Volume 649 Week 82 - Thursday 7 August 2008 
Volume 649 Week 82 - Thursday 7 August 2008 
[Volume:649;Page:17835] 
Thursday 7 August 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Offensive Language in Quotations 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yesterday during question time I indicated that I would look at the use of a quotation cited by Sue Bradford that included an unparliamentary expression. There is no actual list of unparliamentary words. The Speaker must judge the context in which the expression is used and will intervene if the remark is offensive to the dignity of the House as a whole. Reflecting on this matter I say that the remark was entirely unparliamentary and even though it was used in the context of a quotation it was offensive to the House. Members cannot use the device of quoting to overcome the rules of the use of unparliamentary expressions. Quotation should be free from unparliamentary language as the members’ own speech should be. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 26 August priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Policing Bill and the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill and to the first readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday is a members’ day. On Thursday priority is likely to be given depending on select committee progress to the second readings of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill and the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. 
Points of Order 
Absence of Members—Chamber 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not appropriate to talk about the absence of members but it is obvious that the Chamber is somewhat cavernous and empty today particularly on the Government side. I wonder whether it might be appropriate to ring the bells again for an 8-minute period to see whether some Labour members can be roused from their slumber in order to come down to the House to do the job they are required to do. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That was hardly an appropriate point of order to come from a party that lacks 17 members in the House today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Please be seated. The member who raised the point said himself it was not appropriate to do so and it was not. 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Primary Production Committee must report the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill to be extended from Monday 25 August 2008 to Monday 8 September 2008. I understand that this is at the request of the select committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 7 to Minister 6 August 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I want to correct an error in data I gave to the House yesterday in an answer to a question. I stated that over 2300 extra medical personnel have been employed by the district health boards since 2001. I am now advised that a change to the definition of full-time equivalents and the inadvertent inclusion of some 2008-09 planning data affected those figures. I am advised that a fully equivalent set of data does not exist. My answer was correct as I understood it at the time and I am correcting the inaccuracy in the assumptions at the earliest possibly opportunity under the Standing Orders. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Might it not also be appropriate for the Minister to withdraw and apologise for the comments he made about the Opposition spokesperson on health at the time the question was asked. He relied on the statistics he had which are now proved to be incorrect to give some validity to his insult. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I certainly apologise to the House for the inaccurate data. That was unknown to me but none the less the data were presented. I further apologise if any inference was taken by the member. I am however advised that the general conclusion I gave to the House yesterday that the growth in medical personnel was greater than the growth in support personnel remains true notwithstanding the definitional adjustment in the 2006-07 year. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a written answer from the Minister of Health in February this year confirming there had been a change in the way— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Domestic Savings—Promotion 
1. SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on alternative ways of promoting domestic savings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Despite the fact that this Government has radically transformed the savings environment in New Zealand in the last year with the introduction of KiwiSaver with over— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: They are all losing their money. They are all going broke. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Not a single KiwiSaver account is going broke and that is about the most irresponsible thing I have heard from that member for an extraordinarily long time. He seems to be confusing finance companies and mortgage investment funds with KiwiSaver funds. Despite the fact that this Government has radically transformed the savings environment in New Zealand with the introduction of KiwiSaver with over 750000 New Zealanders signed up to it I have seen reports to suggest that KiwiSaver should be “adjusted” in order to make savings for tax cuts. That is one issue on which the National Party needs to front up publicly on its plans rather than relying upon the back-door method of cocktail parties or overseas ratings agencies to get its views out into the public arena. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Has he seen any suggestions for increasing the range of businesses that New Zealanders could invest their savings in? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have seen a suggestion that the Government should partially float State-owned enterprises such as Kiwibank and the power generators so that New Zealanders can buy shares in these companies which of course we already own. That suggestion was made by Mr English on  
Agenda 
 last year and it confirms that rather than choosing his words badly what has emerged from the National Party conference is an unorchestrated litany of truth about what National really plans to do in the unlikely event that it ever has the chance. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has he seen the quote from the Minister for State Owned Enterprises on 13 July 2008 where he said: “Well I’m happy to have floats as long as it’s non core assets.” and is it the Labour Party’s policy to float non-core assets on the public market; if it is why is Labour getting so moralistic about any public discussion on this matter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member should float non-core. If the member thinks that Kiwibank is a non-core asset that KiwiRail is a non-core asset that Transpower is a non-core asset that Genesis is a non-core asset and so on that is a very fascinating view and we have at last found the weasel words that National could use in Government to justify flogging off those State-owned enterprises. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With respect to the variable statements on Kiwibank has the Government received any reports— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Firstly you might like to consider whether the Minister is aware of what the nature of the question initially was. Secondly he of all people should know that that is not the way to start asking a question in this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How many times are you prepared to put up with this buffoon making pointless points of order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is question time not statement time. Would members please note that so that everyone asks a question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Having regard to the variable statements on savings— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry; please be seated. Start with a question not a statement. “Having regard” is a statement. Just ask the question please. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have no difficulty in doing that by just rearranging the words to say on savings and the Kiwibank— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No no please be seated. You are not turning today into a circus. Please be seated. Now if the member does not ask his question I will be asking him to leave the House. He knows how to ask a question; he should just ask it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With respect Madam Speaker I am entitled to at least point to the subject I am about to ask my question on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member knows that you ask a question. That question can of course contain that which you wish to know in terms of an answer but you start with a question. We have had this out in this House many times before. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What where when why and how did the Government learn of variable statements on Kiwibank and savings and has the Government ever received reports that would suggest that one deputy leader is undermining his leader in the way that happened to Muldoon and Marshall many years ago? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it is fair to say that Government members have been glued to their television screens at 6 o’clock every evening watching TV3 as we watch the unfolding saga of the various statements that the National Party has made. But of course we were also fascinated with  
Close Up 
 last night when we learnt that Mr Key had no basis in fact for his accusation of Labour Party involvement in the leaking of the cocktail party - circuit rubbish or in the nonsense about the rubbish outside his electorate office. 
Economy—Management 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement made yesterday that “my confidence in the management of the Kiwi economy is entirely shared by Standard and Poor’s”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does she agree that the Standard and Poor’s report specifically states: “ongoing fiscal discipline is likely to remain the norm even if there is a change of government at the upcoming election.” and does she accept that the Standard and Poor’s outlook for New Zealand rebuts directly her ridiculous claims about National’s plan to use some additional Government borrowing to invest in infrastructure? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes and no. 
Hon Bill English 
: Yes and no? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There were two parts to the question; yes and no. What the Prime Minister draws from that is that the National Party was telling Standard and Poor’s something different from what it was telling the public at large which underlines exactly what the Government has been saying about National’s secret agenda. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does she believe that the Standard and Poor’s outlook for New Zealand indicates that a gross debt ratio in the low 20s does not represent any risk to the economy as is now being claimed by Labour and will Labour stand by its claims sufficiently to ask Standard and Poor’s to reassess New Zealand’s outlook? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Labour is not working on the assumption that National will be the Government by the end of this year. Labour is working on the assumption that its fiscal policy is what Standard and Poor’s was primarily looking at which is why it confirmed our AA+ stable outlook rating. The last time of course that Standard and Poor’s downgraded New Zealand’s credit rating was in September 1998 when the then National Government with Mr English as Minister of Finance saw a credit downgrade. 
Hon Bill English 
: Before the Prime Minister made her ridiculous statements about debt levels did she speak to the Minister of Finance— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. “Before” is not a question word and we had a rather long exchange on this matter previously. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Now that we have embarked upon this track would members please be conscious of the fact they use a question word to start. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did the Prime Minister speak to her Minister of Finance before she made her ridiculous statements about debt levels and ask him about a statement in the 2006 Budget which was made when the gross debt was 23 percent of GDP—that is higher than National’s debt target—“Debt has now reached prudent levels”; and why are she and her Minister of Finance now directly contradicting statements made by the Government about a debt level of 23 percent of GDP? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister speaks to the Minister of Finance frequently on many many occasions. But the difference is of course that under this Government the Government has projected in each successive Budget—until the most recent one—a decline in debt levels. The National Party is happy to forecast an increase in debt levels. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister answer this question: if the Minister of Finance claimed yesterday in the House that Labour has a large infrastructure plan and he has said borrowing is stupid then given that the Government does not have a cash surplus how will it pay for its large infrastructure plan? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member has done his usual trick of making a non-factual statement to preface a question and asking me to comment on the non-factual statement. The question is a stupid question. The Budget this year forecasts borrowing and as I said in the pre-Budget statement in my Budget speech and subsequently the Government is planning to borrow for infrastructure investments. National members did not listen to that. The National Party has said that it wants to borrow more on top of that then it wants to borrow more on top of that for tax cuts and then it is not worried if the forecasts change because that will make no difference to its borrowing plan. That is truly dumb. 
Hon Bill English 
: So when— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. “So” is not a question word. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I know; we have embarked upon this. A question please. 
Hon Bill English 
: When the Prime Minister said that any idea of borrowing money was ridiculous—I think she said “hilarious”—had she spoken to the Minister of Finance to clarify with him that in the 2008 Budget the Labour Government announced that it will have a cash deficit of $13 billion and it will finance that with $6.5 billion of borrowing and $6.5 billion of selling of financial assets owned by the Government; and why does he not just tell the public what he is doing instead of trying to make up stories about what everyone else is doing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Given that that question was pre-prepared one wonders why the member asked the previous question which claimed that I said we were not going to be borrowing because clearly the member knew that the previous question was incorrect. But for a member who said he wanted to sell Kiwibank eventually then said he mis-stated and then tried to claim that the tapes have been doctored that was a particularly rich question. 
Hon Members 
: What about an answer? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member like to add anything more to his answer? [ 
Interruption 
] No there were numerous shouts that that was not an answer to the question. I listened to it. I then asked the Minister to repeat his answer. Would the member please address the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What is clear is that the National Party is planning to borrow even more on top it is planning to borrow more on top of that for tax cuts and indeed it is forecasting rising debt to finance tax cuts. That is dumb. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why when which will can could shall should how and has the Government learnt of reports that New Zealand’s debt levels are about to be imperilled and by what technology did it learn that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I think most of my colleagues know I am not exactly the most au fait with modern technology. So I can say that I acquired this from steam television where I heard that the National Party was planning to increase debt and indeed that the entire centrepiece of its economic policy the one conclusion after 8½ years of hard serious thinking is that we should increase the level of debt over and above that currently forecast. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has the Prime Minister received any reports that give the deputy leader of the National Party credit for consistency in terms of the way in which he is undermining John Key and the manner in which he undermined Jenny Shipley previously? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am used to the notion that the job of a deputy leader is to support the leader. Mr English still has yet to get that idea into his head on his second chance of being deputy leader. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Minister confirm for the House that while he is railing about other parties borrowing money to invest in infrastructure and he is saying that it is stupid he is doing the same thing himself and that while he is railing about other parties saying they will lift debt levels slightly his Budget suggests he will do that himself; and when will the Prime Minister stop her nonsense claims and admit that a gross debt ratio of 22 percent of GDP is prudent that it is lower than Government debt was for every year Labour has been in office except this year and that at 22 percent New Zealand would still have one of the lowest Government debt ratios in the developed world? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: One of the problems with the member claiming that the debt ratio National is now aiming for is 22 percent is that we are starting from a position of something under 18 percent of GDP. The National Party has stated that it will lift debt by 2 percent of GDP to fund infrastructure investment. Therefore Mr English has just confirmed that debt levels will lift by something like 3 percent of GDP to fund tax cuts. I say thank you very much to Mr English. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can the Prime Minister be confident in the management of the Kiwi economy when Treasury the Ministry of Economic Development and the Reserve Bank are all still forecasting oil prices at about half of what they actually are; and is he certain that the plans of National and Labour to borrow money to invest in infrastructure such as large motorway projects are really wise given those flawed forecasts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member is out of date because the forecasts he referred to were committed to some time ago and quite clearly both Treasury and the Reserve Bank are not using those numbers at the present time. I do note much to the disappointment of the Green Party that oil prices are again falling internationally having been assured that prices could go in only one direction. I finally draw the member’s attention to the fact that already we are seeing major adjustments in terms of fuel efficiency around the world. I invite him to read the motoring editions in our daily newspapers that show that we are now looking forward to cars coming out very soon that will do 3 litres per 100 kilometres. That is significantly better than the Honda Jazz his co-leader drives around in. 
Private Security Industry—Regulation 
3.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: What progress has the Government made on its review of the current system for regulating the private security industry? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Work is currently under way on the preparation of a private security personnel and private investigators bill. This bill updates the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Associate Minister seen any reports on why it is necessary to enhance the regulation of private security personnel and private investigators? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: On behalf of the Associate Minister yes I have seen some reports that cause concern. For example I have seen reports from a private investigator Mr Wayne Idour who admitted that the Exclusive Brethren had paid him to spy on Labour MPs to help the National Party at the last election. Having used that as an example I have to say that not all reports I have seen have been substantiated and would stand up to that sort of scrutiny. One report is from a Mr John Key and it suggests that secret recordings at the National Party conference had been doctored. Given that the person who had been taped a Mr Bill English actually confessed to and apologised for what he had said in the conversation about Mr Key about selling Kiwibank and about cutting Working for Families that sort of allegation clearly would not stand up to scrutiny. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Will the bill provide for a complaints process? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. However with any complaints process it is important that those making the allegations actually have the evidence to back them up. Last night on  
Close Up 
 John Key admitted that he had absolutely no evidence for his claims that the Labour Party was responsible for the secret recordings. Clearly the claims were without substance and simply an invention to distract attention from the fact that if the individuals taped were telling the truth to National Party delegates then the National Party has been lying to the public. As Guyon Espiner of Television New Zealand said the other night Mr English has been caught out telling the truth. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Minister seen any reports relating to private investigator techniques for collecting documentary information? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. From time to time concerns have been expressed about private investigators going through people’s rubbish. I have for example seen reports from Mr John Key who has been sending the media photos of his rubbish strewn across the street claiming that somebody has been going through it. On investigation however it would seem that this was paranoia. I have pictures for the House which I will seek leave to table. Here is the evidence of the crime scene. Here is the evidence of the prime suspect a small dog—members can see that it is wearing a hoodie. That is probably why it is the prime suspect. Lastly I have a picture of the sleuth—a bloodhound—that we are putting on the trail to try to find the culprit. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Labour Government condone the covert recording of conversations such as those that have been played in the media over the last few days or does it believe that it is inappropriate and should not form part of the coming campaign? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Labour Party does not condone dirty tricks in politics. Let me quote from Mike Hosking last night—Gerry Brownlee should listen to this. Mr Hosking asked Mr Key: “But what’s worse? Running an entrapment campaign …” by a person who apparently has no affiliation to any political party “or actually being busted saying something you didn’t want the public to know?”. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister may have substantial ambitions but at the moment he has no responsibility for television interviews. 
Hon Annette King 
: I recall in this House that that member asked many questions about Mike Williams whom I had no responsibility for yet he thought it was his right to ask them. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If I might just finish the answer to my question. What is clearly interesting is this quote from Mr English who just raised the point of order. He said that Mike Williams should resign or be sacked—“Mike Williams has been caught red-handed saying one thing behind closed doors and another thing to the public.” I say to Mr English that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have not ruled on the first point of order. Is it a different one or the same one? 
