standards and there is nothing about the two previous subjects the member referred to. I ask that the member comes to the content of the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The point is well made. In the series of debates that the House has around a bill the tightest part of those debates is actually the second reading when members are required to speak on the process what happened in the select committee adaptations relevance—all of those sorts of things. I have been waiting patiently for the member to draw in his comments and I ask him now to speak about the bill. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. As a new member of this House I thank you for your advice in particular on the second reading. 
Chris Hipkins 
: The newest. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: The newest on this side yes. Not the newest in the House. 
Perhaps in my final couple of minutes I will go back to the purpose of this bill. As I said before it is supported by the Labour Party which put a lot of effort into making sure that the bill was improved through the performance of the Education and Science Committee. The amendments that are coming through this bill will introduce information that will match the New Zealand Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education in order to identify individuals teaching in schools without registration. As I said before the fact that the payroll has many more teachers than there are teachers registered is cause for concern. The bill enables those schools to check registration in the course of tightening up their performance. 
It also removes the requirement for all contractors to be police vetted with a requirement for the police to vet only those contractors who have or are likely to have unsupervised access to children at schools and early childhood education services. That too improves children’s performance and parents’ confidence at school. The bill proposes that the New Zealand Teachers Council will no longer provide a police-vetting service; schools and early childhood education services can apply directly to the New Zealand Police. Finally it proposes that the initial maximum 3-month suspension of a teacher’s practising certificate or authority to teach will be amended so that the suspension can be reviewed after 3 months and extended for another 3 months if necessary. 
Once again I believe that the Education and Science Committee has done a good job in amending what was a much narrower bill. We will be supporting its second reading. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Huri noa to tatou Whare i tenei ahiahi tena tatou katoa. I am pleased to stand and take a short call on the second reading of the Education Amendment Bill. I think this bill is being somewhat underestimated by Opposition members notwithstanding their statement that they are supporting it. The bill reflects a couple of key tenets of this National Government: first the importance and the criticality of education not only to the students themselves to their school and to their community but also to the long-term sustainability of New Zealand; and secondly our very keen interest in the reduction of compliance costs. This bill delivers on both those concerns and interests of this National Government. 
There are a number of important elements in this bill. Yes I think a previous speaker said that this was kind of a tidy-up bill and those kinds of bills are very important every now and again. The speakers this afternoon have talked about the two main emphases within this bill on police vetting and information matching so I will rehearse to members the list of other elements where this bill cleans up and helps with the reduction of compliance costs which this Government is concerned about. Then I will return to the criticality of education and to how the amendments in this bill contribute to raising the quality of education which we are united in this House in being committed to. 
The bill also contains a number of other changes. I am mindful that this is the second reading or I might treat the House to a far more high-flying speech but given that we have been reminded thus far— 
Chris Hipkins 
: I am sure it’ll be a high-flying speech anyway. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: I thank Mr Hipkins and I will do my best to live up to his expectations. The bill also contains a number of other changes. It retrospectively validates the Crown payment to integrated schools in cases where there has been an invalid change of proprietor and the payment subsequently becomes unlawful. It allows more flexibility for when triennial elections for school boards are held because we are in the somewhat dopey situation at the moment where boards are required to hold elections every 3 years regardless of whether a school is imminently about to close. We cleaned up that little nonsense in this bill— 
Hon Member 
: That’s very sensible. 
HEKIA PARATA 
:—because we are a very sensible Government; I thank the member. 
The bill allows for special schools to be accredited for the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) and removes from them the impediment of risking being unlawful should they offer this qualification. It removes an anomaly in the Act so that private schools are able to be lawfully accredited to offer NCEA. 
The bill allows for combined establishment boards that can set up new schools. We have had some experience of this in my home area of the East Coast where combined boards are the most sensible arrangement for schools that are spread across quite a lot of geography. They are very small schools and the pool from which boards of trustees can be drawn are similarly small. This bill addresses the notion that a combined board is able to operate for a number of schools. 
The legislation allows more flexibility for when private schools are reviewed. Why should those private schools be denied the opportunity of scrutiny that public schools are given through the Education Review Office? It expands the existing offence provisions and sanctions relating to student allowances and loans and it ensures that we incentivise the students of today to be honest and law-abiding citizens when they borrow money to finance their education. 
The bill allows for a teacher’s practising certificate to be suspended where an alleged serious misconduct is the subject of an investigation which is yet another testimony to the common sense of this Government. Where a teacher is being investigated for improper and potentially unlawful behaviour I ask why a school would wish that that teacher was able to retain his or her registration. The bill allows for the suspension of a teacher’s practising certificate to be extended until the investigation of misconduct is resolved. 
The bill clarifies the definition of a playgroup. It clarifies the terms “special class” “special clinic” “special school” and “special service”. It clarifies the definition of institution in relation to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority provisions to improve the operational efficiency of course approvals and accreditation. 
We can see that this bill caters to a wide range of elements albeit very small on their own but together they contribute to the integrity of the education system. We are concerned about the integrity of the education system including the registered status of teachers. 
One colleague on the Opposition benches Mr Davis damned with faint praise the approach that we are taking in this bill in respect of ensuring that teachers are registered. Mr Davis said that that did not contribute to the raising of student achievement or to the quality of education. But I beg to differ. All of the research that has been reported in this House consistently by the Minister of Education when she has been able to talk about our flagship policy of national standards has revolved around the quality of the teacher in the classroom the importance of assessment and the ability to inform teaching practice by that assessment so that it is applied to improving the educational experience of the student in the classroom. Registration and ensuring that teachers are registered are directly related to quality and to our interest in national standards being offered across all schools. 
I would like to correct yet another speaker on the Opposition benches who seemed to be wilfully mistaking national standards with national testing. At no point has this Government or this Minister talked about national testing. In fact she has been at some pains to explain that this Government supports the use of current tests within schools and then applying them to national standards. 
Another mistake made by the Opposition was to suggest that the focus of national standards on numeracy and literacy meant that it would preclude the teaching of the wider New Zealand curriculum. The teaching profession is known as a profession because it is expected that teachers will make informed judgments based on their own training their own practice their observations and the use of tools and in so doing they will be able to make an assessment about what is best for the student involved. 
I will reduce national standards to a very “down home” example. When my child has earache I do not cut off her ear and decide how it might be treated. I look at my child as a total organic system and decide how her general health is affecting her ear and how her ear is affecting her health. In the same way national standards are simply an indicator of how well the wider system is doing but they are critical indicators— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a wonderful speech but I think the Assistant Speaker knows what I am going to refer to. If the member could only stick to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I allowed some tolerance to a member on that member’s side of the House having called him in. Members should perhaps acquaint themselves with page 107 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. It is quite specific about subject material in relation to the bill. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: I felt strongly that my speech related to the importance of having registered teachers in the classroom and of the police vetting process to assure us of their role. Registration of teachers will assure us that teachers are quality teachers and that they are delivering the quality of teaching required within the classroom. I fail to see how my speech is not directly relevant to the second reading of the bill. 
However I will remark on one other part of this bill before I sit down. It refers to the governance issue. Of recent times I have had close experience of the appointment of a commissioner to a school and have become very aware that it is not an ideological choice as some speakers seem to have implied that if a commissioner or a limited statutory manager does not have a teaching background then by definition he or she cannot add quality to the governance of the school. My direct observation is that if a person comes with competence capability and a commitment to lifting the quality of the performance of the school and focusing the school on raising the achievement of students which is the business of the school then it really does not matter whether that person comes from a business background or an educational background. What matters is that the person is able to facilitate the achievement of the outcome of raising our students’ achievements. 
This Government through this bill and through many other pieces of legislation continues to demonstrate that its focus is on results on outcomes and on performance. This bill will help us to deliver that. I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to speak for a short time on the Education Amendment Bill. I was not on the Education and Science Committee but I acknowledge the wisdom of that select committee. Reading through the notes I see that clearly some changes were made that improved the bill and I acknowledge the efforts of all members present at the select committee. 
Labour supports the bill. It is effectively an evolution of Labour’s Education Amendment Bill (No 3) but with some omissions; I will speak to those omissions shortly. I am sure it is a huge blow for some members on the other side of the House. Mr Joyce in particular would have been hugely disappointed that the wisdom of the select committee removed the ability for corporates to step in when there are problems with a school. I guess it endorsed what is current Government policy around individual responsibility. The select committee in its collective wisdom decided that should there be problems at a school an individual should be responsible rather than some corporate stepping in and taking over. Of course I know that his long-term agenda and that of the National Government is to corporatise schools and all their property. Thankfully the select committee stepped in. 