Hon Bill English 
: It is a different one. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I will rule on the first one. Listening to the context of the question it seemed to me that the answer was in order. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mike Williams was filmed by a TV crew and he was advocating breaking the law. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; that is a point of debate. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister compare and contrast the situation in respect of Mr Mike Williams where a covert recording took place at the Labour Party conference but Mr Williams’ greatest error was unwisely suggesting the Government should put out all the facts into the public arena whereas Mr English’s offence was failing to put out the facts into the public arena? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can absolutely confirm that. What Mike Williams was not guilty of was saying one thing to the Labour Party conference and the opposite thing to the public. Mr Williams most certainly was not guilty of lying to the public like the National Party has continuously done. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I find myself in the unique situation of not being able to hear my colleague the Hon Phil Goff. The volume from the rabble opposite is just ridiculous. We cannot hear the answers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The volume at which members are expressing themselves is making it difficult for everyone to hear. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table the evidence surrounding the crime committed on Mr Key’s rubbish. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
State-owned Enterprises—Assets 
4.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Does he stand by his statement of 13 July 2008 on  
Agenda 
 in reference to State-owned enterprises that “Well I’m happy to have floats as long as it’s non core assets”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 Yes. I would like to add that it is a longstanding policy of the Labour-led Government not to sell core assets unlike that member and his party with its now public—formerly secret—agenda that would see the selling of Kiwibank. That is a bank with over 600000 New Zealand customers a bank that pays tax in New Zealand retains its profit in New Zealand and is a distinctly New Zealand brand. What we will not do is sell it out from under our feet in the way that Bill English is promising to do. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister define for the House what he considers to be non-core assets given that he has said on no fewer than three separate occasions this year that he is happy to float non-core assets and will he also provide some examples of some of those non-core assets that he thinks it would be a good idea to sell? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is no problem at all. One very clear example of a non-core asset that could have been floated and has been sold is Southern Hydro. Southern Hydro is a wind farm in Australia that was owned by Meridian Energy. It was sold for $1.4 billion and it is an example of a non-core asset that has been sold. A flotation methodology if the price was good could have worked for it as well. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that the sale of Southern Hydro happened well before the Minister made any of the three statements I speak of. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is impossible to hear. Members will be leaving the Chamber if this continues. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on the value of State-owned enterprises? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I have. I have seen another outbreak of the truth. In this case it was from Dr Richard Worth in material drafted by him that outlines the National Party approach. In it he says— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister is about to quote from a select committee document that is currently privy to the select committee and has not been tabled in the House. One of his own members the Hon Paul Swain is doing considerable support work on that document. It would be advisable for the Minister not to breach the conventions of the House by discussing select committee business on the floor of the House before it is reported. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think the member makes a very fair point. If this material is draft material before a select committee then of course it would not be appropriate for it to be used in the House. Of course that does not change the fact that Dr Richard Worth is proposing precisely those facts. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members know they cannot actually quote from those documents. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want to finish my answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As long as it is consistent with the Standing Orders; you cannot quote from that document.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen material from Dr Richard Worth— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I am sorry. Please be seated. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister deliberately defied your ruling. I could come in here with the draft monetary policy inquiry report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and make allegations about who has written what what Paul Swain said and there perhaps being other different points of view in the Labour caucus and then talk about splits and divisions. It is absolutely out of order for that Minister to bring any material into this House that is from a committee report and the property of that committee. He has no idea whether it represents the ideas of the committee clerk or those of members of the committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I have ruled on this matter. We will move on. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What did the Minister mean in June of 2006 when he confirmed that he hopes that “mum and dad New Zealanders might get a chance to have shares in subsidiary companies” of State-owned enterprises to be listed on the stock exchange; and can he tell us which subsidiaries of State-owned enterprises he intends selling after the next election should Labour be returned to office? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I meant exactly what I said. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not infrequent for you to ask Ministers to expand a little on their answers. We know what the Minister said because I have the quote; we are just asking what he meant. Clearly he would have to name some assets that the Labour Government intends selling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister actually did address the question quite clearly. But the member has another supplementary question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why was the Government’s decision to launch the Capital Market Development Taskforce which is chaired by Rob Cameron a well-known proponent of partial floats of State-owned enterprises a response to the Minister’s trio of public expressions supporting partial sales of State-owned enterprises? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If you are to have us stick to the conventions he could not make a question out of that. He said: “Why was” which made it a statement not a question. If we are going to have the rules applied let us apply them to everybody. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I think it was a question this time. We are not going to get silly over this. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If we are going to be pedantic I should try again. Was the Government’s decision to launch the Capital Market Development Taskforce which is chaired by Rob Cameron a well-known proponent of State-owned enterprise partial floats a response to the Minister’s trio of public expressions supporting the idea of partial floats of State-owned enterprises? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No; it could not possibly be because this Minister like the Government opposes the sale of core State assets. Can I make it absolutely clear that unlike Bill English who wants to sell Kiwibank and unlike Richard Worth who wants to list State-owned enterprises on the stock exchange we do not want to do that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister try to tell the House just what the Government’s position on State asset sales is because Helen Clark says one thing he has said another thing on three separate occasions and Michael Cullen and Lianne Dalziel have launched the Capital Market Development Taskforce but when we look at the Labour Party website we see that there is no current policy on there whatsoever let alone any discussion about State-owned enterprises; and is it not true that the real secret agenda around this issue is being circulated among the Labour Cabinet Ministers? 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that Dr Cullen appears to be the person who knows the answer to that question I seek leave for Gerry Brownlee to be able to redirect his question to Dr Cullen. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. Will the Minister please just address the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I spent lunchtime today at the Hutt railway workshop. That workshop is a clear example that this Government buys assets and does not sell them in the way that Bill English wants to do. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister might confirm that that was a job interview. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I was well greeted by the workers who were highly offended by Gerry’s description of skilled tradesmen as people who worked in a sheltered workshop. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That answer did not address the question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Brownlee raised a facetious point of order which invited precisely that response given that Mr Brownlee had insulted the Hutt workshop workers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister wish to expand on his answer? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Madam Speaker can you confirm whether it was a question and not a point of order to start with? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It was a question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh right. Can I make it absolutely clear that I spent time at the Hutt railway workshop discussing the Government’s plans to have an efficient New Zealand - owned railway system unlike the National Party which already wants to change the name from KiwiRail to “DingoRail” again. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There was an interruption between the answer the Minister gave and the supplementary question I asked. I wonder whether you might allow me to ask that question again so that he can give us an answer because he has not addressed it. For him simply to say what he did at lunchtime etc. is not really addressing the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. A question was asked points of order were made the Minister addressed the question I asked him to expand on it and he did. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Since the Minister made his trio of statements in favour of selling or partially selling State-owned enterprises— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. To say “Since the Minister” is not how one starts a question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes that is true. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is a great way to make one’s point twice! Can the Minister tell the House whether since his trio of statements favouring the partial float of State-owned enterprises he has had a “please explain” conversation with Helen Clark given her speech to the Labour conference in April in which she said that asset sales were a defining issue of the election; or was his trio of statements in favour of partial floats in fact Labour’s real policy that she was referring to? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have regular conversations with the Prime Minister across a broad range of issues but can I make it absolutely clear that the policy of the Labour-led Government is not to sell core State-owned enterprises. If members opposite think that State-owned enterprises never sell anything I ask them to consider what happens every day with electricity. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm—in order to make it clear to some parliamentarians—that the sale of for example vehicles owned by a State-owned enterprise is not a core State asset sale? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I can absolutely confirm that. Every day these multibillion-dollar enterprises sell non-core assets. Doing that is part of their role. Small subsidiaries are sold on a monthly basis and many more are bought. 
Chris Tremain 
: Name one. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I named one earlier—Southern Hydro. Whisper Tech has just entered a big joint venture. Quotable Value has sold its assets to a new vehicle. Every State-owned enterprise sells non-core assets many of them on a weekly basis. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If we are to believe the Minister—that all he was talking about was used cars old furniture etc.—why did he say that he wanted mum and dad New Zealanders to have a chance to have shares in subsidiary companies of State-owned enterprises listed on the stock exchange; what is so hard about his explaining what he meant when he has made that statement no fewer than three times this year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well it might have been three times in this House this year but I think I gave the member a very good example in Southern Hydro. If the price of a float had been higher than the price— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A document currently being tabled in the House shows that long before Trevor Mallard made his statement of aspiration for mum and dad New Zealanders to have a share of used Government equipment the Southern Hydro scheme had been well sold. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well that is all very interesting but the Minister is addressing the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I was asked to give an example of the sort of thing that could be floated and Southern Hydro was a very large asset that was sold to Australians. If the price had been as good then it could have been sold to a floating vehicle in New Zealand. 
Multiculturalism Bill—Possible Introduction 
5.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Ethnic Affairs 
: Is the Government considering introducing a multiculturalism bill? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Ethnic Affairs 
: No. New Zealand already has a strong human rights and race relations legislative framework including the Human Rights Act which replaced the Race Relations Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Everyone enjoys equal treatment and protection under the law while it respects and values their diversity. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does she recall the Minister saying in October last year “we have made a conscious decision that the only way a multiethnic multicultural population is going to prosper and thrive is by embracing diversity and promoting its cultural and economic opportunities.”; if she does recall that statement why will the Minister not now proceed to formalise that arrangement in the form of multiculturalism legislation? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I do but that does not necessarily lead one to the conclusion that further legislative provisions are required. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What actions is the Government taking in response to New Zealand’s increasing ethnic diversity? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Since 1999 the Government has proactively implemented a number of initiatives including the establishment of the ethnic affairs portfolio and the Office of Ethnic Affairs the creation of a tradition of celebrating important events for communities at Parliament—such as Islamic Awareness Week and a reception to acknowledge 150 years of Croatian settlement—and the introduction of a range of programmes such as the Connecting Diverse Communities project the Building Bridges project and Language Line a telephone interpreting service that has now logged more that 100000 calls. 
Dail Jones 
: Why when we already have such a vibrant multicultural society in New Zealand would anyone even want to consider introducing a multiculturalism bill in New Zealand—a bill that would only pander to PC claptrap? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Frankly I do not agree with the assumption the member has proposed in his question. I believe that the federation that has proposed the bill is genuine in its view that it would strengthen the valuing and appreciation of the diversity of our communities. In my view the legislation is not needed. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Supplementary— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No more supplementary questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister not understand that there is a world of difference between “multicultural” and “multiculturalism”: one is respect for other cultures and the other is the promotion by the taxpayer of every culture in a country so that it ends up with no single culture for that country? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I do understand the difference. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have asked one supplementary question this week. United Future is entitled to ask at least two supplementary questions and I want to know why we were denied the second one. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No you had one yesterday and one today. So you have had your quota I am sorry. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: No I did not—I did not ask one yesterday. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It was in question No. 3 yesterday. I am happy to look at the documentation afterwards but— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I can assure you that I did not ask one yesterday— 
Hon Member 
: Seek leave. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: —so can I seek leave to ask a further supplementary question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave may be sought; that is fine. Obviously the member is entitled to do that. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I seek leave— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] It is not an option. Has the Minister had a discussion with the Federation of Ethnic Councils regarding the development of a multiculturalism Act; if so what has been the outcome of that discussion and what advice has he given the federation about the Government’s intentions with regard to that? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am aware of the Minister’s interest in the debate that is being stimulated throughout the country and my understanding is that the Minister is prepared to continue engagement with the federation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would also invite the member to come and look at the documentary evidence. 
Health Personnel—Numbers 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his answer in the House yesterday that in claiming “over 2300 extra medical personnel” since 2001 “the statistics are on the same basis throughout”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have addressed this matter in a clarifying statement to the House at the earliest opportunity. My answer yesterday to the House was that as I understood it then the data provided was consistent and in that regard it remains a true statement. It also remains a true statement that I am advised the proportion of management and administration staff in the district health board system has declined since 2001. I was not aware yesterday of an adjustment to the fulltime-equivalent definition in 2006-07. However I am advised that this definitional change applied to both the clinical and the non-clinical workforce categories. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that comparable information is collected every 6 months by me under the Official Information Act and that this shows that there have been only 1200 new medical staff in the past 7 years not the slippery 2300 that he claimed yesterday meaning that under Labour almost twice as many new health bureaucrats have been employed for every new doctor? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I will be spending some further time with these data sets and my advice is that the aggregate proportion of non-clinical staff has declined since 2001. I note that the member picks out medical staff but ignores nursing staff and other clinical staff. My advice remains that the combined effect of this is that non-clinical staff have grown by less as a proportion than clinical staff to date. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 Has the Minister seen any reports that make claims regarding the health sector that have caused him concern? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. I am aware that on Tuesday Mr Ryall informed the House that there had been a 182 percent increase in staff at the Ministry of Health and that Ms Goodhew recently sent out a press release quoting an increase in nursing vacancies of 275 percent at the Waitemata District Health Board despite being told by the district health board that this was not an increase in vacancies but that they were newly created positions because the hospital was increasing capacity. Jo Goodhew also falsely claimed in this House that the Public Health Bill would make health risk management plans compulsory for hairdressers. None of these statements is even remotely correct and I wonder whether the opportunity will be taken by the Opposition to apologise for any inaccuracies. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why has the Minister told the House twice that he was unaware of the changes being made to the way the Government was counting this information when he gave an answer in a written question from me in February this year stating that there was a change to the accrual method for counting fulltime equivalents to provide better definition and enable consistency of fulltime-equivalent counting across the sector—why when he has given that answer where he confirmed that he knew about it and gave an explanation for the change is he now coming down to the House and saying that he was completely unaware of the change? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member may remember every last caveat on the answer to every written parliamentary question that he has ever received—good luck to him. My statement remains true. I have given my assurance to the House that as of yesterday I believed that the numbers I gave to the House were true and that assurance has been received by the House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that the new basis for counting the number of doctors in our hospitals which the Minister explained in February 2008 swells the data by 1000 phantom doctors and is not this designed to cover up the workforce crisis in the New Zealand public health system? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have inflated nothing. What I am wondering is whether Mr Ryall would like to comment on why he told this Parliament that the Ministry of Health had increased its staffing by 182 percent—a claim that he knows is not correct. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the Government has changed the way it counts medical staff to make the numbers look better what other slippery changes has it made to the way it presents other health information data like elective surgery results? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can confirm to the House that the Leader of the Opposition has not been helping me to draft answers to Parliament. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Do you consider that answer addressed the question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No but what I do consider is that if questions are asked that contain comments that are likely to get responses unfortunately we get the answers that the questions imply. I ask all members to play it straight between now and the end of question time then we will get through quickly—both questions and answers. Just ask the question directly and give the answer directly. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What sorts of priorities does this Government have when it is prepared to swell the health bureaucracy by millions and millions of dollars but it cannot find the money to provide 12 months of Herceptin treatment for women dying from breast cancer? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I invite the member to rise to his feet on a further supplementary question and explain to the House exactly what the National Party is proposing. Having set up a world-leading evidence-based lobby-proof system that saves the New Zealand taxpayer a billion dollars a year is he advocating ad hoc decisions that reach over that process? If he is prepared to do that for one drug how will he decide what drug to fund next time and next time and next time or will it just depend on which drug companies are mates with John Key? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was uncalled for too. 
Maori Child Poverty—Government Interventions 
7.  
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What specific interventions will she be making to address the fact that 27 percent of Maori children live in poverty and does she believe this is a fair go for Maori children? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I believe in a fair go for all children. The 27 percent Maori child poverty figure quoted by the member is in fact for 2004. Since then and using the same measure overall child poverty has decreased by one-third. Labour is committed to ensuring these trends continue through measures such as annual CPI benefit adjustments an improved number of people in paid work additional money on Tamariki Ora services and higher participation in tertiary education. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Does this Government have a new policy platform that really supports our children to achieve their potential and be healthy contributing citizens and can she tell the House what those new policies are for the 150000 children who are not benefiting from any Government policies to date? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I do not know a single child in New Zealand who has not benefited in one way or another from the Labour-led Government’s policies over the last 9 years. 
Sue Moroney 
: What specific expenditure interventions have an impact on children and poverty? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: A critical factor in a family’s balance sheet is the money it spends on accessing health services. We have ensured that we have improved the health of young New Zealanders by strengthening child and adolescent oral health services expanding Well Child checks and creating a universal new-born hearing screening programme. Fifty-seven thousand children are participating in the Fruit in Schools programme we have invested an additional $2.2 billion into primary healthcare focusing on health promotion and getting ahead of chronic diseases lowered doctors’ fees and reducing the cost of most medicine. We now have 88 percent of Maori children under 6 receiving free standard general practitioner consultations. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe. When will the Government set national targets to ensure that progress can be measured to adopt a sustained coordinated plan of action to end child poverty in New Zealand as urged by the Child Poverty Action Group? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: For the first time ever in New Zealand’s history our Government has a publicly accountable document called the  
Social Report 
 which is published every year with consistent data so we can accurately measure and debate the success or otherwise of initiatives in these areas. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Does the Minister agree with the definition from the rangatahi of Streets Ahead 237 of Porirua that poverty is the lack of something to make one’s life better; and what action will she take by the year 2020 to make life better for specific population groups by developing measurable targets to eliminate child poverty for Maori and Pasifika children in migrant and refugee families children with disabilities and children in foster care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There is a clear definition of poverty. There are two options for that and both are held accountable by this Government in terms of public data. One of them is in the  
Social Report 
 and others are used in other data. We want to ensure that we have consistent tracking of comparable data to ensure that the targets we set in eliminating child poverty in New Zealand are met. 
Education Ministry—Spending 
8.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is he satisfied that the Ministry of Education is spending taxpayer funds wisely; if so why? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Education 
: Yes; the recently released school-leaver statistics show that that is indeed the case. Each year since the National Certificate of Educational Achievement was introduced in 2002 the rates of achievement have been lifting. More students are getting the qualifications they need and fewer and fewer are getting left behind. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why does an education report from 11 April 2008 show that the Minister of Education was the one who had to approve and did approve the spending of nearly $60000 on badges with phrases such as “Wassup!” and “Nice!” on them; badges that have been rubbished by the education sector which wants money to be spent on the teaching of students rather than on useless promotional badges? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That was one part of Ka Hikitia which is a system-wide strategy aimed at improving the performance of Maori students. Ka Hikitia is based on clear evidence of what will make a difference to Maori student outcomes. And those interesting phrases are used by the majority of youngsters in this country. They understand what they mean even if some people in that member’s party struggle with them—just like they are struggling at the moment with the truth. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: What announcements made today support the Government’s commitment to 21st century learning? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The Government announced today that 87 new schools will benefit from the latest round of funding for information and communication technologies professional development bringing the total number of schools involved since 1999 to 1744. This Government has committed $408 million to information and communications technology since 1999 and a further $65.3 million in Budget 2008. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the Ministry of Education is spending wisely the funding for 20 free hours’ early childhood education; if so will he ensure that it is urgently extended to playcentres and to those sections of kohanga reo that are not fully benefiting from the scheme? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Forty percent of kohanga reo are now using that early childhood education funding. Playcentres are a different issue. But there is huge uptake by nearly 80 percent of all preschool children in any preschool education forum. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why is it that under his watch the Ministry of Education contemplated spending $7000 on origami pyramids with motivational statements on them to promote Ka Hikitia but instead—apparently because it could not think of enough motivational statements to cover the pyramids—decided to spend $56000 on similarly useless but eight times more expensive gimmicky badges; and can he explain how Maori achievement levels will be lifted by Japanese folding pyramids or badges with “Wassup!” on them? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: At the end of the day that is one part of that strategy. There are several things that this Government is involved in such as TeachNZ Team-Up Mission-On—those things that the general public support. 
Anne Tolley 
: Can he confirm that his ministry spent almost $70000 on checklists and word-find puzzles to supposedly fight bullying that were labelled “an absolute insult” by one principal and that are being stacked in the corners of classrooms and in recycling bins around the country because cards and notices do nothing to stop bullying? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The feedback on Ka Hikitia has been amazing. It has been very supportive. Some principals—very very few—and schools have returned the material. But in relation to the anti-bullying cards I am surprised that that member who preaches platitudes about getting rid of violence dares to say that whatever effort is put in is no good. The pocket card is just one part of the Government’s wider strategy to tackle disruptive behaviour in schools. The total budget was $81200 which included the development printing distribution and launch; 675000 cards were printed at a cost of 12 cents each. If that is the way to get into kids’ heads to stop them from bullying and creating violence then we will do it; we will do anything to help cut that out in schools. What is that member’s policy? 
Anne Tolley 
: Why did the Ministry of Education have five communications staff in 1999 but in 2008 it has 35 communications staff plus contractors at a cost of almost $2.5 million a year; is this extra spin expenditure to convince schools that they do not really need more money for teaching rather than the ministry spending money on websites Japanese paper-folding gimmicks and cringe-worthy statements like “Wassup!” on badges? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It is surprising that that member does not believe that support—financial or in whatever form—for websites is OK in this modern day in relation to education. The Ministry of Education’s total staff numbers—excluding the 1380 staff who transferred to the ministry from Special Education Services in 2002-03 and the 78 staff who transferred from Early Childhood Development in 2003-04—have increased by 302 since 2004. That is a 15 percent increase in staff which is good support for the education that our children need. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the project brief for the origami— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table an email saying no to the origami— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the report to the Minister of Education asking whether the badges saying “wassup” and— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table answers to questions that show that communications staff have increased from five to— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Social Trends—Recent Advice 
9.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Has she received any recent advice on New Zealand’s social trends? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes I have. I have been advised that the gap between rich and poor households has closed for the first time in 20 years. The proportion of people with low incomes is also considerably lower. The earnings per person was higher in real terms in 2007 than it was in the mid-1990s and overall poverty fell from 19 percent in 2001 to 13 percent in 2007 using the  
Social Report 
 measure representing a total of 190000 fewer New Zealanders in poverty in the last year. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Has she has received any advice that explains why the gap between lower household incomes and higher household incomes has closed? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. The fact that incomes for lower and middle income households has grown more rapidly than others is attributed mainly to the Working for Families package. This is of course why National’s Bill English says their message to the public before the election is to keep Working for Families intact because they do not want to be seen as taking money off people. However after the election if National is the Government it will give it “a bit of a sort out”. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does she recall giving a recent speech in which she said: “We must cater for the diversity we know exists. By this I mean the range of relationships from single couples triples blended de facto and so on. That’s where we are going with social policy.” and in the recent advice she received on social trends in New Zealand was there a description of the relationship she describes as a triple; if so what was that advice? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table an excerpt from the Minister’s speech in which she talks about this new relationship called a triple. 
Document not tabled. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—Confidence 
10.  
PANSY WONG (National) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does she have confidence that the Accident Compensation Corporation is responsible with taxpayers’ money? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I am a lot more confident about that than I would be about National’s accident compensation plan which would cost New Zealand taxpayers a whole lot more as evidenced by the PricewaterhouseCoopers report and the leaked Merrill Lynch briefing than the present scheme costs. 
Pansy Wong 
: How does giving staff $250 each per year to spend through the activa card on activities like manicures and day spas promote a more active lifestyle and keep staff fit and well for work? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I presume it is a case of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) practising what it preaches in that it is trying to prevent injury. I commend it for that. It is in fact an operational matter that is under the jurisdiction of the chief executive officer. But I suppose it is good to hear the National Party spokeswoman on accident compensation actually saying something about the portfolio at least once every 6 months given that she was not able to—or not allowed to—say anything about National’s policy when it was released. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was unnecessary. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether she has seen any conflicting reports on plans for the ACC? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I have seen a report from John Key saying that National might privatise the earners and motor vehicle accounts and a report from Murray McCully soon afterwards saying National Party policy “doesn’t go there”. It is obvious that National will privatise those accounts eventually following a discussion document process. But Mr Key forgot that he was not supposed to talk about privatising those accounts. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind Ministers that they can comment on what is in reports but not on other parties’ policies. 
Pansy Wong 
: Does the Minister believe that the active and healthy lifestyle of ACC staff is promoted by spending $250 for each person per year on animal care including pet grooming? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I have no idea what that has to do with the health and safety of ACC staff but I am happy to look into that for the member. 
Pansy Wong 
: Can the Minister assure the House that ACC staff are not spending $750000 worth of taxpayers’ money on Botox facelifts and other cosmetic treatments that are services provided for through the activa cards or does she think that this is an acceptable use of ACC funds? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: In respect of the first part of the question I think I can assure the House of that. But I will check that with the chair of the board given the member’s obvious concern about the expenditure of ACC money. 
Pansy Wong 
: I seek leave to table the list of service providers under the activa card for appearance medicines. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Pansy Wong 
: I seek leave to table the list of service providers through the ACC activa card under animal care. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. Would members please indicate their objection loudly. 
Pansy Wong 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the list of service providers through the ACC activa card under hair and beauty. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister confirm that physiotherapists play a very significant role in the rehabilitation of accident victims and that taxpayers’ money spent on them is well spent; if she can confirm that what will she and the ACC do to address the financial predicament that largely embraces physiotherapists? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I can confirm the worth value and contribution of physiotherapists to the ongoing rehabilitation of injured New Zealanders. I am currently addressing with physiotherapists the issue of their remuneration. 
Mapua Site—Contamination Clean-up 
11.  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Is he confident that the Mapua clean-up has reduced risks to the health of the community and the estuary; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 On balance probably yes but I want to read the auditor’s final report and the subsequent report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment before finalising my own view. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can the Minister confirm that soil containing up to 21 tonnes of organochlorine pesticides was fed into the soil drier at Mapua while it was running at between 250 and 380 degrees Celsius and is he comfortable with the fact that this was in breach of the resource consent that stated that the maximum temperature had to be kept at 120 degrees Celsius because at 250 degrees Celsius organochlorine is converted into the deadly chemical dioxin? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not have the scientific knowledge that the member has but clearly that is one of the questions that will be looked at when the final report is received. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister both last week and today refuse to accept the conclusions of the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and say it was only an interim report when the parliamentary commissioner told the select committee this morning: “This is my final report. The future technical audit statement will not affect these conclusions.”; and will the Minister now simply state whether the Government accepts these damning conclusions of his Government’s environmental stewardship? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I made those comments because I understood that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was open to looking at the final auditor’s report to see whether that affected her decision. If the member says that her mind is closed on that I will accept his word. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can the Minister confirm that if dioxins were produced in the drier at Mapua as seems almost certain from the evidence those dioxins would not have been contained within the drier at Mapua because although the air filtration system contained carbon filters designed to filter out dioxins those carbon filters were not functional for at least 12 months; if so is he concerned that this clean-up has spread persistent cancer-causing dioxins through the air over Mapua? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is certainly one of the propositions that has been put and it is an area that I understand there is still debate about. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What are the serious financial issues over the ministry’s management of the Mapua contamination site that have led to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment referring the matter to the Auditor-General? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The fact that a final contract was never signed because there was disagreement as to who had ongoing liability. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: With the benefit of hindsight was the most polluted site in New Zealand which is surrounded by estuaries and residential dwellings the best site to trial an experimental and high-risk technology for the remediation of toxic sites? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Probably not. But the member will remember that the decision to start this project and to progress it was not made by the Government; it was made by the local authority. 
Question No. 12 to Minister 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Noting the unavailability of Mr Anderton who gives us humorous answers on a Thursday afternoon I seek leave for this question to be held over until next question time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Agriculture and Forestry Ministry—Confidence 
12.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Does he have confidence in his ministry; if so why? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Yes. 
Hon David Carter 
: Is it acceptable that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s 2008 policy group staff conference cost over $500 per head which is more than double the cost of the same conference in 2007; if so why? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am unable to help the member in respect of that particular issue. If he wishes to put down a primary question on it I am sure it will be answered. I would note that during the period of this Government the good efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry have helped the agricultural industry increase its export earnings from approximately $16 billion in the year ended June 1999 to $23.5 billion in the year ended March 2008. 
Hon David Carter 
: If one considers that the delegates at the conference enjoyed sumptuous food such as tiger prawns and venison washed down with Riverstone Reserve sauvignon blanc and heard speeches from people such as the Minister himself can the Minister explain why the feedback from those attending the conference included comments such as “Long and boring.” and “Basically we’ve heard it seen it and read it all before.”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I cannot. 
Hon David Carter 
: Does the Minister support the presentation made by the political commentator Colin James to the conference that said “National is odds-on to be the next Government.” and that National offers “fresh leadership”; and can he explain what prompted the memo from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to his office the very next day saying that the ministry “would have been better advised not to have used Mr James”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am not sure whether the Minister heard the whole of Colin James’ presentation but I can only suppose that it was given before the latest faux pas by the National Party over subsequent weeks disclosing its intention to increase debt as a proportion of GDP to sell Kiwibank to privatise accident compensation to decrease the rate of contribution to the Superannuation Fund and to do other things that are obviously not in the interests of voters. 
Hon David Carter 
: Can the Minister explain why the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry felt the need to screen repeated clips of  
Yes Minister  
at the conference; was it a reflection of the fact that his own ministry now treats him much as Sir Humphrey treated the Hon Jim Hacker MP? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I can confirm that the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues who has regular interactions with the Minister of Agriculture understands him to be a most competent Minister. Because of the holistic approach taken by the Minister of Agriculture to issues like trade access overseas scientific research and technology transfer as well as sustainability issues the agriculture industry is marching forward. 
Hon David Carter 
: I seek leave to table a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry memo to the Minister’s office dated 8 May which basically says that in hindsight the ministry would have been better advised not to use— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This Government seeks to boost protections for vulnerable workers and breastfeeding mothers by legislating for minimum meal breaks and rest breaks and the protection of employees who wish to breastfeed their babies at work. These amendments will create minimum standards and a modern workforce in respect of the protection and promotion of infant feeding and the provision of rest and meal breaks. These amendments also support Government policy concerning the choices of employees particularly when it comes to their work-life balance and parenting responsibilities. I want to acknowledge the hard work of Sue Moroney MP whose member’s bill formed the basis for the rest and meal break provisions contained in this bill and the Hon Steve Chadwick whose member’s bill on breastfeeding was the basis for the infant-feeding provisions of the bill. 
This bill returns to the House with a small number of minor amendments in response to the submissions received by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to clarify the intent of the bill. These amendments include clarification that breastfeeding breaks and facilities are to be provided only where it is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances and clarification that employers and employees can agree to the times that rest and meal breaks can be observed. Where such agreement cannot be reached these breaks must be provided in the middle of the work period where reasonable and practicable. The bill was also amended to entitle employees to one 10-minute rest break if their work period is 2 hours or more but not more than 4 hours. As introduced the bill would have entitled employees to a 10-minute break if their work period was 4 hours or fewer. 
This bill reflects the Government’s commitment to the protection of our country’s most vulnerable workers. It upholds Government policy to support the work and caring choices of hard-working New Zealand parents while recognising that breastfeeding provides the best start in life for babies. I want to thank the select committee for its work on the bill and for its report. I also extend my thanks to all those who took the time to make submissions. I commend the bill to the House. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 The Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill should be a relatively uncontroversial matter. Of course employees should be given meal and tea breaks and by all accounts common sense prevails and this does happen. It is interesting though that this bill has been drafted with two relatively separate and discrete issues. The first is to deal with meal and rest breaks which most thought were already enshrined in law and arguably are enshrined in the health and safety legislation but this is for the avoidance of doubt; despite the fact this bill is not necessarily needed if it merely codifies what is already happening in workplaces then it should be relatively uncontroversial. Secondly the bill deals with the requirement for the employer to provide breastfeeding breaks and facilities. 