Labour supports the bill for another good sound reason. I have just been reading an article called “Animal welfare: whose responsibility is it?”. I then ask about children’s welfare—whose responsibility is it? It is the Government’s. It is our collective responsibility. Whether it is animal welfare law and order or biosecurity we should always support legislation in this House that provides good guidance. In recent times we have seen—I am ensuring that I reference back to the bill as I always will—that penalties have been increased across the board with the belief that it will improve behaviour. If the Government had taken a consistent approach with this legislation it would have doubled the penalties for anyone who inappropriately interfered with a child or did not ensure that high standards of education were carried out at a school thus ensuring that we get the best outcome. That is dumb. That is what the Government did in the areas of biosecurity animal welfare and law and order. 
Quite rightfully this bill because it is an evolution of Labour’s own bill puts in place some preventive measures. These measures provide the ability to deal with the sad reality that we have in this country which is that not everyone who wants to be part of our education system is actually there for the welfare and the benefit of the children. Some people—and we have seen them—need to be checked before they get into the education system. This bill makes some improvements in that area. The schools can go directly to the police—and I am sure that that process will not be abused; we hope it will not be—for the right reasons: to ensure that the people coming into their schools are not potentially harmful or will not carry out any harmful acts against the children. It is a sad reality but we need to be aware of it. 
I was also pleased to hear the National Government members spouting on about the wonderful benefits of teacher registration. I remember that same party objecting to registration of people in the early childhood sector. Those members absolutely objected and said there was no value whatsoever in it. This bill upholds the value of registration of teachers in the education system and that is great. I wish that the National members would reflect back on some of the idiotic things they said about the registration of early childhood teachers that we were promoting which we knew was of value to the early childhood education system. The National members when in opposition were absolutely opposed to it. Well they have done another U-turn. That is great because it will benefit the children of this country. 
I will not talk for too long but I will say that the bill is not as good as it could have been. It removed from Labour’s Education Amendment Bill (No 3) some key provisions that the Government talks about but does not always follow through. What we had in the original bill that the Government picked up— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have already talked to two members of the House. This is an experienced member of the House who knows well the limitations of second readings. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: He’s talking to changes in the bill. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: These are not changes; this is a new bill introduced by this Government. For a member to talk about what the previous Labour Government might or might not have wanted to put in a bill is outside the scope of this debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I make the point that when members get up to make a point of order they should not refer to the character of the person. Then I become perplexed and wonder whether members are really making a point of order or whether they are doing something else. We seem to want to confine this debate to Standing Order 107(1) and (2) which requires members to specifically talk about the bill as printed. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I am always referring to the bill to what it could have been and to what it is not. That is reference to the bill. The bill in its original inception was very good. The Government had the wisdom to pick up the key objectives of that bill and turn it into the bill we have before us. The select committee in its wisdom has made some amendments. I applaud the members in spite of—I am sure—the objections of the Minister of Education. She has yet to understand many things in the education system. 
The bill should have in it—I know these issues were discussed at the select committee—the original requirements that placed responsibility on the school boards. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: It never had that. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: The Minister does not see the value in having some requirements on school boards. She stands up to object to my saying this because she does not believe in the provisions that were in the original conception of the bill. The provisions were about the boards of trustees having responsibility to ensure that every person who is entitled to be enrolled is enrolled at the school. The boards of trustees should have as a core legal responsibility to ensure that education is provided to every student at that school. She does not believe most important—and it goes the heart of what we as a Parliament want— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry but this is not in this bill. It has never been in the bill. If the ruling that you gave before was to confine the debate to the bill then the member should come back to what is actually in the bill. 