When asked why both these matters were contained in the one bill one Government member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee offered the response that it was to make it politically difficult for National. There was nothing at all in that member’s response about whether the bill was needed nothing at all about what evidence-based research had been done to establish whether in fact there was a problem—it was merely to try to make it politically difficult for us. There was no evidence of a problem no regulatory impact statement just the comment that the Government would love National to vote against the bill and the Government would therefore be able to say that National is against giving meal breaks to workers. We are not against giving meal breaks to workers. Although we are not entirely happy with the bill we will be supporting it but we will be looking at some practical amendments to it at the Committee stage. 
Submitters on the bill and in particular I refer to the submissions of the Employers and Manufacturers Association noted that 95 percent of employers provide paid rest breaks of 10 minutes or longer and 99 percent of employers provide unpaid meal breaks of 30 minutes or longer. Many considered the bill to be “unnecessary”. They said that it purports to address matters that already happen and are covered in employment agreements that are consistent within the scope of the existing good-faith negotiation framework and that the terms are prescriptive allowing for little or no account of long-established work practices or necessary workplace flexibility. 
It is interesting that one of the comments in the explanatory note stated: “These amendments however are consistent with the majority of active collective agreements so would be expected to support current practice and not require a significant change to current workplace practices in most instances. They would also provide a minimum code to support provision of breaks in those sectors or workplaces where provisions may be light or restricted and where vulnerable workers are like to be present.” However as one submitter duly noted in the private sector collective bargaining coverage is about 10 percent although it is about 22 percent when taking the public sector into account and therefore using existing collective arrangements to all employers may be seen at least statistically as the tail wagging the dog. The explanatory note further notes; “There is a risk that legislating for rest and meal breaks will be seen as reducing workplace flexibility. A legislative approach also presents a risk in sectors and industries where rest and meal breaks of specified duration and frequency are incompatible with business operations.” 
Some submitters in some sectors including transport hospitality tourism and retail expressed concern that the nature of their business precluded the suitability of an overly prescriptive meal break regime. Flexibility is required. A mountain guide halfway up a mountain cannot take a break just because the law prescribes it even though it is impractical for the break to be taken precisely at that moment. A waiter at a restaurant who was in the midst of serving customers would not take a break or indeed want to take a break precisely as prescribed in the law. Waiters take their break when it is convenient. They work it out with common sense and communication with their employer and there is no problem. 
The major issue raised in relation to meal breaks and rest breaks was not the provision of these breaks but the prescriptive nature of the timing of the breaks. Although one of the union submitters attempted to suggest that the old awards were much more prescriptive this proved to be a fallacy. For example in the old tearooms award it is specifically stated that breaks are taken “at a time convenient to the employer”. It is not the same as “by agreement”; it is not the same as this bill prescribes and neither is it the same as “reasonable and practicable”. Admittedly at select committee the bill was amended in an attempt to make it less prescriptive—less “one size fits all”—by providing that the timing of rest and meal breaks is to be agreed between the employer and the employee. It is only in the event that agreement cannot be reached that the default provisions apply—namely one 10-minute paid break if an employee’s work period is 2 hours or more but not more than 4 hours; one 10-minute paid break and one 30-minute unpaid meal break if the employee’s work period is more than 4 hours and not more than 6 hours; and two 10-minute paid breaks and one 30-minute unpaid meal break if the employee’s work period is more than 6 hours but not more than 8 hours. This bill is still not the perfect solution but it is an improvement; it at least acknowledges the ability of the employer and the employee to reach an agreement. 
Underlying this legislation is the notion of what is reasonable and practicable and concern was certainly expressed by many of the submitters as to what exactly this would mean and what it would entail to test it—yet another process no doubt for employers to have to navigate their way through. There is no clear definition of what is reasonable and practicable. Perhaps some direction can be gained by the similar expression contained in the health and safety legislation and it is of some—but perhaps not much—comfort that further guidance as to what this all means will be provided in a code of practice. Although a code may assist employers to determine what is reasonable and practicable in their and their employees’ particular circumstances good law requires certainty. Both workers and businesses need certainty as to what this all actually means and at the moment there is uncertainty. The proposed code will need to be drafted with a lot of thought and research—a lot more certainly than was given to this bill. 
The transport industry submitters were most concerned as to the consequences of this bill on their respective operations. Their hours of work and timing of work breaks etc. are already covered under separate subordinate legislation such as the work time and logbooks rule and maritime rules. This current bill either duplicates in some part or conflicts in some part with such industry-related rules. It should be made clear that the specific transport-related rules should prevail; if not it is clear from the submissions received that the bill as drafted risks imposing substantial additional costs on the industry—such costs of course would be passed on to the consumer. This “one-size-fits-all” legislation does not fit the transport industry. We heard from a submitter NZ Bus that the increased cost on its operations resulting from this bill would be over $9 million. 
At the moment the bill provides that such other enactment would prevail if the breaks provided under that other enactment are additional and enhanced. But again what exactly does that mean? A simple amendment that where there is other legislation—such as the logbook rules etc.—that provides for breaks then that other industry-specific rule should prevail is common sense yet it should not detrimentally affect the workers and their entitlements to proper breaks. Those rules still have to undergo the scrutiny of industry consultation and final sign-off by the Regulations Review Committee which affords protection for all concerned. The transport industry submitters wanted a specific exclusion to this bill providing for their specific regulations and rules to prevail as the preferable and more common-sense solution. 
Finally is this bill necessary? Probably not. Are meal breaks and rest breaks necessary? Without a doubt. This bill is another drop in the dripping tap of employment legislation that imposes more and more regulation and compliance on employers when there is no real evidence from research showing that there is indeed a problem. National endorses the need for certainty in legislation and for proper protections to ensure that workers have proper meal breaks and tea breaks etc. It does not endorse unnecessary legislation but it does support these protections for workers. Therefore we are supporting the bill which we hope will include the amendments I have mentioned earlier. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I can tell those who were listening to the previous speech from Kate Wilkinson that the National Party supports the second reading of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. It was actually very hard to pick up on that point. National members are trying very hard to support this bill but they are clearly finding it quite difficult to do so. Kate Wilkinson National’s spokesperson on labour and industrial relations spent 10 minutes criticising the bill and saying that it was not necessary but for some reason— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I bet they won’t support the third reading. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well I would like to invite the next National speaker to make a commitment about what the National Party will do at the third reading of this bill. 
I am clearly supporting this bill at its second reading. I was very pleased to be one of the two MPs who contributed to the bill as a result of the member’s bill process. Both Steve Chadwick and I had put forward quite similar bills on workplace rights and workplace issues and to see them combined in this effective way has been a very heartening process to go through. 
I was certainly very concerned about ensuring that all workers in New Zealand had the legal entitlement to basic rest breaks and meal periods while at work. I am not sure whether Kate Wilkinson was at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for all of the submissions but I am sure she heard many of the ones that told us that this is not the case. Sadly mainly young workers get these basic rights denied to them every day in the New Zealand workplace. 
The National Party needs to think very carefully about the rest of its industrial relations platform. We heard from individual workers who told us their stories about not having basic rights—like having rest periods—in the workplace. These very workers will be at risk if the National Party gets its way and has the “90-day Fire at Will Bill” put before the House again. If that legislation is passed these young vulnerable workers will get the sack—and this has happened before—for asking for ordinary breaks. Under National’s proposed legislation that situation would be absolutely fine and there would be no course of redress for those young people in that situation. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Wrong! 
SUE MORONEY 
: It is not wrong I tell Nicky Wagner. In the select committee we heard from a young man from Hamilton where I come from and he had been sacked for taking a 30-minute break during a 12-hour shift. That young man came along—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Order Mr Bennett! 
SUE MORONEY 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have been interrupted for quite a few minutes by the barracking of members opposite and I would like to have some of that time reinstated. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: No I am sorry. There was a sudden amount of noise just now but the member will please continue. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Thank you. That young man came to tell us his story. He had worked for the Subway restaurant in Hamilton East which is where I am from. He was doing a 12-hour shift and in the course of that shift the company was prepared to give him a break of only 10 minutes. It gave him a 10-minute break in a 12-hour shift! After talking to the company to try to get a reasonable break of half an hour the young worker decided to take his entitlement to a break in any case. I tell Nicky Wagner that the worker was dismissed. He was sacked for daring to take more than a 10-minute break in a 12-hour shift. 
I watched the National members on the committee listen to that submission and sympathise with the young man and say how terrible that was. But did that stop them from continuing to put forward a bill that would give that worker no recourse if the same thing happened in the first 90 days of his employment? Under National that worker would be sacked; he would have no recourse. I clearly remember one of the National members sympathising with that young man and saying: “I hope you’re taking a personal grievance because what happened to you is illegal.” Under this Government that practice is illegal but under National’s proposals it would be quite lawful for that to happen to the young man. 
National members have to think carefully about this issue. Perhaps they are feeling OK about supporting this bill for workers’ rights because they believe that their party intends to take away workers’ rights—all workers’ rights—in the first 90 days of employment anyway. So perhaps that is why they are not too bothered that National is supporting this bill. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Will they change their vote later? 
SUE MORONEY 
: We will have to wait and see whether National changes its vote; there are two more opportunities in this House for the bill to be debated. I look forward to continuing to debate this very important issue about basic workers’ rights—the right to take decent breaks while at work and the right to breastfeed while at work. Thank you. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 National supports the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. Can I say that again for the previous speaker Sue Moroney. National supports the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. We understand that this bill is designed to outline minimum requirements for breaks. It will provide facilities for those women who wish to breastfeed so far as it is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances. 
This is a common-sense bill. That is why we support it and we support it because it reflects what is already happening out there in the workforce. All employers respect and expect to provide rest and meal breaks for their staff. At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee there was no evidence to suggest that this was a serious problem. It was also suggested during the select committee process that the bill’s provisions are covered elsewhere under health and safety and other industry-specific regulations. I believe that most employers understand the value of looking after employees. They understand the value of providing regular breaks. They understand that value for a multitude of reasons. First of all refreshed and renewed employees do not tend to have work-related accidents. Refreshed and renewed employees tend to have more community within their workplace. Refreshed and renewed employees tend to be more productive. 
I have been an employer for over 25 years myself and I believe that the key to the successful relationship between an employer and employee is flexibility. National is concerned that this bill may be unnecessarily prescriptive and that because of its unnecessarily prescriptive nature it could actually have a negative effect. It could reduce the flexibility of the workplace. If it reduced that flexibility it could make it more difficult for employees and employers to work together. 
Businesses particularly small businesses need to have a stable and a well-trained workforce to be successful. The churn of the workforce is extremely unsettling extremely expensive and extremely unproductive. No employer wants a large churn in employees. The relationship between employer and employee is something to be valued—and I believe it is—and is something to be cherished. Over the years I have employed a large number of people the majority of whom have been women and very often they have been young women with young children. In fact several of my employees have had babies and gone on to have more than one baby while they worked for me. What tended to happen when they became pregnant was that they would come and see me and together we would work through how we were going to make it work. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Common sense. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: It was absolute common sense. We would talk about the work we had to do over the next year and how we would manage it. We talked about how we could make sure the mother the baby and the business could work together for a good outcome. It worked really well. In fact some of my employees used to plan their pregnancy around our busy times at work because that made it easier for everybody. My philosophy with my employees has always been to say what work has had to be done and to ask how we were going to manage it. We have got through that work with a mixture of options—like working from home particularly when babies have been young and needed breast-feeding often. Perhaps working flexible hours in the office has been an option or employees bringing nannies to the office with them. Often job-sharing with other people who worked in the company has been an option but if we were not able to manage that then we have contracted out part of an employee’s job for the length of time that employee has been away. 
The interesting thing is that one of the best results of this type of arrangement is that employees help each other. I remember that just recently I was at work—working late; it was about 9 o’clock at night—and one of my employees was still there. I said to him: “What on earth are you doing here? It’s 9 o’clock at night; you should be home!”. He said “Well Tania had to go home early because her son is sick.” I said: “Thank you very much. It’s great that you stayed on. I really appreciate that work you’ve got done and Tania will appreciate it too.” He looked me in the eye and said: “Oh well it doesn’t matter. She covered for me when I had to go home to India for my grandma’s funeral.” And that is what it is all about. That is the flexibility in the workforce where employees can help each other and employers can work with them. 
We have the same situation during the school holidays: some people work from home; some people work in the office. They combine their time and make it work. We just have to get through the workload. People do this not just for the good of their health; it is basically because they can see the benefits. They can see the benefits for employers and employees. There is the benefit to the business of the long service of employees. If people stay in a business for a length of time they do not lose the skills they develop. They do not lose the business relationships they build. I think that all of us can identify the situation where we ring up a company but the person answering the call is constantly changing. It is frustrating for the customers of a business if they always have to develop new business relationships. If employees are long-serving the business does not lose its institutional knowledge. That is all retained. It is an enormous waste to a business to lose a female employee just because she is pregnant just because she wants to breast-feed or just because she has other family reasons. 
Employees also benefit from flexibility in the workplace. They benefit because they have a stable job they get to have that long-term stable business relationship with their customers and other workers and they have the satisfaction of being part of a team. 
In conclusion I say once again that National supports the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. It is basic common sense and it reflects what is already happening out there in the workforce. Our only concern is that it is very prescriptive and might actually reduce the flexibility of workplaces. We want to make sure that those workplaces can incorporate new ideas can be creative about how they manage their work and can be productive about how they make their workplace arrangements. I will be very interested to see the code of employment practice that is to be approved by the Minister and I can only appeal to the Minister to keep it as flexible as possible. Thank you. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not intend to take a long call because I think we are all saying the same things here. From what I can work out we all support the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. It went through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee with a great deal of support. It is only a small bill and a few clauses were amended to make it flexible fairer and clearer. New Zealand First takes the attitude to legislation—certainly to workplace legislation—that it should be to encourage people to work to live not to live to work and we think this legislation puts in place some reasonable entitlements for working people. 
I have to say that we had our doubts—and I think the National Party also expressed its doubts—about whether we needed such legislation when the bill first came into the House but we supported it to go to the select committee. Those doubts were quite quickly dispelled when we listened to some of the submitters. So we think we are doing the right thing in putting this bill into place. The bill might well need some amendment or adjustment of clauses when we get to the Committee stage to ensure that it does exactly what we all think it means to do but that is yet to be seen. At this stage New Zealand First is supporting this bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. Exactly 100 years ago miners at Blackball on the West Coast were sacked for daring to ask for 30 minutes for a meal break instead of the 15 minutes their bosses said they could have. And over the last century those mining heroes have been joined by other advocates in the fight for workers’ rights. There have been many struggles to achieve comprehensive rights for workers—annual and public holidays sick leave bereavement leave penalty payments overtime payments and even the supply of milk sugar and tea. In fact it could be thought that every possible right a worker might want would already be accepted practice in today’s modern world. 
So it came as a bit of a shock to hear that earlier this year up north Filipino nurses were being treated like slaves because of debts they were supposed to owe to their recruitment agencies which forced them to work in desperate conditions and bonded them for 3 years at low wages. Or there was the situation that John Minto told me about after he was rung up by a woman working in the departure lounge at Auckland International Airport. She started work every day at 4 30 a.m. and did not get a meal break until just before midday. Naturally worker turnover is high there but instead of trying to find out why that is Work and Income just keeps sending more workers into the fray—mostly women and mainly Maori Pacific or other recently arrived ethnic minorities. I thought we had got rid of these kinds of conditions years ago but apparently not. 
It is quite frankly bloody outrageous that in 2008 we even have to have a bill to make employers give workers paid rest breaks and unpaid meal breaks. Bizarre as it may seem the need for protecting workers’ rights is as relevant today as it was 100 years ago. In fact less than 24 hours ago Te Runanga o nga Kaimahi Maori o Aotearoa the national representative body of some 60000 Maori workers declared its support for the rolling strike action being taken this week by Sky City workers who are being threatened by moves to roll back working conditions and create a new minimum wage structure. If these horror stories are not enough here is another one from Laila Harré from the National Distribution Union who told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about an employee in a high-end dress shop. The employee was told by her boss to use a bucket out the back of the shop rather than lock up when she needed to go to the toilet. 
It makes me ashamed to think that we have some employers in this country who still treat their staff like this in the pursuit of the mighty dollar. But apparently the Service and Food Workers Union reckons that most of the calls it gets are from workers and parents of kids who have just started work who ask about their rest and meal break entitlements. So yes the Maori Party supports the provisions for workers to have meal breaks in order to help raise standards for workers in Aotearoa with the only question being of course why it has taken so long. Like many others I thought that meal breaks were already compulsory but apparently they are not. Although I know that there are many excellent employers out there doing everything that they can to ensure that their workers are happy and productive clearly there are also those out there who just do not give a damn. 
The other focus of this bill is to allow mothers to breastfeed their children at work. Given that the 2006 census showed that 75 percent of mothers of baby children are now at work just to help make ends meet this bill is really just simple recognition of that sad reality. Economic circumstances are forcing young mothers to go to work rather than their being able to choose to go to work to buy luxuries for the house and this bill allows mothers to feed and nurture their babies in the workplace. Mind you the other side of this whole issue is the deepening economic crisis that is forcing both parents to have to work to feed clothe and house families today compared with 30-odd years ago when families were able to be sustained on just one wage. When the 40-hour working week was first introduced it was based on the understanding that the income for 40 hours’ work would be enough to support a household. Clearly that scenario no longer applies; clearly the comparative standard of living has fallen alarmingly and just as clearly we need to be worried about this continuing pressure not only for families to work but also often for both parents to hold down two and sometimes three jobs. It might have been better if the sponsor of this bill had simply extended paid parental leave to 12 months so that women could actually stay at home rather than have to go back to work with their children at the breast. But in the absence of that move and in the reality of the pressing economic crisis on families in Aotearoa this bill allows women to breastfeed in a workplace and hopefully it will encourage the Government to move quickly to implement ILO Convention 183 which also arose out of the revision of maternity protection. 
The Maori Party will endorse the breastfeeding provisions consistent with our push for paid parental leave and support for whanau and we will support the meal break provisions in line with our clearly stated support for workers’ rights. Tena koe kia ora tatou. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. The first thing we ask when we look at this bill is why we would want to push it through Parliament only a couple of months before a general election. The reason is simply that it is part of that incremental change in labour policy and labour relations law that the Labour Government is engaged in. Rather than doing it in one fell swoop the Labour Government has engaged in a process of incremental change because it believes that this is the way to hide from the public the changes in the general employment situation it is bringing about. 
I think that one of the first things we need to look at is the point that this bill is about breaks and infant feeding; this is not a bill about the 90-day - trial period. All of the Labour members may want to go out and talk about the 90-day bill but that is not what we are talking about here today. We are talking about something to do with meals rest breaks and infant feeding so the way that Labour has used this session to try to promote legislation not actually being debated in this House today is a shame and it really shows the Labour members’ true intention towards this legislation: they do not actually mean what they are doing here today; they have no real desire to progress workers’ rights; and they just see this as being another tick in the box they can give to the unions leading up to the election campaign so that the unions can fund them again in their campaign to try to get votes at election time. 
We also have to look at this legislation in the sense of what is happening out there in the market place. We are in a situation where there is rising unemployment. By the end of next year the unemployment rate will probably be peaking at around 6 percent. This country is going through a dire situation where people are losing jobs and they are losing jobs because of the economic management of this country. Employers came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and said that they did not need more conditions placed on them in these tight economic times. They asked committee members whether we wanted to make it harder for them to employ someone or to retain people in situations where they could easily close businesses but the Labour Government has ignored that. It has totally ignored it and feels that it is appropriate to put more conditions and requirements on employers even though employment is becoming very tight in the sense that there will be an oversupply of staff and employees going into the next year which is quite contrary to what we have had in the past couple of years. So instead of helping employees by making sure that they will have job security and that jobs are there for them the Labour Government is putting another hurdle in the way of employees at a time when it does not need to do that—it does not need to do that at the time of these economic conditions. 
This legislation came before members of the select committee in a form that would have actually hurt employees. It would have meant that some people would lose the entitlements they already had; it was too prescriptive. In some cases employment agreements were already giving greater recognition for breaks. Employers and employees had agreed on something that was less onerous than what was in this legislation and if Labour had fulfilled its requirement and had just gone through with the bill in the blunt form it had had originally employees could have lost out. But the reality was that when the bill came to the select committee Labour became aware that this legislation actually took away some workers’ rights and it had to amend the bill. 
How many pieces of legislation do we see going through this House that have a commentary of nearly 2 pages and over 1½ pages of that commentary are proposed amendments? That shows what a quick-fix solution this bill has been. It shows that it was not thought out in its initial form. It shows that the Labour Government did not have the best interests of workers in its initial thoughts. It had only a conceptual basis that it wanted to pay its unions back with and that has become the start of this legislation. 
Let us look at these amendments. There will have to be amendments with regard to breastfeeding facilities and breaks—a “so far as it is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances” clause needs to be added—and there will have to be amendments with regard to the entitlements to rest breaks and meal breaks. The timing of those breaks needs to be further mandated through the legislation so that people actually know what the timing of those breaks will be and what time frames employees will be entitled to. Some big amendments are required around the timing of rest breaks; many people felt that the provisions were far too prescriptive. Some of the nature of the agreements between employers and employees will also have to be incorporated into legislation so that if there is already an agreement then that will take precedence over what the legislation may say. 
A very important part of the legislation is the enabling of employers and employees to agree on things. There is nothing wrong with that in a workforce environment where both parties have the ability to negotiate and agree as they do now. We do not need to take away that ability from employees. The ability for an employee to agree on certain conditions can be to his or her advantage and if we have prescriptive legislation over little parts of an employment agreement then we can take away workers’ rights. We can take away their ability to negotiate and agree. 
The legislation also affects employers in the sense that they may be mandated to do things that just do not suit their employment relationships in the nature of their businesses. We very much heard that from bus industry representatives who were very concerned because of the nature of their industry that prescriptive requirements on them would be detrimental for their business. They had no problem with giving people breaks—and they do so now—but they did not want to be told they had to do that in a prescriptive nature which would mean that the breaks were detrimental to their business. 
The ability of an employer and an employee to come together and to make mutually beneficial rules is something that we must cherish and support. If we take that away by incremental legislation that aims to be prescriptive on every little element of the employment relationship we will be hurting employees. We will be taking away their ability to negotiate. We will be taking away their rights. How can Labour members stand in this House and take away employees’ rights? Why would they want to do that? All this is about is Labour giving payback to its funders going into an election campaign. 
A number of people who spoke on this bill in its first reading raised a very important issue about the bill—that it has not been thought through. The financial consequences of this bill have not been thought through. The research has not been done to see what the implications of this bill will be in the community. There was no regulatory impact statement submitted in time for the bill and the analysis has been very much lacking. This has been just a conceptual mandate by the Labour Government. The legislation has not had the hard-core research and analysis done that we would expect in a bill to make sure that it is solving a problem. The nature of this legislation because it has been so rushed because it needs so many amendments and because it takes away the fundamental debate between employer and employee means that in time it will be shown to have created a number of holes and problems that will have to be sorted out through further legislation or through agreement between the parties. 
When we pass things quickly in the House just for the sake of an election campaign it does not make for good legislation. This bill needs to take its time. It needs to be thought out and to have the proper research and analysis done on it so that all parties can determine what needs to be done in the circumstances and it needs to have time spent on it so that we can get the best results for all concerned. That is one of the concerns that many people raised when submitting to the select committee and it is a concern that many members of the select committee held as well. They felt that this legislation was rushed it was not done in a proper process and it did not take account of what was going on in the market place between employers and employees. 
Although the National Party does support this legislation we believe that the Labour Party and its allies could have done a better job. Employees will be detrimentally affected by this legislation and it sets a bad precedent for employees when parts of their employment negotiations will now be done through mandatory prescriptive legislation rather than by giving employees the ability to negotiate through the nature of their work. 
Bill read a second time. 
Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This is a small bill but it is an important one for the operation of this Parliament in the period immediately after the election. It has received the consideration of the Standing Orders Committee chaired by the Speaker and has had further consideration in the Committee of the whole House. I would like to thank the select committee members for the work they did on this short piece of legislation and to thank the other political parties for all the work effort and support that they have given to this bill in order for its third reading to progress today. Thank you. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 National is happy to support the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill. It is important that we get the process right— 
Peter Brown 
: Two in a row! 
NATHAN GUY 
: Certainly and I look forward to Mr Dunne’s contribution on this very important legislation— 
Hon Members 
: That is Mr Brown! 
NATHAN GUY 
: Oh it is too! I beg Mr Brown’s pardon—both members are of a similar vintage. 
This is very important legislation because it tidies up the period—on average about 2 weeks—between polling day and declaration day. It ensures that members can travel to Parliament and stay the night if they need to if a caucus meeting is called over that particular period of time. It also allows existing members who no doubt have a lease on a parliamentary office to carry on those payments over that period of time. Some telecommunications might need to progress over that time as well. So we are supporting this bill. 
The Standing Orders Committee had no public submissions on the bill. It will tidy up the legalities that need to be tidied up. I thank the other committee members Mr Brown being one for their support during the select committee process. National supports this bill in its third reading. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First also supports the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill which I think will go through unanimously. This bill simply corrects a flaw. It gives the Parliamentary Service the authority to pay an MP elected on election night until he or she is confirmed or otherwise dispensed with. I think most New Zealanders would see this as common sense. Any reasonable freethinking New Zealander would think it is reasonable to pay—not every entitlement but the relevant entitlements—a person who has seemingly been elected on election night until that election is confirmed as has been outlined by the member who has just resumed his seat Nathan Guy. 
We think the bill is very simple straightforward honest and fair. Its provisions have been the past practice. New Zealand First supports the bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. I suspect that nobody is bothering to speak on the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill because it is a petty little nothingness on the global stage of free-trade agreements emissions trading drug-fuelled Olympics smog-filled stadiums and rising fuel costs. But there are a couple of little points that I would like to raise if I could—[ 
Interruption 
] What did Mr Dunne say? 
Peter Brown 
: Food costs! 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I was just thinking about what Paris Hilton said about wrinkly old white dudes—they must all look the same to Nathan over there! 
The first point is how foolish the Electoral Finance Act looks now with the Electoral Commission thinking of taking Tui beer to court for its excellent billboard: “When Winston says no he means no.” and “New Zealand First does not accept donations from big business interests.” I have no doubt that many if not most of those who voted for that idiotic piece of legislation had no idea how dull boring petty vindictive and nasty it was going to be. The relevance to this debate is that that bill came about as a direct result of another one of these parliamentary “fix it up” bills. The House saw fit to pass one of those “Yes we spent the money when we weren’t supposed to. Yes we took the money from people we probably shouldn’t have. Yes we took money from business interests and we ain’t going to declare it.” pieces of validating legislation. 
It reminds me of another piece of validating legislation that many Maori know about. Back in the 1800s after stealing robbing embezzling purloining thieving pinching and plain old ripping off millions and millions of acres of Maori land the robber barons—masquerading as the New Zealand Government of the day—passed legislation that we now know as the Validation of Invalid Land Sales Act which is how one steals till one is a fat bloated pig then passes a law to make what one did right. When one thinks about it the Government of the 1800s actually ain’t much different to the current mob which just stole millions of acres of Maori foreshore and seabed. 
Anyway that is what “validating legislation” did back in the 1800s and that is what “validating legislation” still does in the new millennium. Both of them seem to slip under this legislative overcoat that is the Parliamentary Service which is what the bill before the House today relates to. So I have brought my speech back to the bill under debate! 
This bill however is supposed to be a little different. It allows the Parliamentary Service to provide candidates who are likely to be elected with certain travel and accommodation entitlements between polling day and the day when the election results are formally announced. But the most obvious point about this bill for us is how quickly MPs rush bills such as this through the House to make sure members’ pay goes through without a hitch yet they dither dally dawdle and delay over dealing with the rampant poverty affecting great swaths of our communities throughout our nation. I take this opportunity to commend both Sue Bradford and Tariana Turia for again raising the desperate plight of beneficiaries whose needs we should be paying a hell of a lot more attention to. 
I recognise this Government for and congratulate it on its efforts to encourage people back into work through the Working for Families package but I also see the destructive effects of the loss of that tax credit when good hard-working people are dismissed from employment as a direct result of businesses heading overseas. Families come under the immediate stress caused by loss of income and constantly rising prices children start getting scared of their dad because he has got a lot more grumpy all of a sudden there is less kai on the table and both parents are worried about how they will pay the mortgage. 
So as we look to rubber-stamp this bill to ensure our money keeps flowing let us not forget the 230000 children in this country denied benefits because their parents cannot get a job let us not forget the 75000 old people living in poverty and let us not also forget that Maori make up a disproportionately high number of those suffering the effects of poverty. So fine there is no reason why we should not jump up and down about the obscenely high wages we get and how we expect to get them every week but let us spare a thought for those at the bottom end of the food chain—those in genuine need—and let us see whether we can help feed them first before feeding ourselves. 
The Maori Party will be supporting this bill but believe me when it comes to the Maori seats there will not be any gnashing of teeth or hair pulling by the bean counters on polling night. We are looking to make it seven to the Maori Party and to bring on board Angeline Greensill Maori Party member of the House for Hauraki-Waikato; Derek Fox Maori Party member of the House for Ikaroa Rawhiti; and Rahui Katene Maori Party member of the House for Te Tai Tonga so that the nation wakes up to a bright new day in politics in Aotearoa the very next morning—a sunny day a positive day a Maori Party day. Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a third time. 
Policing Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 6 August. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions ( 
continued 
)  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: When the Committee was last considering the bill the Hon Annette King had 1 minute and 33 seconds left. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman and that time sped by last night when we had the opportunity to commence the debate in the Committee stage of this very important bill. We are now going through the part by part analysis of it. 
As I said last night this bill is the foundation to equip the New Zealand Police to provide the best policing services for New Zealanders. In broad terms the bill sets out to achieve two fundamental tasks. The first is to confirm and strengthen police governance accountability and organisational arrangements in a way that is suitable for the contemporary age. We are changing legislation that is 50 years old. We are putting in place an Act that will be contemporary. Secondly the bill sets out to improve police effectiveness especially by updating human resource management provisions and by establishing a clear framework for the exercising of police powers by particular police employees. 
This bill has been extensively tested and refined and it has benefited from having a very robust consultation process. Part of the success of that process has been the willingness of parties in this House to take a multiparty approach to this important legislation which we hope will endure for as long as the first Police Act of 1958. 
At this point we are debating Part 1 which gives us the preliminary provisions. This part provides an updated list of terms in clause 4 “Interpretation”. For example the term “Police employee” replaces the term “sworn and non-sworn members of the Police” in order to reflect the single employment framework advanced in this bill. 
Supplementary Order Paper 222 in my name amends Part 1. It is a minor amendment to postpone the commencement date until 1 October 2008. It also proposes to insert a new subclause (1A) in clause 120 of this bill. This will amend a provision of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and will come into force on the commencement of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Act 2008. As one would say Supplementary Order Paper 222 is a minor technical amendment to Part 1. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to restate National’s support for the Policing Bill and to commend those involved in the preparation of legislation that will be enduring and does take account of modern policing methods and those involved in modern policing. 