Chris Hipkins 
: This bill makes amendments to the responsibilities of schools’ boards of trustees. It must therefore be relevant to talk about the responsibilities of a school board of trustees which is exactly what Damien O’Connor was doing. I appreciate the Minister may not agree with everything he said but— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I gave a little warning earlier that members should not talk about character and what other people might be thinking because then I am bound to start thinking that the member is speaking to the point of order in order to score another point and I wish that members would desist from doing that. I have been listening carefully to the debate. I think that the member has been a bit nearer to the bill than some other members who have been speaking but we have established some rules and I ask the member to be conscious of speaking to the bill. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. I have no wish to hold up the House in the passage of this bill because Labour supports it. It is as I said a good attempt to try to improve governance arrangements for schools but I was saying that it could be better. We in this House must not limit ourselves to current thinking but ask what could have been and say what we should move on to next. It is absolutely essential that the Minister has some vision. If she thinks that this is the last word on good corporate governance in schools or good governance then she has a lot to learn. She has a lot to learn. I think that she will be back in this House; she may even introduce amendments and Supplementary Order Papers and I challenge her to do so. I challenge her to bring adjustments into this House that will legally instruct schools and boards of trustees to promote a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievement for all students—for each and every student who comes into the system. These principles were thrown out by the National Government when it made adjustments to this legislation. 
We support the bill because we think that it is an improvement but there is much to be done to ensure that each and every individual child regardless of where the child lives or of which school the child goes to is offered the best opportunity. In the House today we heard that there should be different standards for kura across the country but that there should not be different standards for other schools. I do not accept that. I have schools of different deciles in my area and they are different schools with completely different backgrounds in terms of parental guidance parental contribution and the upbringing of the children. They are fearful of the standard that this Minister will bring in and the judgment that the education system will impose on them. 
We are all in here everyone in this House to try to offer the best opportunity for children in New Zealand now and in the future. We have to get it right. This bill is an improvement but there are many omissions that the Minister could have included. I challenge her to bring to this House Supplementary Order Papers that will improve this legislation. Thank you. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise in the second reading of the Education Amendment Bill to take a very brief call. I was happy to be on the Education and Science Committee that progressed this bill. 
It disappoints me this afternoon that we have not been able to celebrate the fact that we are all on the same page in terms of how we are voting on this bill. The select committee process was quite straightforward and we came to an agreement on the best way to progress the bill. I am disappointed at the way the debate has gone this afternoon in terms of members picking up on petty nit-picky extraordinary little bits that have nothing to do with the bill. For members to talk about failure of the committee to achieve what we set out to do or certainly what the National members set out to do is quite wrong. The committee members worked quite well together. We had robust discussion. We closed submissions back in June last year. We considered 10 submissions and heard only seven. 
New Zealanders are welcoming this bill. There are important changes that improve the safety of our students in the classroom and also of those who are learning out in the community. I think New Zealanders will welcome this Education Amendment Bill. It is such a shame that sometimes politics gets in the way of our just getting on with it. I commend this bill to the House in its second reading. I think it is certainly time to move it forward. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Bill read a second time. 
Courts (Remote Participation) Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 16 March. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I was about to conclude when my previous call on the first reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill was interrupted by the adjournment of the House. This bill will greatly reduce costs and moreover significantly increase the number of cases to be brought before the courts. It will make the system function more efficiently and competently. The bill will also greatly reduce the stress on victims and witnesses who usually have to wait for a long time before their cases are heard. 
The introduction of an audiovisual link will improve court efficiency and increase safety and security. It will also enhance the quality of evidence and access to justice. I fully support the bill and believe that it will bring about a vast improvement and will be an excellent step forward for our justice system. I commend this bill to the House. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to send us off with the last speech of the evening. I have been asked by my colleagues to give a rousing speech on the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. I am not sure whether the subject really lends itself to that but I will take my full 10 minutes and I will be back on the first sitting day to take my extra 2 minutes. 
I think this bill is an interesting advancement in the way that our criminal justice system operates at a practical level and a bill by which I think we are playing a little bit of catch-up with some of our overseas jurisdictions. But I will touch on that a little later on. I think it is important to note that already in New Zealand we have the ability to use audiovisual links and audiovisual technology but it is primarily isolated to situations where it is deemed appropriate for the benefit as I understand it of witnesses. This bill gives provision for that technology to be used much more widely. Labour supports the bill in its present form but we want to issue some areas of caution that we wish to be discussed further in the select committee. At the moment there are some very open presumptions in the bill that we think it would be wise to test and discuss in greater detail. 