Initially we referred to the bill as the “Police Bill” but later the title was changed to Policing Bill to capture the concept that a number of different organisations around the country today are involved in the work of policing. Some of those organisations are private businesses and some are local councils trusts and volunteer organisations but overarching all of them and with the mandate of the public of New Zealand is the New Zealand Police. So this bill seeks to legislate how the New Zealand Police is set up and how it remains distinct operationally from the Crown. The purpose of the bill is to provide for policing services in New Zealand and to state the functions of and provide for the governance and administration of the New Zealand Police. 
The New Zealand Police is a distinct and unique body amongst Crown agencies. It operates very much as the catch-all as well. I say that not to denigrate its role or its ability but it is in fact the case that where other agencies leave off for various reasons the New Zealand Police steps in. Not that long ago people rang the various other Government agencies at the end of the day when no one was there to answer the phone the answerphone would tell them to ring the police. So we have benefited as a country from a police service that has been prepared to step into all those different roles where nobody else can go and where others fear to go. 
A number of new provisions recognise the modern age of policing that we are in. There is I guess a step away from the paramilitary organisation that the New Zealand Police was and recognition of the fact that the police need to operate within the terms and conditions of the Employment Relations Act the employment legislation that binds the rest of us in society. The bill also recognises the uniqueness of police officers and the rank of constable. 
It is interesting to note too the concept of individual officer discretion which is a fundamental principle of the police in New Zealand. I remember as a young cop having a scrap with a grisly old sergeant who had— 
Nathan Guy 
: How did you get on? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: I won actually. I had to defend my right not to arrest somebody having been ordered to arrest that person for an offence that I did not believe he had committed. I was a cop with just a couple of months’ experience and I turned round and said “No I’m not going to. You can arrest him if you like and direct me to do the paperwork but I’m not going to arrest this guy because I don’t think he has done anything wrong.” The sergeant and I fell out just after that. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did a lot for your promotion. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: I can tell members that it did not help my chances of getting off the beat. 
The point is of course that within the New Zealand Police those decisions are up to an individual officer’s discretion. Constables have the ability to assert sovereignty over those decisions but they must be accountable for that. It is in the minds of a number of police officers as they work this country’s streets and rural areas—although they do not make a heck of a lot of it—that a decision that has taken seconds to make because of an emergency situation or some prevailing urgency is later trawled over by people who are paid an awful lot of money who have years and years of experience and frankly who have the opportunity to pull to bits the decision that a constable who may have been a constable with those powers for only a matter of weeks had seconds to make. 
I want to commend the police on this point: if we look at the number of decisions made in those circumstances we find that only rarely are they found to have been wrong. In actual fact frequently those decisions that have taken huge amounts of time to make and act on are often the ones that are pulled to bits and found to be wanting. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on Part 1. I want to be very full in my praise of the Minister of Police who is an outstanding Minister of Police. 
Nathan Guy 
: You are going to take a small one? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I know that the member opposite is agreeing because in his heart of hearts he knows that to be true. 
I acknowledge the members of the Law and Order Committee who did a lot of work on the Policing Bill and particularly the chairperson Mr Ron Mark. I think Mr Mark would join with me in saying that this is a long-overdue bill—I was the previous chair of that select committee. 
I compliment our police advisers. I also compliment the many people who made submissions and in particular the New Zealand Police Association. It was my pleasure to attend along with other members the event recently when the Minister and the chief executive of that association launched their particular policy document. We do not have to agree with all of the policy document line by line but we do acknowledge absolutely that it is an excellent way in which to engage with and to basically listen to the organisation that represents the men and women on the front line so to speak. 
I also take this opportunity to highlight the fact that this bill—and I do not mean to be disrespectful towards our very esteemed public servants whom we hold in great affection—is not totally a product of drafting in some 8th floor 9th floor or 20th floor office. The bill is the result of a very comprehensive process of community consultation. I think that it is a very very good model and that it illustrates the fact that we do by and large have a broad cross-section of the House in support of it. I know that the MP for Hamilton East thoroughly agrees with me and I know he has been very complimentary about the Minister of Police with regard to this bill. 
In terms of the consultation process this bill followed a 2-year review of current policing legislation by a working group. As I mentioned the views of front-line police as well as of police staff associations were also fed into the bill’s preparation so the process really shows how important it is to engage with the profession of policing. The public was also consulted through public meetings select committees and a thing called an online wiki. 
Hon Annette King 
: A very new invention. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: It is a very new invention. The Minister has taught me about this online wiki. 
Chester Borrows 
: How many of those can you have and still drive? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Chester Borrows is very keen on it. It is an example of electronic communication and the interface in terms of the way we are now using new means of communication. Opportunities were also provided for all parliamentary political parties to have input into the work on the new legislation. 
Finally I again stress the two key objectives of the bill. First the bill confirms and strengthens the legal arrangements for the way in which the police are organised and governed with a clearer focus on the balance between independence and accountability. Secondly it sets a platform for improving police effectiveness especially by updating the police’s approach to employment practices and by establishing a framework for the exercise of policing powers. 
Obviously through the rest of the Committee stage we will all have an opportunity to go through this bill with a degree of detail that we do not have in first and second reading debates. Without further ado I certainly commend this bill and I acknowledge the many hands that have been involved in the successful completion of this exercise. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is indeed a privilege to see the Policing Bill get through to the Committee stage. Back in 2006 the Minister announced that there would be a significant look at the Police Act and it was quite a celebratory occasion. A lot of police were around and it was a very positive time. 
I spent just a couple of hours at the Law and Order Committee and I can say that it was quite interesting to see complete engagement by all and sundry in the submissions process during the time I was there. It was quite interesting to hear Greg O’Connor speak on behalf of the Police Association. I had never seen him in person but I had seen him on TV a lot of times when there were issues around the police and he was taking the lead position on them. At the same time the select committee heard a submission on behalf of those who faced the processes for which the police are responsible. That submitter spoke about what was appropriate from the view of those who faced the courts and the justice system. Really when we think about the police we realise that there certainly is a national implication. There is an overarching need for an Act that is appropriate for the time for the age we live in and for the technologies we now have. 
Back in 1958—50 years ago—the norm would very much be the police constable on the beat with a baton and a set of handcuffs and away he would go. That was probably my first experience of the police as a young shearer in North Canterbury. I think the constable was Wattie Johnson. He had quite an impact on our behaviour and our growing up and we certainly behaved ourselves when he was around. 
When we think of those years from 1958 through to the commencement of this process of refining the Act and making it appropriate for the times we are living in we can think of some pretty tough times that the police have had to face such as Bastion Point and the Springbok Tour in 1981. Then there was the case of the sole-charge constable who paid the ultimate price in Ranfurly and lost his life in the course of doing his job. It helps us to understand even in the modern context of things the variety and range of situations that the police find themselves in. As Chester Borrows has pointed out—and he has a lot of experience—more often than not 99.9 percent of the time the decisions made by those wonderful New Zealand citizens who take up a role as police are right. 
It is wonderful to see the bill get to this stage. I want to look at one aspect of it. Clause 5 “Status of examples” states: “In this Act an example is only illustrative of the provision it relates to and does not limit the provision.” If we look back to the explanatory note we see that it talks about the roles of others. When we stop and think about policing in today’s context we know that it is very much about integration with the community the support of Maori wardens and the support of many other organisations that the police are actually able to leverage off so as to be able to build a community that we can all have confidence in. That confidence is very important because with confidence in the police force comes support and that support is very important with regard to the rule of law and order. 
It is fascinating to look at clause 10 which talks about that situation. It talks about the private security industry—I know I am going over into Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: You are. 
COLIN KING 
: In terms of clause 5 “Status of examples” which is in Part 1 there have been considerable changes over time. So much has occurred over the last 50 years. It is also significant that New Zealand has been able to depend on the police force. The first police Act was in actual fact the Policing Act 1886 and no doubt when it was updated over time it was set to meet those needs. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 National supports the Policing Bill. We support it because it is designed to provide the best policing services for New Zealand and that is something that National is very keen to see. It is well and truly time to update the Police Act 1958 which was passed over 50 years ago. 
National is also concerned that many Kiwis do not have the confidence in the police that they used to and hopefully this bill might repair some of that damage. As a child I was taught: “The policeman is your friend.” Not all children believe that these days and I think that that is a real shame. As a kid knowing that the policeman was my friend made me feel safe; it made me feel that if anything went wrong there was someone there to help me. As National’s spokesperson on youth affairs it concerns me that so often the relationship between the police and young people is fraught. There are faults on both sides: young people are often rude and disrespectful to the police but in return the police are at times insensitive to and heavy-handed with young people. The situation just escalates. 
I have been heavily involved with the work being done to address the boy-racer problem in Christchurch. I have worked closely with the police and I have been really impressed at how they have handled the situation. They are in a no-win situation. The boy-racer cars are noisy and as those fleets of modified cars drive round our city they make life absolutely unbearable for families business and anybody with accommodation on those four avenues. Anyone who lives within earshot really is affected. The police come under constant attack because people ring up and say: “Where are you? I can’t stand this noise. What are you going to do about it?”. The problem is that the vehicle noise rules are so slack that even if the cars are doing nothing worse than cruising round the streets they affect the eardrums of the people of Christchurch. 
The Canterbury police have been very active on the streets particularly on Friday and Saturday nights and every weekend numerous cars are ticketed for a multitude of offences. Just recently over a 3-week period 74 cars were taken off the road for being unsafe or having illegal modification and 900 drivers were prosecuted—900 drivers in 3 weeks. Of those 900 prosecutions 193 were for speeding 197 were for noise 184 were for licence breaches 70 were for drink-driving offences and another 22 were for other charges. However I note in defence of the young people in Christchurch that Inspector Derek Erasmus made the point that the majority of drinking offences were not committed by young people—the offenders were not the boy racers. 
There has also been a lot of concern in Christchurch about crime in the central city because—like in most New Zealand cities—large numbers of people are attracted to the central area. They are attracted by the entertainment; they come in to party and they come in to drink. Many are young people and many sometimes behave in ways we would not like them to. But the police in Christchurch have worked very hard with new techniques that perhaps were not available 50 years ago to keep control in the central city. They have been working hard with closed-circuit television cameras—in other words security cameras—to stop things from happening by watching and making sure that people are safe and they also have been using footage from those cameras to prosecute people if things do go wrong. They have also been working very hard to get a large number of police out on the beat. Yes we know that is the old-fashioned kind of policing but it is something that people like to see because they feel safe and they remember “The policeman is your friend.” 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I guess it is appropriate that New Zealand First makes a comment on Part 1. I have to say having listened to that speech and maybe a couple before it that people out there in their motor vehicles heading home this evening are probably thinking that Part 1 is this huge volume of work that covers all manner of issues that police confront on a day-to-day basis from noisy boy-racers to insensitive police officers. Let us just look at what Part 1 does. The Policing Bill is arranged into five parts. Part 1 contains a small number of preliminary provisions including an overall purpose statement and a number of defined terms that are used frequently throughout the legislation and it confirms that the proposed new Policing Act will bind the Crown. We support that. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Organisation and governance 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 In Part 2 I think we are really starting to get into the substance of the Policing Bill because Part 2 Subpart 1 sets out the principles of this bill. This part confirms the continuation of the organisation known as the New Zealand Police and describes the important principles and functions for police. 
Part 2 is divided into five subparts. Clause 8 is important because it reflects the fact that policing operates in a large measure by popular consent. The New Zealand Police like similar police services around the world is successful only if it is able to police with the popular consent of the public it is policing for. Clause 8 provides principles of policing that have stood the test of time and these important principles have been well covered and endorsed by the speakers during the second reading debate. 
Without amassing a prescriptive list of functions clause 9 confirms the police mandate to include activities ranging from maintaining public safety to law enforcement and crime prevention to national security and international policing. For the first time the bill acknowledges that policing is a shared responsibility that takes place in a networked and cooperative policing environment. The acknowledgment of that shared responsibility is a very important part of this legislation. Those who believe that the New Zealand Police can solve all the law and order problems we have in this country are missing the point. The police are an important part of the fight against crime but they have a shared responsibility with other key stakeholders including the communities people live in. 
Clause 10 records that successful policing relies on a range of partner organisations in the public and the private sector as well as the efforts of individuals families and communities. I think it was Colin King who spoke of the role of Maori wardens and others. They are part of the partnership along with Neighbourhood Support Community Patrols and the emergence of Pacific wardens. The Pacific wardens scheme is now being developed in Auckland aided and assisted by our excellent Maori wardens who have had a long history of working in partnership and are helping to establish yet another model. I have great admiration for those partners and this bill makes it very clear that successful policing relies on those sorts of partnerships. Local government is another partner in successful policing. I think local government can make a big impact when it works alongside and cooperatively with the New Zealand Police. 
Subpart 2 is about governance and accountability. It strengthens the governance and accountability arrangements of the police and there are major improvements to the old Police Act 1958. It includes proposals like better definition of appointment tenure appointment and engagement of the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police. There is now a process to ensure that the appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioner is transparent. This process involves the State Services Commissioner. Clause 16 clarifies the role of the Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Police. 
Subpart 3 is about the organisation and clauses 18 to 24 are the building blocks of a modern police force. Subpart 4 gives general instructions and Subpart 5 is about command and control. It confirms the commissioner’s command and control of police employees and the chain of command in the police. 
This is a substantial part of the bill. It is a part that received a number of submissions and I am sure members will agree that it strengthens and puts in place the way forward for the New Zealand Police. I am very very supportive of identifying the need for our police to work in partnership and cooperation with the very communities they want to police. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in respect of Part 2 of the Policing Bill and wish to comment on a number of clauses that the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Annette King has already touched on. They are clauses that give distinct powers to the New Zealand Police and also recognise the unique relationship that the New Zealand Police has with Government and other agencies in the service of the public of New Zealand. 
Clause 7 of the bill describes the New Zealand Police and illustrates some of its history. Clause 7(2) states: “The New Zealand Police is the same organisation as that—(a) established as the Police Force under the Police Force Act 1886;”. The clause acknowledges some of the history of where the New Zealand Police came from as part of the old armed constabulary. I had a conversation with my colleague Hone Harawira yesterday in respect of that and in respect of the attendance on Parihaka of the armed constabulary way back in the 1880s—1881 as I understand it. It is interesting to note how this bill goes on to reinforce the separation of the New Zealand Police from the Crown—as the Commissioner of Police in his decision making and the New Zealand Police itself as an arm of Government. 
I had what I think was the privilege to be at Parihaka when the police made their first return visit which was in the 1990s and I could not help but think of the shame it was that the police commander organising that visit did not seem to have any sense of the moment—that is that the New Zealand Police had returned to Parihaka for the first time as an organisation from the time Parihaka was sacked during the arrest of the prophet Te Whiti o Rongomai. It seemed to be a day where some policy was outlined but no cognisance of the historic moment was taken. Of course over subsequent years there have been times when it appears superficially on the outset that the police were acting directly as an arm of Government and other times thankfully—mainly due to force of personality of the person in the role—the commissioner has extended his arm and stood at arm’s length from Government decisions. But thinking back on times like for instance the Springbok Tour or other incidents of unrest—various strikes and other public incidents such as Bastion Point the 30th anniversary of which was celebrated recently—we look back on those times with I guess rose-coloured spectacles or ones that are tinged with a far greater knowledge of history. These views can at times be quite accusatory of decisions made by the police or by the Government. However we cannot look back except in a historical context. 
The principles set out in clause 8 of the bill which have previously been outlined by the Minister include principled effective and efficient policing. But they also include the principle under subclause (d): “policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights:” and the principle under subclause (e): “policing services are provided independently and impartially:”. It is important to point out those particular principles and the fact that they have been preserved. 
Clause 9 talks about the functions of the police and those include: “(b) keeping the peace: (ba) maintaining public safety: (c) law enforcement: (ca) crime prevention: (d) community support and reassurance:”. I think it is also timely to note that if a division has been created over say the last 25 or 30 years between the police and public expectation the question has to be asked: who moved? Back in the times when maybe some of us—young sprightly ones like myself—were growing up there was an expectation of safety and certainty around the police not only from the point of view of the public and parents raising their kids but also in the expectation of support that the police enjoyed from the public. But incidents have come from time to time or at phases in our history that have created a division between the public and the police. For instance the protests at the end of the 1960s and the early 1970s around Viet Nam and further on to the introduction of cannabis and how people viewed the use of it as being recreational and not something that should create criminals out of people—others of us saw it strictly as a law and order question—created a division between the public and the police. Then there was the Springbok Tour of 1981 where the country was actually divided down the middle and right in the middle as the meat in the sandwich were the police. I recall the police at that time being completely divided too as to who was in favour of the tour and who was against it but nevertheless there was a job that needed to be done. 
Through the 1980s there was the corporatisation of New Zealand and then huge unemployment. With that unemployment came the petty thieving and again people running up against the law. So there was a separation between the police and the public and a change in the expectations of the public in respect of when the police would be involved with the public saying: “Well we’re not going to be part of this community policing any more. We’re going to leave that entirely over to the police.” It became harder and harder for the organisation to actually be involved in the day-to-day raising of kids the day-to-day looking after of problems that were happening within the community and with the centralisation of the police we no longer had what people colloquially called “the bobby on the beat”—the policeman who would give a stern word or a clip around the ear and send somebody home. 
We look back and we say we can long for those days but the police have moved on—that is reflected within this bill—and society has moved on too. But I guess what I would like to see within neighbourhoods around New Zealand is a return to taking ownership as far as what is tolerable and what is intolerable in respect of behaviour and the nature of crime. The function of the police is crime prevention but it is also community support and reassurance and I would like to think of a time when the community is actually going to take some responsibility for the level of crime it is going to own and the level of behaviour it is going to tolerate. 
Clause 20 is about the police code of conduct and to a large degree the code replaces the police regulations. The regulations were a list of dos and don’ts. Many of us former police officers will recall them as I am sure will Superintendent McCardle who is present today as an adviser. I recall that as a punishment we had to write out various regulations. They covered such things as the times we were allowed to sit down while on the beat that we were not allowed to have a beer while on the beat and the speed we had to walk at while on the beat. But a particularly comical regulation enacted in 1976 by the then commissioner decreed that police officers were not allowed to live in de facto relationships despite the fact that many hundreds of them were. Another regulation which I think abides until this day was that a member of the police had to seek permission to marry. Quite frequently the marriage ceremony was well over by the time the permission was granted and if the person whom the officer wanted to take down the aisle was not acceptable to the police but nevertheless through lust love or infatuation the wedding proceeded it was only a $100 fine in any event. Maybe a good wife was worth paying $100 for! 
The code of conduct is something that will prescribe the behaviour of police. It is another measure to have come out of the Bazley report—a relatively dark period in police history. However there is contention around that code of conduct and what behaviour it should prescribe bearing in mind it has left out some things that a lot of us believe should be in there. We will have to wait and see. The report was due out a couple of months ago and no doubt we will see it in the next short while. 
National supports Part 2 and we look forward to seeing the movement of the legislation to recognise the issues the police have already addressed. One the beasts that it creates under clause 24 is an authorised officer. Those officers are not constables but have had powers delegated to them by the commissioner to take account of the fact that it is not necessary to have sworn officers to do every aspect of policing that traditionally we have come to expect a sworn officer to do. Whether or not it is around jailing duties scenes of crime duties or other orders collecting fines or watch-house duties the provision accepts the fact we are living in a modern age. It recognises that various duties need to be accounted for and that those matters can be handled by people well associated with the role of policing and well experienced in the role of policing without needing the delegation of powers to a sworn officer. Thank you. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Part 2 “Organisation and governance” is of considerable interest because we see very much the visible part of policing as the uniform in our communities. Part 2 really does come to grips with the very structure and we know that any organisation is only as effective as it is well structured. So when we look at this bill which we look forward to becoming the Policing Act we see that it is applied very much to the present-day context. It takes into consideration the principles the national context and the community context—that importance of building confidence with the community so the community supports policing in a positive way. It puts everything very much in a positive context; the importance of where human rights are recognised today the independence of police the impartiality of the police the professional aspects and ethics of policing and that all builds towards integrity and community support. 
The functions of the police are pretty basic. They would not have changed I imagine from the original set-up of policing as we know it such as the keeping of peace law enforcement crime prevention community support and reassurance national security participation in policing activities outside New Zealand and emergency management. When we stop and think about those storms we had last week and of the saying: “A day in politics is a long time” well that week seemed like a year. This time last week we were all trying to commute out of Wellington to get back to our electorates and it was wonderful to see just how busy Nathan Guy was—the outstanding member who lives in Otaki. He got out there amongst the farmers alongside the police and the emergency management services and helped to nurse and heal his future electorate back to good health. 
I was not able to get back to Blenheim until the Friday but it gave me great pleasure to be able to write a letter to the editor acknowledging with humility and respect the contribution the police had made along with all those other people in the community and civil defence towards securing the safety of the people of Marlborough. It is on that very basis that Part 2 really comes to grips with the structure around policing. 
I turn to Subpart 2 that talks about the appointment of the commissioner. I think that particular process is laudable in the sense that the tone of any structure or any organisation is set from the top. It is just so very important that that process is clearly defined and stuck to with rigour. We see that the process for the appointment of the commissioner is at the pleasure of the Governor-General but on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. 
That also applies in clause 13 “Appointment of Deputy Commissioners” again in subclause (1) “on the recommendation of the Prime Minister” and in subclause (2) “at the pleasure of the Governor-General.” So that part of Subpart 2 takes us through the appointment of the commissioner which no doubt sets the very tone for the policing structure as was borne out again by Chester Borrows with his considerable experience. That tone set at the top of the policing structure is an issue that needs to be considered always because clause 20 “Code of conduct” states: “(1) The Commissioner must prescribe a code of conduct for Police employees stating the standards of behaviour expected from Police employees.” Clause 22 is headed “Police employee becomes constable by taking constable’s oath”. That is interesting and I would like to hear the oath spoken in Maori. So if the Maori Party member has the opportunity of going to clause 22(1) I will do my best effort to read out the oath in English. Basically it states that the constable swears to faithfully and diligently serve Her Majesty Queen of New Zealand and her heirs and successors. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. There is something I must correct for those of our citizens listening. Hone Harawira a member of our Maori Party was not preparing to swear at the police; he was being challenged and invited to give the oath that swears allegiance to the principles that underlie the police. As I stand I will make particular mention of a man who on our marae in the North embodies the finest sentiments and qualities of our police force—Paddy Whiu. He is soon to be honoured for his long length of service and if there is anyone who is a walking living—if slightly rotund—example of good policing in our Maori community it is Paddy Whiu. Of course I will not make the reference of rotundity to his face. 
This bill is dealing with policing challenges in the time in which we live and the binary nature of New Zealand society has passed us by. Of course those of us who come from the tangata whenua are proud of our heritage and our inheritance but the police whilst recognising that have to deal with pluralism. They have to ensure when they exercise the force of law countenanced by the highest court in the land—this Parliament—they do it in such a way that they enjoy legitimacy through consent. So their activities must be endorsed. Their activities are to keep the peace. Admittedly there are great debates on our marae particularly on those of Tuhoe—although they seem to have come to their senses and signed a deal. They are moving on from the dust that was stirred up in Ruatoki but other fora will have to deal with that—and God bless them! So in the notions of our being a diverse society and our having to deal with the presence of new religions and the challenges of our rangatahi there should always be an awareness of the police that says “Yes we will deal with pluralism but at the end of the day if you consistently break the law and if you want to continually involve yourself in crime you will end up in the hinaki and do the time.” 
Earlier our colleague from Whanganui made a very important point: the police are required to make decisions in very trying circumstances but those decisions can change the course of a person’s life. If they are egregiously offbeat they can change the course of that police officer’s life. If they are made in a spirit of intemperateness or without the right information they can blight a citizen’s life. That is why in our free democratic system under the careful stewardship of the Government—which will persist for a long time to come—they must sit under the rule of law. That is why despite the changing times the ebb and flow of birth rates and the arrival of different ethnic groups the rule of law has to exist beyond the shadows beyond the anxieties of any particular group because underlying civil society the rule of law is one of the deeper principles that bind us together. 
This Policing Bill I think is built not only on the efforts of the originators of its thinking and of reformers but on fresh ideas. I heard my colleague Mr Gallagher refer to one of those ideas. I would like it recorded that one of the most sensible ideas in interacting with our people te Ao Maori has been the reform and closeness of our Maori Wardens working with the tari pirihimana our police officers. Our Maori wardens realise that they can interpose themselves because not all the rangatahi are happy about the police. Indeed I have seven kids of my own and they have told one or three tales that are best left unstated. But the Maori Wardens are able to intervene and they are being developed—[ 
Interruption 
] Far be it for me to invite my two parliamentary rugby golden oldie players to tell stories about the French police—no no! We are focused here on Aotearoa. 
Chris Tremain 
: What goes on tour— 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: What goes on tour stays on tour. That is a nuclear button buddy—do not forget that. However in rounding up this small contribution I tell the Committee that the police must be very mindful of biculturalism. But as South Auckland shows the reality is our population now comprises so many more different races and ethnic groups but the police operate under the rule of law and a system countenanced by this Parliament that recognises that no member of the police force or individual is beyond the rule of law. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Before I address the issues in Part 2 that I would like to draw to the attention of the Committee I commend the Minister of Police for the work she has led on this bill. I also commend her for quite a solid approach in the Wairarapa electorate where together we have been present when new police facilities have been opened in places like Norsewood. Some quite fine senior police officers particularly from Palmerston North have been covering that central area. One of them has moved on unfortunately but I offer my congratulations. 
I also draw the attention of the Committee to the police code of conduct and the work done on that by Dame Margaret Bazley who is resident in Carterton in my electorate. She has done a very fine job. She is a very fine New Zealander and I particularly thank her for this work. 
I now address the bill and the questions of organisation and governance of the police which Part 2 covers. If we are to have a police system that works in provincial New Zealand then the first thing it must have is a telephone system that works. I get complaint after complaint because people telephone their police station in Featherston Greytown Carterton Patangata or Porangahau and they are put through to an operator who is located somewhere else in the country and has no understanding of the area in which the caller is located. It is all very well setting up this legislative framework and replacing 50 years’ worth of legislation and 25 previous amendments but we have to have a system that works on the ground. 
The second point I would make is that a system that works on the ground depends on having good leadership in our police force and that can be variable particularly in provincial New Zealand. I would urge the commissioner and the Minister to keep a close eye on that issue. The third point is that we have to have a system that is responsive. There is no point in having a police station in Carterton that is open only occasionally then resisting for 3 years the representations of the local Mayor Gary McPhee and then eventually agreeing to appoint an administrative officer—a public face—who can keep the station open from 9 to 5 which is what we now have. My problem is that it should not have taken 3 years to achieve that. 
I refer now to clause 9 “Functions of Police”. I suggest to the Minister that she review this clause carefully because it strikes me that the first job of our police which is law enforcement is currently listed as paragraph (c). Personally I would like to see that as the first item. My second concern is that the second function of the police in terms of order of importance would be crime prevention which is currently listed as paragraph (ca). The third issue ought to be community support and reassurance followed by keeping the peace which is currently in paragraph (b). 
I then feel that paragraph (f) “participation in policing activities outside New Zealand:” should be dropped to the bottom of the list because emergency management here in New Zealand is clearly far more important than providing resources offshore. It is not that I am opposing providing resources offshore; I just think it should be the final item in the order of principles and I ask the Minister to provide for that. I do not want a Supplementary Order Paper on this matter but I ask her to reflect on the logic of the order of police functions in this legislation. If the Minister wants me to produce a Supplementary Order Paper then of course I will. 
I particularly support clause 10 “Roles of others acknowledged”. In our communities we have not only Maori wardens but also community watch groups because our communities are often small—2000 or 3000 people. We have local groups which are generally made up of older people that come together to keep a watch in our towns through the night and they have ready access to our local police officer. 
I have some slight reservations about Subpart 2 when reflecting on the Prime Minister’s interference in the departure of former Commissioner of Police Peter Doone. I am not sure whether clause 12 “Appointment of Commissioner”—whereby the Governor-General may on the recommendation of the Prime Minister appoint the Commissioner of Police—completely removes the possibility of a situation like the Doone fiasco arising again. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I will take just a short call because I can see there is a lot of interest in participating in this debate. I want to address the issue that the member John Hayes raised with regard to the functions of the New Zealand Police. I am informed—and I am sure members who were on the Law and Order Committee will tell the member—that the order was reordered deliberately by the select committee itself and that was done by a unanimous decision. When the members looked through the order of the functions they believed that this was the order they ought to be in and that maybe the chair of the select committee or other members might like to take a call on that. The functions were listed in no particular order but when the select committee heard submissions this is the way they reordered them. That decision came out of the select committee. 
The member raised a few points in regard to Carterton. I just say to the member that it relates to this bill in that one of the important parts of Part 2 is working with the community to get the sort of policing we need. In Carterton we managed with the support of the mayor and the New Zealand Police to ensure a police presence in the Carterton area and that the community has the ability to be involved in it. I think that is what was so important about it. I take the member’s point about the time it took but it was resolved. I know that the mayor who came to see me about this issue was pleased with the outcome. He worked with the police and we have a satisfactory outcome from it. A good partnership has been formed between local government the New Zealand Police and volunteers and I think that that is a very good outcome from that situation. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on Part 2 of the Policing Bill. I think the unanimity that was clear at the end of the Law and Order Committee’s deliberations on this bill pretty much indicates that there was not a great deal of difference in opinion and many of the speeches I am hearing now might be described as a bit of a walk down memory lane or an opportunity to highlight some deficiencies in policing in particular areas. I am familiar with the issue raised by John Hayes from the Wairarapa because I live in Carterton and I have had discussions with Gary McPhee on a number of occasions but also because he appeared before the select committee on another matter being a petition from the people of Carterton asking for extra staff for that office. 
With regard to Part 2 I guess that there is a lot that we could talk about. I was just going back through the advice paper given to the select committee—paper No. 4. If members want to understand some of the deliberations and the issues we discussed then it would be worth their while to grab hold of that paper from the National Party members who were on the committee and read through it. 
Some of the issues that have been discussed thus far were dealt with in the committee and the advice gave us cause to question officials more clearly and persistently. One of those issues that the Minister has just dealt with and that John Hayes raised in particular was an issue that we did discuss—the order of priority for policing. I guess what was clear is that it was never intended to be taken as the order of priority. They were simply the functions as listed. But the committee itself noted their observation and did have some input and that is why we see the paragraphs numbered as differently as they are. It does not make a lot of sense when we read this clause. The paragraphs are numbered (b) (ba) (c) (ca) (d) (e) (f) so we ask the question straight off “Where’s (a)?”. The answer is that it is just the way that the legislation has been presented to the House and it will be changed in the final print of the bill. We have had that explained. At the end of the day that was the order in which the committee wanted to see those functions listed. 
However I note John Hayes’ point. There is a good argument as to why (g) should be (f) and (f) should be (g). If we look at where the primary responsibilities should lie in terms of focus today we see there is a very strong argument on the member’s part that emergency management might well sit higher on the priority list than participation in policing activities outside New Zealand. However I am pretty sure that my leader the Minister of Foreign Affairs would have a differing view. As the member himself knows having had such a long and illustrious career in foreign affairs some people’s perspectives on policing and the allocation of police resources given the big picture might be slightly different on that particular point. 