I will give an overview of the legislation. Perhaps for David Garrett I will highlight that Labour supports this bill but I think it is wise to raise the issues with which we have some ongoing concerns. The bill as it sits currently sets out some areas of criteria for consideration. It is reasonably flexible in that it says there is a presumption in favour of the use of audiovisual links in criminal procedural matters. Primarily the Government’s aim here is obviously to use audiovisual links in areas where no evidence is being presented and I think it is quite obvious why that situation may be the case. Where evidence is presented it is difficult for people to get a full grasp of what is being presented in the court; if they are on a video link they do not have a full view of the court and of various matters going on within that court. I think that that criterion makes sense. The bill allows for the use of audiovisual links in criminal substantive matters when evidence is being presented and I will reflect on that a little later on. It also allows for the use of audiovisual links in civil matters when the party’s consent is given. 
The commentary on the bill points out that this legislation is one of the first steps to be taken in the reform of criminal justice procedure. I just reflect on the fact that this legislation in conjunction with the Judicial Matters Bill that we debated earlier on talks in a very piecemeal way about reforms to the criminal justice system. Given that various Cabinet Ministers have talked about the need for criminal justice reform perhaps it would be useful and wise for the Government to deliver some vision as to what that would look like. At the moment we tend to be dealing with it in a very piecemeal and incoherent way. I think it would be useful for this House to understand the wider vision that the Government has for this area and what kind of major reforms it eventually intends to make. That would be a useful thing for the Government to do; I guess I will just leave that challenge with Government members. 
I want to reflect on the regulatory impact statement that has been provided with this bill. These statements are fast becoming one of my favourite areas of debate when we come to a bill because often they are such a hodgepodge mix of sometimes scant detail right through to no detail or else there is no regulatory impact statement at all. This one has a few key elements but is without any real information. I continue to be baffled as to why we have a Minister for Regulatory Reform yet we are unable at the most basic level to fulfil a requirement for regulatory impact statements— 
Grant Robertson 
: Who is the Minister? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: That would be the Hon Rodney Hide who has seen himself through quite a few bills that have had absolutely no decent regulatory impact statements. The most important part of this probably is the cost of current arrangements—the part of the regulatory impact statements that set out where the savings will be realised. If people are asked why we are using audiovisual link technology they will assume that it is probably because it will ultimately save us some cash—that we will not be transporting prisoners around between courts for short procedural matters or the like. So we might assume that that is the core reason for the bill. If that is the case we would assume that the Government knows how much will be saved yet I see no evidence of that in respect of this legislation. In fact the commentary on the bill itself under the heading “Costs of current arrangements” states: “Having all court participants physically present involves financial and other costs. These include—costs to witnesses … the costs of transporting prisoners” and finally the “expected growth in prisoners on remand creating a flow-on in demand for court appearances …”. 
I wonder secretly whether that third bullet point is the real reason for this bill—there are just too many people to ship around at the moment. If we are going to start using vans as prisons—we use containers for prisoners so why would we not use vans as prisons—it would be easy if we just whopped some video links in the back of a van and there we had it. We could do everything from the one spot: house prisoners trial them everything—a one-stop shop for criminal justice. 
I raise this point because when I was a member of staff seconded to the UK Home Office for a short piece of work that looked at bureaucracy in the criminal justice system and at areas where savings might be made a thing called “virtual courts” was being trialled in the UK. A review of policing that I was part of at the time was looking into the impact of virtual courts. The virtual court in the UK was a first hearing held in the Magistrate’s Court in which the defendant appeared in the court by means of a video link from the police station. The documents required for that were electronically stored and shared between the agencies involved. There are two points there. It was found after virtual courts were set up that the cost savings the authorities thought would appear were not actually realised due to the costs of setting up the audiovisual links and using them. They were not always used as adequately as they could have been because sometimes the judiciary did not wish to use them. That situation is something that this bill would still allow as far as I can read it: the judiciary could be flexible in terms of whether it picked up this technology. 
The electronic sharing of information is also an area where some of the cost savings will be realised so unless we start moving further down that track we may not see the full benefit of audiovisual links. The wider point though is that if we are going to use this technology we need to be cautious that we use it in an appropriate way and that we do not undermine the right of an individual defendant to have a full hearing in front of a court if that is what a particular case requires—if a case requires for instance that evidence is heard in the flesh. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.