I turn to the principles. When we go back through the advice and go back over the analysis of the submissions that were made it is interesting to note who made those submissions. The Manukau City Council had a bit to say about the current principles and the issues of transparency accountability and decision making. The Sensible Sentencing Trust asked and lobbied strongly for victims to be key and paramount and that the principles of policing be written around the victim. That is understandable because that is their reason for being. They are the people who have dedicated their lives to supporting others. We acknowledge the submission from the New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups— 
Sandra Goudie 
: We don’t want victims. That’s the point. 
RON MARK 
: I say to Sandra Goudie that that is a very strong point. New Zealand First would not disagree with the member. We do not want to see any more victims. We want to see a stronger police force whose functions and principles are designed to ensure that we have an effective police force. I guess at the end of the day New Zealand First would always say that no matter how fine our principles how fine our functions and how finely tuned the organisation is which are all matters that are dealt with in Part 2 we do not achieve anything unless we have enough police on the ground. 
I come back to Mr Hayes’ point about Carterton. When I am going home to Carterton late on a Thursday night having left the House I am pleased to see police patrol cars still moving through Carterton and through the Wairarapa at 1 and 2 o’clock in the morning. I am very pleased to see that. But maybe we would address some of those problems of not having police stations open 24/7 by doubling the size of our police force which is a view a perspective and a policy that New Zealand First has long stated and stands by and will continue to pursue regardless of who is in Government. Many of the issues covered in Part 2 will as Mr Hayes quite rightly points out be met to their fullest extent only when there is a serious increase in policing numbers. It is good that we have been able to address some of that with the provision of an extra 1250 police officers and by lifting the Government’s focus to be on police ratios equivalent to those of Australia by 2010 but obviously that is a political battle that we will have to continue to fight. 
There are other issues in Part 2 and we might want to discuss them further on. I will take a pause and see what other points there are that people want to discuss but the responsibility and independence of the commissioner is something that I do want to comment on. Strong submissions were made by people who came before the committee pointing out that clause 16 was very important and pointing out the absolute fundamental need for the commissioner to be not only independent but to be totally believed and seen to be independent. If there is a message that I have for this Committee it is that we all do it every one of us—we try to stand up for our constituents we try to stand up for victims we try to stand against crime and we come to this House and demand that the Minister take action here there and everywhere. But we know inside ourselves that the moment a Minister starts to direct a police commissioner to do this and do that and not do this and not do that we have crossed the line and we are on a slippery slope towards Zimbabwe. 
New Zealand has a tremendous reputation internationally as a result of the professionalism of the men and women in our police force—the way in which they carry out their duties—and much of that is dependent upon the leadership that is demonstrated at the commissioner’s level and the resistance that he consistently shows towards being politically guided pushed and motivated. We have heard criticisms and I know from the Police Association that they are politically managed and politically manipulated. I have to say that the day we see evidence of that will be a very very sad day. It is important that clause 16 stands as it is and it is important that we in this Chamber all realise and accept and support the notion of the absolute complete independence of the police and the commissioner from the political process in all spheres. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. I was not going to speak but I had a good korero with my whanaunga the Hon Shane Jones and he gave me my instructions so what I have to say can be put down to Mr Jones. 
Hon Member 
: You take instructions. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I have taken my instructions. Although he said a bit like the rugby stuff : “Nga mea e kotiti haere hakoa te hikoi me waihotia ki te hikoi.”—those things that go travelling in the night on the marches leave those to the marchers. 
Talking about Part 2 I must say that I was particularly upset to note that in the list of principles there is no mention of the Treaty of Waitangi. There is no mention of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and no mention of anything at all about the Treaty of Waitangi. I find that quite appalling—as does my whanaunga Mr Shane Jones who has also marched on many a march with me for Treaty rights—considering the relationship of the police in this country with Maori. If ever there was legislation that cried out for the inclusion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi then it is this legislation. I note also the very strong comments from the Commissioner of Police’s Maori focus forum which strongly recommended that the Treaty of Waitangi be included and which was very very upset to find that it had not been. 
The involvement of Maori with the police and the armed constabulary goes back to the days of Hone Heke and his troubles with the armed constabulary at Kororareka and in other places—and it just so happens that the Friday just gone was the anniversary of the death of Hone Heke. The police have often been seen to be supporting the Crown in actions that are not particularly legal. And it is not just in the past either; we are talking about Hokianga and the dog sales—the dog tax—through to Takaparawhau and the fight for Bastion Point from Whangaroa Raglan and the role of the police there in trying to enforce the requests of the Minister and all the way up to what happened with Tuhoe quite frankly. The involvement of the police has always been very very much criticised by Maori so one would have thought that if ever there was legislation where the principles of the Treaty might have effect then it is this legislation. Yet this bill shows nothing about that at all. 
I recall a number of occasions where I have had direct contact with the police. Some of them have been edgy; in fact all of them have been that way except for the hikoi. The reason why the hikoi was not was that somebody high up recognised the value of the Maori liaison officers put them alongside the hikoi and reduced the tension immediately right from the very first day such that when we got all the way to Wellington Wally Haumaha shook my hand and said: “Congratulations! A thousand kilometres 40000 people and not one arrest.” That was an expression of the recognition of the Treaty I think—the way that somebody recognised a way in which that situation could be managed—yet those principles are not even considered here. So I think that is a huge flaw in this legislation. 
I make the point also because I note that Maori Ministers and Maori members of the Labour Party have been hugely critical about Maori Party MPs and myself in particular who talk about the fact that those members have often voted against the Treaty. For example they voted to take the Treaty out of legislation and they also stood silent while the Treaty was taken out of the curriculum. The Treaty is critical to Maori in every piece of legislation with this one being the most important. 
This year we thought we would do our bit to help Labour members because they are in such desperate straits in the polls. We are trying to revive Labour so that it becomes a coalition option for the Maori Party. We thought we would put forward an amendment that might give the Labour Maori MPs an opportunity to win back something in terms of the Treaty. We will put forward an amendment that gives effect to the Treaty of Waitangi in the interpretation and administration of this legislation. Clearly we are putting forward a Treaty of Waitangi clause that will enable those Maori members of the Labour Party to actually vote for the Treaty and take away the stain of their having voted to take the Treaty out of all other legislation in recent years. So I signal that we will put forward that amendment later. 
I take also the comments from other members about the roles of other people such as commissioners and deputy commissioners. It has always been a suggestion of the Maori Party that Wally Haumaha’s status be upgraded to that of assistant commissioner not only because he might become the Commissioner of Police one day but also because if he is at the level of at least an assistant commissioner or a deputy commissioner then he must be included in discussions about operations such as the one that involved Tuhoe. That would give him the opportunity to involve his men and it would ensure that the kind of debacle that happened there last year does not happen again. And this is not because I say so but because the Solicitor-General has ruled that it was a pointless exercise. There were no terrorists up there. There may have been firearm charges but there were no terrorists. 
In terms of the status of some of the officers my amendment is an opportunity to give value to the Treaty of Waitangi and to include those principles in the legislation. I would like to see Labour members support my amendment to include the Treaty of Waitangi in this legislation. It gives everybody the opportunity to see this bill as finally giving recognition to dare I say it a very special relationship between the police and Maori in this country. As we are updating this legislation I would love to see something from the far gone past included to ensure that our pathway is a brighter one in the future. Thank you Mr Chairman. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on Part 2 of the Policing Bill and to give my wholehearted support to the police. They do an excellent job and of course we do want to prevent victims—that is why we want our police on the front line. This part of the bill talks about organisation and governance. We want to see police on the front line and not being consumed with lots of paperwork form-filling and bureaucracy. We do not want to see office employees growing at the rate of knots which has happened in a lot of other Government departments. We really do not want to see that replicated amongst our police force. We want them out there at the front line. 
On many occasions I have offered my own services to help them out there. I am more than happy to do any surveillance necessary in any of these P operations in order to try to prevent any further criminal activity. I think all responsible New Zealanders would be prepared to do the same. They are not prepared to tolerate the P epidemic that exists in our communities and they want to protect our young people and support them in going forward. I totally support the police. 
We have a shortage of front-line police in the Whitianga and Coromandel township areas and it would be great to see the additional personnel necessary to address that shortage. We have even gone so far as to offer cheaper accommodation and other services facilities and supports to encourage people to come and police either in the Coromandel township or in Whitianga. Ideally we would love to have three police personnel in Coromandel and we would love a full complement of police in Whitianga. So if any police are listening to me tonight I ask them to please rock up and consider applying for the job. That person will get our full support. The community will back that person provide some facilities and services and help him or her to settle into what is a very very good community. It is just that we would like a much stronger police presence there. The officers in the wider district do a fantastic job but we want to see a few more police there to support them in doing that job. 
As I said Part 2 deals with organisation and governance. The principles have been espoused already and they are very good principles. I would like to endorse the comments that Ron Mark made about the responsibilities and the independence of the Commissioner of Police. I think that that cannot be understated in any way. It is absolutely essential that the independence of the commissioner is very strong and is seen very clearly from the public’s point of view. I think that that independence is a critical part of the commissioner’s role. It is something that a lot of people have expressed concerns about whether or not they actually made a submission. I think a lot of people have made submissions to their own local members of Parliament and have not necessarily gone through the submission process of Parliament. So it is incumbent upon us to share those concerns as a part of speaking to the Policing Bill and I do so and I acknowledge Ron Mark for also doing that. 
What else can I talk about in terms of the functions of the police? Well I am delighted that we have a lot of community support for the police in the form of community patrols. I had the privilege of going out with them one night and I know that a number of my colleagues have also taken the opportunity to understand what community patrols do and at the same time understand the difficulties the police face when they undertake their role—particularly at night when people are just rolling out of the pubs or indulging in other activities. 
When people are stopped for questioning at such times the police never really know what they will confront particularly if those people have been on P. One has only to look at that Antonie Dixon character who was apprehended in the Coromandel area at Pipiroa. He was absolutely wild. He was the sword-wielding and hand-chopping individual. The police never know whether the person they confront will be in the wild manic state that Mr Dixon was obviously in at the time he carried out the offence. 
On that basis communities play a good role in supporting the police in what they do. Community patrols are fantastic. They do a very good job and a lot of them have a very strong membership that helps them to undertake that role. It is all about just working in with the police and supporting them in that job and not trying to take over any of the more serious aspects of that control. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I am continuing my theme “the policeman is your friend”. I would like to endorse the understanding that the police are only part of the answer in keeping people safe and our society lawful. They cannot do it alone. Policing is successful only if the police have public support and confidence. There is no doubt that we all have responsibilities in contributing to a safe and crime-free society. Clause 10 acknowledges that public agencies and other bodies have an important and valuable role in the performance of the functions of the police and that the police often have to cooperate with others—individuals and groups—to get results. 
That reminds me of a speech that was made by the founder of the Buddha’s Light International Association when he opened the new Buddhist temple in Christchurch. He spoke of the role Buddhists have in society. He believes that it is their job to teach and support their people and to make sure they understand what is right and wrong and to clearly instruct them on their responsibilities in terms of creating a safe and peaceful society. The chief of police in Canterbury Dave Cliff was present at that opening and the grand master quipped that the New Zealand Police would be required only if the Buddhist community failed its people. That is an example of the police working with the Buddhist community in respecting their contribution and in understanding that if the relationship is working the police should not be required. 
When we look at the wide variety of functions of the police in clause 9 we see that they vary from crime prevention and law enforcement to their supporting and reassuring the community keeping of the peace and national security and emergency management. We can see just how many organisations the police have to interact with successfully if they are to do their work well. Those organisations range from local government and mayors community groups schools churches families—in fact all New Zealand citizens. 
Clause 9(f) concerns policing activities outside New Zealand and this is an important part of policing duties. Last year I visited Timor-Leste as part of the United Nations group monitoring the first parliamentary elections. While I was there I visited the New Zealand police who were stationed in Dili. I was really impressed by the work they were doing. They were working with the Timorese people in very difficult situations but they were doing it with skill and sensitivity. They were highly respected by the locals. Although there were police from many nations in Timor-Leste New Zealanders were mentioned as being highly respected and highly regarded. I think part of that as Shane Jones mentioned was that they were a bicultural group and that the Maori language has similar roots to Tetum the language of Timor-Leste so the New Zealand police could relate on another level with the local people. I think that reflects that the Timorese would truly believe that the New Zealand police are their friends. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a brief call on this matter because I want to say something about Mr Harawira’s amendment which proposes to insert a Treaty clause into the Policing Bill. I have spoken on Treaty clauses in this Committee and in the House on a number of occasions. I refer to a speech I gave on the first reading of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill on 26 July 2006. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Just remind us again. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: For Mr Hughes’ benefit because I know he always reads my speeches and indeed memorises them I say to Mr Hughes that this speech can be found in  
Hansard 
 Volume 632 at page 4454. 
In that speech which dealt with Mr Woolerton’s rather substandard bill on deletion of the principles of the Treaty I identified four types of legislation that contain Treaty provisions: firstly general legislation; secondly private Acts; thirdly settlement legislation; and finally two important Treaty statutes that deserve special mention. I argued that I failed to see how it was appropriate to remove Treaty provisions from certain types of legislation but include a Treaty provision when dealing with general legislation like the Crown Minerals Act the Crown Pastoral Land Act or the Crown Research Institutes Act. 
I adopt a similar approach to the insertion of a Treaty clause in this particular bill because it is of general applicability. The responsibilities of the police are to every New Zealander regardless of race creed colour or political party. They have those general obligations rather than specific obligations. 
So with the greatest of respect to Mr Harawira it seems to me that although it may be appropriate to have a Treaty clause in Treaty settlement legislation—because the breaches of the principles of the Treaty are the very reason why there needs to be a hearing in the Waitangi Tribunal and a Treaty settlement—I have difficulty with the inclusion of Treaty clauses in legislation that is to have general applicability. So National will not be supporting this proposed amendment. We understand why the member has put the amendment forward but we do not think it is consistent with the general principles of statutory interpretation for this type of legislation. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hone Harawira to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to add the following paragraph: 
(g)in interpreting and administering this Act to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Powers operations and offences 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Part 3 is about support for effective policing. It sets out proposals to support front-line policing through access to clear powers and protections. Principally it covers areas of current policing practice and existing law that can be carried forward into the new Policing Act in some cases with updated language and minor change. 
A small number of police-related provisions and other statutes are also transferred into the new Policing Act by this bill notably a small number of front-line police powers which will have better visibility in the Policing Act for those who have to use them day by day. In particular clauses 32 to 33 modernise the way in which the police are able to obtain particulars of identification of persons they take into custody or whom they intend to summons for an offence. 
There is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name with a small technical change on this particular part. I do not think it requires a lot of explanation from me but obviously effective policing bringing forward those particular powers and protections into this Act bringing forward provisions from other statutes and making the Act clearer and easier to use for those who have to use it on an everyday basis is important. 
It is also important I think to ensure we modernise the language. One of the interesting things about the old Act as one sees if one reads it is that it was certainly written for 1958. Not many of us would actually remember what 1958 was like but the language of the old Act reflects those times. This part of the bill is about bringing the old Act forward making those minor changes and bringing the legislation up to contemporary times. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 National will be supporting Part 3 of the Policing Bill as well. As the Minister has said it runs through a number of powers and abilities that the police have in respect of dealing with people in custody dealing with people on the street and obtaining and identifying particulars of persons whom they may wish to issue a summons to in order to expedite their dealings with them and bring them before the court. 
It also relates to searches of people in custody and the identifying particulars that they are able to take from those who get arrested to be taken before the court. It allows for the security of biometric information in relation to them as well. It also helps the police in dealing for instance with intoxicated people who unfortunately the police have to deal with from time to time with the power of arrest but without having to go on and prefer charges on them. The bill is moving to allow the police to deal with people in a humane way. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.